Chehalis River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Project Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1051 Results

Sort:

Comment From: Gail Atkins

1/07/26 @ 11:04 AM
This proposed mega-dam could now cost close to $2 billion—with no good plan to pay for it. It would harm salmon and steelhead runs, hurt our fishing and hunting economies, and siphon funding from bigger-picture solutions. We can do better.
No attachments

Comment From: Laura Hanks

1/07/26 @ 11:03 AM
Dear Department of Ecology,
I am opposed to a dam on the Chehalis as a solution to flooding. There are other scientifically based solutions to flooding, including beaver dams! Human dams destroy habitat, animals--especially salmon and overturn trib...↓
No attachments

Comment From: GINGER LEE PIERCE

1/07/26 @ 10:42 AM
This is absolutely WRONG. it will have sever adverse effect on many things
No attachments

Comment From: Brian Benson

1/07/26 @ 10:29 AM
Please oppose the proposed dam on Washington's Chehalis River. There is no good plan to pay for it. It would harm salmon and steelhead runs, hurt our fishing and hunting economies, and siphon funding from bigger-picture solutions. Thanks!
No attachments

Comment From: Mike Brunson

1/07/26 @ 9:56 AM
Dams are bad.
No attachments

Comment From: Paul Allen

1/07/26 @ 9:52 AM
I am against the proposal for this dam. This dam will be very destructive to the long term habitat and property values of the areas affected by the dam.
We need a better, more thought out, long term solution.
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

1/07/26 @ 8:31 AM
Comment:
A dam won't stop major flooding long- term, but it will destroy irreplaceable habitat. The DEIS clearly lays out the reality that this dam will have catastrophic impacts. This river carries cultural, ecological, and spiritual importance tha...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Meaghan Doherty

1/07/26 @ 7:57 AM
We don't need anymore dams on our rivers!
No attachments

Comment From: Ronald Spies

1/07/26 @ 7:48 AM
I am against the Chehalis Dam Project. It is poorly thought out, the finances are murky, and will seriously harm salmon and steelhead runs. Consider other options.
No attachments

Comment From: Amy H

1/07/26 @ 7:37 AM
Hi all, I am opposed to the flood mitigation plans put forward. How about we build outside flood plains and use flood plains for recreation, historical and habitat values. The I-5 corridor commerce can figure out an environmentally safe solution to...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Thomas Valente

1/07/26 @ 7:15 AM
Please, for the preservation of wildlife, salmon and other fish, use other methods to control the river for watershed protection. a $2,000,000,000 damn is not the solution
No attachments

Comment From: M S

1/07/26 @ 6:17 AM
This proposed mega-dam could now cost close to $2 billion—with no good plan to pay for it. It would harm salmon and steelhead runs, hurt our fishing and hunting economies, and siphon funding from bigger-picture solutions. We can do better.
No attachments

Comment From: Lenore Sivulich

1/07/26 @ 5:45 AM
This proposed mega-dam could now cost close to $2 billion—with no good plan to pay for it. It would harm salmon and steelhead runs, hurt our fishing and hunting economies, and siphon funding from bigger-picture solutions. We can do better.
It's 2026...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Sue Sefscik

1/07/26 @ 3:49 AM
No dams!
No attachments

Comment From: Lorinda Padgett

1/07/26 @ 2:15 AM
This is a bad idea. Who's going to pay for it. We pay to much in taxes and don't need more. This would be bad for the salmon and steelhead runs.
No attachments

Comment From: Philip RATCLIFF

1/07/26 @ 12:58 AM
This proposed mega-dam could now cost close to $2 billion—with no good plan to pay for it. It would harm salmon and steelhead runs, hurt our fishing and hunting economies, and siphon funding from bigger-picture solutions. We can do better.
No attachments

Comment From: Prolite Rod Technology (Christopher Wegeleben)

1/06/26 @ 11:13 PM
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Chehalis River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Project. While I understand the need to address flood risk in the Chehalis–Centralia area, I have serious ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Chris Ringlee

1/06/26 @ 10:10 PM
We continue to see dams removed in Washington and this dam won't solve the long term problems facing the chehalis.

It will be cheaper in the long run buying out areas that flood and discourage future development in the flood plain.

Destroying one...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Diana Grob

1/06/26 @ 9:58 PM
This proposed mega-dam could now cost close to $2 billion—with no good plan to pay for it. It would harm salmon and steelhead runs, hurt our fishing and hunting economies, and siphon funding from bigger-picture solutions. We can do better.
We all kno...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Pamela Miller

1/06/26 @ 9:47 PM
Please do not build the huge mega-dam. It will be devastating to salmon and steelheads. Salmon travel back to their place of birth to spawn. If they can't get there it not only hurts their populations, but it also stops the fishing which brings so mu...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Margaret Haldane

1/06/26 @ 9:31 PM
Having reviewed the related documents, I cannot see that the stated purpose for the project justifies the negative impacts on the environment. Degradation of fish populations numbers as well as genetic changes, soil stability, water quality, habitat ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Sherry Bupp

1/06/26 @ 9:16 PM
Dams have been shown to be much more damaging than helpful to the ecosystem. Several dams on the Snake River are being destroyed to repair salmon runs and improve the lives of people, animals, and plants in the area. Dams won't stop major flooding lo...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Deborah Wells

1/06/26 @ 9:15 PM
Ecology studied the possible significant and adverse impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the project, and summarized findings in the revised draft environmental impact statement (EIS). The review looked at impacts to the natural ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Peter Murray

1/06/26 @ 8:38 PM
I'm totally opposed to building a dam for flood control. A dam isn't the best way to control flooding. There are better science based methods that exist. However, a dam will destroy valuable habitat and violate cultural and ecological aspects. ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

1/06/26 @ 8:21 PM
Leave the river alone. No more dams that create major impacts for the environment around. Including and especially Tribal impacts. Do the right thing!
No attachments

Comment From: Tara Charkowski

1/06/26 @ 8:04 PM
PLease do not allow a dam to be built on the Chehalis River. It is a waste of money that will harm the environment.
No attachments

Comment From: John Duggan

1/06/26 @ 7:58 PM
Building dams is yesterday's technology. Pull your heads out of the past and act for the greatest benefit for all, including fish and wildlife.
No attachments

Comment From: Joan A Julius

1/06/26 @ 7:34 PM
I am concerned about the miles of river bank the will be stripped bare to build a retention area. Because this is "flow through" the river banks on both sides will not be covered by a lake. Just our normal amount of rain will create a large amount ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Richard Stern

1/06/26 @ 7:33 PM
• A dam won't stop major flooding long- term, but it will destroy irreplaceable habitat. The DEIS clearly lays out the reality that this dam will have
catastrophic impacts. • The Chehalis supports salmon, elk, birds, steelhead, lamprey, beavers,
otte...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Dave Frank

1/06/26 @ 7:27 PM
Protect Chehalis River Basin Flood Control Zone District.
No attachments

Comment From: Mack Hunter

1/06/26 @ 7:24 PM
This is a bad idea that won't meaningfully decrease the risk of flood to communities in the Chehalis Basin. Not only that, it ignores proven big-picture flood reduction strategies such as reintroducing beaver into the landscape and reducing the wides...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Stephanie Snyder

1/06/26 @ 7:00 PM
There must be a way to make sure that any action taken doesn't interfere with salmon's run from place of birth to the ocean and back to place of birth. They are an iconic symbol of the PNW, and as such, should be afforded some honor and respect. Th...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Chris Sheline

1/06/26 @ 6:53 PM
No dam!
No attachments

Comment From: Suzanne Fernstrom

1/06/26 @ 6:50 PM
This proposed mega-dam could now cost close to $2 billion—with no good plan to pay for it. It would harm salmon and steelhead runs, hurt our fishing and hunting economies, and siphon funding from bigger-picture solutions. We can do better.

It's 202...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Robert Moore

1/06/26 @ 6:44 PM
Please no dam. Most dams need to come down. Save the river and the salmon.
Thank You
No attachments

Comment From: Teresa DeLorenzo

1/06/26 @ 6:43 PM
Don't dam the Chehalis. There are better ways to manage potential floods that don't destroy habitat for fish and wildlife.

The proposed mega-dam could now cost upwards of $2 billion—with no plan to pay for it. It would harm salmon and steelhead runs...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Andrew LeFort

1/06/26 @ 6:34 PM
No damn dam!
No attachments

Comment From: CAROLE CROPLEY

1/06/26 @ 6:30 PM
We all know that dams aren't the answer—not when we have modern, proven flood solutions that can protect people, the land, and salmon. Now is the time to put this mega-dam firmly behind us, and focus on real solutions that will improve our fish runs ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: William Tino

1/06/26 @ 6:29 PM
Another ill-conceived and unnecessary damage on a critical river for migratory fish (salmon, steelhead) will only exacerbate an already critical reduction of these fish populations that have been critical to indigenous tribes of the Pacific Northwest...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Lisa Maki

1/06/26 @ 6:28 PM
A dam won't stop major flooding long term on the Chehalis, but it will destroy irreplaceable habitat as the DEIS clearly outlines. In addition, the Chehalis provides critical habitat for salmon, elk, birds, steelhead, lamprey, beavers, and
otters tha...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Rev. Maria Riter Wilson

1/06/26 @ 6:16 PM
We must save our environment. If we do not, we will all die eventually. It is our sacred duty to protect Mother Earth.
No attachments

Comment From: Mira Wiegmann

1/06/26 @ 6:11 PM
Better land management such as the restoration of wetlands and the reintroduction of beavers to improve groundwater retention is a better answer to area flooding than dam building. Please prioritize other means to reduce runoff and increase water re...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Virginia Rosenkranz

1/06/26 @ 6:09 PM
this dam must not be built! It is environmentally harmful and will destroy the salmon and the fishing industry in Washington and Oregon. If we can vote against this we certainly will!
No attachments

Comment From: Frank Jahn

1/06/26 @ 6:07 PM
I am opposed to the Chehalis River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Project. A new dam is not the answer. A new dam would harm salmon and steelhead runs, hurt our fishing and hunting economies, and siphon funding from bigger-picture solutions. There are...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Polina Danilyuk

1/06/26 @ 5:57 PM
• A dam won't stop major flooding long- term, but it will destroy irreplaceable habitat. The DEIS clearly lays out the reality that this dam will have
catastrophic impacts. • The Chehalis supports salmon, elk, birds, steelhead, lamprey, beavers,
otte...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Dan Sherwood

1/06/26 @ 5:56 PM
I believe that a dam won't stop the impacts of flooding in the long term but it would damage one of the remaining free rivers in Washington.
No attachments

Comment From: Hope Crescione

1/06/26 @ 5:48 PM
We only have ONE planet!
No attachments

Comment From: Billy Angus

1/06/26 @ 5:45 PM
WATER IS LIFE!!
No attachments

Comment From: Vikram Sikand

1/06/26 @ 5:44 PM
It's 2026. We all know that dams aren't the answer—not when we have modern, proven flood solutions that can protect people, the land, and salmon. Now is the time to put this mega-dam firmly behind us, and focus on real solutions that will improve our...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Patrick Goldie

1/06/26 @ 5:37 PM
Repair and reduce FLOOD DAMAGE!
No attachments

Comment From: Ken Klemke

1/06/26 @ 5:32 PM
Not much to say, but is there any beaver activity on the river? If not, maybe that could be part of the solution. �
No attachments

Comment From: tosh myers

1/06/26 @ 5:30 PM
This project will kill salmon, and like dominoes, tourism and businesses go next...very bad idea on every level....going backwards from the goal of saving salmon, local economies, and natural beauty...please do not do this!
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

1/06/26 @ 5:29 PM
A dam won't stop major flooding long- term, but it will destroy irreplaceable habitat. The DEIS clearly lays out the reality that this dam will have
catastrophic impacts. • The Chehalis supports salmon, elk, birds, steelhead, lamprey, beavers,
otters...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Helen Ost

1/06/26 @ 5:27 PM
I support the Chehalis salmon and steelhead. But a poorly planned and designed dam costing too much money is being planned that will harm the Chehalis salmon and steelhead. Fifteen percent of Chehalis Basin steelhead are produced within a couple of...↓
No attachments

Comment From: eric nylen

1/06/26 @ 5:25 PM
The chehalis river is a the second largest river in Washington state and a major Pacific Northwest salmon stream. It is also a place of a rare tidal surge notable for a species-rich wetland plain. Clearly this dam would create untold harm to both wi...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Beth Jane Freeman

1/06/26 @ 5:17 PM
We must protect the environment wherever we can.
No attachments

Comment From: Julie Edwards

1/06/26 @ 5:15 PM
Please cancel your proposed construction plans and preserve the salmon.
No attachments

Comment From: Andrew Turner

1/06/26 @ 5:14 PM
A dam on the Chehalis River will negatively impact already threatened steelhead and salmon runs without providing any power or flood control solutions not already achievable by other proven and less expensive methods and/or alternatives. Washington ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Jianna Lieberman

1/06/26 @ 5:06 PM
While I am supportive of flood mitigation, we have to find a way to complete infrastructure projects without significant impact to fish species, aquatic habitat, wildlife species and habitats. We have damaged the earth enough. I would rather see adap...↓
No attachments

Comment From: AMEE PACHECO

1/06/26 @ 5:03 PM
Not only will building a dam on the Chehalis River not adequately mitigate flooding in the region, but it would also harm the state's fish populations. This is a terrible use of taxpayer funds. Please do not build this dam.
No attachments

Comment From: Kathleen Roche

1/06/26 @ 5:02 PM
A dam will kill the Chehalis river. I am opposed to any action that harms fish runs.
No attachments

Comment From: Kevin Quinn

1/06/26 @ 4:59 PM
Let's learn from our past mistakes - don't lose this vital fish artery for power that can be more sustainably and less expensively provided by other methods.
No attachments

Comment From: Beth Levin

1/06/26 @ 4:58 PM
This proposed mega-dam could now cost close to $2 billion—with no good plan to pay for it. It would harm salmon and steelhead runs, hurt our fishing and hunting economies, and siphon funding from bigger-picture solutions. We can do better.
No attachments

Comment From: Tom Toretta

1/06/26 @ 4:56 PM
I am opposed to this dam project. I feel it will be more detrimental than it will be beneficial to the environment and the local communities.

Thank you,
Tom Toretta
No attachments

Comment From: Bryan Lacie

1/06/26 @ 4:54 PM
A dam is dangerous, wasteful and shortsighted. We can do better than the massive disruption to the ecosystem and the massive expenditure of money we don't have.
No attachments

Comment From: Maria Magana

1/06/26 @ 4:52 PM
The proposed mega-dam on the Chehalis River could cost close to $2 Billion with no good plan to pay for it. It would harm the salmon and steelhead runs, hurt our fishing and hunting economies, and siphon funding from bigger-picture solutions. This pr...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Adam Lee

1/06/26 @ 4:49 PM
This proposed dam would permanently block one of the last free rivers in Washington. As a water resources engineer, and a fisherman that enjoys rivers that still allow salmon and steelhead returns, I opposed this new dam.
This dam won't stop major ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Dorothy Frisch

1/06/26 @ 4:48 PM
Haven't we learned by now that REMOVING existing dams helps repopulate our rivers, improves the ecosystem for the whole food chain, and keeps the land pristine. Do not put more dams in place in Washington!!
No attachments

Comment From: Kim Koch

1/06/26 @ 4:48 PM
We are just beginning to see the amazing resistance of wild salmon when they have free flowing rivers. The removal of the Klamath dam as well as the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams have shown us that dam removal is the future of our rivers and absolutel...↓
No attachments

Comment From: JON KLINGEL

1/06/26 @ 4:46 PM
Protect salmon and steelhead! Dams have too many negative impacts. Have we learned nothing?
No attachments

Comment From: jack paul

1/06/26 @ 4:45 PM
The river does NOT need to be dammed, and is a terrible task that will not solve the problem.
No attachments

Comment From: Marie Wakefield

1/06/26 @ 4:44 PM
This proposed mega-dam could now cost close to $2 billion—with no good plan to pay for it. It would harm salmon and steelhead runs, hurt our fishing and hunting economies, and siphon funding from bigger-picture solutions.
No attachments

Comment From: Marc Silverman

1/06/26 @ 4:43 PM
The proposed Washington Chehalis Rivermega-dam could now cost close to $2 billion—with no good plan to pay for it. It would harm salmon and steelhead runs, hurt our fishing and hunting economies, and siphon funding from bigger-picture solutions. We c...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Martha Maskall

1/06/26 @ 4:43 PM
I am concerned about the proposed Chehalis River Project. We need to respect the river environment!!!
No attachments

Comment From: Louis Hunt

1/06/26 @ 4:42 PM
9196221400
No attachments

Comment From: Vanessa LaValle

1/06/26 @ 4:37 PM
I oppose the FRE. It is a tragedy to commit to such large a purchase without funding. I imagine our Chehalis Basin tax dollars, flood district funds and proposed bonds will follow at a time when the average resident is crushed with rising prices, inf...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Rick Goble

1/06/26 @ 1:43 PM
I support the Chehalis River Basin Flood Control Zone District's proposed flood damage reduction project for the Chehalis–Centralia area, including construction of a flood retention facility and temporary reservoir near Pe Ell and planned improvement...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Ian McDonald

1/06/26 @ 12:41 PM
My family owns property just outside of Pe Ell, Washington on the Chehalis River and values it greatly for the natural beauty of the landscape. The Chehalis River itself and the people who benefit from living alongside it -- pretty much the entire po...↓
No attachments

Comment From: William Townsend

1/06/26 @ 11:08 AM
I own 14 apartment units located at 523 Woodland Ave in Centralia, WA. Twelve of these apartments flooded in the 2007 flood. Following the flood, FEMA estimated the damage to these apartments at over $400,000. It took me about 6 months to recover ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Mike McAuley

1/06/26 @ 11:05 AM
Please spend the money on resilience strategies, removing non-essential structures from the flood plain and restorations, not a small impoundment in Pe Ell.

Having grown up and with all of my family still in the Chehalis River basin, we have either ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Robert Witkop

1/06/26 @ 10:07 AM
$2,000,000,000 to limit flooding to 1000 homes and I 5. How is that a good use of tax funds? Where is the USACE Benefit Cost Analysis?
No attachments

Comment From: Fred Ramsey

1/06/26 @ 8:40 AM
I'm in support of a non-dam solution for the flood prone Chehalis River Basin.
We have many examples where the floodplain/watershed restoration has been a far better solution than a built dam structure.
Dams encourage the continuing unsustainable l...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Paul Bakke

1/05/26 @ 9:38 PM
January 5, 2026
From: Paul Bakke
4031 Wexford Loop SE
Olympia, WA 98501
Bakke456@hotmail.com

To: SEPA Revised Draft EIS for the Proposed Chehalis Flood Damage Reduction Project
c/o Bobbak Talebi
Southwest Region Office
P.O. Box 47775
Olympia, WA 985...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Sam Rich

1/05/26 @ 8:55 PM
Since your EIS found that:
" The revised draft environmental impact statement found constructing and operating the flow-through dam and temporary reservoir would significantly and negatively impact fish and wildlife as well as aquatic and land habita...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Maggie Sanders

1/05/26 @ 6:47 PM
Attachments:

Comment From: Craig Mackie

1/05/26 @ 5:40 PM
The upper Chehalis River valley has significant potential for habitat restoration and community flood-proofing — work that can reduce flood risk while also supporting salmon recovery and community resilience. (Local Actions Non-Dam Alternative based ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Chad Braunschweig

1/05/26 @ 4:22 PM
Build the flow thru dam. Mud mountain dam protects the entire valley from puyallup to renton. Mud Mountain is permanent. The flow thru is brilliant. If Chehalis and Centralia just build levies to protect themselves, they are sending untold amounts of...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Rebecca Lexa

1/05/26 @ 4:04 PM
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed dam. It will have deleterious ecological effects on both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Flood mitigation should be done via habitat restoration, to include along the upper Chehalis.
No attachments

Comment From: Francis Noedel

1/05/26 @ 3:56 PM
This project is too expensive, too risky, and provides too few true benefits to be accepted. It does nothing to protect this beautiful wild river and its inhabitants. I strongly oppose it adoption.
No attachments

Comment From: Michael Smith

1/03/26 @ 9:50 AM
I am in supprt of building a dam. However, getting Tribal approval will likely not happen, as it can be seen as a violation to Treaty Rights, specifically for the Quinault (a Treaty Tribe). Make the decision and be prepared to go to court for a long ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Ronda Larson Kramer

12/31/25 @ 4:20 PM
Science-based, non-dam flood solutions already exist for the Chehalis Basin. Floodplain reconnection, side-channel and wetland restoration, strategic relocation from high-risk areas, and investments in resilient local infrastructure reduce flood risk...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Harley McAllister

12/29/25 @ 11:42 AM
Salmon numbers are in decline regionally, and this project creates significant added risk. Furthermore, there is no plan for funding and supporting ongoing operation of this dam. There are alternatives that provide benefits to both flood protection ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Matt DeAmico

12/23/25 @ 8:07 AM
I am opposed to constructing a flood retention facility. It is not a cost effective use of taxpayer money and will not bring any environmental benefits to Washington. The proposal does not thoroughly analyze environmental consequences, loss of salm...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Stevie Charley

12/22/25 @ 5:49 PM
I oppose the Chehalis River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Project as proposed in the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

While flood protection is important, constructing a flood retention facility and temporary reservoir on the Chehalis Ri...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Laurie Kerr

12/22/25 @ 2:52 PM
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Chehalis River Basin Flood Damage Reduction Project. While flood mitigation is an urgent and legitimate need in the Chehalis Basin, this project—particularly the proposed dam—poses unaccept...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Michael Martinez

12/22/25 @ 10:14 AM
Analysis in Washington Department of Ecology's revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) shows the expanded "mega-dam" would offer limited flood protection while causing significant harm decimating salmon runs and devastating a river valley...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Michael Chiavario

12/21/25 @ 9:54 PM
No dam please.
No attachments

Comment From: Jon Harwood

12/21/25 @ 10:16 AM
According to the slide in Meg Bommarito's presentation for Dept. of Ecology on Dec. 4 2025, salmon populations will be in decline even in the No Action Alternative. The construction of the dam (FRE) will likely cause extinction of Spring Chinook and ...↓
Attachments:

Comment From: David Chaput

12/21/25 @ 9:42 AM
As one of the leads on the LAND alternative committee, it became abundantly clear that the only feasible option to mitigate flooding while protecting fish was to construct a temporary holding facility on the upper Chehalis river. this option is clea...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

12/21/25 @ 6:10 AM
No one wants or needs a dam here! This will decimate fish populations and affect everything downstream. We've been fighting this for years, no more dams!
No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]