Hydropower Reform Coalition - Northwest

Court: Project does not interfere with religious freedom

Rupak Thapaliya — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 16:10:04 -0500

In a recent decision (see the attachment below) issued by the US Court of Appeals, a judge decided that Snoqualmine Falls hydroelectric project does not interfere with a local tribe's religious freedom.

The Snoqualmie India Tribe considers Snoqualmine Falls that lies within the project boundary to be a sacred site that played a role in the creation of the tribe. It also believes that the mist created by the Falls connects the earth with the heaven. The 268-foot waterfall, located about 30 miles east of Seattle, has also been considered for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

The tribe had claimed that the operation of project as allowed in the license issued by FERC results in lower flow over the falls than would have occurred naturally. Naturally, the flows over Snoqualmie Falls would equal or exceed 1,000 cfs 80 percent of the time whereas under the license conditions, the minimum flows only exceed 200 cfs in one month, that too at only 450 cfs. Commissioner Nora Mead Brownwell, had dissented the issuance of a license in 2004 based on the flows allowed in the license.

The tribe also argued that the license to Puget Sound Energy, Inc. to operate the project violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) because (a) access to the Falls would be restricted, (b) the project would eliminate the mist which is part of the religious experience, and (c) the project would alter the natural sacred cycle of water flow. The tribe had requested the court for a stay order on issuance on license.

However, the Court declared that FERC's decision to issue license did not interfere with the tribe's rights to practice religion and that FERC's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

The Court decision states

...we hold that the FERC decision was supported by substantial evidence and demonstrates that the Commission properly balanced the beneficial public purposes specified in §10 of the Federal Power Act. The water flow requirements adopted by FERC in the First Rehearing Order were carefully considered during the thirteen-year relicensing proceeding and were included in the option recommended in the final EIS.

Furthermore the court decision states

... it was not arbitrary or capricious for FERC to conclude that increasing the minimum flow during May and June to 1,000 cfs would augment the Tribe's religious experience and result in a better balance of interests.

The Snoqualmie hydroelectric project is located on the Snoqualmie river in King county, WA and has the capacity of 44.4-megawatt (MW).

Attachment	Size
Opinion - Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. FERC - 9th Circuit -2008-10.pdf	99.29 KB

Governor opposes Bear Lake project in Utah

Rupak Thapaliya — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:48:34 -0500

Project: Hook Canyon: P-12707

The proposed 60-MW Hook Canyon project in Utah received a huge blow when the Governor of Utah decided that the voice of the general public and the value of the Bear lake for tourism and local ecosystem should not be compromised. Gov. Jon Huntsman recently directed the Division of State Parks and Recreation to drop negotiations for an easement, effectively killing the project.

The proposed project was never received well by anyone. At a public meeting on April 9, residents, environmentalists, economists, engineers and civic leaders gathered together to oppose the project which would have altered the natural environment that supports four endemic species of fish that are not found anywhere else in the world. A resident in the Bear Lake area said, "The potential to harm the area, is far too large to allow this type of an experiment to be continued. The risks are too great."

Read the transcripts of the meeting here.

FERC issues a 40-year license for Priest Rapids project on mid-Columbia River

Rupak Thapaliya — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 10:43:45 -0500

Project: Priest Rapids : P-2114

Last week, FERC issued a 40-year license to the Grant County PUD to operate the Priest Rapids hydro project.

The Priest Rapids project, consisting of Priest Rapids and Wanapum dams is the lowermost project on the Mid-Columbia River. Located upstream are three other FERC licensed projects- Rocky Reach, Rock Island, and Wells. The project affects multiple Columbia River species including sockeye salmon, steelhead, coho salmon, rainbow trout, and white sturgeon.

After a series of short term agreements limited to Chinook protections in the Hanford reach, Grant County PUD reached an agreement with state and federal agencies and tribes regarding the long-term operations of the entire project. Components of the agreement include fish passage criteria, habitat restoration, and hatchery obligations. This agreement formed the basis for the new license. Although measures related to Fall Chinook protection in the Hanford reach are included, there is ongoing monitoring to better assess the problem.

Information portal on Elwha Watershed and Dam Removal

Rupak Thapaliya — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:26:11 -0500

As preparations are being made to dismantle the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams on the Elwha River in 2009, the University of Idaho has developed a web portal with information on dam removal and watershed restoration. According to the website, the Elwha Watershed Information Resource, "...will integrate ecological and socioeconomic information that describes the physical environment, biological and human communities, and management issues in the Elwha watershed."

The website aims to facilitate information sharing to prepare and facilitate sound restoration of Elwha River after removal of the two dams that have been blocking salmons runs for almost a century. The website explains the impacts the dams have had on the watershed and the people. It contains scientific data and maps relating to management issues such as forestry, habitat, and land use.

HRC member and chair American Rivers was a partner in developing this web portal and has long been involved in the Elwha project.

Sullivan Creek Project to require surrendering of application

Rupak Thapaliya — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:05:57 -0500

Project: Sullivan Lake (Storage) : P-2225

Following a rehearing request by American Whitewater, Forest Service and Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, FERC ruled that the license for this project in Pend Oreille county, WA is still valid. This ruling overturned the previous FERC decision that would have allowed the licensee to simply abandon the project.

In the decision released on March 20, 2008, FERC states "Sullivan Creek Project requires licensing and the District must apply to surrender the license." FERC justified its decision by stating that licensees must surrender their application to ensure that project site is left in appropriate condition. The PUD will have to seek for authorization from Forest Service for use of land for any project related activity.

This decision has set a precedence that licensees cannot simply walk away from an abandoned project but instead have to provide a plan. For the Sullivan Creek, this rehearing ruling has ensured that the project is not abandoned in a manner that would have negatively impacted the river.

Montana dam breached to allow for toxic cleanup and removal

Rupak Thapaliya — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:15:18 -0500

The Milltown dam at the confluence of Blackfoot and Clark Fork rivers, just upstream of Missoula, MT, had been accumulating toxic wastes from mining uprivers including arsenic, zinc, copper and other heavy metals, thus making it a superfund site. FERC decided to decommission the dam in January 2005 to clean up these toxic chemicals.

American Whitewater (AW), an active HRC member was present along with hundreds of other people to witness the rivers flowing free. On Friday morning, a small channel was dug through the temporary coffer dam built last year to allow for diversion of water. The water quickly began eroding the coffer dam and carving off large chunks of sediment. By next morning the coffer dam was gone and the river was flowing free after a century. Watch this short video by AW showing the breaching of the dam.

The next two big tasks will be the clean up the river bottom and eventually remove the dam. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking the lead to clean up this superfund site.

Hydropower as a clean, renewable source of energy. PowerPoint

Rich Bowers — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 12:32:21 -0600

The attached PowerPoint was given during a lunch presentation at the University of Oregon's School of Law. Topic of discussion: Hydropower as a clean, renewable energy source.

Attachment	Size
Western Caucus PowerPoint2.ppt	1006 KB

Tidal, Wave Hydrokinetic Projects on the move in the Pacific Northwest

Rich Bowers — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:36:31 -0600

Besides FERC issuing the first ever hydrokinetic license for Washington's Makah Bay Project (FERC No. 12751-000), in December, Pacific, Gas & Electric signed the first contract to purchase wave energy with the Canadian firm Finavera Renewables for a small 2 megawatt project located about 2.5 miles off the coast of Eureka, CA with electricity to be delivered to customers onshore in northern and central California. PG&E says it is "cautiously optimistic" about wave energy's potential and, in fact, is also seeking to develop its own wave energy projects in addition to the power purchase agreement with Finavera.

In January, 2008, Green Wave Energy sent in a preliminary permit application for the Oregon Coastal Wave Energy Project (FERC No. 13047-000) to be located in the Pacific Ocean in Tillamook County,Oregon. Description of Project: The proposed project would consist of six developments, each containing five to 90 wave buoys, and with all projects estimated to have an average annual generation from 87.5 to 790 gigawatthours. The six projects are the Nehalen Development, Kockaway Development, Garibaldi Development, Netarts Development,
Nectucci Development, and Neskowin Development.

Tacoma Power is completing the second year of a tidal power feasibility analysis in Washington's Tacoma Narrows (Puget Sound) under the three-year preliminary permit issued by the Commission (FERC No. 12612). Tacoma Power submitted its application on September 15, 2005 and FERC issued the permit on February 22,2006. To date, only studies have been performed and no turbines are in the water.

At the end of January, Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington submitted a Pre-Application Document describing the existing environment of Puget Sound as it relates to the seven tidal energy projects for which the District holds preliminary permits. On February 22, 2007, the District was issued preliminary permits for five tidal energy projects proposed in and around Puget Sound (Rich Passage, P-12688;Spieden Channel, P-12689; Agate Passage, P-12691; San Juan Channel, P-12692; and Guemes Channel, P- 12698). On March 1, 2007 and March 9, 2007, Snohomish was issued preliminary permits for Deception Pass, P-12687, and Admiralty Inlet, P-12690. So far, the utility has only completed an investigation that includes evaluating each site’s potential for tidal energy generation and identifying the potential environmental, economic, and social impacts of a tidal energy development in Puget Sound. While the commercial fishery impacts of these new projects may not be as great in Washington as it is in Oregon, each of these projects are located in important recreational areas throughout Washington's Puget Sound and San Juan Islands.

So far, in-river hydrokinetic projects have not sought applications in the Pacific Northwest, except for several projects proposed for northern Alaska. But nationally, the number of in-river projects vastly outweigh the number of wave or tidal applications. The Ste. Genevieve Bend Project (FERC No. P-12917-000) in and adjacent to the Mississippi River is one of 14 proposed projects along Missouri's border. It plans to install up to 3,850 20-kilowatt Free Flow generating units (337 gigawatt-hours annually) and the permit area for this project is approximately 7.7 miles long. All 14 proposed projects would impact 74 miles of river.

First Hydrokiinetic License Issued for Washington's Makah Bay Project

Rich Bowers — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:19:46 -0600

On December 2nd, 2007, FERC issued the first ever hydrokinetic license for the Makah Bay Offshore Wave Pilot Project (FERC No. 12751-000) located offshore of Waatch Point in Challam County, WA.

Finavera Renewables Ocean Energy, Ltd.'s application was for an original minor license to construct,operate, and maintain a 1.0-megawatt (MW) project located in the Pacific Ocean in Makah Bay,about 1.9 nautical miles offshore of Waatch Point in Clallam County, Washington.

Finavera's application was for a 5-year pilot project license term to demonstrate the economic and environmental benefits of wave energy conversion power plants near coastal communities. The proposed project would occupy about 1 acre of land on the Makah Indian Reservation and about 28.3 acres of lands, collectively, of the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary(Olympic Coast Sanctuary) administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); and state-owned aquatic lands administered by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (Washington DNR). The project will generate an average of about 1,500 megawatt-hours (MWh) of energy annually.

Attachment	Size
Ecology Water Qual Cert..pdf	897.9 KB
DOE Request for Rehearing.pdf	98.52 KB
Tribal Request for Rehearing.pdf	40.54 KB
DNR Request for Rehearing.pdf	556.28 KB
F&W Biological Opin. Makah Bay.pdf	4.92 MB
NOAA Comments, Makah Bay.pdf	1.78 MB
USFWS Biological Opin for Makah Bay.pdf	3.46 MB
Makah Bay License.pdf	1.02 MB

Comments submitted on Draft Application for Proposed Enloe Dam

Rich Bowers — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:35:08 -0600

In early February, 2008 Federal and state agenceis, and Washington environmental and recreational organizations filed comments on the Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County's Draft License Application for the proposed Enloe Hydroelectric Project, Project No. 12569, on the Similkameen River. This included comments from Coalition members and partners, including: American Rivers, the Center for Environmental Law and Policy, the Selkirk Conservation Alliance, the North Cascades Conservation Council, the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club, and the Columbia River Bioregional Education Project. Seperate comments were filed by American Whitewater.

A major issue in these comments, and throughout the history of this proposed dam, has been the need to resolve the issue of the historic extent of fish runs in the Similkameen River prior to construction of Enloe Dam. For example, the National Marine Fisheries Service, in its June 1, 1992 filing in one of the previous attempts to relicense the project, stated that “[d]espite the clear potential for anadromous fisheries in the Similkameen River Basin, there is an unresolved issue of the presence of anadromous fish in the Similkameen River Basin prior to construction of Enloe Dam.” (National Marine Fisheries Service Comments, Recommendations, and Fishway Prescriptions and Conditions, June 1, 1992, p. 3). This sentiment is repeated throughout the history of relicensing efforts at the Enloe Project. Nonetheless, in this most recent draft application the PUD failed to once again conduct scientific studies that would help resolve the issue. In an effort to resolve the issue, Environmental organizations urged the PUD to undertake the studies set forth in the January 8, 2008 letter to Dan Boettger, Okanogan Public Utility District from Virginia Butler, Portland State University. (Attached)

Attachment	Size
Butler Submittal 2008.pdf	263.04 KB
WA DNR Aquatic Lands Comments.pdf	170.93 KB
USFWS Comments on Enloe.pdf	248.32 KB
NPS Comments on Enloe.pdf	68.08 KB
NMFS comments on DLA.pdf	61.67 KB
DOE Enloe Comments.pdf	374.65 KB
CRITFC Comments on DLA.pdf	176.31 KB
AW Comments on Enloe.doc	77.5 KB
American Rivers Final Comments.pdf	232.53 KB

American Rivers Seeks Proposals for River Restoration Projects

Rupak Thapaliya — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:36:20 -0600

American Rivers is seeking proposals for projects that aim for restoration of diadromous fish through dam removal projects. Projects in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Northwest and California are eligible to apply for this funding made possible through the NOAA's Open Rivers Initiative.

According to American Rivers, in the first six years of the partnership with NOAA, this program provided more than $2 million to support 100 community-driven river restoration projects that have benefited diadromous fish populations and habitats throughout the country.

Applications for the second cycle of FY08 are due by April 1, 2008.Please contact Serena McClain at American Rivers (see below) to discuss potential projects before submitting your proposals. Visit www.americanrivers.org/NOAAGrants for more information on the grant and to the download guidlines and application forms.

Contact:
Serena S. McClain
American Rivers
1101 14th St. NW, Suite 1400
Washington, DC 20005
Email: rivergrants@americanrivers.org

Benefit Dinner to Un-dam Klamath

Rupak Thapaliya — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:08:31 -0600

Project: Klamath : P-2082

A benefit dinner is being organized to remove dams from the Klamath River that have been disturbing the habitat for salmon, trout and other species for a long time. The Klamath hydroproject owned by Pacificorp includes four dams that are not only disturbing fish migration and spawning but also polluting the river with toxic algae.

Local fishermen, tribes and environmental groups have long opposed the dams. Even the California Energy Commission calls it the "most environmentally damaging energy project in CA." A recent analysis by FERC concluded that dam removal would be cheaper by $7 million a year, thus saving money for the owner, state and tax payers.

A short video developed by American Rivers, with funding from Hydropower Reform Coalition, explains the need to remove the dams for restoration of Klamath River.

The $5-$15 dinner will include live music, a multimedia presentation, and silent auction. See the Klamath Riverkeeper's event page for more details on the event.

FERC rejects application for hydropower on McKenzie River

Rupak Thapaliya — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:59:14 -0600

Citing deficiencies in a number of aspects, FERC has rejected the application (Project No. 13099-000) from Principal Power for hydropower production on Oregon's McKenzie River.

In a letter issued on Feb 13, FERC rejected the application that included insufficient details on important issues such as construction activities, reservoirs, and transmission lines. The application, filed on Jan 15, had also failed to provide a detailed workplan or a map showing project locations. Commission regulations require an applicant to submit a complete description of each project including characteristics of the dams and reservoirs, size of penstocks, description of powerhouse and transmission lines, in addition to a detailed map of project locations and boundaries. The applicant had mentioned that the project would consist of eight or nine non-dam developments for a combined power output of 83MW but no details were provided. All in all, the application was very negligent.

McKenzie River has long been an attractive site for whitewater recreation, sport fishing, hiking, driftboating, and other recreational activities.

The proposed projects were located downstream of the existing Carmen-Smith hydroelectric project and just below the Wild and Scenic section of the McKenzie. The owner of the Carmen-Smith project has been working with agencies, nonprofits, paddlers, anglers and others to reach a settlement agreement for new license terms. One of the largest hurdles in this settlement is agreement on how to mitigate for salmon migration, and these new projects would have defeated any fishery improvements in this settlement long before it could even be signed.

The new projects also raised questions regarding what is clean energy, and what are acceptable impacts for this river. While no dams were proposed, Principal Power was looking to build up to nine weirs. While they proposed no reservoirs, they did propose up to nine head ponds, as well as roads, transmission lines, penstocks and tunnels along a 34 mile section of the river. Just like dams, diversion weirs produce electricity by diverting water out of the river, which affects boating, the fishery, and the millions of dollars and man-hours spend so far on returning salmon to the upstream sections of the McKenzie.

You can read an article from Oregon's Register-Guard here.

HRC Comments on Dept. of Ecology's Draft Recommendations for Washington's Climate Change Challange.

Rich Bowers — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:52:08 -0600

Comments on Draft Recommendations for meeting the Washington Climate Change Challenge

Washington Departments of Ecology (Ecology) and Community, Trade, and Economic Development (CTED) draft recommendations for addressing climate change and setting goals for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, increasing the number of clean energy jobs, and moving towards greater energy independence.

Like climate change, the future of America’s rivers tops the list of HRC members’ critical future environmental concerns. The impacts of climate change are particularly evident when it comes to water – especially water supply, flood control and recreation. It is imperative that the state amend its water-resource policies and water-management practices to minimize and mitigate the effects of climate change as best it can.

The purpose of our comments is to assist the state as it develops solutions to reduce GHG emissions that avoid trading clean water for clean air and that do not inadvertently sacrifice the river resources that are crucial to ecosystem functioning and to the quality of life in Washington.

Read the full comments attached.

Attachment	Size
HRC Final Comments.pdf	229.96 KB

Enloe Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 12569

Rich Bowers — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:43:49 -0600

Enloe Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 12569

Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County (PUD, Washington) filed its Draft License Application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on November 7, 2007. The public comment period on this draft is due by February 4, 2008 and comments can be sent electronically to Enloe@okpud.org

Written comments can be submitted to:

Enloe Hydroelectric Project
Draft License Application Comments
1331 Second Avenue North -- P.O. Box 912
Okanogan, WA 98840

Enloe Dam is located on the Similkameen River, just above Similkameen Falls in North Central Washington, just eight miles south of the Canadian border. This 156 mile-long tributary flows from the east slope of the Cascade Mountains and British Columbia (BC) and into the Okanogan River, a tributary of the Columbia River. Most of the 3,600 square mile Similkameen watershed (79%) is in BC, and the river is fed by three main tributaries, which include the Pasayten River near Manning Park, BC (most of which is in northern Washington), the Tulameen River at Princeton, BC and the Ashnola River near Keremos, BC.

Enloe, a 54 foot concrete dam, was originally built for hydropower in 1920 but project economics never came to fruition and the project was decommissioned in 1958. Since that time, the PUD has attempted to license the project three times, but in all cases the application was rejected due to the federal reservation of authority for fish passage.

a. 1956 license. 1959 PUD ends Enloe production, citing old facilities need upgrading, not economic given fish passage issues. Somewhat later, (see referenced brief) PUD asks FERC to reinstate license so that they can continue to hold lease on land, in order to build recreational facilities. FERC refuses this, citing fish passage issues----- go to b.

b. 1974 (FERC finally terminates 1956 license)

c. 1983 FERC issues Enloe license; 1986 rescinded by FERC

d. 1991 FERC issues EA for new license. 1993 FERC denies new license.

The PUD has continued to pay annual power licensing fees to maintain an exemption from relinquishing its water rights. Since its completion, Enloe Dam has blocked all salmon and steelhead migration into over 90% of the Similkameen watershed.

Today, the PUD considers redevelopment of this project to once again be economically feasible with new generating facilities on the east bank (original facilities were located 880 feet downstream on the opposite bank). The new project capacity is proposed to be 9.0 MW and the project will generate about 47.3 GWh annually.

Fish passage is the big issue at Enloe Dam. According to the PUD, Similkameen Falls, just below the Enloe Dam, is a documented barrier to fish migration. This is a contested issue, and studies need to be undertaken to study the possibility that fish were historically present above the falls. If studies lead to a change in the need for project fish passage, it will affect the financial value of this project and its proposed power generation, as well as the value and cost associated with the proposed new Shanker's Bend dam just upstream. Enloe Dam also offers potential impacts on fishery flows in the Columbia.

Other issues include project economics, as sufficient stream flow needed to operate the project at full capacity is only available during spring/summer runoff (29% of the year). And FERC's jurisdiction to permit projects that impact areas outside of US boundaries is a huge issue and one that increasing in frequency with a number of existing and proposed projects along the US/Canada border, including Shanker's Bend, Boundary Dam, and Sullivan Creek.

Shanker's Bend Project

In May 2007, Okanogan PUD filed for a preliminary permit to study construction of hydroelectric facilities on a new dam on Shanker's Bend of the Similkameen River, just upstream of Enloe Dam. The Washington Department of Ecology has earmarked $300,000 to assess the feasibility of constructing Shanker's Bend Dam. The proposal will examine three alternatives ranging from a 90-foot dam to a 260-foot tall dam. The largest proposal would create an 18,000 acre reservoir, half of which would be located in BC and which would flood Palmer Lake and other Canadian lands.

The fate of Enloe and Shankers Bend dams are deeply intertwined. Shankers Bend is a water storage project that can provide storage and timed flows to boost hydropower production downstream at Enloe Dam. Currently, there is no analysis demonstrating need for storage in the Okanogan region. However, if Shankers Bend is built, the economic value of Enloe increases dramatically. Likewise, if fish passage is required at Enloe, then Shankers Bend becomes the next blockage for migrating fish, and the cost of building Shankers Bend goes up dramatically. You can get additional information at the Center for Environmental Law and Policy's Website (including the history of the earlier project) or on the Okanogan PUD's website.

For more information, contact Rich Bowers, Pacific Northwest Coordinator for the HRC. Rich@hydroreform.org

FERC issues first hydrokinetic license

Rupak Thapaliya — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 23:00:00 -0600

The license for Makah Bay project is the first ever issued by FERC for a wave, tidal or current energy project in the United States. The license gives Finavera Renewables, the project licensee, a conditional five-year license for the proposed project.

This license approval follows a controversial FERC policy on hydrokinetics that allows FERC to approve licenses before adequate analysis of environmental effects of hydrokinetic projects. Several state and federal agencies, individuals and organizations including the HRC had filed comments to FERC regarding the process. FERC announced its policy statement on Nov 30, 2007.

The 5-year license will require Finavera to start construction of the project within two years and complete within three years.

Renewable Portfolio Standards for Washington State

Rich Bowers — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 18:10:19 -0500

The public deadline to submit comments on Washington State's rulemaking on Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) was November 16, 2007. The purpose of the rulemaking is to implement Chapter 19.285 RCW of the Energy Independance Act. This act codifies the November 2006 passage of voter initiative 937 (I-937). I-937 requires large utilities to obtain 15% of their electricity from new renewable resources such as solar and wind (and Tidal, Ocean and Wave energy) by 2020, and to undertake cost-effective energy conservation. For additional information go to the Washington State. Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. Two public meetings were held on this issue: November 9th at the Department of Community Trade and Economic Development in Olympia, and November 14th at the Spokane International Airport.

The Hydropower Reform Coalition has been following this issue and supported the original initiative that says that any hydropower included as part of a renewable portfolio standard should drive improved performance at existing dams -- either by rewarding low-impact hydropower or by rewarding increased power generation with no additional impacts. As currently written, Washington State's RPS is one of the strongest in the nation. The draft rules identify eligible renewable resources as "electricity from a generation facility powered by a renewable resource other than fresh water that commences after March 31, 1999." Hydropower can only be included as renewable energy if the electricity produced is a result of efficiency improvements, and where the additional electricity generated is not a result of new water diversions or impoundments. This includes irrigation pipes and canals and refers only to existing dams. It would not include new dams.

The Hydropower Reform Coalition provided comments from our members. Please check below to read Coalition comments.

Attachment	Size
CR 102 Draft Rules WAC 194-37.pdf	167.37 KB
Letter CR 102 10-07-1.pdf	160.17 KB
HRC Comments_CTED EIA rulemaking_Mar 21 2007.pdf	123.75 KB
CR-102 CRO.pdf	108.96 KB
CR 102 Draft Rules WAC 194-37.pdf	167.37 KB

Sullivan Creek Rehearing

Rich Bowers — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:22:38 -0500

Project: Sullivan Lake (Storage) : P-2225

The Sullivan Creek Project was constructed by the Inland Portland Cement Company in 1909, and was used to generate power until 1956, when the Project’s wood flume was damaged. The Project is located on Sullivan Lake, Outlet Creek and Sullivan Creek, a tributary of the Pend Oreille River. The licensed project has not operated for decades. For the most part, the project is used to modify and control flows on other projects downstream. The license for this project expires in 2008 and in place of an Notice of Intent (NOI) to re-apply, the PUD indicated that it does not intend to relicense the project. Once the two year competition deadline had passed in 2006, the PUD filed a petition to the

asserting non-jurisdiction. American Whitewater, US Forest Service and the Kalispel Tribe weighed in against this petition. Allowing the licensee to just walk away from this project raises a multitude of problems, many of which could set national precedents regarding FERC jurisdiction, their responsibility to require project decommissioning, and to provide a plan for license surrender that doesn't just dump the project and its impacts on the river in the hand's of federal and state agencies. It may also set precedents for other utility developers to just walk away if a project doesn't meet expectations or is no longer wanted. FERC issued its order in late August finding that the licensee can end its license with no further action required. American Whitewater, the US Forest Service and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife have all filed petitions for rehearing on these important issues. Attached. AW challenges the Order’s conclusions that (1) the Commission does not have jurisdiction over the Project despite the fact that the Project was constructed and continues to be operated and maintained for the purpose of power generation and is located on federal lands (Colville National Forest); and (2) no further action is required on the part of the Commission or Licensee upon expiration of the existing license in 2008.

Attachment	Size
FERC Declaratory Order, Sullivan Crk.pdf	78.46 KB
20070124_pud_reply_to_FS_protest.pdf	1.35 MB
20070817-5032(17807049)PUD Rehearing.pdf	774.23 KB
20070817-5033(17807051) AW Rehearing.pdf	85.57 KB
20070816-5049(17804046)FWS Rehearing.pdf	529.19 KB
20070817-5026(17807022) USFS Rehearing.pdf	876.15 KB

Formation of BC Rivers Allliance

Rich Bowers — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:18:31 -0500

Private developers have applied for permits for 450 dams on more than 300 rivers and streams in British Columbia. Unlike the United States, Canada’s regulatory structure for hydropower dams does not allow meaningful public participation, and river activists and outdoor recreationists are just getting organized to fight these new dams, some of which are already under construction. Canada’s independent power producers are following the worst examples set by U.S. dam owners in the 1970’s: subsidies, back-room political deals, disregard for public participation, and an ability to quickly destroy a watershed before anyone can respond. In August of 2007, a group of conservation, recreational and public power organizations banded together to create the BC Rivers Alliance to fight the proliferation of private power projects on BC rivers. The purpose of the Alliance is to unite groups and organizations working across BC that have an interest in the well being of BC rivers. The efforts of the alliance will be rooted in a set of core values that are accepted and supported by its members. These include: - Wilderness conservation to protect wild salmon and species at risk - Watershed and ecosystem integrity - Sustainable power solutions - Equal consideration of all river users and stakeholders - Public hydro power - Conservation of power to meet demand - Comprehensive and transparent approval processes for hydro projects - Non partisan For more information, contact: Petra Drncova, BC Creek Protection Society, 250 382 3499, petra@drnec.cz

Attachment	Size
BC_Rivers_Alliance_release.pdf	681.98 KB

Marmot Dam becomes the largest dam removed in Oregon

Rebecca Sherman — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:51:52 -0500

Project: Bull Run : P-477

On July 24, 2007, the CEO of Portland General Electric Peggy Fowler depressed the handle of an old-fashioned TNT box at the same time that a construction crew detonated explosives within Marmot Dam. The blast weakened the dam so that the crew could continue its demolition.

You can see photos of the Marmot Dam removal here.

On hand to celebrate was a crowd of officials, dam removal settlement signatories, and Sandy River aficionados. PGE agreed to remove Marmot Dam and another dam on the Little Sandy River, grant 1500 acres of watershed lands to a lands conservancy, and donate its water rights instream. As a result, salmon and steelhead will have unimpeded access to 95 miles of upstream Sandy River habitat.

The settlement agreement was the outgrowth of a license renewal for PGE's Bull Run project. The company determined that the cost of continued operation under a modern permit (its existing license was decades old) would make the project uneconomic to run.

PGE has set up a website with the history of the dam's life and plans for removal.

The Sunday after the removal, the Oregonian published the following statement in its July 29th editorial:

Over the history of the Northwest, rivers tamed by dams have been like zoo animals. It's been hard to imagine them ever running wild again.

That's why the blast Tuesday that marked the start of the removal of Marmot Dam on the Sandy River sent shock waves all across the region. After a century of being held back, a Northwest river is about to runfree again.

The Oregonian made the point that dams aren't "going to start falling like dominoes," but that dam removals in the region are an important lesson in balancing resources and power production, and a brave step worth repeating. Great job, Oregonian.

Washington resources agencies get fresh funding for their hydropower programs

Rebecca Sherman — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:50:47 -0500

In May, Washington Governor Gregoire signed SB 5881 into law, creating a fresh funding source for the hydropower dam programs within the state Departments of Ecology and of Fish and Wildlife. The new law will become effective on July 22, 2007.

The law updates an existing fee assessed to hydropower dam owners back in 1929 and never changed. The fee was permitted to go to both the regulatory program and the gauging work. Today, those fees cover a fraction of the costs of the program and the gauging.

Thanks to multiple stakeholder support, the Departments increased their budget and pushed a bill through the legislature. The bill text was the result of a compromise crafted by industry, agencies, and NGOs, with minimal editing in the legislature. A provision to permit the fee to increase by the state's fiscal growth factor was struck; and a provision that would have allowed certain projects to receive a discount was struck.

A cut of the letters from NGOs (including several HRC members) to the Department and to the Committees are provided below, as well as the text of the final law.

Thanks to this fresh funding source, the Departments will be able to deal with their considerable workload with more staff and more speed.

Attachment	Size
Ltr for Jay Manning on 401 Funding Success_June 2007.pdf	6.58 KB
AGNR Ltr of support_SSB 5881.pdf	7.15 KB
Ltr on 401 Funding Bill_December 2006.pdf	20.13 KB
Ltr for Jay Manning on 401 funding_Sept 2006.pdf	24.08 KB
5881-S.SL_.pdf	21.38 KB

Preliminary Permit for New Large Dam at Shanker's Bend

Rebecca Sherman — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:21:19 -0500

In May 2007, Okanogan PUD filed for a preliminary permit to study construction of hydroelectric facilities on a new 260-foot tall dam on Shanker's Bend on the Similkameen River in north-central Washington.

The Washington Department of Ecology has earmarked $300,000 to assess the feasibility of constructing Shanker's Bend Dam. The proposal will examine three alternatives ranging from a 90-foot dam to a 260-foot tall dam. The largest proposal would create an 18,000 acre reservoir, half of which would be located in Canada and which would flood Palmer Lake and other Canadian lands.

At the same time, Okanogan PUD is pursuing an original license for Enloe Dam, an existing dam just below Shanker's Bend and just above Similkameen Falls. A draft license application is expected this fall. Enloe Dam was built for hydropower nearly a century ago. After project economics failed to pencil out, the project was closed in the 1950s. Since that time, the PUD has attempted to license the project twice, but in both cases rejected the license due to the federal reservation of authority for fish passage.

At issue with this permit is FERC's jurisdiction to permit a project that lies outside of US boundaries. Also at issue is the PUD's expending public funds (Ecology) without any indication that the project is feasible. And fishery issues are at the forefront, as the PUD has not indicated how it will address fish passage, including historic range, or potential impacts on fishery flows in the Columbia River.

Attached below is the preliminary permit application for Shanker's Bend from Okanogan PUD; and the Department of Ecology's initial assessment of Shanker's Bend. Also attached are comments from American Rivers, Center for Environmental Law & Policy, Canadian Parks & Wilderness Society, Ecology, Bureau of Land Mgmt., and NOAA.

Attachment	Size
NOAA Intervention Shankers Bend.pdf	50.61 KB
Ecology Intervention.pdf	101.15 KB
CELP Intervention.pdf	22.79 KB
Can Parks & Wilderness Interventiion.pdf	99.93 KB
BLM Shankers Bend Intervention.pdf	182.63 KB
AR Intervention.pdf	238.63 KB
Shankers Bend preliminary permit.pdf	928.22 KB
Shankers Bend_WDOE.pdf	1.38 MB

Idaho Bar Review on the Energy Policy Act

Rebecca Sherman — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:11:46 -0500

Project: Hells Canyon : P-1971 | Spokane River : P-2545 | Klamath : P-2082

The June/July 2007 edition of The Advocate, the official publication of the Idaho State Bar, features an article on the hydropower provisions of the Energy Policy Act (EPAct).

Written by attorney Rick Eichstaedt of Center for Justice, Adell Amos with the University of Oregon's School of Law, and the Coalition's Rebecca Sherman, the article discusses the results of the first few invocations of the EPAct proceedings in the Northwest: Hells Canyon dams on the Snake River, the Klamath River dams, and the Spokane River dams.

Unlike the celebratory descriptions of attorneys representing utilities in these proceedings, the article describes how in fact, the EPAct has only resulted in expensive legal fees and reduced environmental protections.

In its conclusion, the article notes:

A more common outcome of hearing requests is not a confirmed set of facts but an exclusive supra-licensing settlement proceeding that revises the underlying agency mandatory conditions. This threatens only to further complicate the relicensing process and undermine the intent of the Federal Power Act.

This article is the first representation to the legal community that there is a second and perhaps less financially interested perspective on EPAct's effect and success.

To request a copy of the article, please contact the Coalition.

Wall Street Journal: Dam the Salmon

Rebecca Sherman — Thu, 31 May 2007 12:38:17 -0500

The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com) published an opinion-editorial called "Dam the Salmon" from a Reason.com analyst. The analyst, describing conservationists as "greens," begins:

If their opposition to the Klamath hydroelectric dams in the Pacific Northwest is any indication, the greens, it appears, are just as unwilling to sacrifice their pet causes as a Texas rancher is to sacrifice his pickup truck. If anything, the radicalization of the environmental movement is the bigger obstacle to addressing global warming than the allegedly gluttonous American way of life.

The American way of life is allegedly excessive? Conservation is the problem behind global warming? Fascinating. The reply from American Rivers, available on their blog, and published by the WSJ reads:

Are the readers of the Wall Street Journal supposed to be horrified when an outmoded 100 year-old factory closes its doors? Of course not.

But that’s exactly the sort of irrational economic logic Ms. Dalmia proposes should protect all hydro dams into the infinite future.

Another letter from Friends of the River, also published, says:

[S]he neglects to mention at any point that a staggering 95% of the Klamath's native salmon population has been destroyed. Stepping in to protect the remaining 5% of a critical species is hardly a "radical" environmental position.

[She also] alleges that environmentalists have "rejected all attempts by PacifiCorp... to take mitigation steps... to create a salmon pathway." This is not true. PacifiCorp only considered mitigation because it was required to and its only genuine proposal was to catch migrating salmon, load them into trucks and drive them upstream -- a plan best characterized as absurd.

The WSJ published a third letter to the editor from a California resident, Scott Christensen, who points out that "there is nothing "cheap and renewable" about energy production that results in the destruction of wild salmon and steelhead runs and the jobs that depend on them."

Removal of Sandy River hydropower dams set to begin in summer 2006

Rebecca Sherman — Wed, 30 May 2007 13:24:03 -0500

Project: Bull Run : P-477

A final tour of the Bull Run Hydroelectric Project on the Sandy River in Oregon sparked a series of Memorial Day weekend news articles.

Oregon Public Broadcasting ran a feature highlighting Portland General Electric's (PGE) decision to remove three dams on the Sandy and Little Sandy rivers rather than relicense the aging facilities.

OPB News
PGE Prepares To Remove Two Dams On The Sandy River
By Colin Fogarty

PORTLAND, OR (2007-05-23) For nearly a century, Portland General Electric has gotten some of its power from the Sandy River basin.

Now, the company is preparing to vacate the Sandy and Little Sandy Rivers and turn much of the land over for conservation.

Eight years ago, PGE decided it would be more expensive to repair and keep up the Marmot and Little Sandy Dams than to just tear them out. Colin Fogarty was among several reporters who went on the last tour of the dams before removal begins this summer.

Read or listen to the full OPB article, with slideshow >>

The Oregonian also ran a full feature on the decision >>

From the May 30th Gresham Outlook feature:

Technology has changed a lot since 1906, when construction of the first components of the Bull Run Hydroelectric Project began.

Despite the advancements, when work begins this summer to dismantle the project – including the Marmot Dam on the Sandy River, the Little Sandy Dam on the Little Sandy River, a 22-megawatt powerhouse on Bull Run River, a 15,000-foot wooden-box flume, canals and tunnels between the Marmot and Little Sandy dams and the draining of Roslyn Lake – Portland General Electric will turn the clock back 100 years.

Coalition seeks Northwest Coordinator

Rebecca Sherman — Tue, 22 May 2007 18:54:52 -0500

The Hydropower Reform Coalition is seeking a new Northwest Coordinator to manage its Northwest operations.

If you are interested in the position, please review the attached job announcement. The deadline for applications is Sunday, June 17th.

Attachment	Size
NW HRC position description.pdf	192.12 KB

Oregon Renewable Energy Standards: Failed Opportunity on Hydropower

Rebecca Sherman — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:00:00 -0600

The Oregon Renewable Energy Standard (RES) requires utilities to supply 25% of their load with renewable power by 2025, and new dams can qualify toward that goal.

The bill, S 838, passed the Senate for the second time on May 25, 2007, and will be signed by Governor Kulongoski on June 6th.

- The hydropower provision as of April 11, 2007(not materially changed)

- Our proposed amendment and talking points

Relevant maps:

- Map of Oregon streams not listed under the NWPCC's "Protected Areas"

- NW Power and Conservation Council's regional map of Protected Areas

- Map of Potential Hydropower Development in Oregon

Attachment	Size
4_18_07 WaterWatch RES testimony Tues 6 pm.doc	31.5 KB
House_Testimony_S838_April 18 2007.doc	80.5 KB
Oregon_unprotected_rivers.pdf	1.83 MB
Amendment Factsheet_0407.doc	99.5 KB
INEL Hydropower Prospector Oregon.pdf	1.74 MB
State Protected Areas.JPG	114.77 KB
07REStestimonyfinal.doc	32.5 KB
Hydro Provision_Sen Committee.pdf	225.73 KB
SB 838-16.pdf	1.9 MB

Clackamas River's Final Environmental Impact Statement Released

Rebecca Sherman — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 16:37:50 -0600

Project: North Fork : P-2195 | Willamette Falls : P-2233

On December 21, 2006, FERC released the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the five-dam Clackamas River Project only miles east of Portland, Oregon. While the final is an improvement over the draft, Clackamas River settlement parties say that there are still many problems with FERC's treatment of measures from the settlement agreement.

The FEIS fails to adequately address lamprey issues. FERC rejected measures on the Clackamas that it accepted in the Willamette Falls license. Arguably, FERC will utlimately have to include these measures if the Fish and Wildlife Services uses its FPA Section 18 mandatory conditing authority.

FERC struck provisions that would provide funding to third parties, citing that the obligation should be on the licensee. It also struck provisions that called for a backup fund if a particular measure did not work. FERC rejected the measures as undefined and possibly unnecessary. Whether or not they are sensible, these actions are consistent with the Settlement Policy Statement.

As an improvement to the DEIS, FERC incorporated the entire comprehensive fish passage program, which included adaptive management. FERC also recommended the Habitat Fund.

Finally, FERC revised its DEIS rationale for eliminating certain measures ("too much mitigation") and instead adopted more thoughtful language from the Settlement Policy Statement.

The Clackamas Settlement Agreement was signed in March 2006 by 33 parties. The Project is owned by Portland General Electric.

Preliminary Permit application filed for Newport Wave Park Project

John Seebach — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:44:45 -0600

Oregon Wave Energy Partners, LLC has filed a preliminary permit application for a proposed wave energy project that would be located 3-6 miles offshore in Lincoln County, Oregon. Comments and motions to intervene are due to FERC by February 18, 2007.

According to FERC, the proposed project (P-12750):

"[W]ould consist of: (1) 200 to 400 Power Buoys having a total installed capacity of 100 megawatts, (2) a proposed 13.8 kilovolt transmission line, and (3) appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to have an annual generation of 306.6 gigawatt-hours per-unit per-year, which would be sold to a local utility."

Preliminary Permit application filed for Coos Bay Wave Park Project

John Seebach — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 14:38:33 -0600

Oregon Wave Energy Partners, LLC has filed a preliminary permit application for a proposed wave energy project that would be located 2.5 miles offshore in Coos County, Oregon. Comments and motions to intervene are due to FERC by February 18, 2007.

According to FERC, the project (FERC P-12749):

"[W]ould consist of: (1) 200 to 400 Power Buoys having a total installed capacity of 100 megawatts, (2) a proposed 13.8 kilovolt transmission line; and (3) appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to have an annual generation of 306.6 gigawatt-hours per-unit per-year, which would be sold to a local utility."