Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-99-01273/USCOURTS-caDC-99-01273-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Centralia
Petitioner
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Respondent

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued April 11, 2000 Decided June 9, 2000

No. 99-1273

City of Centralia, Washington,

Petitioner

v.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

Respondent

On Petition for Review of Orders of the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

James B. Vasile argued the cause for petitioner. With him

on the briefs was Joseph E. Stubbs.

Laura J. Vallance, Attorney, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, argued the cause for respondent. With her on

the brief were John H. Conway, Acting Solicitor, and Susan

J. Court, Acting Deputy Solicitor.

USCA Case #99-1273 Document #522591 Filed: 06/09/2000 Page 1 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Henderson and Rogers,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Edwards.

Edwards, Chief Judge: The City of Centralia, Washington

("Centralia") brings this petition for review to challenge an

order of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

("FERC" or "Commission") requiring Centralia to conduct a

study of the effects of the Yelm Hydroelectric Project on the

anadromous fish in the Nisqually River. Centralia filed an

application in 1989 for a license to operate the existing Yelm

Hydroelectric Project. The National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") recommended that FERC require Centralia

to construct a tailrace barrier to prevent harm to the river's

anadromous fish population. The Acting Director of Hydropower Licensing determined that the cost of constructing a

tailrace barrier could not be justified, because the benefits of

the barrier had not been demonstrated. He held, however,

that a study should be undertaken to determine whether, and

to what extent, the Project was harmful to the fish. FERC,

with two Commissioners dissenting, denied Centralia's petition for rehearing. Centralia now petitions for review.

Under sections 4(e) and 10(a) of the Federal Power Act

("FPA" or "Act"), 16 U.S.C. ss 797(e), 803(a), as amended by

the Electric Consumers Protection Act ("ECPA"), Pub. L.

No. 99-495, 100 Stat. 1243 (1994), FERC must balance power

and non-power values when deciding whether to issue hydropower licenses. In this case, Centralia contends that the

Commission's order requiring a study should be vacated,

because FERC failed to accurately weigh the high cost of the

study against the negligible benefits to be derived from the

study. We agree. FERC does not dispute that the study

will cost Centralia up to $300,000 to determine whether a

tailrace barrier costing $1,000,000 should be constructed.

FERC also concedes that the study could prove inconclusive.

In addition, FERC has no meaningful hard evidence to prove

that the hydroelectric project is harmful to fish. In contrast,

the Nisqually Indian Tribe ("Tribe"), which operates a fishery

on the river, has submitted concrete data to show that no real

USCA Case #99-1273 Document #522591 Filed: 06/09/2000 Page 2 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

harm to the fish results from the Project. In short, the

record in this case does not support either the construction of

a tailrace barrier or a study to determine its feasibility.

Accordingly, the petition for review is granted.

I. Background

Centralia operates the Yelm Hydroelectric Project along

the Nisqually River. In the late 1970s, the Nisqually Indian

Tribe, which operates a fishery along the Nisqually River,

filed a complaint claiming that the Yelm Project was harming

the fishery. Centralia and the Tribe subsequently commenced negotiations in an effort to settle the Tribe's claims.

In 1985, in a separate proceeding, FERC determined that

Centralia, which had been operating the Yelm Project since

1930 without a license, was required to file for a license.

Centralia submitted a license application in 1989.

The Tribe and Centralia finally reached a settlement in

1991. See Stipulation and Settlement Agreement between

the City of Centralia and the Nisqually Indian Tribe, Executed Feb. 28, 1991, reprinted in Joint Appendix ("J.A.") 88.

Centralia agreed to provide the Tribe with money, land, and

other concessions in exchange for the Tribe's support in its

license application with FERC. Centralia also agreed to

achieve a minimum flow in the river.

In the original settlement between Centralia and the Tribe,

Centralia agreed to construct a tailrace barrier. Not long

after the settlement was signed, however, the Tribe submitted a letter to Centralia stating that it did not believe that a

tailrace barrier was either necessary or desirable. See Letter

from Dorian S. Sanchez, Chairman, Nisqually Indian Tribe to

William C. Cummings, Director, Centralia City Light (July

25, 1991), reprinted in J.A. 103. The letter noted that, "since

minimum flows were established in 1977," the Tribe had "not

documented any delay problems at the powerhouse." Id. at

2, reprinted in J.A. 104. Moreover, the letter stated that a

tailrace barrier would "have an immediate and ongoing negative impact on fisheries habitat." Id. Finally, the letter

acknowledged that, in lieu of constructing a tailrace barrier,

USCA Case #99-1273 Document #522591 Filed: 06/09/2000 Page 3 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Centralia had committed to contribute an amount equal to

one-half the cost of a tailrace barrier to support fisheries

enhancement projects within the Nisqually River basin. Id.

The Tribe viewed these other fisheries enhancements as

"much more beneficial" than a tailrace barrier. Id. On this

last point, the letter noted that

[t]he Nisqually Tribe's 1990 settlement agreement with

Centralia calls for Centralia to construct a tailrace barrier. This portion of the agreement was based on the

assumption that a tailrace barrier would be required of

Centralia by FERC; it was not based on a lengthy

analysis of the need for the barrier and should not be

used by FERC or other agencies as a basis for requiring

such a barrier. If the tailrace barrier is not imposed by

FERC, Centralia and the Nisqually Tribe will meet to

modify the settlement agreement to provide additional

funding for fisheries enhancement.

Id. at 2-3, reprinted in J.A. 104-05. Subsequently, in a

response to FERC's request for additional information, Centralia maintained that a tailrace barrier would not be in the

public interest, both because of its "high cost" and the

"absence of any reliable data to support the need for the

barrier." See Centralia's Response to Enclosure B of FERC

Staff Letter Dated April 12, 1991, reprinted in J.A. 111.

Meanwhile, as Centralia and the Tribe moved to avoid

construction of a tailrace barrier, officials from NMFS

pressed a different view. NMFS recommended to FERC

that, as a condition of any license, Centralia should be required to build a tailrace barrier to protect the fish. See

Letter from Dean L. Shumway, Director, Division of Project

Review, FERC to Merritt E. Tuttle, Division Chief, NMFS

(Mar. 23, 1992), reprinted in J.A. 169 (noting NMFS' recommendations). On March 16, 1992, however, FERC issued an

Environmental Assessment for the license and determined

that a tailrace barrier was not justified. See Environmental

Assessment for Hydropower License, Yelm Project, Mar. 16,

1992, 22-23, reprinted in J.A. 115, 141-42. The Assessment

noted that fish could certainly be attracted to "the high

USCA Case #99-1273 Document #522591 Filed: 06/09/2000 Page 4 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

velocity of the tailrace discharge flows" which could delay

migration or could injure or kill the fish, and that a tailrace

barrier would prevent those harms. Id. at 22, reprinted in

J.A. 141. But, the Assessment stated, no "site-specific studies have been completed that quantify the numbers, if any, of

salmon delayed in their upstream migration ... or the numbers that are injured or killed." Id. The Assessment also

noted the Tribe's findings that minimum flow had reduced the

problem and that large numbers of salmon had successfully

migrated past the Project without a tailrace barrier. The

Assessment concluded:

Since no information exists regarding the magnitude of

delay, false attraction, or turbine blade mortality of

salmon that the project could be causing, if any, we

cannot conclude that tailrace barriers would significantly

reduce delay of upstream migrants or turbine runner

mortality.

Therefore, we cannot conclude that significant enhancement to the river's salmon populations or fishery

would be achieved with construction of the tailrace barrier. Consequently, a tailrace barrier cannot be justified.

Id. at 23, reprinted in J.A. 142.

Because FERC had rejected NMFS' recommendation of a

tailrace barrier, an effort was made pursuant to s 10(j) of the

FPA, 16 U.S.C. s 803(j), to reconcile the disagreement between the agencies. FERC allowed NMFS time to substantiate the need for a tailrace barrier. See Letter to Merritt E.

Tuttle (Mar. 23, 1992), reprinted in J.A. 169. In response to

FERC's inquiry, NMFS claimed that the Environmental Assessment was "seriously flawed." Letter from Merritt E.

Tuttle, Division Chief, NMFS to Dean L. Shumway, Director,

Division of Project Review, FERC (Apr. 30, 1992), reprinted

in J.A. 173. NMFS argued that there was not enough

information about harm to the fish, because Centralia had

failed to do a study on the impact of the Yelm Project. It

noted that NMFS' general policy is to require tailrace barriers, because fish can be injured in the tailrace. It described

USCA Case #99-1273 Document #522591 Filed: 06/09/2000 Page 5 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

how that happened and noted that "[d]elay and injury has

been documented at a number of sites." Id. at 174.

NMFS also asserted that sufficient evidence demonstrated

potential harm to the fish. It claimed that, even without a

study, injury and false attraction were potential problems,

because the fish in the river were definitely strong enough to

swim up to the turbine. NMFS contended that "FERC's

failure to order Centralia to conduct [a] tailrace study ...

has created the informational void present at this time." Id.

at 6, reprinted in J.A. 178. NMFS thus recommended that

FERC either order the barrier to be built or order Centralia

to conduct a study evaluating the impacts of the Project on

the fisheries.

Two meetings between FERC and NMFS officials (along

with other interested parties) were held during the summer

of 1992, and NMFS officials submitted further arguments in

support of their recommendation. The meetings did not

resolve any issues, however. Everyone agreed that salmon

can be found in the tailrace area, but the parties disagreed

about whether the fish were harmed. NMFS continued to

insist that either a barrier should be built, or a study done.

It submitted a so-called "Summary of Key Evidence" to make

the case for its recommendation. It noted that fish are

commonly observed in the tailrace; that someone witnessed a

fish trying to swim into the tubes and one fish jumped and

likely injured itself; and that false attraction, delay and

injury "has commonly occurred at other powerhouse tailraces

in the Pacific Northwest." Summary of Key Evidence, submitted by Merritt E. Tuttle, Division Chief, NMFS, Aug. 18,

1992, reprinted in J.A. 197.

In April 1996, FERC issued a Final Environmental Impact

Statement (assessing the cumulative impacts of the Yelm

Project with another hydroelectric project on the river) that

concluded that the operation of the two projects would result

in minor impacts on the environment, which would be outweighed by the projects' benefits. The report also stated

that the fish stocks at issue were listed "healthy." A "healthy

stock" listing means that a "stock of fish [is] experiencing

USCA Case #99-1273 Document #522591 Filed: 06/09/2000 Page 6 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

production levels consistent with its available habitat and

within the natural variations in survival for the stock." Final

Environmental Impact Statement, Nisqually Hydroelectric

Project, July, 1996, reprinted in J.A. 206, 226-27 (listing

chinook salmon, coho salmon, chum salmon, pink salmon, and

winter steelhead trout stock as "healthy").

Finally, on March 7, 1997, the Acting Director of the Office

of Hydropower Licensing issued an order rejecting NMFS'

recommendation that Centralia build a tailrace barrier, but

accepting the recommendation that Centralia be required to

conduct a study on the potential need for a tailrace barrier.

The order concluded that "the information is not sufficient to

quantify" the harm to the fish "caused by the Yelm Project's

tailrace, or the consequences of these potential projectinduced effects on the stream's fishery." City of Centralia

Light Dep't, 78 F.E.R.C. p 62,171, at 64,636 (1997). Thus, the

incremental benefits of the barrier were not demonstrated

sufficiently to justify the cost of the barrier. However, the

Director agreed with NMFS that "a study is necessary to

determine how many fish are injured or killed by contact with

the project turbine blades ... [and] also ... [that] a study is

needed to determine how much false attraction and delay" is

occurring. Id.

Centralia sought rehearing, claiming that a study was not

justified. While the petition for rehearing was pending, the

Tribe continued to support Centralia's contention that a study

was neither necessary nor justified. It reiterated its earlier

recommendation that a tailrace barrier not be constructed,

and stated that, in its view, "further studies are not needed

and would be a waste of resources." Letter from David A.

Troutt, Natural Resources Director, Nisqually Indian Tribe

to Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, FERC 4 (Apr.

11, 1997), reprinted in J.A. 317, 320. The Tribe also elaborated on the value to be derived from the alternative fishery

enhancement measures that Centralia would fund if Centralia

were not required to build the barrier. Specifically, the Tribe

noted that

USCA Case #99-1273 Document #522591 Filed: 06/09/2000 Page 7 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

[t]hese alternative measures address the single greatest

threat to the salmon resources along the Nisqually River

and tributaries, the threat of increasing development

pressure due to urbanization along the basin's shorelines.

They will focus on the acquisition for permanent protection and rehabilitation of critical habitat areas along the

river and major tributaries. This would further the

adaptive management goals discussed above and required under current approaches to salmon management,

and would be substantially more beneficial than imposing

a costly tailrace barrier that addresses a minimal or nonexistent problem.

Id. The Tribe also submitted additional support in 1998 and

1999, stating that, in its annual harvest management activities, there were "no indications through [its] surveys that the

fish are being delayed at any point during their migration."

Letter from David A. Troutt, Natural Resources Director,

Nisqually Indian Tribe to Bill Tobin, Natural Resources

Attorney, Nisqually Indian Tribe (May 12, 1998), reprinted in

J.A. 327; Letter from David A. Troutt, Natural Resources

Director, Nisqually Indian Tribe to Bill Tobin, Natural Resources Attorney, Nisqually Indian Tribe (Feb. 11, 1999),

reprinted in J.A. 333.

Before FERC acted on Centralia's petition for rehearing,

Centralia and the Tribe concluded an amendment to their

settlement agreement. They agreed:

to use their best efforts to obtain concurrence of

FERC [and other agencies] that the tailrace barrier

should not be a condition of Centralia's FERC license.

if ... Centralia is not required to construct the

tailrace barrier, then Centralia and the Tribe shall

equally share Centralia's savings from not having to

construct the barrier.

money paid by Centralia to the Tribe ... shall be

segregated by the Tribe and used exclusively for the

protection, rehabilitation or enhancement of the anadromous fisheries resources of the Nisqually River.

USCA Case #99-1273 Document #522591 Filed: 06/09/2000 Page 8 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Stipulation and Settlement Agreement between the City of

Centralia and the Nisqually Indian Tribe, Amendment No. 1,

reprinted in J.A. 328.

FERC then denied rehearing. It noted that there is

evidence of fish in the Project's tailrace, and that, "[b]ased on

the record before us, during parts of the salmonid migration

season, the tailrace flows nearly equals flow in the bypassed

reach," and that fish could be attracted to it, "especially

during August and September." City of Centralia Light

Dep't, 87 F.E.R.C. p 61,383, at 62,421 (1999). The Commission thus concluded that fish might be harmed. FERC noted

that this sparse evidence, while not enough to support an

order requiring the construction of a tailrace barrier, was

enough to require Centralia to conduct a study.

Two Commissioners dissented. Commissioner Bailey stated that she was not convinced that the evidence in the record

was sufficient to require a study, and she did not believe that

a study was justified under the balancing required by Part I

of the Act. She pointed out that "the record submissions ...

both before and after the date of the [environmental assessment] do nothing more than suggest, based on isolated observations and flow-based understandings, the presence of fish

(including a single jumping adult salmon) in, or the attraction

of fish to, the tailrace area of the project." Id. at 62,423.

She cited with approval the Tribe's studies and stated that

they demonstrated that there was no need for Centralia to

conduct a study. She stated that the Commission had failed

to engage in the balancing of costs and benefits required by

the Act and that the costs of a study outweighed any perceived benefits. She cited Amendment No. 1 of the

Centralia-Tribe settlement and stated that any concerns she

might have had about not ordering the barrier were alleviated

by the parties' agreement to spend the savings on other

fishery enhancements. See id. at 62,424. Commissioner

HErbert agreed with Commissioner Bailey, adding that

"funds are more efficiently utilized if spent on species enhancement measures, as stipulated between the city and the

tribe, rather than the study prescribed in this matter." Id.

USCA Case #99-1273 Document #522591 Filed: 06/09/2000 Page 9 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

"Let us remember," he added, "it is the survival and enhancement of the species which is paramount." Id. This appeal

followed.

II. Analysis

This case presents an odd conjunction of statutory provisions, which were fully explored in United States Dep't of

Interior v. FERC, 952 F.2d 538 (D.C. Cir. 1992):

Under the FPA, FERC may license hydroelectric projects on federal lands and on waterways that are subject

to congressional regulation under the Commerce Clause.

16 U.S.C. s 797(e) (1988). Under sections 4(e) and 10(a)

of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. ss 797(e), 803(a), as amended by

the Electric Consumers Protection Act ("ECPA"), Pub.

L. No. 99-495, 100 Stat. 1243 (1986), FERC must consider environmental issues when deciding whether to issue

hydropower licenses.

In deciding whether to issue any license under [the

FPA] for any project, the Commission, in addition to

the power and development purposes for which licenses are issued, shall give equal consideration to the

purposes of energy conservation, the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of, fish and

wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), the protection of recreational opportunities, and

the preservation of other aspects of environmental

quality.

16 U.S.C. s 797(e) (1988).

All licenses issued under this subchapter shall be on

the following conditions: That the project adopted ...

will be best adapted to a comprehensive plan ... for

the adequate protection, mitigation, and enhancement

of fish and wildlife (including related spawning

grounds and habitat)....

16 U.S.C. s 803(a) (1988).

Additionally, under section 10(j) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C.

s 803(j), FERC must impose conditions on licenses

"based on recommendations received pursuant to the

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. s 661 et

seq.) from the National Marine Fisheries Service, the

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and State fish

and wildlife agencies." s 803(j)(1). FERC retains ultimate authority, however, to decide whether any recommended conditions are "inconsistent with the purposes

of" the FPA or other laws. s 803(j)(2). When it acts

contrary to a recommendation received from a wildlife

agency, FERC must make an appropriate finding on the

record to justify its decision. Id.

* * * *

The ECPA amendments to the FPA, which added the

"equal consideration" language to section 4(e) and created the section 10(j) process, were aimed primarily at

USCA Case #99-1273 Document #522591 Filed: 06/09/2000 Page 10 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

increasing FERC's sensitivity to environmental concerns....

[However], the ECPA amendments do not give environmental factors preemptive force.... FERC still is

charged with determining the "public interest," i.e., balancing power and non-power values. Even where the

fish and wildlife agencies make formal section 10(j) recommendations, those agencies have no veto power. See

National Wildlife Fed'n v. FERC, 912 F.2d 1471, 1480

(D.C. Cir. 1990) ("While the Commission must address

each recommendation, the discretion ultimately vests in

the Commission as to how to incorporate each recommendation. If we read the statute any other way, the

Commission would be held hostage to every agency

recommendation, and the Commission's role of reconciling all competing interests would be compromised.").

Id. at 543-45. See also City of Oconto Falls v. FERC, 204

F.3d 1154, 1160 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ("[T]he Commission still is

charged with determining the 'public interest,' i.e., balancing

power and non-power values. Even where the fish and

wildlife agencies make formal s 10(j) recommendations, those

agencies have no veto power.") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

USCA Case #99-1273 Document #522591 Filed: 06/09/2000 Page 11 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

The question raised in this petition for review is whether

FERC's order, "requiring Centralia to conduct a study to

determine the extent of [Yelm] project impacts on the upstream migration of steelhead trout and salmon," City of

Centralia, 87 F.E.R.C. at 62,421-22, is supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary and capricious. See United

States Dep't of Interior, 952 F.2d at 545 (stating the substantial evidence and arbitrary and capricious standards of review); City of Oconto Falls, 204 F.3d at 1159 (same); Texaco,

Inc. v. FERC, 148 F.3d 1091, 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (same).

Because FERC's order is devoid of "reasoned decision making," Texaco, 148 F.3d at 1095, and lacks substantial evidence

to justify requiring Centralia to conduct a study, we are

constrained to grant the petition for review.

FERC is required by sections 4(e) and 10(a) of the Act to

give "equal consideration" to energy and environmental considerations. In other words, it must "balanc[e] power and

non-power values." United States Dep't of Interior, 952 F.2d

at 545. The statute does "not give environmental factors

preemptive force." Id. FERC's order in this case makes no

attempt whatsoever to "balance" power and non-power values

in justifying the need for a study. The reason seems obvious:

there are no material environmental considerations that

weigh in favor of a study.

FERC is clear, and the record surely supports its conclusion, that there are no facts sufficient to require Centralia to

construct a tailrace barrier. See City of Centralia, 87

F.E.R.C. at 62,421. The agency's Environmental Assessment

report made it plain that there was nothing in the record to

support the construction of a tailrace barrier. Environmental

Assessment at 23, reprinted in J.A. 142. In other words,

FERC's own studies could uncover no non-power concerns.

And during the s 10(j) exchanges between FERC and NMFS

officials, FERC never varied from the position taken in the

Environmental Assessment that the costs of a barrier could

not be justified.

Having acknowledged that a barrier is not justified, FERC

stumbles badly in concluding that the costs of a study could

USCA Case #99-1273 Document #522591 Filed: 06/09/2000 Page 12 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

be justified. FERC is certainly empowered to require an

applicant to conduct a study when there is some evidence of a

problem and a study is necessary to determine the extent of

the harm. But not even FERC is suggesting that an applicant has a duty to determine if a problem exists. Yet, that is

the result of the disputed order in this case.

FERC's order articulates no evidence of harm. Rather,

FERC relies on the fact that fish are observed in the

Project's tailrace and the assertion that "during parts of the

salmonid migration season, the tailrace flows nearly equals

flow in the bypassed reach." Thus, FERC argues, "salmonids could be attracted to the tailrace discharge or the bypassed reach" and "either be delayed in their migrations or

injured or killed if they enter the draft tubes and are struck

by the turbines." City of Centralia, 87 F.E.R.C. at 62,421.

FERC's conclusion is based on sheer speculation. Therefore,

it cannot be said that there is substantial evidence justifying a

study. See Bangor Hydro-Elec. Co. v. FERC, 78 F.3d 659,

663 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (rejecting characterization that an agency

conclusion was a "finding" where it was merely a prediction

based on opinions). That fish could be attracted to the flow

is not evidence of a problem that warrants a study. Indeed,

FERC's only evidence that fish are harmed is that someone

saw a single jumping fish that hit a concrete barrier and may

have been hurt. City of Centralia, 87 F.E.R.C. at 62,421 n.7.

This is not evidence enough to support the disputed conclusion in this case.

Not only is there no substantial evidence to support

FERC's order, there is substantial evidence to support the

opposite position endorsed by Centralia and the Tribe. As

already noted, the record contains abundant submissions from

the Tribe showing that, based on the Tribe's surveys, no

harm results from the Project. See Letter to Director of the

Office of Hydropower Licensing (Apr. 11, 1997) (stating that

the Tribe believed that both the barrier and a study were

unnecessary and describing the benefits of the other fishery

enhancement projects), reprinted in J.A. 317. See also Letter to William C. Cummings (July 25, 1991), reprinted in J.A.

103 ("[S]ince minimum flows were established in 1977 we

USCA Case #99-1273 Document #522591 Filed: 06/09/2000 Page 13 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

have not documented any delay problems at the powerhouse,"

and "we have studied chinook and pink migration and determined that these species were found far upstream of the

powerhouse at an early date."); Letter to Bill Tobin (May 12,

1998), reprinted in J.A. 327 (noting that after conducting field

surveys on foot, boat, raft or helicopter, the Tribe had "not

noticed any delays caused by the power plant associated with

the Centralia hydroelectric project"); Letter to Bill Tobin

(Feb. 11, 1999), reprinted in J.A. 333 (same). Neither NMFS

in its submissions nor FERC in its order point to record

evidence to refute the Tribe's submissions.

Finally, Centralia contends, and we agree, that FERC's

order is arbitrary and capricious for want of reasoned decisionmaking. On the record here, "the costs of [FERC's]

prescription far outweigh any benefits to fish or the general

environment and is therefore unreasonable." Bangor HydroElec., 78 F.3d at 663. FERC acknowledges that "a study

could be rather expensive [i.e., as much as $300,000] and

could prove inconclusive." City of Centralia, 87 F.E.R.C. at

62,421 n.3. And Centralia and the Tribe convincingly argue

that the more than $500,000 that Centralia will contribute to

pay for alternative fishery enhancement measures is a far

superior way to protect the fish and river environment than a

$300,000 expenditure for what will likely be an inconclusive

study on the feasibility of a tailrace barrier.

FERC has no reasonable answer to Centralia's argument,

because it has failed to weigh the relative costs and benefits

of the proposed study. Standing alone, the study is arguably

too expensive, for it is difficult to justify a $300,000 expenditure for an inconclusive study to determine whether to spend

another $1,000,000 to construct a tailrace barrier to address a

problem that has not been identified. When weighed against

the alternative remedies proposed by Centralia and the Tribe,

however, the order requiring a study borders on absurd.

Given the record in this case, we must conclude that FERC

has not provided reasonable support, i.e., "substantial evidence," either for the construction of a tailrace barrier or a

study to determine its feasibility; and we also must conclude

USCA Case #99-1273 Document #522591 Filed: 06/09/2000 Page 14 of 15
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

that FERC has failed to show, in the required statutory

balancing of power and non-power values, that a study is

"reasonably related to its goal" of enhancing the fishery of

the Nisqually River. Bangor Hydro-Elec., 78 F.3d at 664.

III. Conclusion

For the aforementioned reasons, the petition for review is

granted. FERC's order requiring Centralia to conduct a

study is hereby reversed and vacated.

USCA Case #99-1273 Document #522591 Filed: 06/09/2000 Page 15 of 15