Secretary Kimberly Bose

Archived Posts from this Category

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

Stakeholder PROTEST of FERC Revised Study Plan finding endangering Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon

Posted by on 07 Mar 2016 | Tagged as: Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon, Dead Reach, Dr. Boyd Kynard, endangerd shortnose sturgeon, Endangered Species Act, ESA, Extinction, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federally-endangered shortnose sturgeon, FERC, Fish and Aquatics Study Team, GDF-Suez FirstLight, MA Division of Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS, NOAA, Rock Dam, Secretary Kimberly Bose, US Fish & Wildlife Service, USFWS

(The following Stakeholder testimony was submitted to FERC on March 4, 2016)

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

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 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