FERC Comments

Archived Posts from this Category

AN INSENSITIVITY OF PLACE

Posted by on 29 May 2016 | Tagged as: 5-year FERC licensing process, AMC, American Whitewater, Appalachian Mountain Club, By Pass Reach, Connecticut River, Connecticut River ecosystem, Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon, Connecticut River Watershed Council, CRWC, Dead Reach, ecosystem, endangerd shortnose sturgeon, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federally-endangered shortnose sturgeon, FERC Comments, Gary Sanderson, Greenfield Recorder, New England FLOW, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station, Rock Dam, Rock Dam Pool, Station 1, The Recorder, Turners Falls, Turners Falls dam, whitewater boating

An Insensitivity of Place

Copyright © 2016 by Karl Meyer (CLICK on any photo to ENLARGE)

DSCF8475

There’s a big difference between theory and practice. So too is there often a huge divide between what is said and what is done—and a giant gap between how you portray your intentions in writing, and how you actually carry yourself in the real world. The difference between those things is what most often turns out to be true.

At the Rock Dam, the endlessly-beleaguered and sole natural spawning site for the state- and federally-endangered shortnose sturgeon in the entire Connecticut River system, that difference came into high resolution last week. While I looked on four people in helmets and safety gear lumbered in a huge blue raft over the tiny, watered notch leading into that self-same shortnose sturgeon spawning pool. Four other decked-out compadres looked on admiringly from atop the low ledge that helped form this little ancient pool thousands of years back.

The “drop” for this joyride might have been a total of 4 feet at best, perhaps a third of the length of the giant boat. For any shortnose sturgeon that might have been using this unique ecological site to accomplish the most basic act of survival—spawning, it would’ve been the equivalent of the Starship Enterprise plopping down atop your kiddy pool party. Basically, party over. But hey, those fish are only the sole federally-endangered migratory species in the entire river. Hope you enjoyed the ridiculously short, half-second rush… Yahoo!

And the real kicker is, they were doing this within the known documented time-window at Rock Dam for shortnose sturgeon to be present and attempting to spawn successfully. This was a Sunday, but the previous Wednesday I’d seen rafts being trailered away from the site in the “Patch” section of Turners Falls. I didn’t quite put it together until Gary Sanderson’s column came out in The Recorder the next day, noting the obtuseness of rafters and kayakers he’d seen repeatedly making the same disrespectful maneuvers at Rock Dam earlier in the week.

DSCF8472

But here’s the theory and practice divide. During the current 5-year Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing hearings for the Turners Falls and Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage projects, these whitewater groups have been at the table advocating for increased flows and access for the public on this short section of river. Chief among these have been American Whitewater and New England FLOW, with the Appalachian Mountain Club partnered with the Connecticut River Watershed Council submitting formal testimony in favor of whitewater boating interests here.

AMC and the Watershed Council in submitted testimony are advocating opening up this most-biologically-damaged stretch of the river for the last half century to increased access at three sites over a tiny reach that is just 2.7 miles long: “Improvements would need to be made to a put-in at the upstream end of the run downstream of Turners Falls dam, the take-out at Poplar Street, and access at No. 1 station and at the Rock Dam.” I wonder how many boats, rafts and cars per mile of river that constitutes.

DSCF8476

All groups in their statements and submitted testimony made reference to their concerns for the protection of aquatic habitats here, as well as adherence to the Clean Water Act in this Dead Reach stretch of the Connecticut that includes the extremely critical spawning habitat of the shortnose sturgeon—which consists solely of the small, semi-circular pool that forms below Rock Dam–along with its tiny little 4 foot drop. Shortnose congregate at Rock Dam for spawning from early April through the end of May. Let’s run giant rafts over them and invite crowds of kayakers to overwhelm the river and rocks here to demonstrate respect and concern for a river struggling for life here these last 50 years.

This is self-interested behavior only a little removed from that of the power companies, and, like the power companies, there is cash waiting in the wings for using the river in this most self-considered way. So, well done, whitewater boating interests! We at least now have a tiny picture of what your practice, rather than theory, might constitute. And, hey, did it ever cross your minds that some people actually consider the Rock Dam a sacred place..?

Shortnose sturgeon: ignoring published research

Posted by on 04 Apr 2016 | Tagged as: Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon, Dr. Boyd Kynard, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federally-endangered Connecticut River shortnose sturgeion, FERC Comments, Jack Buckley, John Bullard, Julie Crocker, Kimberly D. Bose, MA Division of Fish and Wildlife, MA Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS, NOAA, Rock Dam, Rock Dam Pool, Secretary Kimberly Bose, shortnose sturgeon, US Fish & Wildlife Service, USFWS, Vince E. Yearick, Wendi Weber

KM-Rock Dam program 4-23-16P1000433

TOP: Rock Dam program, 4-23-16 (click to enlarge)

Bottom: The ROCK DAM: shortnose sturgeon spawning site (click to enlarge)

The following testimony was submitted on March 18, 2016, to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on behalf of the biological needs of the federally-endangered Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon at its sole documented natural spawning site in the Connecticut River ecosystem.

Karl Meyer, M.S.

85 School Street # 3

Greenfield, MA  01301                                       March 18, 2016

 

The Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

88 First Street, NE

Washington, DC  20426

 

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION: RE: P-1889-081 and P-2485-063, and federally-endangered Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon, (Acipenser brevirostrum)

Attach to: PROTEST of FERC-sanctioned Revised Plan for Study 3.3.19, issued to FirstLight Power Resources, Inc, in a February 25, 2016 FERC letter to Mr. James P. Donohue of FirstLight, by Vince E. Yearick, FERC Director, Division of Hydropower Relicensing.

Dear Secretary Bose,

This additional information is being submitted subsequent to my receipt of a March 15, 2016 letter from Mr. Vince Yearick, Director, Division of Hydropower Licensing, restating FERC’s intention to sanction spring 2016 test flows that are documented to result in spawning failure and displacement of federally-endangered Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon(SNS), at their sole natural spawning site in this river system. Those findings come from 20 years of research conducted by government scientists from both the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the US Geological Survey.

I am submitting an index and key chapters from this exhaustive body of shortnose sturgeon research published in LIFE HISTORY AND BEHAVIOUR OF CONNECTICUT RIVER SHORTNOSE AND OTHER STURGEONS, 2012, by Boyd Kynard, Paolo Bronzi et al, World Sturgeon Conservation Society: Special Publication # 4. Chapter 3 directly addresses SNS spawning failure and displacement at the Rock Dam in the Connecticut’s By Passed Reach, and clearly indicates that test flows of 1500 cfs will not be protective of a species listed since 1967 under the federal Endangered Species Act.

From P. 107 (PDF-page numbers and numbers in the actual text are the same), “Spawning failure in unregulated rivers likely occurs, but it should be rare because females have adapted to natural fluctuations in the river discharge. Spawning failure (when fish were present) occurred at MontSR due to river regulation, but spawning did not fail due to peaking operations. Regulation created bottom velocities that were too low or exceeded the preference of females or created a low discharge that either prevented female access to the RockD or failed to attract them.”

Findings and data from pages 101 and 102 should provide further guidance to FERC in reexamining this decision. In his response Mr. Yearick argues that the low test flow of 1500 cfs put forth for Study 3.3.19 is somehow key in making correlations to last year’s American shad passage tests from Study 3.3.2. However, that is by no means clear (note–the 3.3.2 results have yet to be made available to Stakeholders) as that study also included tests flows of 1000 cfs and 6300 cfs—flows also not being included in order to make any useful correlation with Study 3.3.19.

Further, in regard to the failure or oversight in the protective responsibilities of the National Marine Fisheries Service to submit objections in this instance (as well as the USFWS and MA Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, who also have federal and state ESA mandates), those failures in no way release the FERC from its own responsibilities under the federal Endangered Species Act. In FERC’s own words, from: Hydropower Relicensing-Get Involved, A GUIDE FOR THE PUBLIC: “Is the Commission subject to other federal laws? Yes. The Commission must comply with a variety of federal laws, such as the Clean Water Act (to protect water quality), the Endangered Species Act (to protect threatened and endangered plant and animal species) and the National Historic Preservation Act (to protect culturally significant places and historic properties).”

Regarding Mr. Yearick’s citing of Article 34 as permitting the harming of protected species in the current license, he fails to note the following tenets included in that self-same Article regarding continuous minimum flows and modifications thereof: “These flows may be modified temporarily: (1) during and to the extent required by operating emergencies beyond the control of the Licensee; and (2) in the interest of recreation and protection of the fisheries resources, upon mutual agreement of the Licensees for Projects 1889 and 2485 and the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.”

Please also note that, with the marked improvements shown in American shad passage at Turners Falls in 2015 which appear to correlate well with the significant increases in flow through the By Passed Reach, it is highly unlikely that any of the Stakeholder Agencies would consider requesting a Licensed flow of 1500 cfs when the biological needs and passage of both federal-trust and federally-endangered migratory fish require significantly more volume to fulfill their spawning requirements.

Lastly, 8 years in arrears of its license agreement signed in 2002 for FERC P-2004–to have completed upstream access for federally endangered Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon by 2008, Holyoke Gas & Electric has completed modifications to its fishway. That should allow SNS their first access and reintroduction to their natural spawning grounds in 168 years. In my mind, it would be patently criminal to greet these endangered fish on their first spawning trip upstream since 1849 with sanctioned flows guaranteed to displace them and cause spawning failure.

Thank you for your careful attention to this critical matter.

Sincerely,

Karl Meyer, Fish and Aquatics Study Team, P-2485 and P-1889

Please see attached chapters in PDF format, as well as included index and book cover.

Cc’d via email to:

Brandon Cherry, FERC

William Connelly, FERC

James Donohue, FirstLight

Julie Crocker, NOAA

Bjorn Lake, NOAA

John Warner, USFWS

Caleb Slater, MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife

John Bullard, Regional Administrator, NOAA Fisheries Greater Atlantic Region

Wendi Weber, Director, USFWS Region 7

Jack Buckley, Director, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife

Dr. Boyd Kynard

How to Submit Comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

Posted by on 16 Mar 2016 | Tagged as: E-Comments, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federally-endangered shortnose sturgeon, FERC Comments

P1000433

PICTURED: The Rock Dam in Turners Falls; the sole documented natural spawning site for the Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon in this ecosystem. (Click to enlarge.)

SUBMITTING INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS TO FERC: This example is from my own recent E-Comments

Write up your Comments in Letter form, FIRST

Compose comments in a Word doc, simple and direct, you are allowed up to 6000 characters in a FERC E-Comment, which leaves room for 3 or 4, concise paragraphs, sample letter at bottom:

Include DATE, your name, address, and phone

Send them care of:

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

You must include Project numbers in your submission: in this case P-2485 and P-1889 (P-2485 is Northfield Mountain; P-1889 is Turners Falls Dam and Power Canal. You can do this after your salutation!) See next two lines.

Dear Secretary Bose,

RE: P-2485 and P-1889, protecting federally-endangered Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon

This is the opening paragraph from my Stakeholder Comment:

“I protest the FERC finding issued on February 25, 2016 for P-2485 and P-1889 specifically because it sanctions test flows that are documented to cause spawning failure for the federally-endangered Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) at its only documented natural spawning site, the Rock Dam, in the Connecticut River. FirstLight has proposed and FERC has accepted Study Plan test flows of 1500 cubic feet per second in the CT River’s By Pass Reach for April, May and June 2016. That low level of flow will displace and wipe out a full season’s spawning and rearing of Young of Year life stage SNS at their ancient Rock Dam nursery site.”

Complete your Word Doc, end with your “Thank you” name, and town

Below that: indicate any individuals, agency heads or representatives you are cc-ing:

Then …..

It is not required, but you might want to register for a FERC E-Subscription for you chosen Projects, in my case, P-2485 and P-1889: Register as an individual, no affiliation. This will take a little more time, and you may choose not to. But, this way you will be Notified, with a Link to all other’s new Stakeholder Comments as they get posted.

** Also, if you get hung up anywhere along the way call the FERC 800 phone #. They are very nice!
Somewhere along the way you will have had to click on HYDRO Projects. OK, to continue…

Go to: www.ferc.gov
Go to: Documents and Filings
Go to: E-Comment
Click on: E-Comment Bar (“Does not require e-Registration”)
Fill out on-line form: All required fields
Type in the googly characters: in the field at bottom
Hit the “Authorize” button

Then: Go to your email, where you will soon receive a FERC email
Click the link that takes you to your FERC e-Comment file
Your filled-in data: will appear in the boxes

Down below is: the empty TEXT Box–your name and town will appear at the top
(Again, somewhere along you will have had to choose HYDRO Projects, not Oil or Nuclear)
In the Text Box under Docket you will see: Hydro Project Search
Below that is the Box: Enter Docket Number
Type in full project number such as: P-2485, and hit Search
P-2485 comes up, saying Northfield—Tap Plus-Bar at right to SELECT; Plus disappears
Go back in THAT SAME text box and over-write: P-1889, HIT plus-Bar again, and SELECT

NOW: Simply scroll down to the empty TEXT BOX, paste in your comments and HIT: SEND COMMENT

You will pretty quick get a FERC email thanking you for Commenting.
You’ll pretty quick get an email saying it has been received.
If you have signed up for an e-Subscription to “hydro” projects P-2485 and P-1889, within an hour a notice of your comments being entered into the FERC record will appear in your mailbox. Voila!

Click on the link to them, and you can review them. This is pretty satisfying. After which, you will get yours and all everyone else’s Comments and Protests to view. They are now part of the public record, read and reviewed by FERC, the utility, and all other fed/state Stakeholders, as well as available to the public and media.

(NOTE: the full example Comment letter below came in at 4,263 characters, with spaces—so you have some room)

** DON’T forget to copy your letter and forward to any CCs you’ve noted via email.

Pat yourself on the back–your comments are now in the Public Files for these FERC decisions.

(Here is my full comment letter, as example)

Karl Meyer, M.S.
85 School Street # 3
Greenfield, MA, 01301
413-773-0006 March 4, 2016

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

RE: P-1889 and P-2485, and federally-endangered Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon, (Acipenser brevirostrum)

PROTEST of FERC-sanctioned Revised Plan for Study 3.3.19, issued to FirstLight Power Resources, Inc, in a February 25, 2016 FERC letter to Mr. James P. Donohue of FirstLight, by Vince E. Yearick, FERC Director, Division of Hydropower Relicensing.

Dear Secretary Bose,

I protest the FERC finding issued on February 25, 2016 for P-2485 and P-1889 specifically because it sanctions test flows that are documented to cause spawning failure for the federally-endangered Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) at its only documented natural spawning site, the Rock Dam, in the Connecticut River. FirstLight has proposed and FERC has accepted Study Plan test flows of 1500 cubic feet per second in the CT River’s By Pass Reach for April, May and June 2016. That low level of flow will displace and wipe out a full season’s spawning and rearing of Young of Year life stage SNS at their ancient Rock Dam nursery site.

Though my FERC Stakeholder comments of January 28, 2016 specifically addressed this ESA issue, FirstLight did not respond to the endangerment issue in its RSP revisions. Further, I had made this issue clear to FirstLight and its agents, FERC staff, and key stakeholder agencies in an email delivered on January 20, 2016. I again reiterated the endangered species impacts to those same parties in an email delivered on February 24, 2016. Madam Secretary, I again made my concerns about spawning interference and failure to you and for the FERC record in a letter delivered February 26, 2016. All are available for perusal in the FERC record for P-2485 and P-1889.

Shortnose sturgeon gather at this spawning and nursery site annually between April 22 and May 25 for pre-spawning and spawning. Further, the complex of key biological characteristics of flow, varying depths, and cobble/sand habitat provide SNS with protective options that nurture developing Young of the Year throughout June into July.

According to 17 years of published studies at that site documented by Dr. Boyd Kynard and research colleagues, a continuous minimum flow of 2500 cfs is required to protect sturgeon spawning and rearing at this site. Therefore, I PROTEST the findings of the FERC Revised Study Plan determination issued by FERC on February 25, 2016, and request that only continuous protective minimum flows of 2500 cfs be allowed in this study, and throughout the 2016 SNS spawning and rearing season, as well as all ensuing springs.

The following publication has been referenced in the FERC ILP for these projects by both federal and state stakeholder agencies, FERC, as well as FirstLight and their agents.

“LIFE HISTORY AND BEHAVIOUR OF CONNECTICUT RIVER SHORTNOSE AND OTHER STURGEONS, 2012, by Boyd Kynard, Paolo Bronzi et al, World Sturgeon Conservation Society: Special Publication # 4

“Effect of hydroelectric operations on spawning”

Page 101, bottom: “During the 11 yr spawning failed (excluding the failed migration in 2002), when discharge levels were too low for 5 yr and too high for 4 yr. During one yr (2007), discharge during April was both to low and too high. When spawning failed at RockD due to low discharge during 4 yr (1995, 1998, 1999, and 2006)m discharge decreased to <70 m3 s-1 for at least 4 d by 30 April (Fig. 14), the earlier period of low discharge likely marked a threshold making the RockD unattractive to spawning fish.”

Further published data, tables, and required flows necessary in this reach appear on pages 101-102 of LIFE HISTORY AND BEHAVIOUR OF CONNECTICUT RIVER SHORTNOSE AND OTHER STURGEIONS.

I would welcome a FERC hearing on this critical ESA issue and would make myself available for testimony. Thank you for your attention to this pressing matter.

Sincerely,
Karl Meyer
Fish and Aquatics Study Team, P-2485 and P-1889

Cc’d via email to:
Brandon Cherry, FERC
James Donohue, FirstLight
Julie Crocker, NOAA
John Warner, USFWS
Caleb Slater, MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife