Hydropower Reform Coalition - Washington

FERC issues a 44-year license for Priest Rapids project on mid-Columbia River

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

Last week, FERC issued a 44-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.

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

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

Wave, Tidal and In-Channel Hydrokinetic Projects

Rich Bowers — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:20:31 -0600

Growth of Hydrokinetic (current, wave and tidal) Projects

By Rich Bowers, Pacific Northwest Coordinator

Rich@hydroreform.org

The goal of developing new, clean and renewable energy from the power of the ocean and river currents has been a long–sought goal for both energy developers and environmental groups. This new technology has been getting a lot of scrutiny over the past twelve months, but the issue has skyrocketed as we close in on the end of 2007.

Currently, there are some 88 pending and issued hydrokinetic permits before FERC, and an equal number of pending permits for in-river projects. A good number of these permits were applied for just after the FERC hosted October 2nd Hydrokinetic Technical Conference held in Portland, OR, and most of the early in-channel projects were proposed to be located in the Mississippi River Delta, although there are pending permits on the Housatonic (CT), St. Croix and Penobscot (ME) and the Columbia (OR).

The Hydropower Reform Coalition is especially interested with the development of in-channel hydrokinetic projects, although we are also willing to share our FERC and coalition building expertise with ocean and tidal organizations, agencies and other stakeholders.

On December 14th FERC sent notice of their acceptance of application (and call for intervention) for a number of hydrokinetic projects on rivers in Alaska, including the Yukon, Kobuk, Tanana, and Kuskok Rivers (FERC Project Nos. 12870, 12871, 12872, 12877, 12878, 12881). All of these are in-stream, non-dam, non-impoundment projects situated in northern Alaska (SE Fairbanks to the Yukon). Each project ranges from a proposed 50 to 100 turbines, and all are in the 5MW range. All permits are from Hydro Green Energy, which also has submitted preliminary permits on the Mississippi.

In October 2007, and just preceding the Portland Technical Conference, FERC issued a whitepaper on hydrokinetic energy. Many organizations and agencies, including the HRC, supplied comments on this whitepaper. On November 30th FERC issued its Policy Statement on Conditioned Licenses for Hydrokinetic Projects (Docket No. PL08-1-000) which made no changes to the whitepaper and recognized none of the concerns and comments supplied by a wide range of interested parties.

While there is great interest in developing this emerging technology, there is also a shared concern by all parties (including developers) over the potential impacts that any new technology will have on natural resources. The one lesson learned (though wind, solar and other) is that all power generation has some impact on the environment!

Unfortunately, FERC seems so focused on developing this technology that they have ignored both potential impacts and the request by many stakeholders to address these potential concerns in advance. In a statement released on December 20th, FERC said that “The Commission’s review of those potential impacts has been thorough, none have been neglected, and we have not permitted the benefits of the project to obscure the need for the utmost regard for a unique ecosystem.” However, the Policy Statement does not define such basic issues such as what constitutes a “sensitive area” or what impacts would lead to shut down or removal of a project.

On December 20th, FERC issued its first license for a hydrokinetic project to Finavera Renewables for the Makah Bay Wave Energy pilot project located off the coast of Washington (P-12751-000). You can read more on this license through the FERC news release or Commissioner Kelly’s comments. On December 18th, Pacific Gas & Electric announced the first ever commercial agreement to purchase power generated from Ocean-Wave energy through a contract with Finavera for a 2 megawatt project just off the coast of Eureka, CA.

Attachment	Size
HRC_Hydrokinetic_Comments FiNAL.pdf	219.82 KB
FERC whitepaper on hydrokinetic.pdf	170.67 KB

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

American Rivers & NOAA now accepting proposals for river restoration grants

John Seebach — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 14:48:12 -0500

American Rivers seeks proposals for river restoration project grants as part of its partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Community-based Restoration Program. Program funding is provided through NOAA’s Open Rivers Initiative, which seeks to enable environmental and economic renewal in local communities through the removal of stream barriers.

This Partnership funds stream barrier removal projects that help restore riverine ecosystems, enhance public safety and community resilience, and have clear and identifiable benefits to diadromous fish populations. Diadromous fish migrate between freshwater and saltwater during their life cycle. Examples include alewife, American eel, American shad, blueback herring, salmon, steelhead, shortnose sturgeon and striped bass. Projects in the Northeast (ME, NH, VT, MA, CT, RI), Mid-Atlantic (NY, NJ, PA, DE, VA, MD, DC), Northwest (WA, OR, ID), and California are eligible to apply. Projects located within the St. Lawrence/Great Lakes Basin are not eligible for funding in the December 2007 grant round.

Eligible applications will be evaluated based upon four priority criteria:

Ecological merits of the project,
Technical feasibility of the project,
Benefits provided to the local community, and
Financial clarity and strength of the application.

Grants are provided for three distinct project phases: Feasibility Analysis, Engineering Design and Construction. Average grants are $25,000 - $50,000. Successful applicants for one project phase will not be eligible to receive additional funding for that same project phase in future grant rounds. See the Funding Guidelines for additional details.

Applications are currently being accepted for the first cycle of fiscal year 2008 with a deadline of December 3, 2007. Applications for projects must be postmarked by the deadline for consideration in this funding cycle. Potential applicants should contact American Rivers to discuss potential projects prior to submitting an application. Applicants can expect notification about funding decisions in early March 2008.

Obtain the Application for Financial Assistance and Funding Guidelines on the American Rivers web site.

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

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

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

FERC receives first license application for tidal hydrokinetic project

John Seebach — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:00:00 -0600

AquaEnergy Group filed a license application with FERC for its proposed Makah Bay tidal hydrokinetic project (P-12751). While FERC has already issued several preliminary permits for tidal hydrokinetic projects, this will be the first licensing of a tidal project. The applicant will use FERC's Alternative Licensing Process.

Makah Bay is a proposed 1MW pilot project, using four "wave energy conversion buoys." It will be between 3-4 miles offshore in Makah Bay, Washington. Parts of the project will intersect the Makah Indian Reservation, the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, and the Flattery Rocks National Wildlife Refuge.

Big win for the Skokomish River

John Seebach — Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:31:28 -0500

Project: Cushman : P-460

On August 22nd, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in City of Tacoma v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. After being left dry for more than 80 years by the Cushman hydroelectric project, Washington's North Fork Skokomish river will once again have water.

The court's decision, written by Judge Janice Rogers Brown (one of President Bush's recent appointees), also resolves several legal issues which will have an enormous positive impact on FERC hydropower licensing decisions in the future. Coalition chair American Rivers was an intervenor in the case and has issued a press release.

The Cushman hydroelectric project, owned and operated by the city of Tacoma, WA, was built in the 1920's. It's two dams block all fish migration on the river, which is home to several species of salmon. For approximately half a century, the project left the river completely dry below the dam for much of the year. While a change to the license required Tacoma Power to put a token amount 60 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water back in the river, it is not enough. The combination of fish passage and nearly-dry riverbed has decimated the river's once healthy salmon runs. It has also caused serious harm to the Skokomish Tribe, whose traditional economy and culture depend heavily on the river and its fish. Or, as Judge Brown writes in her opinion, quoting a treaty signed with the tribe:

"While the Tribe arguably still has the right to 'tak[e] fish at usual and accustomed grounds,' that right is now of little value, because the water has disappeared, and with it, the fish." (p. 8)

FERC issued a new license for the project in 1998 and again in 1999 after resolving a rehearing request. After a lengthy legal challenge, the courts remanded the license back to FERC to allow for Endangered Species Act consultation. FERC issued a revised license order in 2005 (after a rehearing on a 2004 order), which was also challenged in court. The license has been under stay during these challenges, which means that Tacoma Power has been operating under its original FERC license - with no meaningful requirements to protect the environment - for more than eighty years.

Judge Brown's decision also resolved a number of issues that should be of great interest to anyone involved in hydropower licensing. While the case touches on Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act issues, the two most important precedents are in its interpretation of the Federal Power Act:

1. FERC has no authority to reject conditions submitted by federal agencies under section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act. Section 4(e) gives federal agencies authority to impose conditions on hydropower projects in order to protect the lands that Congress has tasked them with managing. FERC had rejected the Department of Interior's 4(e) conditions because they had not been submitted within a 60-day deadline. The court determined that FERC had no authority to impose such a deadline on the other agencies, pointing out that FERC was primarily responsible for the long delays:

"To the extent Congress has delegated licensing authority to agencies other than FERC, those agencies, and not FERC, determine how to exercise that authority, subject of course to judicial review. FERC can no more dictate to Interior when Interior should complete its work than Interior can dictate to FERC when FERC should do so. Here, FERC took all the time it needed -- a full 24 years -- to issue a license to Tacoma. Interior, in contrast, produced its license conditions within about three years of receiving notice on August 1, 1994." (p. 15)

The issue of time limits is somewhat moot since the 2005 joint Energy Bill rulemaking among agencies with 4(e) authority set internal deadlines that match FERC's schedule. This limit on FERC's authority is still significant, however, because in setting it, the court explicitly recognized that the Federal Power Act requires FERC to share its hydropower licensing authority with other agencies:

"The FPA provides that licenses 'within any reservation' 'shall be subject to and contain such conditions as the Secretary of the department under whose supervision such reservation falls shall deem necessary for the adequate protection and utilization of such reservation[.]' 16 U.S.C. §797(e). The FPA gives FERC no discretion in this regard. Though FERC makes the final decision as to whether to issue a license, FERC shares its authority to impose license conditions with other federal agencies." (p. 15)

This recognition alone would set a valuable precedent. But the court goes even further, examining FERC's long-standing practice of rejecting 4(e) conditions because they do not fall into FERC's overly-narrow definition of what the geographic scope of these conditions can be. In this case, a small part of the project (a transmission line and an access road) ran through a federal reservation:

"FERC concluded that Interior's authority to impose section 4(e) conditions was limited to mitigating the relatively small impact the transmission line and access road had (and would have) on the reservation, and it did not extend to the much greater impact that the dams and water diversion had (and would have) on the reservation." (p. 16)

The court, citing a previous case (Escondido Mut. Water Co. v. La Jolla Band of Mission Indians), concluded that FERC got it wrong:

"Significantly, the Court referred to any project works, which would seem to include, contrary to FERC's conclusion, even 'a small segment of a power line that crosse[s] the corner of a reservation.' [...] Later in its opinion, the [Escondito] Court stated, '[I]t is clear that Congress concluded that reservations were not entitled to the added protection provided by the proviso of §4(e) unless some of the licensed works were actually within the reservation. 'Some' means 'some'; it does not mean 'all,' or even 'a lot.' The issue under consideration in Escondido was whether Interior can impose license conditions based on the indirect effects a project havs on a reservation. Therefore, the implication of the court's statements is that Interior can do so provided that at least 'some' or 'any' part of the licensed facilities is on reservation land [...] [S]o long as some portion of the project is on the reservation, the Secretary is authorized to impose any conditions that will protect the reservation, including utilization of the reservation in a manner consistent with its original purpose." (p. 17)

In other words, in a hydropower licensing, an agency's authority to protect a federal reservation is not limited solely to those portions of the hydroelectric project that are on the reservation. Rather, an agency may impose any conditions it deems necessary to protect the purposes of the reservation, including conditions affecting parts of the project not located on the reservation. FERC has two choices: it can either choose to accept the agencies' conditions, or it can choose not to issue the license.

2. FERC is not required to issue licenses that guarantee the project will be profitable. Tacoma Power had argued that the minimum flows required in the river would make the project "uneconomic," and that license terms that result in an uneconomic project are therefore "unreasonable" and in violation of the Federal Power Act. The court discussed the many environmental laws that were passed in the late 20th century, pointing out that "[o]ne of the major shifts in national priorities since the 1920's has been from a near-exclusive focus on development to an increasing focus on environmental protection.." This matters because:

"In some cases, a change in congressional priorities might cast doubt on a once viable project and lead to closure of the project when its license expires, either because FERC denies a new license outright or because FERC issues a new license that the licensee finds too costly or burdensome. [...] FERC argues persuasively that it cannot guarantee license renewal when Congress has greatly altered the regulatory landscape during the course of the prior license term. [...] Moreover, the very fact that a license may not exceed fify years [...] indicates Congress's intent that projects be reevaluated from time to time in light of changing circumstances and national priorities, and this reevaluation necessarily implies that in some cases new licenses will not be issued." (p. 30)

The court goes on to say that license terms that may lead to the project shutting down are indeed "reasonable," and FERC's "obligation to give 'equal consideration' to wildlife protection and the environment [...] implies that, at least in some cases, these environmental concerns will prevail." In other words, when making licensing decisions, FERC must take into account all of the factors -- including environmental protection -- that Congress has required it to consider. It is not required to guarantee that a project make money. This is good policy: if FERC were required to sacrifice environmental mitigation for an assurance that projects would be economically viable, then the least efficient, least economically viable projects would be resolved of responsibility for the environmental damage they cause.

The court also determined that FERC has a responsibility to make sure that states comply with the procedural requirements of section 401 of the Clean Water Act when they issue a water quality certification. In this case, the Skokomish Tribe had raised questions about whether or not the Washington Department of Ecology had given public notice or held a hearing in regards to its water quality certification. The court held that FERC can't issue a license unless it has determined that a state has met the Clean Water Act's basic procedural requirements.

"Section 401(a)(1) [of the Clean Water Act] requires states to "establish procedures for public notice in the case of all applications for certification.' [...] We do not, however, think FERC's obligation is limited to confirming that the state has enacted a public notice procedure. Rather, we think that, by implication, section 401(a)(1) also requires states to comply with their public notice procedures, and therefore it requires FERC to obtain some minimal confirmation of such compliance, at least in a case where compliance has been called into question. Otherwise, FERC has no assurance that the certification the states has issued satisfies section 401, and in the absence of such an assurance, it has no authority to grant a license." (pp. 20-21)

The Cushman case now goes back to FERC, which must decide whether or not it will issue a license for the project. If FERC decides to issue a new license -- which must now incorporate Interior's 4(e) conditions -- it must amend its 1998 licensing order and lift its partial stay of the order. If FERC determines not to issue a license, it must lift its partial stay and vacate its 1998 order.

In the meantime the court lifted a stay on an earlier order requiring Tacoma Power to put 240 cubic feet per second of water back into the Skokomish River. The river can now begin to heal itself.

Attachment	Size
AR Cushman Press Release 2006-08-23.pdf	8.31 KB

Box Canyon License Issued

John Seebach — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 06:00:00 -0600

Project: Box Canyon : P-2042

On July 11th, 2005, the Commission issued a new license for the Box Canyon Project on the Pend Oreille River in northeastern Washington and Idaho. The issuance brought a conclusion to the licensing phase of this project's extended history as a poster child for combative licensing processes. The license adopts mandatory conditions, including fish passage, submitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Washington Department of Ecology, and the United States Forest Service.

At the end of the license issuance, Chairman Wood and Commissioner Kelliher post their own opinions about the license. Within Kelliher's dissent is a strong statement about the importance of NEPA analysis providing a justification for federal agency action. The Coalition agrees that NEPA is a critical part of agency decisionmaking. NEPA provides for transparency, public accountability and independent assessment, and for ensuring that any action also considers alternative actions that may be more in the public interest.

Settlement agreement signed on Washington's Lewis River

John Seebach — Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:00:00 -0600

A comprehensive settlement has been reached (hurrah!) on the Lewis River projects in Washington. The settlement will allow for improved and restored flows, and sets fish passage triggers that may open up as much as 174 miles of new habitat.

Read PacifiCorp's press release, or read on for the lead conservation group's statement on the settlement. Other signing organizations include Trout Unlimited and Native Fish Society.

Statement by Rob Masonis, Northwest regional director of American Rivers, on the Lewis River hydro-licensing agreement

November 30, 2004

Today' s agreement shows that hydropower dams can be improved to benefit healthy rivers and the quality of life in a basin' s communities.

It proves that diverse interests -- utilities, native tribes, federal and state resource agencies, counties and conservation groups -- can come together in the dam relicensing process and arrive at positive solutions that work for people, fish and wildlife, and healthy rivers.

We applaud the agreement' s strong measures that provide over $5 million for habitat restoration, and that will allow fish renewed access to 174 miles of habitat. Restoring and opening habitat is critical to the recovery of listed Columbia River stocks.

The parties will play an ongoing, collaborative role in guiding implementation of the agreement. American Rivers will help ensure that the river restoration and salmon recovery measures are informed by the best science and are implemented effectively.

Now that PacifiCorp and Cowlitz PUD have pledged to do their parts to ensure the vitality of the Lewis River into the future, the Clark County Council should do its part – by stopping harmful gravel mining on the East Fork and passing a strong Critical Areas Ordinance package in early 2005.

This agreement provides a long-term vision for the health of the Lewis River. We urge Clark County to use similar long-term, watershed-based thinking when making decisions that will impact the clean water, fish and wildlife, and quality of life for generations to come.

Cushman Dam Must Release More Water

John Seebach — Mon, 21 Jun 2004 07:00:00 -0500

Project: Cushman : P-460

The Cushman Project lies on the North Fork Skokomish River in Washington. On May 21, 1999, FERC issued an Order granting the City of Tacoma' s motion to stay implementation of the new Cushman license pending litigation, including the instream flow provisions. At that time, FERC instituted an interim flow requirement of only 60 cubic feet per second (cfs), well under the 240 cfs established in the new license. The 60 cfs is wholly inadequate to support a healthy riparian ecosystem and adversely impact fish spawning, rearing, and access to salmon and steelhead habitat.

On September 24, 2003, FERC accepted the Skokomish Tribe's motion to lift the stay on the license conditions, and assigned the matter to an administrative law judge (ALJ) for fact finding and recommendations. The proceeding was set on an accelerated schedule, with the ALJ making its proposal to the Commission on December 23, 2003.

The resource parties (including American Rivers, the Skokomish Tribe, and several state and federal resource agencies) submitted extensive filings to the ALJ in support of increasing interim flows. Based largely on these reports, in December the ALJ determined that increasing interim minimum flows of 240 cfs would be economically and technically feasible, and recommended to FERC that these flows be instituted. The recommendation included harsh language directed at Tacoma Power for its delay tactics and inexpert filings.

On June 21, 2004, FERC issued an Order finding with the ALJ and lifting the stay on minimum flow condition of the license. This Order effectively puts 240 cfs, or four times the flow, back in the North Fork Skokomish.

Poll reveals overwhelming support for Hells Canyon and salmon restoration

John Seebach — Tue, 15 Jun 2004 07:00:00 -0500

Project: Hells Canyon : P-1971

Visit Restore Hells Canyon for more about the poll and the campaign.

Poll reveals overwhelming support for Hells Canyon and salmon restoration

Boise — Nearly 8 of 10 voters who live in the Idaho Power service area think the company should be held responsible for restoring the ecological health of Hells Canyon, according to an independent poll released today.

In addition, 71% of the people polled believe salmon restoration — both upstream and downstream of Hells Canyon Dam — should be required in any new federal license for the company' s three-dam Hells Canyon Dam complex.

The poll, commissioned by Idaho Rivers United and American Rivers and released today with concerned fish biologists and business owners, was conducted to gauge citizen concern over the license renewal process for Idaho Power' s Hells Canyon dams. The current Hells Canyon license expires in 2005. The new license could govern operations at the dams for the next 30 to 50 years.

While the poll shows that people living in Idaho Power's service area generally view the company favorably, 79% also believe the utility is ultimately responsible for reversing degradation of the Snake River caused by the dams — including declines in salmon habitat, beach erosion, sediment buildup, water pollution and other issues.

At a Tuesday press conference, a fisheries biologist and the co-owner of a Hells Canyon river outfitting business called on Idaho Power, which operates the dams at a profit, to reinvest in the public resources they use to generate electricity.

"A healthy Hells Canyon is critical to my business and other tourism related businesses in Oregon, Washington and Idaho," said Carole Finley, who with her husband, Jerry Hughes, owns Hughes River Expeditions of Cambridge, Idaho. "This poll tells me that I am not alone in my concern over the long-term health of this spectacular place."

"This relicensing is an opportunity for Idaho Power to show true corporate responsibility by stepping up and making investments in restoring Hells Canyon," Finley said. "During the course of 18 years of doing business in the Canyon, we' ve seen first hand the impacts of current operations at the dams. This next license must require Idaho Power to do a better job of protecting one of America' s most special places."

Finley' s company is the longest operating outfitter in Hells Canyon, which was designated by Congress in 1975 as one of America' s Wild & Scenic Rivers. Finley says wildly fluctuating flows and a lack of sediment movement have destroyed beaches and wildlife habitat in the Canyon.

"The Snake in Hells Canyon is still one of our nation' s most beautiful rivers," Finley said. "But Idaho Power should not be allowed to degrade it further. If fact, I believe the company has a responibility — to our children, and their children — to begin the process of healing and restoring the beaches and habitat they' ve impacted."

Roy Heberger, a retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fish biologist, said the Hells Canyon dams have had tremendous impact on the ecology of West-Central Idaho and Eastern Oregon.

"Hells Canyon is said to be the Grand Canyon of the Northwest," Heberger said. "It could also be said that Idaho Power' s three-dam Hells Canyon complex is the Glen Canyon Dam of the Snake River. Like the Colorado in the Grand Canyon, the Snake River in Hells Canyon is broken and needs to be fixed."

Heberger said current dam operations wiped out once native salmon and steelhead runs above the dams, blocking the flow of important ocean nutrients to the Boise, Payette, Weiser and other river basins. The dams also impact water quality, the timing of flows and the movement of important, habitat forming sediment and other species like bull trout, red band trout and white sturgeon.

"All of these impacts must be evaluated and addressed in the relicensing process," Heberger said. "Idaho Power created these problems, and they have a responsibility to address them."

With the completion of the Hells Canyon complex in the late 1960s, 95 miles mainstem salmon habitat was cut off to migrating fall chinook. Steelhead and spring chinook lost access to important tributary streams, like the Weiser, the Boise, the Owyhee, the Lower Payette and the and the Malheur. In addition, habitat and water quality were affected downstream, impacting salmon and steelhead populations now listed under the Endangered Species Act.

While Idaho Power has traditionally balked at the idea of fish passage and other restorative measures as too expensive and disruptive, the poll found that well over 60% of voters within the Idaho Power service area would be willing to pay a up to $1.50 more per month for the technology upgrades needed to allow fish to move past the dams.

"People care about the health of their rivers," Heberger said. "This poll also indicates that electric customers are willing to help pay for improvements. Now, Idaho Power must do its part."

CONTACT:

Jenna Borovansky, Idaho Rivers United (208)-343-7481;

Sara Eddie, Advocates for the West (208) 342-7024 ext. 6;

Amy Souers, American Rivers (206) 213-0330 ext. 23

FERC grants petition to consult on endangered fish

John Seebach — Tue, 08 Jun 2004 07:00:00 -0500

Project: Hells Canyon : P-1971

On August 6th, FERC granted a petition requesting consultation with federal fish agencies over the impacts of Hells Canyon dams on endangered fish species.

The order is significant for FERC-regulated hydropower projects. It infers that endangered species consultation is appropriate not just when a project requires a new license -- as has been previous practice -- but at any time. Until now, hydropower projects have been grandfathered under their license from mitigating detrimental effects on endangered species. For example, with Hells Canyon, a 1995 license allowed the hydropower project to operate without regard for endangered fish species listed from 1991-1994.

Background:

In 1997, Coalition members American Rivers, Oregon Natural Resources Council, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Trout Unlimited, Institute for Fisheries Resources, the Federation of Fly Fishers, and others petitioned the Commission to initiate Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation on Idaho Power's Hells Canyon Complex with the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

The organizations argued that the ESA requires such action by FERC because FERC's license for the project, which includes a reopener provision, provides FERC with continuing authority over the project's configuration and operations. Such continuing authority constitutes an ongoing agency action which may affect ESA listed fish.

For years, FERC failed to respond to the petition. Last year, American Rivers and Idaho Rivers United sued FERC in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for unreasonable delay in responding. In June 2004, the Court handed down a strong decision, ruling in the petitioners' favor and directing FERC to respond to the petition within 45 days.

On August 6, 2004, FERC issued an order granting our petition, citing a misunderstanding.

For more information, visit the Restore Hells Canyon website.

Hatchery Policy to Determine Future of Wild Salmon Runs

John Seebach — Mon, 10 May 2004 07:00:00 -0500

You may have seen our billboards up in Sacramento (on I-80 East near Leisuretown), Seattle (corner of 4th and Cherry), and Portland (corner of Burnside and NW 22nd).

Whether or not you've seen the billboards, you should visit the Why Wild website to learn:

Why wild salmon are special and important
Why a proposed federal hatchery policy does not protect wild salmon
What you can to restore protections to wild salmon.

A recent press release:

Public to Weigh in on Future of Wild Salmon Runs

Protected status of 27 Pacific salmon and steelhead stocks - a dozen here in Washington - in play as feds decide whether to count hatchery and wild fish as equals under the law.

Contact:

David Moryc, American Rivers: cell: 503-307-1137, office: 503-827-8648

Alan Moore, Trout Unlimited: 503-827-5700 x.10

Jeremy Brown, Washington Trollers Association: 360-715-3717

Kristin Boyles, Earthjustice: 206-343-7340 X33

Ramon Vanden Brulle, Washington Trout; 425-788-1167

(SEATTLE, Wa.) - The public will speak out on Tuesday night at a federal hearing in Seattle which will focus on sweeping policy changes proposed by the Bush Administration that could reduce protections for native wild salmon and steelhead runs now listed under the Endangered Species Act. The hearing runs from 6:30-9:30 p.m. on Tue, Oct. 5 at the SeaTac Radisson Hotel, 17001 Pacific Highway South.

In June, NOAA Fisheries proposed its new policies, which would allow the agency to include or "count" hatchery-raised fish alongside wild fish when determining the health of salmon and steelhead runs. The policy leaves the door open for stripping protections from wild stocks and maintaining fisheries mostly, or completely, through hatcheries.

The policy has been condemned by scientists, fishers and editorial writers across the Northwest. The critics include prominent fisheries scientists who had been working with the government on hatchery policy until they saw their input would be ignored. The group then independently published its findings in the prestigious journal Science, detailing a case for the ecological dangers of the proposed policy, concluding "Hatchery fish should not be included as part of an ESU." (Science, March 2004). ESU, or Evolutionary Significant Unit, is a scientific term for a biologically unique salmon or steelhead run.

"It' s wrong on so many fronts it makes your head spin," remarked Trout Unlimited Western Conservation Director Jeff Curtis. "Any angler who's caught a wild fish knows you can't compare hatchery fish born in buckets and raised in concrete pools with wild fish that have evolved over millenia in native Northwest streams."

If protection for wild salmon decreases it spells trouble for hundreds of rivers and streams across the region.

"This isn't just about protecting endangered fish, it's about protecting the healthy streams and clean water we all need," said David Moryc of American Rivers. "This policy pretends we can pump our rivers full of hatchery fish, artificially inflating the numbers, then abdicate any responsibility to common sense land use and clean water protection."

Tuesday's hearing is part of a six-month public comment period on the administration' s proposal. The comment period ends October 20th.