North Umpqua Hydropower License Challenged in Court

ROSEBURG, Oregon, May 26, 2004 (ENS) - Seven conservation groups Monday sued the federal government for issuing a hydropower license for a hydroelectric project on the North Umpqua River that they claim is "environmentally damaging."

The North Umpqua Project comprises eight dams, three reservoirs, over 30 miles of flumes and canals, six miles of penstocks and tunnels, and approximately 100 miles of project-related roads, all located on federal public land along the North Umpqua and two of its tributaries.

Until last November, the 185.5-megawatt project operated by the multinational corporation Scottish Power was governed by a license issued in the early 1950s, but the federal agencies considering relicensing in the late 1990s determined that changes were required to protect fish and their habitat.

According to the lawsuit filed by the nonprofit public interest law firm Earthjustice, the U.S. Forest Service ignored the advice of its own scientists when it agreed to the issuance of a new operating license for the project without requiring adequate measures to protect wildlife and their habitat.

Representing the seven conservation groups - Umpqua Valley Audubon Society, Umpqua Watersheds, The North Umpqua Foundation, Steamboaters, Oregon Natural Resources Council, Pacific Rivers Council, and American Rivers - Earthjustice filed a petition for review of the decisions of both the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the U.S. Forest Service with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Because the project operates on national forest land, the government is tasked with ensuring that the project complies with federal laws and regional forest plans that require protecting salmon habitat.

Both U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists recommended removing or breaching Soda Springs dam, the lowermost of the eight project dams, because it inundates one of the most important mainstem spawning areas and harms salmon habitat.

But when Scottish Power refused to consider removing Soda Springs, the federal agencies backed away from their recommendations.

“Scottish Power has taken advantage of this mighty river and their old license for decades,” said Penny Lind, executive director of Umpqua Watersheds, a plaintiff in the case. “The beauty and wonder of the North Umpqua are too precious to manage incorrectly for the next 35 years.”

“Conservationists are merely asking that the North Umpqua River be managed according to scientists’ recommendations,” said Kristen Boyles, an Earthjustice attorney representing the conservation groups in court.

The North Umpqua River originates on the western slope of the central Cascade Mountains in southwest Oregon and drains about 1,350 square miles before joining the South Umpqua River west of Roseburg. The river flows through a narrow canyon with steep bedrock steps and benches.

Four anadromous fish species – chinook salmon, steelhead, coastal cutthroat trout, coho salmon – live in the North Umpqua, and the river is renowned for its excellent steelhead fly fishing.

Most of the North Umpqua River below the hydroelectric project is designated a Wild and Scenic River, for its outstanding water quality and quantity, recreational opportunities, and fisheries.

“This is yet another example of politics trumping science,” said Diana Wales of Umpqua Valley Audubon Society. “We are only seeking balance—we can have hydropower and a healthy river but not with the current license that ignores the most significant problems caused by Soda Springs dam.”