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.

We gotta keep logging; the loggers need the work. We gotta put in more strip malls as the HS grads need jobs. Gotta build more houses with nice river views.

Need to move more people into the state to support the need for more tax receipts.

Natural resources are screwed.

Major sick and tired of watching our fish get freakin killed off by political nonsense. When dams are being removed in the name of habitat and restoration, others are being blue printed out for construction. The only thing that makes any sense here is to follow the money (read that as greed). Flood control... gimme a break.

As long as our economy is based one growth, as long as we need more people to support, through taxes, the services we want, we will need to find places to to put those people.

It is a zero-sum game. The more people we have, the fewer fish and wildlife and trees and and and. The earth has a capacity for life. We are choosing people.

The Chehalis dam is only feasible if we choose the California prerogative of gravity, where water flows uphill, toward money. There is no way this dam makes economic sense, even if the natural environment and natural resources are valued at zero. No offense to Chehalis and Centralia, but there aren't enough key resources to protect that economically offsets the huge cost of the project. If this is a Corps project, the local sponsor mush cough up 25% of the cost. If Lewis Co. residents got to vote on it, they would vote it down just because they are against taxes more than they want to pay for flood control that won't benefit the vast majority of residents. This is one main reason they created the Chehalis basin-wide task force, so that they can spread the cost out to include Thurston and Grays Harbor Counties as well.

I continue to question why it's unacceptable to have I-5 closed for 5 days once every 10 years, on average, due to flooding. What is the loss? There are alternative routes for interstate commerce that may add a couple hours to total travel time. At some point, the notion that the control of nature is possible, let alone economically feasible, needs to be vetted.

The true costs versus benefits of this debacle needs to be objectively analyzed.

Sg

This project makes perfect sense to a couple of big landowners who stand to make a lot of money developing "flood lands" if they become "less floody"...and local politicians tend to like those kinds of guys, the rest of us and everything else be damned...and dammed.

Fish on...

Todd

I agree that it makes no sense, and that's what tells me a few, rich a $$holes, looking to get richer, are behind it. As we've seen exemplified plenty of late, rich a$$holes tend to fare pretty well with our incorruptible legislators.

Looking at the various alternatives, it's pretty easy to figure out what area is deemed "critical" for protection. Not surprisingly, the tenants on that area of land have names like Home Depot, Walmart, etc. The people that own that land are probably motivated to get those folks some new neighbors, to take advantage of the great savings that come with building in flood plains, all at the expense of the taxpayers in Lewis, Thurston, and Grays Harbor counties (oh yeah, also at the expense of native fish and wildlife).

I think you may be underestimating the significance of I-5 being shut down for extended periods. Delays in the shipping business are costly, especially on the scale they occur when a major shipping route is blocked. I would venture a guess the people making the decisions will be more interested in what each alternative does to protect I-5 than what it does to protect local residents and businesses.

Dam it and pave it!!!!!!!

WDFW then wont have to justify why they no longer plant jackchit in it moving forward.

Hey, more hatchery fish mitigation right? Just like the wynoo...oh wait.

Port of Chehalis Shows Support for Dam Near Pe Ell
Other News: Study to Focus on Stormwater Management Plan for Industrial Park
Centralia Factory Outlets

Posted: Thursday, November 3, 2016 10:38 am
By Justyna Tomtas / jtomtas@chronline.com | 0 comments
Port of Chehalis commissioners approved a letter last week in support of Alternative One in the Department of Ecology’s draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement presenting options to reduce flooding and improve conditions for aquatic species.
The letter strongly encouraged state officials to take actions to address flooding in the Chehalis Basin, and said Alternative One, which includes the construction of a dam near Pe Ell, appeared to be the best choice to reduce flood impacts in the local community.

How about idiots quit building and developing in the mother [Bleeeeep!] flood plain? [Bleeeeep!]!

It's typical...it's been farmland forever, someone gets it in their mind that cheap farmland that floods can be sold for a LOT of money to develop if it doesn't flood anymore...and then they socialize the costs to do it by getting the taxpayers to pay for a dam that hurts the taxpayers, but helps them.

County Commissioners see the increased tax revenue from having the land be more valuable, and throws the rest of the county under the bus for the benefit of the few developers.

Developers don't pay for it, get the benefits. The County Commissioners don't pay for it, get the benefits. Taxpayers pay for it, twice. First by paying for the project, then by paying for the environmental destruction it causes.

Go team.

Fish on...

Todd

Not surprising that the Port of Chehalis (port? for real?) is supportive. Aside from Ports typically being tax-sucking leeches on citizens while never operating in the fiscal black, Chehalis has been wanting this dam for at least two decades now. As long as someone else pays for it, of course.

I perused the EIS, which is a state (DOE) SEPA EIS, meaning that in order to move forward, federal permits and a Corps EIS will have to happen somewhere down the road yet in order to make this parasite a reality. Alternative 1 in the only one that includes the Chehalis River dam. The fisheries impacts are downplayed in that the proposed action includes habitat restoration as mitigation that would offset, or more than offset, the losses. It's a programatic EIS and I haven't seen the level of detail that would allow one to analyze if maybe the impacts are understated and the mitigation benefits overstated. I also didn't have time to read the economics section to see who the hell they intend to have pay for this.

I do have a concern that Thurston Co., which has the largest and more affluent population and the least affects from flooding, could end up on the hook paying a disproportionate share of the eventual costs. It will be imperative to lobby the Thurston Co. Commission to not sign on as one of the local sponsors. That could likely kill the project because I don't think the Lewis and Grays Harbor Co. tax base could shoulder the financial tax load to pay 25% of the project cost.

I'm trying to figure how to include the concepts of natural and logical consequences and that stupidity should hurt in my comments.

Sg

I thought you guys said this would never happen?

It will not happen if logic and economic reality prevail. The track record of uneconomical dams across the North American landscape shows that we cannot count on it.

Overpopulation and greed will prevail.

To think differently exposes ones liberal beliefs.

Most folks on this BB are thinking that economics, rational decision-making, and common sense will prevail.

If those are "liberal" beliefs, so be it.

Damn the swamp!!!

Trump 2016!!!!

Sent my comment letter.

Your views intrigue me, have you ever considered running for Thurston County Port Commissioner?

Yes.

Damn it.


Pe Ell Council Votes to Support Dam as Preferred Option
Alternatives: The Department of Ecology Recently Accepted Comments on Four Different Options for Flood Control, Aquatic
Potential Future Site of Pe Ell Dam
Eric Schwartz / eschwartz@chronline.com
Potential Future Site of Pe Ell Dam


Posted: Thursday, November 17, 2016 10:13 am
By Aaron Kunkler / akunkler@chronline.com
The Pe Ell Town Council voted Tuesday to support a flood mitigation alternative that includes a dam and water retention facility near the town. The option, known as Alternative One, is one of four alternatives presented in a Department of Ecology environmental impact statement designed to tackle flood reduction and aquatic species enhancement in the Chehalis River Basin.
Pe Ell Mayor Lonnie Willey said the council was presented with a resolution from the Chehalis River Basin Flood Authority, comprised of municipalities in Lewis, Thurston and Grays Harbor counties, which they approved and signed, lending support to Alternative One as the widely preferred option in Lewis County.
“The council approved Alternative One with one stipulation — that we would like to see a reservoir,” Willey said.
There are two options for the proposed dam within the alternative, one that would hold water back all year in a permanent reservoir and another that would only retain water during storms and heavy rain.
The dam and reservoir would provide the town with an influx of revenue during construction as workers purchase goods and services from local merchants and restaurants, Willey said.
As for a variation of the dam option that would not create a permanent water retention facility and only hold water during a flood, Willey said it would not generate continuing income for the town.
With water retention, however, Willey said recreation opportunities such as fishing, camping and boating could draw income and tourists from outside the town and possibly provide a water boost to the river system during drier summer months.
“If you had a reservoir behind it, two things, you could release water in the summertime, which would be better flow for the fish, and you could have recreation,” he said.
He said some residents have expressed concerns over a water retention facility, but Willey said he has confidence in the state and federal engineers to design a dam which could withstand major natural disasters like an earthquake.
Other options include building levees around Interstate 5 and doing nothing on the state level and letting local municipalities tackle individual projects on their own. Another option, which would see the state attempting to buy some 21,000 acres along the Chehalis River, would relocate the residents and restore the natural floodplain. A fifth unofficial option is to do nothing, which would see flood damage to the area reach into the billions of dollars over the course of the next 100 years, according to Ecology.
Most upper basin governments — including county commissioners, the Flood Authority and the Centralia and Chehalis city councils — have also voiced support for a dam.
Ultimately, the final proposal will be in the hands of the Governor’s Work Group, a group of basin leaders and representatives of governments, tribes and citizens through the basin. Then, the Legislature would have to deliver the necessary funding.
A representative of the Chehalis Tribe recently spoke out against the dam.

Certainly not good news, but also not unexpected. I suspect "Alternative 1" will receive less enthusiastic support from the counties that don't have the flooding problems (because they didn't build in their flood plains).
QIN, Chehalis Tribe will probably oppose it. Grays Harbor County Commission may go for Alternative 1, even if the citizens aren't on board. Commissioner Raines is a vocal dam supporter, and I don't know where the others stand now.

If Thurston County jumps on the bandwagon, we'll know the fix is in. Still time for this to end well.

It's up to QIN and Chehalis to stop it. Everybody else political needs the money that they think it will bring in.

Kinda ironic those we critique the most are the only option for saving us from ourselves.

Indeed. Strange times make strange bedfellows.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

One of the problems in American politics is that we seem to demand total agreement before we will cooperate. So, the Tribes and Sporties won't work together when they agree, the R's and D's never agree, and so on.

Interesting that the article describes this as a state proposal, such that funding would have to come from the WA Legislature. There is no mention of Corps involvement and federal funding. Maybe the Corps won't sign on because all of their studies have found any dam proposal to be not feasible economically. I don't see the state Legislature coughing up the $$$ the project would cost - over half a billion on the low end, to $1.2 billion at the upper - without the 75% federal dollars that come with a Corps and local sponsor project.

The state Legislature can't or won't fund education (the number one priority for funding in the state constitution) under the McCleary decision, so I don't see them sending all that money to Lewis County to pacify a few local fat cat developers when they have political favors owed to many other more influential movers and shakers scattered around the state.

Our family lived below Chester Morse Dam and Reservoir for nearly forty years. It was all it was "cracked" up to be...repeated floods and evacuations, constant fear of the Pineapple Express, worry about dam failure, erosion, levy destruction from flood events, and neglected maintenance of those levies. Scouring flows occurred regularly; fish runs tanked. Most of these concerns followed years of extreme clear cutting, including logging of sensitive sites, in the Cedar River watershed. Down stream development helped create runoff flows that could no longer be controlled. In the end, numerous agencies participated in a buyout of our entire neighborhood.

That project is detailed in this video: https://vimeo.com/111058132

Hopefully, the QIN, Chehalis, and Thurston County authorities will just say, "NO DAM IT!"

Fantastic video, CR ..... outstanding, simply outstanding.

Here's another one on how to do it right

https://vimeo.com/110595261