Ideas for Implementing and Participating in 

the Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) 

Tools for Industry, Agencies, Tribes, NonGovernmental Organizations, Citizens, and FERC Staff 

Version 2.0 

 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Office of Energy Projects 

Washington, DC 

March 2011 
Table of Contents

Introduction ..................................................................... 5 

Integrated Licensing Process Timeline .............................................9 

Tips for All Stakeholders throughout the ILP ..................................10 

Integrated Licensing Process Steps................................ 12 

Chapter 1: Integrated Licensing Process Preparation .....................12 

Applicants Should Plan the Process, Be Pro-Active, and 

Open the Lines of Communication ................................................12 

Agencies, Tribes, NGOs, and Citizens will Benefit from 

Early Preparation and Coordination...............................................13 

FERC Can Assist Applicants and Stakeholders.....................................14 

Chapter 2: Developing the Pre-Application Document.....................16 

Cast a Wide Net to Gather Information for the PAD .............................16 

Agencies, Tribes, NGOs, and the Public Can Help ................................17 

Create a Good PAD; One Size Doesn’t Fit All ......................................18 

The Process Plan and Good Lines of Communication Will Keep Things 

Moving .................................................................................... 19

FERC Can Assist Applicants and ILP Participants to Prepare a Good PAD 

and a Realistic Process Plan........................................................ 20 

 

Chapter 3: Scoping.........................................................................21 

Applicants Can Help Promote Effective Scoping Meetings .....................21

All Participants Need to be Prepared for Interaction ............................22

FERC Should Encourage Interactive Scoping Meetings .........................23 

Chapter 4: Study Requests and Study Plan Development................ 25 

Details, Details, Details ...................................................................25 

Communication, Collaboration, and Planning Can Improve Efficiency and 

Effectiveness of the Study Plan Development Process......................27

FERC Can Clarify Elements of the Study Plan Development Process ...... 28 

Formal Dispute Resolution .............................................................. 29 

Chapter 5: Study Results Review and PM&E Measures.................... 30 

Applicants Can Lead Collaboration and Sharing of Information............. 30

Stakeholders are also Responsible for Keeping Things Moving 

Forward ........................................................................................31

1 
Chapter 6: Preliminary License Proposal (or Draft License 

Application), Final License Application, and Post-Filing 

Activity ..........................................................................................32 

Applicants Should Use the PLP or DLA as Appropriate; One Size does Not 

Fit All .......................................................................................33 

FERC and Agencies Should Better Educate Participants and Coordinate 

Regulatory Activities...................................................................33

Conclusion...................................................................... 35 

2 
Executive Summary 

In 2005 and again in 2010, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or 

Commission) staff explored with applicants, tribes, agencies, non-governmental 

agencies (NGO), and citizens how well the integrated licensing process (ILP) was 

achieving its goal of providing a predictable, efficient, and timely licensing process that 

ensured adequate resource protection. We asked what was going well and what might 

be done better. This document contains those shared ideas, tools, and techniques that 

have been successfully implemented (or could be implemented) to assist future ILP 

participants without unduly extending the licensing process or changing existing 

regulations. Key suggestions are listed below: 

Applicant 

 Create an open and transparent process by actively identifying and working with 

interested stakeholders throughout the process, including developing and 

adhering to a detailed process plan that permits stakeholders to understand what 

is expected of them and when. 

 Consider establishing a website or a file sharing site to distribute reports, meeting 

summaries and other documents quickly and efficiently; establish a distribution 

protocol and stick to it to ensure that stakeholders receive documents on time 

and well ahead of scheduled meetings. 

 Ensure participants understand your project and the ILP by providing a good 

project description in the pre-application document, conducting site visits, and 

sponsoring workshops and outreach efforts to explain the process; invite FERC 

to assist in explaining the ILP. 

 Plan your process such that you can complete the application timely; consider 

the seasonality of studies, regulatory timeframes of the ILP, and when you need 

to file a license application. 

 Prepare detailed study plans; consider providing study plans in the PAD; and 

work collaboratively with stakeholders to develop study plans that are as 

responsive to stakeholder needs as possible. 

 Include draft resource management plans in the preliminary licensing proposal or 

draft license application to promote constructive review and input such that final 

plans can be developed and filed with the final license application. 

Agencies, Tribes, and NGOs 

 Get involved early and stay involved; become familiar with the ILP regulations 

and research the project. 

 Take advantage of any applicant or FERC-sponsored meetings or training to 

understand the project, the ILP, and your responsibilities and time commitments; 

seek adequate staffing and/or notify the applicant and other stakeholders of your 

resource constraints early; and look for ways to coordinate with other 

stakeholders to achieve resource efficiencies and overcome resource 

constraints. 

3 
 Share available information with the applicant early to better define information 

gaps. 

 Work with the applicant, FERC staff, and other stakeholders to explain your 

regulatory requirements, timelines, process steps, and information needs up-front

to help set expectations and to establish a more coordinated licensing process 

timeline. 

 Work with the applicant, FERC staff, and other stakeholders to explain your 

resource interests and management goals and objectives, and develop thorough 

study requests that address the ILP study criteria. 

 Keep up to date by using available resources (project websites, subscribe to 

FERC’s eLibrary). 

 Review materials in advance of meetings, with comments prepared for the 

productive use of meeting times. 

 Work closely within your organization to achieve clarity and consensus on 

information and resource needs. 

 Be open to discussing protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures before 

studies are completed. 

FERC Staff 

 Continue to hold ILP workshops and training to inform stakeholders of ILP 

timelines and requirements. 

 Participate in ILP meetings to the extent possible to ensure a thorough 

understanding of stakeholder interests and information needs. 

 Explore different formats for scoping meetings to promote more interaction with 

stakeholders. 

 Prepare guidance that explains the ILP study criteria and how to develop good 

study requests; make these available at meetings and on the web. 

 Facilitate discussions of issues and study proposals to ensure that there is a 

clear link between a study request and project effects. 

 Provide more thorough and clear study determinations so that participants 

understand why their studies were rejected. 

4 
Introduction

The Integrated Licensing Process (ILP) is intended to streamline the Commission’s 

licensing process by providing a predictable, efficient, and timely process that continues 

to ensure adequate resource protections. The efficiencies expected to be achieved 

through the ILP are founded on three fundamental principles: 

 Early issue identification and resolution of studies needed to fill information gaps, 

thus avoiding studies post-filing. 

 Integration of state and federal agency and tribal permitting process needs, 

including the Commission’s scoping pursuant to the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), the license applicant’s pre-filing consultation, and federal and 

state permitting needs such as water quality certification pursuant to section 401 

of the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Consultation pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act. 

 Established timeframes to complete process steps for all stakeholders, including 

the Commission staff. 

In 2005 and again in 2010, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or 

Commission) staff explored with applicants, tribes, agencies, non-governmental 

agencies (NGO), and citizens how well the ILP was achieving its goals and what might 

be done better. Participants in the effectiveness study found that the ILP principles 

were generally achieving its goals. This document is a culmination of the shared ideas, 

tools, and techniques that have been successfully implemented (or could be 

implemented) within the framework of existing regulations. 

Methods

In 2005, Commission staff engaged participants involved in the first seven ILP cases 

(“pioneer projects”) through probing personal interviews, by-sector (i.e., applicants, 

agencies and tribes, and NGOS) teleconferences, regional workshops, and a technical 

conference. The 2005 study was limited to the ILP steps leading up to the Office of 

Energy Project’s director’s study determination because few projects had completed the 

ILP steps beyond that point. This feedback informed an Ideas for Implementing and 

Participating in the Integrated Licensing Process handbook that was released in March 

2006. 

In 2010, we repeated the study, using the same approach as in 2005, but included all of 

the process steps leading to the filing of the license application. Thus, the first four 

steps (Chapters 1 – 4) of this revised guidance document represent input from both the 

2005 and 2010 evaluations while the last two steps (Chapters 5 – 6) represent input 

solely from the latter evaluation. A total of 30 projects were included in the second 

evaluation. 

5 
Content and Organization of the Guidance Document

The feedback collected through these two evaluations is the basis for the concepts, 

actions, and activities that each of the sectors (applicants, state and federal agencies, 

tribes, NGOs, citizens, and FERC staff) may consider implementing. This document is 

formatted to first provide a description of the ILP steps and goals, followed by a 

summary of the ideas provided during the evaluation. The compilation of ideas 

presented herein represents those ideas put forth that the Commission staff believes 

would best help future ILP participants without unduly extending the licensing process 

or changing the existing regulations. 

Because solutions to some of the comments do not fit into the framework of this 

document, Commission staff has also developed an ILP Action Plan. It will address 

such topics as study criteria, outreach and education, and interagency coordination, and 

is available on Commission’s web page at: www.ferc.gov. 

Summaries of all comments provided during the interviews, by-sector dialogues, and 

regional workshops, and the transcripts of the technical conference can be found on the 

Commission web page at (www.ferc.gov). The 2005 technical conference transcript is 

also available on the eLibrary under docket AD05-6-000, and the 2010 technical 

conference transcript is available under docket AD10-7-000. 

Implementation and applicability of the ideas contained herein must be considered 

based on the specifics of a particular project because every licensing project is different 

in size, complexity, location, public interests, resource issues, participant relationships, 

and the amount of participant experience. The ideas are tools that may help improve 

participant involvement and process outcomes; they are not a substitute for the 

regulations, which must be reviewed and followed. 

6 
Steps evaluated during the ILP Effectiveness Studies 

ILP Preparation: This step involves planning the license application process, including 

developing the process plan and schedule, identifying and consulting with appropriate federal 

and state agencies, tribes, and other interested participants, and gathering information that is in 

the applicant’s possession or that the applicant can obtain from others with the exercise of due 

diligence to prepare the Pre-Application Document (PAD). 

PAD Development: This step involves organizing existing, relevant and reasonably available 

information in such a way that all participants understand what is known about the project, its 

resources, and any known project effects on those resources. This should enable participants 

to understand the project proposal; identify potential project effects, issues, and information 

gaps; and develop study requests. 

Scoping: This step initiates the FERC’s scoping process to identify issues to be examined 

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It provides interested participants 

an opportunity to review and discuss existing information and conditions, resource management 

objectives, issues, and the process plan and schedule. 

Study Plan Development: This step involves developing detailed studies and study methods 

to fill information gaps needed to address issues identified during scoping. 

Study Results Review and PM&E Measures: This step involves reviewing study results, and 

ideally, identifying potential protection, mitigation, and environmental (PM&E) measures. 

During this time, the applicant and stakeholders review studies to ensure that they have been 

completed as approved by the Commission, and whether modifications to the studies are 

needed. Information from the studies, in conjunction with information identified during the PAD, 

should enable participants to develop PM&E measures that would mitigate any project’s 

impacts on the environment and other resources. 

Draft and Final License Application and Post-Filing Activity: This step involves the 

applicant developing its preliminary licensing proposal (PLP) and Final License Application 

(FLA). The applicant may choose to submit a Draft License Application (DLA) instead of the 

PLP. Post-filing activities also begin, including, the issuance by the Commission of an 

Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), with a public 

comment period; Endangered Species Act consultation; action on a 401 certification; and final 

action by FERC. 

7 
The ILP regulations can be found on FERC’s web page and the process steps are 

illustrated in the process flow chart (Figure 1). 

Helpful Websites 

ILP Final Rule and Tribal Policy Statement 

Order 2002 

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/indus-act/hl-over.asp

ILP General Information 

www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info.asp

Ideas for Implementing and Participating in the Integrated Licensing 

Process (ILP) 

www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen-info/licensing/ilp/eff-eva/ideas.pdf

8 
Figure 1: ILP Process Timeline

9 
Tips for All Stakeholders throughout the ILP 

Understand the Process, Get Involved Early, and Stay Involved 

Participants from all the sectors in the effectiveness study emphasize that 

understanding the process and what is expected of each stakeholder is key to 

participating effectively in an ILP and meeting the regulatory timeframes. Some found 

that the ILP is easier to understand than other processes, particularly for stakeholders 

with a smaller role in the licensing process. Deadlines and timelines helped to keep 

everyone on schedule. Participants in the effectiveness studies found the following to 

be helpful in improving understanding and participation in an ILP: 

 

 Read the ILP regulations and become familiar with the process steps and 

timelines. This is a fast moving process that requires early involvement by all 

stakeholders for it to be fully effective. 

 Closely follow the process plan and any updates. 

 Become involved early. This is particularly important for mandatory conditioning 

agencies, which have requirements that need to be met during the ILP. 

 Attend workshops or other training held early in the process to educate 

participants. Such training not only informs participants of the regulatory 

requirements and project management objectives of the ILP, but also serves to 

define the roles and needs of the participants. The presence of FERC staff at 

such trainings is beneficial. Applicants should invite FERC participation in early 

outreach efforts. 

 Use FERC’s internet e-filing and e-subscription services to ensure timely filings 

and efficient use of available time (http://www. ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp) 

and to stay abreast of filings with the Commission. 

 Schedule meetings up front to save time in scheduling later. Then, cancel 

meetings if they are not needed. 

Establish and Maintain Open Lines of Communication 

Participants in the effectiveness studies feel that early preparation and sustained open 

communication are key to a more efficient and quality process. Collaboration with other 

stakeholders is important to avoid miscommunication and understand responsibilities. 

It also can lead to mutually-agreeable products and measures for the license 

application. Participants in the effectiveness studies found the following to be helpful in 

establishing and maintaining open lines of communication: 

10 
 Applicants should identify and establish key contacts with participants from all 

sectors. Participants in the process can assist the applicant in these efforts by 

identifying other stakeholders who may want to become involved in the process; 

participants can then share the stakeholders’ contact information with the 

applicants. 

 Everyone should keep in mind that working together on a complex project 

requires a thorough understanding of how the project operates and its regulatory 

requirements, and patience from all participants. Such transparency and a 

willingness to understand others’ interests can lead to fewer obstacles in the 

licensing process for all stakeholders. Everyone needs to remember that each 

project is different. What happened in one case may not be applicable or 

relevant to others. 

 Applicants should consider providing a project website or a file-sharing site to 

facilitate access to documents and meeting materials; applicants might consider 

regular newsletters or other updates, as a means to allow stakeholders to follow 

and understand a project’s progress. It is also helpful when meeting materials 

are shared well ahead of scheduled meetings (one week in advance) to provide 

time for review. 

 Applicants may want to use a facilitator to help manage discussions, the study 

results review process, keep participants on track, and foster collaboration. 

When new stakeholders join the process, facilitators can help bring them up to 

speed without hampering the overall process. 

11 
Integrated Licensing Process Steps 

Chapter 1 

Preparing for the Integrated Licensing Process 

An applicant notifies FERC that it intends to file an application for a license to construct 

and operate or continue to operate a hydroelectric project by filing a notice of intent 

(NOI) and a Pre-Application Document (PAD). The PAD describes the project proposal, 

what is known about the project environment, and any known or potential project effects 

on environmental or other resources. An applicant seeking to relicense an existing 

project must file the NOI and PAD five to five and a half years prior to the expiration of 

the existing license. An applicant seeking an original license has greater flexibility when 

to file its NOI. In general, such an applicant should file its NOI and PAD when it is 

confident of the project’s feasibility and prepared to begin developing its license 

application. A license applicant is required to demonstrate due diligence in obtaining all 

existing, relevant, and reasonably available information for the PAD. 

Participants in the effectiveness studies shared the following thoughts about when to 

get started; what to consider when developing the ILP process plan; how to ensure all 

interested participants and issues are identified and all available, relevant information is 

obtained; and what FERC should do to promote a more efficient and effective process. 

Applicants Should Plan the Process, Be Pro-Active, and Open the 

Lines of Communication 

A lot of the responsibility for ensuring the ILP is timely and efficient falls on the license 

applicant. An extra effort to open lines of communication and include participants early 

in the process is appreciated and can help improve the efficiency of the process. Tips 

for ensuring a timely and efficient process include: 

 

 Make sure everyone is ready to jump into the process by holding or sponsoring 

an early training course to introduce the project and the ILP. Such efforts will 

facilitate a strong start and help build a solid foundation of participant 

understanding and working relationships. 

 It may be helpful for some applicants to start working with stakeholders well in 

advance of filing the NOI with the Commission. It has been shown to allow for a 

smoother process in some complex cases because it gave participants more 

time to gain an understanding of the project, gather existing information, and 

identify information gaps and the means to fill those gaps. This is particularly 

true in complex projects that might require multiple years of study to address 

resource issues. 

12 
 An applicant-sponsored field trip to the project site can help participants 

understand the specific project and issues. 

 Holding one-on-one meetings with interested stakeholders who are unfamiliar or 

inexperienced with hydroelectric licensing can aid in timely stakeholder 

participation, facilitate a better understanding of each stakeholder’s concerns, 

and help uncover relevant existing data. 

 A clearly defined process schedule helps define when and how agencies, NGOs, 

and citizens can most effectively contribute to the process. Make sure everyone 

understands that once the NOI and PAD are filed, the process moves quickly. 

 Cast a wide net for interested 

stakeholders and relevant information. 

Ask community leaders and state and 

federal agency representatives for 

help contacting and identifying 

stakeholders who may not be aware of 

the project or may have relevant 

information and interests. 

A list of contacts who are 

commonly involved in hydropower 

licensing can be found on the FERC 

web page at: 

http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hyd

ropower/enviro/consult-list.asp 

 In deciding when to file the NOI and PAD, applicants should consider the 

seasonal needs for studies as well as such regulatory timeframes as the license 

expiration date. Such consideration may provide more time for studies and may 

help avoid scheduling conflicts, such as holidays. It is preferable to have 

approved study plans in place in advance of the appropriate study seasons so 

there is adequate time to conduct the studies. 

 Conduct an initial meeting with FERC for guidance prior to filing the NOI to 

discuss roles, expectations, process steps, and study criteria. 

Agencies, Tribes, NGOs, and Citizens will Benefit from Early 

Preparation and Coordination 

Increased public involvement is one of the goals of the ILP. All participants play a key 

role in the ILP from the very beginning of the process. Many of the participants in the 

effectiveness studies acknowledged the benefits of the tightened structure of the ILP, 

but also noted that it requires early involvement, early dedication of time and energy, 

and substantial preparation. Participants in the effectiveness studies offered the 

following suggestions for agencies, tribes, NGOs, and citizens to consider in preparing 

for an ILP: 

 Become familiar with the ILP regulations and research the project. That way, 

stakeholders can participate with a foundation of understanding about the 

process and the project. 

13 
 Take advantage of ILP trainings to get up to speed on the process and the 

project. 

 Ensure that decision makers and managers are alerted and involved early in the 

process so that issues and personnel needs are adequately considered in 

planning. Make the necessary arrangements to provide adequate 

representation, to the extent possible, at meetings. 

 Assist applicants in gathering existing, relevant, and reasonably available 

information by identifying and sharing information with the applicant and other 

entities that may be interested in the project. 

 Introduce yourself to applicants, and identify your regulatory responsibilities and 

process needs early. It is helpful when resources agencies with specific 

regulatory responsibilities introduce themselves and their role in the process. 

All participants have looked to FERC staff as educators, facilitators, mediators, 

and regulators. 

 Coordinate and collaborate with stakeholders who have similar interests and 

technical expertise in order to gain resource efficiencies and additional 

information. This may be particularly useful to concerned citizens and others 

who lack the resources, time, and technical training to participate in all aspects of 

the ILP, but want to ensure that their concerns are known by the applicant, FERC 

and public agencies. 

FERC Can Assist Applicants and Stakeholders 

Participants in the effectiveness studies offered the following recommendations that 

FERC could undertake to educate participants in the ILP. They encouraged the 

Commission to: 

 Prepare FERC staff such that they have a clear understanding of the ILP and can 

promptly and consistently answer questions about the process, regulatory 

requirements, and the study criteria. Clearly define roles during outreach 

meetings, ILP training sessions, and throughout the process. 

 Continue to develop and distribute educational materials such as the “FERC 

Hydroelectric Licensing under the Federal Power Act Final Rule & Tribal Policy 

Statement,” “Handbook for Hydroelectric Project Licensing and 5 MW 

Exemptions from Licensing,” and the “Small/Low Impact Hydropower Program” 

website. 

 Continue to hold FERC ILP workshops and training sessions. 

14 
“When FERC is active and 

involved, we have better 

outcomes.” 

-NGO Representative

 Attend all meetings. Having FERC 

staff at meetings encourages 

participants to collaborate, helps 

clarify roles, and helps answer 

questions that smooth the process. 

 Remain open and accessible to questions; reaffirm the Commission’s neutrality 

and respond promptly and consistently to all participants’ concerns. 

 Facilitate and encourage cooperation and involvement of as many interested 

stakeholders as early as possible by:

 Establishing working relationships with the stakeholders. 

 Supporting transparent communications. 

 Encouraging the applicant to cast a wide net to identify stakeholders to 

participate in the process. 

 Continuing to update the Initial Consultation Contact List 

(http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/enviro/consult-list.asp). 

 

15 
Chapter 2 

Developing the Pre-Application Document (PAD) 

The PAD is the cornerstone of the ILP. It 

provides the basis for identifying issues, 

data gaps, and study needs. It forms the 

foundation for future documents, including 

the license application, as well as providing 

participants with an initial understanding of 

the project. Because of its importance, 

many of the suggestions provided by the 

participants in the effectiveness studies 

revolve around information for the PAD; 

soliciting and portraying information in a 

useable form; providing the right level of 

detail in the PAD and in study needs; and 

involving ILP participants in developing the 

process plan and methods for distributing 

information. 

What must be included in the PAD 

is outlined in the FERC’s 

regulations [see 18 CFR 5.6(d)]. 

In sum, the PAD must include: 

 Project description (facilities 

and operation) 

 River basin description 

 Description of the existing 

environment and resource 

impacts to the extent that they 

are known 

 List of issues 

 List of studies proposed to fill 

identified information gaps 

 List of relevant comprehensive 

plans 

 Process plan 

 Summary of contacts Cast a Wide Net to Gather 

Information for the PAD 

The PAD provides participants with existing information relevant to the project proposal 

that is in the applicant’s possession or that the applicant can obtain with the exercise of 

due diligence. However, while an applicant is not required to conduct studies to gather 

information for the PAD, it is expected that the applicant will diligently attempt to gather 

all relevant and reasonably available material. Participants in the effectiveness studies 

suggest that an applicant give consideration to the following in gathering existing 

information: 

 Applicants should meet early with stakeholders to identify baseline information 

that will inform all potential project effects. 

 Applicants might consider using a questionnaire or other survey-type tool to 

solicit existing information. This can help participants search for relevant 

information and uncover all potential information sources. Follow-up phone calls 

can help probe for issues, uncover additional available information, and ensure a 

common understanding of project operations. These interactions and 

discussions demonstrate an applicant’s efforts to obtain information. 

 Applicants need to provide entities with enough time to identify, gather, and 

provide information for the PAD. Participants stated that helping to collect and 

coalesce this information is mutually-beneficial in identifying study needs and 

adding clarity to the process. 

16 
 Applicants might consider forming work groups and meeting with individual 

agencies and other stakeholders to gather information and to dig deeper into 

potential issues that would benefit from a more thorough discussion in the PAD. 

Such efforts can also be useful in communicating available information. 

 

 Applicants should provide participants 

with a list of information currently in an 

applicant’s possession to help avoid 

needless searching for redundant 

information. 

 Applicants may want to consider 

conducting some basic studies to 

supplement available information for 

the PAD. This was done voluntarily by 

some of the applicants and in consultation with the participants. Such efforts 

need to be considered carefully because without a FERC-approved study plan an 

applicant might have to duplicate efforts. 

“Even though we started a couple 

years early, it was very measured 

and incremental. This early start 

added some time and costs to the 

ILP, but it saved a great deal of 

time and money through the 

[remainder of the] process. ” 

-Applicant

Agencies, Tribes, NGOs, and the Public Can Help 

Maximum participation by all stakeholders in identifying information for the PAD ensures 

that everyone starts with a common understanding of the issues and eventually in the 

development of study plans to fill information gaps. Participants in the effectiveness 

studies offered the following advice for future participants in an ILP: 

 Do not assume the applicant has all the available information. If you receive a 

request for information from an applicant, provide as much information on project 

environmental resources, project effects, and management objectives as 

possible. 

 Be pro-active. Stakeholders aware of an upcoming licensing effort might 

consider researching their files for available information prior to a request by an 

applicant. This provides greater lead time in responding to an applicant’s 

request. 

 Consider dividing responsibilities based on areas of expertise. This can improve 

time and resource efficiencies. Support other agencies in collecting data for the 

PAD. 

17 
Create a Good PAD; One Size Doesn’t Fit All 

An organized and well-developed PAD is crucial to get the process off to the right start. 

However each PAD will be different based on the range and complexity of issues and 

availability of information. Participants in the effectiveness studies offered the following 

advice to applicants and ILP participants: 

 Applicants should provide a thorough and clear description of project facilities 

and operations, including a map of project boundaries with the location of project 

facilities and federal lands clearly delineated. This is fundamental to 

understanding potential project effects. 

 Applicants should use the PAD as a 

working document and framework for the 

process. There is flexibility in formatting 

the PAD. Following a format similar to that 

of an environmental assessment helps in 

drafting future documents, including the 

preliminary licensing proposal, the license 

application, and FERC’s environmental 

documents. 

“I like the ILP. It’s frontend loaded with the PAD 

and other things. That’s an 

improvement over other 

licensing processes.” 

-Federal Agency

 Applicants should strive to make the PAD concise and easy to read. Consider 

using summary statements and clearly reference available information. Post the 

referenced information, or relevant links, on a website. 

 Applicants should use layman’s terms to make the document user-friendly. This 

is particularly useful for those unfamiliar with hydroelectric projects and the 

licensing processes. 

 Applicants should clearly describe all the issues or potential issues based on 

potential project effects identified in developing the PAD. A thorough review of 

the issues will foster candid and open discussions during scoping and study plan 

development. 

 Applicants should strive to provide as much detail as possible in describing 

proposed studies in the PAD. Participants in the effectiveness studies recognize 

that applicants may be unable to provide detailed study plans until the issues are 

fully scoped, but they found greater efficiency in developing their study requests 

by responding to more detailed study plans. It also assists their understanding of 

what is feasible for, and proposed by, the applicant. In some cases, it may be 

useful to develop study plans collaboratively. This also helps stakeholders to 

understand the study criteria and how it applies to the specific licensing. 

18 
 ILP participants should clearly communicate to the applicant the level of detail 

they would like to see in the description of potential studies, and ultimately, in the 

studies themselves. 

The Process Plan and Good Lines of Communication Will Keep Things 

Moving 

The process plan describes the overall plan and schedule for licensing, consistent with 

the time frames established in the ILP regulations. It helps participants keep up with the 

process and describes how information will be distributed. Integrating other agency 

process needs (such as the state water quality certification process and endangered 

species consultations) into the ILP is expected to result in substantial efficiencies and 

time savings in the ILP. Participants in the effectiveness studies offered the following 

suggestions for developing a good process plan and disseminating information. 

 The applicant and ILP participants should review the process plan timeline 

collaboratively to make sure everyone understands their roles and 

responsibilities, and the timing and deadline requirements. 

 Agencies should discuss their process needs, their regulatory requirements and 

implications for the process, and associated deadlines. Discussing these 

regulatory needs relative to the ILP process plan will help ensure state and 

federal regulatory processes are integrated, to the greatest extent practicable, 

with FERC’s licensing process. 

 Applicants should post the process plan in a venue accessible to the public. 

 Applicants should bring the timeline to all meetings and make sure participants 

are aware of any changes. 

 Applicants should include a Distribution Protocol in the PAD to outline means for 

information distribution and access. This is strongly encouraged by the 

regulations. 

 Applicants may want to consider 

establishing a project website and/or filesharing site. This provides a convenient 

and consistent way of accessing 

information. It can be helpful in ensuring 

timely notification and availability of 

information. 

Mechanisms for communication: 

 Electronic reminders 

 Outreach meetings 

 Project website 

 File sharing

 Applicants may want to consider distributing documents by electronic mail or 

posting documents on an FTP site, and notifying participants when new materials 

19 
are posted. Send hard copies of required information to stakeholders without 

electronic mail access. 

 Applicants may want to consider giving personal reminders about important 

meetings, including scoping and proposed study plan meetings. An applicant 

also may want to consider developing a mechanism for tracking issues and 

studies. They should also encourage the use of FERC’s eLibrary, which may 

help ensure active and timely participation by stakeholders. 

FERC Can Assist Applicants and ILP Participants to Prepare a Good 

PAD and a Realistic Process Plan 

Participants in the effectiveness studies said stakeholders benefit from the 

Commission’s expertise. Applicants, agencies, tribes, and NGOs would like to get a 

better understanding of what a PAD looks like, what needs to be included, and how to 

identify issues. Commission staff was encouraged to: 

 Work closely with applicants and agencies to integrate permitting processes (401 

and ESA) into the ILP schedule. 

 Continue to review draft documents as may be requested to identify missing 

information. 

 Continue outreach efforts to explain the process and how to identify all potential 

issues. 

20 
Chapter 3 

Scoping 

Scoping is the process used by federal agencies to identify affected public, tribal, and 

agency concerns about a proposed undertaking and 

to identify and define the scope of issues and 

alternatives that will be examined in detail in its 

environmental analysis required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). 

Conducted effectively early in the process, it can help 

ensure that project effects and issues are identified 

early and properly studied; that issues of no concern 

do not consume time and effort; that the environmental analysis is balanced and 

thorough; and that the delays caused by late-rising issues are avoided. 

Project documents can be 

found by searching the 

FERC’s eLibrary under the 

project’s number (for 

example, P-1111). 

Toward that end, within 60 days of an applicant’s filing of notice of intent to file an 

application and its PAD, FERC will notice in the Federal Register and in a newspaper 

with circulation in the project area notice the time and location of a public scoping 

meeting and site visit. It will also issue a scoping document describing the project 

facilities and operation and the issues FERC staff identified based on the contents of 

the applicant’s PAD. At the scoping meeting, FERC staff will encourage applicants to 

provide a detailed explanation of project facilities and operations, and then lead a 

discussion about the project effects and issues, existing conditions, available 

information, resource management objectives, preliminarily identified information gaps 

and study needs, and the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or Indian tribe 

acting as a cooperating agency for the development of an environmental document 

pursuant to NEPA. FERC staff also intends to finalize, if possible, the process plan to 

incorporate other agency process needs into the ILP to the greatest extent practicable. 

Suggestions provided by the participants in the effectiveness studies for improving the 

scoping process revolved around actions that would increase stakeholder participation 

and preparation. 

Applicants Can Help Promote Effective Scoping Meetings 

Although the scoping meeting is run by FERC staff, an applicant can play an important 

role in organizing and helping make sure the scoping meeting works well. Participants 

in the effectiveness studies suggest that the following actions be considered by an 

applicant to organize an effective scoping meeting. 

 Work with FERC staff early to identify locations for the scoping meetings that are 

convenient and promote agency, tribe, and public participation. The regulations 

require an applicant to include a proposed date and location for scoping in the 

PAD. Working with FERC staff before filing the PAD will provide an opportunity 

to reserve rooms and make site visit arrangements, resulting in greater certainty 

21 
for all participants that the arrangements proposed in the PAD will be 

implemented. 

 Work with FERC staff to design creative meeting formats and supporting 

materials to ensure an effective scoping meeting. A kiosk approach with posters 

and flip charts, for example, allows the participants to view enlarged details of the 

project features and to list additional issues and information needs based on 

ensuing discussions. Round-table discussions help participants talk through 

issues or concerns together in order to provide more thorough and direct scoping 

comments. 

 Be prepared to describe project facilities and operations, talk about information 

collected for the PAD, and discuss possible project effects and the basis of 

proposed studies at the scoping meeting. 

 

 Check-in regularly with participants, via email and telephone, to remind them of 

scoping meetings and to encourage them to prepare for discussions by reading 

the PAD. 

 Encourage participants to use scoping as an opportunity to voice concerns or 

focus attention to issues that have not been previously identified, rather than 

repeating issues and information sufficiently captured in the PAD. 

 Consider providing logistical support for site visits. Such efforts were appreciated 

by the effectiveness studies’ participants and helped them get a better 

understanding of the project, potential project effects, and the issues. 

 Keep track of comments or concerns raised during scoping. Making an effort to 

track scoping comments helps an applicant stay on top of the issues, develop the 

proposed study plans, and promote a sense of trust in the process by all 

participants 

All Participants Need to be Prepared for Interaction 

An early and open discussion about the project effects and issues helps ensure a better 

and more efficient NEPA analysis and can help prevent surprise issues and study 

requests later. It simultaneously places responsibilities on public, tribal, and agency 

participants alike to share their concerns early. To achieve ILP goals, participants need 

to come prepared to discuss their issues and concerns. FERC staff wants and expects 

participants to play an active role in scoping meetings. Participants in the effectiveness 

studies suggested the following to help participants come prepared to the scoping 

meeting. 

 All participants should read the PAD and be familiar with the project prior to the 

scoping meeting. If this is a relicense, participants may find it helpful to review 

22 
 Agency and tribal representatives should be prepared to discuss their respective 

resource management goals and objectives, information gaps and study needs, 

and process needs, particularly based on each agency’s regulatory requirements 

(e.g. endangered species act consultation, 401 water quality certification, and 

section 4(e) and 18 of the Federal Power Act conditioning authority). 

 NGOs and the public should be prepared to discuss their concerns and 

information needs. 

 All participants should be prepared to discuss and explain issues that should be 

included in the scope of the environmental analysis that may have been omitted 

or not fully explained in the PAD. 

 All participants should attend the site visit and scoping meeting. 

 All participants should feel free to contact FERC staff with any questions about 

the format or the purpose of the meetings, or how to submit comments. 

 All participants should provide the applicant with a copy of any scoping 

comments filed with the Commission so that the applicant is immediately aware 

of any concerns. 

Stay up-to-date by subscribing to FERC’s eSubscription service 

http://ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp

Register to receive email notification of filings and issuances 

about selected docket(s). 

FERC Should Encourage Interactive Scoping Meetings 

Participants in the effectiveness studies believe FERC’s role is to encourage attendees 

to be interactive, place an emphasis on the value of scoping, and act as an impartial 

facilitator to help identify issues. Commission staff is encouraged to: 

 Prepare for scoping meetings by sending official notice and a scoping document 

that clearly describes the purpose of meeting and the issues so that interested 

participants will know how to prepare. 

 Publish official notice of scoping meetings in more local newspapers. 

23 
 Consider holding meetings at different locations within the project vicinity to 

accommodate interested participants who do not have the resources available to 

travel. 

 Consider alternative meeting times for citizens with professional commitments 

outside of the relicensings. 

 Explore the format of meetings with the applicant to encourage more interaction. 

 Explore stakeholder concerns to understand and accurately reflect and consider 

their issues. Ensure that sufficient time is allotted for questions and concerns to 

be addressed at the scoping meetings. 

 Consider different formats for scoping meetings. In certain situations, a one-onone conversation among agencies and other stakeholders may be more 

productive than a full group discussion. 

24 
Chapter 4 

Study Requests and Study Plan Development 

Early agreement on studies needed to fill information gaps is a critical element of the 

ILP and important to ensure timely decisions once the application is filed. Yet, getting to 

an approved study plan can be one of the more challenging and time consuming efforts 

stakeholders face in the ILP. Participants in the effectiveness studies stated that 

understanding and effectively using the study criteria is one of the most difficult 

challenges. While some felt that the criteria helped to focus efforts to identify 

appropriate studies, others felt that some criteria, such as the project nexus or 

estimating costs and levels of effort, are not clear, leading to misunderstandings as to 

why certain study requests are rejected. 

The ILP has a defined process and timeframe to develop a study plan that is approved 

by the Office of Energy Projects’ Director. That process formally begins with the filing of 

study requests by agencies, tribes, NGOs, and the public in response to FERC’s 

scoping notice, but the ground work for the study plan and study request is based on 

the information gathered while developing the PAD and during scoping. 

Participants in the effectiveness studies offered a number of suggestions to improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of the study plan development process. Most revolve 

around effective communication and planning. 

ILP STUDY PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 

Applicant includes list of proposed studies in the PAD 



Participants file Study Requests in response to FERC’s Scoping Notice 



Applicant files Proposed Study Plan 



Applicant, Participants, and FERC Staff meet to resolve study disputes 



Applicant files Revised Study Plan 



OEP Director issues Study Plan Determination 

Details, Details, Details 

Development of good study plans is an iterative process in which the level of detail 

increases with each step until a study plan is developed and approved. A good study 

defines the “what, when, where, and how,” so that, ideally, anyone should be able to 

pick up the approved study plan and implement it. Participants in the effectiveness 

25 
studies offered the following advice to applicants and ILP participants for developing 

good study plans. 

 Applicants should provide as much 

detail as possible in the list of 

proposed studies included in the 

PAD. While applicants may be 

unable to provide detailed studies 

until the issues are fully scoped, 

many agency representatives and 

other participants found resource 

efficiencies and greater comfort 

responding to detailed study plans 

included in the PAD, rather than 

crafting study requests that may not 

fit well with an applicant’s plans and 

capabilities. 

 Participants should provide study 

requests that address each of the 

study criteria thoroughly, are as 

detailed as possible, and clearly 

relate how the information to be 

gathered pertains directly to any mandatory conditioning authority under section 

4(e) or 18 of the Federal Power Act, or section 401 of the Clean Water Act. 

The Seven Study Criteria 

1. Describe the goals and objectives 

of the study. 

2. Explain relevant resource 

management goals. 

3. Explain any relevant public 

interest considerations. 

4. Describe existing information 

concerning the subject of the 

study proposal. 

5. Explain the nexus between 

project operations and effects on 

the resources to be studied. 

6. Explain how any proposed study 

methodology is consistent with 

generally accepted practice. 

7. Describe considerations of level of 

effort and cost. 

 

 Applicants should provide a proposed study plan that is as detailed as possible in 

terms of methodology, timing, and scope. They must clearly describe the 

rationale for not adopting a study request. 

 Applicants might consider creating and populating a study plan template that 

includes the seven study criteria to facilitate better study requests. This may be 

particularly useful to the public and some NGOs that may lack a scientific 

background yet have concerns that require additional information. 

 If a phased approach to a study is contemplated, then Applicants and ILP 

participants should craft study requests and study plans that clearly define 

anticipated future steps, based on the study results. 

 Applicants should make copies of obscure publications available (on the web, for 

example) if they are the source of a proposed study protocol. 

26 
Communication, Collaboration, and Planning Can Improve Efficiency 

and Effectiveness of the Study Plan Development Process 

Participants in the effectiveness studies offered the following suggestions to help 

applicants and participants to effectively and efficiently move through the study plan 

development process. 

“It’s better to work things out 

informally; local solutions are the 

best solutions.” 

-State Agency

 Everyone is responsible for 

educating themselves on the study 

criteria. Understanding the study 

criteria is critical to participate fully 

in the discussion. 

 Applicants might consider forming resource work groups to develop study plans. 

Work groups bring together technical experts, resource managers, and others 

with a common interest, allowing participants to better manage their time. 

However, an applicant needs to carefully plan work group meetings in 

consultation with participants because many agencies and other participants are 

either responsible for, or have an interest in, multiple resources and may need to 

participate in multiple work groups. 

 Applicants may want to consider working through proposed study plans with 

stakeholders as early as possible. Working through study plans prior to filing the 

proposed study plan can give the participants more time to focus on the more 

problematic issues during the 90-day informal dispute resolution process 

provided in the ILP. 

 

 Agencies, tribes, and NGOs may also want to coordinate their efforts in 

developing study requests. Such coordination allows participants to build on the 

expertise of others, increases participant understanding of the issues, and can 

decrease work load by reducing duplication of efforts for common issues. 

However, agencies (particularly those with mandatory conditioning authority) and 

other participants should ensure that their requests and the basis for their study 

requests are accurately reflected in the record. 

 

 Applicants and agencies should anticipate and discuss the need to obtain 

permits required to conduct studies for threatened and endangered species. 

This will resolve later issues that could delay the study implementation process. 

 

 NGOs and the public should ask questions and work with the applicant, FERC, 

and agency representatives if they experience difficulty in addressing the seven 

criteria. 

27 
“Nexus can be kind of challenging, 

but it makes you think about what 

you’re asking for. I don’t think that’s 

bad, but it’s one of the more 

important points.” 

- Federal Agency

 It is important that all participants also consider how study results will be 

reviewed after the study is 

completed. For example, will there 

be resource groups with special 

expertise to help? How will the 

study findings be used to determine 

whether additional studies are 

needed? 

 All participants should consider how 

this information will be used to develop protection, mitigation, and enhancement 

measures (PM&E), including resource management plans that would be filed 

with the license application. 

 All participants should work together to develop “if, then” scenarios to help 

determine whether a second study season or a second phase of a study is 

needed. Defining specific triggers now can facilitate more timely and efficient 

decisions latter in the process. 

FERC Can Clarify Elements of the Study Plan Development Process 

Commission staff was encouraged to: 

 Continue emphasizing the importance of including as much detail as possible in 

both study requests and study plans. 

 Make the “Understanding the Study Criteria” handout available at meetings and 

online to assist stakeholders’ understanding of the study criteria. Improve that 

guidance to better clarify the study criteria. Such guidance would be most helpful 

if it used real projects as examples. Develop tools and/or examples to help 

stakeholders understand how to develop an accurate cost estimate. 

 Frequently review the study criteria with stakeholders and clarify how it applies to 

the specific license situation, particularly the project nexus criteria. 

 Facilitate discussions of issues and study proposals to help define the link 

between a study request and potential project effects. This would aid both 

successful informal dispute resolution, as well as perhaps avoid formal dispute 

resolution altogether. 

 Provide thorough explanations when study requests are rejected in the FERC 

study plan determination. This would help stakeholders understand what is 

required or what is missing should they decide to request formal dispute 

resolution. 

28 
 Clarify how the Commission will consider the cumulative effects of various 

developmental purposes (for example water supply as well as hydropower) of a 

project when considering studies. 

“In negotiations, they did 

bring in a facilitator and that 

added a lot to our process 

and productivity.” 

-NGO Representative

 Explain how FERC evaluates study 

requests, how the study criteria are used, 

and whether some criteria are more 

important than others. For example, 

identify if a study that requires a 

significant level of effort can be rejected 

even if there is a clear project nexus. 

 Clarify that the applicant can conduct studies not included in the FERC Study 

Plan Determination, particularly if the additional studies satisfy resource 

agencies’ regulatory requirements, even if it is beyond what FERC deems it 

needs for its regulatory requirements. 

Formal Dispute Resolution 

The formal dispute resolution process provides agencies with mandatory conditioning 

authority the opportunity to file a notice of study dispute should the Commission reject a 

study pertaining directly to the exercise of their authorities under sections 4(e) and 18 of 

the Federal Power Act or section 401 of the Clean Water Act. This process is resourceintensive within tight timeframes. Feedback for successful formal dispute resolution 

included: 

 FERC should make clear early in the process (e.g., at scoping or during the 

study development process) who can file a notice of study dispute and what the 

formal study dispute process entails. 

 The applicant, agencies, and other stakeholders should try to find an agreeable 

outcome during the informal dispute resolution process to avoid sending the 

issue into formal dispute resolution.

 Representatives of agencies should work closely within the agency to achieve 

clarity and consensus on information needs. Disparate opinions within an 

agency can cause disputes. 

29 
Chapter 5 

Study Results Review and PM&E Measures 

During this step, the study plan is implemented, with periodic review of the study results 

to determine if the studies are being conducted as approved and if they are in need of 

modification. After the first year of study, the applicant files an initial study report, holds 

meetings to discuss the study results, and it and other participants may request a 

modification to the study plan. A second year of studies is not always required, but may 

be needed depending upon the results of the first year of studies or by a showing of 

good cause. The information from the studies is used to develop protection, mitigation 

and enhancement (PM&E) measures and for the Commission’s environmental analysis. 

Participants in the effectiveness study commented that issues and challenges in this 

phase of the ILP revolve around the timing of implementing studies, sharing study 

results, providing comments on those results, and developing PM&E measures. Study 

results come in at different times of the year, so it can be difficult to review all the results 

and provide comments on them within the ILP timeframes. Similarly, without all the 

results there can be delays in the development of PM&E measures. 

Applicants Should Lead Information Sharing 

Participants in the effectiveness study shared the 

following thoughts on how applicants could promote 

greater efficiency during this stage of the ILP: 

 Take the lead in promoting collaboration and 

transparency to assist others during this 

stage. Working collaboratively to analyze 

study results and develop PM&E measures 

can help avoid delays caused by miscommunication. 

“It was great that all 

materials were available 

on the licensee’s 

website.” 

-NGO Representative

 Provide a schedule with the expected times for receiving study results and 

opportunities for commenting and developing PM&E measures and stick to it. 

Keep participants advised when deviations are necessary. This helps participants 

understand what is expected of them and plan how they can best participate 

during this timeframe. 

 Consider providing study results as they are completed to allow more time for 

review, instead of providing them all at once in conjunction with the initial and 

updated study reports. 

 Consider holding meetings before finalizing study reports. This adds 

transparency and helps participants better understand the study results. 

30 
 Consider ways in which everyone can participate in the development of a single 

study report or resource plan that shows collective comments. This improves 

transparency and a sense of joint ownership. 

 Consider sharing technical memos throughout the process that capture findings 

and analysis to date. This is appreciated by stakeholders, and makes digesting 

the information easier and providing comments on study reports more timely. 

 Develop draft PM&E measures that the group can comment on. It is difficult to 

develop PM&E measures as a group for the first time. 

Stakeholders are also Responsible for Keeping Things Moving 

Forward 

In addition to becoming involved early and staying 

involved throughout the ILP, agencies, tribes, and 

NGOs can improve the review of study results and 

the development of PM&E measures by: 

“We convened a working 

group meeting to discuss 

results and what potential 

PM&E measures would be 

appropriate.” 

-Applicant

 Come prepared to study plan meetings and 

PM&E discussions. Understanding what is in 

the study reports and proposed PM&E 

measures can save time and foster more 

productive discussions. 

 Actively engage and meet regularly with other stakeholders to address each 

others’ needs; this helps the entire group understand overall concerns and goals. 

 Be open to discussing potential PM&E measures prior to all study results being 

available. When some study results are available for some resources, consider 

developing any related potential PM&E measures. 

 Consider adaptive management approaches to address uncertainties based on 

limited study results and to foster early discussions of PM&E measures. If 

adaptive management is used, be sure to include monitoring (how will additional 

studies or feasibility assessments be monitored), and triggers (that clarify up front 

if this is found, then what action will be taken to address it). 

31 
Chapter 6 

Preliminary License Proposal (or Draft License 

Application), Final License Application, and Post-Filing 

Activity 

During the pre-filing stage, an applicant prepares a preliminary licensing proposal (PLP) 

that describes its proposed project, including project operations and maintenance plans 

and environmental measures to address any potential project effects. The PLP must 

also include a draft environmental analysis of the effects of the preliminary licensing 

proposal, considering the results of the studies conducted under the approved study 

plan. An applicant may prepare a draft license application in lieu of the PLP. 

Stakeholders have 90 days to review and comment on the PLP or DLA, and can 

request additional studies only on demonstration of extraordinary circumstances. 

The applicant then files the Final License Application (FLA), addressing the comments it 

received on the PLP or DLA. In the case of applicants seeking a new license for an 

existing project, the FLA must be filed no later than two years prior to license expiration. 

The submittal of the FLA begins post-filing activity. When the FERC determines that the 

application is complete and has all the information needed to complete an 

environmental analysis, it will solicit comments, recommendations and prescriptions 

from interested parties (ready for environmental analysis (REA) notice) on the license 

proposal. The FERC then may issue a single environmental assessment (EA) or either 

a draft EA or a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) analyzing the applicant’s 

proposal and any alternative measures filed in response to the REA notice. During this 

period, the Commission also completes consultation under the Endangered Species 

Act, and the applicant must request, if it has not already done so, a water quality 

certification from the state water quality certifying agency and a coastal zone 

consistency determination, as appropriate. Once all the statutory requirements are in 

place, the Commission issues a decision on the license application. 

A number of issues and challenges surfaced in this phase. Some participants in the 

effectiveness study found the post-filing regulatory steps (ESA, 401, and filing 4(e) 

conditions) confusing and did not understand their purpose or how they affect and 

interact with the ILP. Some agencies suggested that the FERC environmental 

document was not developed in a way that could also fulfill their needs. Others thought 

it was unclear when and how stakeholders may comment and stay involved in the 

process after the filing of the application. Also, state and federal resources agencies 

said staffing constraints can make timely processing of their documents a challenge. 

Participants in the effectiveness study offered the following suggestions to improve 

stakeholder participation: 

32 
Applicants Should Use the PLP or DLA as Appropriate; One Size Does 

Not Fit All 

The applicant is given some flexibility in filing a PLP or DLA. Applicants can also 

request a waiver of the requirement to file a PLP or DLA based on a consensus of the 

participants in favor of such a request. Given this flexibility, the applicant should be 

clear with project participants on which document they intend to prepare and why. 

 Applicants should include draft resource management plans in the PLP or DLA. 

This would permit stakeholders to provide more constructive input on the plans 

and better enable the applicant to file final management plans with the FLA. 

 Applicants should consider holding a meeting during the comment period for the 

DLA or PLP to share concerns and mutually develop solutions. 

FERC and Agencies Should Better Educate Participants and 

Coordinate Regulatory Activities 

Participants in the effectiveness study offered the following suggestions to improve 

inter-agency coordination and stakeholder participation in the various regulatory 

processes: 

 FERC, agencies, and the applicant can help participants remain engaged by 

explaining what milestones are upcoming and when comment opportunities will 

be available. 

“The ILP saves time and is more 

efficient, but we still don’t have 

strong coordination with ESA 

agencies and the 401 agency in 

terms of completing the biological 

opinions and the 401 water 

quality certificate. This delays 

issuance of the license. 

Improved agency coordination 

would be helpful.” 

-Applicant

 FERC and state and federal agencies should 

better coordinate their respective processes 

with the ILP. This could be done by being 

clear about each agency’s regulatory 

deadlines, information needs, and 

consequences of missed deadlines and 

missing information. Having an ongoing and 

updated interagency consultation timeline 

can be helpful. 

 The licensing process timeline should be as 

detailed as possible, so participants can plan 

accordingly. 

 Participants need to make agency leaders aware of the need for adequate staff 

resources to complete regulatory requirements. 

 FERC and the applicant should improve communications after the filing of the 

license application so that stakeholders remain engaged, are aware of 

33 
opportunities to comment, and are aware of any decisions that are ultimately 

made In some ILPs, participants believed their role was complete after the 

license had been filed. In other cases, participants were unable to find 

opportunities to follow the project or continue being involved. 

34 
35 

Conclusion

The ILP process is time-intense but, with its distinct milestones and timeline, offers 

many benefits. The suggestions and ideas contained in this guidance document can 

improve implementation of the ILP. When entering into an ILP, FERC staff encourages 

all participants to consider the ideas offered in this document and incorporate them as 

appropriate to the circumstances of each case in order to make the process as efficient 

and effective as possible.