During both the informational and the Skamania County land‑use consistency hearing, multiple speakers and counsel raised procedural objections that could affect the timeline and scope of review.

Nathan Baker, senior staff attorney with Friends of the Columbia Gorge, said the statutory duty to hold informational public hearings is triggered by "the receipt of an application for site certification" under RCW 80.50.090 and argued the materials posted by the applicant are labeled "draft," contain metadata and internal comments, and therefore do not constitute a final application that would properly trigger the public‑hearing sequence. "This is a draft application that is not ready for prime time," Baker said, and he told the council that FSEC should not proceed to land‑use hearings until a non‑draft filing is received.

Baker and others also alleged the council lacked required municipal appointees for hearings affecting cities within proposed project boundaries; they cited RCW language saying that city legislative authorities "shall appoint a member" to the council for hearings involving sites within city limits.

Multiple commenters and lawyers (including Steve McCoy of Friends of the Columbia Gorge and Eric Wriston for Columbia Riverkeeper) criticized the hearing notice and online instructions for submitting written comments. They said the published schedule and FSEC portal created an effective 6.5‑hour window in the evening to file written materials and that the notice did not clearly explain county‑by‑county hearing limits or the deadlines, which they said prejudices public participation. Steve McCoy called the notice "defective" and urged a longer comment period.

Applicant counsel Tim McMahon responded that submitting draft materials for agency review is common practice and that engagement with local governments about consistency certificates is ongoing; he said the applicant has requested certificate discussions with Skamania County and the cities of Stevenson and North Bonneville but that certificates are not yet concluded.

Administrative Law Judge Russell Michow explained that his role is to draft findings on whether the project is consistent with local plans and zoning; he reminded speakers that the land‑use hearing is confined to the question of consistency and set a 3‑minute time limit for testimony.

At the close of the meeting FSEC did not announce a decision about the procedural objections; several organizations said they will pursue follow‑up filings and asked FSEC to keep the record open.

Provenance: topicintro SEG 1358; topfinish SEG 2692