This is certainly concerning....

The period for public comment is over November 14. Comments can be made at
info@chehalisbasinstrategy.com

The EIS can be found at

http://chehalisbasin-strategy.com/eis-library/

mmmmmmm, what am I missing?????? Seems both addresses go to same place, no mention of Chehalis Dam...........

The top is an email address at info@chehalisbasinstrategy.com where they are still accepting public comment till November 14.
The bottom is a website. The address doesn't have a dash between "basin" and "strategy"
http://chehalisbasinstrategy.com/eis-library/

The Chehalis River is the longest freestone river in Washington. The proposed reservoir is just above Pe Ell and would cover crucial habitat for spawning wild spring chinook and winter steelhead.

The Environmental Impact Statement does not account for the loss to wild steelhead and is likely flawed on the impact it will have to stressed wild spring chinook runs.

As a resident of Lewis County, I have been silently watching this develop thinking it will hit a roadblock around every corner yet this well organized group keeps moving forward to the next step to making it happen.

I think the greatest hope of stopping it will lie with the Chahalis and QIN. Convincing them will just be an added cost to the project.

J F C !!!!

Money talks and the Tribes run the state.

Where's the WFC when we need them, guess the only want to press law suits against the state?

I think the dam is only included in Alternative 1, which is the most comprehensive (and most destructive) package, and is also the one the Governor's task force (made up mostly of land and business owners who want flood protection) is recommending. It's esentially a wish list.

Looking at the proposed, estimated inundation reductions associated with the various alternatives, the dam really only adds significant protection in the upper basin, and the area of I-5 that flooded in 2007 would still be inundated and blocked, if to a lesser extent. The State's big interest in this project lies in avoiding another costly shutdown of I-5, and the proposed dam apparently wouldn't do that (at least not completely). Be sure to include that fact in the public comments you all WILL be submitting (right?). Factor in the costs of building the dam and mitigating the habitat loss, and I think alternative 1 is probably off the table for the Governor.

I suspect we'll end up with a different alternative, or maybe even something altogether different, but we'll see. Alternative 2 seems like the right combination of job creation and protection of key areas, though we all know what levees do, sooner or later....

Get those comments in, and make sure to mention that a dam won't keep I-5 above water.

Good question. I emailed the WFC yesterday and again six months or so ago. We're seeing where there passion truly lies. Here is a clear and undeniably deadly path to destroying wild runs and they silent so far.

Last time I-5 was under water, the rain event was primarily focused on the Newaukum/Skook side. Upper Chehalis Dam would have made little if any difference in the flooding down below.

Correct. The EIS (which is surprisingly truthful) states that the proposed dam might reduce the impact on I-5, but it doesn't claim to protect it ftom inundation. If you ask me, that detail seems likely to be a deal-breaker when the money enters the discussion.

What is the cost of raising I-5 above the flood level? The rail lines, as I recall, stayed open so it may not need all that much increase.

I keep hearing that a couple land owners in the area of the freeway are behind the push for the da so the can develope their land

Where else do we still have a self sustaining wild spring chinook population in SW Wa? This dam is located where those spring fish evolved and still occur. The separation of spring and fall populations was downstream during the summer low flows. Dont mess with it.

Where else in Western WA do we have a healthy WILD steelhead population outside of Skagit and the westside OlyPen streams?

Where else in Western WA have we had sufficient wild coho numbers to support THREE separate gillnet fisheries in recent years?

These precious salmon resources are at risk from habitat inundatation as well as mismanagement of flow regimes below the dam. SERIALLY... when has a dam ever done a natural riverscape any good? The proponents actually believe it's a necessary component of meaningful Chehalis restoration. Are you fukking kidding me?

Been so engrossed in the crude by rail and oil storage battle that the dam thing has sort of slipped under my radar screen the past few months. Didn't realize how much traction this dam project is gaining.

So what does WDFW have to say about it?

http://wdfw.wa.gov/about/legislative/2015/chehalis_basin.pdf

WDFW Perspective

Director Anderson’s letter and the WDFW technical
memo address several key points:

• The Chehalis Basin is a unique watershed, and
its natural resources are of irreplaceable value to
Washington State.

• The work group’s recommendations – to combine an
aggressive restoration program with construction of
a dam and other flood-proofing measures – represent
an innovative approach, but one that also comes
with many challenges. Meeting these challenges
will require continued data collection and improved
modeling; establishment of clear restoration goals
and targets; a large investment in restoration
planning infrastructure; local community support;
and restoration of habitat and ecological functions
above and beyond any dam impacts.

• Based on the current analyses and knowledge of
existing water retention structures, putting a dam on
the Chehalis would have negative effects on fish and
wildlife and their habitat.

• Habitat restoration is needed to reverse the decades-
long decline in salmon populations, and this work
should begin immediately. The department believes
necessary restoration actions will likely require more
than the $120 million currently outlined in the work
group’s recommendations. Further, given expected
changes in climate and land-use intensity through
time, efforts will be required for more than 20 years
to monitor and maintain the watershed’s health

Are these guys nuckin' futs? They assert the river needs habitat restoration, yet support building a dam that they fully admit destroys habitat. What kind of schizo thinking is that?

Here's the strategic plan presented to the Guv....

http://ruckelshauscenter.wsu.edu/wp-cont...er2013_0001.pdf

Looks like he's totally on board.

It's the position that makes the politicos happy

Should note, too, that Phil is no longer Director. Maybe the new guy has resource-oriented huevos.

What the river needs is an aggressive restoration program and sufficient restraints on the HORRIBLE timber harvest practices that continue to degrade habitat at a rate that far exceeds the piddly rate of current restoration efforts.

Cue up Stillman Creek disaster, please....



There is ZERO need for a dam in that equation.