CSPA disputes NMFS Draft Biological Opinion for Oroville Relicensing

CSPA
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
“Conserving California’s Fisheries"

Your 501(c)(3) tax deductible cash donations are desperately needed if the fight for our fisheries is to continue. Read how you can donate!

Enter your Email address to sign up
for our Weekly Newsletter

For Email Marketing you can trust

CSPA disputes NMFS Draft Biological Opinion for Oroville Relicensing

By Chris Shutes, CSPA FERC Projects Director
July 21, 2009 -- CSPA has submitted comments to the National Marine Fisheries Service and to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on NMFS’s recent Oroville Dam Draft Biological and Conference Opinion for Central Valley spring-run and winter-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, and Central Valley green sturgeon . NMFS submitted the Draft BO to FERC on July 6, 2009, proposing a No Jeopardy determination, but proposing a number of Reasonable and Prudent Measures to avoid take of listed species.

CSPA disputes the No jeopardy Finding, particularly in the wake of NMFS’s Biological Opinion for the Operations Criteria and Plan (OCAP) for the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project that was made public in June. The OCAP BO contained a Jeopardy finding for the same species. CSPA believes that the Oroville Project, which contains the largest storage reservoir for the State Water Project and is operated as part of OCAP, cannot be separated out as a benign part of a system that NMFS correctly determined causes jeopardy to all four listed species that both BO’s address.

The Draft BO for Oroville is also less prescriptive than a Draft 401 Certification for the Oroville relicensing from State Water Resources Control Board staff that has been circulated over the last week. The Draft 401 notes the lack of certainty and the indefinite or excessively lengthy timelines contained in the Oroville Settlement Agreement. While a couple of Settlement timelines are shortened in the Draft BO, the Draft 401 is more comprehensive, stating in part:

State Water Board staff has determined that certain measures as written in the SA [Oroville Settlement Agreement] are either not enforceable, will not fully protect the beneficial uses, or will not meet water quality standards in a timely manner. Beneficial uses currently impacted by the Project may not be reasonably protected if the proposed measure has a management plan with unclear or unenforceable standards, an excessively long period prior to implementation, or unspecified implementation dates. State Water Board staff modified each measure to provide assurance that the beneficial uses will be reasonably protected.

In addition to suggesting that NMFS reconsider its No Jeopardy finding for Oroville, CSPA asks NMFS to line its requirements up with those in the Draft 401 Certification. CSPA also suggests measures to incorporate aspects of the OCAP BO into Final BO for Oroville.