UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE D.C. CIRCUIT


CITY CENTRALIA

v.

FERC


99-1273a

D.C. Cir. 2000


*	*	*


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 Ser- vice
("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 Hydro- power 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
peti- tion 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 hydro- power 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


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 com- menced 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, Execut- ed 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 submit- ted 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 nega- tive impact on
fisheries habitat." Id. Finally, the letter  acknowledged that, in
lieu of constructing a tailrace barrier, 


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 barri- er. 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, Cen- tralia 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 re- quired 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' recom- mendations). 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 


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 stud- ies have been completed
that quantify the numbers, if any, of  salmon delayed in their
upstream migration ... or the num- bers 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.


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 en- hancement to the
river's salmon populations or fishery  would be achieved with
construction of the tailrace barri- er. 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 be- tween the agencies. FERC
allowed NMFS time to substanti- ate 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 As- sessment 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 barri- ers, because fish can be injured in the tailrace. It


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


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, sub- mitted by Merritt E. Tuttle, Division Chief, NMFS, Aug.


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 out- weighed 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


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


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 project- induced 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 elaborat- ed 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


[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 protec- tion and rehabilitation of critical habitat areas
along the  river and major tributaries. This would further the 
adaptive management goals discussed above and re- quired under current
approaches to salmon management,  and would be substantially more
beneficial than imposing  a costly tailrace barrier that addresses a
minimal or non- existent problem.


Id. The Tribe also submitted additional support in 1998 and  1999,
stating that, in its annual harvest management activi- ties, 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 Re-
sources Attorney, Nisqually Indian Tribe (Feb. 11, 1999),  reprinted


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 li- cense.


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 ana- dromous fisheries resources of the Nisqually


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
Commis- sion 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 stat- ed 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 assess- ment] do nothing more than suggest, based
on isolated obser- vations 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 per- ceived 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 en- hancement measures, as stipulated
between the city and the  tribe, rather than the study prescribed in


"Let us remember," he added, "it is the survival and enhance- ment of
the species which is paramount." Id. This appeal  followed. II.
Analysis


This case presents an odd conjunction of statutory provi- sions, 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 pro- jects 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 consid- er 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 licens- es are issued, shall give equal
consideration to the  purposes of energy conservation, the protection,
miti- gation of damage to, and enhancement of, fish and  wildlife
(including related spawning grounds and habi- tat), 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 ulti- mate authority, however, to decide
whether any recom- mended 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


* * * *


The ECPA amendments to the FPA, which added the  "equal consideration"
language to section 4(e) and creat- ed the section 10(j) process, were
aimed primarily at  increasing FERC's sensitivity to environmental
con- cerns....


[However], the ECPA amendments do not give envi- ronmental factors
preemptive force.... FERC still is  charged with determining the
"public interest," i.e., bal- ancing power and non-power values. Even
where the  fish and wildlife agencies make formal section 10(j) rec-
ommendations, 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
recom- mendation. If we read the statute any other way, the 
Commission would be held hostage to every agency  recommendation, and
the Commission's role of reconcil- ing all competing interests would


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 quota- tion marks omitted).


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 up- stream migration of
steelhead trout and salmon," City of  Centralia, 87 F.E.R.C. at
62,421-22, is supported by substan- tial evidence and is not arbitrary
and capricious. See United  States Dep't of Interior, 952 F.2d at 545
(stating the substan- tial evidence and arbitrary and capricious
standards of re- view); 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 mak- ing,"
Texaco, 148 F.3d at 1095, and lacks substantial evidence  to justify
requiring Centralia to conduct a study, we are  constrained to grant


FERC is required by sections 4(e) and 10(a) of the Act to  give "equal
consideration" to energy and environmental con- siderations. 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 conclu- sion, 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 


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 appli- cant 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, "salmon- ids could be attracted to the tailrace discharge or
the by- passed 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 conclu- sion in this


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 Let- ter to
William C. Cummings (July 25, 1991), reprinted in J.A.  103 ("[S]ince
minimum flows were established in 1977 we 


have not documented any delay problems at the powerhouse,"  and "we
have studied chinook and pink migration and deter- mined 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 deci- sionmaking. 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 Hydro- Elec., 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


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 expendi- ture 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


Given the record in this case, we must conclude that FERC  has not
provided reasonable support, i.e., "substantial evi- dence," either
for the construction of a tailrace barrier or a  study to determine
its feasibility; and we also must conclude 


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.