Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/99-1035/99-1035a-2011-03-24.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:07:35+00:00

Document:
briefs were Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, Peter Coppelman, Acting Assistant Attorney General, James C. Kilbourne, Ellen Durkee, and M. Alice Thurston, Attor- neys. Ellen D. Katz, Attorney, entered an appearance.
Carol A. Blasi argued the cause for petitioner Conservation Law Foundation, et al. With her on the briefs was Alexan- der W. Sierck. Mona M. Janopaul entered an appearance.
Kaighn Smith, Jr. argued the cause for petitioner Penob- scot Indian Nation. With him on the briefs was Mark Chavaree.
Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, and Paul Stern, Depu- ty Attorney General, were on the brief for intervenor State of Maine.
Randolph, Circuit Judge: The Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency, conservation groups,1 and the Penobscot Indian Nation petition for review of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's relicensing of a hydroelectric project in north-central Maine. The issues presented go mainly to the adequacy of the Commission's consideration of the various factors governing license renew- als. Because the Commission gave sufficient attention to these factors and carefully explained its conclusions, the petitions are denied.
__________ 1 American Rivers, American Whitewater Affiliation, Appalachian Mountain Club, Conservation Law Foundation, and Trout Unlimit- ed.
Located on the West Branch of the Penobscot River, the Ripogenus and Penobscot Mills Hydroelectric Projects pro- duce approximately 108 megawatts of power for Great North- ern Paper mills in Millinocket and East Millinocket, Maine. The projects consist of a series of reservoirs, dams, and powerhouses. This case focuses on one of the dams--the 1262 foot long Stone Dam, which is part of the Penobscot Mills Project.2 Constructed in 1899, Stone Dam diverts water through a canal to a 37 megawatt powerhouse. This diversion blocks the main channel of the Penobscot's West Branch for a 4.5 mile stretch known as the "Back Channel." Because of Stone Dam, the Back Channel receives only leakage flows of 2 to 5 cfs (cubic feet per second), except for occasional "spillage" when flows exceed power requirements.
__________ 2 Petitioners raise no specific objection to the Commission's order relicensing the Ripogenus Project, see 77 F.E.R.C. p 61,316 (1996), though that order was also listed in the petitions for review.
"Alternative 2," recommending "enhancement measures inter- mediate between those proposed by GNP and those in Alter- native 1." FEIS at xix. As a baseline for comparison, the Commission adopted the terms and conditions of the existing license as the "no action" option. The impact statement recommended a modified version of Alternative 2 that did not include flow requirements for the Back Channel. See FEIS at xxiii.
Shortly after issuance of the final impact statement, the Commission granted a new license for Penobscot Mills.4 See 77 F.E.R.C. p 61,068 (1996). The order conditioned the li- cense on Great Northern's commitment to wetland enhance- ments, project boundary expansion, and increased flows into Millinocket Stream. See id. at 61,275-79. As to the Back Channel, the Commission decided not to order minimum flows "given the modest fisheries benefit likely to occur and the significant adverse impact on the project's energy benefits," id. at 61,276, a decision it affirmed on rehearing, see 85 F.E.R.C. p 61,316 (1998), and reconsideration, see 86 F.E.R.C. p 61,184 (1999).
__________ n.6. In its petition for rehearing before the Commission, however, Interior only "argue[d] for a minimum flow 350 cfs." Id. at 62,242.
4 During the interim, the Commission had issued annual renewals of the Penobscot Mills license under the same terms as the expired license. See 16 U.S.C. s 808(a).
project, such conditions to be "based on recommendations received pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) from the National Marine Fisheries Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and State fish and wildlife agencies." 16 U.S.C. s 803(j)(1). The Commission retains authority to decide that recommended conditions are "inconsistent with the purposes" of the FPA or other laws, in which event it shall of course reject them. 16 U.S.C. s 803(j)(2); see United States Dep't of the Interior v. FERC, 952 F.2d 538, 544 (D.C. Cir. 1992). While the Com- mission must give "equal consideration" to environmental factors, those factors do not have "preemptive force." 952 F.2d at 545. The Commission "still is charged with determin- ing the 'public interest,' i.e., balancing power and non-power values." Id.
The petitioners contend that the Commission's rejection of minimum flow requirements in the Back Channel violates these Federal Power Act provisions and the National Envi- ronmental Policy Act, see 42 U.S.C. s 4321 et seq. Their arguments can be grouped into two categories: that the Commission did not fully recognize the recreational and envi- ronmental (i.e., nonpower) benefits that would have resulted if it had imposed minimum flow requirements; and that the Commission inflated the economic costs Great Northern would incur from increased Back Channel flows.
might occur to fish and wildlife if the license does not include protection for nonpower resources against what will occur with conditions imposed. The statutory words "fish and wildlife ... affected" by the project seems to refer to the fish and wildlife currently existing in the vicinity of the project, which supports the Commission's choice of existing conditions as a baseline. The quoted language surely cannot refer to the animals inhabiting the area in 1899, when the project came into being. They are long gone and so cannot be "affected" by a Commission licensing decision in the 1990s. Granted, it is possible to treat the words "fish and wildlife" generically, so that it is not just the animals currently resid- ing in the region that get protected or enhanced, but different species that might be introduced or reintroduced. But this view of s 803(j) does not help petitioners because it says nothing about whether the baseline for the Commission's comparative inquiry should be today or sometime other than today. In other words, even if the statute refers generally to all "fish and wildlife" it hardly follows that the Commission must imagine the Back Channel as it existed before 1899 and assess the effect of relicensing by pretending that Stone Dam does not exist--at least when no one advocates decommission- ing the Penobscot Mills Project and tearing down the dam.
Given the language of s 803(j), the Commission certainly had the leeway to conduct its comparative assessments using existing conditions as a baseline. To the reasons just men- tioned, we incorporate by reference those given in American Rivers v. FERC, 201 F.3d 1186, 1195-99 (9th Cir. 2000), which sustained the Commission's use of an existing condi- tions baseline as a reasonable construction of s 803(j).
__________ 5 We also agree with the American Rivers court, see 201 F.3d at 1199-2001, that the Commission's thorough examination of a range of licensing alternatives satisfies NEPA's procedural requirements, see 42 U.S.C. s 4332(2)(C)(iii).
ation' is not the same as 'equal treatment.' " State of Califor- nia v. FERC, 966 F.2d 1541, 1550 (9th Cir. 1992). The refusal to quantify nonpower benefits did not "stack the deck" against those concerns. The Commission approved "a variety of enhancements related to instream flows for fisheries and recreation, stabilization of impoundment levels, wetlands, re- creational facilities, shoreline protection, and cultural re- sources." 85 F.E.R.C. at 62,245; see also id. at 62,245 n.31. A critical factor in the Commission's refusal to impose mini- mum flows was the increased power expenses that would result, not the Commission's failure to appreciate nonpower values. Minimum flows of 350 cfs in the Back Channel would, the Commission concluded, increase annual power expenses by $916,300; the total increase in annual power costs of the enhancements the Commission approved for Penobscot Mills was $262,600. See FEIS tbl.5-3, at 5-13.
__________ 6 A "brook trout" (Salvelinus fontinalis) is actually a char. "Chars are distinguished from trout by their mouth structure; the vomerine bone in the center of a trout's mouth has teeth all along it, while the vomer of the char has only a few teeth on the front end of the bone." A.J. McClane, ed., McClane's New Standard Fishing Encyclopedia and International Angling Guide 207 (1998 ed.).
constant flows in the West Branch and Millinocket Stream, and lake level in the North Twin reservoir, which could cause stress and potential damage to salmon and trout populations in those areas." Id. Given the plentiful brook trout fisheries in the Penobscot Mills-Ripogenus area, the Commission can- not be faulted for believing that adding another 4.5 mile stretch would have little benefit. See id.
The Federal Power Act requires the Commission to consid- er the recommendations of the United States Fish and Wild- life Service and State fish and wildlife agencies.7 See 16 U.S.C. s 803(j)(1). Even when the recommendations of fed- eral and state agencies are in concert, those agencies do not have "veto power" over Commission licensing decisions. De- partment of Interior, 952 F.2d at 545 (citing National Wild- life Fed'n v. FERC, 912 F.2d 1471, 1480 (D.C. Cir. 1990)). In this case the federal and State agencies disagreed about the desirability of promoting a brook trout fishery in the Back Channel. The Commission adequately explained why Interi- or's recommendation was inconsistent with the purposes of the FPA. See 16 U.S.C. s 803(j)(2). Not only would Interi- or's proposal curtail power production from the Penobscot Mills Project, but the Commission had reason to believe a Back Channel brook trout fishery would actually do more harm than good to the region's fish habitats.
__________ 7 The same provision requires the Commission to "attempt to resolve any inconsistency" between its proposed license and other agency recommendations. See 16 U.S.C. s 803(j)(2). The Commis- sion did so in a "dispute-resolution meeting with representatives from Interior on February 8, 1996." 77 F.E.R.C. at 61,274.
8 The Commission concluded that the annual cost of Interior's request for 950 cfs would be $2.5 million, or 16% of the project's power production. See 77 F.E.R.C. at 61,274-75.
project's total benefits), see id., based on the price of purchas- ing replacement power from the least-cost alternative source--Bangor Hydro & Electric Company,9 see FEIS s 2.4.4, at 2-33 to 2-34.
__________ 9 The Commission (as well as the parties) assume that Great Northern would purchase fossil fuel power--not hydro power--from Bangor.
__________ 10 Although conservation would not change the $916,000 replace- ment cost of increased Back Channel flows, it would reduce Great Northern's total energy costs. But it was the magnitude of the replacement cost, not the impact it would have on the company's overall economic condition, that led the Commission to reject the proposal for increased Back Channel flows. See infra note 11.
The Penobscot River Basin is "home to the Penobscot Indian Nation (PIN), much of whose cultural heritage is closely associated with the river and the resources it pro- vides." FEIS s 3-1, at 3-1. Under the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Act, the " 'Penobscot Indian Reservation' " is de- fined as "the islands in the Penobscot River reserved to the Penobscot Nation by agreement with the States of Massachu- setts and Maine consisting solely of Indian Island, also known as Old Town Island, and all islands in that river northward thereof that existed on June 29, 1818...." 25 U.S.C. s 1722(i) (incorporating 30 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. s 6203(8)).
__________ 11 Petitioners' pre-argument motion to remand the case to the Commission for the taking of additional evidence, see 16 U.S.C. s 825l(b), is denied. In November 1999, Great Northern Paper submitted an application to the Commission seeking the transfer of the Penobscot Mills license to a new subsidiary, Great Northern Energy. A subsidiary of Duke Energy Corporation has a minority interest in Great Northern Energy. Petitioners believe these de- velopments affect two of the Commission findings: that Back Channel flows could threaten the mills' economic viability and that expanded conservation efforts are not plausible. We do not see, however, how these developments could alter the two dominant factors in the Commission's decision: the replacement energy cost of $916,000 and the minimal (perhaps even detrimental) effect on fisheries. See 77 F.E.R.C. at 61,275 ("Interior's recommendations ... would entail a significant reduction in energy benefits on behalf of only marginal improvements to aquatic habitat...."); id. at 61,276 ("Given the modest fisheries benefit likely to occur and the significant adverse impact on the project's energy benefits, we are not requiring minimum flows for the Back Channel."). It does not "clearly appear that the new evidence would compel or persuade to a contrary result," so we deny the motion. Friends of the River v. FERC, 720 F.2d 93, 99 n.6 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (quoting Rocky Moun- tain Power Co. v. FERC, 409 F.2d 1122, 1128 n.21 (D.C. Cir. 1969)).
The Penobscot Nation claims that its reservation includes the islands in the West Branch of the Penobscot. The State of Maine disagrees, contending that nothing "even remotely suggests that any land or islands in any branches or tributar- ies of the Penobscot River were being reserved" to the Tribe. FEIS s 4.11.1.2, at 4-69.
The land issue is of some consequence to this case. The Tribe believes it should have been a consulting party to the "programmatic agreement" the Commission adopted in fulfill- ing its duty to take "into account the effect of [the licenses on any site] that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register" of Historic Places. 16 U.S.C. s 470f; see also 36 C.F.R. s 800.13 (authorizing agencies to delegate this responsibility to "programmatic agreements"). An Indian Tribe must be named a concurring party to a programmatic agreement when the agency "undertaking will affect Indian lands." 36 C.F.R. s 800.1(c)(2)(iii). But the Penobscot Nation had not established legal title to the islands in the West Branch, and so the Commission did not confer consulting party status on it. See 85 F.E.R.C. at 62,245. The Commis- sion made clear on rehearing that it was not determining the merits of the Tribe's land claims and that, should the Tribe establish legal title to the lands, it would be added as a consulting party. See id. at 62,245 & n.35. We agree that the Commission was under no obligation to make the Penob- scot Nation a consulting party; nor was its failure to do so an abuse of discretion.
__________ 12 The Tribe raises several other arguments that do not warrant written exposition. These have been considered and rejected.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.