Revised Study Plan

Archived Posts from this Category

FERC Stakeholder comments: Turner Falls Canal ultrasound study

Posted by on 06 Feb 2016 | Tagged as: American shad, Cabot Station, Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon, Dr. Boyd Kynard, endangerd shortnose sturgeon, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federally-endangered shortnose sturgeon, FERC, FirstLight, Fish and Aquatics Study Team, GDF-Suez FirstLight, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station, Relicensing, Revised Study Plan, Rock Dam, Rock Dam Pool, Secretary Kimberly Bose, shad, Station 1, Turners Falls, Turners Falls dam, Turners Falls power canal

Karl Meyer, M.S.
85 School Street # 3
Greenfield, MA, 01301
January 28, 2016

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

RE: P-1889 and P-2485, ILP for Turners Falls/Cabot Station and the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project

Dear Secretary Bose,

The following comments pertain to an RSP and failures on the part of FirstLight Hydro Generating Company in following FERC’s SDL on Study 3.3.19 and Study 3.3.2. They were shared with FirstLight’s team and FERC’s Brandon Cherry on January 20, 2016:

As one of the requesters for an ultrasound study at Cabot Station, here are my comments, suggestions and observations for ways to gain the best applicable results from Study 3.3.19-Evaluate the Use of an Ultrasound Array to Facilitate Upstream Movement to Turners Falls Dam by Avoiding Cabot Station Tailrace.

Unfortunately, FirstLight has not provided Stakeholders with any preliminary findings from the telemetry data gathered in Study 3.3.2, which would be a great help in addressing any changes or improvements needed for a successful 3.3.19 Ultrasound Study.

As stated in their Study Determination Letter under Discussion and Staff Recommendations, FERC was very clear that 3.3.2 information on: (1) “delay,” (2) “bypass flows,” and (3) “effects of Station 1 operations on upstream shad migrations,” be brought over and included in the design recommendations for 3.3.19:

“These evaluation data can be used to inform the methods and design of this study (e.g., ultrasound array design, layout, and placement; array testing at appropriate bypass flows) (section 5.9(b)(6)).”

FERC further stated in their SD Letter to FirstLight, “The amended study 3.3.19 should address stakeholder comments and recommendations. If FirstLight does not adopt a recommendation, FirstLight should provide its reasoning based on project-specific circumstances (e.g. Study 3.3.2 results).”

Revised Study Plan 3.3.19 ignores FERC’s guidance on the inclusion and application of “bypass flows” and “effects of Station 1 operations on upstream shad migrations” in its design. Neither key issue is addressed in their proposal. Bypass flows, which are key to any application of acoustic guidance to keep shad moving upstream in the Bypass, are not included at all. Stakeholders originally requested this Study be done for two years, with bypass flows tested throughout.

Further, the only mention of Station 1 is in a footnote, without any reference to testing its effects “on upstream shad migration operations.” FirstLight merely notes that hourly data on discharges at that site will be included—with no insight on how that data would be applicable if fish are not monitored for migratory delay, with and without flows, emanating from that site.

Since the thrust of the Study is aimed at getting fish up through the Bypass, I question why just three monitoring sites are suggested to be deployed upstream of Cabot Station itself.

• Sonic guidance at Cabot should be deployed in such a way that it encourages upstream movement as much as possible—and avoids biasing fish movements toward downstream retreat. It should also be deployed in a way that, when in ON mode, it also ensonnifies the entrance to Cabot Ladder, as the thrust of the study is to have fish avoid the power canal.

• Ensonification should NOT be engaged in two hour increments, as this would likely be a source of stress and disorientation for fish. Employ the tests in 24 hour cyles, one full day on, one full day off.

• Data should also be provided on the hourly operation and number of gates open at the Emergency Spill Gates off the Canal at Cabot.

• I’d suggest removing the monitor upstream of the mouth of the Deerfield and placing it at the Rock Dam pool, a site where shad–and anglers have a historic presence in the Bypass. The agencies, as well as the anglers, are concerned with finding out where fish gather and stall in this reach on their way northern MA, VT, and NH.

• Another monitor needs to be placed at Station 1, another known fishing site. I interviewed a fisherman there last year with Station 1 running. There were scores of fish visible, treading water in the outflow. He flatly said there are “always shad here” when Station 1 is generating.

• Station 1 should be monitored and switched On and Off in tandem with the Cabot ensonification to highlight impacts, false attraction, drop-backs to Rock Dam and elsewhere, and delays.

• Flow data, hours and number of units in operation, and any interruptions in flow at Station 1 should be included in the Study.

• Several more monitors need to be deployed at the Dam and the Spillway entrance to capture the early, freshet aggregation of fish there—as this is what’s at the core of this study.

• Given that this study will only have one sampling season, it is vitally important that it has enough reach to be applicable for informing a hydro-relicensing that may remain in place for two decades. One month testing and data collection is needed at minimum.

• Further, given the “drop out” rate for handled fish, the number of tagged fish included from FirstLight’s consultants should be doubled to 200, in order to have an acceptable sample entering the project reach.

• Test flows from May 15th through mid-June: two weeks at 5,000 CFS; third week at 4,000 CFS. The final week should be at a minimum of 2,500 CFS—which, as FL has indicated in their response to a new Stakeholder Study suggested at the Rock Dam for shortnose sturgeon spawning: 2,500 CFS is the absolute minimum, uninterrupted flow necessary through the Bypass from April 25 – May 22, in order to not interfere with the spawning of a federally endangered species and be subject to court action. In their response, FL cited “Kynard” et al. Minimum flows to keep SNS embryos and eggs motile, watered, and viable are required throughout the month of June.

Thank you,
Karl Meyer, Fish & Aquatics Study Team

New comments to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Posted by on 16 Nov 2015 | Tagged as: 5-year FERC licensing process, American shad, canal shad, Connecticut River, Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon, Dr. Boyd Kynard, Extinction, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federal trust fish, federally-endangered shortnose sturgeon, FERC, FERC license, FERC licensing process, FirstLight, GDF-Suez FirstLight, migratory delay, power canal studies, Public Comment period, Relicensing, Revised Study Plan, Rock Dam, Rock Dam Pool, shad, shad fishing, shortnose sturgeon, Station 1, Turners Falls, Turners Falls dam, Turners Falls power canal, Vermont

The following comments were submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on November 13, 2015, respecting relicensing studies occurring at the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station and at the Turners Falls Dam and Canal. They are designated, respectively as: P-2485; and P-1889.

Karl Meyer, M.S. Environmental Science
85 School Street # 3
Greenfield, MA, 01301
413-773-0006 November 13, 2014

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

ILP COMMENTS on Updated Study Reports—including Disagreements/Modifications to Study/Propose New Study on Turners Falls Hydroelectric Project P- 1889, and Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project P-2485.

Dear Secretary Bose,

The Turners Falls Hydroelectric Project, P-1889, and the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project, P-2485, are currently undergoing studies through the 5-year FERC relicensing process. The majority of the fish and aquatics studies remain incomplete at this time. However, having attended the recent study update meetings with FirstLight’s consultants, and as a member of the Fish & Aquatics Studies Team for P-2485 and P-1889, please accept these brief comments on the USR and proposals for modifications and new studies needed in the FERC ILP for these projects. As studies are brought to completion and data and results are shared with Stakeholders I will submit further comments.

3.3.2 Evaluate Upstream and Downstream Passage of American Shad

Needed information from this study: from personal observations I noted many days when Station 1 was in operation. I visited the site, took some photos, and interviewed a fisherman who was busy catching shad at the Station 1 Outflow on 5/24/2015. In good light, and without the advantage of polarizing sunglasses, I observed dozens of shad stacked up like cordwood, treading water there. The gentlemen noted that whenever Station 1 is running “there are always fish here.” The report should include information about tagged fish delayed in this false attraction water. It is also critical to delineate the number of days during testing that Station 1 was in operation.

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 their update the applicant’s team stated that “because minimal shad spawning was observed in the Turners Falls Canal, no spawning areas in the canal were identified for further examination.”

Needed information from this study: at what hour, on what dates, and under what conditions were these “minimal” spawning observations made? Did they return to the site again under different, or more favorable conditions? What was the water temperature? Was it raining? Windy? Cloudy? Was Cabot Station running at the time-and how many units? Was Station 1 in operation on the nights they made their observations?

These are basic questions that require adequate answers as the TF Canal has been the bottleneck for the shad run up through Northern Massachusetts and into Vermont and New Hampshire these last 40 years. The canal appears to be culling off part of the run as a spawning trap. A thorough understanding of why fish are lingering there, and clear assessment of the numbers and delays of fish attempting to spawn in the canal is necessary for informed decision making.

3.3.18 Impacts of the Turners Falls Canal Drawdown on Fish Migration and Aquatic Organisms.

Needed information from this study: This study needs to be extended for another year. On October 5, 2015, I took a 20-minute walk through a small segment of the canal at 7:00 a.m. on the morning the canal had drained. On the flats far–from the thalweg where most of the 2014 assessment appears to have taken place, thousands of fish lay struggling, stranded, and dead in the drying pools. These included juvenile American shad, yellow perch, juvenile and “transformer” sea lamprey, one 8-inch chain pickerel, one crayfish, and thousands of tiny, unidentified YOY fish in drying pools and rills that led to nowhere.

These observations were made crossing just a few—out of the many acres, of silt and muck “shoulder habitat” that occurs away from the main channel on both the east and west sides of the TF Canal. A more thorough mortality assessment needs to be made across these habitats to have a full understanding of the impacts of the canal drawdown migrating and resident fish.

REQUEST for New Study: Tagging and Spawning Study of the Connecticut River Shortnose Sturgeon at the Rock Dam Pool in Turners Falls.

The USFWS’s fish passage and dam specialist John Warner reports that both downstream and upstream modifications for fish passage at Holyoke Dam will be completed this winter. New entrances and exits allowing CT River SNS to move upstream beyond that site will be working in spring 2016.

In light of the construction at Holyoke and the 2016 continuation of test flows evaluations on spring migrants in the By-Pass Reach at Turners Falls, testing of spawning success for SNS should be done at their documented natural spawning site–the Rock Dam in Turners Falls, in spring 2016. Regardless of any fine tuning needed at the Holyoke facility, some SNS will return to the Rock Dam pool by the last week of April, and the chance to study their spawning success in light of regulated test flows presents a unique opportunity for the only federally endangered migratory fish on the Connecticut River.

If this fish is ever to benefit from new genetic input, a full understanding of suitable flows at Rock Dam to accommodate spawning is necessary information going forward for a fish that has been decades on the cusp of extinction. It’s an opportunity to restore a part of the public trust.

For further information on longstanding research at this site without required test flows, see Kynard, B. and Kieffer, M.C., et al: Life History and Behaviour of Connecticut River shortnose and other sturgeons, published in 2102 by the World Sturgeon Conservation Society, ISBN 978-3-8448-2801-6.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the USR for these projects.

Sincerely,
Karl Meyer, M.S. Environmental Science
Greenfield, MA

New Comments to FERC, RE: Turners Falls Fisheries Studies

Posted by on 08 Apr 2015 | Tagged as: 5-year FERC licensing process, American shad, Cabot Station, Connecticut River, Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon, Conte, Dr. Castro-Santos, Dr. Haro, endangerd shortnose sturgeon, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federally-endangered shortnose sturgeon, FERC, FirstLight, MA Division of Fish and Wildlife, Mr. Colton Bridges, New Hampshire, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project, Revised Study Plan, Secretary Kimberly Bose, shad, shortnose sturgeon, Turners Falls dam, Turners Falls power canal, US Fish & Wildlife Service, US Geological Survey's Conte Fish Lab, USFWS, Vermont

NOTE: the following comments were submitted to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Secretary Kimberly Bose respecting FirstLight’s withdrawal from its stated position of using video-monitoring equipment at the Turners Falls Dam’s Spillway Ladder to compile study data and information on aggregations of migrating American shad.

This is information that has been the fisheries restoration’s Black Hole these last forty years. It can only be gathered at this site. However, with the withdrawal of these tools, fisheries agencies and the public will be relying on just a few hundred radio-tagged and tracked fish as substitutes for on-site, real time monitoring of aggregations of what are understood to be perhaps hundreds of thousands of migratory shad. (Comments to FERC were slightly abbreviated due space limits in E-filing.)

Karl Meyer, MS
Greenfield, MA 01301 April 8, 2015

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

Re: P-1889; P-2485

Dear Secretary Bose:

Please accept the following comments in the matter of the hydro-power licensing studies for P-1889, the Turners Falls Project; and P-2485, the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project. These comments focus on changes FirstLight made to the Revised Study Plan. I first aired my objections to these RSP changes at a meeting on March 24, 2015–as a member of the Fisheries and Aquatics Study Team. They highlight a lack of Existing Information and a Need for Additional Information that FirstLight’s RSP revisions will not satisfy.

FirstLight has summarily excised all video monitoring in the vicinity of the Spillway Fishway at the base of Turners Falls Dam—a technique they’d agreed was needed in the initial RSP.

3.3.2 Evaluate Upstream and Downstream Passage of Adult American Shad

Existing Information and Need for Additional Information

Passage through the Turners Falls complex:

Study Goals and Objectives: (18CFR; 5.11(d)(1)

“Evaluate attraction, entrance efficiency and internal efficiency of the Spillway Ladder for shad reaching the dam spillway, under a range of conditions.”

FirstLight stated the following in their initial RSP response: (bolded italics below, mine

“Video monitoring will be used for specific study areas such as the Spillway Fishway. Use of video monitoring of the Spillway fishway will provide data on fishway efficiency; shad attempting to pass would be monitored versus only those shad that have been tagged.”

Task 2: Study Design and Methods:

FirstLight then wholly eliminated that key video information gathering technique that would help inform these studies with aggregate numbers of shad reaching the Spillway Entrance, versus only those few tagged fish approaching and passing the Spillway entrance.

From FirstLight’s March 14, 2015 RSP changes distributed to the Fisheries and Aquatics Study Team:

“The study will monitor shad migration within the study area using a combination of active and passive radio techniques and video surveillance.”

This needed information gathering was eliminated by FirstLight despite their description in the initial RSP that this was a proven and inexpensive technology:

“FirstLight proposes to conduct video monitoring using the Delta System commercial series of underwater video camera and lighting manufactured by Ocean Systems Inc. This system was recommended by A. Haro (Conte Lab) and has proven effective at other facilities. Video data will be recorded on a dedicated video recorder (DVR).”

“Video monitoring of the Spillway would add a modest cost to this study.”

As to why gathering information about aggregations of American shad at the Spillway adjacent to Turners Falls Dam is needed at this time–that need was stated in FirstLight’s initial RSP response as well:

“In general, the numbers of tagged fish passing through the Spillway Fishway were too low for vigorous evaluation (Haro and Castro-Santos 2005).”

Information about aggregations of migratory fish moving upstream to the base of Turners Falls Dam and the Spillway has been paltry to nonexistent these last 40 years. In the last 15 years, Dr. Haro and Dr. Castro-Santos of the USGS Conte Lab have focused nearly all their work in FirstLight’s power canal, while the Connecticut River passage route for these federal trust fish has been almost wholly ignored.

As to the huge gap in the information for American shad aggregations at this site, I herein cite expert testimony delivered before Commission members four decades back:

On August 21, 1975, in hearings before the United States Federal Power Commission in Boston, Mr. Colton Bridges, Deputy Director of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife delivered the following expert testimony on the need for Spillway Fish Passage at the Turners Falls Dam:

To Mr. Bridges: Question: “Would either the Cabot power house fishway or the gatehouse fishway be effective in passing those early arriving shad?”

Answer from Mr. Bridges: “No, because with spill conditions at Turner Falls the major source of attraction water will be coming down river from the Turners Falls Dam and emanating from Cabot Station. Consequently, the conditions that existed at Holyoke with spillway flows limiting fishlift efficiency will prevail at Turners Falls Dam with only a Cabot Station fish passage facility in operation.”

Question: “What, in your opinion, would be the effect of the construction of the proposed fish passage facilities at Turners Falls Dam without the inclusion of the spillway fishway?”

Answer from Mr. Bridges: “Without a spillway fish passage facility, fish approaching Turners Falls during periods of spill will be attracted to the base of the dam and those isolated pools located immediately below it, and be subject to the same conditions that exist below Holyoke without the spillway fish collecting facility, i.e., migration delay and mortality due to lack of flow, increased water temperatures, and decreasing oxygen content.”

Given that, as of this date, FERC is refusing to allow the USFWS any in-situ access for snorkeling to get a general assessment of fish using this passage route to Turners Falls Dam during migration season–and that FERC is further disallowing any seining for fish or shad eggs in this reach due to concerns for endangered shortnose sturgeon, this is the only key place where any new information about Spillway aggregations of shad can be gained. This was stated as a result of FERC internal policy, though NMFS indicated a willingness to consult—and NMFS is the ultimate key-holder in decisions concerning Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon.

Hence, denying the gathering of this needed information at the Spillway effectively limits the public’s understanding of what is happening at this site. Though overall successful fish passage through the Spillway Ladder has proven ineffective these past 30 years, it should not limit the Entranceway as the key place to collect long-absent information on aggregating shad.

These are the early arriving fish that have long been known to be the key migrants–most likely to move upstream to Northern Massachusetts, Vermont and New Hampshire spawning sites on the Connecticut. As of this date, 40 years after Deputy Director Colton Bridges testimony, those fish are still not making it past Turners Falls Dam, and we don’t have the information about their numbers and when, where, and in what flow conditions they gather at the Spillway site.

For these reasons I respectfully request that Spillway video monitoring be returned to the Revised Study Plan for this season–to gather the data that cannot be gained simply by monitoring a few hundred radio-tagged fish.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Karl Meyer, MS, Member, Fisheries and Aquatics Study Team for P-1889; P-2485