3 pages (graphic copies) financial tables follow:
Back to top or back to home page or back to Back to Chapter Index
Back to top or back to home page or back to Back to Chapter Index
Unpublished draft article written by Lois Lopez of the Washington State Emergency Management Division, for May 1999 issue of Chehalis River Council quarterly publication, Drops of Water.
The Chehalis River Basin is the second largest river basin in Washington State (behind the Columbia River Basin), and lies in five counties, with the largest land in Lewis, Thurston and Grays Harbor Counties. The large size of this basin is also reflective of the many number of diverse interests living and working within the Chehalis Basin. One concern upon which all of these interests can agree is that flooding in this basin has far-reaching and negative impacts, and that solutions must be real and must not negatively impact others.
Since 1990, the communities of Centralia and Chehalis have experienced record breaking floods. With the February, 1996 flood serving as the primary impetus, there was a re-focus and re-commitment to finding effective ways to reduce flooding impacts in the Chehalis Basin. Recent efforts range from activities at the local level, including committees directed to work solely on flooding issues; federal and state agency efforts to reduce impacts and protect taxpayers' assets; and inter-jurisdictional efforts involving local governments, federal and state agencies, and private citizens to develop watershed-based approaches to address flooding impacts.
The Chehalis Basin Flood Reduction Alternatives Sub-Committee is a part of the last group of efforts. This group felt it would be beneficial to the community to introduce itself and explain how and why we came about and what we are working hard to accomplish in the Chehalis Basin. As an introduction, it would help to review the various flood-related efforts this Committee is aware of that are occurring in the Chehalis Basin. In subsequent articles we will submit to Drops of Water, we will discuss in more detail the mission and specific work being accomplished by this Sub-Committee.
Beginning at the local level, recent work this committee is aware of began with the Lewis County Flood Action Council. This group consisted of the Executive Committee of the Lewis County Economic Development Council, which had, after the February, 1996 flood, obtained $50,000 to explore available options. As a result, the Flood Action Council recommended that a Flood Control District be formed. The creation of this district required a vote of the people as it created a taxing district. However, the vote would have been a weighted ballot, meaning the more acreage a citizen owned, the more influence that landowner had on the outcome of the vote. Ultimately, the Lewis County Commissioners remanded the issue to their office and then created the Flood Control Zone District in early 1997. The creation of this district also allowed citizen committees to be created. Hence the Lewis County Flood Control Zone Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) was
created, and as a part of that citizens committee, sub-committees were created for the Chehalis and Nisqually Sub-Basins in order to address these regions' flooding issues.
The purpose of the CAC is to advise the Board of Commissioners on flood control issues, policies and programs, assist in the development of these programs and policies, and to advise on other flood-related matters such as the review of flood control rules and policies. The CAC was instrumental in assisting with the recent development and adoption of updated Lewis County regulations, including a new Stormwater Management Ordinance, Flood Hazard Management Ordinance, and the addition of an Excavating and Grading Chapter to the Lewis County Building Code. The CAC provides a framework for public information and is presently developing guidelines to be used by the Commissioners when planning future flood hazard prevention projects. To assist in this effort, the CAC is currently holding a series of town meetings throughout outlying communities to gather citizen input, which will be included in the guidelines.
At the local level, there is also the Executive Committee of _____, which Commissioner Richard Graham chairs. This committee is comprised of Centralia, Chehalis, Lewis County, Thurston County and Grays Harbor County Government representatives. [SOMEBODY - EXPAND ???]
Recent federal and state agency efforts to protect taxpayers' assets have been focused on protecting 1-5 from further closures. While flooding impacts in these communities have been studied for many years, stopping the flow of commerce creates negative impacts for the entire region, not just neighboring communities. After the February 1996 flood, designated as a 100-year event, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) pursued the evaluation of raising a portion of 1-5 with renewed vigor. While this was a project that had been discussed for some time, a second closure of 1-5 had proven very costly and protecting 1-5 from future closures became a critical issue.
At this same time, an 1-5 Corridor Study was occurring to examine the cost and impacts of widening the interstate freeway to improve capacity, and thus, safety, efficiency and convenience. WSDOT also knew that to protect I-5 from future flooding, the feasibility of raising a portion of the interstate must be explored. In order to calculate the cost of raising the freeway, WSDOT needed assistance in computing flood heights and flood recurrence intervals. This information would tell the agency how high the freeway would need to be raised. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, funded by WSDOT and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, agreed to conduct that necessary work.
The next step was to evaluate the cost/benefit of raising the freeway, as compared to - other actions. The other actions were identified as: 1) Do nothing; 2) Consider mitigative measures, such as hastening the drainage of floodwaters; 3) Upgrade local roads and construct bypass route(s); 4) Use the longer bypass routes that are part of the State Highway network; 5) Use combinations of these 4 options; and 6) Partner with the local agencies in a flood reduction effort that would spread the benefits and the costs over a wider spectrum.
WSDOT has completed the cost estimation to raise the freeway across the entire, Centralia Reach of the Chehalis River. That cost is estimated at $109 million. Of course, a decision cannot be made on the ultimate freeway project until all of the studies have been completed. Some of the options have been analyzed, costs estimated and preliminary reports prepared, and these analyses are being reviewed. WSDOT has prepared a program of projects from Rush Road to the Thurston County Line. Unfortunately, some of these projects have been deferred for the time being, due to lack of funding.
Lastly, there are at least two inter-jurisdictional efforts ongoing which are committed to addressing flood impact issues at the watershed or basin level. They include the Chehalis Basin Partnership, which is Chaired by Bob Spahr, the Mayor of Chehalis, and Vice Chaired by Dr. Sodhi of the Chehalis Indian Tribe, The Partnership identified several goals for their work in the Chehalis Basin. These goals included: 1) Improvement of water quality; 2) Management of water resources; 3) Reduction of effects of flooding; 4) Increasing watershed awareness through education. There are many interests represented in this effort, including The Counties of Lewis, Grays Harbor, Thurston and Mason; several cities within the basin; several State agencies; both the Quinault Indian Nation and the Chehalis Tribe; a citizen representative each from Lewis and Thurston Counties; water districts and the Port of Centralia.
The other inter-jurisdictional effort is this Alternatives Subcommittee, which was developed out of the Chehalis Basin Flood Reduction Technical Committee.
in early 1998, the Washington State Legislature provided $600,000 to the State Department of Transportation to explore ways to address the flooding problem of the Chehalis Basin. This occurred at the same time the feasibility of raising 1-5 was being explored. [SOMEBODY - EXPAND??? - ALL OLD CHRONICLE ARTICLES STATE LEWIS COUNTY IS THE "LEAD AGENCY" FOR THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE. HELP EXPLAINING OUR CREATION!!
So began the efforts of dozens of agency representatives and citizens, including biologists, engineers, hydrologists and floodplain managers. After a Technical Committee was formed, led by Jerry Alb, Director of the, Environmental Affairs Office at WSDOT, a subsequent Alternatives Sub-Committee was created of technical advisors- The purpose/mission of this subcommittee is to develop technically feasible and environmentally sound alternatives for flood impact reductions in the Chehalis Basin. An additional benefit to bringing so many agencies together is identifying various funding avenues.
The subcommittees primary task, though there are others, is to identify and develop what we call measures that reduce flooding impacts. These measures vary in complexity, and alone will not solve the negative impacts of flooding, but together with other measures can be developed into alternatives. These alternatives will be used by potential project proponents, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to develop projects. These measures range from non-structural solutions, such as floodproofing homes, to major structural projects.
Members of the Alternatives Committee spend one day a month together in Chehalis, motivated to produce solid recommendations to reduce flood impacts in the Chehalis Basin. One outcome of this inter-jurisdictional effort is identifying measures that provide multiple benefits such as flood hazard reductions AND habitat enhancement.
This committee has spent several months developing measures that can be developed into alternatives. Our ultimate task is to develop alternatives that are feasible. What this means is that with many agencies that are decision-makers at the table, some of the same issues can be resolved beforehand. Of course, in the current day of new salmon listings as well as multiple interests, this committee cannot provide any guarantee regarding permitting or funding, etc. What we will produce, in late summer, are alternatives that have been explored by a myriad of technical experts, from engineers and hydrologists, to fish biologists and floodplain managers, and which have the best potential for project approval and funding.
To provide a background of these technical specialists, below is a list of those agencies regularly participating in the Alternatives Sub-Committee, most of which have several staff-members assisting in this work.
There is at least one staff representative from Lewis County who provides the local perspective, and also benefits the committee with knowledge of the community and engineering expertise. At least two members of the Pacific International Engineering firm provide engineering expertise and valuable information related to the flood modeling this firm accomplished early last year.
Thurston County regularly Participates in the committee, and is focused on potential downstream impacts and avoiding the creation of additional flooding problems for Thurston County. Chehalis Tribe representatives provide invaluable input and expertise regarding water quality and downstream impacts. Tribal experts have provided innovative approaches to utilizing our water in beneficial ways.
There are several state agencies working on the Sub-Committee's endeavors. They include Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW), State Emergency Management Division (EMD) and State Department of Ecology (DOE). The job for WDFW has recently become larger with the listing of salmon species as threatened. This agency must protect habitat for fish and wildlife and be assured that projects being built in and close to the water will not negatively impact fish and wildlife. EMD is primarily concerned with protecting the existing multi-million dollar investment of its agency and of FEMA in flood remediation projects. DOE has many of the other agencies' concerns, including identifying downstream impacts, as well as protecting existing floodplain values so that future flood impacts can be reduced.
There are four federal agencies that have provided continuing and important guidance. They are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). USACE is beginning a feasibility study related to flood reduction projects primarily focused in the Centralia and Chehalis vicinity. EPA is tasked to protect the physical environment from negative impacts, such as water quality degradation caused by runoff and increased sedimentation and temperature levels. FHWA is concerned with protecting its investments and looking at solutions that can benefit both the highway system and the local communities. USFWS must ensure that projects built will not restrict or jeopardize threatened or endangered fish and animals' ability to survive.
Lastly, but not least importantly, a representative of the Flood Control Zone Citizens Advisory Committee helps us in identifying community issues and perspectives.
There are many other members of the Sub-Committee that have provided invaluable guidance and expertise, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Grays Harbor County and the Quinault Indian Tribe, as well as others. Even with the strong motivation of this committee, it is difficult for all of the members to dedicate one day every month, as well as the additional tasks required in between the monthly work sessions. However, the expertise of each of the committee members is invaluable to successfully creating measures and alternatives to alleviate flood hazards in the Chehalis Basin while protecting the unique natural resources of this basin.
Back to top or back to home page or back to Back to Chapter Index
TO: Carol Jolly, OFM
FROM: Lois Lopez, EMD
RE: Cost Data related to flooding of the Chehalis Basin in Centralia & Chehalis
Attached is data in response to your request of the December 17 meeting with Tammy Baker of
Napavine and agency staff from Department of Ecology, Department of Transportation and
Emergency Management Division.
This list is not meant to be inclusive of all flood-related costs in Centralia and Chehalis. Two programs not included involve federal and state funds. One is the Individual Family Grant program which provides assistance after a disaster. These monies are used for displacement costs, replacement of household items, and other immediate needs. Secondly, the Small Business Administration provides low-interest loans, for housing, etc. We have not yet received data on these two programs.
The programs detailed include Public Assistance, which provides grant funding to jurisdictions for repair and restoration of damaged facilities. Public Assistance provides 75 percent Federal funding, 12.5 percent State, and requires a 12.5 percent Local match. Individual Assistance (above) provides 75 percent Federal and 25 percent State dollars. These two programs, and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, are administered by the Emergency Management Division (EMD) of Washington Military Department. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, with the same share and match as Public Assistance, provides funding for long-term mitigation projects to protect citizens and their property from future hazards and damage. All of the costs attached are related to flooding, except for a small portion of Public Assistance program funds. There is a small amount of 'repair & restoration' projects that are not directly related to flooding. However, the flood disaster facilitates those projects and most would likely not occur without a flood. It isn't feasible to separate those costs from the whole.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), administered by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is accessible to all regardless of where they live in the floodplain. The figures attached originated from Washington, D.C. and include costs to homeowners. Our list reflects an occasional excessive damage amount and so the total costs are likely on the high side (but do not -change state or federal costs).
The last figure on the list represents the Community Development Block Grant Fund, administered by Department of Community, Trade & Economic Development These funds are distributed directly to counties for its disbursement to Locals and are 100 percent federal funds. 1996 was the first year CDBG funds were provided in Washington for disaster recovery projects.
The above programs are initiated through the disaster declaration process, requiring a Presidential declaration, so breaking costs out by year was not feasible. Again, if you have any further questions or require clarification, call myself at (253) 512-7075, or my supervisor, Charles Hagerjhelm at (253) 512-707 1. Thank you again for taking the time to meet with us on the critical issue of flooding and its impacts. We appreciate any help in further identifying ways to protect Washington's citizens.
3 pages (graphic copies) financial tables follow:
Back to top or back to home page or back to Back to Chapter Index
Posted March 6, 2000 on the Chehalis River Council Web site, www.crcwater.org Downloaded on March 17, 2000.
Fifteen Lewis County landowners and the Evaline Community Association have petitioned the Growth Management Hearings Board to invalidate Lewis County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The petitioners are arguing that the Plan fails to comply with the Growth Management Act (GMA), which requires counties to . limit urban sprawl, establish concurrency between development and utilities, and protect natural resources. The comprehensive plan is intended to guide growth in the county over the next 20 years, and establishes land use policies that will be implemented by county development regulations.
The petitioners contend that the Comprehensive Plan allows urban growth in rural areas, and therefore fails to protect traditional rural lifestyles and land uses. The plan fails to protect ground water supplies, open spaces, and natural resource lands. Transportation is inadequately addressed, and industrial growth is encouraged in prime agricultural lands. The plan actually encourages urban growth in the floodplain of the Chehalis River, and doesn't discuss or map how proposed development areas relate to floodplain boundaries.
A common theme among these concerns is the lack of respect the county has shown for the public in developing this plan. Public comments were routinely ignored, and public participation was not encouraged. The planning commission that developed the plan is dominated by development interests. The result is a plan that narrowly focuses on the rights of those who want to develop and sell land, at the expense of the property rights of those who want to cultivate and peaceably enjoy their land.
The petitioners include several Chehalis River Council members who are concerned that the plan fails to protect water quality, floodplains, and groundwater supplies in the Chehalis Basin. We have submitted detailed briefs on these issues to the Growth Management Hearings Board, and will present oral arguments in public hearings on March 21-23, 2000, starting at 9:00 am. These hearings will be open to the public, and will be held at Centralia College, Hansen Building Board Room, 600 W. Locust. The Hearings Board will rule on the petitions by June 30, 2000.
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council
