Environmental report analyzes impacts of proposed Chehalis River flood reduction project – Department of Ecology – State of Washington (.gov)

Report on the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Chehalis River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Project

1.0 Introduction: Balancing Climate Adaptation and Environmental Sustainability

The Washington Department of Ecology has released a revised draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposed flood damage reduction project in the Chehalis River basin. This report analyzes the proposal’s alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), evaluating the inherent trade-offs between enhancing community resilience and protecting vital ecosystems. The EIS provides critical information for a multi-stakeholder decision-making process, with public input sought through February 4, 2026.

2.0 Project Analysis through the Lens of Sustainable Development Goals

2.1 Infrastructure, Climate Resilience, and Community Safety (SDG 11, SDG 13)

The core of the proposal is designed to advance goals related to sustainable communities and climate action by mitigating the impacts of severe flooding, which has repeatedly damaged infrastructure and closed major transportation routes.

• Objective: To reduce flood-related damage to homes, farms, and businesses, directly supporting SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, particularly Target 11.5, which aims to significantly reduce the number of people affected by water-related disasters.
• Proposed Actions:
  1. Construction of a flow-through flood retention facility on the Chehalis River near Pe Ell.
  2. Modifications to the Chehalis-Centralia Airport levee.
• Climate Action Link: The project serves as an adaptation measure to strengthen resilience against climate-related hazards, as called for in SDG 13: Climate Action. However, the analysis notes that even with the project, flood risks will persist under future climate change scenarios.

2.2 Economic and Agricultural Protection (SDG 8)

By aiming to prevent damage to commercial and agricultural assets, the project seeks to safeguard the local economy, aligning with SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth. Protecting these assets from recurring flood events contributes to economic resilience and stability within the basin.

3.0 Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

3.1 Water Ecosystems and Biodiversity (SDG 6, SDG 14, SDG 15)

The EIS identifies significant adverse impacts on the region’s natural environment, posing a direct challenge to goals for protecting life on land and below water.

• Impact on Aquatic Life: The analysis found the project would place additional burdens on salmon and other aquatic species. This conflicts with SDG 14: Life Below Water and SDG 15: Life on Land, specifically Target 15.1 concerning the conservation and restoration of freshwater ecosystems. Salmon populations in the basin are already in decline due to habitat loss and changing water conditions.
• Water Quality and Habitat: The project is expected to impact water quality and aquatic habitat, a critical consideration under SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation, which calls for the protection and restoration of water-related ecosystems.

3.2 Cultural Heritage and Indigenous Rights (SDG 11)

The project area contains sites of cultural importance, and the proposal could negatively affect these resources. This raises concerns related to SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities, Target 11.4, which calls for strengthening efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage. The potential impact on archaeological sites and cultural resources for the Quinault Indian Nation and the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation is a key consideration.

4.0 Governance, Stakeholder Engagement, and Public Consultation

4.1 Institutional Framework and Partnerships (SDG 16, SDG 17)

The project’s evaluation and decision-making process involves a broad coalition of stakeholders, reflecting a commitment to inclusive institutions and partnerships, central to SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions and SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals. The Chehalis Basin Board, which includes representatives from Tribal nations, government authorities, and various interest groups, will use the EIS to inform its recommendation on whether to proceed.

4.2 Public Consultation Process

Public input is integral to the environmental review. Comments on the revised draft EIS are being accepted through multiple channels until February 4, 2026.

• Online Submission: Via the official comment form.
• Mail Submission:
  
  SEPA Revised Draft EIS for the Chehalis Flood Damage Reduction Project
  
  c/o Bobbak Talebi
  
  P.O. Box 47775
  
  Olympia, WA 98504-7775
• In-Person Public Hearings:
  • Tuesday, Dec. 9, 2025
  • Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2026

  Both events will be held at Centralia College, with an open house at 5:30 p.m. and a public hearing from 6 to 8 p.m.

A separate federal environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is being conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with a draft expected in 2026.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  The article discusses the project’s potential impacts on “water quality” and the broader goal of restoring “aquatic habitat in the river basin,” which are central to ensuring the health of freshwater ecosystems.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  A primary goal of the proposed project is to “reduce flood damage” and protect “nearby communities.” The article explicitly mentions that severe flooding has “repeatedly damaged homes, farms and businesses” and critical infrastructure like “U.S. Interstate 5,” directly linking the project to making human settlements safer and more resilient. It also notes the potential impact on “archaeological sites and cultural resources,” which relates to protecting cultural heritage.

• SDG 13: Climate Action

  The article directly connects the project to climate change, stating that the analysis found “with climate change, flood risks would persist during extreme conditions.” This highlights the project as a climate adaptation measure designed to strengthen resilience against climate-related hazards like severe flooding.

• SDG 14: Life Below Water

  The environmental impact statement specifically analyzes the project’s effects on “fish” and “aquatic species.” The article highlights the decline of “salmon populations in the Chehalis basin” and the project’s potential to “place additional burdens on salmon and other aquatic species and their habitat,” making this goal highly relevant.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  The project is situated within the “3,400 square mile Chehalis River basin,” an inland freshwater ecosystem. The discussion of “habitat loss,” “scoured stream channels,” and the overall “Chehalis Basin Strategy” to restore the ecosystem connects the article to the protection and restoration of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  The article describes a multi-stakeholder partnership essential for the project’s evaluation and implementation. It involves government bodies (Washington Department of Ecology), an independent board (Chehalis Basin Board), Tribal nations (“Quinault Indian Nation,” “Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation”), and representatives of “agricultural, environmental and economic interests.” The public input process further exemplifies this collaborative approach.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 6.6: Protect and restore water-related ecosystems

  The article describes the “Chehalis Basin Strategy” as a “long-term action plan for…recovering salmon and other aquatic life throughout the…Chehalis River basin.” This directly aligns with the goal of restoring water-related ecosystems.

• Target 11.5: Significantly reduce the number of people affected and economic losses from disasters

  The entire premise of the project is to “reduce flood damage.” The article notes that past flooding has “damaged homes, farms and businesses” and “closed U.S. Interstate 5,” which are the exact types of economic and social impacts this target aims to mitigate.

• Target 11.4: Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage

  The analysis acknowledges that the project “could also affect archaeological sites and cultural resources for nearby Tribes,” indicating that safeguarding cultural heritage is a consideration in the environmental review process.

• Target 13.1: Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters

  The project is a direct response to the “severe flooding” that has repeatedly affected the region. The analysis’s consideration of future “flood risks” under “climate change” shows an effort to build adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards.

• Target 15.5: Take urgent action to halt the loss of biodiversity and prevent the extinction of threatened species

  The article highlights that “salmon populations in the Chehalis basin have declined due to a variety of factors including habitat loss.” The environmental assessment’s focus on the project’s impacts on these species reflects an effort to address the degradation of natural habitats and protect vulnerable species.

• Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships

  The decision-making structure, which includes the Chehalis Basin Board composed of government, tribal, and various interest group representatives, is a clear example of a multi-stakeholder partnership. Furthermore, the article details a formal “public input” process with mail, online, and in-person options, demonstrating a commitment to public and civil society engagement.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Economic and Social Impact Indicators (Implied)

  The article implies that progress can be measured by tracking the reduction in flood-related damages. Specific indicators would include the number of “homes, farms and businesses” damaged, the monetary value of economic losses, and the frequency and duration of closures of “U.S. Interstate 5” due to flooding.

• Ecosystem Health Indicators (Mentioned/Implied)

  The article explicitly mentions several measurable indicators of ecosystem health: “salmon populations,” “increased water temperatures,” and “low stream flows.” Progress towards habitat restoration could be measured by monitoring these variables over time. The extent of “habitat loss” or restoration could also be quantified in acres or river miles.

• Cultural Heritage Indicators (Mentioned)

  The number and status of “archaeological sites and cultural resources” affected by the project serve as a direct indicator for measuring the impact on cultural heritage.

• Partnership and Participation Indicators (Mentioned)

  The effectiveness of partnerships can be measured by the active participation of all stakeholders mentioned: the “Chehalis River Basin Flood Authority,” “Quinault Indian Nation,” “Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation,” and “agricultural, environmental and economic interests.” The number of public comments submitted via mail, online forms, and public hearings can serve as an indicator of public engagement.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

Source: ecology.wa.gov