Transcript Slide 1

Housatonic River Case Study
Melissa Grader
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
POLICY
SCIENCE
INSTREAM FLOW
DECISION
PUBLIC
DIALOGUE
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Housatonic River
• 2nd largest watershed in CT
• 1,946 sq. mi.
• 123 miles long, from MA thru CT
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Impetus for instream flow decision:
Hydropower Relicensing
 Regulatory body is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 Existing license(s) due to expire
 New license lasts 30-50 years
relicensing represented major
opportunity to address instream flow issues
associated with the Project
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Housatonic River Project
14 ft. high dam
24 ft. high dam
0.3 mile long bypass reach
David Ellis; http://www.ctwaterfalls.com/falls/pictures.p
2-mile long bypass reach
140 ft. high dam
no bypass reach
124 ft. high dam
no bypass reach
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Stakeholders
• Licensee
• Resource agencies
• Anglers
• Boaters
• Hikers
• Lake associations
• NGOs
• Tribal nation
• Abutters
• Municipalities
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Issues
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Stakeholder
Position / Goal for Relicensing
Licensee
Essentially status quo, with small increases in
bypass and below-project flows
Resource agencies
Improve water quality; improve bypass and
below-project flow regimes; fish passage
Boaters
No change to operations at FV and BB
Anglers
Improved flow regime at FV and BB
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Decision made within what policy context:
FERC Process
 FPA governs (re)licensing process
 In issuing permits, FERC shall:
“...give equal consideration to the purposes of energy conservation, the
protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of, fish and wildlife
(including related spawning grounds and habitat), the protection of
recreational opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of
environmental quality.”
 Comprehensive regulations (18 CFR Parts 1 to 399)
 FERC responsible for determining whether a proposal represents the
most comprehensive plan for development of the waterway for all
beneficial public uses within the meaning of Section 10(a) of the FPA
 Relevant sections include 10(a), 10(j), 4(e), 18
 Requires consultation with stakeholders and submittal of
applicable permits (e.g., CZM, WQC, etc.)
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Decision made within what policy context:
FERC Process
10(j) Recommendations
 Pursuant to this section of the FPA, fish and wildlife recommendations
must be included in the license unless inconsistent with other Federal
Law.
 Recommendations must provide for protection, mitigation, or enhancement
of fish and wildlife
 Requires dispute resolution with agencies if FERC finds
recommendation inconsistent
 If recommendation not adopted, FERC must find that conditions it selects
meet requirements of Section 10(a)
“best adapted” to comprehensive development of the waterway
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Decision made within what policy context:
401 Process
 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that an applicant for a
federal license or permit provide a certification that any discharges from
the facility will comply with the Act, including water quality standard
requirements.
 Goal is to restore and maintain chemical, physical and biological
integrity of surface waters, providing for protection and
propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provide for recreation in
and on the water
 Implemented through State’s 401 process
 Must ensure project meets water quality standards
 narrative and numerical criteria
 existing uses (anti-degradation)
 designated uses
 Courts consistently ruled that that FERC must include all conditions
of 401 certificate in a project license (unless authority is waived)
 States differ in 401 process (e.g., appeals, reserved authority)
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Science:
FERC & 401 both rely on it
 Need sound and thorough administrative record upon which to base
decisions
 Scientific method should be proven
 FERC process requires applicant and agencies to propose studies,
and consult on study design
For the Housatonic River Project, decision made to use IFIM and IDF
**both serve to evaluate relationship between habitat and flow**
IFIM
 Used below FV and BB, and in lower BB bypass reach
 Conducted three analyses with data
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Flow Studies
1. Habitat vs. Flow
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
2. Habitat Time Series
* For trout fry in
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
summer
San Antonio, TX
3. Dual-Flow
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Flow Studies
IDF ~ FV and upper BB bypass reaches and d/s of Stevenson dam
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Public Dialogue:
FERC
 Under TLP, a number of points in process allow for public
participation/involvement
 applicant holds public meeting after filing the ICD
 public notice issued once application is filed with FERC (soliciting
comments/study requests)
 subsequent notice soliciting protests & interventions
 opportunity for public to weigh in on FERC’s SD for NEPA
analysis
 Notice of REA allowing for public comment prior to conducting
NEPA
 public comment period after DEA/DEIS issued
 any intervenor has ability to appeal license
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Public Dialogue:
401
 CT DEP issued draft 401
 ROR and
bypass flows at FV and BB, and
Shepaug and Stevenson
base flow at
 Provided public with opportunity to comment within 45 days (posted
on website, in major newspapers)
 Subsequently issued final 401 along with summary of response to
comments received
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Relicensing Outcome
CT DEP issued WQC requiring:
 run-of-river at FV and BB
 bypass flows at FV, BB
 below-project flows at Stevenson
 headpond fluctuation limits at Stevenson and Shepaug
 DO enhancement at Shepaug
 fish passage
 pumping restrictions at Rocky River
 various plans (monitoring, fish passage water quality, etc.)
FWS issued CRP letter including 10(j) recommendations and Sect. 18 Prescription
 consistent with 401 conditions
 minimum flow below Shepaug
Neither 401 nor fishway prescription appealable, so
FLOW 2008
became part of the license issued by FERC
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Thames River Side Agreement
 MOA signed by FWS, CTDEP and NGS
 Calls for fish passage at 2 non-jurisdictional
hydro projects on the Thames watershed
POLICY
SCIENCE
INSTREAM FLOW
DECISION
PUBLIC
DIALOGUE
In FERC-driven process, policy and
science contribute more than
public dialogue to the decision
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Lessons Learned
 Particulars of this licensing facilitated a specific outcome
 licensing process chosen
 401 and Sect. 18 authorities
 off-site restoration opportunities
 Coordination between DEP and FWS enhanced outcome
Applicability to other Projects?
 Likely not broadly applicable
 unique set of circumstances
 Landscape very different now
 TTH/AFP for S. 18
 new ILP
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Taftville, unlicensed
Shetucket River
Tunnel, unlicensed
Quinebaug River
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX