Turners Falls Project Docket No
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Turners Falls Project Docket No. P-2622-013 Massachusetts Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 September 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................. iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................ v 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 7 1.1 Application............................................................................................................ 7 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER ......................................... 9 1.2.1 Purpose of Action .......................................................................................... 9 1.2.2 Need for Power ............................................................................................ 10 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ............................... 10 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ....................................................................................... 10 1.3.2 Clean Water Act .......................................................................................... 11 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act .............................................................................. 12 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ................................................................... 12 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................. 13 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT .............................................................. 13 1.4.1 Scoping ........................................................................................................ 13 1.4.2 Interventions ................................................................................................ 14 1.4.3 Comments on the Application ..................................................................... 14 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ............................................... 14 2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................... 14 2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities ............................................................................ 15 2.1.2 Current Project Boundary ............................................................................ 15 2.1.3 Project Safety .............................................................................................. 18 2.1.4 Current Project Operation ........................................................................... 18 2.1.5 Current Environmental Measures ............................................................... 19 2.2 APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL ............................................................................. 19 2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities .......................................................................... 19 2.2.2 Proposed Operation and Environmental Measures ..................................... 19 2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE .................................................................................... 20 2.4 ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 21 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 22 3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN ...................................... 23 3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ........................................ 26 3.2.1 Geographic Scope ........................................................................................ 26 3.2.2 Temporal Scope ........................................................................................... 26 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ............................... 27 3.3.1 Aquatic Resources ....................................................................................... 27 3.3.2 Terrestrial Resources ................................................................................... 82 3.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................................... 84 i 3.3.4 Cultural Resources ...................................................................................... 96 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................. 100 4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT ........................ 101 4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ........................................................... 102 4.2.1 No-Action Alternative ............................................................................... 103 4.2.2 TFH’s Proposal .......................................................................................... 103 4.2.3 Staff Alternative ........................................................................................ 104 4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES ................................................ 105 5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 108 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE .............................................................................................. 108 5.1.1 Measures Recommended by Staff ............................................................. 108 5.1.2 Measures Not Recommended .................................................................... 111 5.1.3 Conclusion ................................................................................................. 113 5.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ....................................................... 113 5.3 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 113 5.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ................................... 116 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .................................................. 118 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ..................................................................................... 119 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS .................................................................................... 131 APPENDIX A .................................................................................................................. 132 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the Turners Falls Project and other FERC-licensed hydroelectric projects on the Connecticut River, in the Connecticut River Basin. (Source: staff). ................................................................................................................... 8 Figure 2. Turners Falls Project facilities (Source: staff). ................................................. 16 Figure 3. Turners Falls Project and Project No. 1889 Facilities (Source: staff). .............. 17 Figure 4. Annual flow duration curve for the Connecticut River at Project No. 1889’s dam from January 1941 to September 2010. (Source: FirstLight, 2012a). .... 28 Figure 5. Annual flow duration curve for the Project No. 1889 power canal from 2000 to 2009. (Source: FirstLight, 2012a). .................................................................. 29 Figure 6. Annual flow duration curve for the Project No. 1889’s Turners Falls Dam discharge into the bypassed reach from 2000 to 2009. (Source: FirstLight, 2012a). .............................................................................................................. 31 Figure 7. Water quality monitoring locations near the Turners Falls Project No. 2622 from FirstLight’s 2015 water quality monitoring study for Project No. 1889. (Source: FirstLight (2016b)). ........................................................................... 33 Figure 8. Transect locations for FirstLight’s instream flow study in the bypassed reach. Transect 10 and 11 are shown as T10 and T11. (Source: FirstLight, 2016f). 49 Figure 9. Satellite imagery showing the TFH tailrace on two different dates: (a) May 10, 2014 and (b) October 4, 2018. (Source: Google Earth, as modified by staff) 65 Figure 10. Flow duration curves in the bypassed reach for April, May, and June from 2000 to 2009. (Source: FirstLight, 2012a) ...................................................... 91 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Hydropower projects on the Connecticut River. ................................................ 24 Table 2. Approximate exceedance of current minimum flow requirements by month in the reach of the Connecticut River that is bypassed by Project No. 1889. ....... 31 Table 3. DO concentrations (mg/L) at five water quality monitoring sites near the Turners Falls Project No. 2622. ........................................................................ 34 Table 4. Water temperature (℉) at five water quality monitoring sites near the Turners Falls Project No. 2622....................................................................................... 35 Table 5. Monthly 90, 50, and 10 percent power canal exceedance flows from 2000 to 2009, and the percentage of flow removed from the power canal and discharged into the bypassed by the Turners Falls Project. .............................. 47 Table