Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedural Objections And Tribal Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public and tribal groups press FSEC on process, permits and treaty rights at Cascade project land‑use hearing
Summary
In a separate land‑use consistency hearing, tribal representatives, environmental groups and local stakeholders argued the proceedings are premature because the applicant submitted only a draft application, said key permits were omitted from applicant materials, and warned the river route conflicts with treaty fisheries and National Scenic Area rules.
At the land‑use consistency hearing convened immediately after the informational session, multiple speakers raised procedural objections and substantive legal concerns about the Cascade Renewable Transmission Project’s route through the Columbia River.
Nathan Baker of Friends of the Columbia Gorge said bluntly that "this hearing is premature," arguing that Washington law (RCW 80.50.009(1)) requires informational hearings to follow the receipt of a submitted application and that FSEC had received only a draft. Baker and other groups requested that the council not treat a draft application as a trigger for full procedural steps and stated the short notice and brief written‑comment windows have limited public participation.
Columbia Riverkeeper counsel Eric Riston and Friends of the Columbia Gorge staff attorney Steve McCoy both told the council that the draft application lacked key technical detail required by state rules, including fish and wildlife surveys, soils and topography mapping, and detailed shoreline and site maps. McCoy also said the application materials and applicant slides omitted permits he said are required from the Columbia River Gorge Commission and the U.S. Forest Service for sections within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area.
Tribal representatives emphasized that the Klickitat stretch lies in treaty‑reserved fisheries and said the application did not account for treaty access sites. "This project is inconsistent with our 1855 treaty rights," Elaine Harvey said, describing potential impacts to salmon, sturgeon, smelt and lamprey and urging direct tribal consultation beyond agency‑led processes.
Applicant counsel responded that the Klickitat County code does not expressly prohibit in‑water uses in the Columbia River and that DNR and federal permitting reviews (including the Army Corps process) will be part of the administrative record; she asked that the written record remain open for 21 days. The council acknowledged process concerns and said it would consider coordination and length of comment periods as the review moves forward.
No formal council decision or vote was taken at the hearing; Judge Russell Mikow said he will draft a proposed order on land‑use consistency based on the record and that staff and the attorney general's office will review it before any council action. The council adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
