Issue: Releases on the Upper Ocoee River
Goal: Secure an annual schedule of free releases
Current Status: TVA recently decided to drastically reduce the number of releases available to paddlers on the Upper Ocoee. It is their opinion that they own the water and are therefore entitled to charge paddlers for the use of that water. American Whitewater disagrees; the water is part of the public trust and belongs first and foremost in the river. TVA was created to provide economic development to the Tennessee Valley, however now they are acting as though profit is more important than fulfilling their mission. It has been shown that each release on the Upper Ocoee costs TVA about $6,500 in lost power generation. The same release injects at least $210,000 directly into the local economy. If TVA were acting appropriately they would recognize the economic value of whitewater releases for Polk County and forego power generation from the Ocoee Number 2 powerhouse on a regular basis.
To help bring these issues to the public, American Whitewater organized the Ocoee Symposium in May, 2001. The Symposium received significant media coverage and attendees were far more united and informed than when they arrived. The overriding take home message emerging from the Symposium was the common interest to restore whitewater flows to the Upper Ocoee among a diverse set of stakeholders. This group of stakeholders is now organizing a coalition focused on restoring the Upper Ocoee. The coalition’s goal is to reform TVA’s practices on the Upper Ocoee.
The coalition needs your help with this issue! We will be attending a TVA Regional Stewardship Council meeting in late August. The more paddlers attending the better. Keep an eye on our web page for an alert about this meeting. We will also likely be calling on you to write letters and call your congressmen.
Precedent: TVA diverts water from the Ocoee as if it were their own private river. The Ocoee is a public resource and TVA technically a public agency. TVA must be reformed. Hydropower operations on the Upper Ocoee must be balanced with other resource uses.
Contact Person: Kevin Colburn, American Whitewater Conservation & Access Associate
Issue: Current “Energy Crisis” spawning new hydropower dam proposals and legislative reforms of Federal Power Act
Goal: Protect river resources and existing environmental standards
Current Status: The poor architecture of California’s energy restructuring plan coupled with drought in the Pacific Northwest has created a crisis atmosphere. Emerging from this crisis is a plethora of proposed hydropower projects, legislative proposals threatening to undermine environmental safeguards at hydropower projects, a FERC driven proposal to streamline the hydropower licensing process, and a new energy policy drafted by the White House.
The Legislative and Administrative Threats
Primed by the California ‘crisis,’ 2001 has ushered in a rash of federal energy legislation with destructive consequences for the nation’s rivers. Each bill, in its own way, ‘lowers the bar’ of environmental requirements for utilities that are planning to build new power projects or license existing facilities. Energy producers are exploiting the atmosphere of panic, lobbying hard for the passage of these bills, knowing their passage could equate to billions of dollars in additional profit. Because of the recent shift in the Senate radical legislative proposals have not been introduced. As we go to press no firm energy proposal has been introduced in the Senate. For a review of previous legislative proposals, the Administration’s energy plan and FERC’s internal reform efforts see the July-August issue of the American Whitewater Journal.
New Hydro
The FERC has received an unprecedented number of applications for new hydropower projects due the high energy prices and market predictions coupled with the prospect that the hydropower licensing process itself may look very different when these proposals move from the drawing board to reality. These proposals include adding hydropower capacity at existing dams as well as new projects. In the big picture, adding hydropower capacity at existing dams can be relatively benign, if designed well. On the other hand increasing capacity can undermine efforts to improve flow conditions or worse yet plans to remove an obsolete dam. New hydroprojects, primarily sited on creeks with steep gradients, will impact whitewater opportunities and aquatic resources.
Precedent: The Federal Power Act should not be altered in a fashion that streamlines the process for licensing a hydropower project. The nation’s rivers and streams are a vital resource that should not be monopolized for power production alone. Public input and resource agency review are critical components in the licensing process to ensure that non-power values are balanced with power generation. Legislators must focus on developing a long-term energy strategy complete with alternative energy sources and sound conservation measures. Energy policy must work in concert with resource protection.
Contact: John Gangemi, American Whitewater Conservation Director
3. U. S. Forest Service Roadless Initiative
Issue: Continued threat to roadless areas.
Goal: Implementation of Roadless Area Conservation Rule
Current Status: The Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR), championed by President Clinton, remains a phenomenal chance to protect rivers across the country. Lands protected from road-building are not only safe from the direct ecological and aesthetic impacts of the roads, but also from the many impacts of logging and mining. Many of the lands affected by this rule are in the headwaters of the rivers we all enjoy. Protecting these lands results in cleaner and wilder rivers. When the RACR was signed on January 12, 2001, over 58 million acres of Forest Service land, was protected from the building of roads. Or were they? Under the new administration the rule has been attacked on several fronts.
The RACR is currently the subject of eight lawsuits involving seven states. The Forest Service has responded by reopening the issue for additional public comment. Apparently the more than 1.6 million comments, which were overwhelmingly in favor of protecting the roadless lands, were not sufficient. The new public comment period is guided by 10 optional questions that are weighted toward weakening the rule. The public (you) must continue to assert that roadless lands are important and should be protected. Don’t be swayed by the Forest Service’s narrow focus on fire management and local control, let them know that RACR should be fully implemented just like we said last time!
Keep up to date on the roadless issue by checking our web page and the Forest Service’s roadless page (http://roadless.fs.fed.us). Send comments by September 10th either by email to roadless_anpr@fs.fed.us or by postal mail to USDA-Forest Service–CAT, Attention: Roadless ANPR Comments, P.O. Box 221090, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84122.
Precedent: Permanent protection of these roadless lands is critical for water quality, wildlife and recreation.
Contact Person: Kevin Colburn, American Whitewater Conservation & Access Associate
Issue: Rollbacks of Water Quality Legislation
Goal: Prevent Bush Administration from weakening the Clean Water Act.
Current Status: The new EPA Administrator Christie Whitman took action to “improve” the impaired water program by putting a hold on an EPA rule enacted during the Clinton Administration that would have lead to cleaner rivers and lakes across the country. The rule would do this by focusing the power of the Clean Water Act on the largest source of pollution in our rivers, non-point source pollution such as agricultural runoff and sedimentation. The goal of Whitman’s hold is to review the rule and to make it more “workable.”
Workable in this case means greater liberty by industry and other sources of pollution. This weakening of federal control would allow the EPA to return to status quo not applying the CWA to deal with non-point source pollution.
Whitman was quoted as saying "I am asking for this additional time to listen carefully to all parties with a stake in restoring America’s waters–states, cities, small towns and rural communities, plus industry, the environmental community and farmers-to find a better way to finish the important job of cleaning our great rivers, lakes and streams." That is where we paddlers come in. We have to be ready to submit a large number of comments asking for the most protective measures possible because you can bet that industry will be right there asking for the least protective measures.
Precedent: Our nation’s lakes and streams are a valuable public resource. The CWA was passed with the goal of making all our water bodies swimmable and drinkable. We must not lower that standard.
Contact Person: Kevin Colburn, American Whitewater Conservation & Access Associate
5. White Salmon River, Washington
Issue: FERC’s failure to honor and process the Settlement Agreement
Goal: Dam Removal
Current Status: On September 22, 1999, PacifiCorp signed a voluntary agreement to remove Condit Dam on the White Salmon River in Southwest Washington State. The agreement was the culmination of two years of negotiations between state and federal agencies, American Whitewater, and 13 other environmental groups. The agreement calls for removal of the 125-foot-tall concrete dam that since 1913 has diverted water from the natural channel obstructing downstream navigation and blocking upstream fish passage.
Inaction by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), the agency that oversees hydropower dam relicensing, is jeopardizing a good-faith effort crafted by the hydropower industry, government agencies, tribal government, conservation organizations and members of the public, which resulted in a historic agreement for the removal of Condit Dam. The agreement was filed with FERC over a year and a half ago and FERC has still not approved it. In May 2001, the FERC disclosed during a site visit to the dam and public hearings in Portland uncertainty regarding their ability to approve the settlement. PacifiCorp’s obligations to the Settlement expire in September 2002 if FERC fails to approve it.
Dam removal will allow boaters to paddle a scenic five-mile Class III section from Condit Dam to the Columbia River. This section has never been accessible to the paddling community due to the steep walls of the gorge and obstruction from the dam. In fact, this section of the White Salmon is not even listed in Jeff and Tonya Bennett’s book A Guide to the Whitewater Rivers of Washington.
Furthermore, Condit Dam inundated an additional four miles of the White Salmon River under Northwestern Lake. There is no telling what rapids are waiting to be reborn when the dam is removed. Paddlers will now be able to link the upstream BZ Corners run with the lower canyon thereby creating a full day summer run on the White Salmon.
Removing Condit Dam would increase habitat for migratory fish by about 20 miles (8 miles of White Salmon River habitat, and 12 miles of habitat in tributaries including Spring Creek and Rattlesnake Creek). There is only one other dam (Bonneville Dam) between the White Salmon River and the mouth of the Columbia River.
This voluntary agreement signifies an important step in restoring fisheries and recreational opportunities on the White Salmon River. More importantly, this agreement serves as a model for other rivers where dam removal is being considered. After credible scientific study the stakeholders and utility collectively came to the conclusion that dam removal was the best restoration alternative for the White Salmon River. Furthermore, the utility, PacifiCorp, recognizes their financial and societal responsibility for dam removal.
American Whitewater recognized early in the relicensing that dam removal and it’s associated recreational and fishery benefits far outweighed the power generation value from the project. As early as 1992, American Whitewater urged FERC to consider dam removal, "As this intervention proceeds, one of the questions considered will be the balancing of power generation against the benefits of restoring the White Salmon to its historic free-flowing condition." (comment by Rich Bowers to FERC, 1992).
Precedent: The FERC should fast track approval of this settlement agreement. The settlement embodies a creative and cooperative solution supported by industry and conservation groups alike. Failure to approve this settlement will undermine efforts to forge river restoration agreements throughout the country.
Contact: John Gangemi, American Whitewater Conservation Director
6. Cheoah River, North Carolina
Issue: Abuse of Alternative Licensing Process to obtain new hydropower license
Goal: Restore Cheoah River and whitewater opportunities
Current Status: Tapoco, Inc., a subsidiary of Reynolds Aluminum, is currently relicensing a series of hydropower dams on the Little Tennessee River and Cheoah River. Santeetlah Reservoir on the Cheoah River pipes water around the 8.5 mile Class IV run to a powerhouse on the Little Tennessee. As a result, the Cheoah is rarely paddled. Tapoco elected to utilize the Alternative Licensing Process (ALP). Because the relicensing process can be extremely conflict-ridden the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved use of the ALP in hopes that it would foster collaboration and cooperation between the utility and stakeholders. Other than requiring consent for the ALP by a limited number of stakeholders the FERC does not require or even provide guidance regarding collaborative protocols. As a result, each ALP forges its own set of protocols. In the case of the Cheoah relicense Tapoco unilaterally established a limited set of protocols to their advantage. Those protocols limit the ability of stakeholders to provide input in the process. In effect, Tapoco is using the façade of an ALP to unilaterally craft a new license under the pretense of collaboration.
American Whitewater along with a coalition of groups in the southeast has established a list of protocols necessary in this relicense proceeding. These protocols include a decision-making model including a definition of consensus, dispute resolution protocol and neutral facilitation to name a few. Establishing these protocols will help level the playing field giving stakeholders the ability to have a voice in decisions and the final outcome for this relicense.
In July 2000, American Whitewater volunteers participated in a recreational flow study designed to identify optimum and minimum acceptable flows for whitewater. Overwhelmingly participants in the study recognized the Cheoah as an outstanding whitewater resource in the southeast. A must do run for anyone touring the southeast. American Whitewater will be actively engaged in the development of an annual schedule of whitewater releases.
Precedent: In order to foster successful outcomes in ALPs the FERC should include specific requirements for collaboration and cooperation prior to granting permission to use this process.
Contact Person: John Gangemi, American Whitewater, Conservation Director and Rod Baird <RodBaird@compuserve.com>
Issue: Obstruction of hydropower licensing studies and misapplication of Endangered Species Act
Goal: Complete the hydropower re-licensing process in a timely manner using sound and defensible study protocols.
Current Status: The Pit 3, 4, & 5 hydropower project offers nearly twenty miles of Class III-IV+ whitewater in northeast California. Located in the southern terminus of the Pacific Northwest Cascades, the Pit River is blessed with a pre-diversion instream flow of at least 2,000 cfs throughout the summer months. Due to the volcanic geology of the Pit River drainage, this large base flow is supplied by large cold springs that emit a consistent flow level throughout the year. For the last 50 years, hydropower diversions have reduced the instream flows to approximately 150cfs – less than 10% of the historic flow level.
American Whitewater first became involved in the re-licensing of Pit 3, 4,& 5 in October 1998. At that time we requested a Controlled Whitewater Flow Study to determine the minimum and optimum flow release levels. In early 1999, stakeholders formed the Pit River Collaborative Team (PRCT) consisting of agencies, PG&E and the public. The purpose of the PRCT is to review existing data and recommend any additional studies required to create a legally defensible record from which to base future management decisions regarding the allocation of water resources. The PRCT determined that a Controlled Whitewater Flow Study was necessary to make objective decisions about future whitewater flows and simultaneously evaluate potential biological impacts to river resources. A target date of July/August 2000 was set for completion of the whitewater study. Abruptly, in April of 2000, the planned studies were placed on hold due to concerns related to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Since that date, American Whitewater, and other agencies, have worked to overcome this stalemate.
American Whitewater is struggling with this strict interpretation of the ESA for the Pit. This application of the ESA borders on obstructionism, blocking studies of flow conditions that more closely resemble actual flows in which these endangered species evolved. The stakeholders have been precluded from direct contact with the ESA branch of the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service making it impossible to establish constructive dialogue. Without these studies, it is nearly impossible for agencies and groups like American Whitewater to participate in hydropower licensing on a level playing field. We now await the completion of a "biological assessment" by PG&E, to be submitted to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for their consideration in issuing a "biological opinion" as to when and if the needed studies can be completed.
.
Precedent: The PRCT is now attempting to develop desired future conditions for the Pit River, yet critical study results are missing. PG&E has effectively pitted user groups against agencies through misapplication of the ESA. As a result, the relicensing process is further delayed. PG&E continues to operate the project indefinitely on conditions established in the previous license 30 years ago. The impacts to endangered species continue to accrue and the public is denied recreational opportunities.
Contact: John Gangemi, American Whitewater Conservation Director
8. Housatonic River, Connecticut
Issue: Failure to protect existing beneficial uses
Goal: Protect and restore whitewater boating opportunities
Current Status: The Housatonic made our list of river issues in 2000 due to the state of Connecticut’s failure to protect whitewater recreation opportunities in the relicensing of two hydroelectric projects. Unfortunately these issues remain unresolved threatening the future of the Housatonic River. In 2000, Connecticut Light and Power (CL&P) submitted new license applications for two hydropower projects on the Housatonic River in Connecticut, Falls Village and Bulls Bridge. Flows from both projects effect whitewater boating opportunities in downstream reaches. The Falls Village project diverts water around the Class IV rattlesnake rapid and regulates flows in the Class II Falls Village section. The Bulls Bridge facility diverts water around a Class IV section. In their license application, CL&P did not include an annual schedule of whitewater releases for the Rattlesnake rapid and an insufficient number of releases for the Bulls Bridge reach. Furthermore, the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued a water quality certification that severely limits summer boating opportunities on the Falls Village section. Because the water quality certification precludes whitewater use of Falls Village, the DEP is in violation of the state anti-degradation standards. Anti-degradation requires that no action degrade existing beneficial uses. Whitewater recreation is recognized as a beneficial use on the Housatonic.
American Whitewater, along with local paddling clubs and conservation organizations, filed comments with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) calling for seasonal shutdown of the Falls Village powerhouse as well as an annual schedule of releases in the bypass reaches. The groups will continue to be actively engaged in the relicensing process encouraging the FERC to balance power generation, angling and whitewater opportunities on this river.
Precedent: Relicensing must be used as an opportunity to balance resource uses equitably. The CT DEP fails to protect all beneficial uses in their 401 water quality certification. Whitewater recreation is a beneficial use on the Housatonic. Furthermore, relicensing is an opportunity to truly restore the biological integrity of the river. This relicensing objective must be first and foremost and not used as a ploy to further a single self-interest as is the case on the Housatonic.
Contact Person: John Gangemi, American Whitewater Conservation Director
Issue: FERC’s baseline interpretation and licensing of storage reservoirs
Goal: Restoration of Bear River and whitewater opportunities
Current Status: The Bear River has been on American Whitewater’s annual list of Endangered Rivers for four years running. The Bear River is an outstanding whitewater resource impacted by hydropower operations. The Bear River’s location in the arid southeast corner of Idaho just north of Salt Lake City elevates the importance of restoring this whitewater resource to the region where whitewater is sparse. The Bear River contains three hydropower projects undergoing the five-year relicense process. PacifiCorp, the utility that owns and operates the three hydropower projects on the Bear has been uncooperative with stakeholders in the proceeding. PacifiCorp is in effect attempting to get a new license with the same environmental protection, mitigation and enhancement measures as the previous license granted over 30 years ago. Those previous license conditions are out of compliance with many state and federal environmental protection laws passed since issuance of the previous license. As a result, the new license will require significant changes in operations to mitigate for social and environmental impacts. PacifiCorp’s status quo just won’t mitigate the impacts on fish, wildlife and recreation.
In 2000, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) initiated the environmental review process of the hydropower projects. This gives the public an opportunity to identify issues and operational alternatives to mitigate impacts. American Whitewater filed requests for additional studies necessary to evaluate impacts to recreation opportunities as well as fish and wildlife. One study requested the FERC require PacifiCorp analyze the pre-project unimpaired hydrograph in the Black Canyon of the Bear verses the post-project construction regulated hydrograph. Because of the FERC’s interpretation of environmental baseline conditions, the FERC denied this study request claiming PacifiCorp is only obligated to compare mitigation measures to existing conditions. This limited approach enables the licensee and the FERC to tout mitigation no matter how minute as measurable improvements over existing conditions despite the fact that the mitigation is a far cry from natural conditions. American Whitewater objects to the FERC’s baseline interpretation. Baseline should be natural riverine conditions prior to project construction.
Further complicating this multi-project relicense proceeding is the presence of Bear Lake located upstream of the hydropower projects. Bear Lake was a natural closed basin lake meaning it had no outlet. At the turn of the century industrious farmers built two canals; one canal diverts water from the Bear River into Bear Lake, the other diverts water from Bear Lake back into the Bear River further downstream. In effect these farmers transformed Bear Lake into a storage reservoir. The outlet canal required operation of a pump station. Over time ownership and operation of the pump station was eventually transferred to PacifiCorp. In February 1998, American Whitewater successfully challenged the FERC’s ruling that licensing was not required for the Bear Lake pumping station. American Whitewater believes hydropower operations downstream on the Bear River would not be able to operate year round without the ability to store water in Bear Lake. Construction of the hydropower projects came after Bear Lake was converted into a storage reservoir. As such, the hydraulic capacity of each hydropower project was engineered to integrate with the storage and release of water from Bear Lake outside of natural hydrologic patterns. Although Bear Lake storage was originally designed for agricultural interests and still is the primary purpose for this reservoir the hydropower projects clearly benefit from this water storage. As a result, PacifiCorp’s Bear Lake facilities should be licensed with the FERC.
The FERC has not yet issued a final ruling on the jurisdiction of Bear Lake. American Whitewater believes the relicensing of the downstream hydropower projects should not be completed until the jurisdiction of Bear Lake is decided. The FERC should issue a final ruling prior to proceeding with the relicensing process of the downstream projects.
Precedent: The FERC’s baseline interpretation unfairly limits mitigation comparisons to existing river conditions thereby significantly limiting recreation and ecological restoration potential in relicensing. Environmental baseline should be prior to dam and powerhouse construction. Because downstream hydropower projects are dependent on water stored in Bear Lake for power generation this facility should require a license overseen by the FERC. This license should be included in the licensing proceeding for the for downstream hydropower projects.
Contact Person: John Gangemi, American Whitewater Conservation Director
Issue: Failure to provide adequate river access within hydropower project boundary
Goal: Secure permanent river access and protect non-project lands
Current Status: Access to the Swan River’s Wild Mile and site of the annual Bigfork Whitewater Festival was recently threatened by the proposed sale of the river corridor lands. Although PacifiCorp has temporarily scrapped plans to sell these lands the proposal served as a wake-up call for the boating community and public at large. For years boaters assumed these lands were all part of the hydropower project boundary. After all, PacifiCorp diverts water from this one-mile stretch for power generation downstream. To our dismay we found that the hydropower project boundary does not include the river channel between the dam and powerhouse.
PacifiCorp owns a total of 430 acres of these “non-project” lands adjacent to the Swan River and reservoir and another 130 acres of “project” lands contiguous with the dam, canal and powerhouse. American Whitewater and others fear the non-project lands will be sold off for home sites thereby severely restricting public access to the reservoir and Swan River. The public has established informal access routes to the river and reservoir throughout these non-project lands. Theoretically, the Federal Power Act requires the licensee to provide unhindered public access to the project waters. PacifiCorp’s existing project boundary fails to provide that access. Furthermore, PacifiCorp’s dam obstructs downstream navigation. The Swan is a federally navigable waterway. As such, PacifiCorp is required to provide a portage route. The current project infrastructure does not provide a portage route on project lands.
In the current relicensing proceeding for the hydroelectric project, American Whitewater argued for expansion of the project boundary to include lands adjacent to the river corridor between the dam and the powerhouse as well as lands around the project reservoir to protect water quality and public access.
Precedent: Many hydropower projects across the country fail to provide adequate public access to the river. Project works obstruct access to the river and downstream navigation. Utilities are obligated to provide unhindered public access to the waterway. Utility owned lands adjacent to reservoirs and dewatered river corridors must be included in the hydropower project boundary as mitigation. These lands must not be eligible for sale or development outside that prescribed in the FERC license. The public must be allowed free access to project lands.