An earlier post on this blog reported that Yuba County Water Agency ("YCWA") had sent a 60-day notice of intent to sue to several federal agencies regarding their issuance and adoption of a biological opinion significantly affecting the future operations of Daguerre Point and Englebright Dams on the Yuba River. Today YCWA made good on its threat by filing suit in federal district court. The suit alleges there are numerous legal and scientific flaws in the recently issued BiOp and the process that developed it. YCWA named the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") and NOAA Fisheries, formerly the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS"), as the main defendants.
NMFS issued the challenged BiOp in February of 2012. In that BiOp, NMFS concluded that the proposed operations of Englebright and Daguerre Dams would jeopardize several ESA-listed fish species and adversely modify their critical
habitat. Consequently, to comply with the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), the BiOp
imposed requirements known in ESA parlance as reasonable and prudent
alternatives ("RPA"), ostensibly to offset the jeopardizing effects of the
action. The RPA was extensive. YCWA has estimated that the cost of implementing
the RPA could be as high as $1 billion.
The remedies sought by YCWA in the lawsuit include a declaration that the BiOp is illegal and an injunction prohibiting NMFS and the Corps from implementing the BiOp and its RPA. YCWA issued a press release explaining its reasons for filing this suit. That and other documents related to the lawsuit can be viewed by following these links:
Press Release
FAQ
Complaint
For additional information regarding this post, please contact Hanspeter
Walter or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.
Showing posts with label NMFS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NMFS. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Yuba County Water Agency Gives 60-Day Notice of Intent to Sue Federal Government Under Endangered Species Act
The Yuba County Water Agency ("YCWA") today delivered a 60-day notice of intent to sue to the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS"), also known as NOAA Fisheries, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps"). The letter declares that these agencies have violated the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"), the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), and the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"). The violations stem from the issuance and intended implementation of a 2012 biological opinion for the operation and maintenance of Englebright Dam and Reservoir and Daguerre Point Dam on the Yuba River.
ESA issues on the Yuba River have been brewing for several years and have apparently reached a boil. An earlier 2007 biological opinion issued by NMFS concluded that the operations of Englebright and Daguerre dams would not jeopardize the Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, and southern distinct population segment of the North American green sturgeon. The 2007 BiOp was challenged as insufficiently protective by environmental groups. In July 2010, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (J. Karlton) ruled that NMFS had not supported its conclusions and invalidated the 2007 BiOp, sending NMFS back to the drawing board to prepare a new one. (South Yuba River Citizens League v. NMFS, 723 F.Supp.2d 1247)
NMFS issued the new BiOp in February of 2012. In the 2012 BiOp, NMFS reversed course and concluded that the proposed operations of Englebright and Daguerre would jeopardize the listed species and adversely modify their critical habitat. Consequently, to comply with the ESA, the 2012 BiOp imposed requirements known in ESA parlance as reasonable and prudent alternatives ("RPA"), ostensibly to offset the jeopardizing effects of the action. The RPA was extensive. A separate press release and Frequently Asked Questions pamphlet distributed by YCWA indicate that the cost of implementing the RPA could be as high as $1 billion. YCWA's press release and letter also fault NMFS for failing to adequately involve affected water users on the Yuba River and the Corps in the ESA consultation.
YCWA's 60-day notice letter states that the 2012 biological opinion's fundamental flaw is that it treats as effects of the proposed action numerous conditions and factors that are actually part of the environmental baseline. Under the ESA regulations, an action agency may be held accountable only for effects caused by the discretionary portions of its proposed action. Effects of the action therefore, do not include non-discretionary actions the agency must take because of prior legal, contractual, or other requirements. Effects of the action also can not include the effects of other factors or actions that are not caused by agency's proposed action. For example, the existence of a dam authorized by Congress and constructed years before the ESA was passed may impede salmonid passage upstream, but the existence of the dam and the effects of its existence (e.g., foreclosing access to upstream spawning grounds) are not effects of the action.
The ESA requires that a 60-day notice be delivered to the agencies prior to filing a citizen suit to enable the agencies to remedy their violations without court intervention. In its press release, however, YCWA indicates that it still seeks and hopes to cooperatively work with NMFS and the Corps to resolve these issues outside of the courthouse. Time will tell if such efforts are fruitful.
YCWA's letter, press release, and FAQ can be viewed by clicking the following links:
60-day notice letter
YCWA press release
YCWA FAQ
For additional information regarding this post, please contact Hanspeter Walter or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.
ESA issues on the Yuba River have been brewing for several years and have apparently reached a boil. An earlier 2007 biological opinion issued by NMFS concluded that the operations of Englebright and Daguerre dams would not jeopardize the Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead, and southern distinct population segment of the North American green sturgeon. The 2007 BiOp was challenged as insufficiently protective by environmental groups. In July 2010, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (J. Karlton) ruled that NMFS had not supported its conclusions and invalidated the 2007 BiOp, sending NMFS back to the drawing board to prepare a new one. (South Yuba River Citizens League v. NMFS, 723 F.Supp.2d 1247)
NMFS issued the new BiOp in February of 2012. In the 2012 BiOp, NMFS reversed course and concluded that the proposed operations of Englebright and Daguerre would jeopardize the listed species and adversely modify their critical habitat. Consequently, to comply with the ESA, the 2012 BiOp imposed requirements known in ESA parlance as reasonable and prudent alternatives ("RPA"), ostensibly to offset the jeopardizing effects of the action. The RPA was extensive. A separate press release and Frequently Asked Questions pamphlet distributed by YCWA indicate that the cost of implementing the RPA could be as high as $1 billion. YCWA's press release and letter also fault NMFS for failing to adequately involve affected water users on the Yuba River and the Corps in the ESA consultation.
YCWA's 60-day notice letter states that the 2012 biological opinion's fundamental flaw is that it treats as effects of the proposed action numerous conditions and factors that are actually part of the environmental baseline. Under the ESA regulations, an action agency may be held accountable only for effects caused by the discretionary portions of its proposed action. Effects of the action therefore, do not include non-discretionary actions the agency must take because of prior legal, contractual, or other requirements. Effects of the action also can not include the effects of other factors or actions that are not caused by agency's proposed action. For example, the existence of a dam authorized by Congress and constructed years before the ESA was passed may impede salmonid passage upstream, but the existence of the dam and the effects of its existence (e.g., foreclosing access to upstream spawning grounds) are not effects of the action.
The ESA requires that a 60-day notice be delivered to the agencies prior to filing a citizen suit to enable the agencies to remedy their violations without court intervention. In its press release, however, YCWA indicates that it still seeks and hopes to cooperatively work with NMFS and the Corps to resolve these issues outside of the courthouse. Time will tell if such efforts are fruitful.
YCWA's letter, press release, and FAQ can be viewed by clicking the following links:
60-day notice letter
YCWA press release
YCWA FAQ
For additional information regarding this post, please contact Hanspeter Walter or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
Pacific Legal Foundation Files Petition To De-List Killer Whale
In a petition to de-list filed today, attorneys from the Pacific Legal Foundation assert that the 2005 listing of the Southern Resident killer whale distinct population segment (“DPS”) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) is illegal. The petition, filed on behalf of a non-profit organization and two San Joaquin Valley farms, petitions the Department of Commerce and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to de-list the Southern Resident killer whale DPS as endangered. The Southern Resident killer whale DPS was listed as endangered in 2005 and is the only population of killer whale that is listed under the ESA.
The principal argument asserted in the petition to de-list is that the Southern Resident killer whale DPS is a DPS of a subspecies, and the listing of a DPS of a subspecies is not authorized by the ESA. The petition asserts that because the ESA only authorizes the listing of a species, subspecies, and DPSs of species, the listing of a DPS of a subspecies is not authorized.
In addition, the petition argues that the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) should de-list the Southern Resident DPS because “the subspecies designation on which it is founded is without scientific basis.” The petition asserts that NMFS’s designation of a North Pacific resident subspecies is not supported by genetic data, and that many of the differences between populations of killer whales can be explained as learned behaviors or responses to varying environmental conditions, rather than genetic differences.
Two of the petitioners are farms located in the San Joaquin Valley, who suffered severe water supply cutbacks in 2009, “in part due to the protections afforded the killer whale under the ESA.” The Southern Resident DPS was one of the species considered in a 2009 Biological Opinion issued by NMFS, which concluded that the ongoing operations of the State Water Project (“SWP”) and the federal Central Valley Project (“CVP”) would jeopardize the continued existence of several species, including the Southern Resident killer whale. That Biological Opinion, in part, resulted in severe water supply cutbacks to the farmers that rely on water from the SWP and CVP. The petition identifies “the delisting of the killer whale [as] one necessary step in preventing further catastrophic water cutbacks.”
The 2009 Biological Opinion was found to be arbitrary and capricious by a federal district court and was remanded back to NMFS. See Consolidated Salmonid Cases, 791 F. Supp. 2d 802 (E.D. Cal. 2011). That district court decision is now the subject of multiple appeals before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. (Ninth Circuit Case Nos. 12-15144, 12-15289, 12-15290, 12-15291, 12-15293, and 12-15296.)
For additional information regarding the petition to de-list the killer whale, please contact Elizabeth Leeper or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult. Additional information regarding the listing of Southern Resident DPS is available here.
Related Story:
Court Finds 2009 Salmonid Biological Opinion Arbitrary and Capricious and Remands to National Marine Fisheries Services
The principal argument asserted in the petition to de-list is that the Southern Resident killer whale DPS is a DPS of a subspecies, and the listing of a DPS of a subspecies is not authorized by the ESA. The petition asserts that because the ESA only authorizes the listing of a species, subspecies, and DPSs of species, the listing of a DPS of a subspecies is not authorized.
In addition, the petition argues that the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) should de-list the Southern Resident DPS because “the subspecies designation on which it is founded is without scientific basis.” The petition asserts that NMFS’s designation of a North Pacific resident subspecies is not supported by genetic data, and that many of the differences between populations of killer whales can be explained as learned behaviors or responses to varying environmental conditions, rather than genetic differences.
Two of the petitioners are farms located in the San Joaquin Valley, who suffered severe water supply cutbacks in 2009, “in part due to the protections afforded the killer whale under the ESA.” The Southern Resident DPS was one of the species considered in a 2009 Biological Opinion issued by NMFS, which concluded that the ongoing operations of the State Water Project (“SWP”) and the federal Central Valley Project (“CVP”) would jeopardize the continued existence of several species, including the Southern Resident killer whale. That Biological Opinion, in part, resulted in severe water supply cutbacks to the farmers that rely on water from the SWP and CVP. The petition identifies “the delisting of the killer whale [as] one necessary step in preventing further catastrophic water cutbacks.”
The 2009 Biological Opinion was found to be arbitrary and capricious by a federal district court and was remanded back to NMFS. See Consolidated Salmonid Cases, 791 F. Supp. 2d 802 (E.D. Cal. 2011). That district court decision is now the subject of multiple appeals before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. (Ninth Circuit Case Nos. 12-15144, 12-15289, 12-15290, 12-15291, 12-15293, and 12-15296.)
For additional information regarding the petition to de-list the killer whale, please contact Elizabeth Leeper or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult. Additional information regarding the listing of Southern Resident DPS is available here.
Related Story:
Court Finds 2009 Salmonid Biological Opinion Arbitrary and Capricious and Remands to National Marine Fisheries Services
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Court Approves Stipulation Regarding CVP and SWP Operations in 2012
We recently reported that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and public water agencies filed a stipulation with the United States Eastern District Court that proposed modified Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) operations for the period of April 1 to May 31, 2012.
Today, the parties received notice that the Court has approved the stipulation, and adopted it as an order of the Court. A copy of the signed order may be found here.
For more information regarding this matter, please contact Rebecca R. Akroyd or K. Eric Adair, or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.
Related story:
Today, the parties received notice that the Court has approved the stipulation, and adopted it as an order of the Court. A copy of the signed order may be found here.
For more information regarding this matter, please contact Rebecca R. Akroyd or K. Eric Adair, or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.
Related story:
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Parties in Salmon Litigation File Stipulation Regarding CVP and SWP Operations in 2012
On January 12, 2012, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and public water agencies filed a stipulation with the United States Eastern District Court that proposes modified Central Valley Project (CVP) and State Water Project (SWP) operations for the period of April 1 to May 31, 2012.
The stipulation describes the state and federal agencies' agreement to install a seasonal rock barrier at the head of Old River, near Lathrop, designed to keep salmonids from entering Old River, in the direction of the export pumps. The stipulation also includes more flexible guidelines governing permissible flows in Old and Middle Rivers and an increased commitment to acoustic tagging of listed fish to gather information on migratory patterns.
The parties filed the Joint Stipulation Regarding CVP and SWP Operations in 2012 (available here) in the Consolidated Salmonid Cases, Case No. 1:09-cv-1053, the case challenging the biological opinion that governs long-term operations of the CVP and SWP. In September 2011, the district court issued a memorandum decision finding the so-called 2009 Salmonid BiOp and its Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. A later order by the court indicated that parties to the case could present stipulations on project operations in 2012.
Because the judgment entered in the Consolidated Salmonid Cases remanded the 2009 Salmonid BiOp and RPA, without vacatur, it had the effect of leaving RPA actions in place, notwithstanding the court's finding that they were unlawful. Had the parties not agreed on modified operations for April 1 to May 31 of this year, RPA Action IV.2.1, which sets a San Joaquin River inflow-to-export ratio requirement for the same period, would likely have severely restricted CVP and SWP operations.
Concurrent with a press release announcing the stipulation (available here), NMFS also made public its "Summary of the Expected Benefits to Salmonid Survival of a Rock Barrier at the Head of Old River & Preferential Use of the Central Valley Project Export Facility" (available here). The summary describes the expected benefits of placing a rock barrier at the head of Old River, as well as an explanation of the adaptive range of Old and Middle River flows included in the plan for 2012 operations and the rationale for preferential diversion of water through the CVP facility rather than the SWP facility.
For more information regarding this matter, please contact Rebecca R. Akroyd or K. Eric Adair, or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.
Related story:
The stipulation describes the state and federal agencies' agreement to install a seasonal rock barrier at the head of Old River, near Lathrop, designed to keep salmonids from entering Old River, in the direction of the export pumps. The stipulation also includes more flexible guidelines governing permissible flows in Old and Middle Rivers and an increased commitment to acoustic tagging of listed fish to gather information on migratory patterns.
The parties filed the Joint Stipulation Regarding CVP and SWP Operations in 2012 (available here) in the Consolidated Salmonid Cases, Case No. 1:09-cv-1053, the case challenging the biological opinion that governs long-term operations of the CVP and SWP. In September 2011, the district court issued a memorandum decision finding the so-called 2009 Salmonid BiOp and its Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. A later order by the court indicated that parties to the case could present stipulations on project operations in 2012.
Because the judgment entered in the Consolidated Salmonid Cases remanded the 2009 Salmonid BiOp and RPA, without vacatur, it had the effect of leaving RPA actions in place, notwithstanding the court's finding that they were unlawful. Had the parties not agreed on modified operations for April 1 to May 31 of this year, RPA Action IV.2.1, which sets a San Joaquin River inflow-to-export ratio requirement for the same period, would likely have severely restricted CVP and SWP operations.
Concurrent with a press release announcing the stipulation (available here), NMFS also made public its "Summary of the Expected Benefits to Salmonid Survival of a Rock Barrier at the Head of Old River & Preferential Use of the Central Valley Project Export Facility" (available here). The summary describes the expected benefits of placing a rock barrier at the head of Old River, as well as an explanation of the adaptive range of Old and Middle River flows included in the plan for 2012 operations and the rationale for preferential diversion of water through the CVP facility rather than the SWP facility.
For more information regarding this matter, please contact Rebecca R. Akroyd or K. Eric Adair, or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.
Related story:
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
New Complaint Charges NMFS with Allowing Overfishing of Key Forage Species
A complaint filed this week in the Northern District of California by Oceana charges the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) with failing to protect key species, such as Pacific sardine and anchovy, that serve as the base of the ocean food web. The lawsuit claims NMFS fails to prevent overfishing, fails to account for the species’ ecological role when setting catch limits, and fails to adequately analyze the implications of their actions. A copy of the complaint may be found here.
“America’s fisheries laws mandate protection for the species that form the base of the ocean food web,” said Whit Sheard, Pacific Counsel and Senior Advisor for Oceana. “When the government fails in this task, the rest of the ocean ecosystem, as well as the industries that depend upon it, pay the long term costs.”
The lawsuit seeks to compel NMFS to do the following when managing forage species in the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan:
Central to the complaint is Amendment 13 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan. Adopted by NMFS on November 14, 2011, the stated intent of Amendment 13 is to ensure that the management plan is consistent with recent NMFS guidelines, which describe fishery management approaches to meet the objectives of National Standard 1 (NS1) of section 301 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). National Standard 1 states “[c]onservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield (OY) from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry.” The complaint alleges that Amendment 13 violates the MSA in several respects, and contends that NMFS violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by, among other things, failing to prepare a full environmental impact statement (EIS). Oceana contends that NMFS's actions are arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. Oceana seeks an order vacating and remanding Amendment 13 and requiring the preparation of an EIS.
For more information regarding this matter, please contact Eric Adair or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.
“America’s fisheries laws mandate protection for the species that form the base of the ocean food web,” said Whit Sheard, Pacific Counsel and Senior Advisor for Oceana. “When the government fails in this task, the rest of the ocean ecosystem, as well as the industries that depend upon it, pay the long term costs.”
The lawsuit seeks to compel NMFS to do the following when managing forage species in the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan:
- Set an “optimum yield” catch level that includes leaving enough forage fish as prey for the other marine life that rely upon these important components of the food web.
- Set required limits and reference points to prevent overfishing.
- Use the best science in determining catch levels and overfishing limits.
- Consider the role of forage fish in the ecosystem and the impacts of removing large amounts of forage fish as part of the required environmental analysis.
Central to the complaint is Amendment 13 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan. Adopted by NMFS on November 14, 2011, the stated intent of Amendment 13 is to ensure that the management plan is consistent with recent NMFS guidelines, which describe fishery management approaches to meet the objectives of National Standard 1 (NS1) of section 301 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA). National Standard 1 states “[c]onservation and management measures shall prevent overfishing while achieving, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield (OY) from each fishery for the U.S. fishing industry.” The complaint alleges that Amendment 13 violates the MSA in several respects, and contends that NMFS violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by, among other things, failing to prepare a full environmental impact statement (EIS). Oceana contends that NMFS's actions are arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. Oceana seeks an order vacating and remanding Amendment 13 and requiring the preparation of an EIS.
For more information regarding this matter, please contact Eric Adair or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.
Friday, November 4, 2011
OCAP Annual Independent Science Review Panel to Convene November 8-9, 2011
The 2011 Operations Criteria and Plan ("OCAP") annual independent science review will take place on November 8-9, 2011, in Sacramento. The meeting announcement and agenda, with instructions on participating via the internet, may be found here.
Under the auspices of the Delta Science Program ("DSP"), an independent science panel comprised of various academics and experts will convene to review the implementation of the OCAP for the prior year’s operations. The purpose of the review is to provide critical information to the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS") about the effectiveness of the prior year’s water operations and regulatory actions. NMFS and FWS have issued biological opinions and reasonable and prudent alternatives ("RPA") on the long-term operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project relative to salmonids and smelt, respectively. The agencies have requested that the DSP convene the panel to provide a technical review on the implementation of the biological opinions and RPAs. The specific charge to the panel may be found here.
The panelists are:
Copies of all materials for the annual review, including review materials and background information, may be found here.
For more information regarding this matter, please contact Eric Adair or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.
Under the auspices of the Delta Science Program ("DSP"), an independent science panel comprised of various academics and experts will convene to review the implementation of the OCAP for the prior year’s operations. The purpose of the review is to provide critical information to the National Marine Fisheries Service ("NMFS") and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS") about the effectiveness of the prior year’s water operations and regulatory actions. NMFS and FWS have issued biological opinions and reasonable and prudent alternatives ("RPA") on the long-term operations of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project relative to salmonids and smelt, respectively. The agencies have requested that the DSP convene the panel to provide a technical review on the implementation of the biological opinions and RPAs. The specific charge to the panel may be found here.
The panelists are:
- James Anderson, Ph.D., University of Washington
- James Gore, Ph.D., University of Tampa
- Ron Kneib, Ph.D., RTK Consulting & University of Georgia (Emeritus)
- Mark Lorang, Ph.D., University of Montana
- John Van Sickle, Ph.D., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Western Ecology Division
Copies of all materials for the annual review, including review materials and background information, may be found here.
For more information regarding this matter, please contact Eric Adair or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Court Rejects Lawsuit That Would Have Closed 2011 Sacramento Fall-Run Chinook Salmon Season
On September 30, 2011, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California rejected a lawsuit filed by the San Joaquin River Group Authority ("SJRGA"). The lawsuit challenged the Pacific Fisheries Management Council's adoption of fishing management measures for Sacramento River fall-run Chinook salmon for the 2011 fishing season and the National Marine Fisheries Service's approval of those management measures.
In a memorandum decision authored by now-retired Judge Oliver Wanger, the court first dismissed the Pacific Fisheries Management Council as a defendant on the ground that it was not an "agency" within the meaning of the Administrative Procedures Act:
The court next concluded that SJRGA lacked standing to bring such a lawsuit against the National Marine Fisheries Service, describing the failure by SJRGA to prove that the alleged harm from the 2011 management measures was "sufficiently imminent" or that the alleged risk of additional burdens on SJRGA's water rights was causally linked to the 2011 management measures. The court found that SJRGA failed to demonstrate a likelihood that the challenged action would cause any harm to its members' water rights.
After finding that SJRGA lacked standing, the court went on to consider the merits of the case. The court rejected SJRGA's arguments that the federal defendants had violated the Magnuson-Stevens Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and Administrative Procedures Act.
The district court's memorandum decision and order in the case, San Joaquin River Group Authority v. National Marine Fisheries Service, et al., Case No. 1:11-CV-00725, may be found here and here, respectively.
If you have any questions concerning this decision, please contact Rebecca R. Akroyd or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Coho Salmon Hearing Scheduled for August 16 in Sacramento
The California State Assembly’s Joint Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture will convene an informational hearing on the topic of “Coho Salmon on the Brink: Understanding the Depth of the Crisis and Recovery Strategies.” The hearing will be conducted on August 16 at 10:00 a.m. in room 4202 of the State Capitol in Sacramento. It is also expected to be available online.
In a press release, Assemblymember Wesley Chesbro, Chair of the Joint Committee, stated:
"At one time Coho salmon inCalifornia were abundant across their entire range from,Santa Cruz to theborder," Chesbro said. "Today they are in danger of disappearing, particularly from their southern range, and are listed under state and federal Endangered Species Acts. This hearing will examine the status of the Coho in Oregon and identify strategies to bring back this important fishery. The Committee will hear testimony from fisheries experts, commercial and recreational fisherman, tribal representatives and other concerned Californians." California
More than thirty speakers and panelists are scheduled to participate, including John McCammon, Director of California’s Department of Fish and Game, Rod McInnis, Regional Administrator for the Southwest Region of the National Marine Fisheries Service, and Catherine Kuhlman, Executive Director of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. They will address a wide variety of topics affecting Coho, including current status and recovery efforts, population trends, stream flow problems and solutions, rearing habitat, and others. The meeting agenda and presenter information are available here. Related presentations and documents can be found here.
For more information concerning this hearing, please contact K. Eric Adair from our office, or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Eastern District Orders Interim Remedies to Protect ESA-Listed Species
On July 26, 2011, Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton of California's Eastern District Federal Court issued a remedy order in an Endangered Species Act case. In the case, South Yuba River Citizens League and Friends of the River v. National Marine Fisheries Service et al., environmental groups successfully proved their claim that a biological opinion issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for operation of Englebright and Daguerre dams on the Yuba River was arbitrary and capricious. The court required the agency to issue a legally sufficient opinion by December 12, 2011. The environmental plaintiffs then filed a motion seeking additional physical protections for three ESA-protected species during the interim period before completion of the new opinion. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. Among the interim remedies ordered by the court were that the federal agencies prepare studies, make physical improvements, and conduct routine inspections of the water facilities so as to avoid jeopardizing the species. The court's opinion can be found here.
If you have any questions concerning this topic, please contact Hanspeter Walter from our office, or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.
If you have any questions concerning this topic, please contact Hanspeter Walter from our office, or the KMTG attorney with whom you normally consult.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)