Artist rendering of Flood District's proposed flood retention dam on Chehalis River.
The Chehalis Basin Board has drafted their response to Gov. Jay Inslee regarding their long-term strategy to mitigate flood damage.
Although the Board has been considering the construction of a dam in the Chehalis River, Inslee’s July 22 letter requested that the board define a process for developing and evaluating non-dam alternatives, citing “significant questions and concerns” about the environmental impact of the project. Recent environmental impact statements have found that the impacts of the project, proposed by the Chehalis River Basin Flood Control Zone District, could be significant and permanent.
In their drafted response, discussed in a Sept. 30 meeting, the Board spells out their objectives for the next six months, which include examining the proposed dam and other approaches to mitigating flood damage, determining effective mitigation strategies to environmental impacts, and determining actions necessary to protect aquatic species.
The process will include input from two advisory groups. A technical advisory group will include experts from state agencies, tribes, local governments, and private consulting firms. A similar implementation advisory group, including representatives from conservation, environmental, agricultural, and business groups will provide input on the effects of implementing flood damage reduction projects.
The Board’s drafted letter also directly addresses the proposed dam, pledging to review both environmental impact statements, as well as public comments.
“In March, we will make our recommendations to you and the legislature to advance the Chehalis Basin Strategy over the coming years and provide more detailed recommendations for the 2021-23 biennium budget and work program,” the letter reads.
Although Inslee specifically requested recommendations on non-dam alternatives, and the Board’s letter speaks of dam and non-dam alternatives, the meeting on Wednesday focused mainly on the proposed dam. Impact statements found significant negative impacts on fish populations within the project area, but some board members have characterized the findings as a worst case scenario, and pointed to the impacts in the broader context of the whole basin, which are lesser.
Last summer, the District also hired a communications consultant to help highlight the dam’s benefits.
During the meeting, environmental planner Heather Page presented on those impacts, showing that the impacts on chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead decrease significantly when one views those impacts on a basin-wide level.
“Members of Congress have always been most interested in what the impact is going to be on fisheries basin-wide,” Carson Coates, a staffer for Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler’s office, said. “I think they’re going to find it pretty encouraging.”
Not all board members agree on the proposed project, however. The Chehalis Tribe and Quinault Indian Nation have expressed opposition to the dam. In April, after the release of the Department of Ecology’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Quinault Nation formally stated their opposition, citing the dam’s potential impact on aquatic species and the treaty fishing rights the nation has “had to fight for decades to exercise.”
Quinault Nation Vice President Tyson Johnston voiced concern on Wednesday over a backgrounder pamphlet on the Chehalis Basin Strategy developed with the help of Pyramid Communications. According to Ecology, the Strategy is a “collection of potential actions to address the challenges of extreme flooding and degraded habitat in the Chehalis River basin.”
The pamphlet provides information on the basin and its ecosystem, describing flood events intensified by climate change, and cites the proposed dam as a solution. Johnston is quoted as saying “The Chehalis Tribe and Quinault Indian Nation have participated and supported the Strategy since its inception because of its inclusive, collaborative, and science-based approach.”
But Johnston criticized the document as leaving out the fact that the Quinault Nation and Chehalis Tribe oppose the proposed dam. He also criticized it for insinuating that smaller, local projects would be inadequate.
“The document states that local projects on their own are not enough to protect against flood damage. I’m concerned about how this may undermine the local actions alternative before we have a chance to understand what it can accomplish to reduce flood damage,” he said.
He also criticized the document’s characterization of the 2007 and 2009 floods as being overwhelming to fish and wildlife.
“We don’t think that statement aligns with the science, as habitat tends to benefit from flooding,” Johnston said.
Ex officio board member Stephen Bernath, of the state Department of Natural Resources, also questioned some of the statements on the pamphlet.
“On the front page you say temperature is going to make the water uninhabitable, but is that with or without mitigation? … Plus all the other restoration efforts that have been made in the basin over the last 20 years,” Bernath said. “Because that’s a little bit more drastic than on page 12 where we have the actual statistics that came out of the EIS … I just want to make sure we’re not overstating things.”
Ultimately, the Board decided to not send the pamphlet to Inslee.
