 |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|||||
|
5/19/2000 HVCEO TESTIMONY TO THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION CONCERNING NORTHEAST GENERATING COMPANY’S APPLICATION FOR LICENSE RENEWAL OF HOUSATONIC HYDRO PROJECT 2576 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 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 conservation restriction the municipalities could be the future owner after all dams and pumps were certified as in good repair. FERC will thus need to set varying bonding requirements. When dam condition and maintenance status reports are generated, they should be copied to the offices of chief elected officials of the appropriate project municipality. They can be reviewed internally by municipal officials and engineering staff. FERC is asked to order this simple procedure so that information on this public safety topic flows into the public sector in a routine and ongoing way. ISSUE 15: INITIATION OF DECOMMISSIONING STUDIES: A 6/1999 HVCEO comment to CL&P was that "A study by the owner to define a ‘decommissioning and closeout contingency plan’ for the dams and pumps should be required by FERC." While the new conservation restriction for Candlewood Lake gives some protection on this score to its five shoreline communities, the Housatonic River towns have no such protection. HVCEO’s 6/1999 comment on the relicensing cites HVA comments viewing a decommissioning study as relevant; given "the more competitive marketplace for electric generation in Connecticut caused by deregulation. HVA recommends that the Final Application contain a proposal for a decommissioning study of the hydropower plants in the event that the projects are no longer economically or ecologically viable or the license is surrendered or expires." HVA continues; "The study.... should be done in consultation with resource agencies, affected municipalities and river interest groups, should assess retirement options, included but not limited to partial or complete dam removal, and operation for conservation and flood control purposes without dam removal. Such a study should also evaluate the creation of a decommissioning trust fund and annual funding." But the CL&P final application rejects the proposal of a decommissioning study. The HVCEO intent on this issue then and now is to have available some long range planning on this key point. HVCEO felt the options for this contingency should be known now, not formulated quickly in a crisis. The concern is that all hydro components may operate as usual for a few years, but that given the restructuring in the electric utility industry, one or more components may on short notice be seen as a liability to the balance sheet and decommissioning started. This issue is of sufficient magnitude that the public is entitled to have projections now of possible future license surrender scenarios. This data should be generated in accordance with the complete FERC guidelines to produce a fully comprehensive decommissioning study for all components of Housatonic River Hydro Project 2576. ISSUE 16. COORDINATION WITH GE/HOUSATONIC RIVER CONSENT DECREE FOR PCB REMEDIATION: A negotiated settlement was signed early in 2000 for GE funding to remove heavily contaminated sediments in the Housatonic River and provide River related compensatory benefits. A natural resources damages component should be used to fund recreational and other improvements along the Housatonic River. The consent decree should be thoroughly reviewed by FERC and coordinated with the FERC hydroproject relicensing process. HVCEO endorses the 1/12/2000 statement by New Milford Mayor Arthur Peitler that "There is far too much overlap of interest and issues for these two events to occur simultaneously without intimate and complete cooperation." HVCEO has a strong interest in having FERC mandate as a condition of the permit, that NGC closely monitor and actively participate in the future status discussions that will occur over the next decade particularly as to studies that focus on remediation efforts in the Connecticut portion of the Housatonic known as "The Rest of the River" in the settlement documents. Particular attention must be paid to the current Massachusetts General Electric clean up and the relationship of historic sediment build up that may have occurred at the NGC dams within the project area. Since no particular remediation strategy is currently proposed for the Connecticut portion of the River, it would be beneficial to the Region to receive CL&P’s comments on the remediation and studies proposed in the General Electric settlement. The goal of requiring active participation is that it may lead to a letter of understanding by all the parties (GE, NGC, EPA), on what is required to attempt to restore the Housatonic River to health. Most importantly, public benefits due from FERC relicensing should not be reduced because other federally mandated Housatonic related benefits to be funded by General Electric are being applied within the existing and proposed FERC regulated area. ISSUE 17. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS FOR, AND FERC BOUNDARY EXTENSIONS TO, ADJACENT CL&P LANDS: The Most Serious Difference. Modern FERC license renewals have required major financial contributions by utilities to fund shoreland and scenic vista protection. As more benefits come to the public as use of public water for private profit is rebalanced nationally, such purchases are becoming a frequent use for the new fiscal resource generated. Attorney Daniel Sosland, an expert on FERC relicensings, has provided HVCEO with some advice on this topic; "The shoreland protection requirement has become one of many important factors included in FERC’s balancing obligation. Shoreland protection is an important aspect of preserving environmental quality." The 6/1999 HVCEO comment to CL&P was that "Such restrictions are "justified on the basis of balancing the use of publically owned waters with the private profits that are extracted from that use." As CL&P is offering nothing at the outset, HVCEO and allied agencies will need to work together to induce a fair settlement to protect hydro project environments. "Tight Boundary" Problem. Even though CL&P has sold its four hydro projects in the Region, it will retain significant acreage adjacent to them. These CL&P tracts are contiguous to, and just outside of, the FERC regulatory boundary. This geography puts the public at a disadvantage. Where the scenic lands and the utility functions are all in the same ownership, FERC rules for preserving scenery and recreational potential are easiest to apply. That is not the situation with the adjacent CL&P lands. The primary example of such a property is the scenic Vaughns Neck peninsula in the middle of Candlewood Lake. Given the heavily developed Candlewood Lake shoreline, the natural scenery provided by the contrast of undeveloped Vaughns Neck is all the more critical to preserve. Other prime examples of CL&P owned scenic land are found on the Bridgewater side of Lake Lillinonah. The HVCEO position is that the FERC boundary should be extended to encompass all of the adjacent CL&P properties that were until 1999 traditionally part of the hydro projects’ natural buffers. Then a permanent conservation restriction should be purchased for these lands. NGC should be ordered to make a purchase offer to CL&P. 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 its meeting of 3/19/1999, 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 (italics added). (For clarification it should be explained that the FERC boundary is then moved outward to incorporate the newly protected land). Also presented to HVCEO was an excerpt from Section 18 of the Code of Federal Regulations. In 4.51(f) FERC requires applications for new licenses to "discuss the management of the land... and the protection of the scenic and recreational values of the project" and to include in the application "an analysis of costs and other constraints, of the applicant’s ability to provide a buffer zone around all or part of the impoundment, for the purpose of ensuring public access to project lands and waters and protecting the recreational and aesthetic values of the impoundment and shoreline." HVCEO voted in June of 1999 to make the following statement to both CL&P and FERC; "The adjacent CL&P 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 A related issue involves the long and slender five mile strip of CL&P land in New Milford on the east bank of the Housatonic River. It is entirely undeveloped and plays a critical role in scenic enhancement there. Acquisition is a high priority for the Town. This miles long strip was purchased by CL&P many decades ago for a hydro project that was never built. While not immediately adjacent to FERC regulated NGC properties, the recreational quality of the waters of the Housatonic River along this segment are FERC regulated, as they are clearly impacted by varying run of river hydro releases. Flows here are manipulated for hydro purposes and thus impacted for private profit, etc. Canoeists and fishermen are most directly impacted. It should be noted that the towns to the north of New Milford are very concerned about similar "run of river impacts" where no hydroproject is immediate adjacent. FERC, in following its own rules, should mandate that a fund be created by NGC for its purchase of this New Milford CL&P property. An overview of the CL&P properties proposed for permanent conservation restrictions and then to be included in an expanded FERC boundary, is as follows: 1. BULLS BRIDGE: Along the 14.58 mile FERC boundary for the Bulls Bridge project, CL&P abuts for about 11.0% or 1.6 miles. This includes: NEW MILFORD- Large tract between Route 7 and the Housatonic River, also including adjacent section east of Route 7. 2. RUN OF RIVER: NEW MILFORD- The east bank of the Housatonic River discussed in the text just above, not adjacent to the current FERC boundary. 3. CANDLEWOOD LAKE: Along the 68.20 mile FERC boundary for the Candlewood Lake project, CL&P abuts for about 15.8 % or 10.8 miles. This includes: DANBURY- Strip of CL&P land on west side of Candlewood Lake’s Danbury Bay, across from Moody Lane, 9 acres. NEW FAIRFIELD- 1) The large CL&P tract just north of the Town Park and west of Route 39 adjacent to the Pootatuck State Forest, 160 acres, 2) The very large CL&P tract on Vaughn’s Neck, 710 acres (part of this total is in New Milford). (Note: Pine Island has appeared on some CL&P maps as CL&P property, but this is a cartographic error). NEW MILFORD- 1) Major property at the north end of New Milford Bay both east and west of the FERC boundary, 2) Property on the west shore of New Milford Bay across from Lynn Deming Park, 43 acres, 3) New Milford portion of Vaughn’s Neck (part of 710 acres). SHERMAN- Green Island, 37 acres, and Deer Island, 52 acres, within the Lake. Please note that pertaining to all CL&P properties adjacent to the FERC regulated properties around Candlewood Lake, the Candlewood Lake Authority has prepared a paper entitled "Ecological importance of Remaining Open Space Adjacent to the Project Boundary on Candlewood Lake: Considerations for Relicensing." This document is dated 5/10/1999 and is Appendix 1 to CLA testimony. This research is endorsed by the HVCEO. 4. LAKE LILLINONAH: Along the 39.79 mile FERC boundary for the Lake Lillinonah project, CL&P abuts for about 8.8% or 3.5 miles. This includes: BRIDGEWATER- 1) land south of Tappan Road and west of Hemlock Road, 140 acres of which 70 are forested, 2) tract west of Hitchcock Mill Brook, 3) land just west of Route 133, 4) tract south of Skyline Ridge Road and east of Cooper Road, totaling 87 acres, all forested, and 5) two parcels east of Skyline Ridge Road fronting the Shepaug River segment of the Lake. BROOKFIELD- CL&P property just west of the Route 133 Bridge, and second small property on the Lake further west. NEWTOWN- CL&P property west of the dam on Lake Lillinonah, near the eagle nesting area (parcels where extreme caution as to public access must be a strict policy). 5. LAKE ZOAR Along the 26.53 mile FERC boundary for the Lake Zoar project, CL&P abuts for about 4.6% or 1.2 miles. This includes: NEWTOWN- CL&P property on Lake Zoar east of the base of the Shepaug Dam at the eagle nesting area. The lands listed above were purchased by CL&P decades ago when CL&P power plants and hydro lakes were first constructed. It was necessary at that time to "buy the whole farm" so to speak, 200 acres rather than the 30 that may have been all that was really needed for hydro project development, as large rural parcels were in single ownership. While this adjacent category of land is very scenic, pristine and is used for passive recreation, it does not participate in the physical aspects of NGC power production. Thus it was not required to be divested by CL&P to NGC during DPUC’s ruling on that matter in 1999. CL&P itself describes these holdings as the company’s "conservation lands." From the FERC perspective, they should be considered absolutely vital to the recreational and scenic qualities of the NGC hydro power projects. FERC officials are requested to view these lands from the water during their site visits. Their high scenic qualities are vital to the continued passive and active recreational quality of the regulated hydro facilities. Recent FERC Precedents: The agency positions summarized above document the demand that FERC balancing be broad based. Presented below is evidence that modern FERC relicensings do indeed lead to significant utility expenditures. The Northwestern CT Council of Governments, the counterpart to the north of the Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials, shares many of the HVCEO area’s relicensing concerns. That Council forwarded to HVCEO a 4/1999 research paper describing recent FERC relicensings in New England. The theme of that paper is use of the negotiated option authorized by FERC under which public benefits are agreed to before the license application is actually submitted to FERC. It is of course too late for use of that format in our case. However, the magnitude of the benefits that the power companies voluntarily agreed to in those instances have become precedents of relevance to the Housatonic hydro power relicensing. The rated generating capacity for our four projects (Bulls Bridge at approximately 7 megawatts, Candlewood at 24, Lillinonah at 37 and Zoar at 31) is about 100 megawatts. (It is understood that "megawatt hours generated" is a better measure, but it is not readily available). This figure can be used to generally compare the relative size of projects where FERC permits have recently been renewed, as described below: 1. DEERFIELD RIVER PROJECT on the Deerfield River in Massachusetts and Vermont, 85 megawatts, owned by the New England Power Company, agreement reached in 1994. The agreement includes 18,350 acres permanently protected from development with conservation easements. The New England Power Company will also reimburse the easement holder’s costs for monitoring and enforcing the terms of the easements. The settlement also includes $200,000 for building nesting structures and wetlands management, then also $100,000 to finance watershed conservation and education. These dedicated funds are in addition to the traditional recreational enhancements which include a basin wide recreation plan with upgrades to picnic areas, boat launches, canoe portages, hiking trails, etc. 2. RILEY-JAY-OTIS-LIVERMORE PROJECT on the Androscoggin River in Maine, 29 megawatts, owned by the International Paper Company, agreement reached in 1997. The settlement included conservation of over 1200 acres of land and 7 miles of shoreline in the protected area, with permanent easements prohibiting development to be administered by the Androscoggin Land Trust. Off-site land protection provisions included the purchase of an additional 95 acres and 4,500 feet of shorefront at Rangeley Lake State Park. Other improvements included three new boat launches, canoe portage, and other access. 3. FIFTEEN MILE FALLS PROJECT on the Connecticut River in Vermont and New Hampshire, at 369 megawatts the largest hydropower project in New England, owned by the New England Power Company, agreement reached in 1997. Public benefits negotiated in this case included over 12,000 acres of land and significant wildlife habitat placed in perpetual conservation easements and the donation of a 50 acre parcel down river. In addition, there was created an off-site mitigation and enhancement fund of $10.5 to $16.5 million, the range depending upon future project revenues, for easements and river restoration. 4. UPPER AND MIDDLE DAMS PROJECT on the headwaters of the Androscoggin River in Maine, no specific megawatt rating available as dams here are to enhance downstream generation, owned by the Union Water Power Company, agreement reached in 1998. The land protection benefits agreed to included easements on 325 acres including 5.9 miles of shoreline and other measures to protect the back country undeveloped character of the project area. In addition, a $600,000 endowment for supporting land trust activities in the area, also a $900,000 fund for the acquisition of riparian lands and important fish and wildlife habitat, were created. Inadequate CL&P Response: CL&P states its resistance to land purchase on Page E-166 of Volume 2; "A proposal to acquire in fee a 200 foot wide buffer everywhere the impoundment abuts regulated utility property has been considered, but ultimately rejected." Reasons were that a solid buffer denies water access not only to the frontage, but the whole property, thereby devaluing all of it, and the purchase price is too high. A 9/16/1999 memo by the Northwestern CT Council of Governments, in assisting the Housatonic River Commission, is the first to counter this rejection; "18CFR 4.5 (f) (6) (iv) requires the applicant to provide an analysis of the costs and constraints of providing a buffer zone around the impoundment and its shoreline. The final application includes a one paragraph ‘analysis’ of the costs and constraints and concludes that the cost would be in the order of $5-$10 million. No supporting data is provided. The Housatonic River Commission objects to this summary dismissal of a buffer zone as the result of superficial analysis." Then CL&P takes a related position on page E-204 of Volume 2, commenting on the topic of the proposed "Housatonic River Trust Fund." Here it is stated that "The Applicant disagrees with the request for the establishment of a trust fund for the Housatonic River Valley. The Applicant currently offers numerous recreational, land use, and environmental benefits and protections for the river corridor and proposes enhancements in this license application." FERC is being asked, in effect, not to undertake any rebalancing. This is unacceptable. FERC should also be aware that the need for open space and recreation in the project area is very great. As part of the New York Metropolitan Area, many users of the hydro facilities are New York and New Jersey residents. While the HVCEO does not maintain a separate open space policy plan for the Region, it has always made use of the regional component of the DEP’s Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The most recent DEP SCORP is dated 8/1993 and is to serve the years 1993-1998. CT DEP now makes use of generic open space grant scoring criteria as its open space plan rather than the traditional SCORP. The reason HVCEO still makes use of the SCORP is because it includes individualized inventories and policies for each of Connecticut’s 15 planning regions. Of importance to FERC deliberations, the 1993 SCORP, the last one produced, includes the following favorable policy: "Publicly protected open space and outdoor recreation areas in the Housatonic Valley Planning Region occupy only 6.3 per cent of its land mass. This is the third smallest percentage in the state. DEP owned open space and recreation acreage is less than half the state average. Because of the region’s relatively low population density, there remains the opportunity to acquire substantial tracts of public open space and recreation land. However, the very rapid growth of the region warns us that this opportunity is quickly diminishing, and may be lost. Consideration of all the foregoing factors have made acquisition of public open space in the Housatonic Valley Planning Region this SCORP’s highest priority among all of the state’s planning regions (italics added). If action is not taken quickly to permanently protect a reasonable proportion of the region’s land mass, the potential for a major deterioration in the area’s quality of life is possible." ISSUE 18. USE OF DATA BASES, POLICY PLANS AND ORDINANCES AS STANDARDS FOR REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING: It is important for FERC’s environmental review processes to make use of review standards and policy plans that have been prepared and adopted by governmental organizations in Connecticut. Major documents with bearing on the relicensing that should be assembled for the review process are listed below. HVCEO urges citizen and advocacy groups to also make use of these documents as they interact with FERC. 1. MUNICIPAL ZONING ORDINANCES The environmental review process will have little legitimacy locally if FERC staff enters public forums unaware of the municipal zoning applicable to the regulated projects and their vicinities. These municipal zoning ordinances are authorized by Chapter 124 of the CT General Statutes. 2. MUNICIPAL PLANS OF CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT Similarly, the FERC process will have limited legitimacy if FERC staff enters public forums unaware of the recommendations of the municipal plan of development for project vicinities. These municipal plans are authorized by Chapter 126 of the CT General Statutes. 3. REGIONAL PLANS OF DEVELOPMENT Connecticut has fifteen regional planning organizations as authorized by CT State Statute. HVCEO and three others include territory within the project area. The regional plans of each are as required by Chapter 127 of the CT General Statutes. These should be used as reference and policy documents during FERC environmental evaluations. 4. STATE PLAN FOR CONNECTICUT The state plan in Connecticut is known as the "Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut, 1998-2003." The legal base and uses of the plan is specified in Sections 16a through 16a-33 of the CT General Statutes. Copies are available from the CT Office of Policy and Management, 450 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, CT 06134-1441. 5. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE INVENTORY A statewide inventory including the FERC project area is well developed. It is in digital format and is available from Nicholas Bellantoni, State Archaeologist, Office of State Archaeology, University of CT, 3107 Horsebarn Hill Road, U-214, Storrs, CT 06269-4214. 6. NATURAL DIVERSITY DATA BASE Again an important statewide inventory including the FERC project on a relevant topic is well developed. It is in digital format and is available from the CT Department of Environmental Protection, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-5127. 7. DIGITAL LAND USE DATA BASE Local land use data is available from HVCEO at no cost to FERC for the HVCEO area of operation. Specifications can be viewed on the Internet at www.hvceo.org. And the digital file can be obtained from HVCEO. ISSUE 19. GROWING PRESSURES FOR CANOEING AND KAYAKING OPPORTUNITIES: Local and regional interest in use of Lakes Lillinonah and Zoar as part of a regional canoe and kayak route is growing rapidly. The Housatonic Valley Tourism Commission (HVTC) is funding a feasibility study of river recreation involving these recreational modes. A 38 miles "Housatonic River Run" is being planned. The route will begin on the Still River in Danbury, pass northward through Brookfield into New Milford, where it will enter Lake Lillinonah. At that point it will turn southeasterly along the Lake Lillinonah shore, crossing the Shepaug Dam and entering Lake Zoar. For this regional recreational project to be a success, canoe portages at both downstream FERC regulated dams must be sufficiently developed. A key aspect of this proposal involves the Still River. Until a few years ago this waterway was highly polluted and not suitable for water based recreation. However, the effluent from point sources of wastewater discharge have now been upgraded sufficiently such that meaningful recreational planning is now possible. Importantly, the Housatonic River Run is designed to serve the population of the core area of Danbury, as well as adjacent suburban areas. The current feasibility study will identify existing and proposed areas for boat launches, parking areas, camping sites and points for signage with information of ecological interest. Planning work on this project is being undertaken by the Housatonic Valley Economic Development Partnership, under contract to the HVTC. These groups will contact FERC with additional information on the new river recreation facility, and request that NGC help to make the project a success within its area of operation. CONCLUSION: To repeat the central theme, the public is entitled to enhanced and increased aesthetic, conservation and recreational benefits for the use of public resources by a private profit making corporation. FERC should mandate upon NGC implementation of the recommendations as set forth in this document. HVCEO welcomes comments and communications with all parties on these issues during the relicensing process. 
|
||||
 |
|
|
|
 About the HVCEO History of HVCEO Publications Data Book Map CenterGrowth Guide Map
Transportation
Changing Land Use
Links
|
|
|
|
HVCEO - Housatonic Valley Council of Elected Officials |