Clallam County recommends ‘E1’ Dungeness Reservoir footprint, seeks funding to finish design

Clallam County Public Works on Feb. 10 recommended proceeding with the so-called “E1” design footprint for the proposed Dungeness River reservoir and resetting the design work so the county can complete permitting and seek construction funding.

The county’s presentation to the Board of Commissioners said the E1 footprint — a two-cell layout sited to avoid the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) easement — would store roughly 960 acre-feet, would meet late‑season irrigation needs for downstream gravity-fed parcels in modeled scenarios, and would avoid the cost and time of relocating BPA transmission infrastructure. Public Works estimated the current construction cost for an E1 configuration at about $36.6 million and for a full‑span alternative (E4) at about $49.3 million.

Why it matters: county staff said E1 can be filled under modeled hydrology and climate scenarios and would supply the critical last 30 days of irrigation water for the parcels the project targets. Larger footprints give more operational flexibility but carry additional cost and multi‑year schedule risk driven mainly by potential relocation or reconfiguration of BPA towers and lines.

Public Works said the county has already spent about $2.24 million on site investigations, surveys, geotechnical work and early design dating back several years. Consultants estimate another $1.3–1.6 million is needed to reach 90% design and permitting; county staff reported roughly $800,000 remains in an active state streamflow grant, leaving an estimated $500,000–$800,000 gap if the county pursues the E1 path. Staff described additional possible funding sources: a FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) “phase 1” award that could contribute roughly $100,000–$150,000 to refine design; potential reallocation of remaining cleanup contract funds; and the option of shifting portions of previously awarded state streamflow construction grants into design if Ecology approves.

Public Works emphasized tradeoffs. E1 avoids the BPA easement and therefore reduces the need for negotiations or infrastructure relocation; E2/E3 may fit more storage into the same general footprint but would require more excavation and more detailed BPA review; E4 would require relocation/reconfiguration of BPA towers, adding an estimated $3–5 million in direct relocation cost and an additional 3–4 years to schedule under current assumptions.

The board heard updates on related components the county must address for an integrated project: upstream improvements at the Highland irrigation headgate (including a settling basin, about 6,000 feet of 36‑inch piping and flow control automation), downstream conveyance upgrades needed to deliver water to irrigation users, a site cleanup bid package the county expects to advertise in spring, and a separate stormwater capture/infiltration concept being proposed by the City of Sequim to use county property for infiltration that could later be augmented with reservoir releases.

County staff noted a congressional appropriation administered by USDA NRCS of about $2.7 million targeted at upstream piping, and a US Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART award of about $1.8 million under contract for portions of the upstream work. Public Works reported the option to phase construction and observed that if the county moves forward now the most pragmatic path given available grant awards and schedule risk is to reset design toward the E1 footprint.

“We are recommending option e 1,” Public Works said during the presentation.

Where discussion stood: commissioners asked about FEMA’s status and grant timing; staff said FEMA has not cancelled the HMGP program but additional information requests are pending and the county is coordinating with Washington Emergency Management Division. One commissioner voiced public support for proceeding with E1 at the county’s recommended level of design and to return to the board with specific contract and funding requests as the work group confirms next steps.

Next steps: Public Works said it will (1) present the recommendation to the multi‑stakeholder work group, (2) negotiate any supplemental site investigations needed to reset design around the more southern E1 footprint, (3) pursue the FEMA phase‑1 HMGP funding and request Ecology to reallocate any available cleanup savings to close the immediate design gap, and (4) return to the board with a recommended contract amendment or new consulting agreement to carry the project through the next design milestone.