FLOW 2008 Oct. 7-9, 2008 San Antonio, TX 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  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 Impetus for instream flow decision:

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  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 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