A delay to the environmental impact study on the proposed flow-through dam near Pe Ell is also delaying a decision on whether to endorse the project, or some other large-scale flood project, for the Office of Chehalis Basin.
The dam’s biggest proponent wants those delays to count.
In a June 12 memo, the Chehalis River Flood Control Zone — composed of the three Lewis County commissioners — asked Washington state Department of Ecology Director Casey Sixkiller to direct his department to accept new and updated information on the proposed flow-through dam project and incorporate it into the final environmental impact study (FEIS) of the project.
The memo argues acceptance of new information addressing mitigation plans with the project would not slow down the overall environmental review process and would make the study more reliable.
“This will allow decision makers and the public to reasonably rely on the FEIS’s contents and conclusions,” reads one of the final lines of the six-page memo.
The memo first addresses the director and endorses his decision to extend the timeline for the completion and release of a final study,stating “we agree that the agency taking the time to fully evaluate and incorporate all relevant information is the right step.”
It goes on to add that the extended timeline should include the time needed to "incorporate the latest scientific and technical information.”
With the original deadline for material submissions for the study back in 2024, it has been nearly two years since materials were submitted for study. The flood district’s memo argues accepting new materials would allow the final study to reflect a list of changes to the designs and plans for the structure.
Specific developments include the addition of more fish passages and an additional flood wall on the east side of Interstate 5 as well as new plans for construction and operation intended to reduce water use and the time a reservoir would be used in the event of a flood.
The memo also requests that the final version include feedback from tribes and the state on the district's proposed plans to mitigate any of the negative impacts of the structure.
Supporters of the project were disappointed when the draft version of the EIS was released without considering how mitigation would change the overall environmental impact. Ecology staff maintained that analysis of mitigation for such a large project is not required to be included in their analysis.
Sixkiller and Ecology have not issued any public response to the memo and requests from the district, but one appears to be in the works.
“We have received the Chehalis River Basin Flood Control District’s letter and memo and are working on a response, which we anticipate will be ready next week,” said Ecology spokesperson Curt Hart Friday afternoon in response to a request for comment.
Ecology announced the delay at the center of the issue earlier this month with a representative on the Chehalis Basin Board (CBB), Special Assistant to the Director Jennifer Hennessey, confirming the need for an extended timeline, during a June 4 CBB meeting. According to Hennessey, the delay was caused by the overwhelming number of comments on a draft version of the study released in November of last year.
As part of an EIS process, Ecology is obligated to respond to all comments on the draft study and incorporate them into the final report. However, it is not required to incorporate additional materials, design changes and other information.
Ecology received more than 2,000 comments on the draft study. Hennessey added that the department would need at least until the end of the year to respond to all comments and that no timeline for final completion was available.
Seemingly in response to the delay and the results of the draft EIS itself, members of the board during the same June 4 meeting voted to delay a decision on a long-term flood mitigation project in the upper basin.
The delayed decision process, which began roughly a year ago and was known as “comparative analysis,” was intended to have board members endorse a long-term flood strategy by the end of 2026.
It compared six flood strategies, which also included three large-scale flood mitigation projects — the flow-through dam near Pe Ell, a system of levees around the Twin Cities known as the Local Area Non-Dam (LAND) alternative and modifying the Skookumchuck Dam for more reliable flood storage and better fish passage.
As previously reported by The Chronicle, board members were disappointed with the draft version of the study itself, with some questioning some of the underlying assumptions used and others arguing it did not provide enough information on alternatives.
They ultimately agreed they could not make a decision with the information available.
To view the past reporting on the delay and board's response visit https://tinyurl.com/2wd5bxy7.
