Take Action: No Mega-Dam on the Chehalis River

Join us in standing up for a free-flowing river!

Flooding in the Chehalis Basin is a real and growing challenge, made worse by climate change. But a proposed mega-dam in the headwaters of the Chehalis River raises serious concerns about cost, safety, and irreversible environmental harm—while offering only limited flood-reduction benefits. The Washington Department of Ecology’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) outlines a dramatically expanded project spanning roughly 2,250 feet, with an estimated cost of $1.3–$2.3 billion and unresolved geotechnical risks, including fractured bedrock, landslide hazards, and potential faulting.

The DEIS also documents severe impacts to salmon and wildlife. The upper Chehalis is one of just three primary spawning areas in the basin, and the analysis shows Spring Chinook and Coho salmon could be nearly eliminated by mid-century, with long-term declines for Fall Chinook and steelhead. Biologists have documented active salmon redds within 1,000 feet of the proposed dam site, underscoring the importance of this stretch of river. The DEIS concludes many impacts would be “significant and unavoidable,” even with mitigation, despite the availability of proven non-dam flood solutions that can be implemented more quickly and with far less ecological harm.

Public comments regarding the DEIS are being accepted by the Department of Ecology through February 4th.

Use this portal to submit comments on the DEIS in opposition to the to the dam while supporting the Local Actions Non-Dam Alternative.

Feel free to adapt our sample letter below and submit your comments

Dear Department of Ecology,

I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed FRE dam on the upper Chehalis River. Based on the DEIS, the project would cause significant and unavoidable harm to salmon and steelhead, including major losses of Spring Chinook, Coho, Fall Chinook, and Steelhead populations. This stretch of the river is one of the Basin’s key spawning areas, and once damaged, these habitats cannot be replaced.

I am also concerned about the scale and cost of the proposed structure, as well as the unresolved safety and geotechnical risks identified in the DEIS. At an estimated $1.3–$2.3 billion, the dam would offer limited benefits while putting the river’s ecological health—and the communities that rely on it—at long-term risk

More effective, less damaging flood‑reduction approaches already exist, including the Local Actions Non‑Dam Alternative. I urge Ecology to pursue these solutions instead of the proposed dam.
Thank you for considering my comments.

Sincerely,
[Name]