Turners Falls power canal

Archived Posts from this Category

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

A look inside the FERC licensing process

Posted by on 06 Jan 2015 | Tagged as: 5-year FERC licensing process, Drew Huthchison, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, FERC license, FERC licensing process, fracked gas licensing, GDF-Suez FirstLight, ISO New England, Kinder Morgan, Kinder Morgan pipeline, Mt. Tom Coal Plant, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project, shad, shad larvae, Turners Falls power canal, US Fish & Wildlife Service, US Geological Service’s Silvio O. Conte Anadromous Fish Lab, USFWS, Vermont Yankee, Yankee Rowe Nuclear Plant

In mid-December I was interviewed on Greenfield Community Television’s Local Bias feature by Mark Wisniewski, former Greenfield City Council President. In a wide-ranging talk we discussed my experiences with the ongoing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing process as both a journalist and stakeholder in the hydro projects at Northfield Mountain and the Turners Falls Power Canal on the Connecticut River. The FERC licensing process is a cumbersome and lengthy ordeal–transpiring over a 5- year swatch of time.

Anyone interested in–or involved as a citizen in, the deluge of FERC projects currently affecting our region, might gain some insight by tuning in: from fracked-gas pipelines, to hydro, nuclear, climate and ecosystem impacts.

Local Bias airs beginning Wednesday, at 5:30 pm, and repeats on Thursday and Saturday nights at 9 pm throughout the month of January 2015.

Local Bias is produced and directed by Drew Hutchison.

Try the link below,.. or go to look up GCTV, Local Bias to connect to a copy of the show.

http://gctv.org/videos/local-bias-karl-meyer-121514

New CT River Stakeholder Comments Submitted to FERC

Posted by on 14 Nov 2014 | Tagged as: American shad, By Pass Reach, Cabot Station, Connecticut River, Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission, Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon, Dr. Boyd Kynard, endangerd shortnose sturgeon, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, FirstLight, GDF-Suez FirstLight, National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Station, shortnose sturgeon, Turners Falls dam, Turners Falls power canal, US Fish & Wildlife Service, USFWS, Vermont

The following Stakeholder Comments/Requests on FERC Projects P-1889 and P-2485, Turners Falls Hydro and Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage were submitted on November 13, 2014 to the Secretary of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

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

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

ILP COMMENTS–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 in order to continue plant operations beyond 2018. An Initial Study Report Meeting Summary has been filed by GDF-Suez FirstLight. Please accept these comments on the ISR and my proposals for modifications and new study requirements in the FERC ILP for these projects.

3.3.11 Fish Assemblage Assessment:

Further information/study needed:

FirstLight has declined to undertake any study in the By Pass Reach of the Connecticut River due to stated concerns of interference with spawning and development of embryos of federally endangered shortnose sturgeon in this area. Information from the 2009 EPA study is insufficient to quantify presence and abundance of resident and migratory fish in this reach during critical migration and spawning periods—April through June. That investigation used only 3 sites in the By Pass Reach and was not undertaken to illuminate key species requirements in the current ILP for this critical reach.

NMFS notes that FirstLight has failed to consult with stakeholders on SNS issues here. I am in agreement with USFWS that a dedicated snorkeling, SCUBA, or hookah diving assessment of this critical reach of the four-state CT River be conducted in the riverbed between the Turners Falls Dam and downstream of Cabot Station during the April-June migration and spawning window–and that it continue after FirstLight’s suggested June 30 beginning target date.

I personally snorkeled parts of this reach in May 2013 and found that identification of migrants and resident species was easily attained. An in-situ investigation of this river reach in order to assess species presence and relative abundance is necessary groundwork for making decisions that will impact the 45-year long fisheries restoration on the Connecticut.

Dr. Boyd Kynard, who FirstLight cites in their argument and who spent decades investigating shortnose sturgeon on this reach of the Connecticut told me (personal communication 11/12/2014) that this study method can be accomplished without impacting SNS from the pool below the Rock Dam upstream to the base of Turners Falls Dam.

3.3.12 Evaluate Frequency and Impact of Emergency Water Control Gate Discharge Events and Bypass Flume Events on Shortnose Sturgeon Spawning and Rearing Habitat in the Tailrace and Downstream from Cabot Station.

Further information/study needed: FirstLight has supplied a grid of information for emergency gate and by pass flume openings for the years 2005 – 2012, though 2010 is missing, and we have no information on gate openings and placement for 2011 and 2012 in some instances, other than that there were no instances when greater than 4 emergency flume gates were open.

This study information should be updated with full information for years 2011, 2012—as well as 2013 and 2014 gate opening numbers, placements and CFS information.

Study findings from Kynard and Keiffer, as well as the long-term study of SNS in this reach catalogued in Life History and Behaviour of Connecticut River Shortnose and Other Sturgeons, published by the World Sturgeon Society, 2012, specifically delineate emergency and canal flume gate spill as having a profound and deleterious impact on shortnose sturgeon spawning and early life stage development.

As was stated recently by sturgeon biologist Micah Kieffer at a fall 2014 meeting of the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission, “one instance” of ramped-up or ramped-down flow from TF dam or emergency spill gate and flume operation can abruptly terminate or abort spawning attempts at Rock Dam and below Cabot Station by federally-endangered SNS for the entire year. Operations of emergency and by pass flume gates on the TF canal also can have deadly parching or burying impacts SNS embryos.

FirstLight contends that its operations of Bypass flume gates above Cabot Station are aimed at either emergency load rejection at Cabot Station, or opened to flush debris. They also contend that it is rare to have more than one flume spill gate open, though most of the numbers belie this statement–and the number of days when 4 or more gates have been open during SNS spawning window is highly significant and impactful. Opening of 4 flume gates needlessly diverts flows approaching 4,000 CFS out of the Connecticut’s By Pass Reach at TF Dam, and sends it into the canal to be needlessly flushed back into the river in a configuration that impacts migratory species and imperils annual spawning attempts of the federally-endangered CT River shortnose sturgeon.

In May 2014, I personally witnessed 3 consecutive days when two or more spill gates were open at the TF canal bypass above Cabot—all at the same time of day: 12:25 pm. These openings occurred while both Station 1 and Cabot were generating, which would appear to indicate that the spill gates had been left in this position for hours, or perhaps days, as part of flow regulation in the canal–rather than emergency or debris clearing. I have sent this information to both FERC and the federal and state fisheries agencies.

It is clear to anyone who examines the TF power canal that it is mostly a lake-like, slow-water habitat, save for the thalweg. It is rare to see debris of any significant size floating in the canal. It gets culled off at the trash racks in front of the TF Gatehouse, or at racks on the canal that dog-leg off to Station 1, or it simply settles out in the lake section of the TF Canal.

The minor amount of small, floating debris that enters the fat part of the canal is culled off by the trash rack skirt above Cabot that steers it to the east side of the canal where a bascule gate can be operated to pass anything of significant size.

The continuous openings of two or more bypass gates, up to six and seven gates open on a “non-emergency” basis on the TF canal above Cabot Station during SNS spawning and early life stage periods threatens the recovery of the Connecticut River’s only federally endangered migratory species.

As I have witnessed, multiple gates open on the canal while both Station 1 and Cabot were in operation indicates that canal flow is at times being regulated at this site, rather than at the TF Gatehouse, where excess flow could be delivered to the river in the Bypass Reach, which would nourish, rather than destroy SNS chances for successful spawning at Rock Dam and below Cabot. During SNS spawning season, mid-April – June 30th, endangered species protections dictate that all flow, save for documented, specific emergency situations, by controlled at the Head Gates of the Turners Falls Dam.

Information for years 2013 and 2014 should further be included, and a Study and study season for 2015 should be implemented that documents both the reason and instances when emergency gates were open—and any flume gates above 1 that were open to vent flow from the canal to the ByPass.

I would also like to FERC to have FirstLight include information for 2010, as the May 4 time of 8-gate emergency spill operation occurred exactly at the time frame when Northfield Mountain had burped up a massive sediment spill into its intake, and was trying to flush that pollution downstream. It would be helpful to know the position of both the Bypass flume gates and the positions of TF Dam headgates and bascule and tainter gates at that juncture—as it most definitely impacted SNS present for spawning that year. This would again offer data on whether the TF canal flows were being regulated via emergency by pass flume operation.

3.3.14 Aquatic Mapping of Turners Falls Impoundment:

Further information/study needed:

If migratory fish targeted for restoration in Northern Massachusetts and Vermont and New Hampshire are to continue to be diverted into the TF Power Canal, where few emerge upstream, then an addition to this study should be conducted: Aquatic Mapping of the Turners Falls Power Canal—as it is technically an extension of the Turners Falls Impoundment, and the public has a right to understand the habitat where their fish get privatized.

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

Further information/study needed:

The 2014 Canal Drawdown study was flawed as it occurred over the course of two days, due to an error in spill gate function. Since this is a study of live and dead fish and organisms, as well as the presence of dissolved oxygen, a two-day study time frame represents a flawed evaluation. A night of drying, predation, and fluctuating oxygen presence confounds the results of this work. FirstLight does an annual drawdown of the canal—has down so for decades, thus a mistake at the time of a critical habitat study should corrected by conducting a second year of study.

Further, since FERC has ordered that FL conduct a study of American shad spawning in the TF Canal, it is important to note another anomaly in their canal drawdown work. At five-year intervals the TF Canal receives a full canal muck-out during drawdown. The last one occurred in 2009. This would have been the fifth year—a time when the major muck-out would occur. It did not happen. What occurred was canal “light”, with a large snafu in the middle of the one day study, making it a two day effort. Whether FL agrees that this should have occurred in 2014 or not, a big-dig in the canal is needed regularly, as the sludge, silt and muck settles out and fills in the wide part of the basin.

This must be figured into the “impacts” of the drawdown, as it has profound implications for forcing migratory fish into this habitat, as well as the survival of resident fish and aquatics.

Please see attached photo of the canal muck-out that I took in 2009.

This is the habitat all upstream migrants are diverted into at Turner Falls

This is the habitat all upstream migrants are diverted into at Turner Falls

 

3.3.19 Evaluate the Use of an Ultrasound Array to Facilitate Upstream Movement of Migratory Fish to Turners Falls Dam by Avoiding Cabot Station Tailrace

Further information/study needed: the need for this 2016 study will be fully realized if planned studies of American shad movement and spawning in the canal confirm that these fish are experiencing significant migratory delay, and are being coralled into a migratory spawning trap by confused and insurmountable flows or pre-mature warming in artificial habitat that induces spawning in the canal—preventing fisheries restoration on the river in Northern Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont.

3.3.2 Evaluate Upstream and Downstream Passage of Adult American Shad

Further information/study needed: I concur with FERC’s requirements of an intensive array of radio and telemetry receivers throughout the TF Power Canal to track migrating shad in the canal.

However, I request that FERC require FirstLight, in consultation with stakeholders, add an array temperature monitors calibrated to the radio and telemetry sites to understand whether canal delays for American shad–lingering for an average of 8 days in the TF Canal, are forcing these fish to spawn in this privatized, lake-like habitat because of warmed, shallow, and slow water conditions.

3.3.6 Impact of Project Operations on Shad Spawning, Spawning Habitat and Egg Deposition in the Area of Northfield Mountain and Turners Falls Projects

Further information/study needed:
I concur with FERC that a full spawning study of the Turners Falls Power Canal be conducted in 2015, undertaken in consultation with stakeholders. Temperature monitors should be deployed to assess impact on migratory delay and spawning on-set; and cumulative impacts of head gate and by pass use of spill gates should be factored into the study to determine the impact of silt deposits on spawning success.

3.3.9 Two-Dimensional Modeling of the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project Intake/Tailrace Channel and Connecticut River Upstream and Downstream of the Intake/Tailrace

Further information/study needed: In the Initial Study Report Study Meeting Summary for stakeholder in October 2014, a request was made that FirstLight provide vector maps with arrows and indication of directional flow around the Intake and Tailrace Channel at the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project. This is critical information for flow, erosion, and sediment displacement and needs inclusion.

This is information that has been missing on Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Impacts since at least 1974. See attached at end of document.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on these critical relicensing issues.

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

1974 attached file below.

 

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 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.

River Science Dead Ends….Again

Posted by on 11 Feb 2014 | Tagged as: American shad, Connecticut River, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FirstLight, New Hampshire, Northfield Mountain, power canal studies, shad, Turners Falls dam, Turners Falls power canal, US Geological Service’s Silvio O. Conte Anadromous Fish Lab, US Geological Survey, US Geological Survey's Conte Fish Lab, Vermont

Copyright © 2014, by Karl Meyer 

                          River Science Dead Ends…Again

Since 1980 it’s been clear the Turners Falls power canal is a dead end for the Connecticut River’s American shad migration.  Thirteen years of federal fish research in that watery rabbit hole only serves to reinforce the point.    

A Federal Energy Regulatory Commission inquiry of US Geological Survey Conte Fish Lab researchers in Turners Falls, MA, found that it takes a radio-tagged American shad an average of eight days to swim the 2-1/2 miles from the end of the Turners Falls power canal to an area near the dam.  A person can stroll those same 2-1/2 miles along the Canal Side Rail Trail to the dam (basically the entire TF power canal) in less than 45 minutes.  So, what’s dragging these fish down?

Things are becoming clearer as information dribbles out from Conte Lab’s endless fish passage studies in the Turners Falls power canal via the FERC hydro-relicensing process on the Connecticut River.  What’s obvious is how little we know about conditions encountered by the thousands of migrating shad forced into the private canal.  Nor do we have any definitive science describing what happens to tens of thousands of shad that choose their ancient migratory route directly up the Connecticut to Turners Falls Dam.  These are fish seeking passage toward Gill, Millers Falls, and Northfield, MA; Brattleboro and Bellows Falls, VT; and Chesterfield and Walpole, NH.  That dam holds back migration-sustaining flow to feed FirstLight’s deregulated pumped-storage hydro plant inside Northfield Mountain.   

The first thing noticed from a FERC memo dated January 27, 2014, is that the 2008 – 2012 studies from the USGS fish lab are being provided “with the caveat that they contain preliminary data that is subject to revision and that the reports have not been subject to independent peer review.”  In short, this un-vetted research does not meet some basic scientific benchmarks for making long range decisions on river regulation.  And, while conducted by federal researchers, some of it is over a half decade old, while all of it’s been subsidized with power company funds.

Today just one-fish-in-ten passes upstream through that canal to the river beyond TF dam–no better than averages tallied there in the mid-1980s.  So why has hydro-company FirstLight had access to this study information over these years while the public has gone wanting?   And when do study findings from 2008, 2009 or 2010 get finalized—when do they get published and made available for peer review?  Is this public-science, or private consulting?  How much weight can FERC accord them?

Here are further tidbits from a January 30, 2014 memo released by FERC.  They’re from a follow-up phone call between FERC’s Ken Hogan and Conte Lab’s Dr. Ted Castro-Santos, a principal investigator in the Turners Falls canal studies.  “Specifically, Mr. Hogan sought information from Dr. Castro-Santos on the duration of the upstream migration of adult shad within the Turners Falls power canal.”  Though there isn’t an exact transcription for the public record, we do have this telling quote: “Dr. Castro-Santos stated that duration of the radio-tagged shad migration within the power canal from Cabot Station to the vicinity of the Gatehouse, is a median of 8-days.”

Examined carefully, the language of Dr. Castro-Santos’s reply is specifically—vague.  What it reveals is that most tagged spawning-run shad take over a week to swim less than 30 city blocks.  Some take much longer.  But on average that’s a full four days to swim the mile from The Farren Care Center to 18th Street, and another four days to fin the last 18 blocks to 1st Street–the “vicinity” of the dam.  Castro-Santos specifically describes fish as reaching “the vicinity of the Gatehouse.”   “Vicinity” in this instance, is exculpatory language.  It means shad experience further delay here, with some not proceeding upstream past TF dam.  It describes another fatal choke point in the power canal configuration–underscoring failed engineering, fish passage, and science. 

Curiously, Dr. Castro-Santos has noted at fisheries meetings that a small segment of the shad population that does manage to thread the canal maze and emerge above Turners Falls Dam to continue upstream arrives at the base of Vermont’s Vernon Dam just 1-1/2 to 2 days later.  That’s a 20 mile swim in 36-48 hours.  After 14 years of study and 34 years of excruciatingly poor fish passage through that canal towards the 50 miles of empty Connecticut River spawning habitat upstream, the only explanation for shad taking 8 days to arrive at the “vicinity” of the dam through a 2-1/2 mile-long canal is this: it’s a failure. 

 What’s dragged these fish down?—clearly an alien migration route, unasked questions and poor public science.  But electricity demand eases in spring; and FERC is asking good questions now.  Federal statutes require working fish passage and river flows that facilitate the time-sensitive spawning and migration requirements of the public’s fish.  Those requirements have clearly not been met at Turners Falls these last 34 years.  FERC releases its Study Plan Determination for new science required for hydro-relicensing on February 17th.

Note: new book on restoring East Coast migratory fish runs: Running Silver: Restoring Atlantic Rivers and Their Great Fish Migrations, by John Waldman, published by Lyons Press.  A good read, with fine, thought-provoking writing—and plenty to chew on about the Connecticut River including takes on the Turners Falls power canal migration route, river rats, and researchers.  www.LyonsPress.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.

Unconscionable: The Fate of the “Canal Nine”

Posted by on 09 Sep 2013 | Tagged as: American shad, Connecticut River, Connecticut River ecosystem, Conte, Dead Reach, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federal trust fish, FERC license, FirstLight, GDF-Suez FirstLight, shad, Turners Falls power canal, US Geological Service’s Silvio O. Conte Anadromous Fish Lab, US Geological Survey's Conte Fish Lab

Note: the following piece appeared this August in Connecticut River Valley publications including: Vermont Digger, www.vtdigger.org; the Daily Hampshire Gazette, www.gazettenet.com, The Montague Reporter and The Shelburne Falls Independent, and at The Recorder www.recorder.com, (edited version).

THE FATE OF THE CANAL NINE

Copyright © 2013, by Karl Meyer     All Rights Reserved

Forty-three years after being chosen as the upstream route for migratory fish, the Turners Falls power canal remains the black hole of fisheries restoration on the Connecticut.  In current filings the US Fish & Wildlife Service is requesting telemetry coverage across the mid-Turners Falls canal to puzzle out the unexplained fate of thousands of fish.  Trout Unlimited wants balloon-tagged shad and more monitors bracketing its powerhouse to study turbine kills and migratory delay.  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission wants a hydraulics study of that canal, where all migrants must bypass two turbine stations, then negotiate blistering turbulence just to have a shot at spawning in Vermont and New Hampshire.  On August 14, 2013, canal/dam owners GDF-Suez FirsLight rejected those studies as unnecessary in legal filings for a new 30 – 50 year federal operating license.

While every fish attempting to spawn upstream of Turners Falls dam must enter the canal, scores of questions about their fate there remain unanswered.  Basic questions like, do shad spawn in the canal, have never been studied–even though shad spend an average of 25 days there and just one-fish-in-ten that enters emerges beyond the canal.  US Geological Survey Conte Fish Lab researchers have been paid by Northeast Utilities and FirstLight for studies to improve the fish exit from the canal for the past 15 years.  Yet forty-three years after this system was put in place, it’s still one-fish-in-ten.  And canal spawning, germane to the ecosystem restoration puzzle, has never been studied.

Even more basic to success is this: if only one fish in ten makes it through—what’s the fate of the other “canal-nine”?  But you don’t pose that question if you want to keep being paid to study the public’s fish in the company’s private canal.  You study little sections of the canal–fiddle around near the company’s preferred exits and entrances—make big claims for tiny, discreet successes.  A mountain of data is collected, yet never finalized, published; nor peer reviewed.  After 15 years of study and reengineering, it’s still one-fish-in-ten.  Other agency experts wink in this shared belief: most fish entering that canal don’t survive.  Sliced-up in downstream turbines, they flush directly into the river.

“Unconscionable” is the term Dr. Boyd Kynard uses for plans afoot to move hundreds of thousands of shad into that canal via a new lift (as opposed to tens of thousands today.)   He’s an award-winning fish passage expert who logged over 25 years as a federal fish scientist– helping found the Conte Fish Lab while with the US F&WS.  Kynard believes the ineffective ladder system in place there for decades may have actually saved hundreds of thousands of fish from death in Cabot Station turbines, “The Cabot ladder is so bad most fish never reach the canal where most will exit downstream through deadly station turbines.”

Kynard, a fish behavior specialist who studied shad passage and turbine mortality at Holyoke Dam through the 1980s, believes a new lift below Cabot Station could prove the ecosystem’s next 50-year disaster.  He witnessed massive fish kills in Holyoke’s canals in the early 1980s when, starting in 1976, a new lift passed hundreds of thousands of fish upstream to spawn for the first time in 120 years.  It was hugely successful, but no one foresaw what would happen when adults headed back to sea.  While part of the migrants rode over the dam during high flows, others reencountered the dam-and-canal-system.  Tens of thousands got sucked into turbines at Hadley Falls Station or died in the canal–unable to return safely to the river. A stench of rotting fish hung over that city while dump truck after dump truck hauled tens of thousands of dead shad from the canal to the landfill.  (That condition was eventually remediated when dam owners installed a louver system in the canal to divert down-running shad into a pipe and back to the river, thus bypassing all turbines.)

But whereas Holyoke’s lift allowed shad to first spawn upstream in the river before encountering turbines, at Turners two hundred thousand fish could find themselves in a turbine-filled canal before ever getting a chance to spawn in Vermont, New Hampshire or northern Massachusetts.  And this canal’s Frances-type turbines are far more deadly than Holyoke’s.  Stressed, those newly-lifted shad can encounter two discreet turbine sites before meeting the massive canal turbulence near the dam.

This ecosystem can’t absorb another 40-year failure in the Turners Falls canal.  The USFWS, TU, and the Connecticut River Watershed Council are backing a study–adopted from Kynard’s Holyoke work, which would use low-frequency sound to deflect shad from entering the canal.  If deployed correctly it could send migrating fish straight upriver to a lift at the dam, like the one that’s succeeded at Holyoke for decades.  It’s a simple, inexpensive study–one FirstLight is already seeking to limit to a single year, or exclude altogether.  But it’s FERC who’ll decide by September 13th.  And they have a mandate to protect the public’s fish.

Double Standard on the Connecticut

Posted by on 09 Jul 2013 | Tagged as: American shad, Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission, Connecticut River ecosystem, ecosystem, EPA, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, federal trust fish, federally-endangered shortnose sturgeon, FERC license, FirstLight, GDF-Suez FirstLight, MA Division of Fish and Wildlife, National Marine Fisheries Service, New Hampshire, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Reservoir, Riverkeeper, Rutland Herald, shortnose sturgeon, Times Argus, Turners Falls power canal, US Fish & Wildlife Service, USFWS, Vermont

The following piece appeared in the Rutland Herald and the Barre-Montpelier Times-Argus during the first week of July.

Copyright © 2013, by Karl Meyer

This is the habitat all upstream migrants are diverted into at Turner Falls

This is the habitat all upstream migrants are diverted into at Turners Falls


                               A River Double Standard

On June 28, 2013, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Director of Energy Projects Jeff C. Wright ruled against the US Fish & Wildlife Service as it sought two extra weeks to review hundreds of pages of just-released Proposed Study Plans for the relicensing of five Connecticut River hydro projects. “The request for a 15-day EOT to file comments on the licensee’s proposed study plans is denied.”  EOT is FERC-speak for “extension of time.”  Those studies will impact this four-state river for the next 20-40 years. Agencies joining that request included the National Marine Fisheries Service, MA Div. of Fish & Wildlife, The Connecticut River Watershed Council, The Nature Conservancy, Trout Unlimited, the Franklin Regional Council of Governments, NH Dept. of Environmental Service and The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.

One big reason for that request was the difficulties in evaluating the impacts of FirstLight’s Northfield Mountain/Turners Falls hydro operations on the entire Connecticut River ecosystem.  Beginning last fall, FERC began deviating from its standardized relicensing model when it scheduled public site visits to FirstLight sites weeks before the company released a publicly-required 500-page Pre-Application Document describing its complex pumped storage operations and machinery.

This spring FERC also supported FirstLight’s expedited-request to conduct a series of complicated river flow studies this summer—an allowance falling well outside FERC’s strict licensing timelines.  In doing so they let the company schedule three days of river visits by fed/state agencies smack in the middle of their deadline to comment on FirstLight’s 434-page Updated Proposed Study Plan.  FirstLight released that document June 28th; comments to FERC are due July 15, 2013.  Even after nine meetings with the power company and FERC, many agency representatives continued to decry the lack of critical scientific detail provided in FirstLight documents.  Those were put together by its team of five consulting firms.  Ironically, those handpicked FirstLight firms will conduct the next two years of river studies—the ones meant to protect the river.  A fox and chicken coop analogy applies.

FERC is employing a legal double standard here on the Connecticut.  If you a public agency or citizen seeking protections for the ecosystem—well, even little rules are THE RULES.  At the same time it appears corporations can continuously and sometimes massively ignore federal license requirements with impunity.

In FERC’s own words, the Commission “enforces the conditions of each license for the duration of its term, and conducts project safety and environmental inspections.”  Yet today Holyoke Gas & Electric is half a decade–and counting, in violation of its 2002 agreement to construct facilities to end the evisceration of federally endangered shortnose sturgeon and other “federal trust” fish migrating downstream at their Holyoke Dam facility.  So, why have a license at all? 

Upstream in 2010 GDF-Suez FirstLight dumped some of 45,000 cubic square yards of reservoir sludge directly into the Connecticut at Northfield Mountain over a 90-day period—the equivalent of 40 dump truck loads of muck per day, smack in the middle of fish migration season. Yet in current documents FERC states their inspections have never found FirstLight in violation of its license.

The US EPA found FirstLight in violation of the Clean Water Act in August of 2010 and ordered a massive clean-up, though the ecosystem damage was already done.  In an August 4, 2010 letter EPA sanctioned FirstLight for violating “FERC License No. 2485” and polluting the “navigable waters of the United States.”  A subsequent letter dated August 10, 2013 from FERC’s Biological Resources Branch Chief Steve Hocking to FirstLight Manager John Howard specifically referenced the EPA’s sanctions, directing him to “article 20 of your license.”  Yet there is virtually no FERC mention of that egregious violation in current relicensing documents.

That’s the standard that for-profit companies are held to here.  It rivals the Pirate Code.  Currently there is no watchdog entity on this river willing to go to the mat to protect the ecosystem.  If, like on the Hudson, there was an organization like Riverkeeper—which cites “enforcement” as one of its main responsibilities, these egregious injuries to the Connecticut would not likely stand.  Holyoke Gas & Electric would have been in court long ago for killing endangered sturgeon; and the full range of FirstLight’s lethal impacts on the Connecticut’s migratory fish when all are diverted into their turbine-filled power canal would’ve been fully investigated.  FERC’s inaction is a disgrace.

FERC Director Wright requested that questions regarding that EOT denial go to Ken Hogan at: 202-502-8434, or Kenneth.Hogan@ferc.gov. Ken has presided over the CT River relicensing hearings.  Also, you can find FirstLight’s 434-page “Updated Proposed Study Plan” at: www.northfieldrelicensing.com under Documents.  The public has until July 15, 2013 to send comments on that plan to FERC.  You do that at: www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp .  You must cite FirstLight’s project numbers, P-2485 and P-1889, and be sure to note that you are commenting on the “Updated Proposed Study Plan.”

Karl Meyer is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists. He lives in Greenfield, MA. Read more at: www.karlmeyerwriting.com

March 1st Deadline: Comments to FERC on Northfield/Turners Falls Hydro Relicensing

Posted by on 25 Feb 2013 | Tagged as: American shad, blueback herring, Connecticut River ecosystem, Conte, endangerd shortnose sturgeon, EPA, ESA, federal trust fish, federally-endangered shortnose sturgeon, FirstLight, MA Division of Fish and Wildlife, MA Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Reservoir, Rock Dam, Turners Falls dam, Turners Falls power canal, US Fish & Wildlife Service, US Geological Survey's Conte Fish Lab

Last Call to send comments and study recommendations to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to guide the Connecticut River conditions mandated in the 2018 relicensing of the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project and Turners Falls Hydroelectric Project.  The licenses will the river ecosystem for decades to come.

To file any comments on the relicensing of the Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project and the Turners Falls Hydroelectric Project you will need to register at: www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp

You must include the following project numbers for Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project and Turners Falls Hydroelectric Project respectively, with any comments: P-2485-063, and P-1889-081.

All comments are due before MARCH 1, 2013.  Be sure to include your full mailing address, phone number, and email address in your comments. (I’ve attached my comments, which are now registered with FERC, below.)

Karl Meyer, M.S. Environmental Science

Greenfield, MA, 01301                                                             February 25, 2013

To: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

RE: Comments on FERC Relicensing Projects: No. P- 2485-063 (Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage Project) and No. P-1889-081 (Turners Falls Hydroelectric Project)

Dear Commissioners,

Please carefully adhere to the standard FERC relicensing processes and deadlines as you relicense these two projects.  Holding public and agency site visits in early October 2012 may have been deemed convenient for circumventing winter weather that might have affected visits, however it placed invested parties in the difficult position of having to view and judge hydro operations and configurations at both facilities without the benefit of knowing what operational changes and information FirstLight Power Resources was including in its PAD.

Further, of the three FERC group tours at Northfield/Turners Falls, only one group, mine, was able to view the area of the By-Pass Reach and the Turners Falls Canal and head gates from the downstream side of the Turners Falls gate house.  This is a critical area to view, and the excuse being given was that there was construction happening on the Turners Falls Bridge.  However, unrestricted access to view these sites was available to any passing citizen just yards away via a bike and walking path, open to the public.  My group only received access because I made a direct request to FirstLight’s John Howard, who was my former boss.

The two other tour groups did not get to see the confused flows created by the 14 head gates at the upstream end of the Turners Falls Canal.  The canal has been a major disappointment as the upstream conduit for all migratory fish these last 34 years.  Those head gates are open at full bore during much of the upstream fish migration season; they should have been a key component of the tour.  Nor did interested parties get to view the exposed rock bed and de-pauperizing flow regimes created by flood gate manipulations at the Turners Falls Dam that renders the By-Pass Reach a non-river.  FERC should place particular emphasis on any studies that redirect upstream migrating fish away from the confused and failed conditions experienced in the Turners Falls Power Canal, and send them directly upstream to a lift at TF Dam.  That configuration has worked quite effectively at Holyoke Dam these last 58 years.

In late January 2013, GDF-Suez FirstLight Power Resource representatives noted at public hearings that it intends to apply to FERC with a Proposed Study Plan to begin its own investigations of flows in the reach below Turners Falls Dam this April 2013, rather than the 2014 and 2015 study seasons noted in the FERC Relicensing Process.  No study in this critical segment of river known as the By-pass Reach should be undertaken without a full vetting of the proposals.  This section of river is critical spawning habitat for the federally-endangered Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon, also listed as endangered under the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Act.  It is also the age-old upstream route for spawning federal-trust American shad and blueback herring.  It is noteworthy that in their expedited study application that FirstLight cites the area below Cabot Station as a key shortnose sturgeon spawning location, while the critical site for these fish—used for likely thousands of years, is the natural escarpment in the riverbed known as Rock Dam, a half mile upstream of Cabot Station.

In a letter from FERC to Mr. John Howard of FirstLight Power Resources dated March 12, 2010, the Commission noted that FirstLight had failed to comply with Article 34 of the license for the Turners Falls Project, releasing just 120 cubic feet per second to this segment of the river to protect shortnose sturgeon from the effects of low flows.  The minimum requirement is 125 CFS.

With respect to measured, in-depth, long-term investigations on flow and river regulation in this reach I would direct you to the 17 years of research done by Dr. Boyd Kynard and colleagues at the Conte Anadromous Fish Research Center adjacent to this river segment in Turners Falls, MA.  The work was largely conducted via the federal Conte Lab under the US Fish & Wildlife Service and later, under the US Geological Survey, when it took over responsibilities for Conte Lab after 1999.  These investigations were also supplemented by funds, research and personnel from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

This research is documented in: Life History and Behaviour of Connecticut River shortnose and other sturgeons, published in 2102 by the World Sturgeon Conservation Society and produced by Books on Demand, GmbH, Norderstedt, Germany: ISBN 978-3-8448-2801-6.  Copies can be obtained from the North American Sturgeon and Paddlefish Society:

www.nasps-sturgeon.org/#!publications  Chapter 3 concerns the long-term study of flows and river regulation on spawning success of the last 300, spawning-capable, federally endangered shortnose sturgeon in this river system—covering the period of 1993 – 2005.  This is critical, long-term research that includes seven years of findings from the time before Northfield Mountain Pumped Storage and Turners Falls Hydroelectric Project operated as a regulated utility, and the seven years when Northfield’s pumping was unconstrained by regulations and operated to profit from price spikes and drops in the energy spot market using the public’s river.  Deregulation was fully implemented here in 2000 or thereabouts.  All of these issues need careful consideration before sanctioning a rushed study plan in such a critical river reach.

When considering a new license for these facilities, careful consideration of the public’s interest should be made respecting the changes and power generation, flows, and operational practices from the commencement of the current licenses down to the present.  In 2012, Northfield Mountain Station added 40 megawatts of power to its generating facilities through retooling two of its turbines.  This increase nearly equals the total power generated at HG&E’s Holyoke Dam, the next downstream project licensed by FERC.  Two remaining turbines await power up-rates, which is a considerable addition to the generation at this plant, originally proposed and installed at 1,000 megawatts.  Currently, due to mid-license changes, it now produces 1,119 megawatts of power in an unregulated power market. noteworthy and important to be considered in weighing the public’s right to a living ecosystem, upstream fish passage, and protection of endangered species, is that Northfield Mountain’s original license was for a plant used to create “peaking power, and as a reserve unit.”  It can only produce 6-8 hours of stored power before it is spent and needs to purchase replacement power on the open market.  Its stated intention was to peak twice daily in high-demand winter and summer months, and once a day during shoulder months in spring and fall when energy demand is low.  Northfield now generates when demand is present, or—when energy prices will make the greatest profit for investors.  The river and the states have been impoverished by this profound change.

The building of Northfield was based on the availability of current and proposed power from collected regional nuclear sources (New England Power Pool) that included Maine Yankee (closed 1997); Yankee Rowe (closed 1992) Connecticut Yankee’s Haddam Neck (closed 1994), as well as two proposed nuclear plants at Montague, MA (never built.)  Vermont Yankee is currently the only “local” nuclear plant still operating, and its 40 year operating license expired March 21, 2012.  Its continued operation is contingent on findings in the courts.  It is currently operated at a loss by Entergy, and has a failing condenser system which could force its closure.  In short, Northfield is now operated well beyond the bounds of its originally stated purpose.  The public’s river is paying a high price for power, much of it now imported to pump river reserves uphill to Northfield’s reservoir from sources outside the region.  The ecological impacts to fish runs and the damaging flow regimes imperiling endangered species in the river are apparent.

As a facility with great ecological impacts that cannot produce any of its own power–one totally dependent on outside sources for power, one proposal for using this stored power source put before the Federal Power Commission in the 1960s was that Northfield not operate during the spring fish migration due to its impacts on the runs.  It is time to revisit the option of silencing the effects of Northfield Mountain so that towns and cities including Greenfield, Montague, Gill, Turners Falls, and Northfield, MA; and all the towns north to Vernon, Brattleboro and Bellows Falls, VT, and Hinsdale and Walpole, NH receive their share of the river’s ecological bounty.

Northfield does serve a function as an emergency “reserve unit” for ISO New England (Independent Systems Operator) during times of severe heat waves, or high winter demand, to deliver a high volume of power on short notice to accommodate spikes in the power grid.  Northfield could be taken off-line and kept in reserve to be operated by ISO New England solely for that purpose during the low-demand spring energy months when fish are migrating.  This would greatly benefit river ecology, species, and all upstream stakeholders.  New England’s power grid resources are currently rated at 15% above demand.  Removing the damaging effects of these operations on river ecology during critical months is a simple, equitable solution.

Northfield and Turners Falls have greatly profited by incremental power increases and operational changes over the past 34 years, while the public has watched flows, regulation, and conditions in the By-pass Reach wither to a brutal, feast-or-famine regime that denies spawning for endangered fish, and passage for upstream migrants.  This situation has effectively privatized the 2-1/2 miles of river, depriving my town, Greenfield, as well as Gill, of its share of fish and a river.  This de-pauperization has impacted all the towns upstream of Cabot Station and Turners Falls dam into central Vermont and New Hampshire.  None of these municipalities have received compensation, though in many states the loss and damage to these fish populations would be considered “take” under state statutes.  Damage in the By-Pass Reach to the Connecticut River’s last 300, spawning-capable Connecticut River shortnose sturgeon carries a significant federal fine, as well as possible imprisonment.

FirstLight’s new requests for more generation at both licensed sites should be rejected, and the damaging mid-license flow and power increases should be reversed in any new license.  Indeed, since there have now been no less than FIVE different owner/operators of this facility in the last 14 years, it would be prudent to grant only the shortest license possible in order to help track and minimize damage to the ecosystem due to operational/managerial changes, and protect the public’s interest in a living river.

Northfield’s impacts have never been fully measured with respect to flows in the By-pass Reach, but it is clear that fish passage is now at, or below, the paltry levels of the 1980s, and just a fraction of the 40 – 60% passage upstream long-targeted by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of fish that had been passed at the Holyoke Fish Lift.  Regulated, continuously monitored flows should be returned to the By-pass Reach at this time, and continuous monitoring should be included in any new licenses issued.  FirstLight has noted that in-stream data loggers for river levels and flow have been subject to vandalism.  Continuous camera monitoring of river levels and open and closed gate positions at the Turners Falls Dam would go a long way toward insuring compliance with any new license conditions.  This is an inexpensive solution that could easily include a back-up system.

With a federally endangered species present in the By-pass Reach, as well as federal-trust migrating American shad and blueback herring, FERC would do well to consider enforcing regulated flows in this stretch in accordance with law and statutes in the current license.  NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service has had the USGS Conte Lab findings from studies in the By-Pass reach by Kynard et al, in their possession since 2007.  This agency—as well as the MA Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, could intervene at any time.  These impacts are also affecting the success of the federal/state Connecticut River Migratory Fisheries Restoration, begun in 1967, which stipulates that all the states share equally in the bounty of migratory fish—as both a recreational and seafood resource.  In several studies by the Massachusetts Cooperative Fisheries Unit at UMass/Amherst from the 1980s it is noted that blueback herring, (Alosa aestivalis) were noted gathering at the base of Turners Falls Dam, and were also noted spawning in the mouth of the Fall River–just 300 feet downstream of the dam, by then Conte Lab Director Steve Rideout.

Further, in the late 1980s, in another mid-license power up-rate, up to 5,000 CFS was redirected out of the By-pass Reach and into the Turners Falls Power Canal for use by Cabot Station and a refurbished Unit # 1, some 1-1/2 miles upstream of Cabot.  This was undoubtedly another blow to the shortnose sturgeon attempting to spawn at their ancient grounds at the Rock Dam, though sturgeon spawning in the Connecticut here was not confirmed until 1993.

In the PAD, it is noted that FERC had not found any compliance issues during its inspections of these two projects.  However, as well as a failure to release minimum flows for sturgeon in 2009, I would direct you the US Environmental Protection Agency’s August 3, 2010 letter and Administrative Order Docket No. 10-016, sent to Mr. James Ginnetti, FirstLight Vice President, noting violations of the federal Clean Water Act.  FirstLight knowingly dumped up to 45,000 cubic square yards of silt into the Connecticut River below its fouled pumped storage plant in an attempt to clear its tunnels and intake.  This illegal enterprise was undertaken by FirstLight after failing to conduct silt removal in a manner consistent with the “due diligence” stated in its operating license.  This dumping took place throughout upstream fish migration season, May 1, 2010, or thereabouts, and continued until the EPA Cease and Desist Order of August 2010.  At that time, FERC then became involved in this egregious license violation, requesting a full report from Mr. John Howard, Plant Manager, in a FERC letter dated August 10, 2010.

In a subsequent fall meeting with agency and non-profit river interests, a FirstLight representative stated that they did not know how to remove silt from their upper reservoir, and that it had never been done successfully.  That admission came after 40 years of operating their plant.  Hence, the public, and FERC are being asked to grant a new license to operators who have not shown they can successfully maintain their facility without profoundly affecting a navigable four-state waterway and a migratory fish highway.  FirstLight has now asked for deadline relief, and is promising to have a study of siltation completed in 2014.  Perhaps all study decisions should be held in abeyance until that time, 2014—which would comply with FERC Licensing Guidelines.

 

Sincerely,

Karl Meyer

Greenfield, MA

« Previous PageNext Page »