I saw this on another site.
I know this has been discussed here in the past so I thought others might have interest in this.
SF

https://vimeo.com/377676805

Well thank you for raising my blood pressure. Gee golly whiz, we've fvcked up our watershed with logging, agriculture, and urban development in the natural floodway, so state and federal taxpayers should come bail us out and put up the money for this dam so we can finish the job of screwing up this watershed. That's basically what they're saying, just not as directly as I said it.

I watched a recent video about the dam and it was designed to handle a 10 year flood. Gonna spend a lot of money to accomplish next to nothing because the problems are floods greater than the 10-year. Plus, as climate changes and develop more, the 10 will become the 5; if it hasn't already, and they will still have plenty of damage.

If you really want to protect things, build it at least for the (current) 100 year flood.

WE DON'T NEED A FUKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKING DAM ON THE CHEHALIS!

P-E-R-I-O-D ! ! ! !

The 07 flood was more or less a flash flood that a dam would not have stopped. You know this is all about I-5 and frankly if a few days shut down every decade or so is that important just raise the bloody freeway.

The cheapest (non)solution will prevail. Dams aren't cheap, but they cost less than raising I-5 or relocating the farms and businesses in the flood plain. More cheap, riverfront real estate in Centralia/Chehalis; salmon be dammed.

One has to wonder if the long-range management paradigm for salmon of fishing populations down rather than meeting ecological needs, substituting wild fish/wild ecosystems for hatchery fish/controlled ecosystems is really not part of a long-range plan to allow as much development as possible (multiple use).

We don't need reasonably protected ecosystems because we can mitigate with fish hatcheries. We don't need to stay away from floodplains; we can build levees and dredge. We can always "fix" things instead of leaving them alone.

The dam will, unfortunately, be built because economic need always wins. Which gets back to ecosystem management. IF we had managed the Chehalis for ecosystem needs (and Rivrguy has those numbers) there would be some pretty big annual terminal fisheries that would depend on keeping the watershed working. But, since we would rather support remote economies with those fish the locals, who bear the burden on land-use, will opt for what rewards them. And is they never see a fish in "their" creek, why protect the creek?

It's all about money.

Once again friends and neighbors, I gotta' suggest calling or emailing your legislators and let 'em know, "Hell no, I won't pay!" Tell 'em not one more cent pissed away on this Chehalis dam project. It won't build itself, and the locals who want it can only have it if they can snooker the Legislature and Congress into fleecing taxpayers for it!

Here's why we don't need a Chehalis River dam:

1. I-5 being closed for 4 or 5 days every 10 years isn't as big a deal economically as we're being told. There are always detour routes available, so our fresh lettuce from CA will still arrive on time at Safeway.

2. Flood victims get a check from FEMA. I don't think they should because that just encourages people to live in the flood plain. But that's the way it is; so be it.

3. The dam would be an environmental and fisheries disaster. Is this really what we want to be known for in the 21st century?

4. It's a waste of tax dollars. The Corps of Engineers has studied a Chehalis dam 4 or 5 different times and always concludes that the benefits are not worth the cost. That is why this current boondoggle effort is not being sponsored by the Corps, who loves to build dams.

You remember that conversation back then do ya! The people that shoulder the vast majority of cost to preserve salmon stocks get the least access. Then the fact that they actually expect to see fish in the streams for the sacrifice. When you add the value of stream setbacks for RMZ's , sewage, use restrictions the number is really large, in the billions in the Chehalis Basin alone.

The next bit is a true story about one of the best volunteers I ever had on my team. A retired Boeing guy he worked his butt off fencing a upper basin stream. Then he worked on getting his neighbors to do the same and was successful until that fateful evening when he went to a meeting where harvest was discussed. Next came the phone call with a simple direct question. If they succeeded with their stream and say got it to produce 1000 more fish what would the co managers do? The honest answer was and is harvest them. In a simplified theoretical scenario we have an escapement goal in the Chehalis Basin anything above that the co managers will try to harvest. ( a bit less now with the GHMP ) So in a theoretical look those 1000 fish die in harvest if you harvest to MSY, which despite denials by the agency is what the escapement goal is.

Second part of the question was suppose a real community effort took place and natural production of smolt was increased by 50% what would happen when the adults return? The answer is simple I told him, they will harvest them to the same level as they always have. Some will get back to be sure I told him but the stream would not get full benefit in the sense of more fish in the stream spawning. The benefit of habitat restoration and enhancement resulting in enhanced smolt production does not mean the benefit is to the stream in the sense of adults returning but rather more for harvest. His response, " I quit "

Another example. WDFW and the co-Managers were looking to restore coho in the Yakima. Nice idea. But, the juvenile coho will reduce, through competition, the resident trout that support a rather extensive fishery including guides, lodges, etc. So, the residents of the watershed were essentially asked to preserve habitat for coho and give up the resident fishery to some degree. WDFW bio response? They can go fish coho in Buoy 10.

Time tells all BUT Chehalis and QIN tribes might just hold the "winning hand".

Let's hope so. Otherwise, this is just like the Pebble Mine project in Bristol Bay. Almost nobody wants it, but those who do have deep pockets and will spend as much as it takes to make an irresponsible project allowable.

The current administration is doing everything it can to remove environmental protections, and without question, that gives these interests a lot more leverage. Remember that when you cast your ballot in November.

Expecting politicians to do anything BUT look out for themselves is an irresponsible pipe dream.

They would bend over their own mother.

Very similar story on Cedar Creek on the North Fork Lewis River about 10-15 years ago.

Gary Loomis (yes, that GLoomis) was very active in setting up Fish First! which was an advocacy group that focused on restoring salmon habitat and jump starting salmon re-introduction (but no politics). And since the Lewis River is his backyard (literally), he choose Cedar Creek which is a tributary across from WDFW’s Lewis River hatchery, to restore native coho salmon.

His group worked tirelessly with landowners and stream-restoration groups to remove culverts, install large woody debris, re-plant trees, and build fish screens on diversions. They re-introduced coho. The stock took off very quickly. It wasn’t long before escapements were very impressive.

But the harvest managers at WDFW decided that Cedar Creek was “over-escaping” so they increased the commercial harvest on coho. The commercial guys took every adult they could, including the Cedar Creek wild coho. The excuse from WDFW was that the excess coho were actually destined for the Lewis River hatchery so they didn’t want too many hatchery adults on the spawning grounds.

That might be true, but since wild and hatchery adults migrate upstream at the same time, both got hammered by the nets. The wild coho from Cedar Creek quickly vanished. Gary was livid. And he still is. He quit Fish First! and began the effort to bring the Coastal Conservation Association (CCA) to the PNW. That was about 10 years ago. And, as we know, CCA is all about politics, not habitat restoration.

The native coho in Cedar Creek have not recovered to this day.

The lesson is that stream restoration cannot even begin unless harvest is restricted enough so that those folks who make the sacrifices are assured their efforts will be rewarded. But who is going to make those assurances? Certainly not WDFW, given that their mission is, in part, to support commercial fishing.

The problem with the Cedar Creek scenario is that WDF/WDFW had to approve the work. So they let them spend the money, get the results, and then destroy the fish. Rather cynical. But on the plus side, it kept those guys busy and out of WDFW's hair for a few years, and on somebody else's dime.

BTW, I posted the video link as others may not have seen it and the dam idea had been discussed here before.
I'm not in favor of a dam, which I think is a idiotic idea.
SF

The end result was somewhat predictable since hatchery coho and wild coho migrate at about the same time. So any fishery would be a mixed stock fishery, with predictably disastrous results for the wild fish. It might have been okay for a recreational fishery since we have to release unclipped fish, but not so for the commercial fishery. This was known before Gary started his restoration program.

I don't blame Gary for being extraordinarily upset and frustrated, but lots of folks could have predicted what would happen if he was successful.

And they would have been correct......

Cohoangler - Can you help me understand your statement about CCA? I've been a member for several years, and admit I sometimes have mixed feelings about the organization. But I'm unaware of any other organization that is attempting to coalesce individual sports fishers to speak to our legislators with one voice on local fisheries issues. I find value in that and feel some personal satisfaction when I participate in those efforts. What am I missing?

LE- You didn’t miss anything.

Gary helped to start Fish First! as an organization that helped salmon restoration by improving habitat and supplementing stocking with net pens.

https://www.fishfirst.org/

They use on-the-ground methods such as stream bank stabilization, installation of large woody debris, and local volunteers to help restore important fish habitat. The group was successful in several tribs in SW Washington, including Cedar Creek.

However, when the results of his efforts on Cedar Creek (coho salmon) were scooped up by the commercial fishermen, as the behest of WDFW, Gary realized there was another battle to be waged. So about 10 years ago, he jumped on-board with the idea of bringing CCA into the PNW to help change fish politics, especially in Washington State. And that is what CCA does, as you have correctly indicated. So he went all-in on CCA-Washington.

He didn’t abandon FF, but he realized there is more to fish restoration than just fixing habitat. It includes harvest reforms too, and that often involves politics.

I misspoke when I said that Gary quit FF. He’s still active. My mistake. Apologies to Gary.

http://www.chronline.com/news/chehalis-b...e0b17d196c.html

Unfortunately, flood mitigation comes at the direct expense of fish habitat. The 50:50 appropriation would simply cancel itself out and the state will have foolishly wasted $700 million over the course about three chinook life cycles. Forrest's mama said it best... stupid is as stupid does.

The most troubling part of the article?

“I think we could support this bill if we get some language in it, that I don’t need the word guarantee, but that dictates that we split the $700 million as equally as we can with flooding and habitat restoration,” said Harry Pickernell, board member and chairman of the Chehalis Tribe. “That’s the only concern the Chehalis might have.”

Tyson Johnston, representing the Quinault Indian Nation, agreed.