Opinion ID: 185117
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: WDNR's Petition

Text: Section 10(j)(1) of the FPA requires the Commission toplace a condition on a license based on recommendationsreceived pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act(16 U.S.C. s 661 et seq.) from ... State fish and wildlifeagencies. 6 U.S.C. s 803(j)(1) (Supp. 1999). Section 10(j)(2)of the FPA further requires that: Whenever the Commission believes that any recommendation referred to in paragraph (1) may be inconsistent with the purposes and requirements of this subchapter or other applicable law, the Commission and the agencies referred to in paragraph (1) shall attempt to resolve any such inconsistency, giving due weight to the recommendations, expertise, and statutory responsibilities of such agencies. Id. s 803(j)(2). We have held that section 10(j) requires theCommission to afford significant deference to fish protectionrecommendations of state and federal fish and wildlife agencies. Granholm ex rel. Michigan Dep't of Natural Resources v. FERC, 180 F.3d 278, 280 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Nevertheless, the Commission still is charged with determining the'public interest,' i.e., balancing power and non-power values. Even where the fish and wildlife agencies make formal section 10(j) recommendations, those agencies have no vetopower. United States Dep't of Interior v. FERC, 952 F.2d538, 545 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). WDNR arguesspecifically that the Commission failed to support, as isrequired under section 10(j)(2), its determinations that: (1) asix per cent entrainment rate would likely occur; (2) lessentrainment would occur at the powerhouse intake; (3) mostof the fish leaving the reservoir were excess fish; and (4)small fish (comprising the majority of those entrained) have ahigher natural mortality rate. We review to ensure theCommission's factual findings are supported by substantialevidence. See Texaco, 148 F.3d at 1095. The Commission derived its assumptions from WDNR'sstudies of the fish populations of the Oconto Falls reservoirconducted in 1984 and 1989. See, e.g., License Order, 81FERC at 62,014; Memorandum Regarding Oconto Falls 1989Pond Survey (Feb. 28, 1990). The studies found that thereservoir had a diverse fish community structure and stabilitywith healthy and abundant fish populations. See LicenseOrder, 81 FERC at 61,911. Moreover, pike and bass existedin large numbers and with better than average growth rates. See id. at 62,014. WDNR's studies also found that anydifficulties experienced by the largemouth bass and spawningwalleye populations resulted from a lack of appropriate habitat in the reservoir, not from entrainment. See Pond Surveyat 2. While section 10(j)(2) requires the Commission to giveWDNR's recommendations due weight, WDNR's own studies belie its request. Furthermore, the Commission's deter- mination that the entrainment and mortality rate was approximately six per cent is consistent with WDNR's studies andwith the best available evidence of the potential range of fishentrainment mortality. See Electric Power Research Institute, Fish Entrainment and Turbine Mortality Review andGuidelines (1992). Moreover, WDNR produced no evidenceto contradict the Commission's assumptions based, as noted,on WDNR's own studies. The Commission met its statutoryduty under section 10(j) to give WDNR's recommendationsdue weight and its factual findings easily meet the substantial evidence standard. Finally, WDNR argues that the Commission improperlyfailed to impose a barrier net requirement. According toWDNR, because the barrier net at a nearby project (PineProject) cost only $50,000, the Commission erred in estimating the cost of a barrier net at the Oconto Falls Project at$540,000. The Commission, however, distinguished the PineProject barrier net on several grounds: the Pine Project waslocated in a more sheltered area of the reservoir and in muchshallower water; the type of net used at the Pine Project wasunsuitable for the Oconto Falls Project; WEPCO's analysisprojected $540,000 for a barrier net for the Oconto FallsProject; and the Commission concluded that a fish protectiondevice at the Oconto Falls Project would not have a significant beneficial effect on fishery resources. The Commissiongave WDNR's recommendation to construct a net barriersimilar to the Pine Project's barrier due weight but adequately distinguished the Oconto Falls Project's needs basedupon substantial evidence.