| 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
October 20, 2000
9:00 AM to 2:00 PM
USFWS Offices, Sawyer Hall
Meeting Attendees:
9:00-9:20 Introduction
Chris Runner welcomed everyone and requested that people introduce themselves.
9:20-9:45 Wildlife and Habitat Surveys, Matthew Boyle (Pacific International Engineering)
Fish habitat and riparian surveys are complete this week for the mainstem Chehalis, S. Fork Chehalis and, Skookumchuck Rivers and data entry will begin now. Spawner surveys are still ongoing and are expected to be completed by the end of the year. It was noted that some revegetation is taking place along Hanaford Creek by the Skookumchuck River Restoration Committee. No one present had ever heard of them. Based on observations, PIE suggested the following areas be considered for restoration opportunities:
There are remnant channels on both left and right bank just downstream of the confluence of the Skookumchuck and Chehalis rivers. A county owned park is on the right bank and the county also owns the left bank. These channels may have been disconnected as a result of channel incision. The potential exists to reconnect these channels and the floodplain to the Skookumchuck.
A disconnected oxbow exists at RM 8.8 (left bank) on the Skookumchuck River, which also could be reconnected.
Wetlands currently exist in the floodplain at RM 12 (right bank, adjacent to Johnson Creek) and RM 19.5 on the Skookumchuck. There may be some enhancement opportunities in these areas.
Riparian revegetation would benefit the Skookumchuck at the mouth and above Bucoda. Agricultural areas extend to the riverbank in these locations.
Above the dam, the Skookumchuck Reservoir is clearcut to the waterline in some areas and has steep sides in others. Furthermore, large boulders are present upstream of reservoir that are roughly vehicle-sized. There is limited habitat there currently, and limited opportunities for enhancement other than revegetation of the timberlands.
The Newaukum river riparian zone is almost nonexistent, especially near the North and South Fork confluence, causing quite a lot of siltation. Clean gravel exists upstream of this area. The land in these zones is primarily used for grazing pasture. There still appears to be some channel migration going on; not completely armored or channelized.
There is a gravel mining operation on the North Fork Newaukum just north of Tauscher Rd. The channel is very embedded here.
A semi-isolated side-channel is located just upstream of Grand Mound on the mainstem, that could be enhanced.
Absolutely no LWD is present on the mainstem Chehalis between the Newaukum and Skookumchuck rivers.
China Creek does not likely provide feasible opportunities for restoration.
Hanaford Creek is in terrible condition as well.
Craig Olds (WDFW) brought up the point that raising the level of Skookumchuck Dam could have some positive habitat benefits if water used to supplement low flows during the summer, and/or provide sufficient water to keep redds watered during incubation. Mike McGinnis pointed out that wild steelhead do not seem to be doing very well in the Skookumchuck, at least 9 out of 10 adult returns to the dam are hatchery fish. The trap and haul operation at the dam has only been going on for a short time; too short to see if there is an increase of wild returns to the dam.
9:45-10:40 River Basin Characterization, Dick Gersib (Department of Ecology)
This presentation emphasized the importance of approaching restoration projects from a landscape scale. Whenever possible, it is necessary to begin restoration at the largest scale possible. Because restoration implementation works from a structure-based approach (e.g., re-connecting floodplain, riparian revegetation, LWD, etc.), it is crucial to understand where these structures will be most effective to the watershed as a whole. We will be able to best determine where site-specific restoration efforts will be most effective if we have a larger understanding of river basin processes.
The slides from his presentation will be provided separately.
10:40-11:00 Break
11:00-11:30 25% Pre-Draft Report (PDR) Overview, Merri Martz (Tetra Tech ISG)
Merri Martz reviewed the PDR sent out to everyone on October 13th. She explained that the intent of the restoration plan was to provide a sequential process of identifying watershed needs and processes, then identifying restoration opportunities and constraints based on the watershed issues, evaluating the impacts of the flood control alternatives and benefits of restoration projects from a watershed perspective, then group specific restoration projects into plans and then provide details on the plans and conduct an incremental analysis/cost effectiveness analysis of the plans and projects (as required by the Corps). There is still a moderate amount of information that is not available, such as the habitat survey data, wetland inventory data, alignment and footprint of flood control alternatives, and H&H model information. Tetra Tech will work with Chris to obtain that data as soon as it is available. Specific feedback Tetra Tech would like to get from the working group includes comments/info on issues not included, more restoration opportunities we have not identified, and additional data that would be important to the analysis.
There were some questions about whether this plan addressed the whole watershed or just the project area. Mike McGinnis said the tribe is interested in watershed restoration, not just the action area, and is interested in long-term solutions and implementation. Chris said we are somewhat constrained to working in the general action area, but he is willing to look at projects in other parts of the watershed, particularly if they provide key benefits. Mike also asked whether mitigation measures were a part of this restoration report. Chris Runner replied that the timeline for completing a restoration plan is very short once an alternative is selected. For this reason, restoration opportunities are being identified in the PDR before alternative selection, but may translate into mitigation, once an alternative is selected.
Comments on the PDR were requested to be sent to Chris Runner in the form of an e-mail memo. Craig Olds suggested that H&H modeling should evaluate base flows, low flows, periodicity, and withdrawals, not just 2 to 100 year flood flows. Merri Martz agreed that these conditions should be included and that she would discuss with Chris how that information could be obtained. Mike McGinnis said that water quantity should be a section in the report, since low flows are a definite problem.
11:30-11:50 Restoration Evaluation Framework (REF) Discussion
Merri Martz introduced and reviewed the REF for use in developing the relative benefit measures for biological resources in the flood control and restoration alternatives. The major purpose in even having an evaluation methodology is that the Corps requires an incremental cost/cost effectiveness analysis be conducted to determine which restoration plans would be a good investment (highest benefits for low costs). In this methodology, a series of numerical value rankings from excellent to poor are given to habitat conditions for the following categories; 1) watershed-level processes, 2) site-specific habitat requirements, and 3) threatened and endangered species. A fourth category, the amount of affected area, is also determined with the REF. Chris Runner recommended that an expert panel be assembled to determine the rankings for each variable for each restoration or flood control alternative. Chris Runner emphasized that any REF will have shortcomings and will not be able to address every variable in the system. Sue Patnude pointed out that the REF does not establish criteria for the rankings of poor to excellent. She suggested that all variables must have criteria that are well defined to produce a product that is defendable in the public EIS process. A general agreement was made to define the ranking system, so it would not just be judgment. In addition, it will be very important for the expert panel to document everything they do. Chris Runner suggested that an expert panel of no more than eight people should go through each box on the REF and rank them individually. The experts would then compare their rankings for each box. Any box that had a large range of rankings would be focused upon for discussion. Boxes with similar or small range, rankings would be assumed to be a consensus agreement. George Hart pointed out that this REF is for the action areas and that any values given to the watershed-level processes would be entirely assumptive. Merri Martz agrees and said that all determinations for rankings should be well documented, in keeping with a defendable product. At this time, attendees not remaining for the afternoon session requested that the next meeting and homework be discussed.
11:50-12:00 Next Meeting and Homework
Merri Martz again requested that anyone with suggestions for improving the PDR or the REF, including any key restoration opportunity suggestions, send their comments to Chris Runner via e-mail by November 6. Additional homework and the next meeting time were determined in the afternoon session but will be included here for convenience. The next meeting was set for November 17 from 9am to 2pm [as of 10-25-00, this date has been tentatively changed to December 1, 2000]. As with the PDR, comments regarding the REF should be forwarded to Chris Runner no later than November 6. Comments should include any knowledge of a showstopper, or a condition near the river that would prevent restoration actions in certain areas (e.g., landfill, burial grounds, etc.). At the next meeting, we intend to use the REF and go through some sample restoration projects to see how comfortable people are with the process and outcome.
12:00-12:20 Break
12:20-2:00 Afternoon Session, Continued Discussion of REF and PDR
The REF discussion was continued first. There were several suggestions for questions that might be included into the REF, including;
Chris Runner raised the question of weighting some of the variables in accordance with their relative importance. It was determined that this question be evaluated further at the next working group meeting. There was some discussion as to the validity or ease of evaluating each restoration project individually or a la carte. However, it was determined that it was more appropriate to evaluate a suite of restoration projects specific to each alternative. Merri Martz commented that feasibility questions will not be answered in this stage, it is primarily a biological evaluation.
Craig Olds thought the method relied too much on the opinions of the panel, and a more defendable method would be to use fish production values that could be monitored for success/failure. There was a lot of discussion on how much baseline information would be required to compare post-project to existing conditions, and that there is very little information now available. Everyone agreed that monitoring and success criteria should be determined, but the evaluation methodology may not be the right place to do that. Jeff Dillon suggested that a wildlife component be added to the REF to even out the bias on fisheries. Wildlife related factors that might be included are wetlands, corridors, and habitat fragmentation. Chris Runner ended the discussion about the REF by suggesting that we enact a mock expert panel session during the 3rd working group meeting. This would allow weaknesses or confusion to be isolated in the process before the true evaluation.
Some last minute comments were made regarding the PDR. Dan Sokol commented that several topics were left out of the PDR, including:
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council