A crucial report that will help determine the future of flood control was released this week and it has both advocates and opponents of water retention claiming victory.
If a dam were built on the upper Chehalis River, the best possible scenario for fish is that the number of spawning spring Chinook salmon in the river would increase, but the number of winter steelhead and coho salmon would decrease, according to the report by Anchor QEA, an environmental science and engineering firm.
In August 2010, the Chehalis River Basin Flood Authority contracted with Anchor QEA to determine what impacts a dam upstream from Pe Ell would have on fish in the Chehalis River.
The initial study, which cost $900,000, focused on the three species of fish, which are considered commercially, recreationally and culturally important.
Scientists analyzed two types of facilities: a flood storage only dam and a multi-purpose dam, which would also produce hydropower.
According to the report, all three fish would decrease in population if a flood storage only dam were built. But if a multi-purpose dam were chosen, the population of spring Chinook salmon could increase by as much as 140 percent, although the other two populations would decrease by as much as 52 percent each, depending on fish passage survival.
The multipurpose dam would cool the water temperature in the summer. That, along with optimized water release rates, is what scientists hypothesize causes the 140 percent increase for Chinook.
Jay Gordon, the executive director of the Washington State Dairy Federation, said he was “tickled” by the results.
“It’s better than I would have thought on both ends — for both flood control and on the fish,” said Gordon, whose family dairy is near the Chehalis River in Elma.
He said the increased Chinook population means the river could return to having a large salmon run as it did several years ago.
Despite what Gordon considers good news, he knows not everyone will be on board.
“We have to have that discussion, we have to have that family fight,” he said. “For some, the answer will be no. If that’s the decision, farmers are going to sit here until we get the next flood, turn to people that said no, and tell them: ‘You said no.’ We’ll clean out our houses, dispose of our dead cows — again.”
Jim Wilcox, of Wild Game Fish Conservation International, has been an outspoken critic of water retention on the river. He contends real flooding solutions should involve wise logging practices and wise commercial and residential development practices.
“It was real clear that the notion of this whole study was kind of a waste of money — we knew what the results would be,” he said. “The results just back up what we knew going in: there would be significant impacts to the fish and river.”
He said the dam would block fish from reaching their primary spawning grounds. And whether or not the fish survive, the study doesn’t take into account other species that are part of the ecosystem in and along the river.
“Any time you screw around with Mother Nature, it’s going to impact something else — whether it’s positive or negative,” he said. “If the population increases, that’s good for some things, but maybe not so good for other things. It will throw the balance off.”
Wilcox said Chinook have adapted to warm conditions in the river; some will die off, but some are stronger and will survive.
The study itself concludes that more information is needed: “Either type of dam would also be expected to impact other fish in the mainstem and upper watershed study area, as well as fish populations in the tributaries off the mainstem Chehalis River that may use the mainstem habitats for migration or rearing. ... Potential detrimental and beneficial impacts to other fish, as well as other aquatic organisms and wildlife species, should be evaluated in a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts of a dam on the upper mainstem of the Chehalis River.”
Now interested parties are waiting for a supplemental enhancement report, which will review ways in which negative environmental impacts can be mitigated.
For now, water retention proponents are emphasizing the flood control a dam could provide: both types of facilities could reduce flooding in the upper Chehalis River basin by 58 to 60 percent for 10-year to 100-year floods.
Along the portion of the river that stretches between the Newaukum River and Grand Mound, flood levels are predicted to decrease by 1.6 to 2 feet for a 100-year flood. If the dam had been in place, the water level in the 1996 flood would have been reduced 0.7 to 1.1 feet, and in 2007, the reduction would have been between 2.6 and 3.1 feet.
Wilcox said a three-foot water reduction won’t do enough if floodwaters reach more than 10 feet, as they did during the 2007 flood.
“Even if (the reduction) is a few inches, it’s a benefit,” Wilcox said. “I can’t say there won’t be a benefit — but whether it’s worth it is questionable.”
Lewis County Commissioner Ron Averill, who represents the county on the Flood Authority, said more than one project is needed to really control flooding.
“You can’t fix it by levees alone or by dams alone,” Averill said. “But if the dams hold back enough water, with some fairly minimal to moderate improvements to levees, you can provide the necessary protection.”
Centralia Councilor Edna Fund, who represents the city on the board, echoed Averill: “Of course I'd like more (water retained),” she said. “I think we've always known that water retention structures can be a big piece, but we need to do some work within our cities to complement it. It can't do it all, but it can do a lot for us. It makes it more manageable.”
Thurston County Commissioner Karen Valenzuela, who has been far more hesitant to accept water retention as a solution to flooding, said the report hasn’t changed her mind, and she believes a number of questions have been left unanswered.
“I laughed out loud toward the end of the main report that said more data and information is needed — I need more data and information too,” she said. “I certainly don’t disagree with their conclusions there.”
The morning work session of the Flood Authority’s next meeting will be primarily focused on discussing the study and will allow attendees to ask questions of two Anchor QEA engineers.
The original contract for the just-released fish study was for $900,000. In August 2011, the Flood Authority approved the supplemental agreement with Anchor QEA for $427,500; part of the original $900,000 was used and the resulting cost was $239,015 – a total of $1,139,015 for the two studies.
However, in January, Anchor QEA told the Flood Authority it was approximately $40,000 over budget on the first study and that it needed an additional $20,000 to conduct consultation meetings with the tribes, address comments, finalize analyses and finish the report.
Anchor QEA offered to cover half the cost of the budget overage, and requested a total of $40,000.
After some initial hesitation, the Flood Authority approved the request, and the Office of Financial Management provided the additional funding.
On Monday, the Lewis County Commission will vote to approve a contract extension with Anchor QEA, giving the firm until the end of December to complete its work.
The Flood Authority’s next meeting will be held Thursday in the Lewis County Fire District #5 meeting room, 102 2nd St. N.E., Napavine. It will begin at 9 a.m. and will include a tour of the Newaukum area at 10:45 a.m.
•••
Bianca Fortis: (360) 807-8245
