An environmental review is beginning on a proposed hydropower project on the Columbia River, adjacent to the John Day Dam near Goldendale. Free Flow Power Project 101, LLC (FFP Project), is proposing to build a closed-loop water storage system that releases water from an upper reservoir downhill to a lower reservoir to generate energy.
This review is done under SEPA, the State Environmental Policy Act.
Determination of Significance and scoping for an EIS
We've reviewed the project information and determined that it is likely to have significant environmental impacts requiring full evaluation in an environmental impact statement (EIS).
The first step toward developing an EIS is called scoping. Tribes, stakeholders, community members and others are invited to weigh in on what should be considered in the scope of a full EIS.
The EIS will examine possible significant and adverse impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the proposed project. This includes impacts to both the natural environment and nearby communities through studies of air quality, plant and animal habitat, transportation, water and cultural resources. The EIS also will analyze how impacts can be reduced or eliminated through mitigation.
A final EIS is expected to be complete by mid 2022.
Read frequently asked questions about SEPA to learn more about the environmental review process.
Public comment period and meetings
We're looking for comments on what should be studied in the EIS, project alternatives, and what mitigation should be considered to reduce project impacts. Documents available for review include the SEPA checklist and Determination of Signficance.
Scoping comments will be accepted through Feb. 12, 2021, and may be made online or in writing to:
Sage Park
Washington Department of Ecology
1250 West Alder Street
Union Gap, WA 98903-0009
Attn: Goldendale Scoping
Two online public meetings are scheduled for Jan. 27 and Feb. 3, to share basic information about the project and to accept comments on the scope of the EIS. Due to Covid-19, we're only offering online meetings. For those with limited or no internet access, there will be an option to join each meeting by phone.
Online meeting information
Meeting date |
Time |
Link to meeting |
Access code |
Call in number |
Jan. 27, 2021 |
6:00 PM |
Join the event |
177 243 8003 |
415-655-0001 |
Feb. 3, 2021 |
10:00 AM |
Join the event |
141 470 2345 |
415-655-0001 |
- Each meeting will start with a short presentation, followed by a formal hearing to accept public comments on the scope of the EIS.
- We will present the same information at both meetings.
- You can register in advance by clicking on "join the event" link or join the meeting the day of the event. Join online or use the phone number to listen in.
For more information or to request an interpreter, please contact Meg Bommarito at 425-649-7128.
Para más información o para solicitar un intérprete, favor de comunicarse con Meg Bommarito al 425-649-7128.
Want to receive project updates?
Washington aspires to grow communities in balance with natural resources. SEPA is Washington’s State Environmental Policy Act that has helped achieve this balance for over 50 years. It helps manage the balance between the economy and protecting natural resources and quality of life.
SEPA outlines a process for identifying and analyzing potential environmental impacts associated with governmental decisions. These decisions may be related to issuing permits for private projects, constructing public or private facilities, or regulations, policies, and plans.
The SEPA review process helps agency decision-makers, applicants, and the public understand how the entire proposal will affect the environment. SEPA requires government — including Ecology — to take environmental factors into consideration before making decisions on proposed projects.
Local and state governments use science and objective data to evaluate thousands of projects every year. The process is straightforward. A lead agency evaluates the proposal and determines the level of impact it will have on the environment. This helps establish the level of environmental review. The lead agency then makes a formal decision called a threshold determination for the project in one of three categories:
- Determination of Nonsignificance — The project is not likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts.
- Determination of Mitigated Nonsignificance — The project could have significant adverse environmental impacts, but measures (mitigation) can be taken to avoid, reduce, or eliminate those impacts.
- Determination of Significance — The project will likely result in significant adverse impacts. The lead agency is responsible for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. An EIS provides the public, the lead agency and other agency decision makers a more thorough review of the project than what’s typically submitted in the SEPA checklist.
The time necessary to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) review varies greatly between proposals and depends on the complexity of the proposal and the scope of the review. The average EIS takes about 18-24 months to complete.
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) recommends the completion of an EIS in 24 months, but every proposal is different and each is reviewed independently so the EIS is comprehensive, objective, transparent, and defensible. Generally, the more complicated projects take longer.
The environmental review process helps agencies and the public identify potential impacts to people and the environment that might result from a project that requires a permit or other agency decision. It also helps agencies identify actions that can be taken to help protect people and the environment from project impacts.
The SEPA review process looks at a wide range of potential impacts, including natural resources (plants, animals, water, etc.) and the built environment (traffic, noise, etc.). The SEPA process also identifies possible options for reducing those impacts. Agencies and local governments will use information from the SEPA review when making permit decisions.
Scoping is the first step in the process of developing an environmental impact statement, or EIS. After a lead agency (or co-lead agency) issues a determination of significance, they will decide what impacts should be studied, how they should be studied, what alternatives should be considered, and what mitigation should be required to lessen or eliminate the impacts. This analysis is summarized in an EIS.
A 21-day public comment period is required for the scoping process. The lead agency asks tribes, members of the public, and other agencies to assist in identifying what should be studied and how. We are also interested to hear ideas for mitigation and project alternatives. This information collected is used to help develop the scope of the EIS.
The purpose of an Environmental Impact Statement or EIS under SEPA is to fully understand the project’s probable, significant, and adverse environmental impacts, and then determine if these probable impacts can be reduced or eliminated. The EIS document provides a comprehensive and objective evaluation of those impacts, reasonable alternatives, and mitigation measures that would avoid or minimize impacts.
The EIS is not a decision. It’s not a permit and it’s not an approval for the project to move forward. An EIS provides decision-makers important information to consider in making project decisions.
Concerns identified during the scoping process can be further evaluated when a draft EIS is being prepared. It's usually easier and more effective to comment early, during the scoping process than wait until the draft EIS.is available for comment.
Comments can address:
- If the proposal is clearly described.
- Which elements of the environment should be studied, such as air quality, water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, transportation systems, etc.
- Reasonable range of alternatives (identification of an alternative site or approach that achieves the proposal objective).
- Extent of study and analyses that are needed to understand impacts.
- Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate or offset effects of the proposal.
Several opportunities for public involvement are built into the EIS process. The first is scoping, where the public can weigh in on what the lead agency should study in the EIS. We will hold two online public meetings as part of this process. A second public comment period will be held for the draft EIS. We will consider all public input before finalizing the scope of the EIS and the EIS itself.
A preliminary list of the anticipated permits and decisions was provided by the project proponent and is included in the table below. After the SEPA environmental review is completed, permit decision-makers will use the information to help them decide if permits should be granted, conditioned or declined.
Agency |
Permit |
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) |
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental review
FERC license
|
Bonneville Power Administration |
Large Generation Interconnection Agreement |
US Army Corps of Engineers |
Clean Water Act Section 404 |
Washington Department of Ecology |
Clean Water Act Section 401
NPDES construction stormwater permit
Reservoir permit
Prospective Purchaser Agreement (detailed proposal for site cleanup)
|
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife |
Hydraulic Project Approval |
Klickitat County |
Building permits |
Most permit decisions are made after SEPA process is completed and a final EIS is published. SEPA documents are considered by agencies when making permit decisions.
More project information
Federal environmental review process
This project is also being reviewed for environmental impacts through the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. To review the federal environmental review documents, visit its document library.
401 Water Quality Certification
We're working with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to license hydropower projects. The proponent submitted an application to receive a 401 Water Quality Certification for the project. The comment period on the application ended Nov. 9, 2020.
If we determine that the project can meet water quality standards, we will issue the certification. Sometimes this is done with conditions to make sure that the standards will be met. These conditions become part of the FERC license.
Cleanup of contamination left behind by former aluminum smelter
The lower reservior of the proposed project would be located on a portion of the former Columbia Gorge Aluminum smelter site that is currently going through the process to clean up contamination left behind by past operations. We're working with liable parties Lockheed Martin and NSC Smelter to investigate the nature and extent of contamination and develop a cleanup plan for the entire site.
FFP Project 101, LLC, is seeking a prospective purchaser consent decree (PPCD) to define the cleanup actions needed for the portion of the site they propose to purchase for the energy project.
We will continue to make sure that activities at the site, whether they are related to cleanup or a future use, meet local, state, and federal requirements to protect the environment.