9/2003
COMMENTS OF THE HVCEO
CONCERNING THE DRAFT EIS FOR FERC’S
CT HOUSATONIC RIVER PROJECT 2576-022
COMMENT
#1: PROPOSED PLANNING
PROCESSES FOR HYDRO LAKES AS NOTED
IN THE FOLLOWING ITEMS FROM TABLE 4.2-1:
The
items below are referenced in this comment:
Item Rocky River-09: Develop lake/recreation management plan,
at capital cost of $75K.
Item
Shepaug-21: Develop lake/recreation management plan, at capital
cost of $50K.
Item
Stevenson-18: Develop lake/recreation management plan, at
capital cost of $50K.
Item
Rocky River-11: Develop land/shoreline management plan, including
landscape analysis, at capital cost of $40K.
Item
Shepaug-24: Develop land/shoreline management plan, including
landscape analysis, at capital cost of $40K.
Item
Stevenson-24: Develop land/shoreline management plan, including
landscape analysis, at capital cost of $40K.
HVCEO is very familiar with conducting all kinds of multi-town
planning studies. The extensive research produced by HVCEO
is summarized under "Publications" at its hvceo.org
web site. HVCEO staff also assists municipalities as they
prepare and advertise for local plans of development and other
planning studies.
Give
this background, we are in a good position to evaluate the
costs assigned to the above multi-town planning activities.
Unfortunately the dollars assigned in the Draft EIS appear
low, and will not purchase sufficient consultant planning
resources to complete the tasks that are within the draft
permit conditions.
An across
the board estimate is that the costs of these planning studies
should be 35% to 50% higher in order to produce the desired
effective technical products.
There
is considerable depth of data inventory needed for successful
lake plans, given the extent of shoreline, development on
shoreline, and overall size of these hydro facilities. HVCEO’s
original comments had requested that "Labor intensive
planning inventory items, such as an advisory rating of each
property on a one to ten scale to evaluate buffering and other
frontage qualities, should be incorporated." This is
a reasonable, but labor intensive, requirement. Much time
will also need to be spent with public input regarding the
draft lake plans.
Another
complex issue that this funding must address as defined in
our original comments: "A boat tied to a mooring 50-70
feet from land is allowed to drift somewhat, thus creating
a circular area of influence where no other feature should
be allowed.
This circle
occupies much more space than a dock. How many such circles
should be allowed on the lake management policy map, and where?
What standards are to be used to decide if they are hazards
to navigation? Such detailed management planning needs to
be initiated."
Continuing,
"Then there is the case where some persons install moorings
and never use them; boaters must avoid it and thus stay away
from that property; this the owners’ hidden intent.
Geometric standards, as well as map analysis, will be needed
to address this complex issue once the shoreland management
planning starts. Policies would be displayed on a map that
owners can use and react to."
Also in
HVCEO’s initial comments, that "The utility’s
upcoming shoreland management planning should have a practical
orientation; designed for use on and from the water. For example,
a newly created instance of gross erosion on a residential
shorefront may be seen from a CLA patrol boat. The staff person
should be equipped with a laptop computer displaying the new
and detailed NGC property map, in conjunction with a georeferenced
list of property owners, such that the staff can quickly identify
the owner and be able to immediately place a call."
Continuing,
"What is needed is a lake management planning process
within which all docks, moorings and boats are inventoried
with identification numbers, these items linked to digital
property maps, such that valuable lost property can be quickly
returned." The planning for such management systems will
be no small task, not achievable for the sums shown.
A Candlewood
Lake Authority statement dated 4/13/2000 defined the case
for up to date management quite eloquently: "There are
considerable challenges in managing approximately 5,700 acres
of surface waters and 60+ miles of shoreland areas (distributed
among five municipalities) surrounding Candlewood. Many of
the challenges stem from the lack of centralized digital information
pertinent to the Lake’s management and systems to access
it."
HVCEO
had also commented that "Draft planning documents resulting
from this process should be widely circulated before their
approval. As part of the format for the municipal approval,
they should be adopted by local planning commissions as supplements
to their state required municipal plans of conservation and
development. The plan preparation committee should make a
presentation to each local planning commission in this regard."
Importantly
for cost considerations, each hydro lake is situated within
multiple units of local government. As in regional planning
by HVCEO, each item to be reviewed by a local board must be
by repeated presentation. This is a time consuming and thus
costly process, and will require up to 50% more financial
resources than identified in the Draft EIS.
Funds
should also be set aside for periodic updates of these plans.
A five year interval would be reasonable. We ask that FERC
please so specify in the final permit conditions.
In addition,
please allow the lake authorities to jointly adopt the management
plans with NGC. Unless this is a fully collaborative process,
it will not work as intended. Unlike FERC regulated hydro
facilities elsewhere, in Connecticut lake authorities and
local governments play and active institutional role in shoreline
planning and management. Joint creation and adoption of the
management plan will yield better management than one party
having all authority to act alone.
COMMENT #2: PROPOSED NGC
FUNDING FOR LAKE AUTHORITIES:
While
NGC funding for the three lake authorities is included as
a recommendation in the draft EIS, no viable formula for the
funding is proposed.
A fair
request for the municipalities and three lake authorities
to make is that the utility contribution be raised in each
case to one half of the annual municipal contributions, yielding
one third of the total, the calculation to be outside of any
non-municipal revenues.
If FERC
is to recalculate the public benefit due for private use of
public property, then certainly this is a priority area of
need.
We ask
that the inherent fairness of this proposal be assessed. Consider
that there is no incentive to substitute NGC funds for local
funds. Any cut in local support for the lake authorities would
immediately translate into less NGC support- NGC would not
be required to fill the gap. The checks and balances in this
simple formula can work over the long term.
NGC is
to create new responsibilities for the lake authorities as
the on going administrators of lake management (Candlewood
only) and shoreline management (all) processes. As noted above
the creation by the utility of such new responsibilities for
the authorities is logically linked to increased funding for
administration of these responsibilities. The simple formula
above is the way to achieve this.
COMMENT #3: PROPOSED PLANS
FOR VEGETATED BUFFER ZONES ON
HYDRO LAKES AS NOTED IN THE
FOLLOWING ITEMS FROM TABLE 4.2-1:
Item Rocky River-13: Establish 200 foot vegetated
buffer zone on undisturbed lands (no requirement to purchase
additional lands), at capital cost of $0.
Item
Shepaug-26: Establish 200 foot vegetated buffer zone on undisturbed
lands (no requirement to purchase additional lands), at capital
cost of $0.
Item
Stevenson-21: Establish 200 foot vegetated buffer zone on
undisturbed lands (no requirement to purchase additional lands),
at capital cost of $0.
Item
X-02: For all projects combined, establish 200 foot vegetated
buffer zone on undisturbed lands (no requirement to purchase
additional lands), at capital cost of $7.5M for all projects.
(As notified by Jack Duckworth of FERC in a phone call of
7/22/2003, the cost here is in error and should be zero).
These
buffers already exist, but are to be formally designated as
such for the first time. These critical strip areas in NGC
ownership and within the FERC boundary may be a great benefit
to preserving the aesthetic character of the lakes, but the
wording of the proposed FERC permit condition needs clarification.
The Draft
EIS text on page 3-114 reads "Maintenance of a buffer
zone addressing those licensee-owned lands abutting the project
waters within 200 feet of the normal high water elevation
and that are determined to be needed for project-related purposes,
would promote the protection of shoreline habitat and riparian
habitats."
Continuing,
"Where project lands are less than 200 feet from the
normal high water elevation, NGC should designate those existing
project lands as buffer. These lands would provide additional
buffering capacity against adjacent land disturbances in ecologically
sensitive areas and protect the riparian Corridor."
Further,
‘It should not be a license requirement for NGC to purchase
lands or conservation easements from private landholders or
other companies for inclusion in this buffer zone. We do,
however, agree with Interior’s recommendation to protect
those remaining utility-owned lands around Candlewood Lake
(FERC uses similar wording for Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar)
from development pressures."
The problem
with the above statement is that there is no clear indication
as to how the buffer will function. Buffers can be managed
by NGC strictly or loosely, as no policy is set.
If a
permit system is put in place that allows parties beyond the
FERC boundary to cross the newly designated buffer on pathways
to reach the water, then the buffer will slowly erode. Permission
for docks will be sought, and slowly, the buffer will take
on the appearance of a front yard. Motorized vehicles will
cross the buffer to take boats in and out of the lake, violating
its ecological function.
In contrast,
if access across the buffer is strictly limited, to only public
accessways approved by both the utility owner and public agencies,
and endorsed on the official lake management plan, then the
buffer can be considered to be enforced strictly. (If prior
deeded access rights are encountered they are of course legitimate
exceptions).
We ask
that FERC give the enforcement of the buffer a strict interpretation.
Otherwise, as a thin ecologically sensitive barrier, it will
not survive. The current wording is unclear and may be subject
to considerable interpretation and confusion, defeating its
purpose.
COMMENT
#4: PROPOSED NGC FUNDING
FOR SCENIC LANDS AROUND PROJECT:
As noted above the draft EIS FERC agrees with the U. S. Department
of the Interior’s recommendation to protect those remaining
utility owned lands around the projects from development pressures.
But there are no concrete measures as to how permit conditions
will achieve this.
The HVCEO
position is that the FERC boundary should be extended to encompass
all of the adjacent Northeast Utilities (NU) properties that
were until 1999 traditionally part of the hydro projects’
natural and scenic buffers. Then a permanent conservation
restriction should be purchased for these lands.
NGC should
be ordered to make a purchase offer to NU. This would logically
be piecemeal, over a multi-year period, from a fund established
for this purpose, so as not to overstress NGC financial resources.
The key
point is that for decades these utility owner parcels served
as aesthetic, recreational and environmental amenities for
their adjacent FERC regulated hydro projects. They should
not now be lost. The regulatory environment mandates the expansion
of scenic benefits, not their reduction.
HVCEO
received information on this critical issue at one of its
meetings attended by the Director of FERC’s Division
of Licensing and Compliance, Mr. Mark Robinson. Mr. Robinson
stated that it is not uncommon for FERC to direct the licensee
to seek to acquire scenic or sensitive lands adjacent to but
outside of the FERC boundary, if they relate to environmental
or scenic quality inside of it. For clarification it should
be explained that the FERC boundary is then moved outward
to incorporate the newly protected land.
HVCEO
voted in June of 1999 to make the following statement to both
CL&P and FERC; "The adjacent NU lands play an important
aesthetic role for the public benefit component of the hydro
projects and should be protected." Extension of the FERC
boundary to these lands is not enough. Permanent conservation
easements are also required. Again, this should be paced reasonably
to avoid undue fiscal impact upon NGC.
The 1986 amendment to the Federal Power Act specified that
energy conservation, the protection, mitigation of damage
to, and enhancement of, fish and wildlife, the protection
of recreational opportunities, and the preservation of other
aspects of environmental quality will be given equal consideration
by the FERC to power and development purposes. This has not
been done.
By viewing the project's impact as only within the current
FERC boundaries, FERC has fallen short in providing the balance.
NGC must provide more substantive measures and financial resource
to ensure that the hydro projects remains balanced resources.
COMMENT
#5: LAKE LILLINONAH FLOATING
DEBRIS ISSUE AND OTHER LILLINONAH ISSUES:
The recommendation to physically remove and mechanically harvest
woody debris is an admirable requirement by FERC. We appreciate
the fact that FERC has many examples listed in the DEIS where
this harvesting and removal method has been used successfully.
Yet the
proposed three year frequency will not adequately address
this issue. A great deal of new debris enters the Lake each
year. The harvesting needs to be annual, and/or, use independent
evaluators to determine success with debris removal if a lesser
schedule is proposed.
Debris
aside Lake Lillinonah.
Photo courtesy of Russell Isaac, Bridgewater, CT
Also,
there are too few homeowners with docks to fund this system
themselves. Under the proposed funding model there are are
thousands of transient recreational Lake users, the general
public, who pay no fee at all. NGC bears significant responsibility.
Thus instead of just adjacent land owners, a significant amount
of the funding for the debris management should come from
the licensee, NGC, as part of the public benefit back to citizens
for using public water for private profit.
HVCEO
agrees with the Lake Lillinonah Authority (LLA) that accumulated
sediments in the upper reaches of the Lake are going unaddressed.
These sediments appear to be anoxic during the summer and
have been shown to be releasing phosphorus into the Lake water.
Also,
while the DEIS proposed to bring Lake Lillinonah into compliance
with dissolved oxygen standards, the DEIS is unclear whether
this goal is applicable to just the forebay of the Shepaug
Dam or the instead the entire Lake.
HVCEO
agrees with the LLA that proposed weed control provisions
be amended to include control or eradication programs in the
event that new invasive plants are found in the Lake.
COMMENT
#6: CORRECTIONS
Conservation
Restriction
On page 3-134, lines 21-24, the draft EIS discusses the conservation
restriction acquired by the municipalities of Brookfield,
Danbury, New Fairfield, New Milford and Sherman as a result
of the divestiture of properties from CL&P. The draft
portrays the conservation restriction as “an additional
tool to control development around the reservoir.”
HVCEO
endorses the concern of the Candlewood Lake Authority that
"The conservation restriction does not pertain to portions
of Candlewood Lake extending to the 418-foot contour as stated
in the draft (Pg. 3-134, line 23). It does pertain to NGC
lands that are below the 418-foot contour. The conservation
restriction does not provide additional tools to control development
around the Lake since it does not pertain to those lands from
the 440-foot contour and above."
The conservation restriction was designed to
insure proper water levels are maintained during a drought,
to insure recreational use.
Buffer
Zone
The HVCEO endorses the following statement of the Candlewood
Lake Authority: " The FERC states that the land extending
from the shores of Candlewood Lake to the 440-foot contour
“provide a significant buffer zone and that the acquisition
of addition land is unnecessary for project purposes”
(pg. 3-149, lines26-28). The CLA recognizes that the acquisition
of additional land would not be necessary for power generation
purposes. However, we fail to recognize FERC’s consideration
of the public and the environment in this assessment."
Continuing,
"As discussed in prior submissions, the buffer within
the high water mark (428-foot contour) and the project boundary
on Candlewood Lake (440-foot contour) is variable in length
and dependant upon slope. Steeper slopes retain less linear
feet of buffer; less steep slopes have greater buffer. Ironically,
steeper slopes should have more buffers to protect water quality."
We support
the CLA request that FERC "Provide citations from the
scientific literature that supports FERC’s analysis
that the land extending from the shores of Candlewood Lake
to the 440-foot contour 'provide a significant buffer zone.'
" We do not believe that this can be done, and that additional
buffer zone is needed.
ORIGINAL
PRE-EIS HVCEO TESTIMONY
OF 5/19/2002 TO FERC, CONCERNING
NORTHEAST GENERATING COMPANY’S
APPLICATION FOR LICENSE RENEWAL
OF HOUSATONIC HYDRO PROJECT 2576
THIS
DETAILED BACKGROUND MATERIAL
SUPPORTS THE 9/12/2003 COMMENTS ABOVE
Bulls
Bridge, Lake Lillinonah,
Candlewood Lake, and Lake Zoar Projects within
the municipalities of Bridgewater, Brookfield, Danbury,
New Fairfield, New Milford, Newtown and Sherman, Connecticut
CONTENTS
 |
INTRODUCTION
ISSUE 1. FREEZE DOCK AND LAKE ACCESS FEES
ISSUE 2. CANDLEWOOD LAKE WEED CONTROL DRAWDOWNS
ISSUE 3. SHORELAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING
ISSUE 4. NGC TO INCORPORATE HVA TRAIL AND GREENWAY PLANNING
ISSUE 5. CANDLEWOOD LAKE RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
ISSUE 6. LAKE LILLINONAH WEED CONTROL
ISSUE 7. LAKE LILLINONAH PUBLIC MAINTENANCE DRAWDOWN
ISSUE 8. LAKE LILLINONAH RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
ISSUE 9. LAKE ZOAR RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
ISSUE 10. RELATIONSHIP TO WATER QUALITY CONCERNS
ISSUE 11. MORE BENEFITS TO PUBLIC FOR
ALLOWING PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC WATER
ISSUE 12. MAKE EXISTING AND FUTURE DIGITAL MAPS AVAILABLE
ISSUE 13. INCREASE LAKE AUTHORITY FUNDING FOR NEW RESPONSIBILITIES
ISSUE 14. POST BOND FOR LONG TERM DAM
MAINTENANCE AND PUMP OPERATIONS
ISSUE 15. INITIATION OF DECOMMISSIONING STUDIES
ISSUE 16. COORDINATION WITH GE/HOUSATONIC RIVER
CONSENT DECREE FOR PCB REMEDIATION
ISSUE 17. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS FOR, AND FERC
BOUNDARY EXTENSIONS TO, ADJACENT CL&P LANDS
CONCLUSION.
INTRODUCTION:
The application
of the Connecticut Light and Power Company (CL&P, now the
Northeast Generating Company or NGC) for relicensing of its
Housatonic River hydropower projects was submitted to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in August of 1999. It proposes
to renew the current license which runs from 1981 to 2001.
The new license will determine the methods of operation and
degree of amenities to be provided over the next thirty years
for the operation of the Lake Zoar, Lake Lillinonah, Lake Candlewood
and Bulls Bridge hydro power facilities.
The Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials, a body created
by the state legislature and composed of the two mayors and
eight first selectmen of the Greater Danbury-New Milford Area,
has a strong interest in the application due to its great impact
upon the quality of life in the area.
HVCEO made formal comments on the relicensing to CL&P during
July of 1998 and again in June of 1999. A conservation restriction
for Candlewood Lake was negotiated with CL&P during the
first half of 1999 and then approved by FERC on 11/9/1999. In
October of 1999 HVCEO was granted Intervenor status by FERC
to facilitate continued participation.
Just outside of this Region’s border, but within the geographic
scope of the application are parts of the Bulls Bridge Project
in Kent, CT, the Falls Village Project in Canaan, CT, and run
of river stream flow Housatonic River recreational use conditions
in all of the connecting towns. Thus the Northwestern CT Council
of Governments, HVCEO’s counterpart to the north, is a
major participant in the relicensing process, along with the
private non-profit Housatonic Valley Association, the Housatonic
River Commission, the Lake Authorities for Candlewood, Lillinonah
and Zoar, sports and fishing groups, and others.
This draft testimony presents HVCEO comments on the CL&P
(now NGC) application as submitted to FERC in August of 1999.
HVCEO comments on the draft application that were fully addressed
in the final application are no longer issues. On the other
hand, HVCEO concerns that were not fully addressed have become
the regional testimony of HVCEO for advocacy at FERC hearings.
At those hearings, HVCEO will request that these items be made
relicensing conditions.
ISSUE 1. FREEZE DOCK AND LAKE ACCESS
FEES:
An early HVCEO comment to CL&P dated 7/10/1998 stated that
"No new fees should be introduced, nor should current fees
be raised, for use of utility property for residential docks
or public boat launches." Then the 6/1999 HVCEO comment
on the pre-application stated that "FERC should mandate
that as a public benefit, fees for existing docks not be introduced
or increased."
The CL&P response on this issue is found on page E-209 of
Volume 2 of the final 8/1999 application. Addressing the topic
of freezing dock fees to present levels, the Company states
that "The overwhelming majority of Lake abutters have deeded
rights to a ‘dock of simple construction,’ or equivalent
rights, subject to certain conditions. These rights entitle
abutting property owners to have simple docks on the Lake at
no charge.
The process CL&P has instituted of licensing such facilities
at the time they are installed and modified benefits both parties
and the Lake, and the fee involved is a simple administrative
fee which allows the CL&P to recover some of the cost of
this operation."
Continuing, "There is no reason the administrative fee
should be frozen at today’s level for the next thirty years,
anymore than there is a reason for municipalities or the State
to have their permit fees frozen to the level of thirty years
ago. Similarly, it is proper to expect that those abutters who
put in facilities or carry out activities on lake or lakeshore
property that are in excess of what is permitted by their deeded
rights be charged for the privilege, and the charge should reflect
market rates which vary over time."
The three lake authorities are in the best position to decide
if this CL&P response on the issue of dock and access fees
is fully adequate, or if a proposed permit condition should
be formulated.
ISSUE 2. CANDLEWOOD LAKE WEED CONTROL
DRAWDOWNS:
The HVCEO position has been that this currently voluntary benefit
should be formalized as a requirement and included in the new
license in accordance with the HVCEO policy that established
benefits not be reduced.
By way of background, it was in the early eighties that representatives
from the CT DEP, Candlewood Lake Authority, and CL&P determined
that deeper winter drawdowns every other year were essential
to prevent weed growth and improve recreational quality.
According to page 6 of the 3/1999 draft application the applicant
will continue with deep winter weed control drawdowns every
other year as presently practiced for as long as it is deemed
appropriate by the Technical Committee and FERC. The Technical
Committee, not recently active, will be reestablished, and will
consist of the CT DEP, CLA and the applicant. This same CL&P
draft position appears in the final application of 8/1999.
The Candlewood Lake Authority will make the determination if
it is fully satisfied with the applicant’s commitment on
this issue.
ISSUE 3. SHORELAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING:
The need for a modern approach to this specialized planning
process was a feature of the 6/1999 HVCEO comments and of other
major respondents. As the utility owner has some enforcement
powers and the municipalities and the three lake authorities
have others, a detailed and map oriented comprehensive policy
plan is needed to coordinate all activities and upgrade the
process. Digital planning technology is needed at this point,
not traditional methods.
A 6/1999 HVCEO comment was that "The purpose of a shoreland
protection zone is to protect aesthetic values, water quality,
recreational attractiveness and other public benefits.... The
zone map for each lake could have different subareas tailored
to the uniqueness of each Lake.... A second component of the
zone could include the utility’s management guidelines
and other management objectives."
Also, that language could read "No access rights shall
be deeded or leased from land adjacent to the shoreland buffer
zone to or across the shoreland zone, unless in accordance with
the Plan, etc." Also "A policy map may be part of
the shoreland protection zone, identifying trail sites, public
access routes, critical habitat and eagle nesting areas, etc."
Importantly, FERC guidelines also encourage the development
of buffer zones. This may be one of the reasons NGC is making
the commitment to undertake shoreland planning. But that general
commitment needs specifics, these to be permit conditions.
A specific approach to shoreland protection is incorporated
in a Housatonic Valley Association (HVA) comment on the draft
application of 6/1999: In order to adequately protect water
quality, fish and aquatic life, wildlife habitat, recreation,
and the scenic values of project lands, HVA recommends that
a minimum 200' vegetative buffer zone, protected for the term
of the license by a conservation easement, be incorporated into
the project on all company-owned lands. At a minimum, this protected
riparian buffer zone should include all lands within the project
boundaries."
These company owned lands proposed for the buffer are almost
entirely undeveloped. For developed commercial and residential
properties a different approach to shoreland management will
be needed.
The CL&P commitment in the Executive Summary of the 8/1999
CL&P application is positive, calling for the creation of
Shoreland Management Plans for Lakes Candlewood, Lillinonah
and Zoar. This is a new commitment in the final application,
not found in the earlier draft application.
This is certainly a welcome and forward thinking stance. However,
the content of these plans must be carefully defined as a permit
condition and reasonable deadlines set. Specific dates for initiation
and completion by NGC should be placed in the FERC permit.
DETAILED REMARKS ON SHORELAND
MANAGEMENT PLANNING: To create the shoreland
plans NGC promises to work with the Lake Authorities "and
other appropriate stakeholders to develop guidelines for the
management of non-commercial shoreline uses. The goal here is
to combine the Applicant’s current property based management
practices with governmental regulatory powers to form an enforcement
system that gives the communities an active and important role
in shaping development around the impoundment."
To aid thinking on this topic page E-168 of Volume 2, Section
6.6.1, includes NGC’s existing shoreline management guidelines.
They include policies relating to dock standards and location,
retaining wall construction, septic system replacement, vegetation,
etc.
The utility commitment to sponsor shoreland management planning
is welcomed. It will reinforce aesthetics and property values.
But the parties will need more definition of the planning process
in order to avoid misunderstandings or disappointments when
it starts.
Without more definition, what the utility owner may see as a
$10,000 planning effort per Lake the lake authorities and other
public officials may see as a $100,000 or greater process. FERC
detailing of requirements will be needed. It is suggested they
may well be amicably defined by friendly negotiation beforehand
between the utility owner, lake authorities and municipalities.
At a minimum, the new and detailed shoreline maps recently produced
by NGC should be the base for shoreland policy development.
Anchoring such policy work to a detailed spatial dimension insures
that it will be specific and usable for practical enforcement.
Mapped policies can best answer the question: "What does
all this mean for my property?"
Labor intensive planning inventory items, such as an advisory
rating of each property on a one to ten scale to evaluate buffering
and other frontage qualities, should be incorporated. The Candlewood
Lake Authority staff has recently devised and then applied such
a system on an experimental basis to a limited section of shorefront.
Shore property owners benefit by learning what is and is not
proper practice. The shoreland plan would logically also have
an educational component.
CLA Director Bruce Lockhart commented in November of 1999 that
the utility’s upcoming shoreland management planning should
have a practical orientation; designed for use on and from the
water. For example, a newly created instance of gross erosion
on a residential shorefront may be seen from a CLA patrol boat.
The staff person should be equipped with a laptop computer displaying
the new and detailed CL&P property map, in conjunction with
a georeferenced list of property owners, such that the staff
can quickly identify the owner and be able to immediately place
a call.
Or, perhaps there are so many different boats tied to a dock
at so many times that it is clear a business use for boaters
is operating illegally in a residential zone. The quick response
property identification system described above could be used
to alert the zoning enforcement officer, another instance of
better "shoreland management."
Bruce Lockhart also comments that lost boats that drift away
from their moorings are a recurring problem. With all docks,
moorings and boats inventoried with identification numbers,
these items linked to digital property maps, such valuable lost
property can be quickly returned.
According to Mr. Lockhart the total number of, and relationship
between, off shore boat moorings to landside docks is an area
where a shoreland management process is much needed. A boat
tied to a mooring 50-70 feet from land is allowed to drift somewhat,
thus creating a circular area of influence where no other feature
should be allowed.
This circle occupies much more space than a dock. How many such
circles should be allowed on the policy map, and where? What
standards are to be used to decide if they are hazards to navigation?
Such detailed management planning needs to be initiated.
Then there is the case where some persons install moorings and
never use them; boaters must avoid it and thus stay away from
that property; this the owners’ hidden intent. Geometric
standards, as well as map analysis, will be needed to address
this complex issue once the shoreland management planning starts.
Policies would be displayed on a map that owners can use and
react to.
Bruce Lockhart also comments that the very valuable recreational
inventory data and maps bound into the 8/1999 FERC application
will need to be made more utilitarian and be at the fingertips
of the utility representative when the shoreland planning group
meets. The utility should plan for this, also to update the
recreational data inventory (boating density, user survey, etc.)
every five years, not just every thirty years. Data updates
should be designed so that they are readily comparable over
time.
A CLA statement dated 4/13/2000 states the case for up to date
management quite eloquently: "There are considerable challenges
in managing approximately 5,700 acres of surface waters and
60+ miles of shoreland areas (distributed among five municipalities)
surrounding Candlewood. Many of the challenges stem from the
lack of centralized digital information pertinent to the Lake’s
management and systems to access it."
The CLA statement continuing, "The use of state of the
art, portable database and mapping systems for accessing information,
such as identification of lakeshore property owners, docks,
moorings and vessels would be extremely useful to all involved
in management and enforcement activities, including the CLA,
local land use regulators, CT DEP Conservation Officers and
the Land Management Administration of CL&P."
More; "Much of the necessary information already exists
separately in local municipal, CT DEP and CL&P records (e.g.
Figure 6C 1-29 in Volume 2 of the Application). As components
of both management plans, we believe the Applicant should consolidate
the information and provide systems to those involved in management
and enforcement activities. The Applicant should also be required
to update the digital information on a regular basis."
The lake authorities, the utility owner, and the municipalities
would all share in the creation of the proposed modern shoreland
management tools. At this point in time there is nothing innovative
or experimental about such digital communication and identification
technologies. It is a question of a technical team pulling the
process together, with NGC bearing the reasonable cost.
The generalized utility commitment to shoreland planning made
in the application should become specific permit conditions,
such that the utility commits to leading and funding the needed
high tech tools for each hydro lake.
Additional lake authority staff resources to participate in
plan creation and administration should be funded by an increase
in the annual utility funding to the three authorities, to be
discussed in a later section of this testimony.
A relevant 5/12/2000 statement of the Lake Lillinonah Authority
is that "The details of the shoreline management plan are,
as yet, unresolved. The increased work that will be required
by the Authority will need to be budgeted in advance."
Draft planning documents resulting from this process should
be widely circulated before their approval. As part of the format
for the municipal approval, they should be adopted by local
planning commissions as supplements to their state required
municipal plans of conservation and development. The plan preparation
committee should make a presentation to each local planning
commission in this regard.
The U.S. Department of the Interior’s concerns as to overuse
of Candlewood Lake should be addressed by this planning process.
In addition, municipal use for fire protection purposes of dry
hydrants adjacent to the lakes should be incorporated into the
shoreland management planning process. Further, as a condition
of the FERC permit, the practice of allowing municipalities
to situate dry fire hydrants by lakes should be subject to reasonable
conditions and restrictions and then continue to be permitted.
ISSUE 4. NGC TO INCORPORATE TRAIL
AND GREENWAY PLANNING:
The Housatonic Valley Association has for some years been developing
continuous interregional hiking trails along both sides of the
Housatonic River, with some sections completed. This is a significant
public amenity.
A 6/1999 HVCEO comment to CL&P sought to be supportive of
this work. HVCEO commented that "The application should
state that the utility owner will seek to coordinate its management
and recreational responsibilities with this HVA planning and
development process, since that process clearly serves the public
interest and relates to the hydro projects so intimately."
The 8/1999 CL&P application, Volume 2 page E-166, responds
that the Applicant will "continue in its participation
in community affairs and the activities of the.... Greenway
Planning Committee of the Housatonic Valley Association....
with an eye to addressing such management concerns as are in
its power to resolve."
But there is a more serious utility commitment to be made here,
for HVA’s 6/1999 comment to CL&P was to request a conservation
easement for HVA’s River Belt Greenway Trail system. This
seems reasonable and HVCEO supports this HVA request.
ISSUE 5. CANDLEWOOD LAKE RECREATIONAL
RESOURCES:
The 3/1999 draft and the 6/1999 final application both state
that the applicant proposes to develop a "Lake Management
Plan" for Candlewood Lake that would seek to control the
growth of boating on the Lake and improve boating safety during
periods of high use.
This initiative is based upon survey documentation that boating
capacity is already being exceeded on some peak use weekends.
(Only Candlewood Lake receives both the Lake Management Plan
and the Shoreland Plan processes, Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar
receive only the new Shoreland Plan process).
This Lake Management Plan would be implemented in part through
continuance of controls on the size and structure of new dock
facilities. In order to limit growth the applicant would not
develop a boat launch at the Dike Point Recreation Area, the
one applicant owned recreation facility on the Lake.
The applicant would also work with governmental entities to
maintain their present facilities in a way that does not encourage
further growth of boating. To contain the growth of residential
boating on the Lake, the Lake Management Plan would consider
limits on the issuance of new dock permits, as well as control
of the size and design of new piers for both residential and
commercial entities.
Details of the proposals are found on page E-123 of Volume 2
of the 8/1999 application. The planning process would be initiated
within one year of receipt of the new license.
The main 6/1999 HVCEO comment to CL&P on this issue was
positive; "HVCEO supports the development of an aggressive
Lake Management Plan for Candlewood Lake that would seek to
control the growth of boating and improve boating safety during
periods of high use."
HVCEO defers to the Candlewood Lake Authority in determining
satisfaction with this issue and related parts of the application
discussing that Lake’s recreational resources.
ISSUE 6. LAKE LILLINONAH WEED CONTROL:
The Lake Lillinonah Authority (LLA) uses chemicals to control
the growth of weeds in the Lake. To assist, CL&P refrains
from generating at Bulls Bridge, Rocky River and Shepaug stations
during a Saturday morning sometime in the summer. This currently
voluntary benefit should be made a formalized commitment in
the new license in accordance with the HVCEO policy that benefits
not be reduced.
The 6/1999 HVCEO comment to CL&P was that "Regarding
this issue, the LLA stated in a letter to HVCEO dated 5/3/1999
that the utility owner should be stopping the water flow for
four days during the weed control program."
But no utility commitment for a four day duration was made in
the final application. It is recommended that the Lake Lillinonah
Authority present its case to FERC in order to pursue its goals
on this issue.
HVCEO requests that language be included in the permit to require
the "four day weed control program" while allowing
flexibility in solving future weed control issues.
According to a 5/12/2000 statement by the Lake Lillinonah Authority
"The application is in error when on page E-62 (Vol. 2
of 9) it states that weed control in Lake Lillinonah is "reduced
by periodic mechanical harvesting". In fact no harvesting
is conducted at Lake Lillinonah. Instead the Eurasian Milfoil
infestation in Lake Lillinonah is treated annually with the
herbicide Diquat. The contact of the herbicide with the weed
requires the pooling of water in the lake for the greatest effectiveness.
Currently this is a voluntary benefit that should be made a
formal commitment."
ISSUE 7. LAKE LILLINONAH PUBLIC MAINTENANCE
DRAWDOWN:
Lake Lillinonah is lowered for one week in the fall for lakefront
maintenance purposes. This currently voluntary benefit should
be formally committed to in the new license in accordance with
the HVCEO policy that current voluntary benefits not be reduced.
According to page 9 of the final 8/1999 application, "the
LLA currently requests to have the surface level of Lake Lillinonah
lowered to elevation 190 for one week during the fall of each
year, for the purpose of maintaining recreation facilities such
as docks, sea walls, etc. The applicant proposes to continue
these drawdowns as currently practiced."
But a 6/1999 HVCEO comment to CL&P was that "The LLA
stated in a letter to HVCEO dated 6/1/1999 that the water is
never lowered for longer than a few days and it should be for
one week. LLA also requests that the draw down not occur from
the first day of March to the last day of June in order to support
fish spawning beds."
As the 8/1999 final application chose not to respond to this
concern, it now becomes an item for the FERC to resolve in response
to concerns to be raised by the Lake Lillinonah Authority. (LLA
indicated on 12/7/1999 that the requested one week commitment
had just been given verbally by CL&P but as of 4/2000 this
had not ben received).
ISSUE 8. LAKE LILLINONAH RECREATIONAL
RESOURCES:
Interpretive Trail: The only major change on the Housatonic
Council’s side of the Lake is the addition of an Interpretive
Trail on the northwest side of the Shepaug Dam, as noted on
page E-133 of Volume 2 of the final application.
Parcel Donation: A 6/1999 HVCEO comment to CL&P was that
"The LLA stated in a letter to HVCEO dated 5/3/1999 that
a parcel of land should be donated to the LLA for patrol purposes
and storage of buoys and other related equipment." There
is no permanent storage structure for LLA use.
Then an Authority statement of 5/12/2000 states that "Currently
the LLA uses space at Barkwood Falls in Brookfield but it is
temporary and as such it is not secure or reliable, Also as
the marine patrol grows there is no additional space that can
be occupied by the LLA marine patrol. A site dedicated to the
LLA marine patrol and water quality monitoring needs to be established."
These needs were not addressed in the final application, and
will now need to be brought to FERC’s attention by the
LLA so that they can be mandated as a permit condition.
Shoreland Use: Another 6/1999 HVCEO comment was that the LLA
in a statement dated 6/1/1999 requested that the "operating
utility annually submit a policy to the LLA for persons using
utility owned land within the FERC boundary. The policy shall
describe acceptable activities for day use. In addition, the
utility shall state whether the utility allows or does not allow
camping. A map showing areas for public use is to be included."
Continuing, "This policy should also address how often
the utility will furnish trash removal from designated day use
sites and camping sites. The policy and map shall be posted
at all public access locations. The utility may at its option
implement a no camping policy should it desire."
Volume 2, page E-209 of the 8/1999 final application commenting
upon camping policy states that "This matter is partially
addressed by the current shoreline policy in Section E-6, and
the Applicant believes could be the subject of further elaboration
as part of the development of a Shoreline Management Plan for
Lake Lillinonah." The LLA will need to determine its satisfaction
on this issue.
A Lake Lillinonah Authority spokesperson stated on 4/14/2000
that an important issue is the management of camping on the
shoreline. Specifically, the LLA patrol boat staff only has
jurisdiction on the water. They have no legal authority on the
adjacent shore. While municipal law enforcement personnel can
be called to the scene by LLA representatives, they often have
no ready access by land, and thus enforcement is fragmented
or non-existent. Illegal camping on the shore is also rapidly
increasing.
Floating Debris: The 6/1999 HVCEO comment to CL&P was that
"Additional statements by LLA dated 6/1/1999 are that Lake
Lillinonah has a substantial problem with floating wood debris
during peak summer boating periods. This debris has left Lake
Lillinonah with a poor reputation among regional boaters and
as a result most boaters using crowded Lake Candlewood choose
to fight for space on that Lake rather than make a switch to
Lake Lillinonah." Much wood comes on to the Lake from the
adjacent shore. Changes in water levels encourage this. A cleaning
barge or other device may be needed.
DETAILED COMMENT ON FLOATING
DEBRIS ISSUE: It is interesting to note that
the 6/1999 comment on the pre-application by the Lake Housatonic
Authority, serving Derby, Oxford, Seymour and Shelton to our
south, focused its comment on just this one issue; "The
Authority, which oversees public safety on Lake Housatonic,
is concerned that the current debris management practices of
the licensee are inadequate and pose the risk of accident and
injury to the many power boaters and rowers who use the Lake.
The Authority asks that any new license speak to the issue of
debris management."
In response, Volume 2 page E-210 of the 8/1999 CL&P final
application states that "Floating debris is common to all
rivers and lakes, therefore, recreators should be aware of the
inherent risk they are taking while boating. Nevertheless, the
Applicant plans to continue current trash management practices
at its facilities upstream of the two subject lakes. At the
Shepaug Development the Applicant removes large debris from
the upstream portion of the intake every five to ten years."
NGC continuing, "This type of work will be done outside
of the boating season, unless station operations are threatened.
If this is so, the Applicant will control the travel of trash
to the best of the Applicant’s ability. At the Stevenson
Development, the Applicant follows a procedure to remove man-made
debris from the river. This procedure is explained in Exhibit
B, Project Operations and Resource Utilization."
On 5/12/2000 the Authority issued the following statement concerning
floating debris: At certain times during the year Lake Lillinonah
contains a large amount of floating wood debris on the surface.
Although the applicant suggests that this woody debris originates
from the Housatonic River they offer no proof of this nor suggest
any possible control methods.
The application further states that woody debris is common to
all lakes and rivers as a way of dismissing the issue. The quantity
of woody debris found on Lake Lillinonah is not experienced
on most lakes in the state. Although an occasion log may float
on a lake surface the situation at Lillinonah far surpasses
that.
The likely origin of the woody debris on the lake surface is
from the lake shoreline and not from the Housatonic River. Due
to the large degree of wooded shoreline repeated oscillations
in water level probably causes trees growing near the waters
edge to become unstable over time and collapse, die and finally
become logs. The occurrence of woody debris on the lake surface
is perhaps the single largest detriment to the recreational
boating use of the lake.
The LLA needs a formal statement of debris control. It might
be possible to perform annual spring collecting of floating
and near floating logs on the shore. This is another issue that
can be incorporated into the proposed shoreline management plan."
An additional 6/1/1999 statement from LLA is that "In summary,
Lake Lillinonah is a hidden treasure that can become a true
asset for towns adjoining the Lake, regional residents and the
State of Connecticut as a whole. The 1986 Electric Consumers
Protection Act treats electricity production, recreational usage
and animal usage EQUALLY. The equality has not been true for
weekend recreational boating on Lake Lillinonah.
The Lake is in need of more restrictions on water levels and/or
more control of floating wood debris. The Lake is in need of
more access for the general public. Boating in the region is
in high demand as evidenced by the hordes of boaters using Candlewood
Lake. Lake Lillinonah is in need of help as evident by the few
boaters who defect from Lake Candlewood to Lake Lillinonah even
though the Lakes are only a few miles apart."
HVCEO endorses this policy statement by the Lake Lillinonah
Authority on usage of its facility.
ISSUE 9. LAKE ZOAR RECREATIONAL RESOURCES
AND OTHER ISSUES:
No significant changes to recreational resources were proposed
in the 3/1999 draft or 8/1999 final CL&P applications. The
Lake Zoar Authority will need to determine if this position
is desirable and acceptable.
Preliminary statements by Lake Zoar Authority given by its representative
Don Mackenzie at the HVCEO meeting of 5/19/2000 are that the
utility owner should "maintain pond levels to support both
aquatic, wildlife and safe recreational use of the Lake. Normal
level to be maintained at plus or minus one foot." Also,
"Utility to maintain running one generator at a time, i.e.,
run Shepaug generator, drop Lake Lillinonah 2 feet, let Lake
Zoar fill, run Stevenson generator, etc."
As for public maintenance draw down, according to LZA spokesman
Mackenzie on 5/19/2000 the utility should "draw down the
Lake for a period of at least ten days, including two weekends,
in the spring of the year with at least one month public notice
in advance. Normal draw down depth to be four to sex feet."
Also, "the utility to participate in a study, and possible
implement, a mid winter deep drawdown to kill weeds and Zebra
Mussels."
Other Lake Zoar issues as expressed to HVCEO on 5/19/2000 are:
1) The utility to regulate water flows during stormy periods
to minimize flooding. 2) Support and maintain canoe portages
at the Stevenson and Shepaug Dams. 3) On the issue of debris,
the utility to make a conscious effort to keep flotsam down,
for example, by harvesting at dam sites.
Also, 4) As for dam emergencies, develop, distribute, and maintain
an emergency action plan to deal with possible sudden rapid
flow from any of the dam sites along the river, and item 5);
Also on the issue of dam emergencies, have a commitment to make,
in the shortest reasonable time, any necessary repairs to the
Stevenson Dam sufficient to bring the level of Lake Zoar up
to normal levels.
ISSUE 10. RELATIONSHIP TO WATER QUALITY
CONCERNS:
A FERC spokesman informed HVCEO in March of 1999 that the state
water quality "federally designated 401" agency, CT
DEP in our case, has the right under federal law to insert its
own conditions directly into the new FERC license. FERC cannot
challenge or modify these state inclusions, so in effect CT
DEP will play a key role on this topic.
According to page E-32 of Volume 2 of the final 8/1999 application
regarding the needed 401 certificate "Although permit conditions
are not known at this time, they are expected to include measures
to increase minimum flows in bypass reaches (Bulls Bridge) and
below projects to maintain and enhance aquatic resources inhabiting
the Housatonic River. In addition, provisions for mitigating
the low dissolved oxygen in the Shepaug (Lake Lillinonah) tailwaters
are expected."
According to the application a diffuser system to introduce
pure oxygen to water in Lake Lillinonah will be constructed,
which will then reach Lake Zoar and improve quality in each
Lake. Yet a LLA spokesman on 4/14/200 cautioned that the water
quality of Lake Lillinonah itself may be degraded by this system
that is to aid downstream waters, that no study of such impacts
has been conducted. One fear is that this process may raise
phosphorous levels in Lillinonah. The LLA has released a detailed
discussion of this issue dated 5/12/2000.
A point stressed by the draft application input of the Candlewood
Lake Authority was the relationship of development in the overall
drainage basin to the quality of Lake waters. The link has been
scientifically and definitively documented by CLA. But any acknowledgment
of this critical relationship between water and adjacent land
is largely absent from the final application. This should be
corrected by FERC.
The Candlewood Lake Authority received a DEP grant for Saw Mill
Brook watershed analysis. It is just now receiving another for
overall basin analysis, to make recommendations to local zoning
commissions for regulatory changes. The Lake Zoar Authority
has received a DEP grant to analyze factors on major tributaries
that impact that Lake. A proper role for and contribution by
the utility owner to this planning area needs to be set by a
FERC license condition.
Preliminary statements by Lake Zoar Authority given by its representative
Don Mackenzie at the HVCEO meeting of 5/19/2000 are that the
utility owner should "contribute to LZA money in an amount
equal to the four surrounding towns for the harvesting of weeds
and the continued effort to survey for Zebra Mussels."
Also, that the utility owner should "maintain the oxygenating
system in place to keep the upper 6 miles of the Lake at greater
than 5 parts per million of oxygen to sustain aquatic life."
Additional comments by the Lake Zoar Authority representative
at the 5/19/2000 HVCEO meeting: "Work with the LZA to monitor
the permits of dischargers of waste in the River including the
Ten Mile River in New York State. Work with the LZA to have
all of the NPDES permits into the River treat all waste year
round not just seasonally, especially phosphorous and BOD."
Also "Work with the LZA to study the pollution from point
sources on the Pomperaug and Pootatuck Rivers."
ISSUE 11. MORE BENEFITS TO PUBLIC FOR
ALLOWING
PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC WATER:
The magnitude and value of the overall benefits that should
accrue to the public for use of its waters are a central issue
in this testimony. Profitability for the utility is clearly
in the public interest. But, the NGC hydro projects on the Housatonic
River, in conjunction with three NGC projects in the Eastern
Connecticut System, sold in July of 1999 for $865 million dollars.
This was to Northeast Generation Company of Berlin, CT, in anticipation
of making a profit.
That profit is derived from use of waters that are public property,
not private property. The natural river environment is forever
altered as part of the bargain. FERC must mandate appropriate
compensation to the public. Recent FERC precedents on hydro
project relicensing set a balance more in the public’s
favor.
The 6/1999 HVCEO comment to CL&P on this critical issue
was that "Given this federal law mandating better balancing,
it is our view that the upcoming FERC permit renewal should
require the retention of all existing benefits. There should
also be substantial additional public benefits added, over and
beyond those included in the current permit or that are in operation
informally."
DETAILED COMMENT ON ADDITIONAL
BENEFITS TO PUBLIC: The Housatonic Valley Region
is a conservative area of the state. Generally its public sector
leadership seeks harmony with the business community and does
not aggressively pursue new revenues at its expense. Yet the
question remains: what monetary value of public benefits should
be codified in FERC permit conditions, as the appropriate exchange,
for use of public water and the continuing loss of the Housatonic
River’s natural state?
As noted above, recent FERC precedents on hydro project relicensing
set a balance more in the public’s favor. In the eighties
and nineties, additional non-hydroelectric production values,
such as recreation, historic preservation, scenic and fisheries
enhancements were encouraged by federal law to be included by
FERC as permit requirements, some at significant cost to the
utility.
FERC must strike this balance between pubic benefits and the
granting of use of public water for private profit (statutory
reference US Code 16, Section 797(e)). It should be made clear
that HVCEO does not wish to damage overall Housatonic project
profitability, just to insure receipt of rightful public benefits.
We can rely on FERC to set a limit that will not economically
harm the regulated utility; it has sufficient staff expertise
to determine this.
According to Attorney Daniel Sosland, jointly advising the Candlewood
Lake Authority, the Housatonic Valley Association and the HVCEO,
the statute that governs the relicensing process, the Federal
Power Act, as significantly amended in 1986 by the Electric
Consumers Protection Act, requires FERC to give "equal
consideration to the purposes of energy conservation; the protection,
mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife;
the protection of recreational opportunities; and the preservation
of other aspects of environmental quality....
In essence, the obligation imposed on FERC in making a licensing
decision is to protect essential non-power values while balancing
those costs against the power values of the project."
Such a major change is not found in the 8/1999 final CL&P
application. The HVCEO request, clearly placed on the record,
is not being voluntarily accepted by CL&P or its successor
NGC. Other Housatonic River and hydro lake groups made the same
point as HVCEO.
Some might say that realistically we could not expect increased
benefits at the beginning of the FERC license process, that
CL&P and the new owner would not likely negotiate by making
major concessions up front when FERC is to set the balance at
the end of a long and complex public permitting process.
Some suggestions for an HVCEO approach to right the balance
will be presented in a later section. This discussion is placed
in the middle of this testimony as background as we move into
the unmet yet reasonable requests that utility has not responded
to.
ISSUE 12. MAKE EXISTING AND FUTURE DIGITAL
MAPS AVAILABLE:
This is an important issue but of narrow scope. The final application
includes a set of highly detailed and accurate digital maps
showing utility ownership, FERC regulatory boundaries, buildings,
roads, and property lines. Due to their comprehensiveness and
detail these maps are of great value to the future utility owner.
However, they are also of value as well as management tools
for the three lake authorities and local governments. It is
crucial that these versatile maps be the basis for the utility’s
proposed shoreland and lake management planning processes.
DETAILED COMMENT ON MAP AVAILABILITY:
FERC should require that digital copies of these resource maps,
and their updates over the license period, be made available
at no charge to governmental entities involved with the FERC
project. FERC should also require that the maps be updated every
five years by the utility, at no charge to governmental bodies,
during the thirty year license period.
The utility should also be responsible for coordinating the
lots on the map with digital ownership information. This list
should also be kept up to date by the utility.
These tools are vital if local management capability is to bring
itself up to date and work cooperatively with the utility owner.
A major side benefit to an all digital approach is that public
access and ability to participate can be greatly increased,
certainly a FERC goal.
Anyone with a suitable computer at home could themselves have
all the map material, to study at their leisure. The major cash
investment here, the creation of the basic digital property
maps for each lake, has to its credit already been accomplished
by CL&P.
For Candlewood Lake, map updates should show the boundary of
the conservation restriction approved by FERC on 12/10/1999.
HVCEO commented on the 3/1999 draft application that a CL&P
commitment to public sector access for the new digital maps
be made. But there was no such commitment made in the final
8/1999 application. HVCEO urges FERC to take action on this
matter.
ISSUE 13. INCREASE LAKE AUTHORITY FUNDING
FOR NEW RESPONSIBILITIES:
To the alarm of many this currently voluntary benefit of long
standing did not appear in the draft application of 3/1999.
A HVCEO comment to CL&P in July of 1998 was that funding
support for the Candlewood Lake Authority (CLA), Lake Lillinonah
Authority (LLA) and Lake Zoar Authority (LZA) should be increased
and made a permanent permit condition.
For all three, this funding was not a permit condition under
the expiring license, just voluntary. The HVCEO comment of 6/1999
was that this funding should be included in the relicense in
accordance with the HVCEO policy that at a minimum current benefits
not be reduced.
A fair request for the municipalities and three lake authorities
to make is that the utility contribution be raised in each case
to one half of the annual municipal contributions, yielding
one third of the total, the calculation to be outside of any
non-municipal revenues. If FERC is to recalculate the public
benefit due for private use of public property, then certainly
this is a priority area of need.
NGC is to create new responsibilities for the lake authorities
as the on going administrators of lake management (Candlewood
only) and shoreline management (all) processes. As noted above
the creation by the utility of such new responsibilities for
the authorities is logically linked to increased funding for
administration of these responsibilities.
DETAILED COMMENT ON LAKE
AUTHORITY FUNDING: The practice is for the lake
authority budgets to be financed by the surrounding municipalities
and CL&P jointly. This is a one sixth utility share for
Candlewood (five municipalities), a flat fee of $6,000 for Lillinonah
(six municipalities), and also a flat fee amount for Zoar (four
municipalities). The 1998 CL&P contribution for the CLA
was in the $35,000 range, for Lake Lillinonah $6,000.
As noted, the earliest HVCEO comment to CL&P on this issue,
that of 7/10/1998, was "To improve the balance between
public and private benefit from use of public waters, funding
support should be increased and made a permanent permit condition."
Also that "FERC should recognize that funding of the services
provided by the lake authorities are not solely a public sector
responsibility." But the 3/1999 draft application made
no mention of continuing any of these existing payment.
But CL&P in its 8/1999 final application, did respond to
this issue. According to pages 7 (for CLA), page 8 (for LLA)
and 10 (for LZA) of the Executive Summary: "The {Lake Authorities}
play an important role with respect to water quality and boating
safety.... The Applicant agrees that appropriate funding is
important for these services to be carried out in the future
and further agrees to continue current funding levels for the
term of the license as long as the lake {authorities} continue
to operate as useful and viable entities consistent with the
existing enabling state legislation."
Existing funding was restored, but no increase in funding was
voluntarily offered as requested by HVCEO in July of 1998. Thus
the utility has already provided some "give" on this
issue, and can try to argue no more should be asked of it.
As noted above, a fair request for the municipalities and three
lake authorities to make is that the utility contribution be
raised in each case to one half of the annual municipal contributions,
yielding one third of the total, the calculation to be outside
of special revenues. Also as noted above, If FERC is to recalculate
the public benefit due for private use of public property, then
certainly this is a priority area of need.
A reasonable condition from the utility and FERC is that municipal
contributions not be reduced as a result of the availability
of additional utility support ordered by FERC.
The increase in annual utility funding can be used for additional
authority staffing. This is most easily justified in the case
of the CLA as it will have the added burden of assisting in
the development and then administration of both the new Lake
Management Plan and Shoreline Management Plan that the utility
has stated in its final application will be cooperatively created.
For the Lake Lillinonah and Lake Zoar Authorities, no "lake
management plan" process was seen as needed by CL&P,
but they will each need to gear up for the shoreline management
planning and implementation process that they are expected to
participate in.
As noted above the creation by the utility of new responsibilities
for the authorities, linked to utility payment for these responsibilities,
is a logical connection.
On 4/13/2000 the Candlewood Lake Authority made its own good
case in this regard; "It is estimated by the Application
that there will be a 20% increase in total recreational use
on the Lake within the next 12 years. There is also continuing
pressures for development in the watershed, thereby jeopardizing
the environmental quality of the water.
The two provisions that address these recreational and environmental
pressure are the Lake Management Plan and Shoreland Management
Plan. The CLA will play a significant role in the development
of both plans and more importantly, is the agency in the best
position to implement them. This will result, however, in an
expansion of the CLA’s role to maintain the Lake’s
health and safety."
Concluding; "In order to achieve this, it will be necessary
to expand the CLA’s budget. Therefore we recommend that
the contribution of the Applicant be increased, to make the
financial support of the public and private sectors more equitable."
A Lake Lillinonah Authority statement of 5/12/2000 is that "The
management of the Lake is likely to continue to increase in
cost as recreational use and shoreline development increase.
The Authority requires additional funding to maintain both an
enforcement and water quality monitoring duty. The shoreline
management plan will require Authority manpower. To be consistent
with other lakes, calculate: one half of the sum of six towns."
ISSUE 14. POST BOND FOR LONG TERM DAM
MAINTENANCE AND PUMP OPERATIONS:
A very significant concern of public officials and citizens,
voiced frequently at public meetings on hydro project sale and
relicensing during 1998 and 1999, is the long term future of
the five dams and four dikes that must continually be maintained
by the utility to insure public safety. These facilities are
as follows:
BULLS BRIDGE AND SPOONER
DAMS
(BOTH LOCATED IN KENT, JOINTLY CREATE POWER CANAL)
Two dams, each located on the side of Bulls Bridge Island in
the Housatonic River, impound this section, forcing flow into
an adjacent power canal approximately two miles long and at
a maximum 250 feet wide.
GUARDING HILL DAM
(LOCATED IN NEW MILFORD, CREATES CANDLEWOOD LAKE)
The main dam created the Lake by diking the Rocky River and
flooding a low lying valley of some 5600 acres. There are also
four related smaller dikes associated with Candlewood Lake,
as follows:
North Lanesville Dike, in New Milford near Sherry Lane.
Middle Lanesville Dike, in New Milford near Old Town Park Road.
South Lanesville Dike, in New Milford near Candlewood Lake Rd.
South.
Danbury Dike, in Danbury near Hayestown Road.
SHEPAUG DAM
(STRADDLES NEWTOWN-SOUTHBURY LINE TO CREATE LAKE LILLINONAH)
The dam creates an impoundment stretching 13 miles up the Housatonic
River and about 3.5 miles up the Shepaug River.
STEVENSON DAM
(STRADDLES MONROE-OXFORD LINE TO CREATES LAKE ZOAR)
The dam creates an impoundment about 10 miles long reaching
to the tail waters of the Shepaug Dam. This structure is located
just outside of the area of HVCEO but its maintenance is of
obvious concern.
The 6/1999 HVCEO comment to CL&P was that "While FERC
currently regulates the maintenance of these structures, we
must look ahead to the possibility of a future non-FERC regulatory
environment in which the utility owner has decommissioned the
hydro projects."
Continuing, "HVCEO is aware that when a FERC license is
surrendered, the FERC regional office in New York inspects dams
and other infrastructure and works closely with the CT DEP dam
inspection and maintenance unit. The result is that when FERC
authority expires, the state regulatory authority assumes full
regulatory control over this aspect of public safety.
Yet in our case the issue of who could bear the cost of dam
and dike maintenance thereafter is left as an unknown. The utility
owner should be required to post a bond for this future maintenance.
This requirement should be anticipated by this relicense application
and inserted in the text." But no bond is offered by the
applicant.
CL&P has prepared environmental status reports concerning
its dams, plant and equipment. These were generated as a result
of the requirement of the auction sale. Bonding analysis and
implementation should make use of these documents.
During the sale of CL&P assets in 1999 various environmental
and engineering reports were prepared, including environmental
reports by the consulting firm of Metcalf and Eddy, evaluating
and summarizing the environmental condition of the Facilities
within the HVCEO region.
At a minimum, copies of all of the environmental reports prepared
to apprize utility Buyers of the conditions of the Facilities
within the HVCEO region should be disclosed to the public, this
at an early date.
The purpose of this disclosure would be to inform the public
of the current environmental status of the Facilities and may
generate further issues during the relicensing process. To emphasize,
HVCEO is not requesting proprietary data on the cost of operating
the Facilities, but rather reports on the physical condition
of the Facilities, many of which have been in existence for
decades.
It is expected that FERC and NGC will make use of considerable
civil and other engineering expertise as bond documents are
prepared. Regular meetings with municipalities are requested
during this process.
It is understood that this issue has different implications
for Candlewood Lake than for the other three hydro facilities,
as via the conserv |
