February 8, 2024 Vermont Legislature Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Energy Via email to: Judith Newman RE: Comments of Kathy Urffer, River Steward for Connecticut River Conservancy Dear Chair Bray and Senators: Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on S213 – An act relating to the regulation of wetlands, river corridor development, and dam safety, which we wholeheartedly support! I am the river steward for Connecticut River Conservancy (CRC) in VT and in that role take responsibility for working to support the health of VT’s rivers. I routinely participate in regulatory proceedings affecting our rivers and provide public education about potential impacts to our rivers. Additionally, as an organization we manage the implementation of natural resource projects in partnership with landowners. Many of these projects are vital to community resilience in the face of increased flooding. CRC is supportive of all aspects of this bill. It is vital that regulatory authority regarding development in river corridors and flood hazard areas be managed by the state.  I think the urgency to move quickly and proactively to protect our communities cannot be overstated. As an example, the state is desperately in need of additional housing, but that housing cannot be developed in places that will exacerbate flooding, and our many volunteer municipal leaders cannot be put in the position to have to make that determination.  It is the responsibility of the Agency of Natural Resources to regulate for and protect our environment and it is the responsibility of the State to protect our people. Wetlands enable the storage of huge volumes of water while simultaneously purifying it. According to some estimates, we have lost over 30% of our wetlands and we desperately need that storage capacity back, NOW, to protect our communities. How our wetlands are managed cannot be at the whim of a specific administration. We need to codify in law the intention that the Agency of Natural Resources will structure their work around wetlands to achieve a net gain over time and we need comprehensive mapping to understand where our valuable wetlands are to protect them. We are one of the leading organizations on dam removal in VT and are regional experts on hydropower relicensing. In Vermont and nationally, our dam infrastructure is old and decaying. CRC supports changes to the existing State’s Dam Revolving Loan Fund to provide an easier pathway to access funds to remove dangerous or breached dams instead of using State funds solely to repair them. We adamantly support moving oversight of the few hydro facilities in VT that are not regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from the Public Utilities Commission to the VT DEC Dam Safety Program, with additional support for our Dam Safety staff to provide the expertise and engineers needed to properly inspect dams and protect public safety. Finally, thank you very much for adding language to S213 to ban unenclosed polystyrene dock floats. This is an issue that we have been working on in all four of our Connecticut River watershed states for many years.  During our Annual Source to Sea cleanup, (this year will be our 28th year) we typically remove more than 30 tons of garbage from our rivers each year. We routinely have data collection reports that show the removal of on average 20 to 30 large chunks of unenclosed polystyrene dock floats from the tributaries and the Connecticut River on the eastern side of Vermont each year. This amount does not capture all of the polystyrene pieces, any of the millions of disintegrating small pieces, or how many additional chunks might have already floated downstream into our other watershed states. Polystyrene is a plastic and as it breaks apart it is contributing untold amounts of microplastics into our environment.  In addition, animals such as river otters will burrow into the docks further degrading them and reducing the life of the dock (and the otter). The presence of polystyrene leaches chemicals such as benzene, styrene, and ethylene into the water, which are acutely toxic to freshwater aquatic life in small doses. Additionally, the physical degradation of plastic foam floatation threatens wildlife, as plastic beads clog the airways of species and enter their digestive tracts, preventing them from absorbing vital nutrients. It is estimated that plastic foam may NEVER fully break down in the natural environment, remaining a threat to aquatic ecosystems forever. Several years ago CRC began an outreach effort to river communities about the issues of unenclosed polystyrene dock floats in an effort to encourage dock owners to “Swap your Dock.”  As a part of this educational effort we developed an educational video, and both a 30 year and 50 year comparison of overall replacement costs of unenclosed dock floats and various alternatives over time. Spoiler alert – unenclosed polystyrene ends up being one of the costliest options to install. Many of the VT watershed organizations were on the ground leading cleanup efforts in our flooded communities after the July floods.  Climate change predictions tell us that these flooding events are going to be repeated – likely at an increased rate and increased intensity.  Banning unenclosed polystyrene dock floats is an uncontroversial and easy solution to reducing the toxic pollutants entering our waterways. Please pass S213.  It is vital to the safety and the health of our human and ecological communities. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Kathy Urffer River Steward, VT

The annual Source to Sea Cleanup is a watershed-wide initiative organized by Connecticut River Conservancy in NH, VT, MA, and CT to remove as much trash as possible from the Connecticut River and tributaries. 2023 was the 27th year in a row that the massive cleanup effort has taken place and once again there was an incredible turnout by over 100 different groups consisting of communities, families, businesses, nonprofits, schools, and diverse volunteers united in their commitment to cleaner, healthier rivers. While the majority of events happened on September 23rd-24th, some groups had to postpone due to rain and others preferred to schedule for October for other conveniences, which means the overall cleanup effort is not yet complete! And it will be some time before Connecticut River Conservancy receives everyone’s photos and the results of all the trash tallies – including details of exactly how much trash was collected, what kind of items were common this year, and everyone’s favorite category: most unusual items found. We will provide a much more detailed summary of activities in this year’s Cleanup Chronicle (here is last year’s for reference) later this fall, but in the meantime we’re sharing some of the highlights and photos recent events. If you have participated this year and have any questions or would like to send us your photos, please contact us at cleanup@ctriver.org. Here is the 2023 summary so far! Several legislators joined cleanups in Massachusetts, including Senator Jo Comerford, Lindsay Sabadosa (State Representative, 1st Hampshire District), Natalie M. Blais (State Representative, 1st Franklin District), and Mindy Domb (State Representative, 3rd Hampshire District). We greatly appreciate the involvement of local leaders who not only support legislation that helps keep our rivers clean, but who roll up their own sleeves to get involved! The Franklin County Rivers Cleanup/Green River Cleanup (consisting of 35 separate events) celebrated their 20th year of being part of the Source to Sea Cleanup, with awards given to David Boles, Michael Pattavina, and Charlie Olchowski to recognize their incredible dedication and hard work through the years. The River Roads Festival cleanup group with Laudable Productions, music artists, volunteers, and Council Member At-Large Owen Zaret had the most impeccable organization system for trash tallies we’ve ever seen! They collected over 1,000 cigarette butts and several hundred nip bottles in just 2 hours. Holyoke Public Schools and the Academy of Charlemont had amazing participation from students, and an independent youth-led group in Easthampton organized by 17-year-old Willa also had young people involved in river cleanups. Eversource Energy, in addition to being a lead sponsor of the overall cleanup, had 3 separate staff volunteer groups in CT, MA, and NH. They were fiercely dedicated to making a big impact and collected an incredible amount of trash. The Deerfield River Watershed Trout Unlimited group found a hot tub! Among many other items removed from the Deerfield River. The Great Meadows Conservation Trust (along with the Wethersfield Dads Club) had a wonderful community turnout in Wethersfield Cove. The Umass Five College Credit Union had a great cleanup and found a message in a bottle! We recommend more sustainable activities for kids and methods of communication, but we’re glad this sweet message was received and appreciated. And of course, SO many other fantastic volunteers have been involved, having spent a precious weekend day (rain or shine) bringing a positive can-do attitude to address a serious problem. Special thanks to our incredible sponsors for supporting this year’s cleanup – we couldn’t do it without you! Stay tuned for the 2023 Cleanup Chronicle to include many more photos, stories, and trash stats.

Greenfield, MA, [9/28/23]. Connecticut River Conservancy (CRC), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to the Connecticut River watershed in New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut since 1952, is thrilled to announce Rebecca Todd as their next Executive Director, to formally begin on October 9th, 2023. Rebecca has most recently served as the Executive Director of New Hampshire’s Stonewall Farm, a non-profit working farm and education center, however it is her rich experience as an attorney that has shaped most of her career. For over 30 years Rebecca has advised organizations, individuals, and businesses in matters related to environmental, educational, contractual, employment, and non-profit management. She served as General Counsel for Antioch University, as Associate Attorney General in the Office of the Attorney General in Washington in the Education and Ecology divisions, and litigated cases for the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc. (now Earthjustice) and the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. related to the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and hazardous waste laws. Rebecca also teaches environmental law, legal advocacy, and other subjects nationally and internationally. In addition to these professional accomplishments, Rebecca grew up in the Connecticut River watershed, has raised a family while stewarding farmland along the river in New Hampshire, and is cultivating a new passion for the sport of rowing. “After an incredibly thorough search and evaluation of the needs of our organization, we are thrilled to welcome Rebecca as the next Executive Director. Her robust experience, character, and passion for the Connecticut River and surrounding communities will help implement a strategic and sustainable path in the years to come.” – Bob Sproull, Board Chair of Connecticut River Conservancy “I look forward to supporting the incredibly collaborative network of partners, members, and community members who recreate on the Connecticut River, and to developing solutions dedicated to healthier rivers in our beautiful watershed.” – Rebecca Todd, Upcoming Executive Director of Connecticut River Conservancy The Search Committee, including members of CRC’s Board of Trustees, staff, and executive search firm Eos Transition Partners, received applications from many well-qualified individuals across the country over the last few months and after careful review have determined that Rebecca is the most qualified to become the next great leader of Connecticut River Conservancy. Experience related to operational, fiscal, and human resource management were essential, as well as a track record in successful relationship-building, and experience supporting Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion as part of organizational culture. Many excellent candidates were considered, and CRC is grateful for all those who applied. CRC’s previous Executive Director, Andy Fisk, departed in the fall of 2022 after 10 years with the organization and is now the Northeast Regional Director at American Rivers. During this transitional time, CRC has been capably led by interim Executive Director and Director of Restoration Programs, Ron Rhodes who has been a member of CRC staff for over 12 years. The new Executive Director will be welcomed by an enthusiastic Board, knowledgeable staff, and dozens of highly engaged regional stakeholders. CRC has a robust 70-year history of environmental conservation and restoration. The organization was first formed as the Connecticut River Watershed Council in 1952 by a group of concerned citizens, rebranded to the Connecticut River Conservancy in 2017, and has been a voice for the Connecticut River since the beginning. Programs include healthy habitat restoration through tree planting and dam removal, advocacy to prevent pollution, invasive species removal, water quality monitoring, river recreation access, community science to support migratory fish, the annual Source to Sea Cleanup, and more. Rebecca will be available for interviews starting October 9th, and CRC’s direct communications via email and social media will include introductory messages in the weeks and months to come. A series of meet-and-greet events are also being planned. In the meantime, we invite you to share a personal message for Rebecca to send your congratulatory well-wishes or hopes for the Connecticut River and surrounding communities. For any questions, please contact CRC’s Director of Communications, Diana Chaplin, at dchaplin@ctriver.org.

Connecticut River Conservancy, along with colleagues at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, recently held our annual sea lamprey rescue in Turners Falls. Every year the Turners Falls Cabot Station drains their canal for maintenance purposes. Unfortunately, this process leaves thousands of juvenile lampreys stranded and exposed to harsh elements. We only have a few hours to find and rescue as many as we can before they perish. Because of this tight timeline and the size of the canal, we invite volunteers to help in this effort. We are incredibly grateful to the 50+ volunteers who came to join this community science and migratory fish initiative, and while everyone went home caked in mud it was a very successful event with an estimated over 1,000 live sea lamprey rescued, along with a range of other species such as mudpuppies, carp, perch, and mussels. Here are some of our favorite photos: Sea lamprey are an important native migratory fish of the Connecticut River. Unlike the species we find in the North American Great Lakes, our local sea lamprey are not invasive. You will find adults migrating upriver form the ocean every year to spawn (reproduce). Once they’ve reached the ideal habitat for their lamprey babies, their lifecycle comes to an end, leaving a carcass full of rich nutrients our ecosystem thrives on. The lamprey babies, called ammocoetes grow in our freshwater systems and take 4 to 5 years to migrate to the ocean and grow into adults. Some of them inevitably end up in this canal, and that’s where we can lend a hand to help them continue on their life cycle journey. During the rescue, USFWS staff evaluated all collected sea lamprey to ensure that only living lampreys were gathered and placed them in specialized tanks with clean water as the event went on. The majority of lamprey were later released downriver, with some taken to the Silvio O. Conte Anadromous Fish Research Laboratory managed by the U.S. Geological Survey in order to continue studying the species and include living lampreys in evaluation of fish ladder design effectiveness. Connecticut River Conservancy’s ongoing work to support cleaner rivers and healthy habitat for migratory fish includes nest surveys, dam removal, riparian buffer plantings, trash removal, and much more. You can learn more about migratory fish or support this work with a contribution today.

Overview of Combined Sewer Overflow Following heavy rainstorms, such as those we’ve had in July and September 2023, water running off of roads and lawns makes its way either into a storm drain, where it is conveyed through pipes to a waterbody, or will go to a treatment plant before being discharged into a river.  This water is know as “stormwater,” which refers to the water that runs off of the land into the drainage system or surface waters during precipitation events, instead of soaking into the ground. In many older cities, the pipes that transport stormwater and the pipes that transport sewage from your house are one and the same. When populations were much smaller and water treatment was nonexistent, it was most efficient to have just one pipe for everything, which would ultimately discharge (untreated) into the river. Thankfully, following the passage of the Clean Water Act, these pipes were diverted to treatment plants, where sewage, and sometimes stormwater, are treated before discharging the liquids (also known as effluent) back into the river. However, as populations in cities and towns expanded, so has the demand on this combined stormwater and sewer infrastructure. Today, in areas where sewage and stormwater pipes are combined, intense rainfall or snowmelt can be too great of a volume for the pipes to convey and for the treatment plants to process. As a result, the mixture of stormwater and sewage “bypass” treatment and are discharged directly into the river. This discharge is called a Combined Sewer Overflow, or CSO. The Massachusetts and Connecticut portion of the Connecticut River is impacted by five remaining CSO communities, all of which have been working to reduce CSO discharges for decades. However, the cost of this work is enormous, which presents significant challenges, especially in cities and towns where increasing water and sewer rates (which is how much of this work is paid for) creates issues of affordability for residents. With the increase in intensity and frequency of floods, as we experienced in July and September 2023, it is critical that we support the work of cities and towns to reduce and eliminate CSOs. Below is a brief description of the ongoing work of each CSO community as well as resources for further reading. The Connecticut River Clean-up Committee, hosted by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, has been pivotal in securing funding for CSO abatement in the three largest CSO communities in Massachusetts. Each of us can support the work of wastewater departments and commissions by reducing our own water use at home. When affordable, water efficient appliances lessen the burden on wastewater systems. If you have a lawn or hard surfaces at your home, consider installing ‘green infrastructure’ to help reduce the amount of stormwater entering the system. Resources: MassDEP Map of CSOsCSO Data Portal The Clean Water Project CT DEEP CSO Bypass map Bringing Green Infrastructure to Your Community Hartford The Metropolitan District (MDC) provides water to the greater Hartford area. They maintain a total of 38 active combined sewer overflow locations within their system that discharge in the Park River and the Connecticut River. MDC has been working with the EPA and the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection since the 1990’s to reduce overflows. From 2006 to 2022, they achieved a 50% reduction in yearly overflows, 488 million gallons in total. In 2006, MDC entered into a consent order to implement actions that would eliminate all combined sewer overflows by 2029. However, in 2018 they released a Long-Term Control Plan update in which they requested an extension of nearly 30 years, to 2058 to finish the project. Rather than granting a 30 year extension, CT DEEP approved a short term project list with a new consent order in 2022. Instead of the original goal of eliminating all combined sewer overflows by 2029, this new project list will achieve a reduction of 97 million gallons by 2029. Projects that the MDC are required to complete include: Reducing CSOs in the North Branch Park River by 50% by 2027 Completing the South Hartford Conveyance and Storage Tunnel by 2029 which will control South Branch Park River CSO’s and eliminate CSO’s going into Wethersfield Cove Eliminating 13 CSO/SSO regulators Resources: 2022 CT DEEP Consent Order with MDC 2018 Long Term Control Plan The Clean Water Project CT DEEP CSO Bypass map Springfield The Springfield Water and Sewer Commission manages wastewater not only for the City of Springfield, but also for Agawam, East Longmeadow, Longmeadow, Ludlow, West Springfield and Wilbraham. For these seven towns, wastewater is conveyed to the Springfield Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility on Bondi’s Island in Agawam, where it is treated. Springfield has nearly 150 miles of combined sewer and stormwater pipes. During heavy precipitation events, the combination of stormwater and sewage is too great for the treatment facility to manage, and sewage is discharged, untreated into the Connecticut and Chicopee Rivers. Since the late 1990s, the Commission has been working, under a series of Administrative Order from the EPA, to reduce CSOs. This effort has resulted in a 30% reduction in CSO volume since 1994 and in 2014, the Commission finalized a plan that outlines goals for further reducing CSO discharges. This plan, called the Integrated Wastewater Plan (IWP), outlines CSO reduction goals and steps, as well as steps to maintain and modernize existing wastewater infrastructure, such as the wastewater treatment facility. A primary goal of the IWP is to reduce CSO volume by 87% by 2031 using a 6-phase approach and prioritizing highest-volume, most cost-effective CSO projects. Today the Commission manages 23 CSOs and is in Phase 2 of the IWP. A major project of Phase Two is the York Street Pump Station and Connecticut River Crossing Project. The project includes the construction of a new pump station as well as three new river-crossing pipes which will convey wastewater to Bondi’s Island for treatment. All told, this project will increase pumping capacity to reduce CSOs by 100 million gallons in a typical year and is slated to be completed in the summer of 2023. From July – December of 2021 212 million gallons of untreated sewage were released into the Connecticut and Chicopee Rivers from the Springfield facilities. The completion of the York Street Project will mean a 51% reduction in CSO volume and is a major step in protecting the Connecticut River. Resources: SWSC CSO and Stormwater Website2014 Integrated Wastewater Plan Holyoke The City of Holyoke manages 12 active CSO outfalls from July – December of 2022 these outfalls discharged a total of 124 million gallons. The City has many miles of combined sewer lines, with 61% of the collection system combining stormwater and sanitary sewer lines. In 2000, the City of Holyoke completed a Long Term Control Plan (LTCP), which has been superseded by the more up to date LTCP, finalized in 2019. Since 2000, the City has worked to separate sewer lines from stormwater conveyance, reduced inflow to the sewer system, made modifications to a number of CSO outfalls and constructed a treatment facility to address some CSO flows. All told, these projects have reduced annual CSOs by 316 million gallons, or roughly 66% since 2000. Though there has been considerable progress made to reduce CSOs in Holyoke, there remains a significant amount of work over the coming years to work towards reduction and elimination of CSOs. In 2023 Holyoke and the Environmental Protection Agency entered into a consent decree which requires the City of Holyoke to implement the projects in the 2019 LTCP according to a schedule that concludes in 2037. The consent decree also includes requirements for the City to monitor stormwater and continue CSO monitoring. The 2019 LTCP, which was updated in 2022, prioritizes abatement of three CSO outfalls. These outfalls were selected because they represent the lowest cost per gallon of CSO removed and would eliminate 3 out of of 4 highest volume CSOs with an overall anticipated 85% reduction in annual CSO volume. Resources: 2023 Consent Decree2019 LTCP Summary Public Notification Website Chicopee Similarly to Springfield, the City of Chicopee follows an integrated plan, called the Integrated Management Plan (IMP), which seeks to balance CSO abatement with upgrading critical wastewater infrastructure. The City manages roughly 200 miles of stormwater and sewerpipes, 70% of which were originally combined and has 15 CSO outfalls. From July – December 2022, the City discharged 64 million gallons and averages around 100 million gallons annually. In 2006, EPA issued a Consent Decree to the City of Chicopee which mandated a schedule for implementing the LTCP at the time. Since 2006, CSO volume has been reduced from over 480 million gallons per year, representing a 75% decrease in CSO volume. Looking ahead, the City of Chicopee is working to reduce annual CSO volumes by 85% by 2025 and by 99% when the IMP schedule is completed in 2050. Included in the IMP are both capital projects to address aging infrastructure and sewer backups, as well as CSO reduction projects. These projects are prioritized according to their level of “failure risk,” which helps to identify projects that will have the greatest benefit for human health and the environment while meeting regulatory requirements set out by the EPA. Resources: 2018 Integrated Management PlanPublic Notification Website Montague Montague is the smallest of the CSO communities, both in population and also in CSO discharge; in 2022, Montague’s two CSO outfalls released about 0.5 million gallons of sewage. In 2020, the town was issued an Administrative Order from the EPA to minimize its CSOs and meet additional limitations on discharges and to reduce harmful levels of bacteria in the Connecticut River. The Town of Montague created a new LTCP through a 2021 progress update, which is set to be finalized in the summer of 2023. Since 2005, four of the six LTCP recommendations have been implemented and at this point, over 90% of the Town’s sewer system has been separated. Between 2005 and 2010 (when construction was completed on several projects), the Town of Montague reduced the number of discharged from 62 events per year to 14 overflow events per year. This constituted a reduction from 7 million gallons discharged per year, to 0.48 million gallons in 2011 and now averages roughly half of a million gallons of discharge per year. Looking ahead, the 2021 LTCP update includes recommendations for completion by 2026 to reduce CSO discharged by 96%. These recommendations include GIS work to locate stormwater assets, hydraulic modeling to determine flow restrictions of the system and evaluate alternatives and field investigations to address identify sources inflow and infiltration into the system, which contribute to overflows. Resources: Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) UpdateMontague CSO Notification Page

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Sackett v. EPA that the federal protections offered by the Clean Water Act (CWA) will have a narrowed definition of “waters of the United States.” Wetlands, which had previously been covered under the CWA if they are “adjacent to” other waterways, have now been interpreted to only be subject to CWA provisions if the wetlands directly adjoin rivers, lakes, and other bodies of permanent water. A key distinction from previous CWA language involves this new necessity for “continuous surface connection.” Here’s the exact language in the Sackett v. EPA decision written by Justice Alito and joined by Justices Robers, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett: “We hold that the CWA extends to only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right, so that they are ‘indistinguishable’ from those waters.” Wetlands are areas where the land is wet for certain periods of time, or all year round and typically supports a distinct community of plants and animals. They serve a variety of vital ecological functions including: Creating habitats for fish, amphibians, birds, and other wildlife Replenishing groundwater that communities rely on Absorbing floodwaters to reduce flood damage and erosion Supporting diverse food chains important for fishing Creating climate resilience by storing and releasing water Filtering pollution to reduce pollutants in nearby rivers Sequestering carbon Supporting healthier forests and cleaner air Providing ecosystem services that lead to economic benefits such as water treatment cost savings and increased property values How this Decision Will Impact the Connecticut River Watershed Wetlands are an essential component of healthy watersheds regardless of whether there is a “continuous surface connection.” Ecosystems are inherently connected. In the case of watersheds, this connection is not always on the surface. Connectivity – or lack thereof – below the ground also affects overall water quality and ecological integrity. That seemingly random low swampy spot may be critical in helping filter out runoff contaminants before groundwater reaches a spring-fed stream or an aquifer. Wetlands also support animal and plant communities that may not be found in other areas. Vernal pools are a great example of ephemeral, unconnected wetlands that are critical habitat for diverse invertebrate and amphibian species. The decision by the Supreme Court will leave many ecologically significant wetlands vulnerable to alteration or development. In fact, the new language is estimated to exempt over 50% of the wetlands in the USA from CWA protections. Wetland destruction could lead to reduced biodiversity, wider areas of drought (or flooding), more water pollution, and lower climate resilience in the Connecticut River watershed – challenges that already exist without the increased risks this re-definition of the Clean Water Act poses. Additionally, wetlands are located where they are due to the natural movement and accumulation of water from snow melt, precipitation, periodic flooding, and other environmental factors, so developing on wetland areas or altering wetland function could lead to property damage for those living on or around the altered wetland landscape, and increased flood risk to downstream communities. How Connecticut River Conservancy is Moving Forward Much of the work CRC does has been possible thanks to the CWA as it has existed for decades, and this decision reversed years of precedent related to how waters/wetlands are developed or protected. It’s a chip off the CWA in the context of other environment-related Supreme Court decisions that may have a negative impact for rivers. That being said, it also increases the importance of water-based advocacy organizations like CRC in making sure that state laws are more protective of water resources than loose Federal decisions. At this time, the new ruling opens many questions as to how the requirement for wetland surface connectivity will impact federal, state, and local pollutant regulation, permitting processes, water quality certifications, seasonal wetlands, source water protection, and development in sensitive habitats. We are working to understand how this may change both our immediate and long-term work to protect and advocate for the health of the Connecticut River watershed and how state or local policies within our four-state advocacy area can continue to consistently support protection for all wetlands based on sound scientific principles. Stay connected with the latest updates via our newsletter and we welcome your questions or concerns via CRC@ctriver.org. Written by Diana Chaplin, Kate Buckman, Kelsey Wentling, and Kathy Urffer

It was an incredible Earth Day around the Connecticut River, and we’re here to summarize all the activities that CRC was involved in along with many dedicated volunteers and regional conservation partners. The primary areas of work included river cleanups, cyanobacteria mitigation, and tree-planting! Cleanups to Reduce Pollution While CRC’s largest cleanup initiative is the Source to Sea Cleanup in early fall, picking up trash is an incredibly important activity any time of year. Spring reveals lots of debris that may have accumulated over the winter months and helps identify areas where more concerted efforts are needed to protect healthy habitats. In the Meadows area in Northampton, 12 volunteers organized by CRC Volunteer Group Leader Victoria Quill collected a whopping 1,200 lbs. of trash in under 3 hours! Some unique items collected include shotgun shells, bullets, umbrella, bumper, storage container, bathroom tiles, shingles, and a hula hoop. Common items include 9 tires and many beverage/food containers. We would also like to thank the following groups for coordinating independent cleanups: Deep River Sustainable Committee, Westfield River Watershed Association, Spruce it Up Colrain, Leverett Community Builders, and others. The Green Team at Saybrook Point Resort & Marina also included representatives from all departments within the resort for a coastal cleanup. They removed 15 bags of trash from a town beach, the adjacent parking lot, and a marsh next to a causeway close to their property in Old Saybrook. And the staff at Audacy participated as part of their 1 Thing Sustainability Initiative. They had 21 volunteers covering almost 2 miles of the Connecticut River in East Hartford, as well as the Riverwalk near the Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield, resulting in 17 large and heavy trash bags collected. Strangest items found were single shoes and a boot, a broken sledge hammer, and fake rose petals with tealight candles. Planting Trees and Stems for Hartford Reforesting our cities is one of the best ways to support healthy communities, increase biodiversity, and reduce the impact of climate change. That’s why Connecticut River Conservancy joined On Earth Hartford and Keney Park Sustainability Project in Windsor to transplant stems and saplings for a nursery that will benefit the park and tree canopy in Hartford, CT. Over 30 volunteers came out to transplant 320 saplings, including river birches and silver maples. Transplanting at this stage in the young trees’ growth will provide the right conditions for them to mature and develop strong root networks so that they have the highest possible chance of survival when they’re planted in the ground to support Hartford’s canopy as well as riverbanks in the area. After the planting, our River Steward for Connecticut, Rhea Drozdenko, moderated a panel discussion titled Engaging Community for the Earth, a conversation about the importance of involving community in environmental work, and how folks can advocate and engage others. The panel also included Samuel King from Blue Earth Compost, Jonathan Humphrey from Natural Dividends, Kirsten Martin from the University of St. Joseph, and Ally Gelinas from KNOX. Cyanobacteria Mitigation in Nashawannuck Pond Harmful algae blooms (HAB) such as toxic cyanobacteria blooms are increasing dramatically worldwide, including in the Connecticut River Watershed, due to pollution, chemical saturations in bodies of water such as ponds and lakes, and rising temperatures. HABs are toxic to animals (including fish, birds, livestock, humans, and dogs) and are disruptive of healthy ecosystems. Barley straw is proven to be effective as an algistat against algae blooms by reacting to the water. A group of partners in Western Massachusetts who are concerned about HAB’s came together to introduce barley straw to local ponds. In order for barley straw to be effective against algae blooms, straw bales need to be installed in the ponds in the spring, where they remain until the fall. And that’s exactly what we did on Earth Day in Nashawannuck Pond in Easthampton, MA. Thanks to the help of over 20 volunteers, the Nashawannuck Pond steering committee, US Fish & Wildlife, and the City of Worcester, we packed 132 barley straw bales and installed them across 10 locations around Nashawannuck Pond. From here, we will continue to monitor the effectiveness of this mitigation approach using a CyanoFluor that can detect presence of cyanobacteria in a sample. By gathering water quality data we can understand how to help reduce HAB’s in other parts of the watershed. Earth Day is Just the Beginning of Field Season! While Earth Day may be a fantastic way to get involved with environmental action, it’s only just the start of the field season ahead and all that our programs work has in store for this year. Check out our Events Calendar for upcoming opportunities.

A flurry of activity accompanied the start of April, as FirstLight Power, the owner and operator of Turner’s Falls dam and Northfield Mountain, released a Flows and Fish Passage Settlement Agreement. This agreement is between FirstLight and several agencies and organizations that have been involved in negotiating a new license to determine how the hydropower facilities will be operated for 30-50 years; CRC has been active in these talks but made the decision not to sign the agreement (keep reading to learn why). The Flows and Fish agreement was submitted to the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission (FERC), the agency responsible for issuing a final license to FirstLight. At the end of 2022, FirstLight blew by yet another deadline to submit a settlement agreement to address how the license would incorporate issues of fish/flow, erosion, cultural resources and recreation. At the beginning of the new year, FERC gave the company until March 31st to submit an agreement on all these topics. As you can see, FirstLight has only submitted an agreement related to fish passage and flows for habitat and whitewater recreation. It remains to be seen if there will be progress on any more agreements, but in the meantime, FirstLight’s submission to FERC has opened a public comment opportunity and we are asking YOU to write to FERC to weigh in on what you support and don’t support about the Flows and Fish agreement. We’re including some of our thoughts on the agreement below, but we encourage you to incorporate your personal perspective in your comments to FERC to demonstrate how these projects impact you and your community. CRC’s perspective on the Flows & Fish Agreement Some of the good stuff in the agreement: More water in the river during springtime to protect fish during the migration season Timed water releases to ensure whitewater paddlers have an opportunity to enjoy the Connecticut River, while still protecting species of concern Fish passage infrastructure that helps fish migrate up and down the river more quickly and more easily than before More gradual flow releases below the canal to minimize the impact of sudden fluctuations in river levels Some of the bad stuff: In summer months, the river will receive only about half the amount of water needed to provide enough flow for fish and macroinvertebrates That great fish passage infrastructure we mentioned before won’t be installed until nearly a decade after the license in finalized, in total 20 years after this process began The barrier net to protect fish from getting killed in the Northfield Mountain intake (tube that draws water up the mountain) doesn’t do much of anything to protect young fish and eggs from getting killed No mention of FirstLight’s obligation to manage invasive species in the area FirstLight is seeking a 50-year license term. This timeframe cannot account for how our climate and ecosystems will change over the next several decades Over the next few weeks and months, we’ll be keeping you updated on the process and opportunities to weigh in. To stay up to date on what’s coming up next, you can subscribe to our hydropower specific email newsletter here. Oh, and by the way, did you read about the release FirstLight isn’t sending a press release about? *The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.  Please file comments using the Commission’s eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.  Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp.  You must include your name and contact information at the end of your comments.  For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, (866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-8659 (TTY).  In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.  Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:  Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.  Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:  Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.  The first page of any filing should include docket numbers P-1889-085 and P-2485-071.

Project Overview Connecticut River Conservancy (CRC) has been piloting a volunteer microplastics monitoring program in the Connecticut River watershed. CRC holds a watershed wide trash cleanup each year and our River Stewards work in each state to “stop trash before it starts” by advocating for legislation like bottle bills and extended producer responsibility. There was no existing data about plastic’s impact on our waterways to support this advocacy work. Our members have also expressed interest in understanding how emerging contaminants, such as microplastics, are present in the Connecticut River watershed. We have been working over the past two years to develop a program that engages volunteers and starts to fill this knowledge gap in a responsible way. Challenges We can definitively say that our local waters are contaminated with microplastics! Volunteers are excited to be contributing to local research of microplastics Analysis can occur during the winter months when our lab is not otherwise in use In Year 2, we were able to adapt a procedure developed at Staffordshire University using forensic tape to fix filter to slides so the slides can be reviewed more than once We will be developing the training procedure for volunteers to take over the reading of the results this spring Results and Discussion For this project, volunteers collected two samples each in 2021 and 2022 from the 13 sites pictured on the map below. Most sites were located on the mainstem Connecticut River. We also collected from 2 major tributaries, the Deerfield and West Rivers, and selected a remote headwater location in the HO Cook State Forest in Heath, MA. A few of our 2022 samples froze in our fridge and broke, so we unfortunately lost four samples. Thankfully, each of the samples that froze was from a different site, so we have at least one observation from every site for each year. Site Sampling Map In the lab, we filtered samples using a vacuum pump and looked at the filters under a microscope. In 2021, filters were examined while still wet. In 2022, we fixed the filters to slides using forensic tape (think dusting for fingerprints…). Fixing the filters to the slide allows for the same exact view under the microscope for multiple viewers. It is our goal to have volunteers do the lab analysis as well, and using this technique gets us one step closer. The lab analysts recorded each individual microplastic observed and classified it by type, size, and color. We found microplastics in every sample collected! The most common type of microplastic was fiber, most common size category was “Small Microplastic” (under 1 mm), and the most common color was blue. Another prominent type of microplastic of note was transparent filaments that we attribute primarily to small pieces of fishing line. Below are a series of charts that show what we found. Here we have the distribution of five types at each site and sample. Refer to the map above to remind yourself where each site is located. The number of microplastics was variable at each site. Something of note is that it seems to be that sometimes a particular type other than fiber was found in greater numbers indicated a specific item like a piece of rope or styrofoam was degrading at the site. Here we can see the distribution of colors found at each site and sample. As the first graph suggested, blue is the dominant color found across all the samples. Here is a closer look at the proportions of different colors found in each of the types of microplastic. We noticed that the most likely color of filament or rope was transparent and it is likely due to bits of fishing line. We also found that foams were dominated by white, which is likely from styrofoam. Conclusion After two years of this program, we have found it valuable to have data on how microplastics are affecting us locally in the Connecticut River watershed. We plan to continue this program, perhaps expand our research to different research questions, and use this data to support our advocacy work around trash and plastics.

Floodplains are for the birds! And for improving water quality, mitigating flood waters, and providing needed organic material among other things… But, today we’re talking about birds. Big birds. Birds with striking hairdos. Birds that are quite social despite their appearance of RBF (resting bird face). You may have been tipped off by the lead photo… we’re talking about Bald Eagles! Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) have made a dramatic recovery in New England since they gained federal protection in the 1970’s and were reintroduced in western Massachusetts in the early 1980’s. The first nesting pair reappeared in New Hampshire less than a decade later. Within my lifetime we have gone from zero nesting Bald Eagles in New Hampshire to over 90 breeding territories across the whole state in 2022 (see the graph below). On the mainstem Connecticut River, including both the New Hampshire and Vermont sides, approximately 32 nests currently stretch from the headwaters on the Canadian border all the way to Hinsdale and the Massachusetts line. That’s a remarkable wildlife restoration success story! I knew about the positive impact banning DDT had on Bald Eagles, but I was curious what else had helped contribute to the population increase. To find out more about Bald Eagles in general, I contacted Chris Martin, a conservation biologist at NH Audubon, who has spent the past 30+ years monitoring Bald Eagle populations for NH Fish and Game and VT Fish and Wildlife with the help of many community volunteers. Together, they have amassed a large amount of information and photos (like the one above by volunteer Chris Roberts) regarding the productivity, nest locations, and population numbers of Bald Eagles in NH and overlooking the river in VT. Bald Eagles need access to water. They are generalists in terms of diet, eating anything they can get their talons on from roadkill carrion to other birds. But, they really love fish. They build their nests on the banks and in the floodplains of rivers or the periphery of lakes and ponds. These locations provide access to fish and a good perch to observe their surroundings. In NH, these nests are found almost exclusively in large white pines or cottonwood trees. These trees are branchy and able to support the nest, which can reach 8 feet across and 5-6 feet deep. There is often a secondary alternate nest tree nearby in case of a catastrophe occurring to the primary nest. The nests are used repeatedly, though not always by the same eagles. Chris knows of one nest in Plainfield that has been used continuously since 2000. The eagle pair will spend the fall and winter adding sticks and branches to their chosen nest, repairing damage that occurred over the summer getting it ready for the next season’s chicks. Breeding season begins in February with courtship, mating, and often egg laying occurring by the end of the month. Eggs hatch about five weeks after they are laid and for the next twelve weeks after that the parents are busy feeding and caring for their young. During this time, the eagles will only add material like grass or hay to the nest to keep the chicks warm and dry and the nest can often visibly deteriorate from lack of stick maintenance. After fledging in the late summer, the young Bald Eagles are still dependent on their parents for a few more weeks before heading out on their own. While the young will travel far and wide in search of their new home, adult Bald Eagles stick around all year in their chosen community. They are fairly social with other eagles, and don’t have as large a territory as I would have expected. They are defensive of their nests when chicks are there and maintain a territory within about half a mile of the nest but are not particularly aggressive about it and will happily nest within sight of multiple other eagle pairs. The Bald Eagle population in NH has doubled about every six years since they were reestablished (see the graph above), and during that time the CT river eagles just filled in blank spaces on the map, basically halving the distance between eagle nests every time a new breeding territory was established around an available nest tree on the mainstem. When I asked Chris what his favorite thing about Bald Eagles is, he laughed a bit (I’m probably not the first person to ask), then indicated that one of the things he appreciates about them is their resourcefulness. They have the ability to learn about their environment and live long enough to really take advantage of and utilize that knowledge. He compared the eagles to our neighbors and noted that just like we do in our own neighborhoods, Bald Eagles learn where to go and where not to, the good shortcuts, and the best spots to eat. It seems to me that this resourcefulness and adaptability has likely been one key to their successful repopulation in NH and New England in general. The Connecticut River valley with preserved and restored riparian buffers and forested floodplains provides needed nesting and wintering grounds near to water while open farmlands dotting the landscape also ensure space and additional food sources. The watershed provided what the Bald Eagles needed; Chris remarked that “we humans just needed to get out of their way.” A good reminder for all of us that advocacy and work to maintain and restore healthy water quality, ecological function, and access to river ecosystems improves everyone’s neighborhood, Bald Eagles and humans alike. If you are interested in using your “eagle eyes” to help monitor Bald Eagle nesting pairs in NH, please contact Chris Martin at cmartin@nhaudubon.org. If you have any questions for me, you can reach me at kbuckman@ctriver.org, and if you are thinking to yourself “Kate, I was promised I could work with fish” Never fear! We are gearing up for our community science initiatives across all four states this coming spring. More information can be found here.

A recent study about “forever chemicals” in freshwater fish has made national headlines, reporting that eating just one freshwater fish a year is equal to a month of drinking water contaminated with chemicals linked to cancer and other adverse health effects. The study from Environmental Working Group showed that locally caught freshwater fish across the United States are likely a significant source of exposure to PFAS and other perfluorinated compounds to people who consume them. Given our strong connection with the Connecticut River and tributaries, we thought we’d take a closer look at the data along with other local research to see what conclusions we can draw from this about the waterways in New England. For those who want the quick takeaway, our general assessment is that PFAS are an issue in the Connecticut River watershed just as they are across the country. States are working on monitoring and regulating PFAS and issuing consumption advisories (such as this factsheet and this advisory in NH) or monitoring plans when appropriate (such as this plan in VT). Consuming freshwater fish from local waters can be a source of PFAS exposure but it is just one among many ways we can and are exposed to PFAS every day. What is PFAS? PFAS is short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and refers to a group of over 4000 human-made chemicals found in everyday household products such as nonstick pans, food packaging, waterproof jackets, and carpets, as well as personal care items such as shampoo and shaving cream, and even industrial materials such as aqueous film forming foam used to fight fires at military bases and commercial airports. One subclass of PFAS, perflourooctane sulfinates (PFOS), are often the focus of exposure due to their widespread use and persistence in the environment. PFAS compounds are useful because they are designed to be resistant to breakdown and impart stain and water-resistant properties to products. Unfortunately, they continue to resist breakdown and become “forever chemicals,” persisting in the environment for decades. They can bioaccumulate (accumulate in tissues) and biomagnify (increase in concentration as you move up the food chain) in living organisms resulting in negative health effects, including cancer. For these reasons and more, they are a serious contaminant that is a global problem. The New Study: First, a summary of the key takeaways from the new Environmental Working Group study: Researchers reviewed data from over 500 samples of fish fillets collected under various other studies in the US. Freshwater fish data came from two different US EPA monitoring initiatives analyzed in 2013-2015. One of these studies targeted fish from the Great Lakes region, which should be noted, is home to several industrial producers of PFAS; Great Lakes fish had a higher concentration of PFAS than more generally across the US. The study concluded that consuming freshwater fish caught in the US can significantly increase PFOS concentration in the human bloodstream, compared to exposure from drinking water alone. They point out that this is an environmental injustice that affects communities that depend on freshwater fishing for sustenance and for traditional cultural practices, which often includes poor, underserved, or BIPOC communities which may be subject to additional environmental health hazards as well. One thing that is important to understand about PFAS both locally and nationally is that this is an emerging area of science. There is, unfortunately, a lot that scientists don’t fully know or understand yet about PFAS, how they move through the environment, and the full effects of chronic exposure on humans, wildlife, and the environment. Even analytical methods for accurately measuring the different PFAS compounds are still being developed and refined. If you are concerned about PFAS, it will be important to keep up as new science emerges and puts what is understood currently into context. For example, there are no federally agreed upon standards in the US for exposure to PFAS through water, eating, or household use yet. The research needed to set these standards is still being done. Individual states have enacted drinking water standards and have issued fish consumption advisories where they feel it is appropriate, but these will likely be adjusted as our knowledge regarding the environmental health effects of PFAS increases. Falls in the Connecticut River below Second Connecticut Lake, Pittsburg, NH. Photo by Al Braden. Westfield River at Chesterfield Gorge, MA. Photo by Diana Chaplin. Skyline and Connecticut River at Springfield, MA. Photo by Al Braden. PFAS in the Connecticut River Watershed While this research is helpful in looking at the issue on a national scale, let’s turn to other studies done closer to home. We reviewed the information available from our four watershed states (VT, NH, MA, and CT). Unfortunately, PFAS are found everywhere that scientists go looking for them – groundwater, surface water, fish, animals, humans, etc. Testing for PFAS is incredibly expensive and challenging. Because PFAS are used in many household and laboratory products, extra care is needed to ensure there is no contamination during the sampling and analysis compared to other things that might be tested for. Even with these challenges, all four states have their own testing programs for water, fish, and more. Here’s a look at how each state is approaching PFAS in their surface waters: Vermont released a surface water monitoring report in 2021 and is expected to go through the rulemaking process to issue water quality standards in 2024. New Hampshire added PFAS monitoring to their surface water monitoring in 2017 and developed a plan to create water quality standards in 2019. Massachusetts funded a study along with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) which focused on known point sources in the eastern portion of the state but included some sites in the Connecticut River watershed. Connecticut is developing a mapping tool to identify potential PFAS sources and guide future monitoring efforts in the states’ waters. What About PFAS in Fish? There are varying levels of PFAS in local fish depending on their environmental exposure and location on the food chain. Fish in water bodies located near point sources of pollution will have higher tissue PFAS concentrations than those caught in water bodies that are subject to background contamination. Some states (like NH and CT) have analyzed fish tissues in areas of known increased environmental contamination and issued consumption advisories for specific rivers and lakes.  Currently, there is a fish consumption advisory for fish caught in the Hockanum River, a tributary to the Connecticut River in Connecticut. There was previously a similar advisory on the Farmington River, another tributary in Connecticut, after an aqueous film firefighting foam spill in 2019; this advisory was lifted in 2020 after testing showed reduced PFAS concentrations in Farmington River fish. More advisories may be issued as states are able to include more water bodies in their testing programs. The suggestions for avoiding excessive exposure to PFAS from fish that are caught from local rivers and lakes are similar to those for avoiding other environmental contaminants that biomagnify such as mercury: Eat low on the food chain, vary fishing spots, and respect local fishing advisories. Fish that live in waters that have lower levels of PFAS contamination will have lower PFAS concentrations in their tissues. Because PFAS are so pervasive, the only way to avoid exposure from consuming locally caught fish is to practice catch and release. That said, PFAS are everywhere in our current world and will continue to be. Every day products like food packaging and waterproof clothing that contain PFAS continue to be manufactured and used nearly ubiquitously throughout the world. The unfortunate and scary truth is that we are exposed to PFAS in many ways every day, not just by consuming freshwater fish. Exposure to PFAS will only truly be addressed by discontinuing use of PFAS compounds globally, however, PFAS that are already present in our environment will continue to persist. Connecticut River PFAS Conclusion: While it is concerning to see viral headlines about the levels of PFAS in our nation’s fish, it is a reminder that these forever chemicals are a clear and present health threat in our modern world. It is a complex issue with a lot of different moving parts. Officials in our watershed states and national agencies are working hard to assess the current levels of PFAS in our waters, soils, fish, and more to set rules and regulations that will help keep folks safer. Ultimately, this is the best thing we can do to address this national issue and stop PFAS from entering the environment in the first place. What CRC is Doing to Clean Up Our Rivers CRC is aware of and following research and data collection efforts regarding pollution and contaminants in our watershed, from e. coli to excess nutrients to chemicals like PFAS. We work with state and local governments, industries, and other non-profits to address issues as appropriate. For example, one of the roles of our River Stewards in each state is to comment on discharge permits through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Anyone discharging a potential pollutant into a body of water must go through the NPDES permitting process, including a comment period. These permits now include regulations for discharging PFAS along with the other pollutants that they regulate. Our River Stewards review these permit applications and submit comments to help ensure that our rivers are protected. We regularly share all CRC comments via our News Updates. Because of the difficulty and expense required to sample and analyze for PFAS, it is unlikely that CRC will start its own PFAS monitoring program. We will, however, continue to watch and engage with the studies being done by state and federal agencies about PFAS in the Connecticut River watershed, advocate for meaningful policy change at every opportunity, and educate the public. Please reach out if you have additional questions and we can connect you with the appropriate agency official for your state if we cannot answer them. _______________ Written by Ryan O’Donell, Monitoring Program Manager at Connecticut River Conservancy Editorial support from Kate Buckman, River Steward in NH, and Diana Chaplin, Communications Director Sign up for email updates to get stories like this in your inbox

March 29, 2021 Honorable Kimberly D. Bose Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 Re: CRC comments on the Fiske Mill hydroelectric project (P-8615) Preliminary Application Document and study requests Dear Secretary Bose, 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 ecologically sound hydroelectric projects in the Connecticut River watershed. CRC attended the Joint Agency and Public meeting on January 29, 2021 and has reviewed the Pre-Application Document for Exemption from Licensing, dated November 25, 2020. Please consider our comments and requests for studies below. General Comments The PAD states that Power Pool LLC is in “good standing.”[1] Based on a quick search of the NH Secretary of State website this does not appear to be correct.[2] CRC assumes that this is probably the result of a minor infraction, but it should be corrected. The applicant provides a paragraph on page 21 describing indigenous use of the river.  The link to the reference at https://www.des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/rivers/ash_river.htm is not working.  Can Fiske Mill provide the correct link?  Was this description meant to be in the Fisheries section or should it have been placed under Historic Properties? The PAD states that, “there is no formal project boundary associated with this minor project”[3] yet there is an Exhibit G providing a map of the project boundary.  Additionally, the applicant suggests that the impoundment extends upstream approximately 1,800 feet, but the Exhibit G boundary map reflects a distance of approximately 1,500 feet.  Please clarify the extent of the impoundment and the ecological or project related justification that defines the upper end of the impoundment. The PAD states that, “Total flow capacity of the turbines, including the proposed fifth turbine, at the Fiske Mill site (910 cfs) is exceeded 23 percent of the time.”[4] This seems to have been taken from the previously amended application to increase electrical generation to 910 cfs – as opposed to an anticipated total flow capacity of 884 cfs as proposed in the current application.  This percent exceedance should be corrected. In the PAD, the applicant references only the following water quality data, “Water quality parameters measured in August 1989, by the New Hampshire Water Quality Division in the project area indicated that DO was 9 mg/l and pH was 7 standard units.”[5] This was clearly copied from the 1990 amended license information and is too old to be of use.  A quick search of the NH DES website shows that NH Department of Environmental Services and the Ashuelot River Local Advisory Committee have been testing the water quality adjacent to Fiske Mill for many parameters in the intervening years.  While we note that the 2019 sampling results from the NH Volunteer River Assessment Program is included as Attachment A, the PAD should provide more comprehensive information about water quality data that has been collected above and below the project site. Timing of Studies in Relation to Needed Repairs Fiske Mill has been operating significantly under its nameplate capacity for several years due to the collapse of one of the penstocks.  It is not clear from the Notice of Intent or PAD when Fiske Mill intends to fix the penstock and upgrade the turbines and how studies would be timed in relation to this repair work. CRC contends that due to the need to make these repairs, any habitat, water quality, flow, entrainment and impingement, and fish passage studies should be delayed until after the repairs are done to have reliable results.  Any studies done under the current circumstances are not properly reflective of how the facility will be operating when returned to a fully operating condition. Economic Considerations Of additional concern is the economics of limited revenue because of reduced generation combined with expenses related to project repairs and additional expenses that will occur as part of the relicensing process. CRC is concerned about the current limited electricity generated by this facility and whether the cost to the ecosystem is currently justified.  Potential increases in electrical generation may justify some minor ecological impacts, but CRC has concerns about the feasibility of completing repairs and facility upgrades in addition to the cost to carry out relicensing studies while the facility is generating limited revenue.  The exemption for this facility should only be issued if it can be clearly shown that the project is economically viable in the face of these significant obstacles. Section 10(c) of the FPA requires licensees to ‘‘maintain the project works in a condition of repair adequate for… the efficient operation of said works in the development and transmission of power, . . . make all necessary renewals and replacements, . . . establish and maintain adequate depreciation reserves for such purposes…’’[6] Additionally, based on significant dam safety issues, FERC has recently issued a “Notice of Inquiry: Financial Assurance Measures for Hydroelectric Projects” (NOI – Jan. 26, 2021) which states, “In rare cases, the Commission has also included a requirement to file a financial assurance plan. The financial assurance article requires licensees to submit a plan that identifies the costs of project facilities that would be removed, secured in-place, or otherwise modified to ensure public safety, as well as other measures needed to protect environmental resources, in the event the licensee cannot complete project construction [emphasis added] or is unable to operate the project once construction is complete. After approval of the financial assurance plan and before beginning ground disturbing activities, the licensee must obtain a bond or equivalent financial instrument to ensure the licensee has the economic means to implement the plan. The licensee is also required to file annual reports to document that the bond or equivalent financial instrument remains in effect for the ensuing year.”[7] Further the NOI states, “Commission has seen increasing numbers of projects that are nonoperational or out of compliance with their license conditions, where licensees have stated that they cannot afford to operate or maintain the projects or implement required environmental or safety measures. Commission staff regularly works with these licensees to bring these projects back into operation or compliance, but only with mixed success.”[8] Given the growing concern over the financial stability and the aging of our hydro-power assets, and the complexity of extensive repairs needed at the Fiske Mill project in the midst of a relicensing process, CRC requests that a Cost Benefit Analysis of Continued Generation in Relation to Ecosystem and Repair Costs study be done to ascertain if the electric generation currently provided by the Fiske Mill Hydro-power facility is justified when balanced against habitat costs, whether the repairs and capital improvements are feasible, and whether expected generation would provide a return on investment that would maintain the viability of the project. This study may be combined with a decommissioning study to identify the cost of decommissioning the project if upgrades are not economically feasible. See requested Study 1 in Attachment A. Recreational Resources The applicant states that based on a letter from FERC dated October 3, 1997 the licensee was exempted from filing the Form 80 because there were no recreational facilities associated with the project.  The decision to waive requirement of the Form 80 twenty years ago does not waive the examination of recreational needs under this relicensing process.  Since then, FERC has stopped requiring the Form 80 altogether.  That action does not imply a complete waiver of any recreational requirements for mitigation through a relicensing process. 18 CFR Part 2s § 2.7 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.”[9] The PAD states that, “the river segment below the project to its confluence with the Connecticut River is rural in nature. The area above the Project’s impoundment ,i.e. the former site of the McGoldrick dam and upstream are used for personal boating…”[10] Since the last relicensing of this project portage trails have been developed at two upstream dams and the McGoldrick and Winchester dams have been removed.  The Ashuelot River has become a nationally recognized river for whitewater recreation with Class II to Class IV whitewater reaches in the 13 miles above Fiske Mill Dam. Below the Fiske Mill dam there is another 1.6 miles until the confluence with the Connecticut River. Currently there is no portage trail around Fiske Mill Dam and it remains an impediment to on-water navigation. The Fiske Mill Dam is in the center of downtown Hinsdale, with parking and easy access to the downstream section for fishing. The PAD also provides information about the 21-mile long Ashuelot River Recreation Trial which runs adjacent to the river and project. While there may be constraints to providing recreational enhancements directly on the Fiske Mill site, the presence of the dam nevertheless provides an obstacle to navigation and this impact to recreation should be mitigated for under the new license.  CRC asserts that mitigation of project impacts is not limited by the project boundary.  The project boundary is set to identify where the impacts of the operation are. If needed, the project boundary can be adjusted to accommodate mitigation requirements. In addition, other relicensing processes have provided recreational enhancements off-site as mitigation for project impacts. [11] CRC reiterates that waiving the requirement to provide a Form 80 under a previous license is not related to the consideration of mitigating for impacts to recreation under a relicensing process. CRC would expect Fiske Mill to provide some mitigation in exchange for obstacle to recreation and to identify the most appropriate mitigation effort, Fiske Mill should conduct a Recreation Survey/ Assessment. Please see requested Study 2 in Attachment A. Fish and Fisheries Habitat Five separate hydro-electric facilities on the Connecticut River are currently undergoing relicensing (P-1889 Turners Falls Dam, P-2485 Northfield Mountain Pump Storage Facility, P-1904 Vernon, P-1855 Bellows Falls, and P-1892 Wilder), two of which, P-1889 and P-2485, are downstream of the confluence of the Ashuelot River with the Connecticut.  All these facilities will be changing operations and enhancing up and downstream fish passage over the coming few years. The Fiske Mill project is the first obstacle on the Ashuelot River for the upstream migration of important Connecticut River migratory fish. According to the NH Wildlife Action Plan[12], the Ashuelot River is important for the restoration of American Shad and American Eel.  Additionally, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and CRC have both surveyed and found an abundant number of active sea lamprey nests in the Lower Ashuelot River. CRC supports any studies that may be requested by resource agencies to evaluate effectiveness of upstream and downstream passage for American Shad and American Eel, spawning habitat assessments in the project area for sea lamprey and American shad, freshwater mussel surveys, and studies to assess the presence of tesselated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), Johnny darter (E. nigrum), and mottled sculpin (Cottus bairdi), as host fish for mussels. It is important that studies done for the Fiske Mill project be comprehensive and properly scoped to anticipate potential changes to flows in the Connecticut River, expected upgrades to fish passage and subsequent changes to the number of migratory fish accessing the lower Ashuelot River for spawning habitat. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments. I can be reached at kurffer@ctriver.org or (802) 258-0413. Sincerely, Kathy Urffer River Steward CC: Cameron McLeod, Fiske Mill Hydro Paul Nolan Gregg Comstock, NH DES Matthew Carpenter, NH Fish and Game Melissa Grader, USF&WS William McDavitt, NOAA Barbara Skuly, Ashuelot River Local Advisory Committee Rich Holschuh, Atowi Hinsdale Conservation Commission ATTACHMENT A: STUDY REQUESTS Requested Study 1:  Cost Benefit Analysis of Continued Generation in Relation to Ecosystem and Repair Costs Conduct a study of the economic analysis of the return on investment and limited electricity generated by this facility and whether the costs to the ecosystem are justified by this current limited generation and expected capital costs and feasibility of expected repairs and upgrades.  Methodology could include a Return on Investment (ROI) of capital costs of needed repairs and generation capacity increases; potential increases to recreational economy of adjacent towns with an un-obstructed river; potential economics of ecosystem benefits of an un-obstructed river; develop a cost estimate for decommissioning if expected repairs and turbine upgrades are not financially feasible; as well as other economic considerations. Goals and Objectives To determine if the ROI for project repairs and upgrades are feasible and reasonable to justify ecological impacts from a continued license; To determine if project generation is justified in relation to the impact to the river; To determine economic impact of this facility as obstacle to recreation; Develop a cost estimate of decommissioning to consider this as an alternative to relicensing. Resource Management Goals Cost/benefit analysis of impacts to river and whether local and natural resource impacts are justified by limited generation. Noted that requester is not an agency or Indian tribe. Public Interest FERC Licensing Guidance indicates that economic studies should address: sources of economic information assumed such as fuel costs, escalation rates, growth rates in peak demand, and existing and planned generating resources; feasibility of financing a proposed project modification based upon the size of the economic benefits and the forecasted project revenues; estimate of the net present value of the project; capital and operations and maintenance costs of project modifications and all proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures; and an estimate of the cost to prepare the license application 18 CFR 4.41(e)(9); 18 CFR 4.51(e)(9); 18 CFR 4.61(c)(9). 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 Policy Statement on Project Decommissioning at Relicensing, “The more likely scenario is one in which the Commission is required to condition a new power license with environmental mitigation measures, and the licensee is unwilling to accept the license tendered. The licensee may prefer to take the project out of business, because the costs of doing business have become too high. There is no merit to the suggestion by some industry commenters that a condition in a power license is per se unreasonable if, as a result of imposing the condition, the project is no longer economically viable. The statute calls for a balancing of various development and nondevelopment interests, and those commenters’ position would elevate power and other development interests far above the environmental concerns. It would mean that severe environmental damage would have to be accepted in order to protect even a very marginal hydropower project. The Commission does not read the Federal Power Act to compel such a result.”[13] Existing Information Existing cost of road infrastructure issues should be accessible by contacting adjacent towns.  Similar sized dams have been removed in Vermont in recent years and those costs are accessible through the VT DEC and NGOs. Nexus to Project Operations and Effects The Federal Power Act requires 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. Given the current marginal generation at this facility, it is in the best interest of the public to have a clear economic analysis of the feasibility of increases to electrical generation as compared project impacts in order to weigh the benefits of this limited generation against impacts to the waterway and surrounding communities. Methodology Consistent with Accepted Practice The proposed study would be conducted by developing an environmental cost benefit analysis to consider habitat and societal costs and compare these costs and impacts to the ROI of capital improvements to increase generation. 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.  Conducting this study at the outset of relicensing will help Fiske Mill to clarify whether continued investment in this facility is warranted. Requested Study 2:  Recreation Survey/Assessment Conduct a study of the recreational boating, fishing, and birding opportunities at the dam, as well as upstream and downstream of the dam 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 the neighboring towns to assess recreation use and needs at the project.  The applicant should coordinate information gathering with the Town of Hinsdale Planning Department and Department of Parks and Recreation as to useful recreational enhancements that could result through a partnership. The study should also include an assessment of possible enhancements of ADA compliant fishing access 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 modifications to the project or additional off-site enhancements which could improve fishing, birding, boating, or other recreational opportunities. Resource Management Goals Enhancement of recreational opportunities associated with the presence and operation of the project, including the dam, impoundment 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.”[14] Existing Information Fiske Mill obtained an exemption from the requirement to file a Form 80 in 1997. In 2019, the requirement to file Form 80s, which provided some information as to recreational amenities at and investment of hydro power facilities was eliminated as a result of a rule change by the FERC.  In the ensuing 24 years since 1997, numerous changes have occurred to the river and recreational use patterns, including the removal of several dams, creation of upstream portages, and the identification of the Ashuelot River as a white water destination.  Since the licensee is applying for a license exemption,  this will likely be the only opportunity to consider recreational use over the remaining life of this project. 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. 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 Hinsdale and neighboring towns 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] Pre-Application Document for Exemption from Licensing. Fiske Hydro, Inc. Orange, MA. November 25, 2020. Page 3. [2] New Hampshire Department of State. Accessed at https://quickstart.sos.nh.gov/online/BusinessInquire/BusinessInformation?businessID=420884 on March 26, 2021. [3] Pre-Application Document for Exemption from Licensing. Fiske Hydro, Inc. Orange, MA. November 25, 2020. Page 25. [4] Pre-Application Document for Exemption from Licensing. Fiske Hydro, Inc. Orange, MA. November 25, 2020. Page 27. [5] Ibid. Page 18. [6] 16 U.S.C. 803(a). [7] Notice of Inquiry: Financial Assurance Measures for Hydroelectric Projects” (Jan. 26, 2021) [8] Ibid. [9] 18 CFR § 2.7 – Recreational development at licensed projects. [10] Pre-Application Document for Exemption from Licensing. Fiske Hydro, Inc. Orange, MA. November 25, 2020. Page 9. [11] See City of Seattle, Washington, 26 FERC ¶ 61406, 61906 (1984) where FERC required off project site recreation facilities. [12] New Hampshire Fish and Game. NH Wildlife Action Plan. 2015 Revised Edition. Accessed at: https://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/wildlife/wap.html [13] Project Decommissioning at Relicensing; Policy Statement (December 14, 1994), 18 C.F.R. § 2.24, 60 Fed. Reg. 339 (January 4, 1995), FERC Stats. & Regs. Preambles 1991-1996 ¶ 31,011. [14] 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.