Back to top or back to DEIS home page or back to Whats New
Public involvement is a critical element in the feasibility of project development. Interested individuals, organizations, agencies, and governmental entities are solicited for comments and concerns relative to a proposed project. This chapter describes the Corps effort to establish dialogue with a variety of interests involved with the Chehalis River Flood Reduction Project.
The Corps in part is obligated to engage in this process through a variety of state and federal regulations. Discussion among interested parties is scheduled to continue through PED of the project as well as during the processing of this document. The Corps will consider the information collected in its decision-making process to select a preferred alternative that has the least adverse environmental effect.
Back to top or back to DEIS home page or back to Whats New
Environmental, socio-economic, hydrologic and water quality information on this project has been compiled and a DEIS for the Centralia Flood Damage Reduction Project, was prepared from March to July 2002. A systematic interdisciplinary approach to planning has been utilized; all reasonable alternatives have been studied, developed and described, and all pertinent information, including hydrologic, environmental and water quality modeling and ecological field studies have been developed, carried out and utilized. The DEIS will be coordinated with Native American Tribes, state, Federal and local agencies, non-governmental agencies, and the public for a period of not less than forty-five days.
Back to top or back to DEIS home page or back to Whats New
The Corps has informed the public of the proposed project through several public meetings held in the affected area and press releases published in local print media. In addition to providing information to the public regarding this draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), the Corps solicited responses regarding the public's needs, values, and evaluations of the proposed alternatives. Both formal and informal input has been encouraged and will be considered by the Corp.
Back to top or back to DEIS home page or back to Whats New
A scoping process is a requirement of the environmental impact statement (EIS) preparation (49 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Part 1501.7). Scoping, as defined in the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations of 1978, is "an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action." The scoping process facilitates:
On September 9, 1999, the Corps initiated the scoping process by publishing in the Federal Register a Notice of Intent to prepare a DEIS on the Centralia-Chehalis Flood Damage Reduction Study. The Corps notified all potentially interested parties about the Flood Reduction DEIS scoping process, and provided opportunities to comment. The Corps also provided a press release about the scoping meetings to the news media and local newspapers.
Back to top or back to DEIS home page or back to Whats New
The Corps held two consecutive scoping meetings on September 28 and 29, 1999 in Rochester and Chehalis, Washington, respectively. At these meetings, the Corps presented the proposed alternatives currently under consideration and invites comments and suggestions for other alternatives to reduce flooding and minimize and or avoid potential environmental impacts.
Back to top or back to DEIS home page or back to Whats New
Section 7 (a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 PL 93-205; 16 USC 1531 et seq., as amended) requires Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) when a Federal action may affect a listed threatened and or endangered species or critical habitat. The purpose of this legislation is to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of a species critical habitat.
The Corps has initiated consultation with the USFWS and NMFS. As required by Section 7 (a)(2), the Corps prepared a separate biological assessment (July 09, 2002) addressing the potential effects on threatened and endangered species that occur and or may occur within the vicinity of the study area. The findings of the consultation will be presented in the final EIS.
Back to top or back to DEIS home page or back to Whats New
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (PL85-624; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) (FWCA) requires Federal agencies to coordinate with the USFWS and state wildlife agencies when planning new projects or when modification to an existing project occurs. The purpose of the legislation is to ensure that the welfare of wildlife resources receives appropriate consideration with other project objectives and features.
The USFWS has provided a FWCA report relative to the Flood Reduction Project, in accordance with Section 2(b) of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and is available upon request. The Corps has coordinated with USFWS on the proposed project through written correspondence (Planning Aid Letters) that were prepared on 9 separate occasions between April 21, 2001 and February 27, 2002. The following paragraphs contain recommendations as presented in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and responses to the recommendations prepared by the Corps.
Back to top or back to DEIS home page or back to Whats New
Comment #1 - Details about the re-operation of the dam should include: a) the expected future water and power needs for the Centralia Steam Plant and the associated co-generation plant; b) the status of discussions between Lewis County and PacifiCorp for transferring flood control operating authority and/or ownership rights for the dam and reservoir; c) the potential for fish stranding in the reservoir during drawdown and how this could be minimized; d) the potential that insufficient water would be available to provide minimum flow requirements downstream; e) the likelihood of shutdowns in dam operation and severe ramping downstream; and f) the feasibility of providing overbank flows in excess of a 2-year event while limiting flows at the Pearl Street gage in Centralia to 5,000 cfs.
Response - 1.a- There is no change in the future needs for water supply by the Centralia Steam Plant. The water right for the Steam plant is 50 cfs at the point of removal from the river. The dam operation will just need to maintain this flow. In regards to the Centralia Steam Plant power needs, we are unaware of any future changes to the power that would require additional water supply rights from the Skookumchuck. In regards to the power facility at the dam, this power plant will be decommissioned by the new owners, a flood district (made up of Lewis county entities). 1.b- Lewis county and PacificCorp are still conducting negotiations with the current owners for transferring the ownership of the dam to a flood control district that will operate and maintain the facility for flood control. 1.c- Reservoir operations are generally comprised of rules and constraints to address flood conditions and other conditions that are related to the pool and downstream impacts. If fish in the reservoir proper are a concern, reservoir draw during floods can be limited in rate and extent so as not to strand or otherwise take fish. Assuming there is a minimum pool that does not greatly diminish flood control, limiting evacuation to minimize stranding can be established as a constraint, just as the "turbidity pool" is a constraint at Howard Hanson Dam.
1.d- Minimum flows for downstream obligations are often a constraint reservoir operations are required to meet. In flood season, reservoir operations are predicated on projected rainfallrunoff, reservoir pool, downstream channel conditions and inflow to the reservoir. Meeting minimum flow requirements during flood season should not be an issue and can be accommodated based on measured inflow and pool conditions. This could limit the ability for providing adequate minimum flows downstream. However, this condition would occur regardless of the dam configuration, assuming the refill rule is constructed to reflect current conditions.
1.e- During major floods, the objective is to limit the flow downstream to meet non-damaging conditions or constraints. Since the Skookumchuck Dam does not control the entire basin, the maximum flood reduction impact that could be achieved from the dam is to completely shut the flow off. However, if there are minimum low flow criteria immediately downstream of the dam (at least to the first flow contributing tributary) then dam operation rules would include those constraints as long as they do not impair or greatly diminish flood reduction benefits that justified the project. Further, ramping rates are typically imposed on the downstream channel so as not to strand fish or create channel instability on ramping-down or create a health risk on ramping-up.
1.f- There may be opportunities for controlled channel exceedance as long as the operation does not, or can not be construed as, purposely contributing to damage. Current uncontrolled flooding that is unavoidable is one thing, but purposely flooding areas that we can not control once our of bank, is not something we should do. However, if there are specific target out-of-bank flooding areas that can be controlled and that have been identified as having environmental benefits directly linked to out-of-bank flooding, we could configure overtopping "scenarios" that would take advantage of that linkage.
Comment #2 - The following details should be provided to clarify design for the levee system: 1) a map showing the extent of existing levees and embankments, where these would be increased in height, and where new levees would be constructed; 2) maps modeling the extent of inundation at selected flood events, including 2 year, 5 year, 10 year, 35 year, 50 year and 100 year events for pre and post levee project; 3) an assessment of downstream impacts caused by limiting flood plain storage for selected flood events and the distance downstream where those impacts might be evident.
Response 2.1- Maps for all the levee system will be produced prior to the preconstruction, engineering, and design (PED) planning and engineering phase of the proposed project and will contain the existing levees (all available data about their construction) and the planned new levees.
2.2- Most of these maps have been completed and presented to the environmental working group during the early phase of developing the criteria for the DEIS. However, a copy of those maps can be provided upon request.
2.3- There will be minimal impacts to the downstream portions of the Skookumchuck Dam based on the suggested re-operation plan. However, during the planning phase of this project any expected or suspected impacts will be assessed and evaluated for mitigation.
Comment #3 - The Corps should provide details about the SR 6 bypass and restoration for our consideration during the preparation of this final document. We would like the opportunity to work with you in developing this component of the recommended plan. Our information needs include: a) details about the "concrete flow way" under SR-6 and ways of altering this concept to provide better benefit to fish; b) flows predicted to provide access to the oxbow and to the bypass floodway; c) the potential for fish stranding and how that would be mitigated; d) the potential for fish loss due to entrapment and predation and ways of mitigating; e) anticipated maintenance needs; f) how much material would be excavated and where it would be placed; and g) the feasibility of purchasing land or obtaining conservation, erosion, and drainage easements to insure that restoration would remain viable.
Response 3.a- The concrete flow way under SR-6 will be designed to allow proper fish passage based on the coordination with the resource agencies, Tribes, and other interested parties.
3.b- All flows will be better understood during the PED of the proposed project.
3.c- The project will be designed to protect fish to help prevent fish from becoming stranded therefore, mitigation will not be required.
3.d- During the PED phase of this project entrapment will be a major design consideration and all efforts will be put into place to reduce entrapment of fisheries. Predation is a natural process of fisheries and the project will not be designed to encourage predation; therefore, predation should not be mitigated for.
3.e- During the PED phase all maintenance needs will be identified.
3.f- This feature includes a 400 feet wide excavation of SR-6, with an invert elevation of EL. 179 feet. This would involve excavating and grading approximately 65,000 cubic yards of material, and elevating the roadway to provide clearance for reconnecting the floodplain by providing overbank flows; an environmental condition of significant importance to fish and wildlife species in the study area. The material removed will either be properly disposed of such as the construction materials, asphalt/concrete, etc. Any material that can be utilized in the construction of the levees will be used.
3.g- A gross appraisal has been conducted in this area, the local sponsor will be required to purchase the property in fee.
Comment #4 - All recommendations presented in the Corps' fisheries review document should be incorporated into the re-operation plan and the revised rule curve for the Skookumchuck Dam with the following exceptions or additions:
a) Rather than proposing the 2-year event as the maximum allowable flow in the river, we recommend that the Corps determine the flows at which critical functions occur (such as channel maintenance and the creation and maintenance of off-channel habitats) and work backward to determine how those natural flows can be incorporated. The Corps should work with resource agencies to determine critical functions.
b) Because the formation of new off-channel habitats along the Skookumchuck River may be diminished with the flood control project, the Corps should consider enhancing existing off-channel habitats and wetlands along the Skookumchuck River in addition to identifying and protecting them; c) alterations to the dam should include safe downstream passage for juveniles, smolts, and kelts, (i.e., adult steelhead that return to the ocean after spawning);
Response 4.a- It is unlikely that a maximum flow event of 2-years can be maintained due to the influence of the tributaries along the Skookumchuck River. Criteria for all fisheries and their habitat will be incorporated in the re-operation plan for the dam. All of these efforts will be coordinated with the resources agencies and Tribes.
4.b- The Corps will look at all off channel habitat on the Skookumchuck River and look at ways to enhance those areas. Areas of major importance to the environment will be reviewed to determine the potential for protecting that particular area.
4.c- Alterations to the dam will incorporate all possible safe passage designs for juveniles, smots, and kelts.
Comment #5 - The Corps should develop a monitoring and adaptive management plan that would set goals, report changes, and trigger changes in management of various aspects of the recommended plan. Issues that should be monitored include, but are not limited to, fish passage at the dam, functioning of restoration and mitigation projects, and alterations to downstream habitats resulting from changes in flows released from the dam. The plan should include monitoring for pre-project baseline, during construction, and post-project conditions and should be developed with participation from resource agencies. The monitoring plan should be developed to ensure that assumptions about fish passage and impacts from alterations of flows are correct.
Response 5 .- The Corps will develop a monitoring plan that will be developed with the coordination of all resource agencies and Tribes associated with this project.
Comment #6 The Corps should develop a monitoring and adaptive management plan that would set goals, report changes, and trigger changes in management of various aspects of the recommended plan. Issues that should be monitored include, but are not limited to, fish passage at the dam, functioning of restoration and mitigation projects, and alterations to downstream habitats resulting from changes in flows released from the dam. The plan should include monitoring for pre-project baseline, during construction, and post-project conditions and should be developed with participation from resource agencies. The monitoring plan should be developed to ensure that assumptions about fish passage and impacts from alterations of flows are correct.
Response 6. See above response to comment #5.
Comment #7 Fill that results from excavation of the flood plain should be placed outside the flood plain or used in the construction of the levees.
Response 7.- Agree. The Corps is committed to utilize the material to the maximum extent practable.
Comment #8 - The existing embankments that will be part of the levee system and levees that will be newly constructed should be planted with native trees and shrubs to increase the value of these areas for fish and wildlife.
Response . In order to maintain the structural integrity of the levees it is not possible to plant trees and shrubs on the levee's. If a tree were to die and the root system were to rot there would be potential for a weak spot in the levee to develop. The levee's are being set back in order to meet the potential to develop areas between the levee and the river into functional riparian and wetland areas.
Comment #9 - The Corps should clarify how nonstructural measures will be implemented, including: a) details about how the "no net loss" of flood plain policy will be developed, implemented, and enforced; b) details about implementation of the moratorium/restriction on further development in the flood way; c) status of the new flood plain maps; and d) how and when flood plain maps will be incorporated into land use practices by the county and city governments.
Response 9.a- The "no net loss" of flood plain policy will be developed with the active sponsor.
The non-structural measures are discussed in Chapter 2 Alternatives and how they are incorporated in the preferred alternative.
9.b- The moratorium/restrictions on further development in the flood way will be investigated during the planning phase of the project.
9.c- At this time it is the Corps understanding that FEMA will address that issue after the project is in the PED phase.
9.d- The use of flood plain maps has not been determined by the county and city governments.
This area will be addressed in the PED phase of the project.
Comment #10 - The Service, other resource agencies, and the Tribe should be given the
opportunity to participate in the development of a monitoring and adaptive management plan, a mitigation plan, design of restoration projects and dam operations and facilities that affect fish passage or fish habitat during the next phase of Corps planning.
Response 10. Its is the intent of the Corps to include all the above mentioned agencies, including the Tribes and to include members of the local community to be part of a working committee to insure all entities are involved in all phases of the project.
Comment #11 - The Corps should evaluate the importance of groundwater recharge from flooding to base flows and the potential impact of reducing flood storage to base flows in the Chehalis River. Details should include groundwater movement, how soil types influence recharge, and location of important recharge areas.
Response 11. Please refer to the DEIS Chapter 4 for coverage of those issues. Plus additional analysis will be performed if after further review of all available data during the PED phase does not produce sufficient answers to the above comment.
Comment #12 - The Corps should provide transfer funds during the next phase of study for our continued participation in developing a mitigation plan, restoration projects (including the SR-6 bypass complex), fish passage issues at the dam, groundwater study, sediment effectiveness studies for Skookumchuck River, design work for the levee system, and refining the plan for nonstructural measures to be incorporated into the levee system.
Response The Corps intends to continue to work closely with the Service to enable them to participate in the development of this project. A specific commitment per guidance under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act is not feasible at this time.
Comment #13 - The Corps should revisit those restoration opportunities developed as part of the flood project to determine the feasibility of including them as part of the restoration actions proposed by the Chehalis Basin Study.
Response 13. All restoration areas that were developed are carried forward in the DEIS as potential restoration sites. Sites that are not used in this project could be utilized in the Chehalis Basin Study.
Comment #14 - The Corps should obtain an evaluation by a geomorphologist to determine the
potential for avulsion across the SR-6 bypass and the potential impacts should that occur.
Response 14. Those issues about or involving avulsion will be address during he PED phase of the project. All aspects of geomorphology will be addressed during that time.
Back to top or back to DEIS home page or back to Whats New
The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (as amended in 1992) requires that Federal agencies consider the effects of a proposed project upon sites of historic significance.
Section 106 of this act and its implementing regulations (36 CR Part 800) provides guidance that Federal agencies can follow in order to be in compliance with NHPA on specific undertakings.
The Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 are two other pieces of federal legislation promoting the protection of historic and archeological resources.
To comply with Section 106 of NHPA, Federal agencies must consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Native American tribes with a traditional or religious interest in the study area, and interested members of the public. Federal agencies must demonstrate that a good faith effort has been made to identify historical properties in the area of potential effect for a project. Identified properties should be evaluated on the basis that they are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The effect of the proposed activity on eligible properties must also be determined at this time. The Federal Agency must consider how to address adverse effects on the characteristics that make a site "historic". Cultural resource investigations will be ongoing to determine effects to historic properties during the planning phase of this project.
When completed, results will be coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Back to top or back to DEIS home page or back to Whats New
Coordination activities have been ongoing with the Environmental Protection Agency because of agency's role in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process.
Back to top or back to DEIS home page or back to Whats New
Coordination activities have been ongoing with the Washington State Department of Transportation in conjunction with the department scheduled activities on the I-5 Improvement Project. Coordination will continue throughout the duration of the proposed project.
The Washington Department of Ecology Dam Safety Unit would be provided an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed design and construction plans for the structural modification portion of the preferred alternative.
Back to top or back to DEIS home page or back to Whats New
Executive Order (EO) 11990 requires minimization of wetland destruction, loss, or degradation and preservation and enhancement of the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Wetlands are recognized as important wildlife habitat resources and are necessary for the survival of a disproportionately high percentage of endangered and threatened species. A second requirement of EO 11990 is public disclosure of a project's effect on wetlands. Chapter 4 of this DEIS provides that disclosure.
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) requires the project proponent identify Indian sacred sites that may be affected by the project. The Corp has consulted with the Chehalis Tribe of Indians in a good faith effort to locate Native American sites of historical significance within the proposed project area. Efforts to identify Indian sacred sites are described above under National Historic Preservation Act Consultation.
Executive Order 12898 established environmental justice as a Federal agency priority to ensure that minority and low-income groups are not disproportionately affected by Federal Actions.
The Corp has invited minority and/or low-income members of the population within the project area to participate in public meetings. It has also been determined that minority and low-income groups would not be disproportionately affected by the proposed action. This is based on the projection that the largest anticipated economic impacts of project implementation would be because of project spending on construction, land purchases, operation and maintenance.
Executive Order 11988 requires agencies to avoid, were possible, short and long-term adverse impacts associated with flood plain development. Federal agencies are required to reduce the risk of flood loss and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains. The Corp has no intention to engage in any action that would result in either short or long-term impacts with flood plain development. Consultation with local Native American Tribes has occurred from the beginning of the development of alternatives and will continue until completion.
Back to top or back to DEIS home page or back to Whats New
The study is in full compliance at this stage. As the project progresses into the planning and development stage a complete 404(b)(1) analysis will be conducted to ensure water quality standards will be maintained. This will proceed the requirement of a state water quality certification that will be obtained prior to construction of any component that may impact wetlands or water resources of any kind.
Table 6.1 Table of Compliance
Back to top or back to DEIS home page or back to Whats New
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council
