So you're telling me there's a chance it won't get built???

FYI

https://www.kuow.org/stories/inslee-puts...non-dam-options

SF

Well, that's some good news, albeit temporary. Looks like tribal influence was Inslee's major push.

Good. But will Never vote the bum.

The Corps has never met a government boondoggle that it doesn't like.

J-ust
F-or
C-larification....

YGTBFKM, right?

01/09/2021

Time for the QIN and Chehalis Tribes "to get the war drums going". There seems to be a "dam under current"..... just when it seems to be a "NO DAM", the project gains new legs......... grrrrrrrrrr

Not a fan of dams and the mitigation, the Wynoochee is great example, but if one wants to argue against something it is best to put emotion aside and use facts. Below is a C&P of info and one can see it is I 5 not the businesses or locals driving this but it is for them a don't look a gift horse in the mouth time. Also the effects on fisheries are outlined. Now one should not buy that as gospel because all things have unintended consequences. Take the Wynoochee it ended up being the mitigation for areas above the dam were not the greatest loss but rather down stream. As a flood control dam it has been of great value but by controlling the high water it reduced the natural habitat building processes. Then WDFW has failed to implement the full mitigation required for 25 years. Always be a little concerned about mitigation with WDFW's dubious record in the Chehalis Basin.

Why & How:
The proposed facility is unique in design and proposed operation. It would only function as a dam for a few weeks every seven to 10 years when huge winter tropical storms will create major flood events. During regular operation, fish will be able to pass unimpeded both up and downstream through the open base of the structure. The Corps found that the proposed facility, when combined with raising of the Chehalis-Centralia Airport levee, would protect Interstate 5 in floods as large as the forecasted 100-year flood event. Interstate 5 has been closed through the Twin Cities in flood events of 1990, 1996 and 2007, when the freeway was overtopped for five days.

"Both of these problems are getting worse. Since 1986, the floods have gotten larger, and the fishery has been in decline for decades" said Dr. John Henricksen, of Chehalis, who chairs the citizens group One Voice. "After 90 years of pointless government studies followed by no action on both of these problems, the Chehalis Basin process is making real progress with more than 100 local fish and flood projects completed on time and on budget. This proposed facility above Pe Ell is critical to protecting more than 1,300 homes, schools and small businesses, but it is only one piece of a basinwide flood protection and fish restoration strategy."

And The Fish:
The Army Corps EIS also evaluated the potential impacts of the proposed flood structure on aquatic species. The Corps’ basinwide look showed that the proportional impact on Coho and fall Chinook salmon and steelhead would be 0 percent, with a 2 percent potential loss of spring Chinook if no mitigation measures were taken.

"The environmental impacts outlined in this federal EIS and the earlier state EIS will have to be avoided, minimized or mitigated, if we proceed to seek a permit," said Lewis County Manager Erik Martin, director of the Flood Zone District, which is the project applicant. "Washington state Department of Fish and Wildlife conducted an extensive search for upper Chehalis river salmon and steelhead between 2013-19. Their published findings show that in 2019, there were three Chinook salmon spawning fish found in the main stem above the city of Chehalis. Only one of those three spawned above the site of our proposed facility. We will need to mitigate or avoid impacts to the fishery. We think we can and then make that a condition of our federal and state permits."

So if your going to provide input " you dirty rat " approach will fail. There are ample examples of unintended consequences and mitigation failures ( in the Chehalis Basin ) by WDFW and others to allow for a rational pointed argument opposing.

In order for the dam to function as you describe, the whole reservoir area will have to be skinned of trees, to optimize storage. You can probably keep it in low brush or, more likely, just grass. That will really warm the river up in summer.

If WDFW recorded one fish spawning above the dam site what was it doing? Playing with itself??

good god if that was the case that it only takes one fish reproduce they can cut the escapement goal by half! Also that would be one nimble fish!

Not my description but a C&P of the article linked.

Don't tell WDFW or they will cut them in half. Gotta keep the fisheries going.

Curious what the Quinaults have to say about this.

The Tribes have opposed this all along. The fact things appear to be moving forward again suggests they may have "struck a deal," but of course I don't know. Without question, though, they're the only ones who COULD stop this.

It's starting to look like this is going to happen. As long as we have to deal with a dam, I suppose one that doesn't operate as such except under extreme conditions seems ideal, but I share Carcassman's concern about leaving a large part of the upper basin completely exposed to the summer sun. The river already gets dangerously warm at times....

Good points FF but not sure about large part though. Chehalis is the second largest in the state and in mileage terms overall the area is not that substantial. The warm water bit comes into play in the mainstem in the twin city reach and down stream but not so much above that area in the tribs. That said any substantial rise in temperatures on a fork certainly would not help what exist in the mainstem.

From what I understand the Nation does not support the dam concept. When you consider that one of their senior fish managers still would like to remove the Wynoochee dam I think opposed is where they end up on the subject.

any time you're talking about removing trees from a watershed it's an issue

The best argument against the dam continues to be economic. In order to qualify for federal funding, the benefits must exceed the costs. So look closely at how the alleged benefits are valued. The Corps has studied Chehalis River flooding numerous times, and every single time, the costs of any effective flood control project has exceeded the benefits. The only way this dam gets built is if federal funding plays a role. Lewis County sure can't afford to pay for it. And WA state, while it possibly could, should know better. And the only way federal funding can be had is for the WA Congressional delegation to include an exemption to the B:C requirement in some other piece of legislation.

Such a big deal is made about I-5 being closed for up to 5 days once every 10 years due to flooding. It's not that big a deal! There are functional detours that may result in an inconvenience and delay of maybe an hour or two, depending on the alternative route used.

Building the Chehalis River dam would be an exercise in throwing good money after bad. Don't fall for it!