Free Flow Power Project 101, LLC (FFP Project) proposes to build an off-channel water storage system adjacent to the Columbia River in Goldendale. The system would release water from an upper reservoir downhill to a lower reservoir to generate energy. Power produced would be provided to the electrical grid at the nearby John Day Substation in Oregon when other renewable sources, like wind and solar, are unavailable.
The public comment period on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Goldendale Energy Storage project ended Aug. 9 and we are reviewing the comments received.
The public comment period on the draft EIS ended Aug. 9, 2022. We are reviewing all comments recieved and expect to finalize the EIS at the end of this year.
The draft EIS examines significant and adverse environmental impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the Goldendale Energy Storage Project, and identifies whether and how those impacts may be reduced or eliminated.
Significant findings
The draft EIS studies local impacts to air quality, plants and animals and their habitat, transportation, water resources, and water quality. The analysis also recognizes the significant impacts to indigenous rights, cultures, traditions, and heritage at the proposed project site.
Terrestrial species & habitat impacts
The draft report identifies impacts and mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to plants, habitat, and wildlife. Other sections in the EIS describe lesser impacts that do not require mitigation.
Impacts to plants and animals include:
- Disturbance of plants and animals during 5-year construction period
- Permanent loss of 193.6 acres of existing habitat and temporary disturbance of 54 acres
- Impacts to special status species including golden eagle, little brown bat, and smooth desert parsley and other rare plants
Mitigation
The company developed a Vegetation Management Plan and a Wildlife Management Plan that contain mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. Mitigation includes purchase of additional property to be used as wildlife habitat, animal surveys before and after construction, and timing construction around eagle nesting season.
Tribal cultural & natural resource impacts
Section 4.9 of the draft EIS examines impacts to cultural sites and treaty-reserved tribal resources. The analysis considered impacts to the Yakama Nation, Warm Springs, Nez Perce, and Umatilla Tribes.
Impacts to tribal cultural and natural resources include:
- Disturbance or destruction of several archaeological sites and sacred cultural areas
- Degradation of the visual quality of the landscape, impacting cultural and spiritual practices and places
- Disturbance of plants and animals that have cultural significance to the Tribes
- Loss of medicinal and traditional plants and foods
Mitigation
To date, no mitigation has been identified that would reduce the significant impacts to Tribes.
Public hearings
Public hearings to accept oral comments were held:
Next steps
We are considering comments as we finalize the EIS, expected at the end of 2022. The EIS helps inform state and local permitting decisions. It is not a decision document, and does not determine whether a project moves forward.
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 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's document library.
401 Water Quality Certification
As part of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) process to license hydropower projects, the state has to issue a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification that the project aligns with state water quality standards. We are currently reviewing an application for Section 401 Certification, submitted on May 23, 2022, by Rye Development on behalf of FFP Project.
Cleanup of contamination left behind by former aluminum smelter
The lower reservoir of the proposed project would be located on a portion of the former Columbia Gorge Aluminum smelter site called the West Surface Impoundment. We are working with FFP Project to study and develop a cleanup plan to address contamination left behind by past smelter operations in this area.
Read our May 2022 blog for more information.
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.
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.
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.