Draft Minutes for the Ecosystem Restoration and Mitigation Planning Working Group Meeting Centralia, Washington Preconstruction Engineering and Design General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement December 1, 2000 9:00 AM to 12:00 PM USFWS Offices, Sawyer Hall, Olympia
Meeting Attendees:
Chris Runner, Seattle District, Corps of Engineers
Ken Brunner, Seattle District Corps of Engineers
Merri Martz, Tetra Tech
Sara Townsend, Tetra Tech
Dan Sokol, Department of Ecology
Mike McGinnis, Chehalis Tribe
Lou Ellyn Jones, US Fish & Wildlife Service
Al Wald, WA Dept of Transportation
Ron Pollock, WA Dept of Transportation
Sue Patnude, WA Dept of Fish & Wildlife
Craig Olds, WA Dept of Fish & Wildlife
Chuck Gale, Pacific International Engineering
Laura Schinnel, Grays Harbor County
Dale Rancour, Thurston County
9:00-9:10 Introduction
Chris Runner welcomed everyone and requested that people introduce themselves.
9:10-9:25 Update on Technical and Scientific Studies
Chris Runner summarized the status of all the studies he had information on.
The cultural resources study has been focused on the Skookumchuck Reservoir area. Two sites have been discovered, so far, there may be more.
The wetland and riparian survey/mapping is now in final review at the USFWS, expect product to be complete by mid-December. GIS maps, etc. will then be available to everyone.
Corps staff are compiling and summarizing all literature on the fish (Jeff Dillon) and wildlife resources (Jim Jacobson). No date yet for availability.
EIS scoping report will be available soon, currently Mike McNeely (Corps) developing a template for the draft EIS.
No word on the status of the fish habitat surveys and spawning surveys because Matthew Boyle (PIE) not in attendance. At the previous meeting in October, he had said the data collection was complete for the fish habitat surveys.
Several people asked for an update on the hydrology/hydraulic model.
On December 8, 2000, there will be a planning meeting for the Corps project team, PIE, interested agency staff, to discuss the flood control alternatives and how they are being formulated. LouEllyn and several other expressed concerns that the flood control alternatives are being evaluated/designed without agency or biologist input to make sure the alternatives first avoid and minimize environmental impacts before going to compensatory mitigation. This has caused a lot of confusion and concern in the working group, because we are developing restoration and mitigation alternatives somewhat in isolation from the alternatives. This December 8 meeting will be a good time to bring up these issues.
December 15th is the Chehalis Basin Partnership meeting. Albert Liou from PIE will present the hydrologic/hydraulic model and have about an hour to answer questions.
Update on the other study, the basin-wide restoration study, the reconaissance report is complete (905 report) and has been sent to Corps Headquarters for approval. When they approve, Chris will provide copies to everyone.
9:25-9:45 Potential Project Locations (Map, List and Feedback)
Merri Martz handed out a map and list of potential restoration projects in the general study area from South Fork confluence down to Grand Mound (including Skookumchuck and Newaukum Rivers and Salzer Creek). She would like to get feedback from people on additional projects and locations and comments on the projects on the list. Feedback should be given to Chris electronically by December 22. The 40% pre-draft report has been postponed until mid-January to give time to visit these sites, if we can get access, and do some conceptual drawings. Tetra Tech would like to have a good list of projects nailed down by that 40% pre-draft report because the actual draft version will go out for a much broader review. We don't want to miss anything obvious and haven't yet gotten feedback from the working group.
Mike McGinnis asked if there would still be opportunities down the road to add projects that haven't been identified yet. Chris Runner said yes, there will be later opportunities, even during plans and specs when the final mitigation requirements are being worked out, but Tetra Tech has to produce a product in the near future and needs as much information as people have right now. Main purpose of handing out the list is that it is easier to get comments on a “strawman” than solicit ideas from people.
Dale Rancour asked if the geomorphology study wasn't going to be completed before deciding on restoration plans? Merri Martz said the geomorphology study that Tetra Tech is conducting is not a basin-wide study, but focused pretty narrowly on restoration opportunities and constraints in the study area. Tetra Tech will not produce a separate geomorphology report, it will be integrated into the restoration plan. Chuck Gale said that PIE was doing a broader geomorphology study, no information on when that would be completed or available.
Al Wald suggested that there was a lot of potential for restoration in the Lincoln and Bunker Creek basins. Need for revegetation, and potential to reconnect the floodplain.
Craig Olds said that we need to know the potential for aquifer recharge in various locations in the basin. He would like the Corps to conduct a study on permeability/percolation rates into the groundwater table. The USGS just did a study on groundwater tables and percolation rates in ?? Why propose floodplain storage/reconnection when we don't know if it will occur? He thinks groundwater recharge is about the most important issue/need in the basin. Al Wald said there has been work in the Scatter Creek and Black River basins that show they have about the highest potential for recharge anywhere in the state (glacial outwash deposits); if that is determined to be the best location for groundwater recharge, it might be worthwhile to do projects there, even though outside the study area.
Dan Sokol asked if the list of projects excludes projects already being constructed or nearing construction. Chris said the list will exclude those projects; the Corps can't take credit for projects already being done by others.
Mike McGinnis suggested that the working group sit down with the 2' contour maps and air photos and just identify likely places for various types of projects. We could likely come up with quite a few projects that way. Also need to consider removal of bank armoring as a restoration option.
9:45-10:00 Break
10:00-12:00 Restoration Evaluation Framework Trial Run
Merri Martz handed out copies of the restoration evaluation framework worksheets, a list of the definitions of the rating scale and a description of a mock flood control and restoration/mitigation alternative. The mock alternatives are based on general descriptions of real alternatives, but Tetra Tech made up all the specific details for this exercise. These mock alternatives are for doing this trial run of the evaluation framework, only, and are not to be construed as the real alternatives.
The working group then started with the existing conditions for the watershed parameters. Issues that came up during discussions are described below. The group did not make it all the way through the framework. Everyone suggested that another meeting to finish would be very helpful, it was helpful to have the group discussion on each point.
What is definition of watershed? Is it the whole watershed or broken out by sub-basin? It appeared that it would be easier to define by sub-basin. For the purposes of the trial run we decided to use the reach from Doty to Grand Mound, including the tributaries that enter that reach (this is the study area).
Impervious area percentages are in the definition for hydrology. Impervious area may not be particularly meaningful in this watershed because it is predominantly rural, and other factors like drainage ditches and tiles which won't show up on aerial photos (typical way to estimate impervious area) still have a significant influence, especially on groundwater recharge. Some thought that the watershed had poor conditions for hydrology because there were significant changes from historic, while others thought it was about average. There was a discussion on whether we should even have names for the scale (poor, below average, average, above average, best) because it tends to make people think we are comparing to other watersheds. Probably best to have a numeric scale only, with numbers from 1 to 5 (otherwise zeros mess up the calculations). Ultimately the group reached agreement that hydrology should be scored a 2 or 3 for hydrology because there has been noticeable change in the hydrograph from historic conditions, but the flood plain still floods frequently and provides storage. Craig Olds said that hydrology should be weighted far more heavily than the other processes because it drives everything else.
Sediment supply and transport definition should probably not include spawning gravel criteria because the reach we're evaluating likely never had much spawning gravel; not all parts of watershed would have spawning gravels. The sources of sediment, transport and deposition is a watershed scale process. Al Wald said that LWD sources and transport and deposition likely controlled channel migration, etc. in the reach we're evaluating. There should probably be a category just for LWD supply and transport. Merri Martz said that currently LWD is addressed as a part of riparian zone and sediment supply and transport. Should probably be removed from those categories and placed in its own category. In fact riparian zone should probably not be a watershed category because it is part of the sediment, LWD, water quality and channel migration categories.
Channel migration category. Don't be so specific with %s for channel armoring. And for off-channel habitat presence, better to define as unrestricted or restricted, or entirely precluded from forming off-channel habitat, since once again, not all parts of the watershed will have off-channel habitats. Should overbank flood frequency be part of channel migration?
Riparian zone not a lot of information. What are functions of a riparian zone on a watershed scale? Should put into reach scale. LWD is a bigger process, put in separate category.
Water quality category should be in both watershed and reach scales. Considered poor based on definition.
The group finished with the water quality parameter. Suggested that the working group meet again on December 14 to finish going through the methodology. Chris will send out an e-mail. Everyone will look at the mock alternatives to be ready to discuss next time.
12:00 Next Meeting and Homework
Next meeting on methodology tentatively scheduled for December 14; we don't expect everyone to be able to make that meeting. No next meeting for the working group for other issues has been scheduled. The next meeting will likely be in late January after the 40% pre-draft report is complete.
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council