January 13, 2020
Ian Clark
New Hampshire Renewable Resources
65 Ellen Ave.
Mahopac, NY 10541
Re: CRC comments on the Sugar River Dam II (P-15003/ Previously P-10934) Preliminary Application Document and Study Plan Requests
Dear Mr. Clark,
The Connecticut River Watershed Council, Inc. (CRWC), now doing business as the Connecticut River Conservancy (CRC), is a nonprofit citizen group established in 1952 to advocate for the protection, restoration, and sustainable use of the Connecticut River and its four-state watershed. The interests and goals represented by CRC include, but are not limited to, improving water quality; enhancing habitat for fish and other aquatic biota; safeguarding and improving wildlife habitat; protecting threatened and endangered species; protecting wetlands; preserving undeveloped shore lands; enhancing public recreation and promoting recreational safety; protecting aesthetic values; protecting archeological, cultural, and historical resources; fostering sustainable economic development; and maintaining the potential energy benefits of hydroelectric projects in the Connecticut River watershed.
CRC attended the Joint Agency and Public meeting on November 14, 2019 and has reviewed the Sugar River Dam II hydro-electric facility Pre-Application Document dated August 6, 2019. Please consider our comments on the PAD and requested studies below.
3.3 PROJECT FACILITIES
During the site visit it was clear that there was a bypass reach. There is no description of the bypass reach in the project facilities section.
3.3.4 INTAKE STRUCTURES
What is the correct spacing of the grates on the trash rack? The Eagle Times Notice dated August 6, 2019 indicates that, “The project includes a downstream fish passage facilities consisting of a by-pass flume and 1-inch clear spaced trash-racks at the power intake,“[1] but the PAD indicates, “The intake has a steel trash rack to prevent debris and large fish from entering the penstock. The grates are spaced ¾ in apart.”[2]
3.5.1 CURRENT LICENSE REQUIREMENTS
The applicant describes many of the articles in the current license, but does not provide a copy of the license in the PAD. Additionally, there is no indication in the PAD if the applicant has complied with license requirements and no documentation of that compliance. For instance:
“Article 401, as amended, approves a filed erosion and sediment control plan that is made a part of the license.”[3] This erosion and sediment control plan should be included in the PAD and actions pertaining to it should be described.
“Article 402 requires the licensee to operate in an instantaneous run‐of‐river mode for the protection of fish and wildlife resources and act at all times to minimize the fluctuation of the reservoir surface elevation.”[4] The PAD does not provide for any evidence of surface water elevation monitoring at the facility.
“Article 404 requires the licensee, after consultation with Federal and State resource agencies, to develop a final plan to install streamflow monitoring equipment to monitor compliance with Articles 402 and 403… requires the licensee to develop a final plan to install streamflow monitoring equipment to monitor compliance with Articles 402 and 403 to include at least two flow gages at the project, one at the location upstream of the project and one gage downstream of the tailrace.”[5] There is no indication in the PAD of whether this was done or how streamflow is monitored. If gages have been installed, please include gage information for the project since installation. Flow duration curve information is provided, but it is not clear where this information was derived from.
“Article 405, as amended, requires the licensee to install, operate and maintain the angled trash rack and downstream fish passage and install a 3‐foot‐deep plunge pool to ensure safe passage of downstream fish migrants.”[6] During the site visit, Mr. Nolan indicated that the angled trash rack was installed, but was the plunge pool installed? Is there documentation of this?
“Article 408, as amended, requires the licensee to file a plan to improve recreational access to the impoundment and bypass reach by maintaining the existing parking area on the north bank of the impoundment and by obtaining agreements and/or easements from abutting landowners for access points on the north and south shores of the bypass reach.”[7] Was a plan filed or were any agreements or easements obtained from abutting landowners?
“Article 410 requires the licensee to file a dissolved oxygen (DO) and water temperature (water quality) monitoring program plan.”[8] Has a program been put in place and are there any water quality monitoring results? The only water quality monitoring referred to in the PAD is that done by the VRAP program possibly in 2009 (based on the reference on page 47)[9].
3.5.4 PROJECT COMPLIANCE HISTORY
The applicant indicates that, “The Form 80 was filed on July 1, 2016 with a waiver requested for not filing future reports”[10] but a search of the FERC record indicates that FERC requested additional information in October of 2017[11] to evaluate the waiver request. Was this additional information filed with FERC?
The PAD indicates a draft Operations and Compliance Monitoring Plan (OCMP) would be circulated for agency comment in 2016.[12] Was this ever done and put in place?
4.1.4 RESOURCE PROTECTION
The PAD states, “The Project operates in a run‐of‐river mode with a minimum flow of 15 cfs, and 20 cfs, per license Article 403, from Sugar River II Dam. By operating in a run‐of‐river mode, the Project minimizes large fluctuations of flow in downstream reaches. (Note: Sugar River I Project has a 37 cfs minimum flow condition.)”[13] Since the licensee is the owner of both facilities, how are the minimum flows coordinated between the two dams?
4.5.2 WILDLIFE
The PAD states, “downstream exist records of wood turtles and brook floater mussels.”[14] Wood turtles are a species of special concern in NH and the Brook Floater is a state endangered species. We support the agencies’ study requests for a mussel survey. CRC would also encourage FERC and the natural resource agencies to consider a wood turtle survey to support the protection of this species and evaluate the presence or absence of wood turtle or appropriate habitat below the tailrace and along the bypass channel.
4.8.2 RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
The PAD states, “The project boundary is often used for fishing by local residents.”[15] Form 80 submitted for the 2015 year indicate that there were at least 50 people annually who used the site for recreation, and approximately a peak weekend average of about 5 persons. For a small community, this is a significant amount of use of the area. Additionally, this use is occurred without the presence of inviting public amenities. For instance, there are no picnic tables, or clearly marked parking spots indicating to the public that they can use the area for fishing, bird-watching, or walking, etc. The property around the hydro facility encompasses two large fields owned by the licensee which might be accessed for ball playing, picnicking, or fishing with access to the river.
FERC issued a letter on October 4, 2017 requesting that the licensee, “provide documentation of how recreation use data was gathered, including the dates, hours, and locations sampling occurred and the methods used to gather count data (e.g. electronic counters, staff observation, surveys) to support the report of less than 50 recreation days at the project for the year.”[16] Based on the FERC docket it seems that no follow-up was done regarding this request. Given this, ideally, the applicant would do a recreation study to understand the full extent of recreational use in the project area.
The FERC guidance for recreation at hydropower projects states, “Licensees must also keep in mind that the demand for recreation is not static; it is an evolving process. Periodic review of a project’s consistency with recreation demands is required to ensure that the public need for recreational opportunity is being met by existing and proposed facilities.”[17]
Additionally, the PAD indicates that, “The town (of Newport) has an interest in promoting outdoor recreation and protecting the Sugar River corridor.”[18]
While we understand that there may be limited recreational opportunity at the facility itself, the presence of the dam (and the Sugar River I dam) nevertheless impedes access by anglers, boaters and other recreation users to freely access or paddle through on the river. Given this, CRC encourages NHHR to make a commitment to develop a recreation study to fully understand the extent of use of the project area and a Recreation Plan with a commitment to update this every 10 years over the course of the license in case additional opportunities for recreational improvements arise. See Requested Study 1 in Attachment A.
In addition to the comments provided above, please note that CRC supports comments submitted by the natural resource agencies, including but not limited to the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHFGD), NH Department of Environmental Services, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Specifically, in addition to our formal Recreation Survey Study request enclosed herein, we also request and support the studies on Water Quality, Mussel survey, Instream Habitat Mapping and Bypass Flow Assessment as outlined by the natural resource agencies.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. I can be reached at kurffer@ctriver.org or (802) 258-0413.
Sincerely,
Kathy Urffer
River Steward
Encl: Attachment A: Study Requests
CC:
FERC, e-file
Paul Nolan, NHRR LLC (pvnpvndiver@gmail.com)
Ian Clark, NHRR (ianc@dichotomycapital.com)
Gregg Comstock, NHDES
Melissa Grader, US FWS
NHDES, Carol Henderson
NHDES, Matt Carpenter
ATTACHMENT A: STUDY REQUESTS
Requested Study 1: Recreation Survey
Conduct a study of the recreational fishing and birding opportunities at the dam, as well as upstream and downstream of the dam including the bypass, to determine if changes or improvements can be made to enhance recreational opportunities. Methodology should include using on-site visitor questionnaires and a mailed and/ or emailed questionnaire to residents of Newport adjacent to the project to assess recreation use and needs at the project. The study should also include an assessment of ADA compliant fishing access from the parking lot and walking paths available in the project area.
Goals and Objectives
To determine if project operations impact recreational opportunities;
To determine current use of project area for recreation;
Assess if there are operational, structural or other modifications to the project which could improve fishing, birding, or other recreational opportunities.
Resource Management Goals
Enhancement of recreational opportunities associated with the presence and operation of the project, including the dam, reservoir and tailwater areas. Noted that requester is not an agency or Indian tribe.
Public Interest
Sections 4(e) and 10(a) of the Federal Power Act require the Commission to give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project is located, and what conditions should be placed on any license that may be issued. As indicated in the FERC guidance for Recreation Development at Licensed Hydropower Projects,
“On December 27, 1965, FERC issued Order No. 313, which amended the General Policy and Interpretations section of the Commission’s regulations (18 CFR Part 2) to ensure that the ultimate development of recreation resources at all projects is consistent with area recreational needs. Specifically, 18 CFR Part 2 was amended to include § 2.7, which requires licensees to: (1) acquire lands to assure optimum development of the recreational resources afforded by the project; (2) develop suitable public recreational facilities with adequate public access, considering the needs of physically handicapped persons in the design of facilities and access; (3) coordinate efforts with other agencies in the development of recreation areas and facilities; (4) provide for planning, operation, and maintenance of these facilities; and (5) inform the public of opportunities for recreation at licensed projects.”[19]
Existing Information
Other than the 2015 Form 80 report filing, little information exists as to current use of the project area. Based on the lack of response to FERC’s request regarding the waiver request in this filing, the information provided may be marginal in validity. Current lack of signage and physical status of the project area may limit recreational opportunities by discouraging access. This needs to be assessed.
Nexus to Project Operations and Effects
Boaters, anglers, and other recreational users are impeded from access to their public trust waters by hydro-electric dams. Changes in hydraulic conditions and habitat in the river impacts their ability to use the resources, affects catch rates and species for fish, and creates safety concerns. Current project lands in a heavily populated area might be made available for public use at little cost.
Methodology Consistent with Accepted Practice
The proposed study would be conducted by using on-site visitor questionnaires and a mailed and/ or emailed questionnaire to residents of Newport to collect feedback on perceptions of access to the area, use patterns and local needs. This is an accepted methodology for this type of study.
Level of Effort/Cost, and Why Alternative Studies will not suffice
Cost for this study is estimated to be low. This study would provide the current baseline regarding recreational use and would provide insight into the need for and type of potential enhancements.
~~~~~~~~
[1] Nolan, Paul V. ‘Public Notice of NOI and PAD.’ The Eagle Times, Claremont, NH. Tuesday, August 6, 2019. B9.
[2] Pre-Application Document. Sugar River II Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project No. 10934. Prepared for New Hampshire Renewable Resources, LLC. August 6, 2019. Page 9.
[3] Pre-Application Document. Sugar River II Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project No. 10934. Prepared for New Hampshire Renewable Resources, LLC. August 6, 2019. Page 12.
[4] Ibid. Page 12.
[5] Ibid. Page 13.
[6] Ibid. Page 13.
[7] Ibid. Page 13.
[8] Ibid. Page 13.
[9] Ibid. Page 47.
[10] Ibid. Page 14.
[11] Ivy, Mark I on behalf of FERC “Requirement to File FERC Form No. 80.” Received by Ronald K. DeCola. Dated October 4, 2017.
[12] Pre-Application Document. Sugar River II Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project No. 10934. Prepared for New Hampshire Renewable Resources, LLC. August 6, 2019. Page 15.
[13] Ibid. Page 16.
[14] Ibid. Page 26.
[15] Ibid. Page 34.
[16] Ivy, Mark I on behalf of FERC “Requirement to File FERC Form No. 80.” Received by Ronald K. DeCola. Dated October 4, 2017.
[17] Recreation Development at Licensed Hydropower Projects: Division of Project Compliance and Administration, Office of Hydropower Licensing, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington DC. March 1996. Page 14.
[18] Pre-Application Document. Sugar River II Hydroelectric Project. FERC Project No. 10934. Prepared for New Hampshire Renewable Resources, LLC. August 6, 2019. Page 35.
[19] Recreation Development at Licensed Hydropower Projects: Division of Project Compliance and Administration, Office of Hydropower Licensing, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington DC. March 1996. Page 1.