Centralia, WA GRR/EIS, June 21, 2001
Initially, we will discuss and review the evaluation ratings for the existing condition of sub-basins to establish a baseline estimate. With this information updated we will discuss and review the evaluation ratings for each potential restoration/mitigation feature as presented in the 40% pre-draft report. If feasible, we'll sketch agreeable changes to these restoration/mitigation features and adjust the draft ratings accordingly.
Following these revisions to the existing sub-basin conditions and potential restoration/mitigation features, we'll discuss and review the existing baseline condition and the future without project conditions for the entire study area. This is an important step that is needed for proper evaluation restoration and mitigation prescription and to rate the "no action" alternative. We will follow this exercise by discussing and reviewing the draft ratings assigned to each flood damage reduction alternative.
It is desirable for us to keep ratings for potential restoration/mitigation features completely separate from the ratings of each flood damage reduction alternative for a number of important reasons. The Council of Environmental Quality specifies that proper mitigation is performed in a sequence: impact identification, impact avoidance, impact minimization and finally, compensatory mitigation for unavoidable adverse effects. With this, we need to establish a baseline impact estimate and only then devise avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures. Additionally, it is desirable for us to keep them separate so that we can estimate mitigation measures and their costs as a "package" matched with a particular flood damage reduction alternative. Any "leftover" restoration/mitigation features can be attached to an alternative as true ecosystem restoration; this step is essential to the Corps' Cost Effective and Incremental Cost Analysis. If a particular flood damage reduction alternative has integral restoration/mitigation-type features within its baseline configuration, then those restoration/mitigation features need not be separated because they are integral; however, added accoutrements (added plantings, special channel modifications/contouring, etc.) should not be added within the baseline configuration, but added as either avoidance, minimization, compensatory mitigation, or restoration.
For our evaluation discussion and review, the following appears to be a fair and efficient method to move through the draft ratings completely or as far as possible.
We will go down the list of each ratings set, as described on the agenda, asking the panel if a particular proposed rating and its rationale is reasonable or subject to scrutiny, discussion, review or revision. If panel members offer no comment, we will move on with the assumption that the panel is in agreement on the proposed rating. If any panel members believe a proposed rating needs to be changed, he or she should speak-up and be prepared to state the rationale for the proposed change. If the panel as a whole agrees to the proposed change, then the proposed change is recorded and we move on. If the panel goes into a discussion that appears, as determined by the facilitator, to be leading to an ongoing difference of opinion, then a particular rating will be flagged for follow-up after completion of the rating set, as time allows. If time does not permit any or all follow-up discussions, then the unresolved rating or ratings will be revisited at a later time and will be marked as unresolved. The facilitator may default to a majority opinion on the rating scores as necessary.
The facilitator will have full discretion to determine time allotments for discussions of ratings, and when a rating gets flagged as unresolved. If only a few ratings call for ongoing discussion, then time may allow for this, but if numerous proposed rating requires discussions, then time will run short and the facilitator will have to step in and call "time."
The facilitator is the keeper of all procedures. It will be entirely at the discretion of the facilitator to make any proposed changes or additions to the procedures. The facilitator may also change or add to the procedures himself however he sees fit, bearing in mind that any such changes or additions would have to be fair and reasonable. It is the goal of the Corps to adjust ratings so that the evaluation panel is in general consensus for all ratings. The Corps hopes that this will take place but realizes that it may not occur and cannot force a consensus from the panel.
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council