FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

Housatonic River Case Study Housatonic River Case Study

Robert GatesFirstLight Power Resources Services

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San 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 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San 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 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

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 majoreconomic threat to the Project

The use of instream flow studies were for the protection of Project economic value while reducingProject impacts

Results were used in the quest for equitable balance of competing resources

Impetus for instream flow decision:

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San 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 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San 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 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

Flow Studies 1. Habitat vs. Flow

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

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

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San 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 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San Antonio, TX

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”

Relicensing Outcome

FLOW 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San 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 2008Oct. 7-9, 2008San 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 sciencecan 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