7955 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Burkardt, Lamb, Taylor, and Waddle plant on the state's threatened species list was found in the path of a pipeline; this necessitated design changes in the project. Although the Koma Kulshan consultation was suc- cessful, agreement on the definition of issues did not guarantee agreement on means of resolving the issues. While the parties concurred that in stream flows were a central issue in the consultation, they disagreed over target species and appropriate methodology for determining flow levels. Applicants and resource agency representatives had different forms of expertise and tended to elevate the importance of their special training and knowl- edge. Applicants questioned the ability of the resource agencies to understand the engineering aspects of the project, while resource agencies stated that their interpretation of biological studies was, essentially, infallible. These attitudes seemed to lead to increased conflict in the consultation. Oswegatchie The Oswegatchie project in New York includes six dams on a section of river stretching over more than 70 miles. Originally licensed in the 1920s, the project received a renewal license in 1983. Included in the license was a requirement for consultation between the power company and resource agencies in order to determine minimum flow releases. After two years of non-action, the power company requested that it be relieved of its obligations to consult on grounds of non-compliance by the resource agencies. FERC denied the request, and consultations were reinstat- ed. From 1986 to 1989, studies were conducted and agreement was reached on all issues except minimum flow releases in one bypass reach. Conflicting recom- mendations were submitted to FERC, and the order issuing minimum flows upheld the recommendations of the power company. State and federal resource agencies objected, and the state suggested re-evaluat- ing the 401 Water Quality Certificate, required under the Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act; 33 U.S.C. ~ 1251-1376). The grounds for the objection were that project operation would signifi- cantly alter stream conditions and that higher flows would be needed for waste assimilation. At the time the interviews were conducted, in July of 1992, these issues had not yet been resolved. The negotiations associated with this project were assessed as minimally successful. As a result of the two outstanding issues discussed above, not all par- ties believed that the negotiation was successful. The other two criteria for successful agreement were met. The Oswegatchie project was complex in that it included six dams stretching over 70 miles. However, WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN the consultations themselves were single-issue, focus- ing on streamflows in bypass and downstream reach- es. When parties were asked about the clarity of technical issues, a typical reply was: I think it [the technical issue] was pretty well defined. The issue was flows in selected riverine reaches. And there's no question, we all knew what the issue was; I think it stayed focused. It didn't waiver, which was unique. But, of course, this was intended to be sort of a one issue con- sultation. While the issue was clear to all, no agreement was reached on appropriate flows in all reaches. One resource agency representative attributed the failure to reach agreement to a lack of consensus on how to design and interpret studies. A representative of the applicant reflected that the difference in goals between project operators and resource agencies was at the heart of the problem when decisions could not be made. Despite the expectations of some that the simplicity of the issues would be reflected in a straightforward resolution, no agreement was reached. The applicant believed that maintaining a winter flow of 15 cubic feet per second in the contest- ed reach of river was reasonable, and the resource agencies recommended a 30 cfs flow. Unable to reach agreement on this issue, each provided a separate rec- ommendation to the FERC. Cataract The Cataract project in Maine consists of four dams. The original license was issued in 1968, back- dated to the operating date of 1938, and expired at the end of 1987. The power company initiated the 60- day consultation process in June of 1984, received comments from agencies and other affected groups, and submitted the license application to FERC in July of 1986. In order to comply with the Electrieal Consumers Protection Act of 1986 (ECPA), which changed the requirements of the consultation process, FERC returned the application to the applicant with a request for further consultation with resource agen- cies. After consultation on issues of minimum flows, fish passage, resource impacts, and public access, the application was revised and returned to the FERC in January 1989. The license was issued in June of that year but was not satisfactory to fishery resource agen- cies because it did not resolve issues of river-wide fish passage. The state also intervened on the grounds that the license did not stipulate flows below the Cataract dam adequate to satisfy terms of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification required under the 190