LIHI Review Report Penacook Upper Falls...LIHI criteria for certification if certain special...

ReviewReportfortheLowImpactHydropowerInstitute: PenacookUpperFallsProjectCertification

SGCEngineering,LLC ProjectNo.785001

1 4/14/10

REVIEWOFAPPLICATIONFORLOWIMPACTHYDROPOWERCERTIFICATIONOF

THEPENACOOKUPPERFALLSPROJECT(FERCNO.6689)

IntroductionThisreportreviewstheapplicationdated9/25/2009submittedbyBriarHydroAssociates(Briaror the Applicant) to the Low Impact Hydropower Institute (LIHI) for Low Impact HydropowerCertificationforitsPenacookUpperFalls(PUF)Project(theFacilityorproject).Thereviewwascompletedasexplainedbelow,pertheLIHICertificationProgramrulesandcriteria(8/31/2004ed.)Pleaseseepages6through10foraSummaryofthisreport.This 2,800‐kw (installed capacity) project, with an average annual generation of 1.5 GWh, islocatedonthe lowerContoocookRiver inMerrimackCounty insoutheasternNewHampshire.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a license for its construction andoperationin1984.Itbeganoperationsin1986.ProjectDescription&Operation(SeeAppendix3ofthisApplication)TheprojectislocatedonthelowerContoocookRiverinMerrimackCountyinthesoutheasternNew Hampshire Village of Penacook. The Contoocook River enters the Merrimack Riverupstreamofthefifthmainstreamdam. TheVillageofPenacook ismadeupofasmallpartoftheTownofBoscawenandthenorthernendoftheCityofConcord.TheprojectislocatedontheextremenorthernendofConcord,withasectionofthetailracecrossingintoBoscawen(lat.43°16’50”N,long.71°36’00”W).Thefacilityisa21‐foothigh,187‐footlongstructurewithaspillwaybuiltontheremainsofanexisting dam. It consists of a timber stoplog dam, one generating unit (2,800 kW), andappurtenantfacilities. Thedamisatanelevationof306feetMSLanditcreatesapoolwithasurfaceareaofapproximately11.4acres.Thefacilityalsoincludes:

• 16gatesinthespillway,6operabletimbergates,9.5feetwideand15.5feethigh;• 8fixedtimberstopgatelogs,andtwooperable(ice)gates,12feetwideand3.5feet

high;• agrossreservoirvolumeof70acrefeetandanetstoragecapacityof0.23billion

gallons;• apowerhouseattheeastsideofthedamwithonegeneratingunithavinganinstalled

capacityof2,800kW;• a35.0footlong,4.16kVgeneratorlead;• a4.16/34.5kV3.6MVAthree‐phasetransformer;• a50‐footlong34.5kVoverheadtransmissionline;and• atailrace,47feetwideand350feetlong.

Aconcretepowerhouse,81feet longand44feetwide, is locatedontheeastriverbank. Thepowerhouse contains one horizontal shaft tube turbine with a capacity of 2,800 kW. The



2 4/14/10

riverbanksupstreamanddownstreamof thepowerhousearecontainedbyconcrete retainingwalls to bedrock. A 47‐foot wide (average) tailrace exists at the draft tube exit of thepowerhouseandextendsapproximately350downstreamtoprovidedownstreamfishpassage.A15‐footlongforebaywitha58‐foot(average)widthbeginsandthepowerhouseandextendsupstream. From the southwest cornerof thepowerhouse, a concretegated spillwayextends187feetacrosstheriver.Theprojectisoperatedasarun‐of‐riverfacility.PenacookHydroAssociates(PHA)beganconstructionoftheprojectin1984andcompletedconstructionin1986,whentheprojectfirstgeneratedpower.PHAoperatedthefacilityuntil1993whenFERCauthorizedthetransferoftheprojectlicensetoBriar.PHAisageneralpartnerofEssexHydroAssociates(Essex);EssexisalsoageneralpartnerofBriar.Thelicensewastransferredin1993fromPHAtoBriar(theprojectoperator)tosimplifyadministrationoftheproject(seeAppendix1‐2ofthisApplication)TheFERC licenseArticle26requirestheFacility tobeoperatedasarun‐of‐river facilitywithacontinuous minimum flow of 338 cubic feet per second (cfs) or the inflow to the reservoir,whicheverisless.RegulatoryHistoryThe Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued a 40‐year license for the project toPenacookHydroAssociates(PHA)onDecember4,1984,authorizingtheconstruction,operationandmaintenanceoftheproject.On September 25, 1986, FERC issued an Order Amending License Article 24 to reflect anagreementbetweenPublicServiceofNewHampshire(PSNH)andthestateandfederalfisheryagenciesregardingtheconstructionoffishpassagefacilitiesatmainstemdamsontheMerrimacRiver. ThePUFFacility is locatedon the lowerContoocookRiver,which is a tributary streamproposedforanadromousfishrestorationandthatenterstheMerrimackRiverUpstreamofthefifthmainstreamdam.On January 4, 1993, FERC approved a license transfer from PHA to Briar to simplifyadministrationoftheproject.PublicCommentsNopubliccommentswerereceivedonthisapplication.AgencyLetters



3 4/14/10

Aspartofthereviewprocess,ResourceAgencyofficialswerecontactedtoconfirmthat(1)theResource Agency Recommendations1 identified by the Applicant are still valid; and (2) theApplicantisinCompliancewiththeRecommendations.The following Resource Agencies2 (“state, federal or tribal agency whose mission includesprotecting fish and wildlife, water quality and/or administering reservations held in publictrust”)werecontactedaspartoftheLIHIreviewprocessforthisproject:

o NewHampshireDepartmentofEnvironmentalServices(NHDES)o NewHampshireFishandGameDepartment(NHFGD)o NewHampshireDepartmentofCulturalResources(NHDCR)o NewHampshireDepartmentofResources&EconomicDevelopment(NHDRED)o USFish&WildlifeService(USFWS)

TheResourceAgenciesofferedCompliance3 information, summarizedonpages6 through10,below. ThetablealsosummarizesmyindependentconclusionsastowhethertheLIHIcriteriahavebeenmet,basedontheapplication,further inputfromtheApplicant,ResourceAgenciesandothers,andsubjecttothelimitationsoftheLIHIcertificationprogram.Copiesofemailsandother information key to this evaluationhavebeenprovided to LIHI in digital format and areincorporatedintothisreportbyreference.Conclusions & Recommendation. Based uponmy review of Briar Hydro’s application, othermaterials suppliedby theApplicant,myconsultationwithResourceAgency staff,and theLIHICertificationProgramandCriteria(08/31/04ed.),itismyopinionthat

1 This means recommendations or conditions for operation, maintenance, construction ofstructuresoftheFacilitysubmittedbyResourceAgenciesincludingthose:(a)issuedpursuanttoa legal or administrative proceeding or other legally enforceable agreements between aResource Agency and the dam owner/operator – e.g., FERC License conditions; (b) recent, ifthere aremultiple Recommendations or a settlement agreement to which the Applicant is aparty (the terms of which are considered Recommendations); and (c) most environmentallystringent.WherethereareconflictingResourceAgencyRecommendationsandtheconflictisnotresolvedbyapplyingthemostRecentandEnvironmentallyStringentRecommendations,theconflictshallbe resolved by applying the Recommendations based on the health of threatened orendangeredbiologicalorganismsfirst,thehealthofotherbiologicalorganismssecond,CulturalResources third and Recreation fourth, unless there is a statutory mandate to resolve theconflictotherwise.2 The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is not a Resource Agency for LIHIcertificationpurposes.3AFacility is inCompliancewitharequirementorRecommendation if itcompliesat thetimethe questionnaire is filled out and has not had any material violations or formal notices ofviolation issued by a state or federal agencywithin the last year. If the Facility has been inviolationofarequirementorRecommendationbuttheApplicantdoesnotbelievetheviolationismaterial,theviolationmustbedisclosedanditsmaterialityexplainedintheapplication.



4 4/14/10

the project’s design and operation, given its location andphysical constraints, does appear to be consistent with LIHIcriteriaforcertificationifcertainspecialconditionsaremet.

Irecommendcertificationwiththefollowingnon‐StandardConditions:

LIHIcertificationwillbesuspendedif,nolaterthanDecember31,2010,theApplicanthasnotfileddocumentationwithLIHIdemonstratingthatthePenacookUpperFallsHydroelectricFacilityhascompletedthefollowactions:

1. Provideinformationrecommendedinthe12/31/2009letterfromNHDEStodetermine

theimpactofthefollowingonaquaticlife:a. pondfluctuations,andb. minimumflows;and

2. Performwater qualitymonitoring as per the 12/31/2009 letter in consultationwithNHDESandalsosubmitresults.

Reasonfornon‐standardcondition.ThefacilityearnedaSection401WaterQualityCertificatein1983.AspartoftheLIHIcertificationprocess,theApplicantrequestedaletterofcompliancefromtheNHDES. Since there isnoexistingdata to support sucha finding, theDESprovidedwaterqualitymonitoringandotherdatacollectionrecommendationsdesignedtodetermineifwaterqualitystandards (including fishpassage)arebeingmet in theContoocookRiveratandnearthePUFfacility.Inaletterdated12/31/2009,NHDESmadespecificrecommendationsforwater quality monitoring and other data it needs to confirm compliance with current waterqualitystandards.The Applicant does not anticipate any problem demonstrating that the Facility meets waterqualitystandards.If the Applicant completes the necessary work regarding flows and water quality, myrecommendationwouldbetoofferconditionalcertification.TheResourceAgenciesagreethatthisprojectpresentsnorealissues,andtheyareworkingcooperativelywiththeApplicant.TheApplicanthasworkeddiligentlyinthisregardandhasaccomplishedgoodprogresstodate.Thisworkshouldbeeasilycompletedbytheendofthisyear.My full evaluationusing the LIHIquestionnaire and criteria is providedbeginningonpage10below, after the Summary Table immediately below. This report includesnumerous excerptsfrom Briar’s LIHI application and other supportingmaterials, as well as documents issued byFERC.



5 4/14/10

SUMMARYTABLELIHICRITERION&CONCLUSIONS

SUMMARY&CURRENTSTATUS

RiverFlowsNon‐standardconditionsforPass:• Provideinformationrecommendedinthe12/31/2009letterfromNHDEStodeterminethecurrentimpactofthefollowingonaquaticlife:o pond

fluctuations,and

o minimumflows.

The most recent information submitted by the Applicant for RiverFlows is dated 1984. After reviewing thematter for compliance in2009, NHDES indicated it does not have enough information toconfirmtheprojectismeetingwaterqualitystandards.NHDES issued a letter dated 12/31/2009 to the Applicant regardingwaterqualitymonitoringandotherdatacollectionrecommendationsfor LIHI certification purposes. A copy of this letter is included inExhibit1attheendofthisreport.NHDES:

• TedWalsh,SurfaceWaterMonitoringCoordinator,[email protected]

USFWS/NEFieldOffice:• JohnWarner,Energy/HydropowerCoordinator

[email protected]

WaterQualityNon‐standardconditionforPass:• PerformwaterqualitymonitoringinconsultationwithNHDESandalsosubmitresults.

There is not enough data to determine whether the Facility is inCompliance with all of the conditions in its 1983 CWA Section 401Water Quality Certification. (See River Flows, above). While theApplicant does not anticipate any problem demonstrating throughmonitoring that the Facilitymeetswater quality standards, the finalresultswillbeconfirmedbystateResourceAgencystaffreview.NHDESconfirmedthattheimpoundmentareaanddownstreamreachofthefacilityisontheNHListofImpairedWaters(pursuanttoCleanWaterActSection303(d)). TedWalshsaidneitherofthese is linkedto operation of the facility. The cause of the impairment isatmospheric deposition fromNewHampshire andMidwest sources:every water body in NH is impaired for mercury for the “fishconsumption”designateduse.NHDES:

• TedWalsh,SurfaceWaterMonitoringCoordinatorTed.Walsh@des.nh.gov603.271.2083



6 4/14/10

LIHICRITERION&PRELIMINARY

CONCLUSIONS

SUMMARY&CURRENTSTATUS

FishPassage&ProtectionFacilityPasses

NHFGDandUSFWSconfirmedtheApplicanthas6years(after15,000adult American shad pass through the fish facilities at Garvins Fallsdam) to install upstream fish passage at the facility, and thatdownstreampassageiscurrentlyinplace.

o UFWS stated that upstream passage is not required at thistimeduetothelackofpassageattheLowerPenacookProjectjustdownstream.

o USFWS indicated a downstream fish passage is beingoperated downstream at the Upper Penacook Project forAtlanticsalmonsmolteachspring,butthatneitherAmericanshadorriverherringhavebeenstockedabovetheproject inrecentyears

Management plans for shad and herring are beingdiscussedbytheagencyrightnow,andstockingcouldoccur. If it did, passage for outmigrant juvenileswouldbeneeded.

o NHFGD suggested that the downstream passage in place isnotoptimal.

Aspartofitsreviewofwaterqualityandflowcompliance,NHDEShasrequestedthattheapplicantworkwiththeNHFGCtodeterminethecompliancestatusofdownstreamfishpassage. Agencyconsultationconfirmedcompliance.

NHFG:

• [email protected]

NHDES:


USFWS/NEFieldOffice:

• [email protected]

• JohnWarner,Energy/[email protected]



7 4/14/10

LIHICriterion&PreliminaryConclusions

Summary&CurrentStatus

WatershedProtectionFacilityPasses

TheApplicanthasmaximizedthelimitedrecreationopportunitiesin the area. It has funded the Boscawen Riverfront Park(constructedandlocatedupstreamontheeasternriverbank)andgrantedeasementforaproposedriverfrontwalk.While the Applicant has not established a fund per se, it hasprovided value without which the development of availablerecreationalopportunitieswouldnotgoforward.

NHDES:


CityofConcord,NH

• MatthewWalsh,[email protected]

TownofBoscawen,NH• AlanHardy,CodeEnforcementOfficer603.648.2538

Threatened&EndangeredSpeciesFacilityPasses

Consultation with NHDRED and NHFGD confirmed the Facility orFacilityoperationsdonotcurrentlynegativelyimpactthreatenedandendangeredspecies.NHDRED:

• SaraCairns,[email protected]

NHDFG:• KimTuttle,WildlifeBiologist

[email protected]



8 4/14/10

LIHICriterion&Conclusions

Summary&CurrentStatus

CulturalResourcesProtectionFacilityPasses

TheNHDCRindicateditneedsmoreinformationtodetermineifthefacilitynegativelyaffectsknownarchitectural,historical,archaeologicalorotherculturalresources.The Applicant indicated it would file a project review form withNHDCR and get compliance confirmation. To date, I have notreceivedinformationfromtheApplicantaboutthiseffort.

NHDCR:

• LindaRayWilson,SHPO603.271.3558

RecreationFacilityPasses

TheApplicanthasbeen instrumental in thecompleteddevelopmentof the riverfront park adjacent to the PenacookUpper Falls project,and a proposed river walk in and near the facility’s property.PursuanttoArticle25,theApplicantconveyedpropertyrightstotheCitythatgivesittheabilitytomoveforwardwiththeproposedriverwalk. Simultaneously with this conveyance, the City renewed aPaymentinLieuofTaxesAgreementfortheFacilityfor5years.Theprojectconfigurationdoesnotlenditselftoactiverecreation,likeboating or bathing. There is no access to thewater, but there is ascenic overlook and other passive recreational opportunities, likeenjoymentofnaturalresourcesandthesoundsoftheriver.ConsultationwithNHDESconfirmedtheinformationabove.NHDES:


CityofConcord,NH

• MatthewR.Walsh,[email protected]

FacilitiesRecommendedforRemovalFacilityPasses

There is no Resource Agency Recommendation for removal of thedamassociatewiththeFacility.NHDES:




9 4/14/10

USFWS/NEFieldOffice:

• JohnWarner,Energy/[email protected]

TheFacilityisConditionallyLowImpact



10 4/14/10

ANALYSISoftheLowImpactCertificationCriteria

Goals,Standards(AthroughH),Applicant’sResponses,andAdditionalInformation

A.RiverFlows(SeeAppendix4ofthisApplication)Goal: TheFacility (damandpowerhouse)shouldprovideriver flowsthatarehealthy for fish,wildlife,andwaterquality,includingseasonalflowfluctuationswhereappropriate.Standard: For instream flows, a certified Facility must comply with recent Resource AgencyRecommendationsforflows.IftherewerenoqualifyingResourceAgencyRecommendations,theApplicantcanmeetoneoftwoalternativestandards:(1)meettheflowlevelsrequiredusingtheAquatic Base Flowmethodology or the “good” habitat flow level under theMontana‐Tennantmethodology; or (2) present a letter from a Resource Agency prepared for the applicationconfirmingtheflowsattheFacilityareadequatelyprotectiveoffish,wildlife,andwaterquality.Criteria:1) Is the Facility in Compliance with Resource Agency Recommendations issued after

December 31, 1986 regarding flow conditions for fish and wildlife protection,mitigation and enhancement (including in‐stream flows, ramping and peaking rateconditions, and seasonal and episodic instream flow variations) for both the reachbelowthetailraceandallbypassedreaches?

NOTAPPLICABLE

IfYES,gotoB.IfNOTAPPLICABLE,gotoA2.IfNO,Facilityfails2) If there is no flow recommended by any Resource Agency for the Facility, or if the

Recommendationwas issued prior to January 1, 1987, is the Facility in Compliancewithaflowreleaseschedule,bothbelowthetailraceandinallbypassedreaches,thatat aminimummeetsAquaticBaseFlowstandardsor “good”habitat flow standardscalculatedusingtheMontana‐Tennantmethod?

YES

Thecurrent flowstandardwas issuedonDecember4,1984basedontherecommendationofthe United States Department of the Interior regarding the appropriate flow to adequatelyprotect fish and wildlife resources downstream of the Facility. The facility is required todischargeacontinuousminimumflowbelowthetailrace(therearenobypassedreaches)of338cfs or the inflow to the reservoir, whichever is less (FERC license Article 26). The facility is



11 4/14/10

operatedasarun‐of‐riverfacilityandreleasestheinstantaneousinflowoftheriver. SincetheContoocook River is actually a combination of three tributaries, the Applicant has beendemonstratingcompliance through threeUSGSstreamgauges,one foreachof the tributariesthat discharge into the Contoocook River (flows essentially are regulated by upstreamdevelopments).Themost recent information submittedby theApplicant forRiverFlows isdated1984. Afterreviewing the matter for compliance in 2009, NHDES indicated it does not have enoughinformationtoconfirmtheprojectismeetingwaterqualitystandards.NHDES issued a letter dated December 31, 2009 to the Applicant regarding water qualitymonitoringandotherdatacollectionrecommendationsforLIHIcertificationpurposes. Acopyof this letter is included in Exhibit 1 at the end of this report. The Applicant has plans toimplement the recommendations immediately,with theeffort tobecompletedby theendoftheyear.NHDESalsoconfirmedthat the impoundmentareaanddownstreamreachof the facility isontheNHListofImpairedWaterspursuanttoCleanWaterActSection303(d).Neitheroftheseislinkedtooperationofthefacility:thecauseoftheimpairmentisatmosphericdepositionfromNewHampshireandMidwestsources–everywaterbodyinNHisimpairedformercuryforthe“fishconsumption”designateduse.IfYES,gotoB.IfNO,gotoA3.3) If the Facility is unable to meet the flow standards in A.2, has the Applicant

demonstrated and obtained a letter from the relevant Resource Agency confirmingthat demonstration, that the flow conditions at the Facility are appropriatelyprotectiveoffish,wildlifeandwaterquality?

IfYES,gotoB.IfNO,Facilityfails.

THEFACILITYPASSESCONDITIONALLY

3. RiverFlows‐TheFacilityisinCompliancewithLIHIRiverFlowsstandardsifthe

Applicant,byDecember31,2010,providesinformationrecommendedinthe12/31/2009letterfromNHDEStodeterminethecurrentimpactofthefollowingonaquaticlife:pondfluctuations,andminimumflows.



12 4/14/10

B.WaterQuality(SeeAppendix1‐4and5ofthisApplication)Goal:Waterqualityintheriverisprotected.Standard:Thewaterqualitycriterionhastwoparts.First,aFacilitymustdemonstratethatitisinCompliancewithstatewaterqualitystandards,eitherthroughproducingarecent(after1986)CleanWaterActSection401certification,ordemonstratingCompliancewithstatewaterqualitystandards(typicallybypresentingaletterpreparedfortheapplicationfromthestateconfirmingtheFacilityismeetingwaterqualitystandards).Second,aFacilitymustdemonstratethatithasnotcontributedtoastate findingthattheriverhas impairedwaterqualityunderCleanWaterActSection303(d)(relatingtowaterqualitylimitedstreams).Criteria:1) IstheFacilityeither:a) inCompliancewithallconditionsissuedpursuanttoaCleanWaterAct(CWA)Section

401waterqualitycertificationissuedfortheFacilityafterDecember31,1986?ORb) inCompliancewithquantitativewaterqualitystandardsestablishedbythestatethat

supportdesignatedusespursuanttothefederalCleanWaterAct(CWA)intheFacilityareaandinthedownstreamreach?

YES–Pending

The facility earned a Section 401WaterQuality Certificate in 1983 (incorporated into theFERClicensein1984).AspartoftheLIHIcertificationprocess,theApplicantrequestedaletterofcompliancefromtheNewHampshireDepartmentofEnvironmentalServices(DES).Sincethereisnoexistingdatatosupportsuchafinding,theDESprovidedwaterqualitymonitoringrecommendationsdesignedtodetermineifwaterqualitystandardsarebeingmetintheContoocookRiveratand near the PUF facility. While the Applicant does not anticipate any problemdemonstratingthroughmonitoringthattheFacilitymeetswaterqualitystandards,thefinalresultswillbeconfirmedbystateResourceAgencystaffreview.Thateffortisexpectedtobecompletedbytheendoftheyear.

IfYES,gotoB2.IfNO,Facilityfails.2) Is theFacilityareaor thedownstreamreach currently identifiedby the stateasnot

meeting water quality standards (including narrative and numeric criteria anddesignateduses)pursuanttoSection303(d)oftheCleanWaterAct?

NO.

NHDESconfirmedthattheimpoundmentareaanddownstreamreachofthefacilityisontheNHListofImpairedWaters(pursuanttoCleanWaterActSection303(d)).Hesaidneitheroftheseis



13 4/14/10

linkedtooperationofthefacility.ThecauseoftheimpairmentisatmosphericdepositionfromNewHampshireandMidwestsources:everywaterbodyinNHisimpairedformercuryforthe“fishconsumption”designateduse.IfYES,gotoB3.IfNO,gotoC.3) IftheanswertoquestionB.2isyes,hastherebeenadeterminationthattheFacility

isnotacauseofthatviolation?IfYES,gotoC.IfNO,theFacilityfails.

THEFACILITYPASSESCONDITIONALLY

B. WaterQuality.TheFacilityisinCompliancewithLIHIStandardsforWaterQualityif,by

December 31, 2010, the Applicant performs water quality monitoring in consultationwithNHDESandalsosubmitsresults.

C. FishPassageandProtection(SeeAppendix6ofthisApplication)

Goal: The Facility provides effective fish passage for Riverine, anadromous and catadromousfish,andalsoprotectsfishfromentrainment.Standard: For Riverine, anadromous, and catadromous fish, a Facilitymust be in Compliancewith recent (after 1986) mandatory prescriptions regarding fish passage (such as a Fish andWildlife Service prescription for a fish ladder) as well as any recent Resource AgencyRecommendations regarding fish protection (e.g., a tailrace barrier). If anadromous orcatadromous fish historically passed through the Facility area but are no longer present, theApplicantmustshowthatthefisharenotextirpatedorextinctintheareabecauseoftheFacilityandthattheFacilityhasmadealegallybindingcommitmenttoprovideanyfuturefishpassagerecommendedbyaResourceAgency.Whenno recent fishpassageprescriptionexists foranadromousor catadromous fish, and thefish are still present in thearea, the Facilitymust demonstrate either that therewasa recentdecision that fishpassage is not necessary for a valid environmental reason, that existing fishpassage survival rates at the Facility are greater than 95% over 80% of the run, or provide aletterpreparedfortheapplicationfromtheU.S.FishandWildlifeServiceortheNationalMarineFisheriesServiceconfirmingtheexistingpassageisappropriatelyprotective.



14 4/14/10

Criteria:1) IstheFacilityinCompliancewithMandatoryFishPassagePrescriptions4forupstreamand

downstreampassageofanadromousandcatadromous fish issuedbyResourceAgenciesafterDecember31,1986?

YES

CatadromousFish.Atthetimeoforiginallicensing,therewerenorecordsofcatadromousfishinthefacilityarea.AnadromousFish. StandardArticle11 requires theApplicant to install fishpassageandotherwildlife facilities when requested by state and federal resource agencies. Article 24 of theoriginallicenserequiresupstreamanddownstreamfishpassagefacilitiestobefiledrawingsofupstreamanddownstreamfishpassagebyJuly1,1988andtobuildthemwithin6monthsafterthecommencementofconstructionof facilitiesat theSewallsFallsproject (FERCNo.P‐3040).Theoriginal trigger forconstructionatPUFwasandstill is theannualpassageof15,000adultAmerican shad through the fish facilities at the Garvins Falls Dam, or Sewalls Falls Dam ifconstructed.The1984licensealsorequiredconsultationwithstateandfederalfisheryagenciesregardingAtlanticsalmonrestorationactivities.

InSeptember1986,PublicServiceofNewHampshire(PSNH)andthestateandfederalfisheryagenciesentered intoanagreement regarding theconstructionof fishpassagefacilities at mainstem dams on the Merrimac River to promoted anadromous fishrestoration.Asaresultoftheagreementandthefactthatresultingeffortsthatdidnotproceedasquicklyasplanned,inJuly2004FERCextendedthedatefortheconstructionoffishpassagefacilitiesatPUFtoJanuary2006.Ina letterbetweenFERCandPSNHdatedMarch5,2009, thedate forconstructionoffacilities was extended because the trigger numbers had not been reached: during2008, no American shad or river herring were observed at the Amoskeag damdownstreamfromthePUFfacility.ThismeansthattheearliestthePUFFacilitywillberequired to install its facilities is 2015 or 6 years from 2009. The FERC license doescontain a provision to require the PUF facility to act sooner if the Facility operationadverselyaffectsfishandwildliferesources(Article24,25and33).

4ThismeansupstreamanddownstreamfishpassagerequirementsissuedbyResourceAgenciesthatmustbe included inaFERC licenseorexemptionorotherwisemustbecompliedwithbytheFacilityowner/operator,usuallypursuanttoSection18oftheFederalPowerAct(FPA),or,ifapplicable,Section4(e)oftheFPA,Section401oftheCleanWaterAct,theEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA),orotherrelevantstateorfederalprovisions.RecommendationsincludedintheESABiological Opinion or Recovery Plan are consideredMandatory Fish Passage Prescriptions. Ifdifferent Resource Agencies have differing prescriptions, the most environmentally stringentprescriptionshallapply.



15 4/14/10

Article 25 requires the Applicant to continue to consult with state and federal agenciesregarding the introduction of Atlantic salmon to the Contoocook River and providing safedownstreampassageofsalmonsmolts. TheApplicantfiledits lastreportwithFERConMarch11,2003.Downstream:TheFacilityoperatesaflowinducerattheintakethatwasdesignedandinstalled(2006) inconsultationwiththestateandfederal fisheryagencies. USFWSconfirmedthat thisdownstreampassage isbeingoperatedforAtlanticsalmonsmolteachspring,butthatneitherAmerican shad nor river herring have been stocked above the project in recent years.Management plans for shad and herring are being discussed by the agency right now, andstockingcouldoccur.Ifitdid,passageforoutmigrantjuvenileswouldbeneeded.Upstream:UFWS,statedthatupstreampassage isnotrequiredat this timeduetothe lackofpassageattheLowerPenacookProjectjustdownstream.The Merrimack River Restoration Project targets the Contoocook for anadromous fishrestoration. Two dams downstream of the PUF facility are required to install upstream fishpassageacertainnumberofyearsafteratargetnumberofAmericanshadpassthefirstdam.TheApplicanthasagreedtoinstallupstreamfishpassageafterthesecondofthosedamsdoesthesame,whichgivesit6yearsatleast(2015)beforeupstreampassagewouldberequiredatthePUFfacility.ConsultationwithNHFGDandUSFWSconfirmedthisinformation.IfYES,gotoC5.IfNOTAPPLICABLE,gotoC2.IfNO,Facilityfails.2) Aretherehistoricrecordsofanadromousand/orcatadromousfishmovementthroughthe

Facility area, but anadromous and/or catadromous fish do not presentlymove throughtheFacilityarea(e.g.,becausepassageisblockedatadownstreamdamorthefishrunisextinct?)

IfYESorNOTAPPLICABLE,gotoC2a.IfNO,gotoC3.a) If the fishareextinctorextirpated fromtheFacilityareaordownstreamreach,has the

ApplicantdemonstratedthattheextinctionorextirpationwasnotdueinwholeorinparttotheFacility?

IfYES,gotoC2b.IfNOTAPPLICABLE,gotoC2b.IfNO,Facilityfails.b) If a Resource Agency Recommended adoption of upstream and/or downstream fish

passagemeasures at a specific future date, orwhen a triggering event occurs (such as



16 4/14/10

completion of passage through a downstream obstruction or the completion of aspecified process), has the Facility owner/operator made a legally enforceablecommitmenttoprovidesuchpassage?

IfYES,gotoC5.IfNOTAPPLICABLE,gotoC3.IfNO,Facilityfails.3) If,sinceDecember31,1986:a) Resource Agencies have had the opportunity to issue, and considered issuing, a

Mandatory Fish Passage Prescription for upstream and/or downstream passage ofanadromous or catadromous fish (including delayed installation as described in C2above),and

b) theResourceAgencydeclinedtoissueaMandatoryFishPassagePrescription,c) was a reason for the Resource Agencies’ declining to issue aMandatory Fish Passage

Prescriptiononeof the following: (1) the technological infeasibilityofpassage, (2) theabsence of habitat upstream of the Facility due at least in part to inundation by theFacilityimpoundment,or(3)theanadromousorcatadromousfisharenolongerpresentintheFacilityareaand/ordownstreamreachdueinwholeorparttothepresenceoftheFacility?

IfNO,gotoC5.IfNOTAPPLICABLE,gotoC4.IfYES,Facilityfails.4) IfC3wasnotapplicable:a) are upstream and downstream fish passage survival rates for anadromous and

catadromousfishatthedameachdocumentedatgreaterthan95%over80%oftherunusingagenerallyacceptedmonitoringmethodology?OR

b) If the Facility is unable to meet the fish passage standards in 4a, has the Applicantdemonstrated, and obtained a letter from the US Fish andWildlife Service or NationalMarine Fisheries Service confirming that demonstration, that the upstream anddownstreamfishpassagemeasures(ifany)attheFacilityareappropriatelyprotectiveofthefisheryresource?

IfYES,gotoC5.IfNO,Facilityfails.5) Is the Facility in Compliance with Mandatory Fish Passage Prescriptions for upstream

and/ordownstreampassageofRiverinefish?

NOTAPPLICABLE.Nonewasprescribed.IfYESorNOTAPPLICABLE,gotoC6.IfNO,Facilityfails.



17 4/14/10

6) Is the Facility in Compliance with Resource Agency Recommendations for Riverine,anadromousandcatadromousfishentrainmentprotection,suchastailracebarriers?

NOTAPPLICABLE.Nonewasprescribed.

IfYESorNOTAPPLICABLE,gotoD.IfNO,Facilityfails.

THEFACILITYPASSES

C. FishPassageandProtection ‐TheFacility is inComplianceFishPassageandProtectionstandards.

D.WatershedProtection(SeeAppendix7ofthisApplication)Goal: Sufficient action has been taken to protect, mitigate and enhance environmentalconditionsinthewatershed.Standard: A certifiedFacilitymustbe inCompliancewithResourceAgencyRecommendationsandFERClicensetermsregardingwatershedprotection,mitigationorenhancement.Thesemaycover issues such as shoreline buffer zones, wildlife habitat protection, wetlands protection,erosioncontrol,etc.TheWatershedProtectionCriterionwassubstantiallyrevisedin2004. Therevised criterion is designed to reward projectswith an extra three years of certification thathave: abufferzoneextending200feet fromthehighwatermark;or,anapprovedwatershedenhancement fund that could achieve within the project’s watershed the ecological andrecreational equivalent of land protection in D.1 and has the agreement of appropriatestakeholdersandstateandfederalresourceagencies.AFacilitycanpassthiscriterion,butnotreceive extra years of certification, if it is in Compliancewith both state and federal resourceagencies Recommendations in a license approved shoreland management plan regardingprotection,mitigationorenhancementofshorelandssurroundingtheproject.Criteria:1) Is there a buffer zone dedicated for conservation purposes (to protect fish andwildlife

habitat,waterquality,aestheticsand/or low‐impactrecreation)extending200feetfromthehighwatermarkinanaveragewateryearround50‐100%otheimpoundment,andforalloftheundevelopedshoreline?

NO.

IfYES,gotoEandreceive3extrayearsofcertificationIfNO,gotoD2.2) HastheFacilityowner/operatorestablishedanapprovedwatershedenhancementfund

that:1)couldachievewithintheproject’swatershedtheecologicalandrecreational



18 4/14/10

equivalentoflandprotectioninD1,and2)hastheagreementofappropriatestakeholdersandstateandfederalresourceagencies?

NO

IfYES,gotoEandreceive3extrayearsofcertificationIfNO,gotoD3.3) Has the Facility owner/operator established through a settlement agreement with

appropriatestakeholdersandthathasthestateandfederalresourceagenciesagreementan appropriate shoreland buffer or equivalent watershed land protection plan forconservation purposes (to protect fish and wildlife habitat, water quality, aestheticsand/orlowimpactrecreation)?

NO

IfYES,gotoE.IfNO,gotoD4.4) Is the Facility in Compliance with both state and federal resource agencies

Recommendations in a license approved shoreland management plan regardingprotection,mitigationorenhancementofshorelandssurroundingtheproject?

YESGiven the very small impoundment area and prior dense commercial and industrialdevelopment in and around the area, there is little need or opportunity for watershedprotection within the project boundaries other than the Boscawen Riverfront Park(constructedandlocatedupstreamontheeasternriverbank)andtheproposedriverfrontwalk.WhiletheApplicanthasnotestablishedafundperse, ithasfundedwatershedprotectionandrecreationalopportunitiesintheareabyprovidingeasements.PursuanttoArticle25,theApplicantconveyedpropertyrightstotheCitythatgivesittheabilitytomoveforwardwith the proposed river walk. Simultaneously with this conveyance, the City renewed aPaymentinLieuofTaxesAgreementfortheFacilityfor5years.

IfYES,gotoE.IfNO,Facilityfails.

THEFACILITYPASSES

D. Watershed Protection – The Facility is in Compliance with LIHI’s Watershed Protection

standards.



19 4/14/10

E.ThreatenedAndEndangeredSpeciesProtection(SeeAppendix8ofthisApplication)Goal:TheFacilitydoesnotnegativelyimpactstateorfederalthreatenedorendangeredspecies.Standard: For threatened and endangered species present in the Facility area, the Facilityowner/operatormusteitherdemonstratethattheFacilitydoesnotnegativelyaffectthespecies,ordemonstrateCompliancewiththespeciesrecoveryplanandanyrequirementsforauthorityto“take”(damage)thespeciesunderfederalorstatelaws.Criteria:1) Are threatened or endangered species listed under state or federal Endangered

SpeciesAct(ESA)presentintheFacilityareaand/ordownstreamreach?

NOThe NHDRED, NHFGD, and USFWS confirmed that there are no threatened or endangeredspecieslistedunderstateorfederalESApresentintheFacilityareaand/ordownstreamreach.IfYES,gotoE2.IfNO,gotoF.2) If a recovery plan has been adopted for the threatened or endangered species

pursuanttoSection4(f)oftheEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA)orsimilarstateprovision,is the Facility in Compliance with all Recommendations in the plan relevant to theFacility?

YES

IfYESorNOTAPPLICABLE,gotoE3.IfNO,Facilityfails.3) If the Facility has receive authority to incidentally Take a listed species through: (i)

havingarelevantagencycompleteconsultationpursuanttoESASection7resultingina biological opinion, a habitat recovery plan, and/or (if needed) an incidental Takestatement;(ii)obtainingandincidentalTakepermitpursuanttoESASection10;or(iii)for species listedbya stateandnotby the federal government,obtainingauthoritypursuant to similar state procedures; is the Facility in Compliance with conditionspursuanttothatauthority?

NOTAPPLICABLE

IfYES,gotoE4.IfNOTAPPLICABLE,gotoE5.IfNO,Facilityfails.



20 4/14/10

4) If a biological opinion applicable to the Facility for the threatened or endangeredspecieshasbeenissued,cantheApplicantdemonstratethat:

a) thebiologicalopinionwasaccompaniedbyaFERC licenseorexemptionorahabitatconservationplan?OR

b) thebiologicalopinionwas issuedpursuant toor consistentwitha recoveryplan fortheendangeredorthreatenedspecies?OR

c) there is no recovery plan for the threatened or endangered species under activedevelopmentbytherelevantResourceAgency?OR

d) the recovery plan under active development will have no material effect on theFacility’soperation?

IfYES,gotoF.IfNO,Facilityfails.5) IfE.2andE.3arenotapplicable,hastheApplicantdemonstratedthattheFacilityand

Facilityoperationsdonotnegativelyaffectlistedspecies?

YES‐PendingTheNHDREDandNHFGDbothconfirmedthattheFacilityorFacilityoperationsdonotcurrentlynegativelyimpactthreatenedandendangeredspecies.IfYES,gotoF.IfNO,Facilityfails

THEFACILITYPASSESE. ThreatenedandEndangeredSpeciesProtection.TheFacilityisinCompliancewithLIHI’s

ThreatenedandEndangeredSpeciesProtectionstandards.F.CulturalResourcesProtectionGoal:TheFacilitydoesnotinappropriatelyimpactCulturalResources.Standard: Cultural Resourcesmust be protected either through Compliancewith FERC licenseprovisions,or, iftheproject isnotFERCregulated,throughdevelopmentofaplanapprovedbytherelevantstate,federal,ortribalagency.



21 4/14/10

Criteria:1) If FERC‐regulated, is the Facility in Compliance with all requirements regarding

CulturalResourceprotection,mitigationorenhancementincludedintheFERClicenseorexemption?

YES

The FERC license (Article 32) requires the Licensee to consult and cooperate with the NewHampshire State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) prior to the commencement of anyconstruction (including that of the Facility itself) to determine the need for archaeological orothersurveys. In1982,theSHPOdeterminedthattheconstructionoftheFacilitywouldhavenoeffectuponknownarchitectural,historicalarchaeologicalorotherculturalresources.Tothebest of the Applicant’s knowledge, since 1982, there have been no new cultural resourcesdiscoveredasaresultofprojectplanningorimplementation.TheNHDCRindicatedthefacilitydoesnotcurrentlynegativelyaffectsknownarchitectural,historical,archaeologicalorotherculturalresources.IfYES,gotoG.IfNOTAPPLICABLE,gotoF2IfNO,Facilityfails.2) If not FERC‐regulated, does the Facility owner/operator have in place (and is in

Compliancewith)aplanfortheprotection,mitigationorenhancementofimpactstoCultural Resources approved by the relevant state or federal agency or NativeAmericanTribe,oraletterfromaseniorofficeroftherelevantstateorfederalagencyorTribethatnoplanisneededbecauseCulturalResourcesarenotnegativelyaffectedbytheFacility?

IfYES,gotoG.IfNO,Facilityfails.

THEFACILITYPASSESF. CulturalResources.TheFacilityisinCompliancewithLIHI’sCulturalResources

standards.



22 4/14/10

G.Recreation(seeAppendix9ofthisApplication)Goal:TheFacilityprovidesfreeaccesstothewaterandaccommodatesrecreationalactivitiesonthepublic’sriver.Standard:AcertifiedFacilitymustbeinCompliancewithtermsofitsFERClicenseorexemptionrelated to recreational access, accommodation and facilities. If not FERC‐regulated, a Facilitymust be in Compliance with similar requirements as recommended by resource agencies. AcertifiedFacilitymustalsoprovidethepublicaccesstowaterwithoutfeeorcharge.Criteria:1) If FERC‐regulated, is the Facility in Compliance with the recreational access,

accommodation (including recreational flow releases) and facilities conditions in itsFERClicenseorexemption?

YES

In conjunctionwith the City of Concord, the Facility helped to develop a recreational Facilityknown as the Penacook Downtown River Park. It borders and overlooks the project’simpoundmentareaandhas two focalpoints: (1)a stonestructureonsitewhich isusedasatheater and stage; and (2) the River itself, with the major emphasis of the park being thebenchesandgrassyareaswhichallowvisitorstoenjoythevisualandaudioaspectsoftheriver.TheparkwasdevelopedusinggrantsprovidedbytheFacilityownersandotherdonors,andismaintainedbytheCityofConcord.Theparkisopen12monthsayearandisprovidedfreeofchargetovisitors.IfYES,gotoG3.IfNOTAPPLICABLE,gotoG2.IfNO,Facilityfails.2) If not FERC‐regulated, does the Facility provide recreational access, accommodation

(including recreational flow releases) and facilities, as Recommended by ResourceAgenciesorotheragenciesresponsibleforrecreation?

IfYES,gotoG3.IfNO,Facilityfails.3) DoestheFacilityallowaccesstothereservoiranddownstreamreacheswithoutfees

orcharges?

YES.Seesubsection1),above.IfYES,gotoH.IfNO,Facilityfails.



23 4/14/10

THEFACILITYPASSES

G. Recreation–TheFacilityisinCompliancewithLIHI’sRecreationstandards.H.FacilitiesRecommendedforRemovalGoal: Toavoidencouragingtheretentionof facilitieswhichhavebeenconsideredforremovalduetotheirenvironmentalimpacts.Standard:IfaResourceAgencyhasrecommendedremovalofadamassociatedwiththeFacility,certificationisnotallowed.Criterion:1) IsthereaResourceAgencyRecommendationforremovalofthedamassociatedwith

theFacility?

NO.ConsultationwithNHDESandUSFWSconfirmedthis.

IfNO,Facilityislowimpact.IfYES,theFacilityfails.

THEFACILITYPASSESH. DamRemoval–ThereisnoResourceAgencyRecommendationforremovalofthedam.

FACILITYISCONDITIONALLYLOWIMPACT

LIHI Review Report Penacook Upper Falls...LIHI criteria for certification if certain special...

Documents

Transcript of LIHI Review Report Penacook Upper Falls...LIHI criteria for certification if certain special...