Ecosystem Restoration and Mitigation Planning
Minutes for the Ecosystem Restoration and Mitigation Planning 7th Working Group Meeting
Centralia, Washington
Preconstruction Engineering and Design
General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement
April 23, 2001
9:00 AM to 12:00 PM
USFWS Offices, Sawyer Hall
Lacey, Washington
Meeting Attendees
Chris Runner, Seattle District, Corps of Engineers
Dan Sokol, Department of Ecology
Jim Park, Department of Transportation
Craig Olds, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Sue Patnude, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Lou Ellyn Jones, US Fish & Wildlife Service
Chris Mendoza, US Fish & Wildlife Service
Dale Rancour, Thurston County
Mike Kulback, Federal Highway Administration
Chuck Gale, Pacific International Engineering
Matthew Boyle, Pacific International Engineering
Merri Martz, Tetra Tech
Ridge Robinson, Tetra Tech
Sara Townsend, Tetra Tech
Doug Perman, SAIC
Ruth Otteman, SAIC
9:10 - 9:15 Introduction
Chris Runner welcomed everyone and introductions were made.
9:15 - 9:30 Project Status/Schedule Review
Chris Runner reviewed the Centralia Flood Hazard Reduction Study schedule; the final GRR/EIS report deadline has been changed to September 22, 2002. The Corps is in the process of selecting a new project manager for the Chehalis project, but no date was given for the new PM to start. The H&H model (UNET) is in the process of being converted to HEC-RAS, which will make it more user friendly. The 100-yr floodplain maps were sent to the various Cities for comment, but not to all members of the working group. DOT, particularly, would like to see all model results and mapping. Chuck Gale indicated that this analysis would be available to everyone shortly, some changes had occurred particularly in the China Creek area in Centralia. Lou Ellyn Jones asked where HTRW information would be included in the GRR/EIS report. Runner replied that there should be a large report prepared and that Sandy Lemlich, a geotechnical person at the Corps will be completing that report.
9:30 - 10:30 Habitat and Stream Evaluation Comparing Aerial Photographs, Centralia Area, 1938 and 1999
Ruth Otteman and Doug Pearman, from SAIC, presented a comparison of selected Chehalis River areas from 1938 and 1999 aerial photos. Much of the channel alignment that exists today had already been set in place by 1938. But, channel complexity (braiding, etc.) has declined significantly since 1938. Overall, the total acreage of water coverage in the selected areas decreased from 505.3 to 457.5 acres, coniferous forests gave way to deciduous forests, and channel complexity and diversity decreased through the loss of side-channels, wetlands and off-channel habitat. Some areas that had been cleared in 1938 have regrown to shrubs or trees. The final report will be available in mid-May.
Aerial Photo Comparison Q & A
Chris Mendoza asked if the classification was based on the Cowardin classification system, for example of scrub-shrub habitat and pointed out that emergent, forested, and scrub-shrub wetlands are all separate habitat types, although they weren’t separated in the comparison.
Ruth Otteman indicated that separation was difficult due to the lack of detail in the aerial photographs, and their classification of emergent, scrub-shrub, etc. did not necessarily mean it was wetland, just the vegetative cover description.
Chris Runner agreed that there are limitations associated with using aerial photographs, but that this work assists in determining where benefits can be most easily achieved and see where some improvements have already occurred that should be continued (i.e. regrowth of forested areas).
Jim Park pointed out that although there have been improvements, there has also been deterioration of habitat, including the emergent areas and in channel diversity. Park also pointed out that if we focus our flood control alternatives on floodplain connectivity, a more natural solution (floodplains naturally store flood waters), then we would have less to address through mitigation/restoration and less flood control to provide. Runner agreed saying that it was necessary to follow the pattern of first avoiding impacts and only after that, beginning to plan mitigation for unavoidable impacts.
Chuck Gale asked what the value of this report was for the biologists.
Mendoza felt that the information verifies and illustrates what we already know about the area - that its biggest transformation has been in a decrease in floodplain connectivity. Gale then asked if any of the working group members felt they had learned any new information with this presentation.
Matthew Boyle said that a confirmation of what we suspected is an important factor with this work and that it shows clearly that there is a lack of off-channel habitat available throughout this part of the basin.
Gale then asked how we will use this information to select restoration or mitigation measures.
Jones responded that the comparison is a graphic illustration of what has happened over the course of 60 years, showing that there is a process to be fixed, perhaps more important than showing where spot fixes can be done.
Park brought up his ideas about a process of providing restoration and flood control. The important flooding for fish occurs at the 2-5 year level, which is when maintenance of floodplain connectivity occurs and habitats are created. If we begin building in habitat features at that level and then move out to the 100-year level, we achieve a nested concept that addresses all levels of flood control through restoration.
10:30 - 10:45 Break
10:45 - 11:55 Economic Analysis Presentation
Runner introduced Ridge Robinson and Merri Martz, who then presented the process and rationale involved in completing the required Corps’ economic analyses. All Corps projects must prepare an economic analysis, but with a restoration project it is difficult to quantify habitat benefits. For this reason, the goal of a restoration project economic analysis is to determine the “best buy” based on the amount of output vs. the overall cost. The analysis is called Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analysis. To complete an analysis it is necessary to select a suite of alternatives, to identify the relationship between those alternatives to the overall project (in this case, flood control), a cost estimate of each alternative and an estimate of the benefits of the alternative. For this project, Habitat Units will be used to estimate the benefits, and will be generated using the Evaluation Framework methodology discussed in previous meetings.
Martz noted that currently, there are 20 restoration measures identified and conceptual drawings have been prepared for the 40% draft proposal. Costs are not yet complete, but will be in the draft report, along with the CE/IC analysis. Output determinations will be prepared for; 1) the existing condition, 2) the future condition with flood control alternatives in place but no restoration measures implemented, and 3) future conditions with both flood control and restoration alternatives implemented. Output ratings are being drafted by Tetra Tech and will be the basis for work by the expert panel. After ratings are completed, the 20 measures will be combined into several plans that will be compatible with the flood control alternatives. Tetra Tech will use the same methodology to evaluate the impacts of the flood control alternatives as it will use to evaluate the benefits of the restoration alternatives.
The final part of the CE/IC analysis is to determine whether identified restoration alternatives offset the unavoidable impacts of the selected flood control alternative. If they do, the mitigation alternatives necessary to do so will be implemented and the remaining alternatives will be ranked for cost effectiveness of implementation for restoration. If they don’t, additional appropriate alternatives for both mitigation and restoration will need to be identified.
Economic Analysis Q & A
Sue Patnude questioned if this process is occurring outside of the required sequence of avoiding and minimizing impacts and only then mitigating for unavoidable impacts.
Runner replied that the avoidance process will still happen and that these restoration alternatives will simply be in place already when and if they are needed.
Jones asked how sediment and ground water information fits into the selection of the alternatives.
Runner emphasized that not all the information necessary to evaluate the alternatives will be available to the expert panel and professional judgment will have to suffice in those cases.
Park asked if annual O&M and real estate costs would be incorporated into flood reduction CEA.
Robinson replied that all costs incurred over the lifetime of the project will be included, which is typically 50 years.
Dan Sokol asked if future costs reflect inflation.
Robinson said they are done according to Corps regulations; future costs are calculated using federal government discounting procedures to obtain current prices.
Park asked if flood control assessment will include the number of parcels affected.
Robinson said that an economic analysis of flood impacts will describe all structures affected by flooding.
Mendoza asked how the habitat units are determined.
Martz described that the Evaluation Methodology was developed to evaluate watershed processes and localized habitats based on methods used in the Skagit and Green-Duwamish watersheds and was reviewed extensively by the working group. An expert panel will be formed and will review and revise draft scorings determined by Tetra Tech. The final ratings will be used by the Corps to determine which projects are cost effective and should be proposed for either mitigation or restoration in the draft EIS. The ratings are not intended to be the final word on mitigation requirements in any regulatory process. Runner said that the expert panel will have a limited amount of time to review and revise the scores in order for the Corps to stay in schedule, but they really want input from these experts.
Mike Kulback asked if any of the flood control alternatives are promoting development in the floodplain.
Runner replied that we are operating under Executive Order 11988 meaning that the federal government cannot implement an alternative that promotes development in the floodplain.
Park pointed out that many people in Washington live within the floodplain.
Mendoza felt that it might be worthwhile, given the importance of these scoring, to take any additional time needed to for the expert panel to develop these scores and use peer reviewers if possible.
Martz replied that the scores are not the final word in selecting any flood control or restoration alternatives, rather they would provide guidance for the Corps to make decisions in the NEPA process.
Runner then spoke of a meeting the Corps had had with the Chehalis Tribe, where the tribe suggested creating a trust fund for future unknown impacts and mitigation needs.
Park emphasized that the Chehalis Tribe should be involved as much as possible. Impacts to tribal fisheries or lands would present a major obstacle to the selection and implementation of any alternatives.
Jones asked if the no action alternative would be presented with the rest of the scores.
Robinson replied that it would.
Park noted out that the widening of I-5 has been proposed and that if any flood control or restoration alternatives are within the right of way, the widening may impact it. He hoped that the Corps was considering this issue.
11:55 - 12:15 Homework and Next Meeting
The 40% pre-draft will be submitted to the Corps on May 14th. The next actions will be to send that to everyone for comments and to begin organizing the convening of the expert panel for early June. Runner requested that everyone submit his or her comments on the flood control alternatives. The next working group meeting will be scheduled for mid May, no date set at the meeting.
Craig Olds noted that the WDFW is in strong support of the recent Planning Aid Letter provided to the Corps by the USFWS and asked if an official response from the Corps was forthcoming. Runner replied that the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires a response at a minimum in the EIS, but he was planning on preparing an assessment in the 10% design phase which the Corps is wrapping up soon. Runner also said that he is still waiting to receive a re-operation plan for the Skookumchuck; without knowledge of how the dam will be operated, there is no way to evaluate impacts.
Back to Whats New Index Page
Back to CRC Index Page
Back to Flood Index Page
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council
