Dam Clears Hurdles, Environmental Study Awaits
WINS: Ecology, Army Corps to Begin Joint Scoping Process
By Alex Brown / abrown@chronline.com Jul 19, 2018 0

Pe Ell Dam
Keith Moen, left, a project designer with HDR Engineering, points and talks about the planned height of the dam June 22 in Pe Ell.

Jared Wenzelburger / jwenzelburger@chronline.com

A series of procedural moves at the federal, state and county level have given momentum to the proposed $385 million dam project near Pe Ell, designed to mitigate the Chehalis River flooding that has devastated the area.

“There’s some good wins happening right now,” said Erik Martin, administrator of the Chehalis Basin Flood Control Zone District, which is the project’s sponsor. Martin is also the Lewis County’s public works director and will become the county manager in August.

The biggest stroke of progress is an agreement between the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to begin a joint scoping process on Sept. 28. That process determines the scale of the environmental impact statement (EIS) that each agency will have to review. The scoping process is a 30-day period, while the full environmental review is expected to take about two years.

“It has made a lot of momentum just recently in the last month or two,” Martin said. “Setting a scoping date, that’s a big deal. ... For them to commit to that date is really positive.”

Martin said scoping will look at about 28 topics on an environmental checklist and determine which of them will need to be included in the EIS, and to what extent they will need to be studied. While the federal and state reviews need to happen independently, Ecology and the Corps are collaborating so that certain aspects — such as public comment or specific studies — don’t require

redundant work from each. A third-party contractor has been brought on to establish firewall protocols between the agencies.

“They’re going to do everything they can to do a joint effort,” Martin said. “There still needs to be two processes, but they’re going to do it concurrently.”

On Monday, county commissioners — who also act as the Zone District’s supervisors — approved a measure to request an EIS from Ecology. Known as a determination of significance, it gives regulators the go-ahead to skip the process of deciding whether the project is large enough to require an environmental review.

“We all know this is going to result in an EIS,” Martin told commissioners. “You can say, ‘You know what, we all know this is a significant project.’ Let’s just skip that part, be more efficient and go straight to the EIS.”

The process of determining significance can take up to a month, Martin said, time that will be saved by acknowledging the necessity of the environmental review.

“We know it’s a significant project,” said Commissioner Gary Stamper. “There’s no question about that. We’re eliminating that determination.”

Meanwhile, the Zone District is finalizing what’s known as a 214 Agreement with the Corps, which allows the Zone District to fund a position or positions within the Corps specifically focused on the dam project. Having positions specifically dedicated to the project will allow it to be reviewed significantly faster than if it were left to Corps employees who have many other projects on their agenda.

While the recent moves are all designed to speed up the review of the dam project, Martin said they’re not intended to circumvent a thorough process.

“Expedite is a tricky word,” he said. “We’re not skipping anything, we’re not cutting corners, we’re not skipping steps. We’re throwing more people and resources at it to try to get it done.”

The proposed dam would stand 254 feet tall with a spillway that’s 210 feet wide. Under normal conditions, water would flow through as it normally does, with five tunnels designed to allow fish passage. During flood events, the dam could retain 65,000 acre-feet of water in a temporary reservoir of 720 acres. The dam could later be expanded to create a permanent reservoir.

Estimates show the dam would have reduced peak flooding in the Chehalis River by 27 percent during the 2007 flood that caused heavy damage to the area. Projections say the dam could cut I-5 closures by three days and save nearly $1 billion in damage over a century of use.

Any chance a tribe or two can step in and object? Seems like they the clout these days.

Why doesn't the govment declare immanent domain on all the flood planes, pay all property owners fair market value and allow the land to be the unimpeded floodplain that it always was.

Why bail people out for buying property on a flood plain?

Why does "personal responsibility" seem to extend to some, but some deserve government bailouts for making poor decisions?

Fish on...

Todd

What Rich said.

I guess this is going to happen eventually. Makes no sense at all, but I guess that's not a criterion that needs to be met.

Im fine with it, under one condition: plug it with hatchery fish. I mean absolutely plugged. 700,000 winters and millions of chinook and coho. That would make up for killing millions by putting in a dam. Libral limits 3 steelhead 5 salmon mixed bags. Its the only right thing to do. It sounds like they have already made up their minds. There is going to be a dam on the ole chehalis. Its sad.

We might have this one hope that the tribes either stop it, or make them build new, super hatcheries and pump out cook creek and quinault numbers of fish. Id be cool with that.

Regardless of any environmental review, a proposed Chehalis River dam is not now nor never will be cost effective. I mean the costs will exceed the prospective flood control benefits. The Corps of Engineers has reached this same conclusion more than once. The only way this dam can get built is by using other people's money. The Corps cannot spend federal money on a dam unless the benefit cost ratio is 1:1 or greater. At least not without special federal legislation that should be very hard to come by. Even if the feds put up the standard 75% for a dam that does meet the benefit cost ratio, there's no way Lewis County can afford its 25%. That's been the danger of this dam (no pun intended) Chehalis Basin Flood Control Zone District that was created to allow a sponsor to tap into Grays Harbor County and especially Thurston County's substantially more affluent coffers. The only way this dam goes forward is through a nefarious fleecing of taxpayers outside the Chehalis River basin and ignoring the reasonable rules that a dam must be cost effective in order to spend federal money on it.

But dam, being a technological fix, solves everything. You put put a dollar value on "It makes me feel safer", even if it doesn't actual make you safer.

I've seen a few articles on how humans perception of risk is very skewed by fear. The majority of actual terror attacks/mass murders in the US? Homegrown. The fear, Muslims. Nuclear power will kill you. Much less than have been killed by sun-caused cancers. And so on. The last thing we are is rational (as a species). Heck, if we bring back wolves and grizzlies to the Cascades they'l eat every hiker and backpacker out there. Right? And then are Cougars, which are almost as bad as Cougs....

Carcassman,
bears, wolves, cougars, we messed that up years ago by banning dog and bait hunting.
thank you initiative process, and now likely semi auto guns also.

but back to damns. they suck, but..... could they not become a tool to replace the forests we chopped down to store clean COOL water that salmon need? kinda like a non frozen glacier. no I am not just looking for a fight.... this is not eastern WA were the water never moves and the sun beats down on it every day. I know it goes against every bone in my body to think that it could be a good thing, but could it?

last I heard the Sultan was spitting out more fish after the dam then before, except the coho, they lost big. then we had the ocean issues so everything is down currently, everywhere.

anyway I could see a possible benefit. seems to me we could do a study (they love spending money on studies) to measure water temp below damned rivers in western Wa . vs non-damned rivers with extensive logging/development in the headwaters. see if there is a benefit to fish in July and August. maybe look at surface area vs depth also?

Anyway just a thought maybe dumb but a thought.
Eric

The dam, any dam, can hold a certain amount of water and then release it. That could provide cold water during the summer and higher flows. If we were willing to leave the water in the river.

Flood control dams have problems in that they have a rather fixed capacity. It may well help in one storm but not two. How do you deal with a long period of rain? Keep a "flood pocket"? Management is complex and they will give a false sense of security and we will still build in the floodplain.

You go and log the headwaters and that sediment will collect in the reservoir; filling it up.

The dam will pretty much destroy migratory fish upstream and the ecosystem that depends on them. We will replace them with hatchery fish which may mitigate the catch but not the ecosystem values.

Essentially, we have a choice. We can live with nature and what it provides; living within the ability of the system to support us. Or, we can modify the system to benefit humans above all else. We on the Pacific Coast have just about run out of time to make that choice; countries bordering the North Atlantic have already made theirs. Nam your poison...

Dam it CM, first you offend me with your oblique Coug dis and you then go and write something with which I have to 100% agree.

I have to think you are really a Coug hiding in a ratty dog blanket.

the headwaters are already logged many times over...... and will be again.

I agree we need to make a choice. I disagree that we haven't already made it.

Eric

Sorry, Larry, not a Coug. Do have many good friends and coworkers who are Cougs. Mostly good folks once you get past the Cougness. Did spend some good time at Montlake but am an Aggie.

I agree, that is crazy. Don't worry, Uncle FEMA will be along shortly to dole out whatever you need. B.S.

We bail out people who live in flood plains so that we can bail out those who live around earthquake faults, lahar zones, tornado areas, hurricane areas, tsunami zones. There are damn few areas that are totally immune to natural processes.

Buy insurance.

Fish on...

Todd

It is a bit of a strain to get one's arms around the issue so let us try this. The flood control bit is happily being carried by folks but the reality is the real issue is I-5 and it is the main route for consumable goods in the urban areas. That simple as no I-5 in the mix the dam issue would die in a NY minute.

As to the danger from floods. People build in flood areas all over the world and many places pay dearly but many do not as they are prepared. Yet I have seen houses on stilts from the Amazon to the gulf coast that do fine other than wind damage. In the Amazon when the rains come I visited a area where the entire area turns into a lake for several months and the natives homes do fine 15 feet off the ground. Little strange looking in the dry season until you realize this is how you deal with it.

As to danger. You folks in PS realize you are actually living next to the most dangerous mountain in the continental US? In fact if you could only build where it is zero risk no Seattle or Tacoma. Another example is Missouri area states set on a fault that around the mid 1800's just ripped the place apart and will do it again as will SF & LA at sometime down the road. We build where we do because of cost and infrastructure.

We all live on floating hunks of rock that are moving as they have for millions of years. Storms from the seas will always be present as will tornadoes, hurricanes, drought, and floods. Us puny humans arrange our lives to deal with this the best we can but seriously does anyone think that we can make natural processes go away?

Wouldn't it be cheaper, and more environmentally "good" to elevate I-5? In all the recent floods the rail line was still open. Raise the freeway, put some decent water passage under it, and move on.

Dam it and plant a bazillion fish or let the last of the wild fish perish in nets.

My thoughts CC exactly. Your talking the stretch as going North you drop down into the valley South of Chehalis up to the hump that parallels the dragline pit. China and Dellenbaugh Cr would need pumps and holding basins but it is doable. Dam is cheaper is my take.

This the ying and yang of dams. Outside power the flood control aspect is almost as important. Say we no longer need dams for power ( just imagine ) most will stay put be it altered especially the Columbia. Then you have irrigation, recreation, and a boat load of other stuff that the dams provide. Fish folk just focus on the fish aspect and brush off the rest and continually lose the argument. The benefit of the dams is so huge that it is a no starter and for the enviro folks it is all or nothing. It is not that things cannot be drastically improved but rather the all or nothing approach is predetermines the outcome for elected folks be it D, R, or I most elected folks can do simple math.