Hydropower Reform Coalition - NMFS

FERC issues a license for Santa Felicia project in California

Rupak Thapaliya — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:04:13 -0500

FERC issued a 40-year license today to United Water Conservation District for operation of Santa Felicia hydroelectric project in Ventura County, CA.

Although the project boundary contains endangered and threatened species such as Southern California steelhead, Santa Ana sucker. Southwestern Arroyo toad, and California red legged frog, it was determined that the project would only affect Southern California steelhead. Last year, the National Marine and Fisheries Service (NMFS), through its Biological Opinion (BO), provided a list of measures that could be undertaken to protect the species. Among the measures was a study to analyze the need for fish passage, which the licensee will have to perform within the first year. Within the first three years, United is also required to formulate a plan to provide whitewater boating portage around Santa Felicia dam.

Coalition members American Whitewater, California Trout and Trout Unlimited had participated in the license proceeding for this 1.4 MW project.

NMFS fails to require fish passage for Hells Canyon

John Seebach — Thu, 26 Jan 2006 06:00:00 -0600

Project: Hells Canyon : P-1971

FERC's deadline for all interested parties in the Hells Canyon dams to file their recommendations for terms and conditions in the new license was January 26, 2006. The federal National Marine Fisheries Service - the agency charged with protecting migrating endangered salmon and steelhead - submitted a simple reservation of authority. In other words, the agency did nothing and failed in its responsibility to protect these endangered species.

Other agencies submitted preliminary terms and conditions that required or recommended passage into tributaries or for resident fish, all of which will be revised and resubmitted once FERC has finished its NEPA analysis.

The dams were constructed in the 1950s and 1960s, permanently cutting off all migration to 360 miles of habitat on the Snake River mainstem in addition to key tributaries like the Boise River. Coalition members American Rivers and Idaho Rivers United have been working hard for years to have fish passage and sorely-needed water quality fixes on the next Hells Canyon license.

A quick sketch of recent commitments for three large hydropower projects around the Northwest shows that kilowatt-hour for kilowatt-hour, the next Hells Canyon license should be worth $574 million. Presently, the company has proposed a package worth $200 million less than the regional average.

To learn more about Hells Canyon, visit Restore Hells Canyon.

Coalition leaders file suit over Energy Bill hydropower rules

John Seebach — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 06:00:00 -0600

Coalition leaders American Rivers, American Whitewater, Friends of the River (California), Idaho Rivers United, Trout Unlimited, and Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper filed a complaint in federal court on December 16th challenging new federal regulations for hydropower.

The new regulations are designed to weaken environmental protections that curb a hydropower dam's grip on rivers and give utilities access to political appeals. They are a result of the Energy Policy Act's hydropower provisions, which the Coalition fought hard for years to make less damaging to the environment.

The Coalition elected to file a complaint because the regulations were published as final, skipping a draft for public comment and leaving incomplete serious administrative procedures; and because the rules were given retroactive effect, allowing utilities to try to weaken environmental protections that could have been finalized years earlier in the licensing process.

A press release is below.

Contacts:
Robbin Marks, American Rivers, (202) 347-7550 ext. 3051
Jan Hasselman, Earthjustice 206-343-7340 ext. 25

HYDROPOWER INDUSTRY EXPLOITING NEW REGULATORY LOOPHOLE, PUTTING AMERICA' S RIVERS AT RISK

Fishing, Recreation and Conservation Groups File Lawsuit to Protect Rivers and Public' s Right to Participate in Rule-Making Process

WASHINGTON (December 20, 2005) – Under a new federal regulation issued last month, a number of companies that operate hydroelectric dams on rivers across the country hope to evade requirements meant to protect the health of rivers. If successful, numerous utilities would be able to avoid installing fish ladders, making sure rivers have enough water, and protecting fish and wildlife that are affected by their dams.

Years of negotiations between the utilities, states, local governments, tribes, and federal agencies have modernized existing dam operations and brought them into compliance with today' s environmental laws. But now, utilities are using these new rules to back out of agreed-upon protection measures designed to safeguard rivers from the damaging effects of dams. Under the rules, energy companies hope to remove or weaken protective requirements – even after they' ve been finalized as part of the licensing process.

“The new dam rules give utilities an unfair advantage,” said Robbin Marks, director of hydropower reform at American Rivers. “Now companies, whose dams have caused so much environmental damage over decades, expect to do even less to safeguard our rivers.”

A coalition – including American Rivers, Trout Unlimited, American Whitewater, Idaho Rivers United, Friends of the River, and Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper – has filed suit, charging that the new rules illegally allow challenges to already finalized measures that protect rivers from dams. The complaint also accuses federal agencies – Departments of Interior, Commerce and Agriculture– of illegally publishing the new rules as “final” without ever having provided the opportunity for public comment on the draft rules.

“Conservation groups, tribes and local communities across the country have worked for years in good faith to build consensus around the management of these dams and the rivers they impact,” said Jan Hasselman, an attorney at Earthjustice in Seattle, who is representing the coalition in the lawsuit. “Unfortunately, the Bush administration changed the rules to give dam owners unfair control over our nation' s greatest public resource – our rivers – without letting citizens and communities have a say.”

The move to scuttle on-going negotiations and weaken river protections is the direct result of the energy bill signed into law by President Bush in August. Because of that law, hydroelectric dam operators have new leverage to challenge requirements to build fish passage to allow fish to move around dams; protect lands on and around rivers; or help keep water clean and at natural flow levels. Under the law, industry and others also can propose its own preferred protection measures, which federal agencies must accept under many circumstances.

While many dams provide benefits, they also cause considerable harm to rivers, as well as local communities. Dams have depleted fisheries, degraded river ecosystems, and diminished recreational and economic opportunities on rivers across the nation. According to American Rivers, most existing dams could be operated in new and improved ways that reduce their current impacts on rivers.

“The public deserves to have a voice in how our rivers are managed,” said Steve Moyer, Vice-President of Government Affairs for Trout Unlimited, a party to the lawsuit. “The new rules stack the deck in favor of dams, at the expense of fish that need healthy rivers to thrive. They also deny concerned citizens the opportunity to offer smarter alternatives.”

Added Kevin Colburn, National Stewardship Director for American Whitewater: “ It' s outrageous that these rules will hobble some of our most exciting current efforts to bring public recreation back to rivers.”

Some of the rivers at risk – for which American Rivers can provide local contacts – include: Feather River, California; Upper Chattahoochee River, Georgia; Snake River, Idaho and Washington; and Mid-Columbia River, Washington.

New Energy Bill Rules Weaken Environmental Protections

John Seebach — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 06:00:00 -0600

Learn more about the Coalition's work on the Energy Policy Act rulemaking.

Contact: John Seebach, HRC Coordinator 202-243-7055

On Thursday, November 17th, the Departments of Interior, Commerce, and Agriculture unveiled new rules for hydropower dam licensing, as directed by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Although the public may comment on the new rules within the next sixty days, they take effect immediately, squandering the ability for the public to have an impact on something that directly affects a public resource - rivers.

"The intent behind the rules is to make river protections easier to elude," said John Seebach, Coordinator of the Hydropower Reform Coalition. The Coalition is a national consortium of over 130 river conservation and recreation organizations that advocate for rivers affected by hydropower dams. "Utilities want more avenues for challenging environmental protections or intimidating agencies into not issuing protections at all. They got their wish with these new rules."

The rules create two new processes within the already lengthy and involved five-year dam licensing process. The first allows for any party to request a trial-type hearing to challenge issues of "material fact" that have formed the basis for environmental conditions prescribed by agencies. The second allows for any party to propose alternative agency conditions that either cost less to implement or allow for more power generation.

"Although these new processes are open to any party, it's clear they will be used most by industries to gut environmental protections already prescribed by federal agencies," said Laura Norlander, Director of the California Hydropower Reform Coalition. "FERC-regulated hydropower dams have been allowed to operate for decades on outdated licenses that do not reflect current standards for environmental protection. No other industry has been afforded such a luxury. Why should hydropower dams be given another free pass?"

The rules have serious consequences for rivers across the nation that are manipulated by hydropower dams:

No Meaningful Public Comment: The rules are issued as " interim final," giving the public a meaningless opportunity to comment on rules that will already be in force.
Turning Back the Clock: The rules allow any dam owner seeking a new license to use the rules, regardless of whether decisions on environmental protections agree to years ago. This will disrupt the licensing process and restart timelines - all causing delay in order to weaken environmental protections.
Only for the Wealthy: The timelines and technical burdens are so severe that the only party that can afford to comprehensively participate is the dam owner. Although other parties are able to use the challenges, the administrative hurdles will prevent any one else from doing so.
Environmental Protections Challenged by Unrelated Criteria: If alternatives to agency conditions are challenged, the original conditions must be justified in light of other river uses including navigation, flood control, and energy supply. The Federal Power Act does not require agencies to consider these issues when prescribing environmental conditions, yet the decision on whether or not to keep original conditions will consider these additional factors.

"Last year, the Department of Interior attempted to write rules for the these very challenges," said Rebecca Sherman, Northwest Coordinator of the Hydropower Reform Coalition in Portland, OR, "and the national outcry was tremendous. Now the federal agencies are trotting out the same bad rules, but caging public comment to only after the rules are final. It's as if they are deaf, dumb - or afraid - of what everyone but the energy companies want."

Salmon Habitat Protections Slashed by 80%

John Seebach — Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:00:00 -0500

The Endangered Species Act directs two federal agencies to save endangered species in part by protecting the places the species needs to recover. On August 12, 2005, the federal government reinterpreted the Endangered Species Act and eliminated 80% of previously protected “critical” habitat for endangered salmon and steelhead.

The new Critical Habitat policy, issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), proposed to remove all habitat it considers already protected by other agencies such as the Forest Service under its Northwest Forest Plan.

NMFS also abandoned habitat that lies above presently unpassable dams, even where legal agreements exist to place fish above those dams. Even worse, often the very reason that fish are passing these dams is because NMFS demanded it, citing the need for new habitat and potential new populations. Yet once the fish get above the dams, NMFS will have done nothing to make sure that the habitat the fish reach will help them survive.

According to Trout Unlimited' s August 12, 2005 press release, this announcement is “the latest in a series of anti-salmon recovery policies released by the Bush administration that continue to confound the science community, conservation groups, and even federal courts.”

More information:

The California and Northwest critical habitat proposals.
The Coalition's comments on the proposals.
A Trout Unlimited, Earthjustice, and National Wildlife Federation report on the importance of critical habitat in restoring salmon.

Final Hatchery Policy Published: Science Flouted, Agenda Pursued

John Seebach — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 07:00:00 -0500

Today the National Marine Fisheries Service (or NOAA Fisheries) issued its hatchery policy, listing determinations for 16 populations of salmon in the West, and an extension on determinations for the Oregon coastal coho and 10 populations of West Coast steelhead. Under this new hatchery policy, the federal fish agency will treat fish spawned and reared in a concrete hatchery raceway the same as a fish spawned and reared in a real stream.

For more on why conservationists and scientists oppose this policy, please review:

The campaign website, WhyWild.org
The following press release from Trout Unlimited
The Coalition's comments on the policy (attached below)

News Release

June 16, 2005

Contact:

Dr. Jack Williams, Senior Scientist: 541.482.6325

Kaitlin Lovell, Salmon Policy Coordinator: 503.827.5700 x. 13; c. 503.789.7549

Jeff Curtis, Western Conservation Director: 503.827.5700 x. 11; c. 503.419.7105

Feds' New Hatchery Policy Defies Science

and Common Sense, says Trout Unlimited

Policy finalized today essentially equates hatchery, wild salmon under ESA

(PORTLAND, Ore.) – Conservation group Trout Unlimited (TU) today said it was relieved that 16 stocks of Pacific salmon previously listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) would remain protected for now, but also said that a new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries) policy would lead to more controversy and lawsuits, and ultimately diminish the protection and hinder the recovery of Pacific salmon and steelhead.

The policy, finalized today, requires that salmon and steelhead born and reared in hatcheries and then released be considered alongside wild fish born and reared in rivers when weighing the need for ESA protection. Those considerations then become integral in assessing the overall health of a stock, ESA listing decisions, strategies for recovering imperiled stocks and more. Trout Unlimited said today NOAA's announcement reflects a policy reversal that undermines decades of recovery strategies and actions targeted toward wild fish.

TU said the implications of combining wild and hatchery fish to determine protection levels is wrong-headed, and runs afoul of the judgment of legions of fisheries scientists who have examined the question of wild-versus-hatchery fish management.

“The conclusion of the vast majority of fisheries science's finest minds who' ve studied this problem is that hatchery fish and wild fish are different animals and must be managed accordingly, especially under the auspices of the Endangered Species Act,” said Dr. Jack Williams, senior scientist for Trout Unlimited. “It' s puzzling that NOAA Fisheries would issue a policy that contradicts the advice of its own scientists.”

Jeff Curtis of TU pointed out that “the problem is that if you include hatchery fish - which in fact can be a threat to wild fish - in determining which fish qualify for protection under the Endangered Species Act, then you will always have trouble determining whether and how those hatchery fish will be protected. It is not only bad science, it is also goofy policy.”

Under the new policy, for example, fish raised in concrete hatcheries and spawned in white plastic buckets from over 160 hatcheries which swim alongside wild fish will be protected under the ESA.

Several groups of fisheries scientists have published findings supporting the conclusion that hatchery fish should be excluded from ESA listings (please refer to Web links below). In addition, the policy appears to disregard what is reported to be some 90 percent of the over 27,000 public comments which supported listing only the wild component of individual salmon stocks.

Trout Unlimited said the new policy leaves the door wide open for a spate of new litigation.

“We' re pleased that the wild fish that were protected before will have continued protection in the near term under this policy,” said Kaitlin Lovell of Trout Unlimited. “But at the same time it's disappointing that NOAA has seemingly squandered the opportunity to adhere to the science, address wild salmon recovery head-on and resolve the issues that landed us all in litigation the first time around. There's little in this policy to give us hope we won' t end up there again.”

Please refer to the following links to view scientific publications supporting exclusion of hatchery fish from ESA listings:

Salmon Recovery Science Review Panel:

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/rsrpreportsept30_2004e.pdf

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/trt/rsrp_docs/rsrpreportdec04finalwbios.pdf

Independent Scientific Advisory Board:

http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/isab/isab2005-2.htm

Trout Unlimited is North America's leading coldwater fisheries conservation organization, with 140,000 members dedicated to the protection and restoration of trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds.

Attachment	Size
CHRC_HRC_comments_on_Hatchery_Policy.pdf	19.87 KB

Coalition Submits Comments on Hatchery Policy

John Seebach — Sat, 11 Dec 2004 06:00:00 -0600

The California Hydropower Reform Coalition and Pacific Northwest region of the Hydropower Reform Coalition submitted comments this Friday, November 12, 2004 on the National Marine Fisheries Service's proposed hatchery policy.

The policy proposes to consider hatchery fish the same as wild fish under Endangered Species Act protections, and will downgrade the quality of protection measures for endangered fish in the hydropower licensing process.

For more on the hatchery policy, visit the Why Wild website.

FERC grants petition to consult on endangered fish

John Seebach — Tue, 08 Jun 2004 07:00:00 -0500

Project: Hells Canyon : P-1971

On August 6th, FERC granted a petition requesting consultation with federal fish agencies over the impacts of Hells Canyon dams on endangered fish species.

The order is significant for FERC-regulated hydropower projects. It infers that endangered species consultation is appropriate not just when a project requires a new license -- as has been previous practice -- but at any time. Until now, hydropower projects have been grandfathered under their license from mitigating detrimental effects on endangered species. For example, with Hells Canyon, a 1995 license allowed the hydropower project to operate without regard for endangered fish species listed from 1991-1994.

Background:

In 1997, Coalition members American Rivers, Oregon Natural Resources Council, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Trout Unlimited, Institute for Fisheries Resources, the Federation of Fly Fishers, and others petitioned the Commission to initiate Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation on Idaho Power's Hells Canyon Complex with the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Act.

The organizations argued that the ESA requires such action by FERC because FERC's license for the project, which includes a reopener provision, provides FERC with continuing authority over the project's configuration and operations. Such continuing authority constitutes an ongoing agency action which may affect ESA listed fish.

For years, FERC failed to respond to the petition. Last year, American Rivers and Idaho Rivers United sued FERC in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for unreasonable delay in responding. In June 2004, the Court handed down a strong decision, ruling in the petitioners' favor and directing FERC to respond to the petition within 45 days.

On August 6, 2004, FERC issued an order granting our petition, citing a misunderstanding.

For more information, visit the Restore Hells Canyon website.

Hatchery Policy to Determine Future of Wild Salmon Runs

John Seebach — Mon, 10 May 2004 07:00:00 -0500

You may have seen our billboards up in Sacramento (on I-80 East near Leisuretown), Seattle (corner of 4th and Cherry), and Portland (corner of Burnside and NW 22nd).

Whether or not you've seen the billboards, you should visit the Why Wild website to learn:

Why wild salmon are special and important
Why a proposed federal hatchery policy does not protect wild salmon
What you can to restore protections to wild salmon.

A recent press release:

Public to Weigh in on Future of Wild Salmon Runs

Protected status of 27 Pacific salmon and steelhead stocks - a dozen here in Washington - in play as feds decide whether to count hatchery and wild fish as equals under the law.

Contact:

David Moryc, American Rivers: cell: 503-307-1137, office: 503-827-8648

Alan Moore, Trout Unlimited: 503-827-5700 x.10

Jeremy Brown, Washington Trollers Association: 360-715-3717

Kristin Boyles, Earthjustice: 206-343-7340 X33

Ramon Vanden Brulle, Washington Trout; 425-788-1167

(SEATTLE, Wa.) - The public will speak out on Tuesday night at a federal hearing in Seattle which will focus on sweeping policy changes proposed by the Bush Administration that could reduce protections for native wild salmon and steelhead runs now listed under the Endangered Species Act. The hearing runs from 6:30-9:30 p.m. on Tue, Oct. 5 at the SeaTac Radisson Hotel, 17001 Pacific Highway South.

In June, NOAA Fisheries proposed its new policies, which would allow the agency to include or "count" hatchery-raised fish alongside wild fish when determining the health of salmon and steelhead runs. The policy leaves the door open for stripping protections from wild stocks and maintaining fisheries mostly, or completely, through hatcheries.

The policy has been condemned by scientists, fishers and editorial writers across the Northwest. The critics include prominent fisheries scientists who had been working with the government on hatchery policy until they saw their input would be ignored. The group then independently published its findings in the prestigious journal Science, detailing a case for the ecological dangers of the proposed policy, concluding "Hatchery fish should not be included as part of an ESU." (Science, March 2004). ESU, or Evolutionary Significant Unit, is a scientific term for a biologically unique salmon or steelhead run.

"It' s wrong on so many fronts it makes your head spin," remarked Trout Unlimited Western Conservation Director Jeff Curtis. "Any angler who's caught a wild fish knows you can't compare hatchery fish born in buckets and raised in concrete pools with wild fish that have evolved over millenia in native Northwest streams."

If protection for wild salmon decreases it spells trouble for hundreds of rivers and streams across the region.

"This isn't just about protecting endangered fish, it's about protecting the healthy streams and clean water we all need," said David Moryc of American Rivers. "This policy pretends we can pump our rivers full of hatchery fish, artificially inflating the numbers, then abdicate any responsibility to common sense land use and clean water protection."

Tuesday's hearing is part of a six-month public comment period on the administration' s proposal. The comment period ends October 20th.