Relicensing the Baker River Dams By Arn Thoreen When the Baker River dams were built in a deep gorge 50 years ago, they blocked access to about 20 miles of upstream habitat for migrating salmon, particularly coho, chinook, and sockeye. For a run of sockeye that was previously the largest run in Puget Sound, this was a big concern. For years the salmon making their way downstream had to take their chances with the turbines, and many did not survive to migrate downstream. Puget Sound Energy (PSE), the operator of the dams, now has a system in place to transport spawning adults upstream into Baker Lake above the dams and truck young salmon downstream and release them back in the river below the dams. The Baker River now contains the only remaining native population of sockeye in Puget Sound. PSE has to consider the importance of this population when renewing their operating license. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses electric power generating facilities in the United States. The original 50-year license for the Baker River Hydroelectric Project, which consists of the Upper and Lower Baker dams, the powerhouse, fish facilities and all other project-related structures, expires on April 30, 2006 and PSE, has filed with the FERC for relicense. The Traditional License process often resulted in lawsuits and decades of litigation. In an effort to alleviate this problem, PSE chose to pursue the Alternate Licensing Process wherein the stakeholders work with the license-applicant to craft a Settlement Agreement prior to submission to the FERC and then hope the FERC accepts the mitigation package. SFEG has been involved as a stakeholder to ensure adequate protection of salmon resources. In 2001, five Work Groups (Aquatic, Terrestrial, Recreational, Cultural, and Economic) began assembling known information, developing and conducting studies to answer the unknown, and crafting Protection/Mitigation/Enhancement measures to address project impacts. The Solution Team was created to coordinate the activities of the Work Groups and solve any conflicts that arose. A Policy Team was created to craft the final Settlement Agreement, which went back-and-forth a few times to the Legal Team. Finally, after five years, over 400 meetings, and $15 million in PSE expenses, the Baker River Hydroelectric Project Comprehensive Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement) was signed. A group of stakeholders representing 23 entities (including federal, state and local agencies; tribal nations; local and national nongovernmental organizations; and one citizen) is the largest number of collaborators ever to reach a Settlement Agreement with a licensee and present their case to the FERC. As SFEG's Baker Project delegate, I was on the Aquatic Work Group. I was also asked to be on the Solution Team and Policy Team and honored to be invited as the sole representative to accompany PSE to Washington, DC to present the Settlement Agreement to the FERC commissioners and technical team. The FERC considers our process and Settlement Agreement to be the poster-child for future nationwide licensing and relicensing agreements. A book is being written on our collaborative efforts. The signing of the Settlement Agreement was celebrated at the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe's Skagit Valley Casino on February 11, 2005. So what did we get? Of the $180 million-plus Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement package, approximately 83% is going toward aquatic resources. The bulk of this money will go toward building new adult fish collection facilities at the Baker River fish weir in Concrete, transporting those fish to new propagation facilities up on the reservoirs, rearing the next generation to outmigrant size, collecting the outmigrants without allowing them to go through the turbines, and transporting them to release ponds below the dams. Because of reservoir fluctuation for flood control, this propagation system will rely heavily on hatchery methods to bring sockeye production up to a point of adult return approximately 5 times the current high of 20,000-plus. This is pretty traditional; we lose or alter natural habitat and then try to mitigate for that loss with a hatchery. I am not a fan of this program and have voiced concerns, especially over the harvest of the adult sockeye on their return up the Skagit River where the Endangered Species Act-listed Chinook salmon will be spawning. Sockeye stay in very good shape for longer than other salmon when back in fresh water so I will argue for most of the harvest to take place in either the Baker River or up on the reservoir, thus preventing incidental harm to Chinook. These decisions, as well as all implementation of the Settlement Agreement, will be discussed in the to-be-formed Baker River Coordinating Committee. The FERC traditionally had all Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement efforts take place within project boundaries, that is, the area inundated by the reservoir or immediately adjacent to project facilities. It is like pulling teeth to get FERC, or PSE, or the agencies and services to acknowledge that dams critically affect the habitat below a project. Fortunately, recent literature, including David Montgomery's "King of Fish" helped our argument. Current minimum flows from the project are 80 cubic feet per second (cfs). With the new license, minimum flow will be 1000 cfs August 1 to October 21 and 1200 cfs the rest of the year. Currently, PSE's Lower Baker generating turbine operates at "on" or "off" (4000 cfs or 0 cfs). PSE has agreed to put in two smaller turbines that will give them much greater flexibility. These are significant costs to PSE but they are using a public resource (the water). PSE will also monitor the necessity of adding gravel to the Skagit River below the project. Right now no spawning gravel gets past the dams but large amounts of sediment and gravel come down the Sauk River into the Skagit so augmentation is unnecessary. Large woody debris that used to be carried down the Baker River system to the Skagit River is also addressed. PSE will now make large woody debris available to salmon enhancement projects. PSE will also establish a Habitat Enhancement, Restoration and Conservation fund for use downstream of the hydroelectric project. It is intended that these funds will be available for stand-alone projects or to be used as a match for federal dollars. What's left? The biggest hurdle remaining is Skagit County's request for additional flood control. Skagit County Commissioners want additional flood storage to be created behind the two dams. This would require modifications to the dams and would require PSE to either generate or spill water, putting PSE at an economic disadvantage. Flood control was an issue in the 1960's, when the Baker River project was originally licensed. PSE (called Puget Power then) was ordered to cooperate with the US Army Corps of Engineers whenever the Skagit River reached flood stage (90,000 cfs). The Corps would take over operation of the dams and release water before the peak, like emptying a bathtub, so that when the peak hit they could shut off flow from the Baker River system by refilling the reservoirs thereby decreasing the crest of the flood on the Skagit. The loss of revenue to PSE is reimbursed by a power transfer from the Bonneville Power Administration. This flood control arrangement took an Act of Congress to create and is the only one imposed on a private utility in the US. It was made clear that the flood control was to protect existing structures only and that regulations on the local level were to keep the floodplain from further development. We all know that this didn't work and that economic pressure and a false sense of security (and weak regulations) have allowed a tremendous amount of growth to occur in the floodplain (such as the malls in Burlington). (In a perverse way of thinking, the more development that occurs in the floodplain the greater the chance for additional flood control because the US Army Corps of Engineers bases the need on a cost-benefit ratio.) The crest of these types of floods is what made the Skagit River such good habitat for salmon in the first place. The river would continually wander about in its floodplain, making new side channels every so often. This diverse habitat, as well as the marshes, wetlands and logjams, made the lower mainstem of the Skagit River the most productive area for coho and Chinook salmon. Floods were a net benefit to salmon. Then we cleared the logjams, constrained the river between dikes and filled the wetlands. Now we force all the fish to spawn in the "gutter" where their survival is lower than in side channels. By reducing side channel habitat we've taken away the "rest areas" where fish migrating downstream used to feed and slowly adapt to salinity. It is said that mortification, or adapting to salt water, is as big a change to fish as humans changing from getting oxygen out of air to getting it out of fresh water. If you flush the fish out too early, they just don't make it. The Skagit County Commissioners are in a bind because of past development, but if they want additional flood control to protect life and property they, or the insurance companies, must mitigate for this critical habitat loss. If this habitat isn't available, fish from upriver will continue to suffer and the historically most productive area will continue to be a bottleneck, at best, and a death sentence during floods. Final preparation of the Baker River Hydroelectric Project License Application is being readied for submission to the FERC. A preliminary draft is available at the SFEG office for those wishing to review the details. For the time being, I will continue to represent SFEG on the Baker River Coordinating Committee as the real work, implementation of the Settlement Agreement, begins.