removed
Jabb
There was a comment period to the Department of Ecology's environmental document a few months ago. Can't remember when I did that. The dam proposal is fuckin' crazy. The Corps won't touch it because it fails the required federal cost:benefit analysis. The state and local governments would have to take it on, and frankly, nobody's got the money to waste. But there is a lot of local political push for it, so lobby your county commissioners (who are probably already on the take for it), DOE, and the governor's office with your opposition. Tell 'em to just say no to pissin' away your tax dollars, and avoid the environmental destruction that the project would cause as well.
Sg
Sg
Planners fucked up when they failed to foresee the flooding that can happen where I-5 runs. Now they want to build a damn to try to fix the problems they created with their pathetic "undersight."
And I would not be surprised to learn that Weyerhauser has logged every basin and slope in the area that they could get to, no matter how steep.
And I would not be surprised to learn that Weyerhauser has logged every basin and slope in the area that they could get to, no matter how steep.
Buzzy,
The powers that be in Lewis County couldn't pass up the opportunity to develop floodplain land alongside I-5, and thereby exacerbate pre-existing flood risks. I-5 creates a partial dike in the floodway, but a couple creek crossings allow floodwaters to back up in much, if not most of the traditional flood plain.
Because of the knowing stupidity in allowing continued development within the flood way and flood plain, I have developed the biased opinion that the area should be allowed to flood as high and as often as possible, because stupidity should hurt.
The cause of flooding in the Chehalis basin is all the usual reasons. It has always flooded. Floods of specific magnitudes occur more frequently because of logging in the watershed mainly, but also due somewhat to the usual suspects of road construction, agriculture, and urbanization.
The proposal includes 4 options as I recall, one of them with associated hydro, but that reduces floodwater holding capacity. And of course, without hydro or urban water supply, a single use, flood control only dam is a flat out huge waste of money under any objective cost:benefit analysis. The only way this dam gets built is if the Lewis Co. movers and shakers can swindle "other people's money" from other cities and counties. Lewis Co. can't afford it on their own. And if put up to a Lewis Co. vote, it wouldn't pass because most of the county's population has the good sense not to live in the Chehalis River flood plain.
Upstream and downstream fish passage options depend on which of the 4 alternatives is eventually selected. The no-action alternative is the only cost effective alternative for every citizen who doesn't own prospective development property in the flood plain who is hoping to make a killing by using other people's money.
That's my objective analysis. You should see my biased one.
Salmo g.
The powers that be in Lewis County couldn't pass up the opportunity to develop floodplain land alongside I-5, and thereby exacerbate pre-existing flood risks. I-5 creates a partial dike in the floodway, but a couple creek crossings allow floodwaters to back up in much, if not most of the traditional flood plain.
Because of the knowing stupidity in allowing continued development within the flood way and flood plain, I have developed the biased opinion that the area should be allowed to flood as high and as often as possible, because stupidity should hurt.
The cause of flooding in the Chehalis basin is all the usual reasons. It has always flooded. Floods of specific magnitudes occur more frequently because of logging in the watershed mainly, but also due somewhat to the usual suspects of road construction, agriculture, and urbanization.
The proposal includes 4 options as I recall, one of them with associated hydro, but that reduces floodwater holding capacity. And of course, without hydro or urban water supply, a single use, flood control only dam is a flat out huge waste of money under any objective cost:benefit analysis. The only way this dam gets built is if the Lewis Co. movers and shakers can swindle "other people's money" from other cities and counties. Lewis Co. can't afford it on their own. And if put up to a Lewis Co. vote, it wouldn't pass because most of the county's population has the good sense not to live in the Chehalis River flood plain.
Upstream and downstream fish passage options depend on which of the 4 alternatives is eventually selected. The no-action alternative is the only cost effective alternative for every citizen who doesn't own prospective development property in the flood plain who is hoping to make a killing by using other people's money.
That's my objective analysis. You should see my biased one.
Salmo g.
Hi Buzzy,
The flood occurred in two stages. The first stage impacted the upper valleys of the Chehalis system, such as near Pe Ell. This flooding was triggered by massive landslides and debris flows from steep slopes that were clear-cut by Weyerhauser. The debris created transient dams that flooded farmhouses and damaged roads and other infrastructure. The state had allowed Weyerhauser's in-house geologists to certify that the slopes were O.K. An unbiased geologist would likely have blocked logging on the steep slopes.
The second stage occurred along the main-stem river. The volume of water from the western Chehalis branches and the eastern tributaries exceeded the ability of a relatively low-gradient, shallow river basin to carry this water away. The flat land between the hills to the east and west, which you can see as you drive along I-5, is part of the natural flood plain for the river. Lax zoning by the cities of Chehalis and Centralia and Lewis County permitted housing and industrial development along the eastern fringes of the flood plain. Then the big-box mega-malls were approved, each built on a pad of fill higher than the next, an implicit acknowledgement that they were building in the flood plain. The volume of the pads probably reduced storage capacity of the flood plain [a five-gallon bucket with a brick in it cannot hold five-gallons anymore], exacerbating the flooding to the fringe areas. In addition, logging in the upper basins and asphalt and development in the area reduced the ability of the area to hold rainfall through infiltration; that led to too much water being dumped into the basin all at once = record flooding.
There is a small cabal of powerful individuals in the Chehalis/Centralia area that want to see federal dollars used to reduce the flooding risk. They believe that this will allow further development to occur in the flood plain and spur economic growth (and profits to a select group of individuals) in the area. They will use rhetoric about the economic impact on the region from the closure of I-5. But if this was the major concern, I-5 could be secured at FAR less cost by extending/expanding the levees along the freeway. But this is likely to increase the flooding risk for everyone else (this water has to go somewhere) and not help their development ambitions. The whole thing does not pass the smell test.
Steve
The flood occurred in two stages. The first stage impacted the upper valleys of the Chehalis system, such as near Pe Ell. This flooding was triggered by massive landslides and debris flows from steep slopes that were clear-cut by Weyerhauser. The debris created transient dams that flooded farmhouses and damaged roads and other infrastructure. The state had allowed Weyerhauser's in-house geologists to certify that the slopes were O.K. An unbiased geologist would likely have blocked logging on the steep slopes.
The second stage occurred along the main-stem river. The volume of water from the western Chehalis branches and the eastern tributaries exceeded the ability of a relatively low-gradient, shallow river basin to carry this water away. The flat land between the hills to the east and west, which you can see as you drive along I-5, is part of the natural flood plain for the river. Lax zoning by the cities of Chehalis and Centralia and Lewis County permitted housing and industrial development along the eastern fringes of the flood plain. Then the big-box mega-malls were approved, each built on a pad of fill higher than the next, an implicit acknowledgement that they were building in the flood plain. The volume of the pads probably reduced storage capacity of the flood plain [a five-gallon bucket with a brick in it cannot hold five-gallons anymore], exacerbating the flooding to the fringe areas. In addition, logging in the upper basins and asphalt and development in the area reduced the ability of the area to hold rainfall through infiltration; that led to too much water being dumped into the basin all at once = record flooding.
There is a small cabal of powerful individuals in the Chehalis/Centralia area that want to see federal dollars used to reduce the flooding risk. They believe that this will allow further development to occur in the flood plain and spur economic growth (and profits to a select group of individuals) in the area. They will use rhetoric about the economic impact on the region from the closure of I-5. But if this was the major concern, I-5 could be secured at FAR less cost by extending/expanding the levees along the freeway. But this is likely to increase the flooding risk for everyone else (this water has to go somewhere) and not help their development ambitions. The whole thing does not pass the smell test.
Steve
So what are the odds of this proposed dam becoming reality? I would venture to guess that most of the residents in this area are tired of the repeated flood events and like the idea?
Who are these individuals? "Powerful individuals (in the context of government manipulators) in the Chehalis/Centralia area..." a description and location that don't outwardly jive.
I am sorry I know that new projects get proposed every few years in the PNW but i don't think any of them have a snowballs chance in hell to ever get built. So i am not worried about this one.
The odds of the Chehalis dam being built is less than 50% IMO. My reasoning is that the Corps can't get it over the mandated 1:1 B:C ratio. Therefore no federal dollars, unless the local movers and shakers (some old local money and real estate development interests) can swing a Congressional over-ride, and that chit was already spent 15+ years ago. But political memories are short, so never say never.
The plan is presently "owned" by 3 counties: Lewis, Thurston, and Grays Harbor, and the WDOE. If the plan were put up to a vote in any or all of the counties, it would fail. However, if the decision were made by county commissioners and the governor, they might be persuaded by those movers and shakers to stiff the taxpayers for this boondoggle project, despite the bad benefit cost ratio.
The plan is presently "owned" by 3 counties: Lewis, Thurston, and Grays Harbor, and the WDOE. If the plan were put up to a vote in any or all of the counties, it would fail. However, if the decision were made by county commissioners and the governor, they might be persuaded by those movers and shakers to stiff the taxpayers for this boondoggle project, despite the bad benefit cost ratio.
This was kind of a fun read. So many of you, decades later of course, seem to be development experts. With that kind of knowledge it's amazing you led such normal lives and didn't break out with Elon Musk like enlightenment and leadership.
Ah, to be a tortured genius. How do you guys cope?
Ah, to be a tortured genius. How do you guys cope?
The development in that flood plain started out of ease, when they (foolishly) built I-5 where they did. Nice, flat places are easier to build on than hills.
Many of the box stores, etc. Were built there absolutely intentionally. Flood land is cheap, and insurance rebuilds.
Were it not for the location of I-5, this would be only Lewis County's problem. When I-5 flooded in 2007, it virtually stopped commerce through the corridor for days. That was very expensive for all users of I-5, which obviously extends FAR beyond Lewis County. That stoppage is the only reason the Feds are giving this any consideration, and to Salmo's point, the ROI is not close to penciling out, so this is still at worst a really bad idea, but we need to be vigilant.
Great shots of the upper watershed in the OP!
Many of the box stores, etc. Were built there absolutely intentionally. Flood land is cheap, and insurance rebuilds.
Were it not for the location of I-5, this would be only Lewis County's problem. When I-5 flooded in 2007, it virtually stopped commerce through the corridor for days. That was very expensive for all users of I-5, which obviously extends FAR beyond Lewis County. That stoppage is the only reason the Feds are giving this any consideration, and to Salmo's point, the ROI is not close to penciling out, so this is still at worst a really bad idea, but we need to be vigilant.
Great shots of the upper watershed in the OP!
You're buds with Howard Lincoln? That there is a true Capitalist. Anyone that can sell over-roasted coffee for 20x its value and succeed is exactly the sort of entrepreneur I am NOT.
Do you have just a hair of regret over not partnering with him? You'd be benefiting handsomely from the Trump presidency if you had....
Do you have just a hair of regret over not partnering with him? You'd be benefiting handsomely from the Trump presidency if you had....
Ha! Do you mean Howard Schultz? No, it wasn't him. But the guy made a TON of money by the time the Latte craze hit full on. Last I heard, he owns a Casino in Tahoe or somewhere.
Oh yeah, coulda shoulda.....
And then there's the time I was offered a bunch of stock in some company I'd never heard of for $2 a share. What is Microsoft selling for now, and how many times has it split?
Hindsight is........bullshit. lol
Oh yeah, coulda shoulda.....
And then there's the time I was offered a bunch of stock in some company I'd never heard of for $2 a share. What is Microsoft selling for now, and how many times has it split?
Hindsight is........bullshit. lol
The justification is that the car dealership and Wal Mart in chehalis flood along with some newer land owners who didn't realize this when they bought their dream retirement hobby farm. I've attended several meetings on this and the ignorance is astounding. I could spend an entire day quoting stupid shit people have said about their excitement in getting a dam and a lake.
Actually more traction than one would think. I originally had this thought. Our saving grace is that the tribe is against it and being Washington the tribe gets what the tribe wants.
There is an open comment period through 2/2 on the Aquatic Species Restoration Plan (the fish and habitat restoration component of the Chehalis Basin Strategy). It's highly technical, but may interest some readers:
In the below article is the latest on the Chehalis Basin Flood Control Zone District preferred alternative - a modified FRO (flood retention only) dam, claiming dubious and untested fish passage when not in use for flood control. This component of the Chehalis Basin Strategy will undergo an EIS once state Capital Budget funding is available.
I've been on the tours of the proposed impact area and am working with Wild Steelhead Coalition, Conservation Northwest and other stakeholders who have plenty of concerns about the proposed dam, but see opportunity in the habitat restoration component (ASRP) of the overall project.
While the prospect of a new dam on the Chehalis above Pe Ell is frustrating to say the least, a cool billion or so in fish and habitat restoration funding could go a long ways towards revitalizing the upper reaches of this watershed.
Hopefully a collaborative outcome lands somewhere in the middle, as flood concerns are not trivial, either.
Comments on the ASRP aren't public just yet, but here's WSC and CNW's input on the last comment opportunity (PEIS) for background if anyone's interested:
In the below article is the latest on the Chehalis Basin Flood Control Zone District preferred alternative - a modified FRO (flood retention only) dam, claiming dubious and untested fish passage when not in use for flood control. This component of the Chehalis Basin Strategy will undergo an EIS once state Capital Budget funding is available.
I've been on the tours of the proposed impact area and am working with Wild Steelhead Coalition, Conservation Northwest and other stakeholders who have plenty of concerns about the proposed dam, but see opportunity in the habitat restoration component (ASRP) of the overall project.
While the prospect of a new dam on the Chehalis above Pe Ell is frustrating to say the least, a cool billion or so in fish and habitat restoration funding could go a long ways towards revitalizing the upper reaches of this watershed.
Hopefully a collaborative outcome lands somewhere in the middle, as flood concerns are not trivial, either.
Comments on the ASRP aren't public just yet, but here's WSC and CNW's input on the last comment opportunity (PEIS) for background if anyone's interested:
Chase,
Don't you or WSC and CNW be lulled by the habitat restoration component. It's like the carrot on a stick held in front of the horse - the horse keeps walking toward it but never gets there. Same thing here, first the money is appropriated to build the dam, the dam is built, then the money for that habitat restoration is never forthcoming. Even if the habitat bait was all one billion spent first before building the dam, it's a bad tradeoff. I know the modeling shows fishery benefits, but the thing about habitat improvement projects is that the vast majority of them don't deliver the prospective benefits. Far and away the best alternative is to stop degrading and destroying habitat where it still exists and to allow natural processes to gradually restore functional utility, and that takes time.
Sg
Don't you or WSC and CNW be lulled by the habitat restoration component. It's like the carrot on a stick held in front of the horse - the horse keeps walking toward it but never gets there. Same thing here, first the money is appropriated to build the dam, the dam is built, then the money for that habitat restoration is never forthcoming. Even if the habitat bait was all one billion spent first before building the dam, it's a bad tradeoff. I know the modeling shows fishery benefits, but the thing about habitat improvement projects is that the vast majority of them don't deliver the prospective benefits. Far and away the best alternative is to stop degrading and destroying habitat where it still exists and to allow natural processes to gradually restore functional utility, and that takes time.
Sg
The other problem with habitat projects (used as bait) is that in order to be effective at producing more fish in the future, restored habitat must be seeded with spawning fish in the now. That means raising escapement goals. Uh-oh....
Besides, the Chehalis has a lot of good habitat, despite the challenges. The 250K coho that returned in 2014 are a good benchmark for what the current habitat, under good ocean conditions, can produce. That made for some dynamite fishing! Granted, had WDFW known that many were coming, a LOT less would have made it upstream....
No dam! No creative alternative that ends up looking like a dam either!
Besides, the Chehalis has a lot of good habitat, despite the challenges. The 250K coho that returned in 2014 are a good benchmark for what the current habitat, under good ocean conditions, can produce. That made for some dynamite fishing! Granted, had WDFW known that many were coming, a LOT less would have made it upstream....
No dam! No creative alternative that ends up looking like a dam either!
I've been looking forward to exploring that area more. Mainly just to check it out and see if there are any cutthroat around. That must be spawning grounds for salmon up that high.
When angling for salmon the Willapa Bay tribs, I have talked to anglers from the Chehalis and Centralia areas that prefer to make the drive out to the coast for better salmon fishing, for brighter fish.
When angling for salmon the Willapa Bay tribs, I have talked to anglers from the Chehalis and Centralia areas that prefer to make the drive out to the coast for better salmon fishing, for brighter fish.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
