UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Madison Paper Industries, Inc. Project Nos. 2364 013, 2365 024 Maine NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ( September 19, 2002)

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's ( Commission) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 ( Order No. 486, 52 F. R. 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the applications for new licenses for the Anson and Abenaki Hydroelectric Projects, located on the Kennebec River in Somerset County, Maine, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment ( EA) for the project. The projects do not occupy any federal lands.

The EA contains the staff's analyzes of the potential environmental impacts of the projects and concludes that licensing the projects, with appropriate environmental protection measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

A copy of the FEA is available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http:// www. ferc. gov using the " FERRIS" link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call ( 202) 502 8222 or for TTY, ( 202) 502 8659.

Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this notice and should be addressed to Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, D. C. 20426. Please affix Project Nos. 2364 013 and 2365 024 to all comments. Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001( a)( 1)( iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site ( http:// www. ferc. gov) under the " e Filing" link.

For further information, contact Nan Allen at 202 502 6128.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr. Deputy Secretary ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ANSON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT NO. 2365 012 ABENAKI HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT NO. 2364 023 Maine Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects 888 First Street NE Washington, D. C. 20426 September 2002 Table of Contents Section Page SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i I. APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. Purpose of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 B. Need for Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 III. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A. Madison Paper Industries Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1. Project Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2. Project Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3. Proposed Environmental Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 B. No Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 C. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study . . . . . . . . . 16 1. Federal Takeover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2. Non Power License . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3. Project Retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 IV. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A. Agency Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 B. Offer of Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 C. Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 D. Scoping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 E. Water Quality Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 D. Section 18 Fishway Prescription . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 F. Coastal Zone Management Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 V. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 A. General Description of the Kennebec River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 B. Cumulative Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 1. Geographic Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2. Temporal Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3. Cumulative Effects Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 C. Analysis of Site Specific Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 1. Geology and Soils Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 2. Aquatic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3. Terrestrial Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 ii 4. Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5. Land Use and Aesthetic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 6. Recreation Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 7. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 VI. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 A. Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 B. No action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 C. Economic Comparison of the Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 VII. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES . . . . . . . . . . 84 IX. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 XI. LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 XII. LIST OF PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 List of Tables Table 1. Monthly Median Flows for the Anson and Abenaki Projects . . . . . . . . 28 Table 2. Anson Project Fish Passage Attraction and Transport Flows . . . . . . . . . 37 Table 3. Abenaki Project Fish Passage Attraction and Transport Flows . . . . . . . . 37 Table 4. Estimated Areas of Vegetated Wetland Cover Types for the Anson Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Table 5. Anson and Abenaki Projects Shoreline Land Use Classification . . . . . . 51 Table 6. Estimated Distribution of Shoreline Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Table 7. Estimated Recreation Days and Angler Days at the Anson and Abenaki Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Table 8. 1993 SCORP Statewide Recreation Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Table 9. Assumptions for economic analyses of the Anson and Abenaki Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Table 10. Anson Project summary of annualized costs of proposed measures . . . . 72 Table 11. Abenaki Project summary of annualized costs of proposed measures . . . 73 Table 12. Value of Fish Passage Attraction and Transport Flows  Anson Project . 74 Table 13. Value of Fish Passage Attraction and Transport Flows  Abenaki Project 75 iii Table 14. Anson Project summary of annual benefits and costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Table 15. Abenaki Project summary of annual benefits and costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 List of Figures Figure 1. Features of the Anson and Abenaki Hydroelectric Projects . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Figure 2. Anson Impoundment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Figure 3. Suitability of proposed flows on Stenonema and brown trout in the Abenaki bypassed reach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Figure 4. Sites of Proposed Recreation Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 i SUMMARY Madison Paper Industries, Inc., ( MPI) proposes to operate and maintain the existing 9,000 kilowatt ( kW), run of river Anson Hydroelectric Project ( P 2365) and the 17,000 kW Abenaki Hydroelectric Project ( P 2364) located on the Kennebec River in Somerset County, Maine. Energy generated by the projects is used at MPI's pulp and paper mill in the town of Madison, Maine. Together the projects generate 137,190 megawatt hours annually ( MWh/ yr).

Based on our analysis, we recommend licensing the projects as proposed by MPI, and consistent with a pre filing settlement agreement developed using the Commission's alternative licensing process in 18 CFR § 4.34( i). Signatories to the agreement include MPI, federal and state resource agencies, local governments, and non govenrmental organizations.

Commission staff recommend the following measures:

Anson Project: ( 1) Continue to operate the Anson Project in a run of river mode; ( 2) provide a continuous minimum flow below the project of 1,540 cfs; ( 3) prepare and implement a plan to install, operate and maintain streamflow and water level monitoring equipment; ( 4) prepare and implement an erosion and sediment control plan ( ESCP); ( 5) install and operate permanent upstream passage for American eel; ( 6) install and operate interim and permanent downstream passage for American eel*; ( 7) install and operate interim and permanent downstream passage facilities for Atlantic salmon*; ( 8) construct permanent upstream passage for Atlantic salmon; ( 9) conduct effectiveness testing of interim and permanent upstream and downstream eel and salmon passage facilities; ( 10) convene annual consultation meetings of the fishery agencies to review the status of measures related to fish passage; ( 11) establish and fund an account for Altlantic salmon restoration; ( 12 ) establish and find an account for Atlantic salmon stocking; ( 13) construct and maintain recreation enhancements including a boat launch/ drift boat take out with parking facilities, primitive campsite, and canoe portage take out; ( 14) construct and maintain a recreation facility at the town of Madison boat launch and expand the existing leased area to include entire park development; ( 15) prepare and execute a Historic Properties Management Plan ( HPMP); ( 16) conduct a wetlands monitoring study; ( 17) execute a Shoreland Buffer Management Plan ( SBMP), including granting conservation easements on about 279.2 acres of MPI owned shorelands and islands to an appropriate conservation organization; and ( 18) revise the project boundary to accommodate new recreational facilities and shoreland buffers.

Abenaki Project: ( 1) continue to operate the Abenaki Project in a run of river mode; ( 2) provide a continuous minimum flow below the project of 1,540 cfs; ( 3) provide ii seasonal minimum flow of 100 cfs ( November April), 200 cfs ( May and October), and 300 cfs ( June September) in the Abenaki bypassed reach; ( 4) prepare and implement a plan to install, operate and maintain streamflow and water level monitoring equipment; ( 5) prepare and implement an erosion and sediment control plan ( ESCP); ( 6) provide permanent upstream passage for American eel; ( 5) provide interim and permanent downstream passage for American eel*; ( 7) install and operate interim and permanent downstream passage facilities for Atlantic salmon*; ( 8) construct permanent upstream passage for Atlantic salmon; ( 9) conduct effectiveness testing of both interim and permanent upstream and downstream eel and salmon passage facilities; ( 10) convene annual consultation meetings of the fishery agencies to review the status of measures related to fish passage; ( 11) establish and fund an account for Atlantic salmon restoration; ( 12) establish and fund an account for Atlantic salmon stocking; ( 13) construct and maintain recreation enhancements, including a canoe/ kayak car top put in; a small trailered boat put in with a parking area, a small trailered boat take out, an access road sufficient for automobiles with small trailers to connect the three boat access sites; and fencing along the road as necessary to limit access to leased land; ( 14) donate MPI owned portions of the Old Point Mission Site, otherwise known at the Father Rasle/ Pines site, to the Archaeological Conservancy; ( 15) prepare and execute a final HPMP; ( 16) execute a SBMP, including granting conservation easements on about 54.2 acres of MPI owned shorelands to an appropriate conservation organization; ( 17) revise the project boundary to remove the donated land and include the new recreational facilities and shoreland buffers; ( 18) resurface the dam and install an inflatable flashboard system; ( 19) install a minimum flow gate; and ( 20) install 2.94 MW of new capacity.

With the proposed and recommended action, the Anson and Abenaki Projects would have annual net benefits of about $ 1,384,710 ($ 28 per MWh) and $ 2,201,889 ($ 25 per MWh) respectively. The no action alternative would result in annual net benefits of $ 1,756,482 ($ 34 per MWh) and $ 2,819,014 ($ 33 per MWh), respectively. We also recommend installation of an additional 2.94 MW of new capacity.

On the basis of our independent analysis, we conclude that issuing a new license for the project, with the environmental measures we recommend, would not be a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

* Depending on the outcome of efficiency testing, the interim passage facilities may become the permanent passages. 1 18 CFR § 4.34( I). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Environmental and Engineering Review ANSON HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT NO. 2365 013 ABENAKI HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT NO. 2364 024 MAINE I. APPLICATION The Anson Hydroelectric Project ( Anson Project) and the Abenaki Hydroelectric Project ( Abenaki Project), located on the Kennebec River in Somerset County, Maine, are owned and operated by Madison Paper Industries ( MPI) ( figures 1 and 2).

MPI used the Commission's alternative licensing procedure for submitting the applications for new licenses. 1 As part of a this process, MPI worked collaboratively with sixteen participants, including the Maine Department of Environmental Protection ( MDEP), Maine Department of Marine Resources ( MDMR), Maine State Planning Office, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife ( MDIFW), Maine Department of Conservation, Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission ( MASC), United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( FWS), United States Environmental Protection Agency, town of Anson, town of Madison, Kennebec Valley Trails, Friends of the Kennebec Salmon, Maine Council of the Atlantic Salmon Federation, and Appalachian Mountain Club. Collectively the collaborative is known as the Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment ( APEA) team.

In addition to the license applications for the Anson and Abenaki Projects, MPI, on behalf of APEA team filed an Offer of Settlement dated January 20, 2002. The APEA team negotiated the settlement agreement over a period of 2.5 years and all team members became signatories to the agreement.

An addendum, dated July 15, 2002, to the settlement agreement, signed by all signatories to the settlement agreement contains the following two provisions:

( 1) Where the settlement agreement stipulates specific dates for actions by the licensee under the terms of new licenses or the timing of actions if new licenses are 2 3 4 issued on May 1, 2004, or later, the signatories intend that the timing for such actions shall be measured from May 1, 2004. This clarifies that the signatories did not intend for MPI to be obligated to implement any environmental measures earlier than May 1, 2004, the expiration date of the current licenses for the Anson and Abenaki Projects; and ( 2) A separate set of conservation easement restrictions would be developed for a parcel of land on the east shore of the Kennebec River downstream of the Abenaki dam. This parcel has been reserved by MPI for future development, but was inadvertently included in the shoreland buffer zone.

II PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION A. Purpose of Action The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( Commission) must decide whether to issue or deny licenses for the continued operation and maintenance of the Anson and Abenaki Projects, and if so, what conditions it would impose in any licenses issued. Issuing new licenses for the Anson and Abenaki Projects would allow MPI to generate electricity for the duration of the new licenses' terms. In deciding whether to issue licenses, the Commission must determine that the projects would be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for improving or developing the waterway.

In this Environmental Assessment ( EA) we assess the environmental and economic effects of operating the projects as proposed by MPI, in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, and make recommendations to the Commission on whether to issue new licenses. We also consider the no action alternative for each project.

B. Need for Power All of the power produced by the Anson and Abenaki Projects is used by MPI's pulp and paper mill in Madison, Maine, with the exception of energy produced during mill shutdowns. On an average annual basis the Anson and Abenaki Projects provide 16 percent and 27 percent, respectively, of the mill's total annual energy requirement of about 322,146 megawatthours ( MWh). Over the past 5 years only about 1 percent of the combined generation at both projects was sold to utilities.

The projects are located in the New England Power Pool ( NEPOOL) subregion of the Northeast Power Coordinating Council ( NPCC) region of the North American Electric Reliability Council ( NERC). NERC annually forecasts electrical supply and demand in the nation and the region for a ten year period. NERC's most recent report on annual supply and demand projections indicates that, for the period 2001 through 2010, 5 the average annual peak summer demand growth rate is 1.3 percent, while the demand for electric energy in the NPCC will grow at an average rate of 1.2 percent annually ( NERC, 2001). With planned capacity additions NEPOOL is expected to meet its reliability criteria through 2005 under a high demand growth scenario, but could fall below the criteria in 2006.

The Anson and Abenaki Projects contribute to the existing generating resources available to the NCPP region and would help the region meet its reliability criteria in the short term ( through 2005) and beyond. At the Anson Project, the annual plant factor of the five, 60 cycle 1,800 kilowatt ( kW) generators operating under a gross head of 24.5 feet is about 65 percent. Average annual generation of the Anson Project is 51,450 MWh/ yr. At the Abenaki Project, the annual plant factor of the seven generators operating under a gross head of 43 feet is about 56 percent. Average annual generation of the Abenaki Project is 85,632 MWh/ yr.

The continued use of power generated from the projects could continue to displace nonrenewable fossil fired generation and contribute to a diversified generation mix of resources, supporting our finding that power from the projects would continue to help meet the need for power in the NPCC area in the long term.

III. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES A. MPI's Proposal MPI's proposed action is consistent with the settlement agreement.

1. Project Facilities Anson Project The Anson Project consists of the following principal features:

( a) a 630 ft long concrete gravity dam including three spillway sections with a 5.6 ft high inflatable flashboard system and a permanent crest elevation of 242.62 ft msl; ( b) a 40 ft wide by 13.5 ft high inflatable waste gate system; ( c) a 250 ft long forebay and trashrack section; ( d) a 190 ft long by 54 ft wide powerhouse containing five turbine/ generator units with a total installed capacity of 9 megawatts ( MW) and a hydraulic capacity of 6,000 cfs; ( e) a reservoir with a surface area of about 698 acres and a gross storage capacity of 5,860 acre feet at a normal pool elevation of 248.15 ft msl; and ( f) appurtenant facilities. 2 This measure would allow a minimum flow of 1,540 cfs below the Anson Project when inflow to the project is higher than 1,540 cfs and would be inconsistent with a ROR operation. In practice, the more restrictive requirement of ROR would be enforced to ensure that both conditions were met. Commission staff, then, interprets the 1,540 cfs minimum flow to apply during periods when ROR operation has been modified, unless the minimum flow requirement were also modified.

6 Abenaki Project The Abenaki Project consists of the following principal features:

( a) a concrete gravity overflow dam with a 784 ft long spillway section with a permanent crest elevation of 219.65 ft msl, 3 ft high wooden flashboards, heights ranging from several to about 25 feet, and a 33 ft wide log sluice in the center of the spillway section; ( b) an 830 ft long by 160 ft wide forebay, trashrack and headgate section; ( c) two 12 ft wide by 12 ft high waste gates; ( d) seven turbine/ generator units located in an old grinder room of the pulp mill with a total installed capacity of 16.977 MW and a total hydraulic capacity of 4,980 cfs; ( e) a 1,950 ft long bypassed reach; ( f) a reservoir with a surface area of about 32 acres and a gross storage capacity of about 520 acre feet at a normal pond elevation of 222.65 ft msl; ( g); a 3,400 ft long transmission line; and ( h) appurtenant facilities.

2. Project Operations Anson Project MPI proposes to continue to operate the Anson Project as a run of river ( ROR) facility, minimizing reservoir fluctuations by maintaining a discharge from the project so that, at any given time, flows immediately below the project approximate the sum of inflows to the project reservoir. MPI proposes that ROR operations could be temporarily modified, if required by operating emergencies beyond the control of MPI and for short periods of time upon mutual agreement between MPI and MDIFW, FWS, MASC, MDEP, and MDMR.

MPI also proposes to maintain a continuous minimum flow of 1,540 cfs, or inflow to the reservoir, whichever is less, downstream of the Anson powerhouse and dam. 2 This minimum flow could be temporarily modified, if required by operating emergencies beyond the control of MPI and for short periods of time upon agreement between MPI and MDIFW, FWS, MASC, MDEP, and MDMR. 3 This measure would allow a minimum flow of 1,540 cfs below the Abenaki Project when inflow to the project is higher than 1,540 cfs and would be inconsistent with a ROR operation. In 7 Under the settlement agreement MPI may fluctuate the reservoir by about 6 inches below the normal pond elevation of 248.15 ft msl for periods up to 6 hours per occasion during emergency power system demand as declared by the New England Independent System Operator.

When permanent upstream and downstream fish passages are constructed for Atlantic salmon, MPI proposes to provide flows necessary to effectively operate the fish passage facilities.

The generating units are controlled automatically by headpond level sensors. The project turbines each have a minimum and maximum hydraulic capacity of 400 cfs and 1,200 cfs, respectively. The total maximum hydraulic capacity of the five turbines is 6,000 cfs.

Abenaki Project The inflow to the Abenaki Project is the outflow from the Anson Project. MPI proposes to continue to operate the Abenaki Project as a ROR facility, minimizing reservoir fluctuations by maintaining a discharge from the project so that, at any given time, flows immediately below the project approximate the sum of inflows to the project reservoir. MPI proposes that ROR operations could be temporarily modified, if required by operating emergencies beyond the control of MPI, and for short periods of time upon agreement between MPI and MDIFW, FWS, MASC, MDEP, and MDMR.

For the Abenaki bypassed reach, MPI proposes to release the following minimum flow regime:

100 cfs November through April 200 cfs May and October 300 cfs June through September Minimum flows through the bypassed reach could be temporarily modified, if required by operating emergencies beyond the control of MPI and for short periods of time upon agreement between MPI and MDIFW, FWS, MASC, MDEP, and MDMR.

MPI also proposes to maintain a continuous minimum flow of 1,540 cfs, or inflow to the reservoir, whichever is less, downstream of the Abenaki Project. 3 This minimum practice, the more restrictive requirement of ROR would be enforced to ensure that both conditions were met. Therefore, Commission staff interprets the 1,540 cfs minimum flow to apply during periods when ROR operation has been modified, unless the minimum flow requirement were also modified.

8 flow could be temporarily modified, if required by operating emergencies beyond the control of MPI and for short periods of time upon agreement between MPI and MDIFW, FWS, MASC, MDEP, and MDMR.

When permanent upstream and downstream fish passages are constructed for Atlantic salmon, MPI proposes to provide flows necessary to effectively operate the fish passage facilities and a zone of passage through the Abenaki bypassed reach.

The generating units of the Abenaki Project are controlled automatically by headpond level sensors. Six of the project's seven turbines each have a minimum and maximum hydraulic capacity of 350 cfs and 816 cfs, respectively. The seventh turbine has a minimum hydraulic capacity of 40 cfs and a maximum hydraulic capacity of 84 cfs. The total maximum hydraulic capacity is 4,980 cfs.

MPI proposes to install a 2.94 MW turbine/ generator unit in a existing unused bay of the Abenaki powerhouse and replace the existing wooden flashboards with an inflatable flashboard system. MPI proposes to begin installation of the inflatable flashboard system within two years of the effective date of the new license, concurrent with a dam resurfacing. MPI proposes to install the new 2.94 MW turbine/ generator unit between 2008 and 2016 or at an earlier date determined by MPI, based on the most favorable financial conditions for installation of the new unit in conjunction with other funding commitments associated with the new license. By July 1 of each year, starting in 2008, MPI would file with the Commission, with copies to signatories of the settlement agreement, a letter reviewing the status of MPI's plans for installing the new turbine until construction activities begin. A Supporting Design Report for these improvements is provided in Exhibit F of the License Application for the Abenaki Project ( MPI 2002b).

3. Proposed Environmental Measures MPI proposes to implement the following environmental measures in accordance with the schedules established in the settlement agreement and addendum.

Anson Project ° Continue to operate the Anson Project in a ROR mode so that, at any given time, 4 Efficiency testing of fish passage facilities would be conducted by MPI in consultation with MDIFW, MDMR, MASC, and FWS.

5 The current licenses for the Anson and Abenaki Projects expire on April 30, 2004. Therefore, we anticipate that the effective date for any new licenses accepted by MPI for the projects would be May 1, 2004.

9 flows immediately below the project approximate the sum of inflows to the project reservoir for the protection of fish resources, riparian vegetation and recreational opportunities in the Kennebec River. The reservoir elevation may be drawn down by about 6 inches for up to 6 hours per occasion in response to emergency power system demand conditions.

° Release a continuous minimum flow of 1,540 cfs, or inflow to the reservoir if less, below the powerhouse and dam for the benefit of aquatic resources and water quality downstream of the project.

° Prepare and implement a plan to install, operate, and maintain streamflow and water level monitoring equipment necessary to monitor and record flows and water levels at the project, MDIFW, MDMR, MASC, FWS, and MDEP, with recorded data provided to the consulted agencies.

° Prepare and implement a plan and schedule to design, construct, and maintain interim downstream passage for American eel, in consultation with MDIFW, MDMR, MASC, and FWS, with an 80 percent effectiveness goal to enhance American eel populations in the Kennebec River basin. 4 Passage would be operational within 2 years of the effective date of the Anson license. 5 If the interim passage is at least 90 percent effective, the interim passage would become the permanent passage.

° If interim downstream passage for American eel is not at least 90 percent effective, prepare and implement a plan to design, construct, and maintain permanent downstream passage, in consultation with MDIFW, MDMR, MASC, and FWS, with at least 90 percent effectiveness for American eel by July 1, 2020.

° Prepare and implement a plan and schedule to design, construct, and maintain an interim downstream passage, in consultation with MDIFW, MDMR, MASC, and FWS, with an 80 percent effectiveness goal for Atlantic salmon within 6 months, but not prior to the effective date of a new Anson license, of being notified by FWS and MASC that sustained annual stocking upstream of the project has begun or will begin within 2 years of the notification. Passage would be operational 6 The Weston Project ( FERC No. 2325) is located 2 miles downstream of the Abenaki Project.

7 The Atlantic Salmon and Aquatic Riverine Habitat Restoration Fund is a low risk, interest bearing account to be established by MPI to support specific Atlantic salmon restoration activities upstream of the Anson Project. The fund would be administered by the Atlantic Salmon and Aquatic Riverine Habitat Restoration Committee ( Committee), and would include representatives of MPI, MASC, FWS, and MDIFW.

10 within 2 years of a stocking notice, but not earlier that the effective date of a new Anson license. If the passage is at least 90 percent effective, the interim passage would become permanent.

° If interim downstream passage for Atlantic salmon is not at least 90 percent effective, prepare and implement a plan and schedule to design, construct, and maintain permanent downstream passage for Atlantic salmon, in consultation with MDIFW, MDMR, MASC, and FWS, to be implemented when the permanent upstream passage for Atlantic salmon is constructed.

° Prepare and implement a plan and schedule to design, construct, and maintain permanent upstream passage for American eel, with an 90 percent effectiveness goal, in consultation with MDIFW, MDMR, MASC, and FWS. Passage would be operational within 2 years of the effective date of a new license for the Anson Project.

° Prepare and implement a plan and schedule to design, construct, and maintain permanent upstream passage for Atlantic salmon, in consultation with MDIFW, MDMR, MASC, and FWS, when 226 returning Kennebec River Atlantic salmon have been captured downstream of the project and released upstream of the Weston dam in a single season. 6 No operational permanent upstream passage would be required before May 1, 2020.

° If the trigger number of 226 returning and captured/ released Atlantic salmon is not reached by 2020, MPI may elect to construct permanent upstream passage for Atlantic salmon or to contribute funding, in the amount of $ 25,000 annually for the Anson Project, starting in 2020, and continuing at the same rate in subsequent years of the new license term, to the Atlantic Salmon and Aquatic Riverine Habitat Restoration Fund. 7 MPI would provide such funding until permanent upstream passage facilities are constructed or the restoration program for Atlantic salmon on the Kennebec River is no longer active. 11 ° Conduct effectiveness testing of both interim and permanent upstream and downstream American eel and Atlantic salmon passage facilities, in consultation with MDIFW, MDMR, MASC, and FWS. Efficiency targets would be 80 percent for interim facilities and 90 percent for permanent facilities, subject to confirmation through testing that the targets are reasonably achievable and scientifically valid for the species being tested.

MPI proposes to implement standard erosion control measures such as installing a silt fence downgradient of disturbed soils, and mulching and seeding or revegetating disturbed soil areas immediately following construction. For long term control, MPI proposes to install water bars ( e. g., logs parallel with contours anchored with metal bars) or utilize erosion control measures as necessary to minimize the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation related to use of the recreation enhancements.

° Convene annual consultation meetings with MDIFW, MDMR, MASC, FWS, Trout Unlimited, and the Maine Council of the Atlantic Salmon Confederation during the term of the license to review the status of mitigation and enhancement measures that relate to fish passage at the project.

° Establish an escrow account entitled the Atlantic Salmon and Riverine Aquatic Habitat Restoration Fund and automatically deposit into the fund $ 135,000 by July 31, 2006, and $ 150,000 by July 31, 2010, for the Anson Project.

° Fund Atlantic salmon stocking by depositing $ 50,000 in an interest bearing escrow account within 3 months of the effective date of a new license for the Anson Project for use as a contribution to start up of Atlantic salmon hatching facilities. Within 2 years begin depositing $ 5,000 per year for 12 years to aid in hatching or purchasing of Atlantic salmon eggs or procurement of fry for stocking. If Atlantic salmon hatching facilities are not substantially underway within 6 years of the effective date of any new license issued for the Anson Project, the deposits, annual funding, and any accrued interest would be transferred to the Atlantic Salmon and Aquatic Riverine Habitat Restoration Fund.

° Within 5 years of the effective date of any new license issued for the Anson Project, prepare and implement a plan to conduct a monitoring survey of wetlands at the Anson Project, in consultation with MDIFW, FWS, and Army Corps of Engineers ( COE).

° Within 18 months of the effective date of any license issued for the Anson Project, implement a Shoreland Buffer Management Plan ( SBMP) included as Appendix A 12 of the settlement agreement, in consultation with the FWS, MDIFW, Maine Department of Conservation, Maine State Planning Office, towns of Anson and Madison, Kennebec Valley Trails, and Appalachian Mountain Club ( MPI 2002d). The plan would include granting conservation easements on about 279.2 acres of MPI owned shorelands and islands in the Anson Project area to a conservation organization.

° Revise the Anson Project boundary to include buffer zone lands and projectrelated recreation facilities and to remove an 8 acre parcel previously reserved for future recreational use that would be traded to acquire land for the upper Anson impoundment boat launch.

° Implement the Recreation Plan included as Appendix B of the settlement agreement, in consultation with FWS, MDIFW, Maine Department of Conservation, Kennebec Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited, towns of Anson and Madison, Kennebec Valley Trails, and Appalachian Mountain Club to improve access for recreational opportunities in the project area ( MPI 2002d). The plan includes: ( 1) construction and maintenance of a boat launch/ drift boat take out with parking facilities at the upstream end of the Anson impoundment ( Madison Street boat launch); ( 2) construction and maintenance of a primitive campsite on Weston Island accessible only by boat; ( 3) construction of enhancements at the town of Madison boat launch and expansion of the existing leased area to include the entire park; and ( 4) construction and maintenance of a canoe portage take out at the east end of the railroad trestle between the mill and contractor parking areas and providing canoe carriers as needed for portage users.

° Execute a Programmatic Agreement ( PA) prior to license issuance and prepare and execute an Historic Properties Management Plan ( HPMP).

Abenaki Project ° Continue to operate the Abenaki Project in a ROR mode so that, at any given time, flows, immediately below the project approximate the sum of inflows to the project reservoir for the protection of fish resources, riparian vegetation and recreational opportunities in the Kennebec River.

° Release a continuous minimum flow of 1,540 cfs, or inflow to the reservoir if less, below the powerhouse and dam for the benefit of aquatic resources and water quality downstream of the project.

° Release the following minimum flows to the Abenaki bypassed reach, beginning 13 on January 1, 2007, to enhance macroinvertebrate production and support MDIFW fisheries management goals: 300 cfs from June through September; 200 cfs for May and October; and 100 cfs from November through April.

° Prepare and implement a plan and schedule to install, operate and maintain streamflow and water level monitoring equipment necessary to monitor and record flows and water levels at the project, in consultation with MDIFW, MDMR, MASC, FWS, and MDEP, with recorded data provided to the consulted agencies.

° Prepare and implement a plan and schedule to design, construct, and maintain interim downstream passage for American eel with an 80 percent effectiveness goal to enhance American eel populations in the Kennebec River basin. Passage would be operational within 2 years of the effective date of the Abenaki license. If an effectiveness of at least 90 percent is met, the interim passage would become the permanent passage.

° If interim downstream passage for American eel is not at least 90 percent effective, prepare and implement a plan and schedule to design, construct, and maintain permanent downstream passage, in consultation with MDIFW, MDMR, MASC, and FWS, with at least 90 percent effectiveness for American eel by July 1, 2020.

° Prepare and implement a plan and schedule to design, construct, and maintain permanent upstream passage for American eel, in consultation with MDIFW, MDMR, MASC, and FWS. Passage would be operational within 2 years of the effective date of a new license for the Abenaki Project.

° Prepare and implement a plan and schedule to design, construct, and maintain permanent upstream passage for Atlantic salmon when 226 returning Kennebec River Atlantic salmon have been captured downstream of the project and released in the Kennebec watershed upstream of the Weston dam in a single season. No operational permanent upstream passage would be required before May 1, 2020.

° If the trigger number of 226 returning and captured/ released Atlantic salmon is not reached by 2020, MPI may elect to construct permanent upstream passage for Atlantic salmon or to contribute funding, in the amount of $ 25,000 annually for the Abenaki Project, starting in 2020, and continuing at the same rate in subsequent years of the new license term, to the Atlantic Salmon and Aquatic Riverine Habitat Restoration Fund. MPI would provide such funding until permanent upstream passage facilities are constructed or the restoration program for Atlantic salmon on the Kennebec River is no longer active. 14 ° Conduct effectiveness testing of interim and permanent upstream and downstream American eel and Atlantic salmon passage facilities, in consultation with MDIFW, MDMR, MASC, and FWS. Efficiency targets would be 80 percent for interim facilities and 90 percent for permanent facilities, subject to confirmation through testing that the targets are reasonably achievable and scientifically valid for the species being tested.

° MPI proposes to implement standard erosion control measures such as installing a silt fence downgradient of disturbed soils, and mulching and seeding or revegetating disturbed soil areas immediately following construction. For long term control, MPI proposes to install water bars ( e. g., logs parallel with contours anchored with metal bars) or utilize erosion control measures as necessary to minimize the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation related to use of the recreation enhancements.

° Convene annual consultation meetings with MDIFW, MDMR, MASC, FWS, Trout Unlimited, and the Maine Council of the Atlantic Salmon Confederation during the term of the license to review the status of mitigation and enhancement measures that relate to fish passage at the project.

° Establish an escrow account entitled the Atlantic Salmon and Riverine Aquatic Habitat Restoration Fund and automatically deposit into the fund $ 135,000 by July 31, 2006, and $ 150,000 by July 31, 2010, for the Abenaki Project.

° Fund Atlantic salmon stocking by depositing $ 50,000 in an interest bearing escrow account within 3 months of the effective date of a new license for the Abenaki Project for use as a contribution to start up of Atlantic salmon hatching facilities. Within 2 years begin depositing $ 5,000 per year for 12 years to aid in hatching or purchasing of Atlantic salmon eggs or procurement of fry for stocking. If Atlantic salmon hatching facilities are not substantially underway within 6 years of the effective date of any new license issued for the Abenaki Project; the deposits, annual funding, and any accrued interest would be transferred to the Atlantic Salmon and Aquatic Riverine Habitat Restoration Fund.

° Within 5 years of the implementation of a minimum flow regime for the Abenaki bypassed reach, evaluate the resident riverine fish species passage capability at the lower log sluice area for movement into and out of the bypassed reach.

° Within 18 months of the effective date of any license issued for the Abenaki Project, implement the SBMP included as Appendix A of the settlement agreement, in consultation with the FWS, MDIFW, Maine Department of 8 MPI proposes an endowment of $ 5,000 to maintain the archeological site after donation, although the settlement agreement does not specify an amount for the endowment. The settlement agreement states that MPI would provide a " reasonable endowment" to enforce the terms of a conservation easement and will contribute " an amount to be agreed upon between the licensee and easement holder ( MPI 2002d)).

15 Conservation, Maine State Planning Office, towns of Anson and Madison, Kennebec Valley Trails, and Appalachian Mountain Club ( MPI 2002d). The plan would include granting conservation easements on about 54.2 acres of MPI owned shorelands in the Abenaki Project area to an appropriate conservation organization.

° Implement the Recreation Plan included as Appendix B of the settlement agreement, in consultation with FWS, MDIFW, Maine Department of Conservation, Kennebec Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited, towns of Anson and Madison, Kennebec Valley Trails, and Appalachian Mountain Club to improve access for recreational opportunities in the project area ( MPI 2002d). The plan includes establishment of: ( 1) a west shore car top carry in along the lower bypassed reach below the remains of an old log sluice; ( 2) a west shore trailered put in downstream of the west shore car top carry in; ( 3) a west shore trailered take out about 0.5 mile below the west shore trailered put in; and ( 4) a gravel access road to connect the west shore put ins and take out.

° Execute a Programmatic Agreement ( PA) prior to license issuance and prepare and execute an Historic Properties Management Plan ( HPMP), including donation of about 21 acres of project land, with a one time endowment of $ 5,000 for site maintenance, on the east shore of the Kennebec River known as " The Pines" to the Archaeological Conservancy in order to provide permanent protection to the Old Point Mission site ( Maine Archeological Site 69 2). 8 ° Revise the Abenaki Project boundary to include buffer zone lands and projectrelated recreation facilities and to remove a 21 acre parcel in the Pines area that would be donated to the Archaeological Conservancy.

D. No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, the projects would continue to operate under the terms and conditions of the existing licenses, and no new environmental protection, mitigation, or enhancement measures would be implemented. Any ongoing impacts of the projects would continue. We use this alternative to establish baseline environmental conditions for comparison with MPI's proposed action. 16 E. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 1. Federal Takeover We do not consider Federal takeover to be a reasonable alternative, nor has any federal agency expressed an interest in operating the projects. Federal takeover would require congressional approval. While these facts alone would not preclude further consideration of this alternative, there is no evidence that a federal takeover should be recommended to Congress.

2. Non Power License A non power license is a temporary license that the Commission would terminate whenever it determines that another governmental agency would assume regulatory authority and supervision over the lands and facilities covered by the non power license. No entity has recommended this option during the scoping process and there is no basis for concluding that the projects should no longer be used to produce power. Therefore, a non power license is not a realistic alternative to relicensing.

3. Project Retirement Project retirement could be accomplished with or without dam removal. Either alternative would involve denial of the relicense applications and surrender or termination of the existing licenses with appropriate conditions.

In deciding whether to include a detailed analysis of a project retirement alternative in this EA we considered that: ( 1) relicensing the projects would not affect any federally listed threatened or endangered species; ( 2) the projects' reaches do not have protected status ( e. g. scenic river, wilderness area); ( 3) no one has supported either projects' retirement, ( 4) adequate measures have been developed in the settlement agreement and are considered in this EA to protect and enhance environmental resources; ( 5) the projects are economically viable, including costs of resource protection measures; ( 6) the projects' facilities are in good physical condition; and ( 7) there is a need for the power supplied by the projects. Thus, dam removal is not a reasonable alternative to relicensing the project with appropriate protection, mitigation and enhancement measures.

The second project retirement alternative would involve retaining the dam and disabling or removing equipment used to generate power. Project works would remain in place and could be used for historic or other purposes. This would require us to identify another government agency with authority to assume regulatory control and supervision of the remaining facilities. No agency has stepped forward, and no participant has 9 The APEA team's baseline presentation is found in the Decommissioning and Dam Removal sections of the APEA filed with the Commission on April 26, 2002 ( MPI 2002c) as part of the relicensing applications for the Anson and Abenaki Projects.

17 advocated this alternative. Nor have we any basis for recommending it. Because the power supplied by the projects is needed, a source of replacement power would have to be identified. In these circumstances, we don't consider removal of the electric generating equipment to be a reasonable alternative.

The APEA team disagreed with the Commission's use of existing conditions to establish an environmental baseline for comparison with MPI's proposal ( see the Noaction Alternative section above). The team believed that environmental conditions that existed prior to the construction of the projects would be an appropriate baseline condition. In preparing the APEA document, the team used " Decommissioning and Dam Removal" headings in the environmental resource sections to describe conditions without the projects in place. 9 Although the APEA team advocated this baseline for evaluating MPI's proposal, the team did not recommend that the Anson and Abenaki Projects be decommissioned, with or without dam removal. Additionally, decommissioning/ dam removal was not part of the settlement agreement.

VI. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE A. Agency Consultation The following entities responded to the public notice requesting preliminary terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions, issued by the Commission on November 14, 2001. The deadline for responding to the notice was February 14, 2002.

ENTITY DATE OF LETTER Maine Historic Preservation Committee November 21, 2001 Department of the Army December 19, 2001 Maine Department of Inland Fish and Wildlife February 6, 2002 Town of Anson, Maine February 7, 2002 U. S. Department of the Interior February 8, 2002 Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission February 11, 2002 Kennebec Valley Trails, Inc. February 14, 2002 Maine Department of Inland Fish and Wildlife February 14, 2002 Maine State Planning Office February 14, 2002 Maine Department of Marine Resources February 20, 2002 Maine Department of Environmental Protection February 25, 2002 18 Appalachian Mountain Club February 25, 2002 On May 3, 2002, the Commission issued a 60 day public notice requesting final terms and conditions, recommendations, and prescriptions. The following entities responded to the notice:

ENTITY DATE OF LETTER Maine Historic Preservation Committee May 8, 2002 U. S. Department of the Interior June 26, 2002 B. Offer of Settlement On January 31, 2002, MPI filed the settlement agreement to be incorporated as part of the relicensing process. The Commission requested comments on the settlement agreement by notice dated May 2, 2002. On July 16, 2002, MPI filed an addendum to the settlement agreement. The addendum was signed by all signatories of the settlement agreement. The Commission requested comments on the addendum to the settlement agreement on July 24, 2002. No responses were received to the notice of the Offer of Settlement or the addendum to the settlement. Prior to the notice period, the following letters were written in support of the settlement agreement. These letters were filed with the Commission directly or addressed to MPI and filed with the Commission as part of MPI's filing of new license applications ( MPI 2002c).

ENTITY DATE OF LETTER Town of Anson February 7, 2002 Maine State Planing Office February 14, 2002 Kennebec Valley Trails, Inc. February 14, 2002 Maine Department of Inland Fish and Wildlife February 14, 2002 Maine Department of Marine Resources February 20, 2002 Appalachian Mountain Club February 25, 2002 C. Interventions In addition to filing comments, Commission regulations allow that organizations and individuals may petition to intervene and become a party to the licensing proceedings. The deadline for filing motions to intervene in the proceedings was July 3, 2002. The following entities filed motions to intervene:

ENTITY FILING DATE Maine State Planning Office June 21, 2002 U. S. Department of the Interior June 27, 2002 10 33 U. S. C. § 1341 ( a) ( 1).

19 No intervenors opposed relicensing the Anson or Abenaki Project.

D. Scoping MPI prepared and distributed Scoping Document 1 on September 19, 1999, to enable appropriate federal, state, and local resource agencies; Indian tribes; other nongovernmental organizations; and individuals to participate in the identification of issues, concerns, and opportunities associated with this proposed action.

MPI held two public meetings in Madison, Maine on October 21, 1999, to formally identify issues. A summary of the comments received during the scoping period are presented in a revised Scoping Document 1, filed on November 6, 2000. The issues raised during scoping are addressed in appropriate sections of this EA.

E. Water Quality Certification On April 18, 2002, MPI applied to the MDEP for water quality certification ( WQC) for each project, as required by Section 401( a) of the Clean Water Act. 10 The MDEP received this request on the same day. Section 401( a)( 1) states that certification is deemed waived if the certifying agency doesn't act on a WQC request within a reasonable period of time, not to exceed one year.

The MDEP has reviewed the terms of the Offer of Settlement and determined that the continued operation of the Anson and Abenaki Projects would meet applicable state water quality standards and that MDEP would be able to issue a WQC for each project that is consistent with the Offer of Settlement ( letter to MPI from Dana P. Murch, Dams & Hydro Supervisor, MDEP, Augusta, Maine; January 11, 2002).

F. Section 18 Fishway Prescription Section 18 of the Federal Power Act states that the Commission shall require construction, operation, and maintenance by a licensee of such fishways as the Secretaries of Commerce and the Interior may prescribe. In the settlement agreement, Interior reserved authority to prescribe fishways at the projects in the future. Further, in the settlement agreement Interior specifies would use its Section 18 authority to require compliance with MPI's proposals for the projects.

G. Coastal Zone Management Act 11 Unless otherwise indicated, the source of our information is MPI's applications for license and supplemental filings for the projects.

20 The Coastal Zone Management Act ( CZMA) of 1972, as amended, requires the review of the projects' consistency with the state's Coastal Management Program. By letter dated December 11, 2002, the Maine State Planning Office stated that, although the Anson and Abenaki Projects are outside of the coastal zone, the migratory fish passage provisions should be reviewed for consistency with the CZMA. The Maine Coastal Program consistency would be determined in conjunction with the state's review for any WQC's issued for the projects ( MPI 2002d).

V. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 11 In this section, we first describe the general environmental setting of the project area. We then discuss the cumulative and site specific effects of the resources affected by the project including effects of the proposed action and no action alternative.

In our detailed assessment of each relevant resource, we first describe the affected environment  which is the existing condition and the baseline against which to measure anticipated changes of the proposed project  and then we discuss environmental effects of the project including proposed protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures. In this section, we also make recommendations for measures that do not have a substantial economic affect on the project. Our recommendations for the measures that have effects on other power or non power resources are found in section VII.

A. General Description of the Kennebec River Basin The Kennebec River basin is located in west central Maine and encompasses about one fifth of the state. The basin extends from the United States Canadian border 149 miles south to Maine's coast and has a maximum width of about 72 miles. Major tributaries to the Kennebec River upstream of the Anson and Abenaki dams are the Dead River, Roach River, and Carrabassett River. The Anson Project impounds about 0.5 mile of the Carrabassett River at its confluence with the Kennebec River. The Sandy River, Wesserunsett Stream, Moose River, Sebasticook River, and Messalonskee Stream are major tributaries downstream of the Anson and Abenaki projects.

The average gradient of the Kennebec River for the first 30 miles is 17 feet per mile ( fpm), including numerous rapids. Below the first 30 miles, the average gradient of the Kennebec River is 6 fpm. The average gradient of the Carrabassett River is 18 fpm. 21 The upper portion of the Kennebec River basin, north of the Anson and Abenaki Projects, is characterized by Maine's western mountains, scenic vistas, and large tracts of spruce fir forests which constitute about 90 percent of the upper Kennebec River basin area ( KVCOG, 1994). Timber harvesting and seasonal recreation constitutes the major land and water uses in this remote region, with forest product industries owning the majority of the land. The lower basin, which begins in the vicinity of the Anson Project, is characterized by wide, rolling valleys and contains the majority of the basin's towns and industry, and most of its population ( KVCOG 1994). Here, the broader plains and valleys provide more agricultural opportunities.

Typical of northern New England, the Kennebec River basin climate has four distinct seasons, with temperatures during the year varying from about 90  F in the summer to below  30  F in the winter. Average annual rainfall for Somerset County is about 39 inches, which is typically distributed evenly throughout the year. Average annual snowfall ranges from over 100 inches in the northern part of the county region to about 70 inches in the southern part of the county ( USDA, 1972).

B. Cumulative Effects According to the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations for implementing NEPA ( § 1508.7), an action may cause cumulative impacts on the environment if its impacts overlap in time and/ or space with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time, including hydropower and other land and water development activities.

Based on our review of MPI's license application, agency and public comments, and comprehensive plans, we have identified Atlantic salmon and American eel as having potential to be cumulatively affected by the project in combination with other past, present, and future activities. These species were selected because fish passage facilities will be implemented at other dams in the Kennebec River Basin.

1. Geographic Scope We identify the geographic scope of cumulative impacts as the Kennebec River Basin throughout the historic ranges of Atlantic salmon and American eel.

2. Temporal Scope The temporal scope of analysis includes a discussion of the past, present, and 22 reasonably foreseeable future actions and their effects on habitat and passage for these species. Based on the term of the proposed license, we will look 30 50 years into the future, concentrating on the effects on fisheries from reasonably foreseeable future actions. The historical discussion is limited, by necessity, to the amount of available information.

3. Cumulative Effects Analysis Atlantic salmon is the only anadromous species documented to historically occur within the Anson and Abenaki Project areas. Atlantic salmon once ranged the Kennebec River 144 miles inland through the area of the projects. Today, the Kennebec River Basin is one of 17 rivers included in the MASC's statewide Atlantic salmon restoration plan ( MASC 1995, 1997). A major component of the restoration plan is the installation of upstream and downstream passage facilities at all dams on the mainstem. The immediate restoration activities are concentrated on the lower Kennebec River downstream of the projects. The upper reaches of the Kennebec River ( including the Carrabassett River and the Anson and Abenaki Project waters on the mainstem Kennebec River) are under consideration for future restoration efforts.

American eel, the only catadromous species occurring within the basin, are believed to have ranged throughout the Kennebec Basin. American eel were abundant throughout the Anson impoundment during the June 1999 fisheries survey. Eel were harvested from the basin historically, although the fishery was not well documented ( CFF 1887). More recently, both elver and adult eel have been harvested in great numbers for sale to overseas markets ( MDMR 1996). Eel stocks have reportedly declined along the north Atlantic coast in recent years. Management and restoration programs are underway, which include limiting the commercial harvest.

In this EA, we recommend measures for upstream and downstream passage facilities, including effectiveness testing and attraction and transport flows that would enable Atlantic salmon and American eel to access habitat upstream of both projects. These measures would protect and enhance conditions for both species.

Therefore, we find that relicensing the Anson and Abenaki Projects with the our recommended measures would provide beneficial cumulative effects for Atlantic salmon and American eel in the Kennebec River and upstream tributaries.

C. Analysis of Site Specific Resources 1. Geology and Soils Resources 23 Affected Environment The Anson and Abenaki Projects lie within a geologic feature known as the Merrimack Synclinorium, a broad regional structure that has been mapped from north central New Hampshire into central Maine and comprising primarily metasedimentary and igneous rocks that are about 400 million years old.

Anson Project Bedrock Geology In the Anson impoundment, one bedrock outcrop exists that consists of light gray metasandstones and metasiltites of the Silurian Sangerville Formation, with beds generally oriented in a northeast southwest direction. Thick deposits of Quaternary sediments and soils, which obscure outcrops, apparently bury all bedrock in the remainder of the Anson impoundment. Caldwell ( 1998) indicates that this entire section of the Kennebec River is likely underlain by the Sangerville Formation.

Structural features in the Anson impoundment are obscured by glacial and alluvial sediments. At the confluence of the Carrabassett and Kennebec Rivers, a fault bounded contact of Sangerville Formation rocks with Devonian Fall Brook Formation metasediments is identified on published geologic maps but is not visible in the Anson impoundment ( Woodlot, 2001).

Surficial Deposits Quaternary sediments cover nearly the entire Anson impoundment. These sediments include a complex interfingering of glacial and glaciomarine sediments and alluvial deposits common to central Maine. Glacial materials exposed along the shore of the Kennebec River and the lowermost section of the Carrabassett River include moderate to well sorted sands, pebbly gravels, and minor amounts of glacial till. Landforms associated with these glacial materials within the Anson impoundment include relatively flat kame terraces, eskers, and hummocky terrain. These landforms are especially evident along the south and east riverbanks near Weston Island. Glaciomarine deposits representative of the Presumpscot Formation consisting of light tan to greenish gray, well laminated, horizontally bedded silty clays are also present within the Anson impoundment. The Presumpscot Formation is widespread throughout southern and coastal Maine.

Soils 24 The most dominant soil type in the Anson Project area is a Hadley silt loam, comprising about 51 percent of the shoreline. This soil type exhibits a high available water capacity, good capillary movement, and is well drained. The depth to the seasonal high water table is typically four or more feet. This soil type exhibits moderate stability as an embankment material when flooded; however, the soil is susceptible to piping action, which may result in some erosion. Significant erosion is not expected, since most of the Hadley soils bordering the project occur on relatively flat slopes.

Abenaki Project Bedrock Geology In the Abenaki Project impoundment, bedrock is exposed along significant portions of the shoreline, river bottom, and immediately adjacent to the Anson and Abenaki dams. The bedrock outcrops consist entirely of metasediments of the Silurian Sangerville Formation. Metamorphic features include visible structural fold hinges, shear zones along weak sulfide bearing stratigraphic units, and evidence of remobilized sedimentary carbonate into cross cutting iron carbonated veins ( Woodlot, 2001). The principal rock type of the Sangerville Formation is a calcareous metagraywacke, consisting of gray, metamorphosed interbedded siltstone and sandstone, with beds ranging from under 1 inch to 16 feet in thickness ( Woodlot, 2001). The Sangerville Formation in the Abenaki Project area is defined by stratigraphic units consisting of conglomerate beds of fragmented altered volcanic rock in a matrix of quartz, muscovite, chlorite, and calcite. Other features include cross bedded metasandstones, graded beds of gray metasandstone, medium gray metasiltstone and greenish gray metapelite, and ribbon limestone ( Woodlot, 2001).

Surficial Deposits Quaternary sands, gravels, and glacial till lie directly on ledges of the Sangerville Formation. River deposits include sandbars, cobble bars, and gravel deposits. Within the Abenaki Project bypassed reach much of the surficial material has been stripped away by surface flows and flooding, although sand and gravel bars and terraces are found ( Woodlot, 2001).

Soils The most dominant soil type in the Abenaki Project area is a Skowhegan sandy soil, comprising about 34 percent of the impoundment shoreline. This soil, derived from well sorted, sandy glacial outwash, is located on gently undulating to nearly level valley terraces. This soil series is moderately well drained and permeability is rapid. As a result 25 of the sandy texture, this soil is susceptible to slumping and piping at the immediate river edge, but has only a slight erosion hazard due to the level slopes on which it occurs.

Environmental Effects and Recommendations Anson and Abenaki Projects MPI proposes improvements that could affect soil and geologic resources, including new recreational facilities, granting of conservation easements on shorelands and islands, and construction of fish passage facilities at the Anson and Abenaki Projects. Additionally, at the Abenaki Project, MPI would replace the existing wooden flashboards with an inflatable flashboard system, resurface the dam, install a gate to release minimum flows to the bypassed reach, and install a new turbine in the Abenaki powerhouse.

To minimize any potential short term adverse effects on soil resources during construction of the recreation facilities, MPI proposes to employ standard erosion control measures such as installing a silt fence downgradient of disturbed soils, and mulching and seeding or revegetating disturbed soil areas immediately following construction.

Long term adverse effects could result if paths for portage or put in/ take out areas coincide with steep slopes or particularly erosion prone sites. MPI would install water bars ( e. g., logs parallel with contours anchored with metal bars) or utilize erosion control measures as necessary to minimize the potential for soil erosion and sedimentation related to use of the recreation enhancements.

MPI's agreement to grant conservation easements along the projects' shorelines to protect against future development and a more stable headpond at the Abenaki Project as a result of installing an inflatable flashboard system would result in less erosion and sedimentation than occurs under current conditions.

We agree with MPI that erosion control measures are necessary and recommend that MPI prepare an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for each project in consultation with MDEP and COE and file them with the Commission for approval at least 90 days prior to the start of construction for any new facilities associated with the project. Because ESCP measures typically are part of a project's operations and maintenance budget, this recommendation should not affect either projects' economics.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects Land disturbing activities associated with recreation development, installation of fish passage facilities, and improvements at the Abenaki Project could result in increased 26 erosion and sedimentation. These effects would be minor and short term until the disturbed areas can be stabilized and revegetated.

2. Aquatic Resources Affected Environment Water Quality Anson and Abenaki Projects Designated uses of waters in the area of the projects are drinking water ( after disinfection), fishing, recreation, industrial process and cooling, water supply, hydroelectric power generation, navigation, and fish and wildlife habitat.

MDEP's 1997 and 1998 monitoring program included sampling throughout the Kennebec River basin. A collection site in the Anson impoundment immediately above the dam was included in MDEP's program. Data from monitoring are indicative of good water quality and is consistent with historical data ( MDEP 1998, 1999a).

In addition, MPI performed an ambient water quality survey in the waters of the projects during July and August 1999 ( Kleinschmidt 2000a). Temperature, dissolved oxygen ( DO), and chlorophyll a were monitored at four locations in the Anson impoundment, one location in the Anson tailwater/ upper Abenaki impoundment, two locations in the Abenaki impoundment, and one location each in the Abenaki bypassed reach and tailwater. The results of the 1999 survey indicate that the Anson and Abenaki Project waters attain Maine's 7 milligram/ liter ( mg/ L) DO standard for Class A and B waters, and chlorophyll a concentrations were indicative of mesotrophic waters MDEP conducted monitoring within the Anson impoundment, above the Route 148 bridge, in 1983 and 1988. The results of both monitoring efforts documented attainment with applicable standards ( MDEP 1999c). Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted in the Anson impoundment, Abenaki impoundment, Abenaki bypassed reach, and Abenaki tailwater during 1999 ( Lotic Inc., 2000). The results of sampling indicate that the macroinvertebrate community of the Anson impoundment meets applicable aquatic life standards for impoundments ( meets or exceed Class C criteria), and the macroinvertebrate community in the Abenaki impoundment, which is currently classified as Class B waters by the MDEP, attains Class B aquatic life standards. The sampling also documented that the Abenaki bypassed reach, currently Class B waters, meets Class A aquatic life standards for resident benthic macroinvertebrate communities, and the Abenaki tailwaters meet designated Class B 27 standards.

The Anson and Abenaki Projects are not known to have introduced toxins to the environment, and there are no known point source discharges of toxins upstream of the Projects ( MDEP, 2000a). There are fish consumption advisories for all Maine freshwaters for mercury, and much of this contamination is believed to be from atmospheric deposition. Fish consumption advisories are also in place for dioxin ( from bleached kraft pulp and paper mill discharges) and PCBs ( from a variety of point and non point sources).

Fish from the projects' impoundments are rated as not suitable for some human consumption due to recorded contaminant levels. There is insufficient data on the Kennebec River and the Anson and Abenaki Project waters to determine whether bioaccumulation of toxins is higher in these impoundments. Data collected from the area of the projects and other parts of the Kennebec Basin and other Maine waters is not uniformly corrected for size and therefore does not allow for statistical trend analysis ( MDEP 1996b, 1997, 1999b, 2000b, 2000c, and 2000d). The data, however, generally show lower levels of toxins in the area of the projects than downstream in more urban areas. The exception is mercury, which, because its source is atmospheric, shows no upstream to downstream contamination pattern.

Water Quantity Anson and Abenaki Projects Seasonal and year to year variations in river flows are controlled through upstream storage reservoirs at the Flagstaff ( FERC No. 2612), Brassua ( FERC No. 2615), and Moosehead ( FERC No. 2671) Projects. Daily upstream peaking operations are reregulated at the Williams Project ( P 2335), about 10 miles upstream of the Anson Project, so that inflows to the project are relatively steady.

The drainage area at the Anson and Abenaki Projects is about 3,148 square miles. U. S. Geological Services ( USGS) gaging stations are located upstream of the projects in the Kennebec and Carrabassett Rivers. The Carrabassett River gage ( No. 01047000) is located about 9 miles upstream of the Anson dam, and the Kennebec River gage ( No. 01046500) is located about 22 miles upstream. The median flow at these sites was derived from flow data prorated from the gaging stations to account for the increased drainage area at the projects ( MPI 1999). The MDEP calculated the 7Q10 flow to be 12 The lowest flow occurring for 7 consecutive days over a ten year period.

28 2,064 cfs at the projects ( FERC 1997). 12 Table 1 shows the median monthly flows available at the projects. High flows occur during April and May, while low flows are typically seen during the late summer months. There is currently no mandatory minimum flow at either project.

Table 1. Monthly Median Flows for the Anson and Abenaki Projects. ( Source: MPI 2002c)

Month Median flow ( cfs) Month Median flow ( cfs)

January 3938 July 3685 February 4051 August 3724 March 4521 September 3658 April 7845 October 3713 May 8169 November 3752 June 4223 December 3859 Resident Fisheries The Kennebec River in the vicinity of the projects is managed by MDIFW as a put grow and take salmonid fishery ( MPI 1999). The coldwater fishery is largely supported by MDIFW stocking, although some natural reproduction supplements the fishery. Stocking has occurred intermittently in the Kennebec River from Solon to Madison, Maine, including the Anson reach, since 1962, and from Madison to Skowhegan, Maine, including the Abenaki reach, since 1946. Stocked species were typically brook trout through 1966 and brown trout spring yearlings after 1966. In 1980, there was a one time stocking of landlocked salmon upstream of the Anson Project area. Smallmouth bass are not stocked in the Kennebec River, but are currently managed by MDIFW under the general open water angling regulations ( MPI 1999).

Water temperature data collected continuously between May and October 1999 in the upper Anson impoundment, Abenaki tailwater, and Abenaki bypassed reach showed that water temperatures exceeded 20 oC on numerous occasions ( Kleinschmidt 2000b). The results, when compared with the literature data for these species, show that project waters are generally more suitable for maintenance of a brown trout and rainbow trout fishery because they are able to tolerate higher temperatures than brook trout ( MPI 29 2002c)

Anson Impoundment In general, aquatic habitat in the Anson impoundment consists of a long transition zone between coldwater and warmwater fish habitats ( Kleinschmidt 2000b). The impoundment is riverine ( i. e., relatively long, narrow and shallow).

The upper 0.6 miles of the Anson impoundment contains primarily coldwater fish habitat ( MPI 1999, Kleinschmidt 2000b and 2001c). Habitat assessments were performed in the upper Anson impoundment in 1984 and 1999 ( MPI 1984, Kleinschmidt 2001c). Habitat consists of relatively fast flowing ( greater than 1.6 feet/ second), shallow ( 1 2 feet) riffles, and runs ( 4 5 feet deep) with substrates consisting of sand, gravel, and cobble. Overall, instream cover for fish in the upper Anson impoundment is limited in abundance, but consists of snags and boulders.

The lower 6.4 mile reach of the Anson impoundment contains aquatic habitat more suited for warmwater species ( MPI 1999, Kleinschmidt 2000b). Habitat in this reach, which includes the lower Carrabassett River, is generally uniform, consisting of slow flowing, impounded habitat ( Kleinschmidt 2000b). Substrates consist primarily of sand and gravel with some boulders. Cover for fish in the lower impoundment is generally sparse.

Channel widths range from about 200 500 feet. Depths in the upper portion of the impoundment are generally less than 10 feet and reach 25 feet in the lower portion of the impoundment. The banks of the impoundment are generally steep sided and wooded. Two large islands ( Weston and Savage) are located in the Anson impoundment, and several small tributaries flow into the impoundment.

Fish collections were performed in the Anson impoundment during June 1999 using boat electrofishing, trap nets, beach seining, and baited minnow traps ( Kleinschmidt 2000b). Discrete sampling stations were established in the upper and lower Anson impoundment and the impounded portion of the Carrabassett River. A total of 621 fish representing 12 species were collected in the sampling area during the survey. Warmwater fish species, including smallmouth bass, white sucker, yellow perch, redbreast sunfish, chain pickerel, and various minnow species dominated the catch. Based upon the size distribution of collected fish, most species showed evidence of recent reproductive success. American eel were abundant in the impoundment. Although no salmonids were collected in the Anson impoundment during the survey, it is likely that unusually hot and dry conditions during 1999 affected the distribution of salmonids in the project area. Water temperatures in the Kennebec River, which typically exceeded 20  C 13 The proportion of fish of quality size in a given stock.

14 A condition factor that relates actual weight of a fish to a length specific standard weight which represents the 75th percentile of weight for that species across a geographic range.

30 during sampling, were not conducive for collecting salmonids. It is likely that most salmonids in the impoundment sought shelter in cool tributaries or seeps at the time of sampling.

The Anson impoundment provides an attractive fishery for smallmouth bass ( MDIFW, 1999). Based upon data collected during the June survey, the Proportional Stock Density ( PSD) 13 for smallmouth bass in the lower Anson impoundment was 48, which is indicative of a balanced size structure for smallmouth bass. In addition, both quality and preferred size smallmouth bass were collected in the lower Anson impoundment. The condition of smallmouth bass in the Anson impoundment, as indicated by Relative Weight ( Wr) 14 indices, was somewhat below average. Higher Wr values indicate greater plumpness of fish ( Anderson et. al. 1996). Growth rates of smallmouth bass in the Anson impoundment appeared to be slow but were similar to rates observed in other Maine watersheds ( Kleinschmidt 2000b). Growth rates and condition of smallmouth bass in the Anson impoundment are likely strongly influenced by cool water temperatures in the Kennebec River, which results in a short growing season ( Kleinschmidt 2000b).

Angler use in the Anson impoundment for the 1999 open water season was estimated at 57 angler trips/ mile ( MDIFW 1999). This level of angler use is considered moderate by the MDIFW. Anglers fishing the impoundment primarily targeted smallmouth bass. Twenty two percent of the anglers surveyed were successful in catching legal sized smallmouth bass in the Anson impoundment. The average size of legal smallmouth bass was 13.7 inches and 1.2 pounds. About 17 percent of anglers surveyed in the Anson impoundment during the 1999 open water season indicated a preference for salmonids only. Two percent of anglers fishing the impoundment were successful in catching brown trout. Anglers also reported catching landlocked Atlantic salmon, chain pickerel, yellow perch, and fallfish. Anglers harvested relatively few legal sized salmonids or bass.

Abenaki Impoundment The Abenaki impoundment contains primarily warmwater fish habitat with seasonally available habitat for coldwater species ( MPI 1999, Kleinschmidt 2000b). No stocking occurs in the Abenaki impoundment. Aquatic habitat in the impoundment 31 consists of moderately flowing run and pool habitat with cobble, boulder, and ledge substrate. Channel widths range from about 300 to 500 feet. Depths are typically 10 to 15 feet and reach to 30 feet in the lower impoundment area. The impoundment is generally very steep sided, wooded, and shaded.

Fish species and abundance were sampled in the Abenaki impoundment during June 1999 using boat electrofishing and baited minnow traps ( Kleinschmidt 2000b). A total of 10 fish representing 3 species were collected in the impoundment during the survey. American eel and smallmouth bass were the most abundant species collected followed by white sucker. No coldwater fish were collected during sampling.

Eight anglers were observed fishing in the Abenaki impoundment by the MDIFW during the 1999 open water season ( MDIFW 1999). Low angler activity level in the Abenaki impoundment was attributed by the MDIFW to limited shoreline accessibility and surrounding mill development.

Abenaki Bypassed Reach Aquatic habitat in the 1,950 foot long Abenaki bypassed reach is comprising shallow pools, riffles, and runs with bedrock ledge, rubble, and boulder substrates. The bypassed reach is bordered on the east shore by the Abenaki forebay, and on the west shore by a steep sided shoreline. The river channel in this area shows strong evidence of alteration, most likely to facilitate historic log drives. All areas exposed to flows are dominated by well scoured bedrock ledge and/ or rubble and boulder materials. Detailed photographs of the bypassed reach are included in the Abenaki Bypass Instream Flow Study ( Kleinschmidt 2001e). Habitat is comprising shallow pools, riffles, and runs. The remains of an old logging sluice in the lower area are perched on a ledge falls. The section of channel immediately above the sluice is comprising a wide, shallow field of boulder and rubble; the stream channel immediately below the sluice is a comparatively narrow pool that is backwatered by tailrace flow. Inflow to the bypassed reach is provided by leakage and periods of spillage, which range from 11 cfs to over several thousand cfs.

Fish species and abundance were sampled in the reach during June 1999 using backpack electrofishing ( Kleinschmidt 2000b). White sucker and American eel were the most abundant species collected during sampling, accounting for 55.6 percent and 27.8 percent of the total catch. Other species collected in the bypassed reach included smallmouth bass, slimy sculpin, and minnow species.

Fish of management interest to MDIFW that may transiently occupy the reach as juveniles and adults include brown trout and smallmouth bass. It is likely that most of 32 these fish originate upstream and wash into the bypassed reach study area during freshets. Some may enter and exit the study area from contiguous downstream areas. In addition, small numbers of adult rainbow trout may also occasionally wash downstream into the reach from upstream of the Anson Project.

Abenaki Tailwater The Abenaki tailwater contains free flowing, high quality coldwater habitat for a distance of about 2 miles to the upper end of the Weston impoundment ( FERC No. 2325). Aquatic habitat consists of run, riffle, and rapids dominated by cobble, boulder, and bedrock substrates ( Kleinschmidt 2000b). Boulders provide good instream cover. The tailwater reach is relatively steep sided, wooded, and well shaded along most of the shoreline. Channel widths in the tailwater range from about 300 to 500 feet, while depths are generally 2 to 6 feet.

The Abenaki tailwater provides a good fishery for stocked brown trout and smallmouth bass ( MDIFW 1999). Fish species and abundance were sampled in the tailwater reach using backpack electrofishing and baited minnow traps in June 2000 ( Kleinschmidt 2000b). A total of 53 fish representing seven warmwater and coldwater species were collected during sampling. White sucker was the most abundant species captured followed by fallfish, smallmouth bass, and brown trout. American eel were also collected in the tailwater. Based upon the size distribution of individual fish within a species, all resident fish except brown trout showed evidence of recent reproductive success ( Kleinschmidt 2000b).

Angler use in the Abenaki tailwater during the 1999 open water season was estimated at 308 angler trips/ mile ( MDIFW 1999). The level of use was considered low when compared to similar fisheries in Maine. About 95 percent of anglers fishing the tailwater were targeting salmonids. Twenty one percent of anglers fishing the tailwater were successful in catching legal sized brown trout indicating high catch rates. For smallmouth bass, 9 percent of anglers were successful catching legal sized fish.

Anadromous and Catadromous Fisheries Atlantic salmon is the only anadromous species documented to historically occur within the Anson and Abenaki Project areas. American eel are the only catadromous species occurring within the basin and are believed to have ranged throughout the Kennebec Basin. American eel were abundant throughout the Anson impoundment during the June 1999 fisheries survey. Eel stocks have reportedly declined along the north Atlantic coast in recent years. 15 Except as necessary for emergencies or scheduled maintenance and repair projects approved by the FERC, MDEP, and MDIFW.

16 The ABF flow is lower than the historical 7Q10 flow, the 7 day lowest flow occurring over a given ten year interval, for the Kennebec River because the recorded 7Q10 flow is artificially high due to higher flow releases from headwater storage during low flow months. Therefore, the ABF is typically recommended as a minimum flow by the FWS and should be protective of water quality and aquatic resources downstream of a project.

33 MDMR is presently undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of the upstream and downstream eel movement behavior within the Kennebec River downstream of the Abenaki Project ( KHDG 1998). Some portions of the eel population are able to ascend many dams, particularly low head ones, without formal passage systems. A recent study, however, has documented that the eel population in the Anson impoundment is predominantly comprising older age classes, suggesting that modifications to the flashboards may have reduced the rate of recruitment of younger eels to the Kennebec River above the Anson dam.

Environmental Effects and Recommendations Project Operations MPI proposes to operate the Anson and Abenaki Projects as ROR so that, at any given time, flows immediately below each project approximate the sum of inflows to the respective project reservoir, and release continuous minimum flows of 1,540 cfs downstream of each project, or inflow to the respective project reservoir if less, to protect and enhance aquatic habitat and fauna. 15 Based upon a drainage area of 3,148 miles at the Anson Project, a flow of 1,540 cfs is about equivalent to Aquatic Base Flow ( ABF) ( FWS 1981), used by New England aquatic resource regulatory agencies as a guideline to recommend instantaneous minimum instream flows to protect riverine habitat below water use projects in situations where no site specific study has occurred or is needed. The ABF approximates an historic unregulated median August flow, determined by the FWS to be 0.5 cubic feet per second of discharge per square mile ( cfs/ sm) of drainage area. Because August is typically a low flow month, the ABF is assumed to resemble a naturally occurring low flow that riverine coldwater ecosystems have adapted to, and thus are not stressed by. In adopting the ABF method, the FWS determined that a minimum flow equivalent to ABF is adequate to sustain and perpetuate coldwater aquatic fauna. 16 34 As proposed, ROR operations and/ or the minimum flows downstream of either or both projects may be temporarily modified if required by operating emergencies beyond the control of MPI and for short periods of time upon mutual agreement between the MPI and the MDIFW, FWS, MASC, MDEP, and MDMR.

Historically, the Anson impoundment has been drawn down occasionally in response to emergency power system demand conditions. There are currently no license restrictions on the frequency or duration of these events and on average, they occur once or twice per month for up to 8 hours per occurrence. MPI proposes to restrict the duration of such occurrences, such that the reservoir elevation may fluctuate by as much as about 6 inches below the normal pond elevation of 248.15 ft msl for periods not to exceed 6 hours in response to emergency power system demand conditions, as declared by the New England Independent System Operator or the successor entity responsible for regional power dispatch. The ability to fluctuate the reservoir elevation would allow MPI to participate in energy conservation measures required under such emergency conditions by temporarily increasing generation to offset system electrical demand. Under the settlement agreement, such fluctuations would not require prior notifications to resource agencies and MPI would not actively market the sale of emergency response generation.

Because power marketing and draw downs in response to emergency power demands would be restricted based on MPI's proposed operations, project economics would be affected. We discuss the value of lost power generation in the Developmental Analysis section and make our determination regarding MPI's proposed operation in the Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative section.

Abenaki Project Improvements MPI proposes to install an inflatable flashboard system to the Abenaki dam, resurface the dam, and concurrently install a gate that would release minimum flows to the Abenaki bypassed reach. MPI expects that two construction seasons would be required to complete all work. During the construction, MPI would continue ROR operations at the project except possibly for brief periods during cofferdam installation and removal when water levels or flows may be adjusted for a day or so at a time. MPI would employ standard erosion control measures such as installing silt fence downgradient of disturbed soils, and mulching and seeding or revegetating disturbed soil areas immediately following construction. In the Geology and Soils Resources section, we recommend that MPI prepare and implement an ESCP prior to undertaking any construction at either project.

During the term of any new license, MPI proposes to install a new turbine at the Abenaki powerhouse. This installation could likely be accomplished without any 35 interruptions to ROR operations.

The long term benefits of these measures to environmental resources at the project would include a more stable headpond and reliable minimum flow releases. We find that these long term benefits are worth any temporary modifications to ROR and/ or minimum flows at the Abenaki Project.

The proposed improvements to the Abenaki Project would affect project economics. Therefore, we discuss the cost of these improvements in the Developmental Analysis section and make our determination in the Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative section.

Fish Passage MPI proposes to install and operate permanent upstream passage facilities and interim and permanent downstream passage facilities for American eel and Atlantic salmon at the Anson and Abenaki Projects.

Permanent upstream eel passage would be operational within 2 years of the effective date of any new licenses issued for the projects. The facilities would be operated from June 1 through September 30 at both projects. The eel ladders would consist of 14 inch wide flumes lined with an appropriate substrate that allows eels to crawl through or push against. A small water pump delivering flows of about 0.1 cfs would be located at the upstream end of the flume at each project for transport and attraction flow. At the Anson Project the upstream eel ladder would be installed along the east abutment, adjacent to the mill parking lot and retaining wall. The ladder entrance would be located near the extreme east end of the dam, and the ladder would traverse an existing rock ledge and exit over the top of the existing retaining wall. At the Abenaki Project, the upstream eel ladder would be installed at the western shore of the upper bypassed reach, and the entrance to the ladder would be near the dam's toe. Minimum flows in the bypassed reach would serve to attract eels from the Abenaki tailwater.

Permanent upstream and downstream passage for Atlantic salmon would be operational at both projects within two years following written certification by FWS and MASC that 226 returning Kennebec River Atlantic salmon have been released above the Weston dam ( FERC No. 2325) the first dam downstream of the Abenaki Project, in any single season, but need not be operational prior to May 1, 2020. The designs of the facilities for both projects would be consistent with MPI's respective preliminary layouts in Fish Passage and Protection Alternatives Assessment and Plan ( Kleinschmidt 2001a), unless MPI, with concurrence from MDMR, MASC, MDIFW, and FWS, develops an alternative design. If the trigger number of 226 is not reached by 2020, MPI could elect 36 to construct permanent upstream fish passage at both projects or contribute $ 50,000 ($ 25,000 for each project) to a restoration fund starting in 2020 and continuing for each subsequent year of the new licenses until either permanent upstream passage is built or the restoration project for Atlantic salmon on the Kennebec River is no longer active.

Interim downstream eel passage facilities at the Anson and Abenaki Projects would be operational within 2 years of the effective date of any new licenses issued for the projects. The designs of the facilities for both projects would be consistent with MPI's respective preliminary layouts in Fish Passage and Protection Alternatives Assessment and Plan ( Kleinschmidt 2001a), unless MPI, with the concurrence of MDMR, MASC, MDIFW, and FWS, develop an alternative design.

Interim downstream salmon passage facilities would be operational at the Anson and Abenaki Projects within 2 years after the start of Atlantic salmon stocking upstream of the Anson Project. Interim downstream passage for salmon may be combined with interim downstream eel passage, or MPI could develop a plan and schedule for installing and operating an interim downstream fishway for salmon with MDMR and MASC and file them with the Commission for approval.

Permanent downstream eel passage may be combined with downstream Atlantic salmon passage, resulting in an earlier date for salmon passage. Should this occur, the downstream passage configurations would maximize salmon passage while also providing features that promote eel passage based upon current technology at that time.

Prior to the installation of any fish passage facilities, MPI would prepare final design plans in consultation with MDMR, MASC, MDIFW, and FWS and submit them to the Commission for approval. MPI would assess the effectiveness of any installed fish passage facilities in accordance with a testing protocol developed in consultation with the aforementioned agencies and submitted to the Commission for approval. Post construction effectiveness testing would be conducted on all passage facilities. The standard for interim passages would be 80 percent efficiency and permanent passages would be 90 percent efficiency. Interim passages that achieve a 90 percent efficiency factor would remain as permanent facilities.

Operation of downstream and upstream fish passage facilities at the projects would require the release of flows for attraction and transport of Atlantic salmon and American eel. Estimates of the necessary flows are found in table 2 for the Anson Project and table 3 for the Abenaki Project.

Table 2. Anson Project Fish Passage Attraction and Transport Flows. ( Source: MPI 2002c) 37 Passage Attraction and Transport Flow Permanent upstream eel 0.1 cfs Interim downstream eel 50 cfs Permanent upstream Salmon 120 cfs Permanent downstream salmon & eel 1 160 cfs 1 A combined downstream system is proposed for the Anson and Abenaki Projects. However, both the transport and attraction flows would be taken from the Anson Project flows.

Table 3. Abenaki Project Fish Passage Attraction and Transport Flows. ( Source: MPI 2002c)

Passage Attraction and Transport Flow Permanent upstream eel 0.1 cfs Interim downstream eel 50 cfs Permanent upstream salmon 125 cfs Permanent downstream salmon & eel 1 0 cfs 1 A combined downstream system is proposed for the Anson and Abenaki Projects. However, both the transport and attraction flows would be taken from the Anson Project flows.

As specified in the settlement agreement, permanent downstream salmon and eel passage facilities would not be installed prior to 2020, and then, only if the interim facilities do not achieve an efficiency of at least 90 percent.

Construction of passage facilities for American eel and Atlantic salmon could have minor, short term effects on aquatic resources in the area immediately surrounding the projects' structures through soil erosion and sedimentation. We discuss an ESCP in the Geology and Soils Resources section.

Operation of upstream and downstream passage facilities for American eel and Atlantic salmon with at least 90 percent effectiveness would enable these species to pass over the Anson and Abenaki dams to upstream habitats and sustain existing eel and salmon fisheries in the Kennebec River watershed.

Because the installation and passage of fish passage facilities at the projects would affect project economics, we discuss the cost of the facilities in Developmental Analysis and make our recommendation in the Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative section. 38 Fisheries Restoration Fund MPI proposes to establish an escrow account entitled the " Atlantic Salmon and Riverine Aquatic Habitat Restoration Fund" and automatically deposit into the fund $ 135,000 by July 31, 2006, and $ 150,000 by July 31, 2010, per project, for the Anson and Abenaki Projects. Under the settlement agreement, the fund would be administered by an Atlantic Salmon and Aquatic Riverine Habitat Restoration Committee ( Committee), composed of MPI, MASC, and FWS.

MPI would convene the Committee within 6 months of the effective date of any new licenses issued for the projects to establish by laws and other operating procedures to govern the Committee's activities. The operating procedures would include a provision that decisions by the Committee regarding releases of monies for the fund would be by consensus, and in the event that the committee does not reach consensus within a reasonable period of time, then decisions regarding release of monies from the fund shall be deemed to have been made by the Committee with a two thirds vote has been achieved. Meeting notices and minutes would be provided by MPI, and MPI would file annual reports with the Commission and MDEP. MPI would notify the Committee in writing that it has deposited the money into the fund within 15 days of a deposit.

Fisheries restoration funding would provide a mechanism to enhance the MASC's Atlantic salmon restoration program, expand the MASC's Atlantic salmon habitat inventory program, and provide resources for MASC's monitoring of Atlantic salmon in the project area ( letter from Norman R. Dube, Fisheries Scientist and Joan G. Trial, Senior Biologist, MASC, Bangor, Maine, February 11, 2002).

Staff would recommend that the by laws and operating procedures and, annual reports, be filed with the Commission for approval.

Funding restoration efforts would affect project economics. Therefore, we discuss the costs of MPI's proposed funding in the Developmental Analysis section and make our determination in the Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative section.

Funding for Atlantic Salmon stocking MPI proposes to fund Atlantic salmon stocking by depositing $ 50,000, per project, in an interest bearing escrow account within 3 months of the effective date of new licenses for the Anson and Abenaki Projects for use as a contribution to start up of Atlantic salmon hatching facilities. Within 2 years of the effective date of the licenses, MPI proposes to begin depositing $ 5,000 per year, per project, for 12 years to aid in 39 hatching or purchasing of Atlantic salmon eggs or procurement of fry for stocking. If Atlantic salmon hatching facilities are not substantially underway within 6 years of the effective date of any new licenses issued for the projects, the deposits, annual funding, and any accrued interest would be transferred to the Atlantic Salmon and Aquatic Riverine Habitat Restoration Fund.

Any funding provided by MPI, and its accrued interest, that hasn't been spent at the end of the license term or at a time that the salmon restoration effort is no longer active, would be returned to MPI.

The purpose of the salmon stocking fund is to provide a project specific mitigation consistent with the restoration goals for Atlantic salmon, while acknowledging that about 75 percent of the Atlantic salmon habitat in the Kennebec River lies upstream of the Anson and Abenaki Projects and is currently unavailable because of lack of adequate permanent fish passage at the projects.

Funding for Atlantic salmon stocking would affect project economics. Therefore, we discuss the costs of fish passage facilities in the Developmental Analysis section and make our determination in the Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative section Minimum flow in the Abenaki bypassed reach Beginning on January 1, 2007, MPI proposes to provide minimum flows of 100 cfs for November through April, 200 cfs for May and October, and 300 cfs for June through September to the Abenaki bypassed reach to protect and enhance water quality and aesthetic resources, aquatic habitat, production of invertebrate forage for fish, and a seasonal fishery in the bypassed reach. The delayed implementation date would allow MPI to complete the proposed improvements at the Abenaki Project, including installation of a gate to release the minimum flows prior to the required release.

An Instream Flow Incremental Methodology ( IFIM) study was conducted by Kleinschmidt ( 2001e) in the bypassed reach during 2000. Habitat criteria for juvenile and adult smallmouth bass and brown trout, adult rainbow trout, Atlantic salmon parr, and the mayfly Stenonema, a representative macroinvertebrate, were used to assess habitat. Suitability at flows ranging from 11 to 1,700 cfs were assessed. The results of the IFIM study indicate that habitat quality for various lifestages and species of interest would be optimal between 100 and 300 cfs ( figure 3). The APEA Team collaboratively defined aquatic habitat management objectives in the Abenaki bypassed reach, 40 0%

20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 discharge ( CFS)

percentage of optimal habitat achieved Stenonema brown trout adult May and October ( 200 cfs)

November through April ( 100 cfs) June through September ( 300 cfs)

Figure 3. Suitability of proposed flows on Stenonema and brown trout habitat in the Abenaki bypassed. ( Source:

Kleinschmidt 2001e) 41 concluding that maximizing forage species production, represented by Stenonema criteria in the IFIM model, is a primary management objective. The proposed minimum flows will vary seasonally and furnish 99 percent of the optimal Stenonema habitat in the bypassed reach during June through September, 96 percent during May and October, and at least 81 percent during November through April. The study recognized that during April and May, flows well in excess of station capacity consistently provide high flows through the reach. The proposed minimum flow regime proposed by MPI would improve habitat in the bypassed reach for forage, thereby improving conditions for the project fishery.

Releasing minimum flows would affect project economics. We discuss the value of lost generation in the Developmental Analysis section and make our determination in the Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative section.

Within 1 year of implementing minimum flows at the Abenaki bypassed reach, MPI proposes to consult with the FWS and MDIFW to evaluate the capability of resident riverine fish species passage at the lower log sluice area in the Abenaki bypassed reach for movement into and out of the bypassed reach at the proposed minimum flows. If necessary for passage, MPI would modify a concrete plug on the ledge next to the log sluice. If MPI and FWS and MDIFW agree to modifications, MPI would prepare a plan in consultation with the FWS and MDIFW and file it with the Commission for approval.

Flow and water level monitoring plan MPI proposes to develop streamflow and water level monitoring plans would provide a necessary means of monitoring future compliance with minimum flows and water levels for both projects.

Implementing a flow and water level monitoring plan would affect project economics. Therefore, we discuss the costs of implementation in the Developmental Analysis section and make our determination in the Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative section.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects Interruptions to ROR operations at the Abenaki Project during cofferdam installation and removal to install the inflatable flashboard system and minimum flow gate have the potential to displace fishes. These effects would be minor and short term until ROR operations could be restored within a day or so.

3. Terrestrial Resources 42 Affected Environment Anson and Abenaki Projects Wetland Habitats Vegetated wetland cover types associated with the Anson impoundment include hardwood floodplain forest, forested wetland, scrub shrub wetland, persistent emergent wetland, non persistent emergent wetland, and aquatic bed wetland. As shown in table 4, the majority of vegetated wetlands ( about 63 percent) associated with the Anson Project are forested, including forested wetlands and forested floodplains ( Woodlot 2001).

Table 4. Estimated Areas of Vegetated Wetland Cover Types for the Anson Project. ( Source: Adapted from Woodlot 2001)

Habitat Approximate Acres Percent of Wetlands Hardwood Floodplain Forests 118 28 Forested Wetland 152 35 Scrub shrub Wetland 31 7 Persistent Emergent Wetland 33 8 Non persistent Emergent Wetland 10 2 Aquatic Bed Wetland 86 20 Total 430 100 The riverbanks below the Anson dam are particularly steep and not conducive to wetlands development ( Woodlot 2001).

Wetlands reach their maximum development in the upper portion of the Anson impoundment, downstream from the confluence of the Kennebec and Carrabassett Rivers, in the vicinity of Weston, Littel, and Savage Islands ( Woodlot 2001). In this area, the relatively flat topography promotes vegetation and habitat diversity and allows for the development of extensive wetland systems, many of which contain a variety of interspersed habitat types. The emergent and scrub shrub wetlands are typically flooded by the river for several weeks or more during the growing season. Many of the wooded wetlands and floodplains, however, are flooded for only a matter of days to a week or two each growing season, and upper portions of floodplains can even go some years without river flooding. True floodplain conditions are primarily limited to the upper portion of the Anson impoundment ( Woodlot 2001). Hardwood floodplain forests often contain 43 " somewhat poorly drained" soil series and can be either upland or wetland ( Woodlot 2001). This cover type is considered to be a unique natural community in Maine ( Woodlot 2001).

Wetland functions and values are highest for the wetland systems in the upper portion of the Anson impoundment ( Woodlot 2001). These wetlands provide wildlife habitat, flood storage, and water quality ( e. g., sediment settling and storage, and pollutant removal) functions. The relatively high functional value of these wetlands results from the unfragmented character ( relative to the lower portion of the Anson impoundment and wetlands associated with the Abenaki Project), and the varied hydrologic regimes capable of providing multiple habitat opportunities ( Woodlot 2001). The floodplain islands and flat terrain in this part of the impoundment result in wide transition zones between habitat types. Although less extensive and less important with regard to wetland functions, the wetlands in the lower portion of the impoundment also provide some locally important wetland functions ( Woodlot 2001).

The non persistent emergent wetland cover type typically occurs along the deep water edge of other wetland types at the river margin. Dominant species include fowl manna grass, needle spike rush, three way sedge, river horsetail, pickerelweed, broad leaved arrowhead, and bur reed. The persistent emergent wetland cover type typically occurs in areas that are seasonally flooded to permanently flooded, such as the basin in the interior of Savage Island and the old oxbow channel on Weston Island. Dominant species include reed canary grass, cattails, Canada bluejoint grass, hydrophytic sedges ( including tussock, lake, hop like, nodding, and inflated), and woolgrass. Broad leaved herbs present in this community type include purple loosestrife, marsh fern, marsh St. Johnswort, and sweet flag ( Woodlot 2001).

Scrub shrub wetlands in the Anson Project area are frequently associated with the mouths of tributary streams, and are characterized by a seasonally saturated to a semi permanently flooded hydrologic regime. They are typically located immediately upslope from emergent wetlands. Scrub shrub wetlands can also be found on gravel bars or along the riverbank. Dominant species within the scrub shrub wetlands include speckled alder, winterberry, willow, osier dogwood, witherod, meadowsweet, and northern arrowwood. Buttonbush is found in the wettest scrub shrub areas ( Woodlot 2001).

Forested wetlands in the Anson Project area include forested swamps and floodplains. The former is fed by groundwater and runoff, and is often located inland from the immediate shoreline and not directly flooded by overbank flows. The floodplain forests include both low floodplains on hydric alluvial soils as well as upper floodplain, which are flooded less regularly and often have mesic soils. Floodplain forests are found 44 on flat terraces along riverbanks, and in oxbows and meander scars. Dominant canopy and understory tree species include silver and red maple, willow, green ash, black ash, American elm, and gray birch. The shrub layer is typically absent, particularly in the low floodplain, because extensive flooding and ice action kills small woody vegetation and leaves the more tolerant mature trees. The mature trees become established during rare successive periods of dry years in cohorts and give the floodplain a park like appearance. The herb layer can be lush, however, and typically contains ostrich fern and stinging nettle ( Woodlot 2001).

Five vernal pools were found in the Anson Project area during the terrestrial resources study ( Woodlot 2001). A functional definition of vernal pool was used, based on the presence of indicator species rather than physical parameters, such as hydrology or soil type. Specifically, this ecologically significant resource was defined by the presence of fairy shrimp, wood frog, or spotted salamander ( i. e., vernal pool indicator species typically found in interior Maine). Mapped areas typically included depressions or open water areas within upland forests away from the annual floodplain of the river. Vernal pools frequently lack dense vegetation in their interiors but are ringed by emergent vegetation, such as blue flag iris, marsh fern, and fowl mannagrass ( Woodlot 2001). These wetlands were specifically field identified and mapped as a separate coverage because they are associated with particularly important wildlife habitat functions as a result of their importance for amphibian breeding areas ( Woodlot 2001).

The Abenaki impoundment contains only one appreciable wetland, which is a scrub shrub wetland along the west shore, just upstream of the Abenaki dam ( Woodlot 2001). There is also a relative lack of wetlands below the Abenaki dam, where some small, forested wetlands, a single scrub shrub wetland, and small, isolated emergent wetlands occur. Two of the wetlands mapped below the Abenaki Dam contain vernal pool habitat.

The wetlands in the Abenaki Project area are less extensive, encompassing only 3.5 acres, and have less important wetland functional values than the Anson wetlands ( Woodlot, 2001). However, the wetlands associated with the Abenaki Project provide some locally important wetland functions, such as the amphibian breeding habitat provided by the two vernal pool wetlands below the Abenaki Dam ( Woodlot 2001).

Upland Habitats The Kennebec River basin lies in the Northern Hardwoods Spruce Forest Ecoregion of northern New England ( Bailey 1979; DeGraaf and Rudis, 1986; Kuchler 1966). The upland vegetative cover types in the area include softwood forest, mixed forest, hardwood forest, and upland shrubs. Developed uplands include agricultural 45 cropland and pasture, residential, and commercial/ industrial ( Woodlot 2001). Hardwood and mixed forests are the most common undeveloped upland habitat types ( Woodlot 2001).

Hardwood and mixed forests extend from the higher portion of the hardwood floodplain to drier hillside and hilltop landscape positions. Dominant canopy species include red and sugar maple, white pine, hemlock, paper birch, trembling aspen, red spruce, balsam fir, and red oak. Non native species include black locust and Norway maple. Basswood and butternut occur in lower landscape positions with richer/ moister soils. Sapling/ shrub layers typically include saplings of canopy dominants, blueberries, striped maple, witch hazel, and beaked hazelnut. Non native shrubs include Morrow's honeysuckle and barberry. Typical herbs include Canada mayflower, goldenrods, asters, bracken fern, bunchberry, teaberry, and sarsaparilla ( Woodlot, 2001).

Softwood forests are primarily dominated by white pine, but also contain a component of red pine, red spruce, hemlock, balsam fir, and northern white cedar. The shrub and herb layers are sparse and favor acid tolerant plants such as blueberry, teaberry, partridgeberry, and Canada mayflower. White pine plantations are a subset of this habitat in the study area ( Woodlot, 2001).

Open canopy uplands or shrub uplands typically occur in areas undergoing old field succession after an abandoned agricultural use or after logging. Tree and shrub species dominating the sapling/ shrub layer are typically pioneer species such as bigtooth and trembling aspen, white pine, white birch, gray birch, black and choke cherries, raspberries, and beaked hazelnut. Typical herbs include upland grasses and sedges, asters, goldenrods, and bracken fern. Parcels of active cropland and pasture are also part of the overall habitat mixture in the Anson area.

At the Abenaki Project above the dam, greater than 80 percent of the upland habitat consists of developed lands including industrial, commercial, and residential and greater than 90 percent of the upland habitat below the Abenaki dam is upland mixed forest ( Woodlot 2001).

Wildlife In general, the same wildlife species inhabit both project areas, however, the habitat mix is different. The Abenaki Project includes more development and less extensive wetland systems compared to the Anson Project ( Woodlot 2001). Riparian and aquatic furbearers such as muskrat, beaver, and river otter find more limited habitat at the Abenaki Project. The open water conditions found below the dams in winter can provide important habitat to waterfowl and potentially transient eagles ( Woodlot 2001). 46 The wildlife community utilizing the lands and waters in and adjacent to the Anson Project is relatively diverse as a result of the diverse habitats present. Eighteen habitat types are present in the Anson Project area ( Woodlot 2001). The two most common habitat types are the river, comprising more than 25 percent of the project area, and agricultural land, comprising roughly 20 percent of the project area. About 25 percent of the project area consists of upland habitat; most of this is forested, including mixed forest, hardwood forest, and softwood forest. About 20 percent of the project area is wetland, and of this, most is forested and scrub shrub wetlands. Less extensive wetland habitats include aquatic bed and rocky or unconsolidated shoreline habitats. Remaining portions of the Anson Project area are developed with residential, commercial, or industrial uses.

Of the 241 species of wildlife potentially utilizing the area of the projects, more than 80 percent use wetland and deepwater habitats for at least part of their overall habitat mix. Waterfowl ( including wood duck, black duck, mallard, blue winged teal, and hooded merganser), loons, and wading birds ( including great blue and green herons) extensively use the wetland and open water habitats in the upper portion of the Anson impoundment. A pair of loons successfully nested in wetlands near the southern end of Weston Island and were repeatedly observed feeding in the central channel ( Woodlot 2001). The Abenaki Project has far less extensive waterfowl and wading bird habitat than in the Anson impoundment Forest interior birds, such as ovenbird and wood thrush, use the larger forested patches, whereas species, such as meadowlark, killdeer, and ruffed grouse, use the open uplands and agricultural lands. Mammals found in the vicinity of the projects include aquatic furbearers, such as beaver and muskrat, as well as riparian and upland species such as river otter, moose, red fox, coyote, and whitetail deer, although species such as beaver, muskrat, and river otter find much less habitat at the Abenaki Project than the Anson Project. The habitat diversity at the Anson Project also results in a rich community of herptiles including: wood frog, spotted salamander, and wood turtle using the vernal pools, forests, and wetland habitats; painted turtle, northern water snake, and snapping turtle using the open water habitat and adjacent riparian area; and species such as milk snake and ringneck snake using the upland areas.

The MDIFW identified an area of Significant Wildlife Habitat just outside of the upstream limit of the Anson Project boundary ( Woodlot 2001). The specific designation for this area is moderate value waterfowl and wading bird habitat. The area provides important waterfowl stopover and feeding habitat during migrations due to its valuable mix of shallow open water and wetland habitats adjacent to farm fields. The MDIFW has used the Anson impoundment, in and around Weston Island, as a Canada goose release site, and numbers of this species have since increased ( MPI 1999). The MDIFW operates 47 two wildlife management areas within ten miles of the projects, but not contiguous with the projects' boundaries.

Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Anson and Abenaki Projects Project operations MPI proposes to continue to operate the projects as ROR. ROR operations do not affect the timing or magnitude of seasonal flooding, and maintain the periodic overbank flooding events that foster optimal wetland/ floodplain function and extent. These resources would continue to function as healthy, flood dependent resources under continued ROR operation ( Woodlot 2001). Therefore, we find that MPI's proposed operations would not affect terrestrial resources at either project.

Because project operations can affect project economics, we discuss the cost of operations for the projects in the Developmental Analysis section and make our determination in the Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative section.

Conservation easements MPI proposes to grant conservation easements on about 279.2 acres of MPI owned shorelands and islands in the Anson Project area and about 54.2 acres of shorelands in the Abenaki Project to an appropriate conservation organization. These conservation easements would be concentrated in functionally valuable and/ or sensitive habitats such as islands, floodplains, wetlands, vernal pools, or significant wildlife habitat. For example, a significant portion of the 279.2 acres proposed to be conserved is comprising Weston Island, Littel Island, and areas near Savage Island where there is a high concentration of floodplains, wetlands, and productive wildlife habitat ( figure 2). The proposed buffer extends 330 feet landward, except where limited by property boundaries, roads or railroads. The 330 foot buffer width is recommended by MDIFW for protection of the habitat and wildlife use values of project shorelines and is consistent with previous MDIFW recommendations ( letter from Steven A. Timpano, Environmental Coordinator, MDIFW, Augusta, Maine, February 14, 2002).

Because of the protection provided to a substantial amount of land, we find that the proposed conservation easements would benefit terrestrial resources at the projects.

Because of the costs associated with the conservation easements, we make our 48 determination in the Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative section.

Construction of enhancements Construction of passage facilities for American eel and Atlantic salmon could also have short term adverse effects on terrestrial resources in the area immediately surrounding project structures. To minimize any potential short term adverse effects on terrestrial resources during construction of the fish passage facilities, MPI proposes to employ standard erosion control measures. An ESCP is discussed in the Geology and Soil Resources section that would include revegetation of disturbed areas.

Several recreation enhancements are proposed including a drift boat take out and associated parking facilities in the upper portion of the Anson impoundment ( Madison Street boat launch), Weston Island primitive campsite, expansion of the town of Madison boat launch, a canoe portage take out near the mill, and the canoe and kayak access below the Abenaki dam could potentially affect terrestrial resources. Potential short term adverse effects resulting from construction could include soil erosion related to clearing, grubbing, and temporarily exposed soils.

The amount of naturally vegetated habitat that would need to be removed or periodically cut/ maintained for the proposed recreation enhancements and that would be replaced with semi impervious surfaces such as compacted sand and gravel ( e. g., parking facilities for drift boat take out) or cleared of vegetation over natural soils ( e. g., canoe portage path) is less than 11 acres total for both projects, a minor effect relative to the total amount of naturally vegetated habitat in the area. Furthermore, the design and siting of these facilities has taken into consideration minimizing or eliminating potential adverse effects to sensitive and/ or regulated terrestrial resources such as wetlands or vernal pools.

We find that the disturbance of terrestrial resources from the construction of fish passage and recreation facilities would not be significant.

The recreation enhancements are discussed in the Recreation Resources section.

Wetlands In August 1996, an amendment to the current Anson Project license was approved, authorizing MPI to install an inflatable flashboard system at the Anson dam and raise the 17 76 FERC ¶ 62,160 49 Anson headpond by 1.5 ft. 17 The amendment required MPI to conduct wetlands monitoring every 5 years, starting in 2002. In 2000, wetlands surveys were conducted as part of the relicensing process, and the requirement for monitoring in 2002 was eliminated. The results of the 2000 monitoring found that wetlands were reestablishing at the new impoundment level and no negative effects were documented.

MPI proposes, consistent with the settlement agreement, to conduct an additional wetlands survey 5 years after the effective date of a new Anson license to confirm that the wetlands at the Anson Project continue to be stable. Because MPI has proposed new impoundment operations at the Anson Project, we agree that wetland monitoring at the Anson Project would be beneficial.

Conducting a wetland monitoring survey would affect project economics. Therefore, we discuss the cost of the monitoring in the Developmental Analysis section and make our determination in the Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative section.

Abenaki Project improvements MPI proposes to resurface the dam, replace the existing wooden flashboards with an inflatable flashboard system, and install a bypassed reach minimum flow gate.

Installation of the inflatable flashboard system and bypassed reach minimum flow gate would occur concurrently with the proposed dam resurfacing. MPI expects that two construction seasons would be required to complete all work. During the construction, however, ROR flows would be maintained through the project, except possibly for brief periods during cofferdam installation and removal when water levels or flows may be adjusted for a day or so at a time. Terrestrial resources would not be adversely affected by the construction and, in the long term, would benefit from the more stable headpond levels that would be possible with the inflatable flashboard system.

We discuss the costs of MPI's proposals in the Developmental Analysis section and make our determination in the Comprehensive Development and Recommended Alternative section.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects Short term and minor effects to terrestrial resources may occur during land 50 disturbing activities associated with the construction of fish passage and recreation facilities and the improvements at the Abenaki Project.

4. Threatened and Endangered Species Affected Environment Anson and Abenaki Projects The only federally listed species in the area is the threatened bald eagle ( Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Bald eagles were not observed in the Abenaki Project area during a threatened and endangered species survey conducted for the relicensing process ( Woodlot 2001). There is, however, one active nest site located immediately downstream of the Abenaki Project at the confluence of the Kennebec River and Sandy River. Bald eagles were observed in the Anson impoundment on several occasions in the vicinity of Savage Island ( Woodlot 2001). A pair of adults with a juvenile ( young of the year) was seen later in the summer.