FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

Housatonic River Case Study Housatonic River Case Study

Melissa GraderU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

POLICY

PUBLIC DIALOGUE

SCIENCE

INSTREAM FLOWDECISION

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

Housatonic River

• 2nd largest watershed in CT• 1,946 sq. mi.• 123 miles long, from MA thru CT

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

Hydropower Relicensing

Regulatory body is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Existing license(s) due to expire New license lasts 30-50 years

relicensing represented majoropportunity to address instream flow issuesassociated with the Project

Impetus for instream flow decision:

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

Housatonic River Project

David Ellis; http://www.ctwaterfalls.com/falls/pictures.php?Great1

14 ft. high dam

0.3 mile long bypass reach

24 ft. high dam

2-mile long bypass reach

140 ft. high dam

no bypass reach

no bypass reach

124 ft. high dam

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

Stakeholders

• Licensee• Resource agencies• Anglers• Boaters• Hikers• Lake associations• NGOs• Tribal nation• Abutters• Municipalities

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

Issues

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San 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 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

FERC Process

Decision made within what policy context:

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 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

FERC Process

Decision made within what policy context:

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 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San 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 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San 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 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

Flow Studies 1. Habitat vs. Flow

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

* For trout fry in summer

2. Habitat Time Series

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

3. Dual-Flow

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

Flow Studies IDF ~ FV and upper BB bypass reaches and d/s of Stevenson dam

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San 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 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

401 CT DEP issued draft 401

ROR and bypass flows at FV and BB, and base flow at Shepaug and Stevenson

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

Public Dialogue:

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

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, sobecame part of the license issued by FERC

Relicensing Outcome

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

POLICY

PUBLIC DIALOGUE

SCIENCE

INSTREAM FLOWDECISION

In FERC-driven process, policy and science contribute more thanpublic dialogue to the decision

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

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San 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 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

Taftville, unlicensedShetucket River

Tunnel, unlicensedQuinebaug River