Flows and Recretion: A guide to studies for river professionals

Home Browse Search

Hydropower Licensing and Recreation The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates operating licenses for approximately 2,500 hydropower dams across the country, with most operated by private utilities or public utility districts. Licenses are usually granted for periods of 30 to 50 years; when those licenses expire, utilities must apply and receive a new license to keep operating a facility. Since 1993, FERC has issued or renewed more than 350 hydropower projects throughout the nation. Over the next decade, FERC is expected to consider licenses for an additional 200 projects. The Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA, 1986) rewrote "the rules of the game" for assessing and mitigating impacts of projects, so relicensing generally requires consideration of issues that played little part in an "old" license. ECPA requires FERC to give "equal consideration to power and non -power values" when issuing hydropower licenses, so impacts on all these resources must be studied during relicensing and possibly mitigated in the new license. Reservoir and downstream river recreation qualify as "non -power values," and regulations subsequent to ECPA led to a formal role for the National Park Service to provide advice or represent recreation interests in relicensing processes. Agencies that manage land affected by hydropower projects (e.g., the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) have similar responsibilities to represent a variety of environmental values, including recreation. Licensing processes are complex, multi -year resource planning and decision - making efforts that generally have three major phases, although these are handled in slightly different ways depending upon whether a "traditional' (TLP), "alternative" (ALP), or "integrated" (ILP) process is being used. Until 2004, licensees chose between traditional and alternative processes (and several of these processes are on -going and "grandfathered" in), but since that time the ILP is the "default" process (although licensees can still request to use the TLP or ALP). The first phase involves assembling existing information about the project and potentially affected resources. This helps identify information gaps that will lead to discussions about which studies should be conducted to assess impacts for alternative operation or mitigation scenarios. With traditional or alternative processes, a "first stage consultation package" was the end point in this effort. With the ILP (and all future TLP or ALP efforts), a "preliminary application document" (PAD) is the corresponding product, and it is guided by the standard of "existing, relevant, and reasonably available information." The second phase focuses on developing study plans, completing the studies, and integrating findings across resource areas. In traditional and alternative processes, this is usually 6 I Flows and Recreation: A Guide for River Professionals a two- to three -year effort that culminates in draft and final license applications from the utility. In some cases, settlement discussions between utilities, agencies and stakeholders may also be a part of this phase. Most of studies described in the present document typically occur during this phase. The third phase focuses on resolving conflicts between the utility, agencies, and stakeholders through an impact analysis conducted by FERC through a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) planning process. NEPA planning requires developing a range of reasonable alternatives, assessing environmental impacts for each, public involvement, and decision - making by an interdisciplinary team. In traditional and collaborative FERC processes, scoping, alternatives, and impact analyses generally evolved from studies in the second phase. In the ILP, scoping for the NEPA track starts when the PAD is released and studies are developed, but alternative development and impact analysis still typically occur after studies are completed. The final result of a NEPA -based decision is a license to build and /or operate a project with "articles" that prescribe operations and mitigation. When settlements between utilities, agencies, and stakeholders occur, FERC generally incorporates them into the NEPA process and final license. Detailed comparisons between these licensing processes are beyond the scope of this document, but a few other differences between the license processes are notable. With a traditional licensing process, utilities generally retain greater control over the contents of draft and final license applications, although there are specific consultation requirements to encourage consideration of stakeholder or agency concerns and sometimes a more collaborative hybrid process is used. When disputes arise FERC is responsible for resolving them, but this generally occurs later in the process. With an alternative licensing process, utilities, stakeholders, and agencies are encouraged to develop study plans and applications in a more collaborative fashion, hopefully increasing efficiency and avoiding some of the later -stage disputes common in traditional approaches. However, collaboration can be time - consuming and labor- intensive, and consensus may still be difficult (requiring FERC dispute resolution). The recently - developed integrated licensing process is an attempt to address some of these deficiencies. The ILP prescribes earlier FERC participation, more formalized agency and stakeholder collaboration or consultation roles, and an accelerated schedule that includes concurrent NEPA issue