Connecticut River ecosystem

Archived Posts from this Category

FERC grants Northfield “temporary” Power Up-rate: the downside impacts of a studied pumped storage operation, re-posted.

Posted by on 04 Dec 2014 | Tagged as: American shad, Connecticut River, Connecticut River ecosystem, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federal trust fish, FERC, FERC license, FirstLight, GDF-Suez FirstLight, ISO New England, Mt. Tom Coal Plant, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station, USFWS

On November 26, 2014, FERC issued an “Order Granting a Temporary Amendment” for P-2485, the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station to increase its storage capacity by 25%, and generate electricity during times of peak demand–or peak prices on the electricity “spot” market, without restriction.

In its power uprate application GDF-Suez FirstLight stated that this extra capacity was necessary due to power plant closures in Vermont and coastal Massachusetts and a predicted cold winter–a forecast for the Northeast that has now been re-evaluated, with a warmer winter now predicted.  GDF-Suez FirstLight did not mention in its application that it was shuttering its own 130 megawatt Mt. Tom plant in Holyoke in October. Another factor that may have played a part in the power uprate bid: GDF-Suez North America Hydro had had its bond rating downgraded in the prior fiscal year.

Given the unprecedented power hike granted Northfield, with ISO-New England formally jumping in the middle and cheering on the process with a formal letter to FERC, I thought I might republish testimony I sent to FERC last spring, when FirstLight submitted–then subsequently retracted as a “mistake,” testimony it posted on behalf of their plant’s storage flexibility cited the wind and solar benefits of a pumped storage plant in Ludington, Michigan.

If you read through the testimony you’ll see how devastating to the ecosystem and fisheries that Ludington Pumped Storage Plant has been.  That plant, though significantly larger, has a similar timeline–first started in the early 1970s, and currently undergoing relicensing. The big difference has been that local non-profits and agencies didn’t let them off the hook for the massive habitat destruction during their first licensing period–actually winning a $172 million dollar settlement from the owners some 20 years back.  Sadly, it was too late to shield their ecosystem or save their fisheries.

So, Northfield will pump more this winter.  It seemed a good time to re-post what the STUDIED damages were at another pumped storage plant over a similar time frame.  Sadly, we can’t know what we’ve lost across the decades here on the Connecticut River.

Read below:

New Stakeholder Comments filed with FERC re: Northfield Mountain

Posted by karlmeyer on 21 May 2014 | Tagged as: American shad, Bellows Falls, Connecticut River, Connecticut River ecosystem, ecosystem, Endangered Species Act, EPA, ESA, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federal trust fish, GDF-Suez FirstLight, Ludington Pumped Storage Plant, New Hampshire, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station, shad larvae, Turners Falls power canal, US Fish & Wildlife Service, USFWS, Vermont Edit This

The following Stakeholder Comments were filed today, 5/21/2014, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission respecting Connecticut River fish mortality investigations at Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage station (NMPS)

Karl Meyer, M.S., Environmental Science

85 School Street, # 3

Greenfield, MA 01301

 

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-2680-108: relevance of FirstLight Hydro Generating Company’s document submission issued by FERC as “Conference/Meeting Transcript issued in FERC P-2485-063, et al” on May 9, 2014 for Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage project (NMPS). The inclusion of “Transcript of the April 17, 2014 FERC Scoping Meeting held in Pentwater, Michigan re Consumers Energy Company’s et al Ludington Pumped Storage Project under P-2680-108” offers an incomplete, unsubstantiated and confusing picture of its applicable connection to the relicensing of NMPS on the main stem of a four-state river system in Massachusetts.

Dear Secretary Bose,

Please consider the following comments respecting the relevance of FirstLight Hydro Generating Company’s recent document filing as it seeks a new license for the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage station. I testified as a Stakeholder in the NMPS Study Dispute Panel Technical Conference along with officials from the USFWS and Trout UnLimited on Tuesday, April 8, 2014. The Dispute Panel was convened out of concerns that no study of the entrainment of eggs and larvae of migratory American shad was being required as part of a relicensing bid from GDF-Suez FirstLight Power for NMPS. I find no clear context provided by FirstLight for the inclusion of a transcript for the April 17, 2014 FERC Scoping Meeting for the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant–a lakeside Michigan-based facility, as part of the NMPS relicensing proceedings.

NMPS’s pumping/generating impacts are known to reach downstream to Holyoke Dam at river-mile 86 and affect spawning-run migratory fish that utilize Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont habitats upstream to Bellows Falls Dam at river-mile 172. It is critical to the relicensing of any pumped storage generation on this four-state river to have robust studies with measurable outcomes to protect the public’s interest in a balanced and functioning Connecticut River ecosystem.

NMPS impacts migrating and spawning anadromous fish in a four-state ecosystem that has been the focus of a federal fisheries restoration program begun in 1967, “to provide the public with high quality sport fishing opportunities in a highly urbanized area, as well as provide for the long term needs of the population for seafood.” NMPS, completed in 1972, has been shown to have direct impacts on migratory fish entrainment and fish passage from northern Massachusetts to central Vermont and New Hampshire.

The US Fish & Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and fisheries directors in MA, NH, VT, and CT are all charged with protecting these resources for the public. Federal and state laws, licenses and statutes governing these mandated protections include the federal Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and federal-trust fish protections beginning with the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965. FERC authority also mandates licensee compliance and protections for the public’s fisheries resources and restoration projects. FERC itself is mandated to comply with federal environmental law.

The Ludington Pumped Storage Plant is a FERC licensed facility sited and operating within a single state on a lakeshore well over 100 miles from it closest bordering state—and situated with 118 miles of open water at its back. Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage, situated adjacent to the Connecticut River, operates on the Navigable Waters of the United States in Massachusetts just 10 miles from where the Connecticut River passes out of Vermont and New Hampshire. NMPS pumps and generates from a narrow ribbon of river that is less than 1,000 feet wide—during warm seasons it sometimes draws more water than the river’s natural output.

In short, these are two very different animals, operating in very different habitats.

However, there are similarities in the long-term environmental impacts of these far-flung pumped storage facilities. They both kill large quantities of the public’s fish. Unfortunately, those impacts were not cited or included in FirstLight’s submission to FERC in either Dispute Resolution Panel documents or its license application documents. In 1995 the owners of the Ludinton Plant agreed to a $172 million dollar settlement for its killing o fish during the previous two decades. The public there at least had the minor benefit of one-time study that showed LPSP “in a single year, killed 440,000 salmon and trout, 85,000 perch and millions of forage fish that served as food for valuable game.”

Unfortunately, to date, we have no such data from a study of NMPS, nor any compensation for the long-term damage to a public resource and a long-term fisheries restoration project. In Michigan, a US-based entity was required to pay restitution and undertake remedial action. Here at NMPS the plant operator is a transnational corporation, based outside the United States, that is “taking” an unknown quantity of a public resource without compensation or required analysis. If a US Citizen were to do this they would be subject to legal action.

 

Please see below: Ludington Daily News, August 13, 1987: “Federal agency rules on fish kill, Ludington hydro plant must comply within 60-90 days.”

The Ludington plant had begun operations in 1973, and had been the subject of legal proceedings from that time forward. The State of Michigan had filed a suit in Ingham County Circuit Court seeking more than $147 million in damages, and the National Wildlife Federation had won a federal court order that Consumers needed a pollution discharge permit for the plant.

In summary here are several excerpts from that article defining the impacts at that time including references to a single study that found the plant killed millions of native fish in a single year, species that are today disappearing, or have essentially disappeared, in Lake Michigan waters:

“Environmentalists and state officials Wednesday hailed a federal ruling designed to end the fish kills at the Ludington Pumped Storage Facility operated by Consumers Power Co.” (Co-owned with Detroit Edison Co.)

“Finally, after 14 years of negotiations and litigation, and the destruction of millions of Lake Michigan sports fish, we’re going to see an end to this needless waste of an important resource,” said Thomas Washington, executive director of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs.

“The MUCC, National Wildlife Federation and Department of Natural Resources have negotiated fruitlessly for years with Consumers Power to stop the fish kills.”
“The plant, in operation since 1973, pumps Lake Michigan water uphill into a reservoir, and generates electricity during times of high demand by letting it flow back to Lake Michigan through generators. In the pumping process, it kills millions of fish.”

“The MUCC said that a study commissioned by Consumers Power showed the plant, in a single year, killed 440,000 salmon and trout, 85,000 perch and millions of forage fish that served as food for valuable game.”

However, it took another eight years of environmental damage and drawn-out court proceedings before a settlement—totaling $172 million, was finally reached in 1995. See: Ludington Daily News, March 7, 1995: “Local groups urged to begin working on projects for fish kill settlement plan.”

“While 12 to 18 months more may pass before the settlement, valued at $172 million, becomes final state officials urged local groups not to wait to prepare proposals for enhancing local fishing.”

“Many audience questions fielded by the five-person panel concerned the perception the settlement doesn’t do much for Ludington area fishing specifically—the fishing most affected by the fish kill at the plant.”

It was only after 1995 that some of the large-scale impacts of Ludington Pumped Storage Plant began to be addressed. Ultimately, a FERC-sanctioned 2-1/2 mile long (12,850 ft) barrier net was deployed across hundreds and hundreds of acres of riverbed and bank.

Sadly, it seems that net did not mitigate or resolve the loss of local fisheries in the Ludington region. Its deployment was either ineffective or far too late for a regionally- and culturally-important sustained harvest of local- sourced and eaten native yellow perch and lake trout. Those perch have now essentially disappeared in the Ludington-Manistee region—which is noted in Stakeholder Testimony supplied for the Ludington Scoping Meeting on April 17, 2014 where Mr. Richard Underwood testified that past Michigan DNR creel surveys had found: “close to a quarter million perch” in Ludington habitats. “In the last few years, four years, we have had a total of zero count of perch in Ludington, and that’s how it has affected.”

The giant Ludington barrier net appears to be one key player in the puzzle of the missing perch. It appears to act as a fish trap. According to Mr. Underwood that net, along with an artificial reef constructed nearby, attracts a giant collection of cormorants that feed on the fish trapped within the confines of the net, “There were so many birds on the reef and inside the barrier net you couldn’t count them. I estimated there were 3,500.”

Ironically too, in recent years, federal hatcheries in the Connecticut River basin have been producing lake trout to supplement the now-crippled and dwindling native population of lake trout on Lake Michigan.

Another similarity in these two relicensing proceedings is that FERC’s Scoping Site Visits at both the NMPS plant and LPSP were scheduled either before the PAD had been given to Stakeholders, as it was NMPS, or—as noted in state fisheries testimony at Ludington, the Site Visits are not scheduled to take place until well after Study Requests and Stakeholder Comments are due.

Both of these processes deprived the public and officials the ability to visit, witness, and develop an understanding of the complex impacts of these pumped storage plants before submitting testimony, comments, and informed study requests.

Similarly, both plants have deployed barrier nets as a means of diminishing their fish kills and entrainment/mortality impacts. And, at both sites the fishing is poor and with stocks deteriorating.

The difference on the Connecticut River is that migratory fish here are forced to encounter two entrainment opportunities through FirstLight facilities. The first occurs seven miles downstream, when they are deflected by attraction flows into the Turners Falls Power Canal, with Cabot Station turbines operating on the downstream end.   The small percentage of fish that manage to survive the 2-1/2-mile, 8-day (average) transit to the head of that canal—and the even smaller number that actually exit upstream(1-10%), then get the chance to be culled by NMPS turbines, just five miles further upstream.

In its filing of the Ludington Scoping Meeting documents, GDF-Suez FirstLight seems to be suggesting some link between the large-scale wind power facilities built by LPSP owners Consumers and DTE, and a key, future role for renewables here in sucking the Connecticut River backward and pulling it uphill into the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage reservoir.

That connection is tenuous, at best. Consumers and its partner DTE now own and operate a large-scale wind farm consisting of some 56 turbines. Its deployment required the purchase or easement rights to 16,000 acres of Michigan property, most of it to trench-out underground power lines to reach back to their grid and pumped-storage plant. Their large-scale wind operations are due to the presence of 118 miles of open Lake Michigan at their back, as well as a flat, open, prairie landscape to site giant turbines on.

FirstLight seems to be implying that NMPS will be similarly employed at some future date—its ecosystem impacts ignored because of the huge amount of surplus, cheap, local, renewable energy available to pump a river uphill at night. But solar doesn’t generate at night; and available local hydro here is modest and run-of-river—it would not constitute a “renewable” source to be tapped to pump water uphill. And, wind power opportunities here are spotty, small scale, and generally available on isolated ridge tops.

Clearly the Connecticut River Valley has none of the necessary features that might facilitate the large-scale wind renewables/pumped storage relationship found at LPSP. Nor, has FirstLight proposed plans for any large-scale wind projects in the region. No other entity has either. Cape Wind, whose large scale deployment will be installed miles off the Atlantic shore, is not proposing a pumped storage plant be built above the Truro Cliffs in order for its renewable energy megawatts to be consumed. Here, there just aren’t flatland mega-farm acres available, and only a few ridge tops here have proven suitable for siting isolated turbines.

GDF-Suez Manager John Howard stated at the Dispute Resolution Panel: “We can manage fluctuations in energy schedules with wind, solar, and imports from Canada and New York, primarily. And then the ability to respond very quickly to energy and operating reserve needs of the power system, any time of the day or calendar year.” He states that “We can manage…” But there is nothing backing up the statement. Nothing that proves there is a surplus amount of renewable energy reaching NMPS to state clearly that “We do manage…” or “We will be managing…”   The implication is that NMPS is a necessity here in order to implement renewable energy in the region. Where is the science to back that up? Solar is not around at night. And the region is sub-marginal for large-scale wind, as well as lacking in opportunities for securing thousands of acres of right-of-way here. So, where is the implied connection between these two facilities—beyond fisheries destruction?

Michigan, with its open face to the winds—which do blow at night, apparently ignores the to damage to its Great Lake ecosystem and fish, and tallies the wind-energy driving Lake Michigan waters and uphill to its pumped-storage plant as “renewable.” We don’t have that wind here, and solar power generation is a whole different animal–not in any way the high-octane source needed to push a river uphill at NMPS. FirstLight has built a 2 MW solar installation atop the 11 acres of land it was mandated to construct for silt-settling ponds by the EPA in 2010 after being sanctioned for massive infractions of the federal Clean Water Act by dumping up to 45,000 tons of pumped storage reservoir silt and sludge into the Connecticut River , the company has not included any information on how that solar facility connects to, and interacts with, and powers its pumped storage operations. Unlike large-scale wind, solar does not deliver its energy at night–when NMPS asserts that it will do most of its pumping.

Pumped storage can only be deemed “renewable” energy in a generating environment where ecosystem impacts are not considered. Pumped-storage itself was a net-loss bargain that was ill-considered even back when there was actually surplus nuclear available in the region. Now this taking-of-a-river is mostly accomplished at NMPS by climate-warming, non-renewable fossil fuels. This is a lose-lose situation for renewable energy use–and for an ecosystem.

GDF-Suez FirstLight’s NMPS plant does feature “black-start” capabilities, and does offer FERC and ISO the ability to accomplish load-leveling at certain critical times. However, these attributes must be balanced against long-standing federal and state efforts to complete a forty-seven year old migratory fisheries restoration on the Connecticut, and the public’s long-term need to have a sustainable Connecticut River ecosystem. NMPS operations also need to adhere to federal and state environmental law.

In 1995, Consumers and DTE paid the public $172 million for their past fish kills of the previous decades. Thus far, the public has not been compensated for the on-going taking of fish at NMPS on the Navigable Waters of the United States, nor have citizens in MA, VT, NH and CT been able to reap the benefits of anything near the stated goals of a four-state fisheries restoration program targeting recreation fishing and harvestable seafood.

Studies with measurable results are required for a fair relicensing process. Stated steps in the FERC relicensing process should be followed to allow the public a contextual look at the operations before the need to suggest studies or prepare testimony. To facilitate a fair process, FERC should require context and full disclosure of all submitted documentation on the part of the applicant, as well as phone conference transcripts to allow an understanding of the ongoing dispute procedure.

Placing a net in front of LPSP and NMPS has not stopped the fish kills at either plant. A band-aid should not be applied to a gaping wound. Complete and proper studies of all life stages of fish mortality are needed for NMPS relicensing. Regulatory pumping and generating restrictions that protect the public resources of US citizens are overdue and necessary there. The studies needed to accomplish this should take place before any new license allows this ongoing “take” to continue through 2048.

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.

Stakeholder COMMENTS to FERC on Northfield Up-rate Request

Posted by on 10 Oct 2014 | Tagged as: Connecticut River ecosystem, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, GDF-Suez FirstLight, ISO New England, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project

*The following Stakeholder Comments were submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on October 2, 2014.

Karl Meyer, M.S. Environmental Science
85 School Street # 3
Greenfield, MA, 01301
413-773-0006 October 2, 2014

The Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
88 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426

COMMENTS: on P- 2485-065, GDF-Suez FirstLight Hydro Generating Company’s:
Application for Temporary Amendment of Minimum and Maximum Reservoir
Elevation Requirement.

Dear Secretary Bose,

The Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project is currently undergoing
studies under the 5-year FERC relicensing process in order to continue
plant operations beyond 2018. NMPS was built as a peaking power plant—
making use of the surplus power generated from a cluster of Western New
England nuclear power facilities: Yankee Atomic, Vermont Yankee, and
Haddam Neck. Yankee Atomic and Haddam have long-since ceased operation,
and VY will close on December 29, 2014.

After that date, NMPS is requesting to remain in service as an entirely
different entity: a peaking plant, with no surplus regional nuclear power
to draw on. It will then be relying on coal, oil, gas, and imported
hydro to pump water uphill—a very expensive and inefficient process,
consuming what amounts to baseload energy to create peaking generation.
This will be bought on the open market; then resold to ratepayers at
peaking-market prices. The first question that must be asked is: is it
fair to consumers?

Why should such an open-ended power up-rate be allowed when stakeholders
are deep in the discovery phase of the relicensing process? Studies just
months down the road will help determine the current operational,
commercial and environmental impacts of NMPS.

This open-ended request uses NMPS’s “emergency” capabilities as a veil.
In truth, as ISO-NE well knows, it can—and does, take over NMPS on rare
emergency occasions, paying market rates to GDF-Suez for the plant’s
output. Thus, hiding behind an “emergency” goodwill intention is not a
forthright argument from FirstLight, and should not be accepted rationale
for granting NMPS an open-ended and, unstudied, 20-plus percent power
generation capability increase.

Looked at head-on, this is an attempt to turn a plant into a facility
that would now generate using legacy fuels to supply ratepayers with
peaking-priced, spot-marketed power in a quasi-baseload producer fashion.
If FERC were to allow such an increase for a full one-third of a year, it
would be creating a whole new animal in the energy market—without a
requisite public process.

FirstLight’s argument in its generation and storage capacity increase is
that it will be available for “emergency” situations which might arise in
winter markets. The reality is—request aside, NMPS is and has always
been a station prescribed for emergency use. That has been a chief
selling point since it opened 1972. And, it is still available as such—
without any amendments to its current license. Thus, no changes should
be made to current operational limits, as the plant can be called upon
under unusual-event circumstances by ISO within all currently sanctioned
parameters.

Allowing NMPS to begin generating as a baseload plant
without study or understanding of the full impacts of longer pumping and
generation would be an abrogation of FERC’s public responsibilities.
Under current operating conditions, NMPS creates what amount to erosive
tidal conditions in the Turners Falls Impoundment that exceed the daily
tides experienced at Hyannisport, MA. The requested new pumping and
expanded limits at NMPS during winter months will undoubtedly result in
an increase in erosion and sediment load in the river and at the NMPS
reservoir. Daily increases in freezing and thawing along sensitive
riverbanks dictate that.

In 2010 FirstLight attempted to clear its reservoir of sediment and failed
to accomplish the task. The result was a complete outage lasting seven months,
with NMPS unavailable for any emergency output. Most troubling was that
FL attempted to clear its reservoir and intakes by shoveling the silt and muck
directly into the Connecticut River. The EPA issued a cease and desist order in early
August, and FL was found to be in gross violation of the federal Clean
Water Act for polluting the navigable waters of the United States.

It should also be helpful to know that NMPS has never successfully
discharged the silt from its reservoir in its entire history without
experiencing a partial or full outage in its turbine battery. Given that
history, allowing NMPS to potentially create more siltation in the CT
River at their plant should not be allowed until they have proven it will
not impact emergency operations.

Further, attempts by a previous owner to utilize more of the NMPS
reservoir in the 1980s were turned back by a public process that
shed light on the fact that increased pumping of the Connecticut River
would result in significant impacts to the ecosystem. That request—to use
the Connecticut River as a drinking water source to be shifted up to the
NMPS reservoir and then transferred out of basin tothe Quabbin Reservoir,
was ultimately not implemented. In fact, it resulted in the implementation of
a new law, the Inter-Basin Transfer Act, which would only allow water to be
taken from the river in an emergency situation, after all logical engineering
steps were taken to plug holes and eliminate waste in the Boston water delivery
system.

That should be the situation going forward. NMPS remains in service as
currently licensed—available for use in specifically defined emergency
situations by ISO-NE, until studies are complete.

Lastly, is important to note that GDF-Suez FirstLight made no mention of
the closure of their own 135 megawatt Mt. Tom coal plant in Holyoke this
20141002-5022 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 10/2/2014 8:40:09 AM
fall, when they listed several outlier plant closures as reason for their
request to help as fill -in for a tight winter market. At the very least
that is disingenuous. Some might see it as market manipulation.

Thank you,
Karl Meyer, MS

The Hidden Costs of Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage

Posted by on 01 Sep 2014 | Tagged as: Connecticut River, Connecticut River ecosystem, ecosystem, Entrainment, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FirstLight, GDF-Suez FirstLight, Haddam nuclear plant, Ludington Pumped Storage Plant, MA Division of Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS, Northfield Mountain, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station, resident river fish, US Fish & Wildlife Service, USFWS, Vermont Yankee, Yankee Atomic, Yankee Rowe Nuclear Plant

Copyright © 2014 by Karl Meyer

The hidden costs of Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage: after Vermont Yankee closes, FirstLight wants to ramp up pumping and profits

(a version of this piece first appeared in the Greenfield Recorder, August 23, 2014)

Vermont Yankee, the last of the region’s nuclear plants, will close in December. In response, GDF-Suez FirstLight’s Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage plant is looking to change its stripes. On June 27th it applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a “temporary” license amendment to allow it broad new freedoms to consume unprecedented amounts of the Connecticut River from December 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015. That plan would add an additional 22 feet of pumping capacity to its 5-billion gallon reservoir, sucked directly from the river. More pumping is certain to create more riverbank erosion and draw more silt into that reservoir. It will also kill untold thousands of the public’s resident river fish.

The unprecedented request defies logic. Northfield was built specifically to use energy from local nuclear plants to push water up to its reservoir. In its request FirstLight also cited the closing of the 330 megawatt Salem Harbor coal plant as rationale for why it should be allowed to pump more, and grow larger. FirstLight Hydro Compliance Director John Howard stated, “The requested increase in operational flexibility is needed to provide ISO-New England with additional resources to deal with a potential shortage of energy in the Northeast this winter.” However Andrea Donlon of the Connecticut River Watershed Council found that ISO-New England, the grid’s Independent System Operator, had made no requests concerning Northfield, stating it expected to have adequate energy supply this winter.

FirstLight’s application failed to mention is that it is shutting down its own 135 megawatt Mt. Tom Coal Plant this October. Rather than the “peaking energy” and “emergency resource” plant it’s been since coming on-line in 1972, Northfield seems to be implying it will somehow serve as a replacement for those 24/7 “baseload” energy plants. The other logic-defying reality is that it would be consuming more baseload energy to create more brief pulses of high-priced energy to re-sell to us at “spot” market prices.

Northfield was fashioned during the nuclear build-out in the late 1960s to use the excess power generated at night from nuclear plants in Rowe, Vernon, VT and Haddam, CT to gulp giant slugs of the Connecticut up to its reservoir. When demand “peaked” during mornings or late afternoons it would release that stored nuclear energy—our river, back to its bed through massive turbines. It could produce some 1,000 megawatts in just minutes, great for short-term needs and emergencies. But it could only store enough water to produce 6-8 hours of electricity, total. Depleted, it then waited to re-start the process.

In her book “Inventing Niagara” Ginger Strand described the inefficiencies and rationale behind selling pumped storage electricity to the public as a textbook case of corporate capitalism: buy low, sell high. Northfield has never been a renewable hydro source. It is inefficient and operates at a net-energy loss. While its impacts on the river ecosystem are profound, its brief, staggering pulses of violent, high-volume output are no more efficient than that of legacy electric producers, just more short-term profitable.

Northfield only makes sense while it operates as a designated nuclear adjunct, run on the excesses of the region’s short-lived and now-shuttered nuclear fleet. But now it wants to soldier on, utilizing imported power and climate-changing resources. Meanwhile the river pays an as-yet unstudied price–as the public is asked to accept yet more “peak” energy, repackaged and re-sold at “peak” prices culled from bidding boards on the “spot” market.

FirstLight’s FERC request sparked official replies from entities involved in the current 5-year relicensing of Northfield. The National Marine Fisheries Service’s William McDavitt noted to John Howard “the timing of this temporary amendment application is a bit unfortunate as the proposed change could bear some impact on proposed 3.1.2 Northfield Mountain/Turners Falls Operations Impact on Existing Erosion and Potential Bank Instability. Were the proposed changes to go into effect, it seems as though the duration that NMPS pumps or generates could be changed.”

MA Fish and Wildlife made no objections to the up-rate, but the Watershed Council noted that fish kills there–known as “entrainment”, are worrisome, “Currently the entrainment impact of the NMPS facility during the winter is not well understood, which the pending appeal by USFWS regarding the sufficiency of FirstLight’s proposed entrainment study well illustrates,” further noting, “So until such time as we have a much better understanding of the entrainment impacts of NMPS, it seems inappropriate to request additional pumping capacity.”

In 1995 the owners of the Ludington(MI) Pumped Storage Plant agreed to a $172 million dollar settlement for its killing of the public’s fish across the previous two decades. There, according to the Ludington Daily News, they at least had the benefit of a one-time study showing LPSP “in a single year, killed 440,000 salmon and trout, 85,000 perch and millions of forage fish that served as food for valuable game.”

Since 1972 it’s been a free ride up at Northfield.

Karl Meyer is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Kynard,Part II: Fisheries restoration, or a new half-century of death in the TF Power Canal?

Posted by on 06 Aug 2014 | Tagged as: American shad, By Pass Reach, Cabot Station, Connecticut River, Connecticut River ecosystem, Dead Reach, Dr. Boyd Kynard, ecosystem, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federal trust fish, FERC license, FirstLight, GDF-Suez FirstLight, MA Division of Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service, New Hampshire, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station, shad, Turners Falls dam, Turners Falls power canal, US Fish & Wildlife Service, US Geological Service’s Silvio O. Conte Anadromous Fish Lab, USFWS, Vermont

Tune in to Local Bias on Greenfield Community Television, GCTV.org, for Part II of a wide ranging interview with fisheries biologist and US Fish & Wildlife Service Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center founder Dr. Boyd Kynard. He gives direct answers to questions about the fate of the millions of American shad that have been tricked out of the Connecticut River into the deadly and alien habitats of the private Turners Falls Power Canal for the last 35 years.

Dr. Boyd Kynard Part II; a Deadly Canal or a River Migration Solution?

http://mfi.re/watch/pdx5yqvqv7ygzdk/Local_Bias_147.mpg

The current Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Re-licensing process for FirstLight Power’s Turners Fall/Cabot Station and Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Stations represents the last chance the Connecticut River gets to recover some of its biodiversity, fecundity and ecosystem functions for many decades to come. A second failure by the public agencies charged with protecting the public’s fisheries resources and endangered species will likely close off–forever, the last, best chance to restore New England’s Great River.

Will the federal and state agencies responsible for protecting and guiding the migratory fisheries restoration since 1967 (USFWS, National Marine Fisheries Service, VT, NH, and MA Division of Fish & Wildlife), again steer migratory fish headed upstream to northern MA, VT and NH spawning habitats into a private “roach motel” of deadly hydro blades and muck? Or, will they bring them directly upstream to a fish elevator at the Turners Falls and redeem decades of failure? Get the low-down, and hear about viable alternatives in this half-hour interview.

Tune in to Local Bias this Thursday, August 7 at 9 pm, or on Saturday, August 9th, at 9 pm. The shows repeat at those scheduled times the following week.

New Stakeholder Comments submitted to FERC, re: Shad Spawning Habitat Studies and Fish Assemblage Assessment

Posted by on 19 Jun 2014 | Tagged as: American shad, By Pass Reach, Cabot Station, Connecticut River ecosystem, Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon, federally-endangered shortnose sturgeon, FERC license, FirstLight, GDF-Suez FirstLight, National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS, shad, Station 1

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.

New Stakeholder Comments filed with FERC re: Northfield Mountain

Posted by on 21 May 2014 | Tagged as: American shad, Bellows Falls, Connecticut River, Connecticut River ecosystem, ecosystem, Endangered Species Act, EPA, ESA, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federal trust fish, GDF-Suez FirstLight, Ludington Pumped Storage Plant, New Hampshire, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station, shad larvae, Turners Falls power canal, US Fish & Wildlife Service, USFWS, Vermont

The following Stakeholder Comments were filed today, 5/21/2014, with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission respecting Connecticut River fish mortality investigations at Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage station (NMPS)

Karl Meyer, M.S., Environmental Science

85 School Street, # 3

Greenfield, MA  01301

 

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-2680-108: relevance of FirstLight Hydro Generating Company’s document submission issued by FERC as “Conference/Meeting Transcript issued in FERC P-2485-063, et al” on May 9, 2014 for Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage project (NMPS).  The inclusion of “Transcript of the April 17, 2014 FERC Scoping Meeting held in Pentwater, Michigan re Consumers Energy Company’s et al Ludington Pumped Storage Project under P-2680-108” offers an incomplete, unsubstantiated and confusing picture of its applicable connection to the relicensing of NMPS on the main stem of a four-state river system in Massachusetts.

Dear Secretary Bose,

Please consider the following comments respecting the relevance of FirstLight Hydro Generating Company’s recent document filing as it seeks a new license for the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage station.  I testified as a Stakeholder in the NMPS Study Dispute Panel Technical Conference along with officials from the USFWS and Trout UnLimited on Tuesday, April 8, 2014.  The Dispute Panel was convened out of concerns that no study of the entrainment of eggs and larvae of migratory American shad was being required as part of a relicensing bid from GDF-Suez FirstLight Power for NMPS.  I find no clear context provided by FirstLight for the inclusion of a transcript for the April 17, 2014 FERC Scoping Meeting for the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant–a lakeside Michigan-based facility, as part of the NMPS relicensing proceedings. 

NMPS’s pumping/generating impacts are known to reach downstream to Holyoke Dam at river-mile 86 and affect spawning-run migratory fish that utilize Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont habitats upstream to Bellows Falls Dam at river-mile 172.  It is critical to the relicensing of any pumped storage generation on this four-state river to have robust studies with measurable outcomes to protect the public’s interest in a balanced and functioning Connecticut River ecosystem. 

NMPS impacts migrating and spawning anadromous fish in a four-state ecosystem that has been the focus of a federal fisheries restoration program begun in 1967, “to provide the public with high quality sport fishing opportunities in a highly urbanized area, as well as provide for the long term needs of the population for seafood.”  NMPS, completed in 1972, has been shown to have direct impacts on migratory fish entrainment and fish passage from northern Massachusetts to central Vermont and New Hampshire.

The US Fish & Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and fisheries directors in MA, NH, VT, and CT are all charged with protecting these resources for the public.  Federal and state laws, licenses and statutes governing these mandated protections include the federal Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and federal-trust fish protections beginning with the Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965.  FERC authority also mandates licensee compliance and protections for the public’s fisheries resources and restoration projects.  FERC itself is mandated to comply with federal environmental law. 

The Ludington Pumped Storage Plant is a FERC licensed facility sited and operating within a single state on a lakeshore well over 100 miles from it closest bordering state—and situated with 118 miles of open water at its back.  Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage, situated adjacent to the Connecticut River, operates on the Navigable Waters of the United States in Massachusetts just 10 miles from where the Connecticut River passes out of Vermont and New Hampshire.  NMPS pumps and generates from a narrow ribbon of river that is less than 1,000 feet wide—during warm seasons can draws more water than the river’s natural output. 

In short, these are two very different animals, operating in very different habitats. 

However, there are similarities in the long-term environmental impacts of these far-flung pumped storage facilities.  They both kill large quantities of the public’s fish.  Unfortunately, those impacts were not cited or included in FirstLight’s submission to FERC in either Dispute Resolution Panel documents or its license application documents.  In 1995 the owners of the Ludinton Plant agreed to a $172 million dollar settlement for its killing o fish during the previous two decades.  The public there at least had the minor benefit of one-time study that showed LPSP “in a single year, killed 440,000 salmon and trout, 85,000 perch and millions of forage fish that served as food for valuable game.” 

Unfortunately, to date, we have no such data from a study of NMPS, nor any compensation for the long-term damage to a public resource and a long-term fisheries restoration project.  In Michigan, a US-based entity was required to pay restitution and undertake remedial action.  Here at NMPS the plant operator is a transnational corporation, based outside the United States, that is “taking” an unknown quantity of a public resource without compensation or required analysis.  If a US Citizen were to do this they would be subject to legal action.  

 

Please see below: Ludington Daily News, August 13, 1987: “Federal agency rules on fish kill, Ludington hydro plant must comply within 60-90 days.” 

The Ludington plant had begun operations in 1973, and had been the subject of legal proceedings from that time forward.  The State of Michigan had filed a suit in Ingham County Circuit Court seeking more than $147 million in damages, and the National Wildlife Federation had won a federal court order that Consumers needed a pollution discharge permit for the plant. 

In summary here are several excerpts from that article defining the impacts at that time including references to a single study that found the plant killed millions of native fish in a single year, species that are today disappearing, or have essentially disappeared, in Lake Michigan waters: 

 “Environmentalists and state officials Wednesday hailed a federal ruling designed to end the fish kills at the Ludington Pumped Storage Facility operated by Consumers Power Co.”  (Co-owned with Detroit Edison Co.) 

“Finally, after 14 years of negotiations and litigation, and the destruction of millions of Lake Michigan sports fish, we’re going to see an end to this needless waste of an important resource,” said Thomas Washington, executive director of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs. 

“The MUCC, National Wildlife Federation and Department of Natural Resources have negotiated fruitlessly for years with Consumers Power to stop the fish kills.”

“The plant, in operation since 1973, pumps Lake Michigan water uphill into a reservoir, and generates electricity during times of high demand by letting it flow back to Lake Michigan through generators.  In the pumping process, it kills millions of fish.” 

“The MUCC said that a study commissioned by Consumers Power showed the plant, in a single year, killed 440,000 salmon and trout, 85,000 perch and millions of forage fish that served as food for valuable game.” 

However, it took another eight years of environmental damage and drawn-out court proceedings before a settlement—totaling $172 million, was finally reached in 1995.  See: Ludington Daily News, March 7, 1995: “Local groups urged to begin working on projects for fish kill settlement plan.” 

“While 12 to 18 months more may pass before the settlement, valued at $172 million, becomes final state officials urged local groups not to wait to prepare proposals for enhancing local fishing.” 

“Many audience questions fielded by the five-person panel concerned the perception the settlement doesn’t do much for Ludington area fishing specifically—the fishing most affected by the fish kill at the plant.” 

It was only after 1995 that some of the large-scale impacts of Ludington Pumped Storage Plant began to be addressed.  Ultimately, a FERC-sanctioned 2-1/2 mile long (12,850 ft) barrier net was deployed across hundreds and hundreds of acres of riverbed and bank. 

Sadly, it seems that net did not mitigate or resolve the loss of local fisheries in the Ludington region.  Its deployment was either ineffective or far too late for a regionally- and culturally-important sustained harvest of local- sourced and eaten native yellow perch and lake trout.  Those perch have now essentially disappeared in the Ludington-Manistee region—which is noted in Stakeholder Testimony supplied for the Ludington Scoping Meeting on April 17, 2014 where Mr. Richard Underwood testified that past Michigan DNR creel surveys had found: “close to a quarter million perch” in Ludington habitats.  “In the last few years, four years, we have had a total of zero count of perch in Ludington, and that’s how it has affected.” 

The giant Ludington barrier net appears to be one key player in the puzzle of the missing perch. It appears to act as a fish trap.  According to Mr. Underwood that net, along with an artificial reef constructed nearby, attracts a giant collection of cormorants that feed on the fish trapped within the confines of the net, “There were so many birds on the reef and inside the barrier net you couldn’t count them.  I estimated there were 3,500.”  

Ironically too, in recent years, federal hatcheries in the Connecticut River basin have been producing lake trout to supplement the now-crippled and dwindling native population of lake trout on Lake Michigan. 

Another similarity in these two relicensing proceedings is that FERC’s Scoping Site Visits at both the NMPS plant and LPSP were scheduled either before the PAD had been given to Stakeholders, as it was NMPS, or—as noted in state fisheries testimony at Ludington, the Site Visits are not scheduled to take place until well after Study Requests and Stakeholder Comments are due. 

Both of these processes deprived the public and officials the ability to visit, witness, and develop an understanding of the complex impacts of these pumped storage plants before submitting testimony, comments, and informed study requests. 

Similarly, both plants have deployed barrier nets as a means of diminishing their fish kills and entrainment/mortality impacts.  And, at both sites the fishing is poor and with stocks deteriorating. 

The difference on the Connecticut River is that migratory fish here are forced to encounter two entrainment opportunities through FirstLight facilities.  The first occurs seven miles downstream, when they are deflected by attraction flows into the Turners Falls Power Canal, with Cabot Station turbines operating on the downstream end.   The small percentage of fish that manage to survive the 2-1/2-mile, 8-day (average) transit to the head of that canal—and the even smaller number that actually exit upstream(1-10%), then get the chance to be culled by NMPS turbines, just five miles further upstream.        

In its filing of the Ludington Scoping Meeting documents, GDF-Suez FirstLight seems to be suggesting some link between the large-scale wind power facilities built by LPSP owners Consumers and DTE, and a key, future role for renewables here in sucking the Connecticut River backward and pulling it uphill into the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage reservoir. 

That connection is tenuous, at best.  Consumers and its partner DTE now own and operate a large-scale wind farm consisting of some 56 turbines.  Its deployment required the purchase or easement rights to 16,000 acres of Michigan property, most of it to trench-out underground power lines to reach back to their grid and pumped-storage plant.  Their large-scale wind operations are due to the presence of 118 miles of open Lake Michigan at their back, as well as a flat, open, prairie landscape to site giant turbines on. 

FirstLight seems to be implying that NMPS will be similarly employed at some future date—its ecosystem impacts ignored because of the huge amount of surplus, cheap, local, renewable energy available to pump a river uphill at night.  But solar doesn’t generate at night; and available local hydro here is modest and run-of-river—it would not constitute a “renewable” source to be tapped to pump water uphill.  And, wind power opportunities here are spotty, small scale, and generally available on isolated ridge tops. 

Clearly the Connecticut River Valley has none of the necessary features that might facilitate the large-scale wind renewables/pumped storage relationship found at LPSP.  Nor, has FirstLight proposed plans for any large-scale wind projects in the region.  No other entity has either.  Cape Wind, whose large scale deployment will be installed miles off the Atlantic shore, is not proposing a pumped storage plant be built above the Truro Cliffs in order for its renewable energy megawatts to be consumed.  Here, there just aren’t flatland mega-farm acres available, and only a few ridge tops here have proven suitable for siting isolated turbines.

GDF-Suez Manager John Howard stated at the Dispute Resolution Panel: “We can manage fluctuations in energy schedules with wind, solar, and imports from Canada and New York, primarily.  And then the ability to respond very quickly to energy and operating reserve needs of the power system, any time of the day or calendar year.”  He states that “We can manage…”  But there is nothing backing up the statement.  Nothing that proves there is a surplus amount of renewable energy reaching NMPS to state clearly that “We do manage…” or “We will be managing…”   The implication is that NMPS is a necessity here in order to implement renewable energy in the region.  Where is the science to back that up?  Solar is not around at night.  And the region is sub-marginal for large-scale wind, as well as lacking in opportunities for securing thousands of acres of right-of-way here. So, where is the implied connection between these two facilities—beyond fisheries destruction? 

Michigan, with its open face to the winds—which do blow at night, apparently ignores the to damage to its Great Lake ecosystem and fish, and tallies the wind-energy driving Lake Michigan waters and uphill to its pumped-storage plant as “renewable.”  We don’t have that wind here, and solar power generation is a whole different animal–not in any way the high-octane source needed to push a river uphill at NMPS.  FirstLight has built a 2 MW solar installation atop the 11 acres of land it was mandated to construct for silt-settling ponds by the EPA in 2010 after being sanctioned for massive infractions of the federal Clean Water Act by dumping up to 45,000 tons of pumped storage reservoir silt and sludge into the Connecticut River , the company has not included any information on how that solar facility connects to, and interacts with, and powers its pumped storage operations.  Unlike large-scale wind, solar does not deliver its energy at night–when NMPS asserts that it will do most of its pumping.

Pumped storage can only be deemed “renewable” energy in a generating environment where ecosystem impacts are not considered.  Pumped-storage itself was a net-loss bargain that was ill-considered even back when there was actually surplus nuclear available in the region.  Now this taking-of-a-river is mostly accomplished at NMPS by climate-warming, non-renewable fossil fuels.  This is a lose-lose situation for renewable energy use–and for an ecosystem. 

GDF-Suez FirstLight’s NMPS plant does feature “black-start” capabilities, and does offer FERC and ISO the ability to accomplish load-leveling at certain critical times.  However, these attributes must be balanced against long-standing federal and state efforts to complete a forty-seven year old migratory fisheries restoration on the Connecticut, and the public’s long-term need to have a sustainable Connecticut River ecosystem.  NMPS operations also need to adhere to federal and state environmental law.

In 1995, Consumers and DTE paid the public $172 million for their past fish kills of the previous decades.  Thus far, the public has not been compensated for the on-going taking of fish at NMPS on the Navigable Waters of the United States, nor have citizens in MA, VT, NH and CT been able to reap the benefits of anything near the stated goals of a four-state fisheries restoration program targeting recreation fishing and harvestable seafood. 

Studies with measurable results are required for a fair relicensing process.  Stated steps in the FERC relicensing process should be followed to allow the public a contextual look at the operations before the need to suggest studies or prepare testimony.  To facilitate a fair process, FERC should require context and full disclosure of all submitted documentation on the part of the applicant, as well as phone conference transcripts to allow an understanding of the ongoing dispute procedure. 

Placing a net in front of LPSP and NMPS has not stopped the fish kills at either plant.  A band-aid should not be applied to a gaping wound.  Complete and proper studies of all life stages of fish mortality are needed for NMPS relicensing.  Regulatory pumping and generating restrictions that protect the public resources of US citizens are overdue and necessary there.  The studies needed to accomplish this should take place before any new license allows this ongoing “take” to continue through 2048.     

                                                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.

The curious nucelar history of Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station

Posted by on 08 May 2014 | Tagged as: American shad, Connecticut River, Connecticut River ecosystem, Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon, ecosystem, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federal trust fish, federally-endangered shortnose sturgeon, FERC license, FirstLight, GDF-Suez FirstLight, Haddam nuclear plant, Millstone 1, Montague Nuclear Station, Northfield Mountain, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station, right-to-know, shad, shad larvae, US Fish & Wildlife Service, USFWS, Vermont Yankee, Yankee Atomic

Copyright © 2014, by Karl Meyer

The curious nuclear history of Northfield Mountain’s pumped storage plant

(The following piece first appeared on April 30, 2014 in The Recorder in Greenfield, MA, under: Follow the power currents; How the pumping station once fit)

GDF-Suez FirstLight has applied for a new 30-year license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for its Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage plant on the Connecticut.  In this 5-year relicensing process US Fish & Wildlife Service has requested a study to protect a public resource: they want to know the mortality impacts NMPS has on eggs and larvae of migratory American shad.  But FirstLight wants FERC to substitute data from a 22 year-old Northfield study–their counsel has argued that eggs and larvae aren’t technically migratory, and thus have no right to protection at NMPS. 

Pumped storage is a most inefficient form of generating “hydro” electricity, and NMPS is not what it once was.  When proposed, Northfield was to be a nuclear-charged plant designed to gulp-up massive amounts of the Connecticut River, pushing it uphill to a reservoir carved into a mountain.  This would be done purchasing cheap, otherwise-wasted, night-generated nuclear energy from a fleet of soon-to-be-built local plants–which don’t switch off at night.

Once the net-loss task of pushing water uphill was accomplished via nuclear megawatts and reversing turbines, they’d send that water charging downhill to generate large pulses of energy during peak-use times.  Profits would come from reselling that energy back into the electric grid when demand and prices were highest, with consumers picking up the tab. 

But a river system also bore the hidden costs of NMPS and now USFWS wants to know what they are. FirstLight today doesn’t dispute NMPS kills all adult and juvenile shad drawn into its plant.  But that’s just one species.  FERC itself is mandated to protect federal trust fish, and the public is entitled to information on NMPS’s impacts.  Researchers report it sometimes draws so much river water that boats 5 miles downstream are pulled backward.    

Because of the limits of physics NMPS can only operate for 6 – 8 hours.  Then, water-depleted and power-less—it must again purchase new outside electricity to pump water uphill.  It was new technology when NMPS was proposed–technically “hydro” electricity, but not in the way people commonly understood it. 

During mid-1960s Federal Power Commission hearings, questions arose about the proposed NMPS plant’s impacts on the ecosystem.  One option, never implemented, was that it would cease operating during migration season to avoid slicing up the public’s fish in accordance with goals of the federal Anadromous Fish Conservation Act of 1965.

Back then just one local nuclear plant was operating, Yankee Atomic, 20 miles away in Rowe, MA.  But big, local, nuclear build-out plans were in the offing—the lion’s share of which would come to be owned by Northeast Utilities.  Fifteen miles upstream Vermont Yankee was under construction.  It opened in 1972 in lock-step with the completion of Northfield.  As VY and NMPS began tandem, nuclear-powered operation, plans were already underway for NU to build two reactors at a new Montague Nuclear Station, five miles from Northfield.

By fall of 1973 a 500 foot tower loomed over the Montague Plains, testing humidity, temperature, and prevailing winds in preparation for construction.  That tower was toppled in an act of civil disobedience by Sam Lovejoy the following February, helping bolster opposition to the plants.  But NU rebuilt the tower and collected the mandated data by 1975.  By then however, the playing field was changing.

Environmental questions were raised about the effects of Montague Nuclear Station’s drawing huge amounts of river water and dumping heated effluent back into the Connecticut on the federally-endangered Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon.  Questions also arose about the cumulative effects of entraining various life stages of American shad into the intake systems of two Montague plants and NMPS. 

Meanwhile, NU moved ahead on planned nuclear plants for the heavily-populated I-95 Providence-/New Haven corridor–some 100 and 125 miles distant from Northfield.  Four got built, but just two operate today. Their Haddam nuclear plant on our river was shut permanently in 1996 for safety and equipment failures.  So too in 1998 was Millstone Unit I in Waterford, CT.  In 1999 NU to accepted the largest nuclear fine to that time–$10 million for operational failures at those plants. 

Opposition, environmental impacts, soaring costs, and a partial meltdown at Three Mile Island saw NU abandon Montague Station in 1980.  Thus the Connecticut River basin doesn’t today host a forth, de-facto, nuclear waste dump.  Rowe’s Yankee Atomic closed in 1992—it’s now repository to hundreds of tons of spent nuclear fuel.  Vermont Yankee will close in December.  Entergy Nuclear has yet to fully endow their mandated decommissioning fund. 

Local nuclear power to push a river up Northfield Mountain is today nearly nonexistent.  The net-loss “hydro” generating process now taking place there essentially derives from a non-renewable, climate-warming mix of oil, coal and natural gas, plus some nuclear and even pulses of conventional hydropower purchased from as far away as Quebec. Beyond the yet-to-be-examined costs to the public’s ecosystem and fish, consumers are paying dearly for Northfield’s twice-sold electricity.  A fair relicensing process requires robust public information on the lethal aspects of Northfield’s operations.  FERC will decide the issue by early May.

Greenfield writer and journalist Karl Meyer has contributed written and oral testimony in the FERC relicensing process for the Northfield Mountain and Turners Falls power stations.

New Stakeholder Comments filed with FERC

Posted by on 31 Mar 2014 | Tagged as: American shad, Connecticut River ecosystem, EPA, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FirstLight, Northfield Mountain, US Fish & Wildlife Service, USFWS

The following Public Stakeholder Comments were filed today with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and Dispute Resolution Proceedings concerning Relicensing Studies to be conducted at the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station.

Karl Meyer, M.S., Environmental Science

85 School Street, # 3

Greenfield, MA  01301                                                                        March 31, 2014

Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

88 First Street, N.E.

Washington, DC  20426

Stakeholder Comments for: FERC Project No. 2485-063, the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project; and FERC Project No. 1889-081, the Turners Falls Hydroelectric Project.

 RE: US. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Notice of Study Dispute, filed March 13, 2014; and FirstLight’s response filed March 28, 2014, as Information Relevant to the US Fish & Wildlife Service Notice of Study Dispute.

Dear Secretary Bose,

Please consider the following comments concerning the necessity of robust study information being required of the license applicant in order for the US Fish and Wildlife Service and stakeholders to be fairly represented in this process.  The requested full Study on impingement and entrainment and data arising from examination of Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station’s operational effects on all life stages of American shad is new information that will also assist FERC in fully considering public resources and the public’s interest in a balanced and functioning Connecticut River ecosystem.

On March 13, 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) filed a Notice of Study Dispute with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) stating that the Study Plan Determination issued by Commission staff would not elicit adequate information specific to “the effects of Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project (NMPS) on certain migratory fish species.”  FirstLight argued that information from a 1992 entrainment study would be sufficient to stand-in for current relicensing information.

The USFWS’s information request was made to fulfill responsibilities in determining the impact of NMPS pumping operations on American shad mortality, from eggs and early-life stages, to juvenile and adult fish.  USFWS noted that a “failure to provide this information will compromise the Commission’s ability to establish license conditions and the Service’s ability to set mandatory conditions under Section 18 of the Federal Power Act (FPA).”

The USFWS further stated:

“A new study of NMPS is needed because operations have changed since the last study was conducted and FirstLight is considering additional changes to project operation that could increase the potential for entrainment at NMPS. With anticipated improvements to fish passage facilities as part of the relicensing process for the Turners Falls Project, those numbers could increase into the hundreds of thousands.”

Under Goals and Objectives USFWS stated: “The goal of the Service’s original study request (Appendix A) was to determine the impact of NMPS pumping cycle on entrainment of American shad (including early life stages.)”

Pursuant to a March 26, 2014 teleconference between USFWS, FirstLight, and Commission staff, FirstLight formally responded on March 28, 2014, by supplying a portion of six years of seasonal pumping information from NMPS.  FirstLight submitted it as being representative of an overall decrease in plant pumping operations since the original 1992 mortality/entrainment study.  FirstLight supplied monthly and daily pumping data for the bracketed years of 1991 – 1993; and then again for 2011 – 2013.  In its filing FirstLight stated that, aside from the 1992 study-year data included, the other five years “were arbitrarily selected.”

A preponderance of accepted data shows NMPS operations impacting reaches of river at least as far downstream as Holyoke Dam, 36 miles distant, as well as throughout the Turners Falls Impoundment nearly to Vernon Dam, 20 miles upstream. In the months of June and July NMPS’s unrestricted pumping output of up to 15,000 CFS actually outstrips the Connecticut’s natural flow volume. Studies confirm that entrainment of eggs, juveniles, and adult fish have significant impacts on ensuing year-class strength.  They can impact whole-river populations.

Given this understanding, the “arbitrary” pumping years FirstLight has submitted to support limiting the scope of this study appear selective, rather than “arbitrary.” They coincide exactly with the all-time peak years of fish migration on the Connecticut during the early 1990s, and again, with the only shallow bit of improvement for shad migrating into the Turners Falls Impoundment since deregulation in 2000–the years 2011, 2012, and 2013, leading directly into a relicensing application. It should be noted that “arbitrary” is not synonymous with “random.”  Random is an accepted scientific parameter.

It is noteworthy that FirstLight selected as its first grouping the years 1991 – 1993 for pumping information.  Those years selected can be characterized as skewed, rather than arbitrary or random, in that two of them represent the highest years of fish passage ever recorded (1991, 1992) through Turner Falls Gatehouse.  These were record years along the entire river. However, the slight fall-off starting in 1993, began the first extended period where shad returns along the Connecticut River began a steady downward spiral.

The other data set FirstLight offers as “arbitrary” are from the years 2011 – 2013.  What is interesting about this “arbitrary” FirstLight data is that it excludes the entire decade–beginning in 2000, when NMPS began operating as a deregulated entity. Then, as today, NMPS could draw, and release—unrestricted, up to 15,000 CFS into the TF Pool, according to market prices and demand.  What is powerfully obvious about the years not included in their study data is that 2000 – 2009 represent the worst decade of fish passage at Turners Falls Gatehouse ever, with passage counts dropping to 1% or less some years. Some might describe this as cherry picking data.  They arbitrarily picked the only two minor peaks of any note across a very dismal quarter-century of poor upstream shad recruitment.

Good science requires, at minimum, randomly selected figures when data samples are too large. That is not the case here.  We are only considering 25 years of data, and only three months from each year.  A complete data set should be provided—especially when it is small, as in the present case.  Given such a brief span of time, and considering that a FERC license may be in place for 30 or 40 years—data from years 1991 to 2013 should be presented to better understand entrainment, mortality and recruitment of all life stages.

Significantly, as history, in 2010, FirstLight entrained its own turbines at NMPS plant while attempting to clear silt from its upper reservoir. NMPS operations came to an abrupt halt; the US EPA sanctioned them for “polluting the navigable waters of the United States,” and no pumping occurred at NMPS from May 1st, until November.

Fish passage at TF Gatehouse in 2010 saw a 400-500% increase over averages for the previous decade that year NMPS remained inoperable.  However significant that increase was, it merely represented a return to disappointing fish passage and recruitment levels regularly reached there in the 1980s.  The following year, Holyoke Dam saw a 30% increase in fish passage, yet no corresponding increase in shad passage was tallied at TF Gatehouse in 2011. 

However Gatehouse fish passage did continue–across the “arbitrary” 3-year data set FirstLight submitted for 2011 – 2013, to show a level of fish passage comparable to the returns achieved in the mid-1980s.  By not including pumping files from 2000 – 2009, FirstLight offers just three years of data during which improved fish passage numbers could be shown—but only if passage and recruitment targets are scaled back to the disappointing results of the 1980s.

As “arbitrary” as those selected years of data may be, they only give a snapshot of three “good” years of fish movements and recruitment above Gatehouse toward Northfield and VT/NH habitats. Certainly it’s possible that pumping operations get skewed over some years for various reasons.  But three years of data–just prior to a relicensing bid, is no substitute for the full set of pumping files.  Pumping data beginning from the year of deregulation—2000, to the present, will shed light on the impacts of pumping on entrainment and recruitment across the time frame necessary to help make decisions on issuing a decades-long license.

Ample decision-making studies and data—beyond just the most recent years FirstLight wants to supply, is what are called for in this instance.  The remaining pumping data, monthly, daily, along with standard deviations for the years 2000 – 2009, should be supplied in order to protect public resources.

Stakeholders should have an understanding of the plant’s potential pumping impacts and a fuller knowledge of the spectrum of its operating regimes since becoming a deregulated entity across three different owners—as there is no guarantee of single, long-term ownership over the term of license.

It is also critical to note that an overall “decrease” in pumping across selective years is just a single factor and may not be as significant to various life-stages of fish survival as the actual days, dates, and times when pumping and entrainment is occurring.  This is why the full USFWS entrainment study and a full report of pumping operations are necessary.  This is information that is sorely lacking.

Under Existing Information the USFWS states: “In its original study request, the Service noted that, while a number of studies had been conducted over the years, only one study attempted to quantify the number of shad entrained at NMPS.”

USFWS further stated that information from a single study conducted in 1992 would be insufficient for determining new protective licensing requirements: “The ichthyoplankton sampling requested by the Service would follow the methodology used in the 1992 study.”  USFWS further argues: “Existing information is not sufficient to use in the relicensing proceedings because operations have changed since the last study was conducted and FirstLight is considering additional changes to project operation as part of relicensing and that could increase the potential for entrainment at NMPS.”

Nexus to project operation and Effects: “Both the previous licensee (Northeast Utilities Service Company) and FirstLight assume that all fish entrained are lost to the Connecticut River system (i.e., 100% mortality). Without quantification of entrainment of all life stages of American shad, it is not possible to determine what the overall impact of that entrainment is on the shad population. This information relates both directly and indirectly to the Service’s statutory responsibilities under Section 18 of the FPA;”

Cost: The US Fish and Wildlife Service notes that a suitable entrainment study that includes early life stages can be conducted at NMPS for well under $50,000.  This is a modest expense to attain critical information that is not available elsewhere.  Not gathering such information would amount to a failure of due diligence in the current relicensing.  A single, 22 year old study is inadequate science on which to base conditions for a license that could impact the Connecticut River ecosystem until 2048—at which time the last data collected will be 60 years old.

I urge you to require the full study of NMPS entrainment on all life stages American shad. The information gathered will enrich and inform decision-making gathered from related shad studies occurring under relicensing, including 3.3.2; 3.3.3; 3.3.6; and 3.3.7. Further, please require that the full spectrum of May, June, and July, pumping files for the years 1991 – present, be released as information critical to making decisions on NMPS’s long-term impact on the entire Connecticut River ecosystem.

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.

Cc: John Nagle, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS Designee: Dispute Resolution Panel

Endangered fish beer? YES: Shortnose Stout!

Posted by on 13 Mar 2014 | Tagged as: Connecticut River, Connecticut River ecosystem, Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon, federally-endangered shortnose sturgeon, Shortnose Stout

Endangered fish beer??  YES: Try a Shortnose Stout! 

Come to the debut celebration of this brew and the endangered fish it honors! 

On Sunday, March 16th, at 4 pm, The People’s Pint of Greenfield, MA introduces Shortnose Stout, a traditional, locally-fermented Irish brew created to honor the biological legacy and highlight the eroded river conditions that keep the ancient, federally-endangered Connecticut River Shortnose Sturgeon tottering on the brink of extinction. 

Join Dr. Boyd Kynard, author, professor, and shortnose sturgeon expert, along with myself, People’s Pint Brewer Chris Sellers, Pint Owner Alden Booth, and Manager Tina Bodensteiner, to celebrate the beer, the fish, and sample the new brew.  Have some fun on St. Pat’s Eve, and get your questions answered about beer-brewing–and the issues facing the Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon. 

The opening is casual, and begins at The Pint at 4 pm, at 24 Federal Street in Greenfield, MA.  Shortnose Stout will be available in bottles at various outlets from Cambridge to the Berkshires. 

For more information on the endangered Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon and Dr. Kynard’s book defining the 17 years of state and federal research his team conducted on this species, refer to the highlighted buttons on shortnose sturgeon at:  www.bk-riverfish.com  

DUE DILIGENCE: looking beneath the surface

Posted by on 27 Dec 2013 | Tagged as: American shad, Bellows Falls, Connecticut River, Connecticut River ecosystem, Daily Hampshire Gazette, ecosystem, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federally-endangered shortnose sturgeon, FERC license, FirstLight, hydraulic study, shad, The Greenfield Recorder, Turners Falls power canal, USFWS

Copyright © 2013, by Karl Meyer

NOTE: the following piece appeared recently in Daily Hampshire Gazette, www.gazettenet.com; The Recorder, www.recorder.com; the Montague Reporter, and the Shelburne Falls and West County Independent.

                    DUE DILIGENCE: looking beneath the surface

New England’s Great River is at a critical juncture in the closing days of 2013.  An ecosystem door was slammed shut at Turners Falls 215 years ago when private investors built a dam across the river.  After 1798, migrating fish no longer reached northern Massachusetts, Vermont or New Hampshire.  In a landmark 1872 decision the US Supreme Court reopened the door to an ecosystem restoration via “Holyoke Company vs. Lyman.”  It upheld a Massachusetts law requiring dam owners to provide fish passage as part of the public interest of stakeholders upstream and down. Yet today there’s still no working fish passage at Turners Falls. 

As a stakeholder wishing to see the Connecticut River’s fisheries restoration succeed after decades of failure, I’m participating in the current 5-year Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s hydro relicensing process.  It will determine conditions in the river for the next 30-40 years.  If you go to www.northfieldrelicensing.com and click on “2013 Documents,” you’ll find FERC’s “Study Plan Determination Letter” dated 9/13/2013.  It’s a 74-page catalogue of studies FERC has determined necessary to protect the public interests as they move to issue new long-range hydro licenses on the river in 2018.  Curiously, if you open that letter and scroll to the last word on the last page (74) you’ll find “Karl Meyer,” listed as “Recommending Entity” for Study 4.2.3, “Hydraulic Study of the Turners Falls Power Canal.”

I was surprised to find my name there, given that each of the 18 studies above it lists Firstlight, owners of the Turners Falls Power Canal, as Recommending Entity.  But this was no accident on FERC’s part.  They’d originally included the canal study as part of Study 3.2.2 in their preliminary judgments on the science needed to define the impacts of FirstLight’s hydro operations on river environments.  I’d agreed with them.  But FirstLight, in all subsequent filings, seemed determined to exclude it.  They simply excised “power canal” from 3.2.2: “Hydraulic Study of Turners Falls Impoundment, Bypassed Reach, power canal and the Connecticut River below Cabot Station.”  Their main argument was that the water surface level in the canal remains relatively stable through the year.  But given that what happens below the surface is what’s critical to the needs of migrating fish, I argued a canal study was a critical consideration. 

Two generations back a chance to restore fish runs beyond Turners Falls was squandered when the US Fish & Wildlife Service and four state fisheries agencies agreed to steer migratory fish into the chaos of the privately-owned Turners Falls power canal.  A singular New England opportunity to recoup and expand the river’s biodiversity was lost.  Just as in 1980, at best one-fish-in-ten emerges alive upstream there today.  Some years it’s 1-in-100.  That mistake stemmed from a failed quest to create a hatchery-strain of extinct Atlantic salmon here.  As a result, due diligence wasn’t applied to the needs of growing populations of herring, shad and sea lamprey, who would now have to survive a trip through an industrial canal on their spawning runs.  It also scuttled the only natural spawning grounds of the endangered Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon. 

Merriam-Webster defines due diligence as “the care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm to other persons or their property.”  Today, after 14 years of power company-subsidized canal studies that remain unpublished, we know scant little about conditions fish encounter throughout that canal.  Save for a few dozen yards at its entrances and exits, two full miles of watery terra incognita lay in between.  That missing knowledge comprises this ecosystem’s black hole. 

Yet with just tidbits of canal study information leaking into the public sphere, there is evidence that canal conditions–and the weeks-long migratory delays fish experience there, are proving lethal.  “Shad are dying in droves in the canal and we don’t know why,” is how one federal Conte Lab researcher responded to a question about mortality in the canal they’ve repeatedly studied using FirstLight funds.  Since dead fish don’t head back to sea to return as repeat spawners, the canal impoverishes a full 172 miles of river ecosystem up to Bellows Falls, VT. 

Thus, I’m proud to have my name listed next to canal hydraulics study 4.2.3.  I believe it represents FERC’s effort to exercise due diligence in getting the information needed to make the best choices in these proceedings.  It certainly represents my own.  FERC’s Ken Hogan has stated that thorough studies and reliable data are what FERC is aiming for as they decide on conditions hydropower interests will have to adhere to as they operate on our river for generations to come.  Anything less would constitute a failure of their public mandate.

 FERC’s Public Comment Period on any of the 39 studies they may require for the relicensing of Turners Falls and Northfield Mountain projects ends December 31, 2013.  Go to www.ferc.gov , and “filing e-comments.”  P-1889 is the Project # required for Turners Falls dam and canal; P-2485 is for Northfield Mountain.

 Karl Meyer is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

« Previous PageNext Page »