5th Chehalis Flood Reduction Study Minutes

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 14, 2000
9:00 AM to 12:00 PM
USFWS Offices, Rm 261, 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
Richard Clark, Department of Ecology
Lou Ellyn Jones, US Fish & Wildlife Service
Chuck Gale, Pacific International Engineering
Matthew Boyle, Pacific International Engineering
Laura Schinnel, Grays Harbor County
Lee Hannsman, Grays Harbor County

9:00-9:10 Introduction

Chris Runner welcomed everyone and briefly provided a review of the project status. An agency meeting was held on 12/8/00 at the Corps to discuss plan formulation issues. Chris will provide a meeting memo to everyone when he receives a copy.

9:10-12:00 Restoration Evaluation Framework Trial Run

This meeting was a continuation of the December 1 working group meeting in which the evaluation framework methodology was used and assessed during a mock trial run. The evaluation framework consists of a scoring sheet for certain watershed scale and localized processes and a rating definitions sheet that provides scoring directions. It was the goal of this and the previous meeting to evaluate this methodology for use in rating existing conditions, with-project conditions, and mitigation/restoration plans. The following is a continuation of the December 1st list of questions, comments, and concerns that meeting attendees presented during the mock trial run.

Comments regarding existing categories or sections in evaluation framework:

• Terrestrial Habitat: This seems to be suitable in the watershed-scale processes section. Uplands, floodplain and riparian zones should all be considered without an emphasis on any single type of area.
• Aquatic Refugia: This definition should be changed to clarify that refugia can be for terrestrial species and includes wetlands, oxbows, LWD, and other structural habitat features.
• Rearing: This definition should also identify overhanging banks and vegetation.
• Species Diversity: The word reduced should be used for population description instead of in decline and the presence/dominance of exotic species should be included in the definition since that usually reduces native species diversity.
• Fish Passage: This definition should identify flow and water quality conditions as seasonally or periodically impassable.

Section 3 Threatened and Endangered Species: It was suggested that this section be taken out since its evaluation is not consistent with the rest of the framework. Previous sections all define habitat conditions, whereas this defines more species specific issues. Most everyone agreed that if watershed processes and functions are changed, then threatened and endangered species would be affected.

Comments regarding categories for possible inclusion into evaluation framework:

• Wetlands: A category for the assessment of localized wetland habitats should be included.
• Open Space: Open space is important for hydrology and total species diversity. Would it be possible to evaluate how open areas will change with each alternative? This may promote the maintenance of open space, rather than allowing development.

General comments:

• Rating Scale: The possibility of placing existing conditions at zero and rating alternatives as a plus or minus value was discussed; or rating all existing conditions as three on the 1-5 scale. Merri will provide feedback from the economist on this issue. Also, it was determined that it would be possible to go below 1 in the case where an existing conditions is rated at 1 and the with-project condition would become even worse.
• Downstream Effects: The hydrology and/or sediment transport definitions should include downstream effects.

Information needed for actual use of evaluation framework when rating alternatives:

• Water velocities (both with and without projects; probably average is OK for various flows)
• Area of bank armoring (both with and without projects)
• Exact footprint of alternatives and area of habitat affected

The next working group meeting is tentatively scheduled for January 25th.

This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council