The following Stakeholder Comments were submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on June 16, 2014, re: Study No. 3.3.6 Impact of Project Operations on Shad Spawning, Spawning Habitat and Egg Deposition in the Area of the Northfield Mountain and Turners Falls Projects; as well as Study No. 3.3.11 Fish Assemblage Assessment

Karl Meyer, M.S., Environmental Science
85 School Street, # 3
Greenfield, MA 01301 June 16, 2014

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
88 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426

Stakeholder Comments RE: FERC P-2485-063, and P-1889-081:

These comments pertain to Study No. 3.3.6 Impact of Project Operations on Shad Spawning, Spawning Habitat and Egg Deposition in the Area of the Northfield Mountain and Turners Falls Projects; as well as Study No. 3.3.11 Fish Assemblage Assessment

My comments are specific to a Study Plan Determination meeting and consultation that took place at Northfield Mountain on June 3, 2014, to determine proper Study Plan parameters and procedures.

As a Stakeholder who has contributed to these fisheries discussions throughout the FERC process, I was dismayed that notification of this Stakeholder meeting was not sent out until the day before it was to take place. Along with Katie Kennedy, Andrea Donlon, and Don Pugh, I did not receive an email-invitation from FirstLight consultant Chris Tomichek to continue participating in the discussions until 9:15 a.m. on the morning of June 2, 2014—for a meeting that was to take place at 9:00 a.m., June 3, 2014. This is an abrogation of the FERC relicensing process for Stakeholder participation, and once again leaves these legal proceedings open to question. As I was on vacation when the less-than-24-hour-notice was sent, I was not aware that a meeting had taken place until the day after. With notice, I could have participated via teleconference.

I trust that the Notes and Transcript of this June 3rd meeting will be posted on both the FERC and Northfield Mountain relicensing web sites as part of the public record.

As I do not know the content of Stakeholder remarks or positions stated at the June 3, 2014 meeting, it’s possible that some of my comments may reiterate those of others. I will try to be brief, and address areas of my expertise.

My Comments re: Study No. 3.3.6 Impact of Project Operations on Shad Spawning, Spawning Habitat and Egg Deposition in the Area of the Northfield Mountain and Turners Falls Projects

In response to NMFS concerns about endangered shortnose sturgeon, FirstLight’s John Howard filed a response with FERC on January 28, 2014, stating, “Kieffer and Kynard (2012) have documented a spawning period of 5-17 days during the same 26 day period each year (April 27-May 22). Early life history stages (eggs and larvae) are present in the project area for 20 to 30 days after spawning (Kynard et al. 2012a). So the period when shortnose sturgeon eggs and larvae are present overlaps with the proposed sampling period for shad egg collection. Consequently, the collection of shad eggs may have the potential to impact shortnose sturgeon, and NMFS recommended in its December 2 letter that the study be revised.”

“To address this potential concern, FirstLight proposes to replace shad egg collection efforts, which studies have shown are duplicative of visual observations of shad spawning, with enhanced visual observations and splash counts.”

The best way to determine the presence of shad spawning, habitat and egg deposition in the By Pass Reach is to use both recommended efforts: egg collection and splash counts Using plankton nets to capture eggs and larvae should be employed to determine shad reproduction in the 2 miles of the By Pass Reach. NMFS did not at any time state that this method should not be employed. They merely noted the presence of SNS and their spawning period and egg/larvae deposition schedule.

Dr. Boyd Kynard states that there is no reason that plankton nets cannot be deployed in the channels opposite the islands on the west side of the river while SNS are present at their east-side ancestral Rock Dam spawning site, or the default site adjacent to Cabot Station if inadequate flows at Rock Dam have chased them downstream. Kynard states that this seining can take place all the way up to TF dam without impacting SNS spawning or egg deposition and larvae development. (Personal communication, 6/14/2014) Kynard is available if FL or Kleinschmidt would like to consult with him.

It is noteworthy that my own observations found FirstLight dumping water back into the river from its canal bypass flume above Cabot Station on three consecutive days at 12;25 pm: May 13, 14, and 15—all dates when SNS are potentially in spawning mode in the Connecticut River section known as the By Pass Reach. Station 1 was also operating off the canal at all these times, and the flows emanating from each were similar—though the whitewater flume-dumping off the canal appeared slightly less rigorous than the generation at the Station 1 outfall.

It is obvious from their notes that FL understands the requirements of SNS for successful reproduction. This canal-dumping practice has been noted by Kynard et al, as a flow regime that can abruptly end spawning efforts and bury or strand SNS eggs and larvae.

As suggested, splash counts should be also be done throughout the By Pass Reach. However, river regulation by FirstLight has a profound impact on whether and when shad are present in the By Pass Reach—River Segments 1 – 4 in the Study Plan—just as it impacts SNS.

FirstLight’s proposal to use splash counts to determine spawning should be carefully calibrated with river flows throughout the By Pass Reach. In order to have get a “clean” picture of when and where American shad may use this reach of river for spawning and egg deposition, continuous flows must be present in the river in order to sustain their use of the habitat. Ramping flow regimes and abrupt gate closures can easily displace federal trust fish from this river segment.

As such, I would suggest that steady-state flows of a minimum of 2,500 cfs up to 5,000 cfs be present in the By Pass from noon on the day the study is to commence until after midnight when spawning tapers off.

It is also necessary to know what the gate positions and flows are at TF dam throughout this time, as well as whether Station 1 is operating and at what flows, and whether water is being dumped from the canal back into the river above Cabot Station via the by-pass flume.

My Comments re: Study No. 3.3.11 Fish Assemblage Assessment

In his letter responding to NMFS concerns about endangered shortnose sturgeon, FirstLight’s John Howard formally responded to FERC on January 28, 2014, stating: “To avoid any potential impacts to sturgeon, FirstLight proposes to conduct all sampling in the bypass reach after June 30, and in the reach below the Deerfield River, FirstLight proposes to use both existing data and the data it obtains in the Turners Falls Impoundment.”

I will restrict my comments to fish assemblage sampling in the By Pass Reach:

Again, in order for electro-fishing sampling to be effective and get a “clean” picture of when and where resident and migratory fish may use this By Pass Reach of river, continuous flows must be present in the river in order to sustain their use of the habitat. Ramping flow regimes and abrupt gate closures can easily displace fish from this reach.

As such, I would suggest that steady-state flows of a minimum of 2,500 cfs up to 5,000 cfs be present in the By Pass for a full 24 hour cycle before this study is to commence.

And, again, it is also necessary to know what the gate positions and flows are at TF dam throughout this time, as well as whether Station 1 is operating and at what flow, and whether water is being dumped from the canal back into the river above Cabot Station via the by-pass flume.

End of Formal Comments

Thank you for this opportunity to participate in improving license requirements and protecting the Connecticut River ecosystem for future generations.

Sincerely,
Karl Meyer, M.S.