1 / 12

Housatonic River Case Study

Housatonic River Case Study . Robert Gates FirstLight Power Resources Services. Housatonic River Project in a Nut Shell. 5 hydroelectric developments 3 largest lakes in Connecticut Thousands of residents live along the lakes and river Recreational & Environmental assets are extensive

reuben
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 Robert Gates FirstLight Power Resources Services

  2. Housatonic River Project in a Nut Shell • 5 hydroelectric developments • 3 largest lakes in Connecticut • Thousands of residents live along the lakes and river • Recreational & Environmental assets are extensive • 300 Giga-Watts of annual power • FERC license expiring in 2001

  3. Relicensing: An Indoctrination By Fire • Idealist & environmentalist • Northfield Mt. Pumped Storage Station • Fishways along the Connecticut River • Doing the “Right Thing” everyday • Saw relicensing as opportunity

  4. Impetus for instream flow decision: • Historical issues, relationships with recreating entities • Public stewardship & responsibility to provide a balance of competing interests. • Relationship with Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection • Preparation of an application to relicense the Project developments • Relicensing represented a major • economic threat to the Project • The use of instream flow studies were for the • protection of Project economic value while reducing • Project impacts • Results were used in the quest for equitable balance of competing resources

  5. Historical Relationships & Public Stewardship • Worked unselfishly to help boating & fishing interests in facilitation of shared use (up through the 1980s at Trout Management Area) • Worked with CT DEP & local river enthusiasts to develop an Air & Water Model to drive powerhouse releases (circa 1995 at TMA) • Performed lake drawdown for weed control on a volunteer basis • Operated an American Bald Eagle Viewing program voluntarily • Hunting programs voluntarily • Provided a continuous minimum flow at Falls Village voluntarily

  6. Science: Sufficient science was applied to make informed decisions • Great cooperation between agencies, NGOs, and Applicant • Scientific methods were agreed to by all parties • Relevant parties consulted on study plans • Target species were agreed to and evaluation parameters were set • Study team decision making was still rather difficult due to the subjectivity of interpretation with agencies looking for areas where more flow was justified & the Applicant was looking for the opposite

  7. Flow Studies • 1. Habitat vs. Flow

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

  9. Public Dialogue: • Falls Village – Extensive polarization • Bypass Flow: Boating; Agencies vs. Applicant • Development Flow: Boating vs. Fishing Fishing; Agencies vs. Applicant • Bulls Bridge – Extensive polarization • Bypass Flow: Boating vs. Agencies; Fishing;& Applicant • Development Flow: Boating vs. Fishing; Agencies Fishing; Agencies vs. Applicant • Rocky River – Agencies & Applicant, together as problem solvers • Shepaug – Agencies & Applicant, together as problem solvers • Stevenson – Somewhat polarized • Development Flow: Fishing; Agencies & Applicant

  10. Relicensing Outcome • Agencies made their orders; determinations; & prescriptions • IFIM consensus was not reached; DEP prescribed Run of River • Boating interests lost on all fronts • Fishing interests won significant improvements • Applicant lost less than anticipated • The use of IFIM and IDF helped stakeholders to weigh various flow impacts make reasonable judgments “Neither 401 nor fishway prescription appealable, so became part of the license issued by FERC”

  11. Relicensing: Public Process as an Art • Polarizing by self-interest • Bridge gap by identifying party interests & priorities (empathetic approach) • Prioritize your own wants & needs • Know your breadth of power within the regulations • Use of consultants and relationships to help weave a path to gain positive results • Maintain dignity of stakeholders while moving towards solution

  12. Lessons Learned • Positive working relationships helped to bridge interest gaps • Gain commitment on the front end for working to consensus so that the science can help frame reasonable solutions Applicability to other Projects? • Public process is public process • Many of these issues happen at other locations, but each needs tailoring • Instream Flow Analyses are important indicators for quantification of impacts and opportunities for settlement

More Related