1 / 22

Housatonic River Case Study

Housatonic River Case Study. Melissa Grader U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. POLICY. SCIENCE. INSTREAM FLOW DECISION. PUBLIC DIALOGUE. Housatonic River. 2 nd largest watershed in CT 1,946 sq. mi. 123 miles long, from MA thru CT. Impetus for instream flow decision:.

benjamin-gonzales
Download Presentation

Housatonic River Case Study

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Housatonic River Case Study Melissa Grader U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

  2. POLICY SCIENCE INSTREAM FLOW DECISION PUBLIC DIALOGUE

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

  4. 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

  5. 14 ft. high dam 24 ft. high dam 0.3 mile long bypass reach David Ellis; http://www.ctwaterfalls.com/falls/pictures.php?Great1 2-mile long bypass reach 140 ft. high dam no bypass reach 124 ft. high dam no bypass reach Housatonic River Project

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

  7. Issues

  8. 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.)

  9. 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

  10. 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)

  11. 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

  12. Flow Studies • 1. Habitat vs. Flow

  13. 2. Habitat Time Series * For trout fry in summer

  14. 3. Dual-Flow

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

  16. 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

  17. Public Dialogue: 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

  18. 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 became part of the license issued by FERC

  19. POLICY SCIENCE INSTREAM FLOW DECISION PUBLIC DIALOGUE • 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 In FERC-driven process, policy and science contribute more than public dialogue to the decision

  20. 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

  21. Taftville, unlicensed Shetucket River Tunnel, unlicensed Quinebaug River

More Related