| This page and related documents are a work in progress. These are not final documents. Written comments made be made on these topics. |
Minutes for the Ecosystem Restoration and Mitigation Planning Working Group Meeting
Centralia, Washington
Preconstruction Engineering and Design General Reevaluation
Report and Environmental Impact Statement
September 8, 2000
9:00 AM to 12:00 PM
USFWS Offices, Sawyer Hall
Meeting Attendees:
9:00-9:10 Introduction
Meeting agenda was passed out, objectives were identified, and questions were taken regarding the agenda.
9:10-9:30 Study Schedule
Chris Runner reviewed the current schedule deadlines. He requested that everyone on the working group prepare their recommendations/ideas for restoration and mitigation projects as soon as possible if they are to be included in the October 12th 25% Pre-draft Report. Richard Clark raised a question as to the completeness of information supplied to Tetra Tech for their role in identifying restoration opportunities in the Chehalis Basin. It was suggested that Tetra Tech contact Kathy Kunz, the facilitator from the earlier basin workshops, to obtain information and drawings from those meetings. Chris will obtain that information from Kathy Kunz.
Chris asked the group whether additional meetings should be scheduled. Lou Ellyn Jones suggested that more meetings were appropriate. Chris emphasized that the General Reevaluation Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (GRR/EIS) will be published in September 2001 and that it is important that the working group come to an agreement that the developed plan for Chehalis River flood reduction is acceptable in providing flood protection to the people of Lewis County. Sue Patnude asked when Tetra Tech needs project ideas/locations information to complete its October 12 Report. Merri Martz requested that all information be provided to Chris Runner by early October or as soon as possible.
Chuck Gale inquired about the information needed to complete the 40% Pre-draft Report and suggested that the working group discuss the scope of each agency’s role so that information can be provided in a timely manner. Chris indicated that the next step is to identify what impacts may occur due to construction and operation of the Chehalis River flood control alternatives, the mitigation plans that accompany each alternative, and any opportunities that exist to improve fish and wildlife habitat. There was a general consensus that trying to identify mitigation or restoration plans before impacts had been determined was putting the cart before the horse but that working group agencies could keep it in mind. Generally everyone will try to focus on restoration opportunities in the general project area, with the knowledge that some or many of the restoration projects may be utilized for mitigation after the impacts are identified.
9:30-10:03 PIE Hydraulic Model Presentation
Albert Liao presented the hydraulic model designed by PIE to predict water surface elevations, velocities, etc. from Rivermile 108 – 41 and in some of the tributaries such as the Skookumchuck, Newaukum, Salzer, etc.. The model has been calibrated against the 1996 flood and appears to predict flows, etc. quite accurately. He does not think he will complete the model until the end of the calendar year. The model information is needed to assess various alignments and features of the alternatives as well as to determine what effects the restoration projects may have on flooding, scour, deposition. PIE has said it will provide the model to Tetra Tech soon. The Corps currently has the model and is adding hydrologic frequency curve information to it. The main item holding up the model completion is the need to complete ~120 more cross-sections along the river.
10:00-10:23 PIE Hydraulic Model Question and Answer Session
Several agencies wanted to know if the model was available. Albert requested that anyone with specific questions regarding the model’s construction or application to come to his office to obtain the answer. Richard Clark asked if the model required modifications to look at preservation. Albert said that a total of 800 cross sections of river were included in the model, but that an additional 120 cross sections need to be entered into the model for it to be complete. Richard Clark also suggested that action areas be targeted now and placed into the model in order to identify areas that should not be modified in order to preserve good quality habitat. Tim D’acci added that critical areas must be identified and that FEMA maps must be obtained and possibly modified to reflect the new modeling, in order to prevent further development in critical areas. Chuck Gale commented that the PIE model is powerful in the capacity to identify critical areas. The comment was also made that it is unnecessary to reinvent alternatives that are already identified, but to optimize them using the model. Doug Lantz indicated that a with-project hydraulic model is required for Tetra Tech to complete mitigation and restoration plans. Albert said the with-project model would be available by the end of the calendar year. Lou Ellyn Jones asked whether Albert thought the model was capable of modeling all the alternatives well. Woo said that some elements within the citizen committee alternative could not be modeled sufficiently. Bill Fullerton asked Albert if he was comfortable with the model’s more frequent occurrence flood event accuracy (i.e. yearly, 2 year, 5 year) and Albert replied that that was why they had added the 5 year data. Fullerton also asked questions regarding the UNET used to construct the model, and where the data came from. At this time, however, the allotted discussion time ended and Albert requested that anyone with questions call him.
10:40-11:20 Agency/Tribe Roles and Responsibilities
At this time, all present agencies identified themselves, their role within the project, and any concerns they had regarding the project. Speakers for each group are listed after their agency name.
Seattle Army Corps of Engineers, Chris Runner, Norm Skjelbreia: Duties include pooling together cultural, fisheries, wildlife, and public interest issues and concerns to evaluate all possible feasible and non-feasible project alternatives and determine what impacts and restoration opportunities exist for each. Norm is designing the alternatives and is part of the working group so he can incorporate environmental features into the alternatives, or specifically avoid impacts.
Tetra Tech, Inc., Harry Gibbons, Merri Martz: Determine opportunities for environmental restoration based on defined alternatives and quantify scale of restoration and alternatives. Questions were asked regarding land use/development evaluation and habitat data collection – neither of which are within the scope of work for Tetra Tech.
US Fish & Wildlife Service, Lou Ellyn Jones: She will produce comments throughout the project regarding its components and whether it meets overall watershed planning and function objectives. Ultimately she will provide a report of her agency’s position on the project with a positive or negative recommendation of the project. She will also monitor the project for impacts to anadromous cutthroat trout, which will likely be listed early next year, as well as to other T&E species. She expressed concern that the alternatives should be selected first to avoid impacts, and then if impacts are unavoidable, to provide compensation.
Thurston County, Dale Rancor: His role is to monitor any long-term effects on the environment and people of Thurston County and to ensure the end product will continue to be beneficial in the future. He stated that public improvement must be part of this project in order for it to be successful.
Pacific International Engineering, Chuck Gale, Marie Garrett, Matthew Boyle: They are working for Lewis County (local sponsor) as the technical lead for the county. Specific duties include producing a hydraulic model, permitting, and habitat data collection for fisheries and riparian areas. Fisheries surveys are being conducted throughout model area and in some representative areas outside the model. Surveys will continue through January 2001.
Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, Sue Patnude: She will evaluate permitability of alternatives and downstream impacts, and also provide a link between this group and the watershed partnership.
Grays Harbor County, Lee Houseman: She attended meeting to become familiar with project as part of her role in the broader restoration study for the entire Chehalis River Basin. She is also a member of the watershed partnership and wants to make sure that restoration and mitigation for this project fits with the other work going on in the basin.
Washington Dept of Fish & Wildlife, Craig Olds: Works with Sue Patnude. He works on major projects that cross jurisdictional boundaries between agencies and tribes and provides recommendations. Skookumchuck Dam relicensing is a project he is involved with.
Washington State Department of Transportation, Al Wald: Environmental planning. He wants to keep track of this project because it coincides with his agency’s plans to upgrade I-5 in the project area.
Environmental Protection Agency, Richard Clark: His agency has several specific duties, including 1) cooperative development of the EIS, 2) NEPA review, 3) work with WDOT to dovetail I-5 corridor modification project with this project, 4) Clean Water Action Plan, 5) represent tribes, farmers, and families of low income that may be impacted by the project (environmental justice); and, 6) wetland delineations for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Washington State Department of Ecology, Dan Sokol, Tim D’acci: His agency ensures that flood hazard reduction benefits extend basin wide. They also need to mesh this project with the FEMA mapping and permitting development.
11:20-11:50 Working Group Priorities
A general need to get the questions organized, the issues categories, and terms identified was expressed (See notes taken by facilitator attached to this memo).
11:50-12:00 Next Meeting and Homework
It was requested by Chris Runner that each agency supply any data that would assist Tetra Tech with determining potential site-specific ecosystem restoration actions to him by the week of October 2nd. The next meeting was scheduled for October 20, 2000. An open invitation was announced for the Chehalis Basin Partnership that is meeting on October 27, 2000.
ATTACHMENT 1 BRAINSTORMING NOTES Ecosystem Restoration and Mitigation Planning Working Group Working Group Priorities Categorize issues How to get questions answered Who has responsibility for responding Create definitions Common terms mitigation restoration etc. Policy and technical groups (?) this is a tech group Adequate Baseline Information Current on-going studies Develop list of questions people need answered Has it been answered Who has the info How to answer? Use specialists Use agency resources Peer Review Comment on drafts from PIE and Tetra Tech Direct the work/questions to be answered by the Corps and Lewis County Mitigation and restoration need to be separate – or not? Can we define mitigation yet? At what rate will restoration occur? When the limits are known, then we can determine the action and then mitigation What specific actions can be taken? Some ideas already our there – tribe, USFWS Where are the documents? Who has the information? WA state developing strategic recovery plan – parts available now A lot of info to be coordinated – limiting factors analysis available on the web Identify linkages Homework Specific studies and results to Chris by 2 October Review alternatives Ideas for restoration projects Working group review of pre-draft on 20 October (next meeting)
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council