May 31, 2001 1:00PM to 4:00 PM Room 682, Natural Resources Building 1111 Washington St. SE Olympia, Washington Meeting Attendees Chris Runner, Seattle District, Corps of Engineers Susan Rosebrough, Corps of Engineers Jim Park, Department of Transportation Craig Olds, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Lou Ellyn Jones, US Fish & Wildlife Service Brian Peck, US Fish & Wildlife Service Richard Clark, Environmental Protection Agency Mike McGinnis, Chehalis Tribe Laura Schinnell, Grays Harbor County Ron Pollock, WA State Department of Transportation Chuck Gale, Pacific International Engineering Matthew Boyle, Pacific International Engineering Merri Martz, Tetra Tech Sara Townsend, Tetra Tech
Chris Runner welcomed everyone and introductions were made. Chris reviewed the agenda and specifically discussed the status of the 40% pre-draft report (PDR). He emphasized that the recently distributed 40% pre-draft represents the working group's last opportunity to make comments or suggestions until the Draft GRR/EIS is completed. He stressed the importance of getting comments, questions and suggestions prepared and sent to him no later than June 30th. Chris reiterated to the group that comments on any aspects of the project may be submitted anytime, but that providing timely comments ensure the ability of the Corps to incorporate the comments in future drafts.
Merri Martz summarized the new inclusions in the 40% PDR. She said that three major elements were added: 1) the working group's comments on the 25% PDR; 2) that conceptual designs for site specific restoration projects were included; and 3) a draft rating score was prepared for both existing conditions in the basin and sub-basins and future conditions with restoration alternatives in place.
Brian Peck asked if bank stabilization is considered in the restoration proposals. Merri replied that there were no specific bank stabilization projects proposed, but riparian revegetation would address that to some degree, but if areas exist where bank stabilization restoration needs/opportunities have been overlooked please let us know where they are. Brian then asked if a geomorphologist had participated in recommending the restoration alternatives. Merri said that Tetra Tech's geomorphologist, Bill Fullerton, had conducted field investigations with her and that no restoration alternatives were proposed if Bill felt there were any significant geomorphological constraints. Mike McGinnis pointed out that sloping and revegetating may not address bank stabilization fully. Merri replied that none of the alternatives were designed for stabilization; alternatives were selected because they increase habitat or connectivity and that stabilization may be a secondary benefit.
Craig Olds suggested that the restoration alternatives that should be considered for this project be on a scale that local entities may not be able to implement. In other words, this project ought to strive to accomplish what the smaller, local organizations don't have the resources to do. For example, he felt that watershed-wide placement of LWD could be accomplished by the COE, while local entities would not have the resources to do so. A discussion ensued regarding the feasibility and technical considerations of a large-scale LWD placement. Chris reminded the working group that we must consider the scale and goals of this project. Two studies are currently ongoing, the flood control GRR/EIS, which the restoration working group is focused on, and the broader Basin Ecosystem Restoration Study. The GRR/EIS is focused on mitigation and restoration compatible with the flood control alternatives proposed. Projects such as large scale LWD placement may be more appropriate for the basin restoration plan. There were some concerns voiced about the stability of riparian revegetation if flows are contained within the channel under the flood control alternatives. When Tt puts the individual projects into a restoration plan for each flood control alternative we need to keep that in mind.
Merri reiterated that the restoration alternatives proposed in the 40% are limited by what Tetra Tech has found in the previous studies and field observations and that if anyone can suggest additional areas where restoration opportunities may exist, they should do so now during the June comment period. Merri then reviewed alternative #1 (Salzer Creek wetlands) and described how Tetra Tech developed its scoring. Craig asked how species specific benefits fit into the scoring methodology. Chris pointed out that the original draft evaluation methodology included species specific benefits, but those were later removed at the consensus of the group. Merri then said that species specific benefits could be used as a tiebreaker in cases where alternatives may have a similar score and cost effectiveness, but have different fish and wildlife benefits.
Richard Clark asked if any of the scores reflect a "potential for success" factor. Merri explained that Tetra Tech considered the alternatives proposed to have a relatively equal and good potential for success since engineers and the geomorphologist evaluated them. Alternatives with less potential for success were not considered. Of course, none of the alternatives has been investigated for real estate issues.
Lou Ellyn Jones mentioned that since there are still quite a few data gaps, maybe we should focus on issues of known concern, like water quantity. Everyone knows that base flows are a problem and she had some ideas on how to address it. For example, she felt that purchasing/leasing of water rights, wetland groundwater recharge, and removal of ditches and drain tiles may be options for increasing recharge that merit further consideration. Mike then pointed out that the proposed Scheuber Ditch alternative simply acts as a split flow, without accomplishing floodplain recharge on the scale that could be possible and would likely be necessary to see improvements in baseflows. Craig suggested a percolation test to determine what amount of recharge would actually be necessary. Laura Schinnel pointed out that the current stage of the 40% is very conceptual and that specific engineering considerations for the restoration alternatives is not necessary at this point in the process. Merri agreed and emphasized the need for comments such as Lou Ellyn's and Mike's regarding the general design of restoration plans (eg. constrictions along Scheuber Ditch in low areas to facilitate ponding), as well as the need for additional suggestions for restoration opportunity locations (eg. areas not identified by Tetra Tech) and if any types of restoration have been overlooked (eg. removal of drain tiles, purchasing of water rights, etc.).
Chris asked if the final selection of experts for the evaluation panel were satisfactory to everyone. Craig reiterated his concern from an earlier meeting that the evaluation panel should be made up of a suite of representatives from the eight agencies, but more than one representative was welcome; we just want one opinion coming from each agency. A general agreement was reached that 8 agencies would be invited to participate, and they could send any representative they felt appropriate, and that the representative present during the evaluation panel would be able to discuss the evaluation with any other member of their agency either during or after the meeting. Furthermore, an additional group of people will be present during the evaluation panel's meeting(s) to provide background information, most likely including, a hydrologist, geomorphologist, engineer, fisheries biologist, and wildlife biologist. The agencies include Lewis County, WSDOT, DOE, WDFW, Chehalis Tribe, EPA, USFWS, and COE. The evaluation panel meeting was tentatively scheduled for all day June 15th. Final determination of the date will be done by Chris via email. Initially, a ½ day field trip was proposed for the evaluation panel meeting, but that may be unnecessary. Mike announced that he is conducting a site visit field trip to see parts of the basin and that will be on June 4th, meeting at 10am at Exit 88 off I-5 for anyone who is interested.
Sara Townsend reminded the working group to prepare questions, concerns, and comments for the 40% PDR by June 30th so that they may be incorporated into the final draft version. The next meeting will be the meeting of the evaluation panel and will be determined via email by Chris in the next week.
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council