Transcript Slide 1

Housatonic River Case Study
Robert Gates
FirstLight Power Resources Services
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
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
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
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
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
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
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
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
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
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
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Flow Studies
1. Habitat vs. Flow
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
Flow Studies
IDF ~ FV and upper BB bypass reaches and d/s of Stevenson dam
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
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
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
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”
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
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
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX
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
FLOW 2008
Oct. 7-9, 2008
San Antonio, TX