Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Anson and Abenaki Projects MPI proposes to continue operating the projects as ROR, with enhancements that include minimum flow releases, fish passage construction, new recreation facilities, and wetlands monitoring.

Increased public use of recreation facilities should have no adverse effect on bald eagles in the area because the eagle nest is located well downstream of the Anson Project and the impoundment and surrounding waterways provide ample area for foraging. The eagles are expected to continue to utilize the Anson impoundment for foraging and not be effected by any proposed enhancements. FWS finds that no further consultation is needed for federally listed species at the Anson or Abenaki Projects, unless ( 1) the proposed action is modified; ( 2) new federally listed species or critical habitat that could be affected by the projects are identified; or ( 3) new information has been filed that shows impacts to the bald eagle ( letter from Wende Mahaney, Biologist, Maine Field Office, FWS, Old Town, Maine; May 23, 3002).

No modifications to MPI's proposals have been recommended by any filings on these projects. Further, staff recommended measures are consistent with MPI's proposals and the settlement agreement. No new federally listed species have been identified and no new information has been filed to show impacts to the bald eagle from relicensing the 51 projects as proposed by MPI.. Accordingly, this concludes our obligations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects None.

5. Land Use and Aesthetic Resources Affected Environment Anson and Abenaki Projects Land Use There are a wide variety of land uses within the Anson and Abenaki Projects, including forested, agriculture, residential, industrial, commercial, and recreation. The estimated shoreline land use classifications are estimated based on the shoreline linear footage for the entire projects' areas, including islands and inlet areas. Table 5 summarizes the shoreline land use classifications, including the estimated shoreline footage for each category and the estimated overall percentage of each category within the combined Anson and Abenaki Project areas.

Table 5. Anson and Abenaki Projects Shoreline Land Use Classification. ( Source: MPI 2000c)

Existing Land Use Length of Shoreline ( ft) Percent of Shoreline Commercial 1,330 1 Industrial 5,230 2 Recreation 3,670 2 Residential 8,950 4 Agriculture 18,100 9 Forested/ Wetlands 170,570 82 Total 207,850 100 Current Land Ownership Land ownership in the area is predominantly private. MPI owns the majority of land around the Anson and Abenaki Project structures, and the Abenaki impoundment. 52 MPI also owns small tracts of lands along the Anson impoundment and some small islands. About 43 percent of the shoreline of both projects is owned by MPI, about 55 percent is privately owned, and about 2 percent is publicly owned property. Table 6 summarizes the estimated distribution of shoreline ownership within the Anson and Abenaki Project areas. These estimates are based on the shoreline linear footage for both Project areas, including islands and inlet areas.

Table 6. Estimated Distribution of Shoreline Ownership. ( Source: MPI 2002c)

Owner Length of Shoreline ( ft) Percent of Shoreline MPI 89,870 43 Private 113,560 55 Public 4,420 2 Total 207,850 100 Existing Zoning and Planning The towns of Madison, Anson, and Starks ( figure 1) adopted Shoreland Zoning Ordinances in accordance with the State of Maine Municipal Shoreland Zoning guidelines. These ordinances divide zoned areas into five districts: General Development, Resource Protection, Limited residential, Limited Commercial, and Stream Protection ( Town of Anson, 1992; Town of Madison, 1992; Starks Planning Board, 1989).

The General Development District includes areas of two or more contiguous acres devoted to commercial, industrial or intensive recreational activities, or a mix of such activities, and areas otherwise discernable as having patterns of intensive commercial, industrial, or recreational uses.

The Resource Protection Areas District includes areas in which development would adversely affect water quality, productive habitat, biological ecosystems, or scenic and natural values. This includes lands within 250 feet of wetland, great ponds, or rivers which are rated as " high" or " moderate" value habitat by MDIFW; significant wildlife habitat as defined by MDEP; 100 year flood plains; areas with two or more contiguous acres with a slope of greater than 20 percent; areas with two or more contiguous acres of wetlands vegetation and hydric soils; and shorelands subject to severe bank erosion or river bed movement. Types of land use allowed in this district ( although subject to certain restrictions and local planning board or code enforcement officer approval) include non intensive recreational activities and facilities, forest management/ harvesting, resource exploration, agriculture, fire prevention, and wildlife management practices. 53 Land uses, which are not allowed in this district, include most residential, commercial, and industrial development.

The Limited Residential District includes areas, which are suitable for residential and recreational development exclusive of areas zoned for Resource or Stream Protection. Most activities, except for commercial and industrial development, are allowed in this district, although subject to certain restrictions and local approvals.

The Limited Commercial District includes areas of mixed, light commercial and residential uses, exclusive of the Stream Protection District, which should not be developed as intensively as the General Development District.

The Stream Protection District includes areas within 75 feet horizontal distance of the normal high water line of a stream, exclusive of those areas within 250 feet horizontal distance of the normal high water line of a great pond or river, or within 250 feet horizontal distance of the upland edge of a freshwater or coastal wetland.

The towns of Anson and Madison occupy the west and east sides, respectively, of the Kennebec River at the projects. In the town of Madison, the Anson dam and the Abenaki Project structures lie in a General Development zone with Limited Residential and Commercial zones immediately to the east of the project and a Resource Protection zone area to the immediate north, extending along the Kennebec River shore to the Madison Town line ( Madison Planning Board 1995). In the town of Anson, the northern end of the Abenaki dam and the western end of the Anson dam and powerhouse lies in a General Development District. Further upstream, the west shore of the Anson impoundment is zoned in a Resource Protection District, from the Central Maine Railroad Bridge to the intersection of State Route 201A and Prebble Ave, and upstream of the intersection. the west shore of the Anson impoundment is zoned in a Limited Residential District. Due to limited development, the town of Starks, occupying the west shore of the Abenaki tailrace, does not have a General Development zoned area.

The town of Anson's Comprehensive Plan sets forth goals to protect " critical natural resources, including wetlands, wildlife and fisheries habitat, shorelands, scenic vistas and natural areas" ( Anson, Maine 1998).

Aesthetics Views within the Anson impoundment depict low lying wetlands and agricultural fields on high terraces at the water's edge, and vistas of distant wooded hills. Along both sides of the undeveloped Anson impoundment, agricultural crops are common in flood plain areas. Upland hardwoods and conifer forests are interspersed among the 54 agricultural land on the rolling uplands adjacent to the river. Further downstream residential/ developed land exists near the Anson dam, primarily on the west bank of the river. Scenic vantage points to view the Anson impoundment and its surroundings are primarily assessable from the water.

Scenic views from midway up the impoundment illustrate long narrow stretches of the river, which are bordered by high terraces of fields, containing northern hardwoods along the water's edge, and vistas of distant wooded hills. In the vicinity of Weston Island looking upstream, viewers can witness the broad perspective of the wetland complexes associated with the island and often times the wildlife associated with this type of habitat.

In the upper extent of the Anson impoundment and lower portion of the Carrabassett River anglers and boaters can view the Carrabassett River as it transitions from a free flowing riverine section to a backwatered area influenced by the Anson impoundment. The changes in shoreline are evident as they change from boulder/ ledge substrates with overhanging hardwoods to one containing finer sediments adjoined by wooded wetlands and high terraces of fields more typical of the Anson impoundment. At the furthest upstream extent of the Anson impoundment the Kennebec River transitions from a free flowing to impounded river. Looking upstream from this vantage point, viewers can see the old abutments and a rock pile/ pier, which are the remnants of an old bridge. This view also illustrates the riffle/ run area and the surrounding landscape of wooded shoreline comprising mature hardwoods and an emergent wetland that exists at the upstream end of a small island in this area. This is a popular area for anglers and portions of the reach can be seen from the River Road, which runs along the east side of the river.

The Anson Project includes several aesthetic features, one of which is the Anson Dam. It can be observed from the Route 201A/ 148 bridge, which crosses over the Anson impoundment and connects the towns of Madison and Anson. The Old Railroad Trestle, which spans the Kennebec River, has been identified by the Madison Planning Board as a scenic feature ( Madison Planning Board 1995). The Old Railroad Trestle can be observed from the Route 201A/ 148 bridge and the Madison public boat launch and from the water in the vicinity of the boat launch.

Two boat launches located on the Anson impoundment ( Madison public boat launch located at the south end of the impoundment and an informal launch on the Madison Road behind Savage Island at the north end of the Anson impoundment) are utilized by boaters and anglers accessing the impoundment. Evidence of litter and minor vandalism occurs at each of the two boat launch sites, which negatively affects the aesthetic character of these areas. 55 A washed clay embankment at the confluence of the Carrabassett and Kennebec Rivers displays a unique layering pattern of alluvial deposits which rises about 30 feet above the waters surface and extends about 250 to 300 feet along the shoreline of the impoundment. This feature is in an area that is relatively inaccessible from land and is likely observed by anglers and boaters using this section of the river.

The Abenaki impoundment and bypassed reach are located in an industrial setting adjoined by mills and commercial buildings. The east bank of the Abenaki impoundment is industrially developed land consisting of MPI's mill facilities while the Anson and Madison Sanitary District wastewater treatment facility and landfill occupy the majority of the west bank of the impoundment. The majority of the Abenaki Project tailwater is more naturally scenic and free flowing adjoined by steep wooded shorelines. Characteristic views of the Abenaki impoundment from the MPI wood yard on the east side of the impoundment capture perspectives of the Anson dam and the MPI mill, which exemplifies the industrial setting adjoining this small 32 acre riverine impoundment.

An informal site near the lower portion of the Abenaki bypassed reach, often visited by anglers, provides an overall perspective of the entire bypassed reach, the forebay wall and sluice gates, the paper mill and the Abenaki dam in the background. This location depicts the industrial setting of the area. The presence or absence of spill throughout this area influences its appearance.

Anglers fishing in the upper portion of the Abenaki bypassed reach are provided with views of the Abenaki dam and log sluice, which was used during the days of " log drives" when logs were floated to mills located down river. The rugged bedrock substrates, which are typical of the reach, can be seen from this location.

The seasonal changes, such as spring run off and summer low water, illustrate how the presence of water in the bypassed reach can change its overall appearance. With a high flow in the bypassed reach, it has a typical riverine riffle/ run appearance with bedrock and boulders lining the shoreline. As flow in the bypassed reach is decreased bedrock becomes exposed and forms a long narrow run in this upper section of the bypassed. When spill occurs, it provides a frothy white cascade over the face of the dam. The appearance of this varies with the amount of spill occurring at the Project any given time. The " L" shaped curvature of the dam also highlights spill in the upper bypassed reach.

The Abenaki tailwater is a free flowing stretch of river below the Abenaki powerhouse. The tailwater is comprising primarily rapids and runs. The shoreline downstream of the Abenaki tailwater is mostly undeveloped and has an abrupt rising shoreline that is lined with mature white pine and red oak, which tower above the water 56 surface below.

Environmental Effects and Recommendations Anson and Abenaki Projects MPI proposes to operate the projects as ROR with enhancements that could affect land use and aesthetic resources, including a downstream minimum flow of 1,540 cfs at both project, new recreation facilities, and execution of an SBMP for each project. At the Abenaki Project, MPI proposes to release minimum flows to the bypassed reach of 100 cfs from November through April, 200 cfs for May and October, and 300 cfs from June through September. Further MPI proposes to donate the MPI owned portions of the Old Point Mission site to the Archaeological Conservancy along with an endowment of $ 5,000 to maintain the site.

The SBMP's that MPI would implement would add 279.2 acres of shoreland buffer lands and recreation facilities to the Anson Project and about 54.2 acres of shoreland buffer lands and recreation facilities to the Abenaki Project, thereby providing long term protection under any new licenses issued. Conservation easements would be granted on a total of about 333 acres of MPI owned land at both projects that would prohibit development, restrict vegetation clearing and timber harvesting, and protect them in perpetuity. These measures would protect riparian soils from potential development related shoreline erosion and would protect the plant communities holding the soils in place.

MPI would change the project boundaries at both projects to include the proposed recreation facilities and remove about 8 acres from the Anson boundary, representing a parcel that would be traded for the land needed to develop the upper Anson impoundment drift boat take out and boat launch, and about 21 acres from the Abenaki boundary, representing the land donated to the Archaeological Conservancy. The proposed recreation enhancements are discussed in the Recreation Resources section.

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 the projects' shorelines and is consistent with previous MDIFW recommendations ( letter from Steven A. Timpano, Environmental Coordinator, MDIFW, Augusta, Maine; February 14, 2002). Execution of the SBMP's would be consistent with and support the goals of the town of Anson Comprehensive Plan by protecting aesthetic values on MPI lands ( letter from Robert S, Worthley, Administrative Assistant, Town of Anson, Anson, Maine; February 7, 2002). 57 We find that at both projects the loss of land would be offset by the net gain in recreation lands that would be protected under the proposed action. Further, in the case of the Old Point Mission site donation, this important site would be maintained in its currently undeveloped state, thereby protecting existing land use and aesthetics.

The proposed minimum flow in the bypassed reach would improve aesthetics of this reach by watering a larger area than occurs under existing leakage conditions. This would directly benefit aesthetic resources in the Abenaki Project area and protect them in perpetuity. In addition, informal fishing access on the east bank below the Abenaki powerhouse would be preserved through the conservation easements.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects Short term and minor effects could occur to aesthetics during construction.

6. Recreation Resources Affected Environment Anson and Abenaki Projects The area of the projects encompasses about 7.5 miles of the Kennebec and Carrabassett Rivers and includes a mix rural and industrial settings, in which picnicking, canoeing, power boating, fishing, hunting, and kayaking are popular activities. Recreation occurs primarily during the open water season, from mid May through September, though snowmobiling also occurs on and along the river during the winter. Public access to water is available through three recreation sites, as well as several informal sites used primarily by local residents. In 1997, recreational use in the area of the projects accounted for an estimated 2,539 recreation days, and in 1999, for an estimated 964 angler days ( MPI 1997a, 1997b; MDIFW 1999) ( table 7).

Table 7. Estimated Recreation Days and Angler Trips at the Anson and Abenaki Projects. ( Source: MPI 1997a, 1997b; MDIFW 1999)

Project Estimated Recreation Days ( 1997) Estimated Angler Trips 1 ( 1999)

Anson 587 397 ( ± 207)

Abenaki 1,952 567 ( ± 237)

1 MDIFW estimated number of angler days with a 95% confidence interval of ± trips.

The current Maine State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan ( SCORP) 58 ( Maine Department of Conservation 1993) provides statewide data for participation in various types of outdoor recreation activities and projections for trends between 1993 2003. Table 8 list the activities that are relevant to recreational uses of the Anson and Abenaki Project areas and the projected growth rates for each activity.

Table 8. 1993 SCORP Statewide Recreation Data. ( Source: MPI 2002c)

Activity Statewide Participation 1 ( percent) Projected growth 1993 2003 2 Water based activities Pleasure boating ( motorized) 38.4 Moderate Flatwater canoeing 30.9 Moderate Whitewater canoeing 9.1 Moderate Kayaking 2.5 Moderate Freshwater swimming 54.8 Small no growth Trail based activities Bicycling 25.4 Declining Mountain biking 7.6 declining Pleasure walking 57.6 High Walking nature/ interpretive trails 28.7 Small no growth Visiting cultural or historic sites 55.0 High Day hiking 19.6 Small no growth ATV riding 7.1 Small no growth Snowmobiling local 11.9 Small no growth Snowmobiling long distance 6.4 Small no growth Cross county skiing local 16.7 Moderate Cross county skiing long distance 6.9 Moderate Fishing/ hunting River/ stream fishing 26.1 Small no growth Lake/ pond fishing 38.3 Moderate Ice fishing 16.5 Small no growth Hunting small game 10.6 Moderate Fall waterfowl hunting 2.6 Moderate Deer hunting 21.9 Moderate Other Overnight Canoeing/ kayaking 7.9 Moderate Picnicking 52.5 Small no growth Primitive camping 20.6 Small no growth 1 Percent of responded participants participating in these activities. 59 2 High growth = > 3%/ year; moderate growth = 0.9 to 3.0%/ year; small to no growth =  0.9 to 0.9%/ year Major factors affecting projected growth or decline of activities include the aging population, decline in available leisure hours, change in supply of opportunities, and increase disposable income. The 1993 SCORP notes that data may not correctly reflect trends for ATV riding, snowmobiling, ice fishing, river and stream fishing, and bicycling.

The town of Anson's Comprehensive Plan recognizes the Kennebec and Carrabassett Rivers as important recreational resources but notes that formal access within the town is limited. The plan reports that there is public support for improving access to the rivers, and sets forth a specific goal to seek improved public assess to the Kennebec River through participation in MPI's hydro relicensing process ( Anson, Maine 1998).

Anson Project Recreation Sites The Anson impoundment encompasses about 7.5 miles along the mainstem Kennebec and 0.5 miles of the Carrabassett River. Formal recreation sites include a portage take out and the town of Madison boat launch. All three sites are located within the current project boundary. In addition to these sites, there are several informal areas used by the local community to access the river, two of which are well used informal launches located adjacent to each other in the upper reaches of the Anson impoundment on Madison Street in North Anson.

The town of Madison boat launch was originally constructed in 1984, but was rebuilt and made compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act ( ADA) in 1997 by MPI. The boat launch is located on MPI property and is maintained and operated by the town under a lease from MPI. In addition to its use as a launch site, shoreline anglers use the area during the open water season and by snowmobilers during the winter months. The launch consists of a single lane, concrete plank ramp with a short boarding dock. There are two 16 foot long floating docks. A concrete path is provided from the ADA accessible parking space to the boarding dock rendering the site ADA compliant. Other parking is informal and unpaved. The Abenaki SnoRiders maintain a snowmobile trail that extends through the length of the property along the shoreline.

A take out for hand carried boats is located in Anson on the west shore of the impoundment, about 0.5 miles upstream of the dam. Parking and a path to the river are available, and the site is owned and maintained by MPI. The two informal Madison 60 Street launches are located on private property. Both launches are somewhat crude and unimproved but are reportedly used by both locals and guides using drift boats, particularly as take outs for drift boats which utilize the free flowing reach between the Williams Project dam and the upstream end of the Anson impoundment.

Recreational Use Fishing, power boating, canoeing, and kayaking are all popular activities on the Anson impoundment. Deer and waterfowl hunting are also common, both on islands in the river and along the shore. Winter recreational activity area includes snowmobiling and cross country skiing. Other activities occurring along the shoreline include picnicking, swimming, and fishing. Recreational use of the impoundment accounted for about 587 recreation days in 1997, attributed primarily to the town of Madison boat launch ( MPI 1997a). At that time, MPI estimated the launch was utilized at only 10 percent of its total capacity on peak weekends.

MDIFW ( 1999) estimated that in 1999 anglers fished an estimated 397 days between April and October. About 40 percent of the angler trips occurred during April and May, about 46 percent occurred in July and August, and the remaining 14 percent were distributed between the months of June, September, and October. MDIFW ( 1999) estimates that in comparison to other warm water fisheries on similarly large river impoundments, angler effort is relatively moderate on the Anson impoundment. Smallmouth bass is the primary target species in the Anson impoundment ( MDIFW, 1999).

MDIFW has an active fisheries management program in the Anson impoundment that includes naturally reproducing smallmouth bass fishery and coldwater fisheries that are supported by annual stocking. Angler use data collected by MDIFW suggests that the fishery is underutilized due to limited access. MDIFW has received numerous requests from local anglers and drift boat guide services to improve access to this high quality fishery ( letter from David Boucher, MDIFW, Solon, Maine; February 6, 2002).

Abenaki Project Recreation Sites The limited length of the Abenaki impoundment, as well as the industrial use on the shoreline, limits public access. There are no formal recreation sites located on the impoundment. Downstream of the Abenaki dam, the project boundary extends to about the confluence of the Sandy River. This portion of the Kennebec River is free flowing and riverine, and is bordered primarily by undeveloped forestland. One formal project 61 recreation site, the Pines, is located in this reach. In addition, the eastern shoreline from the vicinity of the Abenaki dam downstream to the Pines Recreation Area is used informally for shoreline and river access although no formal facilities exist.

The Four Seasons Rod and Gun Club is a private club, located on the west shore on property leased from MPI, that offers target practice facilities and shoreline access for anglers. The riverbank to the shoreline is steep in most places. Shoreline and wade fishing opportunities are available in this area to members.

The Pines Recreation Area is located on the east shore at the downstream limits of the project boundary, about 1.5 miles downstream of the Abenaki dam. The Pines is a pedestrian park situated on the historic mission site and is currently operated and maintained by MPI. The recreation area is wooded with tall white pines. A trail extends the length of the shoreline and is used by park visitors and shoreline anglers. Picnic tables, cooking grills, trash receptacles, and a parking area at the entrance to the park are provided. Vehicular access within the site is prohibited as a result of associated vandalism, dumping, and erosion ( MPI 1999).

MPI also owns the shoreline property in Madison between the Abenaki dam and the Pines Recreation Area. A forested foot trail extends most of the length of this property, running parallel with the river. Although not designated as a recreation site, it is used locally by anglers and kayakers. Parking is available roadside. Anglers park and fish along the shoreline and the occasional kayakers boat upstream to practice in the rapids below Abenaki dam.

Recreational Use In 1999, MDIFW observed eight anglers fishing from shore in the Abenaki impoundment. The majority of public recreation occurring in the Abenaki tailwater is attributed to the Pines Recreation Area ( MPI 1997b). MPI ( 1997b) estimated that the site accounted for about 1,952 recreation days in 1997. During 1997, the estimated peak weekend average capacity at this facility did not exceed 35 percent.

MDIFW ( 1999) estimated that anglers fished an estimated 567 trips in this stretch of the river in 1999, and suggested that this estimate is low in comparison to similar rivers offering riverine angler opportunities. An estimated 65 percent of the season's angler effort for this area occurred during the months of May, June, and July. The primary targeted species for anglers included brown trout, bass, and other salmonids.

MDIFW has an active fisheries management program in the Abenaki Project water that includes naturally reproducing smallmouth bass fishery and coldwater fisheries that 62 are supported by annual stocking. Angler use data collected by MDIFW suggests that the fishery is underutilized due to limited access. MDIFW has received numerous requests from local anglers and drift boat guide services to improve access to this high quality fishery ( letter from David Boucher, MDIFW, Solon, Maine, February 6, 2002).

Environmental Effects and Recommendation Anson and Abenaki Projects MPI proposes to continue to operate both projects as ROR, with enhancements to recreation facilities and public access to the river ( figure 4). Proposed enhancements include a 1,540 cfs downstream minimum flow downstream of each project, a minimum flow regime for the Abenaki bypassed reach, new recreation facilities, and execution of the SBMP at both projects. An 8 acre parcel of land, currently reserved for future recreation development at the Anson Project, would be traded to acquire the land for the upper Anson impoundment drift boat take out and boat launch and thereby removed from the Anson Project boundary. At the Abenaki Project, 21 acres would be removed from the project boundary and donated to the Archaeological Conservancy, with the condition that existing recreational uses of the area, generally hiking and angler access, be continued.

The proposed 1,540 cfs minimum flow at both projects could benefit recreational resources because it would provide sufficient canoeing and kayaking flows in the river at all times, although with ROR operations, flows immediately downstream of both projects would approximate inflows to the Anson impoundment at all times, except for temporary modification as approved by the agencies or emergencies beyond the control of the licensee.

The proposed minimum flow in the Abenaki bypassed reach of 300 cfs from June through September would improve summer recreational boating opportunities by releasing flows where there is no flow requirement under existing conditions.

Proposed recreation enhancements for the Anson impoundment include the construction of a drift boat launch on the upper Madison Street, construction of a primitive campsite on Weston Island, the expansion of recreation facilities at the Town of Madison boat launch, and a canoe portage take out at the east end of the railroad trestle near the Anson dam ( figure 3). Through the continued ROR operation, current recreation activities would continue, and would be substantially supplemented by the proposed new 63 18 Maine's state listed species are identified and discussed in MPI 2002c.

64 canoe and kayak access. Consultation with agencies if ROR operations were to be temporarily modified would provide agencies an opportunity to advise MPI on measures to ensure usability of recreation resources during such events.

The boat launch/ drift boat take out with parking facilities at the upstream end of the Anson impoundment would formalize and improve access for recreational and guide service angling opportunities in the project area. This site will provide formal access to replace existing informal launch sites on Madison Street which are used by both recreational boaters and guides using drift boats, particularly as take outs for drift boats that utilize the free flowing reach between the Williams Project dam and the upstream end of the Anson impoundment. Establishment of a formal site would minimize current embankment erosion resulting from the indiscriminate access and egress in this area ( letter from David S. Larkin, Kennebec Valley Trails, Skowhegan, Maine; February 14, 2002). Construction of this facility would support the goal of the town of Anson's Comprehensive Plan to increase access to the Kennebec River ( letter from Robert S. Worthley, Administrative Assistant, Town of Anson, Anson, Maine; February 7, 2002.) Designing this site specifically for small boat access would provide needed access in this area while also protecting the sensitive wetland and state listed resources of the upper Anson impoundment that could be adversely effected by increased use by larger watercraft ( letter from David S. Larkin, Kennebec Valley Trails, Skowhegan, Maine; February 14, 2002.) 18 Further, improved access in this location will support MDIFW's sport fishery management programs ( letter from David Boucher, MDIFW, Strong, Maine; February 14, 2002).

The proposed primitive campsite on Weston Island would provide the only water access public camping opportunity for local residents or overnight through paddlers in this region of the Kennebec River ( letter from David S. Larkin, Kennebec Valley Trails, Skowhegan, Maine; February 14, 2002).

Use of existing recreational resources may be temporarily adversely affected during construction of the new facilities. MPI would plan construction schedules and sequences to minimize any such impacts.

The enhancements at the town of Madison Boat Launch and expansion of the existing leased area to include entire park development would enhance local recreational opportunities in the project area. Although located in Madison, this site would also provide river access and shoreline recreational opportunities for Anson residents ( letter from Robert S. Worthley, Administrative Assistant, Town of Anson, Anson, Maine; 65 February 7, 2002.) Expansion and improvement of the existing site amenities would offer area residents affordable year round, river based recreational access within walking distance of the downtown area ( letter from David S. Larkin, Kennebec Valley Trails, Skowhegan, Maine; February 14, 2002).

The canoe portage take out at the east end of the railroad trestle between the mill and contractor parking areas, and provision of canoe carriers as needed for portage users would improve canoe and kayak access in the project area. The popularity of day and multi day through paddling is increasing in this section of the Kennebec River and the portage take out and route would provide a convenient and safe portage route around the Anson and Abenaki dams. A canoe portage map and detailed information would be displayed at the canoe take out site, located at the railroad trestle in Madison. Canoe carriers would also be provided near the proposed canoe take out to transport canoes, kayaks, and other small boats to the canoe put in site below the Abenaki dam.

Each of the proposed formal recreation sites would be equipped with a standard Commission recreation facility signage, which displays information regarding the recreation opportunities available at that site in the project. Details would include hours of operation, what recreation opportunities are available at that location, and where further information regarding that site and other recreation sites in the project area can be found. Other general information about MPI would also be provided.

To accommodate various angler, boating, and general river access, three new recreation access points would be developed on the west shore of the river below the Abenaki dam. A canoe/ kayak car top put in would be located at the upstream end of the whitewater stretch below the Abenaki dam. A small trailered boat put in, with a parking area, would be located on the west shore slightly downstream of the proposed canoe/ kayak put in. This site would also provide less experienced/ family paddlers an opportunity to put in below the whitewater stretch. Finally, a small trailered boat take out would be constructed about one half mile further downstream on the west shore near the end of the whitewater stretch. An access road, sufficient for automobiles with small trailers, to connect the three boat access sites would be constructed. MPI would install fencing along the road as necessary to limit access from the road to the land leased by a Rod and Gun Club.

Proposed changes would add about 279.2 acres to the Anson Project boundary and 54.2 acres to the Abenaki Project, including land associated with the new recreation facilities and conservation easements, thereby preserving habitat for plants and animals and providing for long term recreation access for the public. The effects of the conservation easements on habitat are discussed in the Terrestrial Resources section. Removal of about 8 acres from the Anson Project boundary, presently reserved for future 66 recreational development, in trade for the land needed to develop the upper Anson impoundment drift boat take out and boat launch would be offset by the net gain in recreation lands that would be protected. The removal of about 21 acres of land from the Abenaki Project boundary for donation to the Archaeological Conservancy would assure long term protection of cultural resources in that area and would maintain existing recreational uses of the area.

Construction of these facilities on the west shore will support the town of Anson's Comprehensive Plan goal to increase access to the Kennebec River ( letter from Robert S. Worthley, Administrative Assistant, Town of Anson, Anson, Maine, February 7, 2002.) The free flowing river reach below the Abenaki dam is unique in this section of the river and the proposed access facilities would provide access to this reach for boating, canoeing, kayaking and fishing that is currently not available ( letter from David S. Larkin, Kennebec Valley Trails, Skowhegan, Maine; February 14, 2002). Improved access in this location will support MDIFW's sport fishery management programs ( letter from David Boucher, MDIFW, Solon, Maine; February 14, 2002).

Use of existing recreational facilities, including the informal launch site on upper Madison Street and the existing own boat launch, may be temporarily adversely affected during construction of the proposed new facilities. MPI will plan construction schedules and sequences to minimize any such impacts. The long term use of these facilities could potentially increase soil erosion in the Anson Project area.

Through the continued ROR operation, current recreation activities would continue, and would be substantially supplemented by the proposed new facilities and existing facility enhancements. Consultation with agencies if ROR operations were to be temporarily modified would provide agencies an opportunity to advise MPI on measures to ensure continued usability of recreation resources during such events. Restricting the duration and extent of drawdowns in response to emergency power system demand would minimize any adverse effects on use of recreation resources and erosion that could result from pond level fluctuations.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects The construction of new recreation facilities and improvements to the Abenaki Project may have a minor, short term effects on aesthetics and use of existing recreation facilities.

7. Cultural Resources Affected Environment 67 Anson Project The Anson Project was originally developed circa 1895 to provide power for groundwood, pulp, and paper making operations. Between 1923 and 1924, the present powerhouse was constructed. An assessment of National Register Eligibility of the Anson Project structures was conducted in 2000 ( Roberts, 2001a) and was submitted to the Maine Historic Preservation Commission ( MHPC) for review and comment. By letter dated January, 23, 2001 the MHPC stated that the Anson Project is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places because it is an intact example of a hydroelectric facility built to provide power for a nearby mill and the designer was involved in many significant projects throughout New England.

Prehistoric archaeological surveys were conducted in the Anson area in 1984 and 1995 in association with proposals to raise the normal pond elevation of the Project impoundment. Two prehistoric sites were found during the 1984 Phase I Survey. However, neither site was considered a major, National Register eligible site, and no further archeological investigation or mitigation was recommended. In 1995, Supplemental Phase IA surveys of five high potential river terrace sites near the mouth of the Carrabassett River and a Phase II Survey of site 69.18, one of the sites discovered during the 1984 Phase I Survey, were completed. The contract archaeologist reported that no cultural material was found at the Phase IA sites. At site 69.18, the Phase II survey found three or more small concentrations of cultural material from at least two cultural periods; however, the archaeologist concluded that the thin scatter of material, lack of culturally diagnostic material, and earlier loss to erosion limits the research potential of the site. MHPC concurred with this finding by letter dated January 2, 1996.

The MHPC did not require any additional prehistoric archaeological surveys of the Anson Project area in association with the relicensing on the basis of the extensive survey work done in the past on the Anson Project. However, the MHPC requested limited Phase I surveys of four areas where recreational facility development or expansion is proposed ( upper Anson drift boat take out, Town of Madison boat launch/ park, and canoe portage take out). Results of the Phase I surveys completed during 2001 indicate that Phase II survey work should be undertaken during 2002 at Weston Island, and the Phase II survey has been completed.

Abenaki Project The Abenaki Project site was originally developed with flow regulating dams in the early 1900s, followed circa 1910 by construction of a dam and a hydromechanical groundwood mill and a hydroelectric plant with provisions for eight turbine units in the grinder room. An Assessment of National Register Eligibility of the Abenaki Project 68 structures was conducted in 2000 ( Roberts 2001b) and was submitted to the MHPC for review and comment. By letter dated January 23, 2001, MHPC stated that the Abenaki Project structures are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places because the facilities had been converted from a pulp mill to a hydroelectric station and because of the adjacent addition of a modern mill structure.

A prehistoric archaeological survey ( Phase O/ I) of the Abenaki Project area was conducted in support of this relicensing during 2000 ( Cowie 2000). That survey identified potential sites on both the east and west banks of the river downstream of the dam where additional Phase I and II Surveys were needed in order to determine archaeological significance. Results of the Phase I/ II survey conducted during 2001 indicated that the Phase II work should be undertaken on the west shore below the Abenaki dam during 2002, and that survey has now been completed. The Phase II testing in 2001 on one site along the west shore below the Abenaki dam documented that the site is eligible for listing in the National Register.

The Old Point Mission Site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and is considered to be one of the most regionally significant European contact period sites. The MPI owned portion of this National Register site, known locally as The Pines, within the Abenaki Project boundary and is currently a project recreation facility. Site amenities include a picnic area, walking trials, and shoreline angling access. In the past vandalism, trash dumping, and excavation/ metal detection of artifacts by hobbyist archaeologists have resulted in significant adverse effects on the cultural and recreational resources in this area. MPI recently eliminated vehicular access to the area, which has substantially reduced trash dumping and vandalism. Looting of archeological remains an ongoing threat at the site.

Environmental Impacts and Recommendations Anson Project The proposed action involves the continued operation of the project in a ROR mode with enhancements that could affect cultural resources including the construction of fish passage facilities for American eel and Atlantic salmon. MPI proposes to implement a Programmatic Agreement ( PA) between the FERC, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ( Advisory Council), and the MHPC to protect National Register eligible archaeological or historic sites that may be adversely affected under the terms and conditions of new licenses for the Projects.

The PA would stipulate that MPI consult with the MHPC and develop an Historic Properties Management Plan ( HPMP). The HPMP would include procedures for 69 developing and implementing a monitoring plan for the currently known and potentially eligible archeological or historic sites. Those sites determined to be in danger due to erosion or development would receive priority treatment for site stabilization or data recovery efforts. In addition, the HPMP would include provisions for consultation with MHPC to minimize potential adverse effects to any previously unidentified sites discovered during the course of operating or maintaining the project or constructing recreation sites..

Construction of passage facilities for American eel and Atlantic salmon could adversely effect the Anson Project structures, which are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. To minimize any potential adverse effects on the cultural integrity of these structures, the HPMP/ PA would include provisions for MPI to consult with the MHPC regarding installation of the passage facilities.

Abenaki Project The proposed action involves the continued operation of the project in a ROR mode with enhancements that could affect cultural resources, including donation of MPI owned portions of the Old Point Mission Site to the Archaeological Conservancy and associated changes to the project boundary. MPI proposes to implement a PA between the FERC, the Advisory Council, and the MHPC to protect National Register eligible archaeological or historic sites that may be adversely affected under the terms and conditions of new licenses for the projects.

The PA would stipulate that MPI consult with the MHPC and develop a HPMP. The HPMP would include procedures for developing and implementing a monitoring plan for the currently known and potentially eligible archeological or historic sites. Those sites determined to be in danger due to erosion or development would receive priority treatment for site stabilization or data recovery efforts. In addition, the HPMP would include provisions for consultation with MHPC to minimize potential adverse effects to any previously unidentified sites discovered during the course of operating or maintaining the project.

Under the proposed action, the portion of the Old Point Mission Site on MPI owned lands would be donated to the Archaeological Conservancy, who would in turn grant a conservation easement to MHPC. This would provide for long term protection of a significant contact period site and would result in about 21 acres of land being preserved under a conservation easement between the Archaeological Conservancy and the MHPC. The State Historic Preservation Officer ( SHPO) supports donation of this property to the Archaeological Conservancy ( letter from Earle G. Shettleworth, Jr., SHPO, Maine Historic Preservation Commission, Augusta, Maine, November 21, 2001). 19 Because a settlement agreement was filed with the license applications for the Anson and Abenaki Projects and because the economic analysis contained in the Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment closely follows the format and method used by Commission staff, we have adopted MPI's economic analysis ( including assumed economic parameters) without modification. After checking MPI's analysis, we find that any differences staff may have made in economic assumptions would not materially change the basis for choosing one alternative over another.

20 See Mead Corporation, Publishing Paper Division, 72 FERC ¶ 61,027 ( July 13, 1995).

70 Donation of this site to the Archaeological Conservancy and removal of the property from the Abenaki Project boundary would provide for future stewardship of this resource by an appropriate conservation organization ( letter from David S. Larkin, Kennebec Valley Trails, Skowhegan, Maine; February 14, 2002).

The APEA Team, recognizing the importance of providing long term preservation of the site, supports donation of the property to the Conservancy. However, the team also expressed an interest in having the existing recreational access to the site maintained. Accordingly, the Conservancy agreed that the conservation easement would specify that access for existing recreational uses of the area, including walking, shoreline angling, and picnicking, would be maintained in the future. To offset the loss of opportunities to expand recreational facilities at this site, MPI is proposing numerous other recreation facilities in both the Anson and Abenaki Project areas.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects None.

VI. DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS In this section, we analyze the Anson and Abenaki Projects' use of the available water resources to generate hydropower and estimate the economic benefits of the projects. We also address the operational and economic effects on the projects of various measures considered in the EA for the protection or enhancement of environmental, recreational, and energy resources.

For our economic analysis of the alternatives, we use the assumptions, values, and sources shown in table 9. 19 We base our estimate of the value of project power on the current cost of alternative sources of power and do not consider inflation, escalation, or deflation beyond the potential license issuance date. 20 MPI says that the most likely source of power to replace the projects' power would be to purchase power from the local 71 utility at the current cost of about $ 80 per MWh. We accept this cost as a reasonable basis for valuing project power under current conditions.

All non power cost estimates, which were originally made in 2001, are escalated at a 2 percent annual rate to yield estimates in 2004. We use 2004 as the base year for our economic analysis because the current license is due to expire in April 2004. Capital costs are annualized at the stated discount rate over the period of financing. Those cost items that would not be incurred until some time into the license term are discounted to the base year before being annualized over a 30 year period of analysis.

Table 9. Economic parameters for analyses of the Anson and Abenaki Projects. ( Source: MPI 2002c, as modified by Commission staff)

Parameter Value Source Base year of analysis 2004 MPI Period of analysis 30 years Staff Period of financing 20 years Staff Discount rate 10% MPI Energy value ( 2002) $ 80 per MWh MPI Net investment ( 2002):

Anson $ 4,612,390 MPI Abenaki $ 7,817,847 MPI Operation & maintenance costs: 1 Anson $ 1,188,531 MPI Abenaki $ 2,152,204 MPI Federal tax rate 34 percent Staff 1 Based on 2002 anticipated O& M cost, escalated by 2 percent annually.

A. Proposed Action The proposed action consists of continued operation of the Anson and Abenaki Projects with the proposed environmental, recreational, and power generation measures shown in tables 10 and 11.

Cost of Environmental Measures Based on the assumptions in table 12 and the costs of enhancements shown in table 13, we estimate that the average annual energy generation of the Anson Project 72 under the proposed action would be about 48,775 MWh and that this would yield an annual power benefit of $ 3,902,000 ($ 80 per MWh). The annual cost of producing this energy would be $ 2,517,290 ($ 52 per MWh). Therefore, the annual net benefit of the Project under the proposed action would be $ 1,384,710 ($ 28 per MWh).

Based on the assumptions in table 10 and the costs of enhancements shown in table 11, we estimate that the average annual energy generation of the Abenaki Project under the proposed action would be about 87,997 MWh and that this would yield an annual power benefit of $ 7,039,760 ($ 80 per MWh). The annual cost of producing this energy would be $ 4,837,871 ($ 55 per MWh). Therefore, the annual net benefit of the project under the proposed action would be $ 2,201,889 ($ 25/ MWh).

Table 10. Anson Project summary of annualized costs of proposed measures. ( Source: MPI 2002c)

Enhancement ( and assumed implementation year) Capital cost ( 2004$) O& M cost ( 2004$) Levelized Annual cost ( 2004$)

Stream flow and water level monitoring plan ( 2004) 5,306 530 703 Downstream interim American eel passage ( 2005) 111,427 9,551 12,564 Upstream permanent American eel passage ( 2005) 84,897 1,048 5,364 Permanent upstream Atlantic salmon passage ( 2020) 1,597,118 11,683 30,604 Permanent downstream Atlantic salmon and American eel passage ( ½ cost of combined system) ( 2020) 2,532,043 15,918 47,987 Atlantic salmon and riverine aquatic habitat restoration fund ( 2006/ 2010) 285,000 0 14,492 Atlantic salmon stocking fund   initial payment & 12 year annual payments ( 2004/ 2005 2016) 110,000 0 4,135 Upper Anson impoundment ( Madison Street) drift boat launch ( 2007) 74,815 2,016 4,677 Town of Madison launch/ park improvements ( 2006) 136,471 6,049 10,695 Weston Island primitive campsite ( 2005) 3,184 637 605 Canoe portage take out ( 2005) 21,649 1,857 2,442 Form 80 Monitoring ( every six years) 0 2,653 245 Shoreland buffer management plan implementation ( 2004) 10,612 1,061 1,407 73 Shoreland buffer land values ( 2004) 330,000 0 19,515 Cultural resource monitoring plan implementation ( 2004) 10,612 1,061 1,407 Wetland monitoring ( 2008) 21,224 0 928 Total $ 5,334,358 $ 54,064 $ 157,772 Table 11. Abenaki Project summary of annualized costs of proposed measures. ( Source: MPI 2002c)

Enhancement ( and assumed implementation year) Capital cost ( 2004$) O& M cost ( 2004$) Levelized Annual cost ( 2004$)

Bypassed reach minimum flows ( 2007) 0 275,000 156,764 Stream flow and water level monitoring plan ( 2004) 5,306 4,530 649 Downstream interim American eel passage ( 2005) 116,733 10,887 13,758 Upstream permanent American eel passage ( 2005) 81,713 1,040 5,184 Permanent upstream Atlantic salmon passage ( 2020) 1,879,399 8,511 34,943 Permanent downstream Atlantic salmon and American eel passage ( ½ cost of combined system) ( 2020) 2,532,043 15,918 47,987 Atlantic salmon and riverine aquatic habitat restoration fund ( 2006/ 2010) 285,000 0 14,492 Atlantic salmon stocking fund   initial payment & 12 year annual payments ( 2004/ 2005 2016) 110,000 0 6,505 West Shore canoe / kayak car top put in ( 2005) 5,306 531 650 West shore trailered launch ( 2005) 40,273 1,273 3,069 West shore trailered take out ( 2005) 42,958 1,273 3,216 Rod and Gun Club Fencing ( 2005) 53,060 0 2,910 West Shore Access Road ( 2005) 21,224 0 1,164 Form 80 Monitoring ( every six years) 0 2,653 245 New turbine/ generator unit ( 2008) 4,244,832 0 185,590 Enhancement ( and assumed implementation year) Capital cost ( 2004$) O& M cost ( 2004$) Levelized Annual cost ( 2004$)

74 Rubber dam/ resurfacing ( 2005) 2,971,382 0 162,941 Cultural resource plan implementation ( 2004) 10,612 1,061 1,407 Shoreland buffer management plan implementation ( 2004) 10,612 1,061 1,407 Shoreland buffer land values ( 2004) 100,000 0 5,914 Pines donation ( 2004) 10,612 0 628 Real Estate Value of Pines ( 2004) 127,000 0 7,510 Total $ 12,648,065 $ 319,738 $ 656,932 Measures That Affect Project Generation or Capacity Fish Passage Attraction and Transport Flows The proposed action includes provisions for upstream and downstream passage for American eel and Atlantic salmon. Tables 12 and 13 how the proposed attraction and transport flows and associated generation losses, including the cost of replacing those losses, at the Anson Project and Abenaki Project, respectively.

Table 12. Value of Fish Passage Attraction and Transport Flows  Anson Project. ( Source: MPI 2002c)

Passage Attraction and Transport Flow Volume ( cfs) Annual Generation Loss 1 ( MWh) Value ($)

Permanent upstream eel 0.1 0.15 12 Interim downstream eel 50 75 6,000 Permanent upstream salmon 120 1,100 88,000 Permanent downstream salmon & eel 2 160 1,500 120,000 1 Generation losses and resulting costs have been calculated taking into consideration the seasonality of passage operation ( duration of operation as well as flow availability). 2 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 13. Value of Fish Passage Attraction and Transport Flow  Abenaki Project. 75 ( Source: MPI 2002c)

Passage Attraction and Transport Flow Volume ( cfs) Annual Generation Loss 1 ( MWh) Value ($)

Permanent upstream eel 0.1 cfs 0.25 mwh 20 Interim downstream eel 50 cfs 122.5 mwh 9,750 Permanent upstream salmon ( both) 125 cfs 1,612 mwh 128,980 Permanent downstream salmon & eel 2 0 0 1 Generation losses and resulting costs have been calculated taking into consideration the seasonality of passage operation ( duration of operation as well as flow availability). 2 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.

ROR Operations and Emergency Operations MPI is proposing a ROR operation that 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 the agencies, and with notification to the Commission. Although a specific dollar value has not been determined, this measure would help to preserve the projects' dependable capacity and ability to respond to emergency power needs.

Abenaki Project Bypassed Reach Minimum Flow The proposed action includes the release of minimum flows in the Abenaki bypassed reach of 100 cfs ( November through April), 200 cfs ( May and October), and 300 cfs ( June through September) to protect and enhance water quality and quantity and to protect and enhance habitat for macroinvertebrates. Providing bypassed reach minimum flows would, however, have an adverse effect on project generation due to a decrease in flow available for generation. The annual lost generation would cost $ 275,000/ yr.

Proposed Generation Addition In 2008, MPI is proposing to install a new 2.94 MW generating unit in a presently un used turbine bay at the Abenaki Project. The new unit will increase the installed capacity by about 17 percent and generation by about 5,500 MWh. At an estimated cost of $ 4,244,832 ( 2004$) to build this new unit, the levelized annual cost would be 76 $ 185,590 ( about $ 34/ MWh) over the 30 year period of analysis. Based on MPI's current avoided cost of $ 80/ MWh, the new generator would provide positive power benefits of about $ 46/ MWh.

B. No action Alternative Under the no action alternative, the projects would continue to operate as they do now, with no change in existing environmental conditions or generation, which averages 51,450 and 85,632 MWh, respectively, for the Anson and Abenaki Projects.

The annual costs of the existing Anson and Abenaki Projects, including carrying charges on the net investment, necessary future capital, and licensing costs, are about $ 2,359,518 ($ 46 per MWh) and $ 4,031,546 ($ 47 per MWh), respectively.

C. Economic Comparison of the Alternatives Tables 14 and 15 present a summary of the annual benefits and costs for the no action alternative and MPI's proposed action alternative ( the settlement agreement) for the Anson and Abenaki Projects.

Table 14. Anson Project summary of annual power benefits, costs, and net benefits. ( Source: MPI 2002c)

No action alternative MPI's proposal Annual generation ( MWh) 51,450 48,775 Annual power benefit ($) $ 4,116,000 $ 3,902,000 ($ per MWh) $ 80 $ 80 Annual cost ($) $ 2,359,518 $ 2,517,290 ($ per MWh) $ 46 $ 52 Annual net benefit ($) $ 1,756,482 1,384,710 ($ per MWh) $ 34 $ 28 Table 15. Abenaki Project summary of annual power benefits, costs, and net benefits. ( Source: MPI 2002c)

No action alternative MPI's proposal 1 Annual generation ( MWh) 85,632 87,997 Annual power benefit ($) $ 6,850,560 $ 7,039,760 ($ per MWh) $ 80 $ 80 No action alternative MPI's proposal 1 77 Annual cost ($) $ 4,031,546 $ 4,837,871 ($ per MWh) $ 47 $ 55 Annual net benefits ($) $ 2,819,014 $ 2,201,889 ($ per MWh) $ 33 $ 25 1 Includes generation for new 2.94 MW turbine/ generator unit.

7.0 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE Based on an independent review and evaluation of the proposed project and the no action alternative, Commission staff have selected the projects as proposed by MPI, consistent with the settlement agreement, as the preferred alternative.

We recommend this alternative because: ( 1) issuance of new licenses would allow Madison to continue to operate the projects as a dependable, renewable source of electric energy for its pulp and paper mill; ( 2) the recommended environmental measures would protect or enhance fishery resources, water quality, vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, land uses, recreational resources, and cultural resources; and ( 3) the average annual generation of 48,775 MWh from the Anson Project and 87,997 MWh from the Abenaki Project of electric energy from a renewable resource would reduce the use of fossil fueled fired, electric generation and capacity, continuing to help conserve these nonrenewable energy resources and reduce atmospheric pollution. Accordingly, staff believe that staff's alternative would be best adapted to a comprehensive plan for making use of the water power resources of the Kennebec River, while concurrently protecting other natural resource values and uses.

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

MPI proposes and we agree that the following environmental measures should be included in any licenses issued by the Commission for the Anson and Abenaki Projects:

° Preparation and implementation of an ESCP for each project ° Convening annual consultation meetings of the fishery agencies during the term of the license to review the status of measures related to fish passage at the projects, 78 unless all potential meeting participants agree that a meeting is not needed. MPI would file a brief report with the Commission after each annual meeting, covering both projects ° Continued ROR operations with minimum flows of 1,540 cfs downstream of the project for both projects.

° Adjustment of the Anson Project boundary to include new recreation facilities and delete an 8 acre parcel ° Adjustment of the Abenaki Project boundary to include new recreation facilities and delete a 21 acre parcel.

° Execution of a Programmatic Agreement ( PA) prior to license issuance for each to protect cultural resources in the project area.

Implementation of these measures would protect and enhance water quality and aquatic, terrestrial, aesthetic and recreational resources. Because our recommendations pertaining to development and implementation for release a minimum flow regime to the Abenaki bypassed reach, monitor wetlands at the Anson impoundment, develop recreational facilities at both projects, execute a SBMP for each project, install fish passage facilities, donating land to the Archaeological Conservancy, funding Atlantic salmon restoration and stocking, preparing a flow and water level monitoring plan, and making improvements at the Abenaki project represent trade offs between developmental and non developmental resources, our justification for these measures and a comparison of the alternatives are provided below.

Minimum flows for the Abenaki bypassed reach The agreed upon minimum flow regime for the Abenaki bypassed reach [ 100 cfs ( November through April), 200 cfs ( May and October), and 300 cfs ( June through September)] would protect water quality. These flows would also protect and enhance habitat for macroinvertebrates, thereby enhancing forage and providing greater opportunities for anglers to catch legal sized game fish. We find these substantial benefits to be worth the $ 156,764 annual cost in lost generation. MPI proposes to install a minimum flow gate during the resurfacing and inflatable flashboard work at the Abenaki dam. Therefore, we recommend that MPI, in consultation with MDMR, MASC, MDIFW, and FWS, prepare a plan to release these minimum flows to the bypassed reach and file it with the Commission for approval at least 90 days before any the start of any activity. 79 Flow and water level monitoring plans ( both projects)

These plans would require MPI to install, operate and maintain streamflow and water level monitoring equipment necessary to monitor and record flows and water levels at the projects. Such monitoring would ensure compliance with the water levels and flows recorded in the settlement agreement, and we find that this assurance is worth the annual cost of $ 703 at the Anson Project and $ 649 at the Abenaki Project. We recommend that MPI, in consultation with MDEP, MDMR, MASC, MDIFW, and FWS, prepare a plan to install monitoring equipment to monitor and record flows and water levels at the Anson Project and a plan to install monitoring equipment at the Abenaki Project. We further recommend that recorded data be sent to the consulted agencies.

Fish passage ( both projects)

The settlement agreement contains provisions for permanent upstream passage for and interim and permanent downstream passage for American eel at an annual cost of $ 17,928 at the Anson Project and $ 18,942 at the Abenaki Project. Additionally, the agreement calls for permanent upstream and downstream passage facilities for Atlantic salmon, estimated to cost $ 78,591 annually for the Anson Project and $ 82,930 annually for the Abenaki Project. These costs include effectiveness testing of the all fish passage facilities after construction. Transport and attraction flows associated with upstream and downstream facilities for American eel would total $ 6,012 annually at the Anson Project and $ 9,770 annually at the Abenaki Project in value of lost generation. For Atlantic salmon, transport and attraction flows for upstream and downstream passage would total $ 208,000 at the Anson Project and $ 128,980 at the Abenaki Project.

Declines have been recorded in these important species and fisheries resource agencies are making basin wide efforts to protect them. The facilities at these projects would be part of a continuum of facilities on the Kennebec mainstem that would enable eel and salmon to reach their respective habitats in the tributaries and upper basin. Therefore, these facilities are a necessary part of the restoration efforts. Without passage facilities and their associated transport and attraction flows and effectiveness criteria, Atlantic salmon could not reach upstream habitat and American eel could continue to move upstream at numbers less than desirable to maintain a healthy commercial fishery.

Therefore, we determine that the passages, related flows, and effectiveness testing necessary to protecting and enhancing American eel and Atlantic salmon are worth the expense of these measures. We recommend that MPI, in consultation with the MDMR, MASC, MDIFW, and FWS, prepare a final design plan and submit it to the Commission for approval at least 180 days prior to any ground disturbing activities related to the installation of any fish passage facility. We recommend that MPI, in consultation with 80 MDMR, MASC, MDIFW, and FWS, prepare a plan to test the effectiveness of any installed fish passage facility and file it with the Commission within 90 days of the completion of the installation of the facility.

Escrow account to fund restoration and stocking of Atlantic Salmon ( both projects)

Under the settlement agreement, MPI would contribute funding, in installments of $ 135,000 in 2006 and $ 150,000 in 2010, to the Atlantic Salmon and Aquatic Riverine Habitat Restoration Fund for each project ($ 270,000 total in 2006 and $ 300,000 total in 2010). The fund would: ( 1) support Atlantic salmon habitat restoration and/ or enhancement activities in the watershed above Weston dam; ( 2) cover costs associated with rearing and/ or acquiring Atlantic salmon smolts ( or other juvenile salmon life stages) for stocking in the watershed above Weston dam; and ( 3) provide funding for interim fish passage for adult Atlantic salmon from the Lockwood dam ( or other lower Kennebec River dam facility) to spawning areas in the watershed above the Weston dam. The fund will be administered by a committee composed of MPI, MASC, and FWS.

If the trigger number of 226 Atlantic salmon have not been captured in the lower Kennebec River and released above Weston dam in a single season 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 in subsequent years of the new license term, to the Atlantic Salmon and Aquatic Riverine Habitat Restoration Fund. MPI would provide such funding until either: ( 1) permanent upstream passage facilities are built; or ( 2) until the restoration program for Atlantic salmon on the Kennebec River is no longer active.

MPI also proposes to contribute funding for Atlantic salmon stocking to an interest bearing escrow account in the form of a single $ 50,000 payment after license issuance, and subsequent annual payments of $ 5,000 for 12 years to aid in hatching or purchasing of Atlantic salmon eggs or procurement of fry for stocking. If construction of Atlantic salmon hatching facilities is not substantially underway by 2010, the escrow fund, plus any annual funding and accrued interest shall be deposited in the Atlantic Salmon and Aquatic Riverine Habitat Fund.

The funding proposed by MPI, consistent with the settlement agreement, would provide enhancements for Atlantic salmon through MASC's Atlantic salmon restoration program, expand the Atlantic salmon habitat inventory program, and provide resources for stocking and monitoring of Atlantic salmon in the area of the projects. We find that the proposed funding is worth the annual cost of $ 18,627 and $ 20,997 to the Anson and Abenaki Projects, respectively. Therefore, we recommend that MPI fund the Atlantic Salmon and Aquatic Riverine Habitat Restoration Fund and establish the escrow account 81 to fund stocking and monitoring efforts as proposed. We further recommend that MPI file, for Commission approval, records to establish funding compliance and annual reports on the status of the funds.

Wetlands monitoring ( Anson impoundment)

Under the settlement agreement, MPI would monitor wetlands at the Anson impoundment 5 years from the effective date of a new license for the Anson Project. Because this monitoring could identify and effects from the MPI's proposed new fluctuation regime at the project, we find that it would be worth an annual cost of $ 928. Therefore, we recommend that MPI, in consultation with MDIFW, FWS, and COE, prepare a plan to conduct a wetlands monitoring survey for the Anson impoundment and file it with the Commission for approval at least 90 days prior to the start of the wetland monitoring survey for the Anson impoundment.

Construct and maintain recreation facilities ( both projects)

Four new or enhanced recreation facilities for the Anson Project are included in the settlement agreement: ( 1) a boat launch/ drift boat take out with parking facilities at the upstream end of the Anson impoundment ( Madison Street boat launch); ( 2) a primitive campsite on Weston Island; ( 3) enhancements at the town of Madison boat launch and expansion of the existing leased area to include entire park development; and ( 4) a canoe portage take out at the railroad trestle, including, canoe carriers as needed improve canoe and kayak access. The estimated annual cost for work needed at the four facilities totals $ 18,419, and monitoring the facilities at the Anson Project every 6 years for the term of the license would cost $ 245 annually.

The settlement agreement includes three new recreation facilities in the Abenaki Project area and two related site improvements, all located on the west shore below the Abenaki dam: ( 1) a canoe/ kayak car top put in located at the upstream end of the whitewater stretch; ( 2) a small trailered boat put in, with a parking area, located downstream of the canoe/ kayak put in; ( 3) a small trailered boat take out about one half mile further downstream near the end of the whitewater stretch; ( 4) an access road sufficient for automobiles with small trailers to connect the three boat access sites listed above and ( 5) a fence along the access road as necessary to limit access from the road to the land leased by the Rod and Gun Club. These three recreation facilities would cost an estimated $ 6,935 annually. The related road and fencing could cost an additional $ 4,074 annually and monitoring the sites would cost $ 245.

The recreation facilities would improve and expand recreational opportunities in the Anson Project area for boating, angling, picnicking, hiking, camping, canoeing and 82 kayaking. At the Abenaki Project area, recreation would be improved and expanded for boating, angling, canoeing, and kayaking. These facilities would provide improved access in the lower Anson Project and the Abenaki Project in areas that the mill properties have traditionally limited access. We find that the improved opportunities and access for recreation at the projects are worth their cost. Therefore, we recommend that MPI, in consultation with MDIFW, FWS, Maine Department of Conservation, Kennebec Valley Chapter of Trout Unlimited, towns of Anson and Madison, Kennebec Valley Trails, and Appalachian Mountain Club, prepare a plan for the implementation of the Recreation Plan, including final designs, included as Appendix B of the settlement agreement and file it with the Commission for approval within 14 to 38 months, as specified in the recreation plan, of the effective dates of new licenses for the projects.

Shoreland Buffer Management Plan ( both projects)

Under the settlement agreement MPI would execute a SBMP which would result in the granting of conservation easements on about 279 acres of MPI owned shorelands and islands in the Anson Project area to an appropriate conservation organization as a cost of about $ 1,407 annually , and about 54 acres in the Abenaki Project area at an estimated annual cost of $ 1,407.

The conservation easements, as specified in the settlement agreement, would prohibit future development of these lands. The levelized annual value the land lost to development at the Anson Project is $ 19,515, and at the Abenaki Project is $ 5,914.

Most of the shoreland in the Anson Project area is undeveloped agricultural or forestland. Several botanical species that are listed as " special concern species" by the State of Maine occur in project shorelands, and one unique floodplain wetland community occurs in the vicinity of the islands in the upper impoundment. The conservation easements that would be granted under the SBMP would be concentrated in functionally valuable and/ or sensitive habitats such as islands, floodplains, and wetlands that include areas of unique habitats with scenic value. This would provide protections and enhancements to wetlands, riparian wildlife habitats, botanical species, and aesthetic resources in the project area.

Much of the shoreland along the Abenaki Project impoundment is developed. However, the area downstream of the dam is relatively undeveloped and borders a unique free flowing stretch of river. The conservation easements that would be granted under the SBMP would be concentrated in this area where a series of rapids provides scenic views and undeveloped shoreline offers shoreline fishing opportunities. This would benefit aesthetic resources in the Abenaki Project area and informal fishing access on the east bank below the Abenaki powerhouse would be preserved. 83 In addition, all lands included in the buffer zone would be added to the projects' boundaries, thereby providing additional protection under the new license.

We find that the protection afforded to terrestrial, recreation, and aesthetics by the conservation easements would be worth the cost at both projects. Therefore, we recommend that MPI, in consultation with MDIFW, FWS, Cain Department of Conservation, Maine State Planning Office, towns of Anson and Madison, Kennebec Valley Trails, and Appalachian Mountain Club, prepare a plan to implement the SBMP, included as Appendix A in the settlement agreement, and file it with the Commission for approval within 6 months of the effective date for any new licenses issued for the Anson and Abenaki Projects.

Historic Properties Management Plan ( both projects)

Under the settlement agreement, MPI would prepare and execute a HPMP to ensure long term protection of historic and archaeological resources in the area of the projects and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The estimated annual cost of implementation for the Anson Project is $ 1,407 and for the Abenaki Project is $ 1,407. We find that the protection of historic and archaeological resources in the area and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act are worth the cost and recommend that MPI prepare an HPMP and submit it to the Commission for approval prior to implementation.

Donation of archaeological site ( Abenaki Project)

Under the settlement agreement, MPI would donate the MPI owned portion of the Old Point Mission Site, also known at the Father Rasle/ Pines site, to the Archaeological Conservancy. The land, 21 acre parcel currently within the Abenaki Project boundary would be removed from the boundary and from MPI's ownership; however, a condition of the donation would require the conservancy to maintain recreational access for existing uses. The annual cost of this donation, including a one time endowment of $ 5,000 to maintain the land, would be $ 628. The levelized annual value of the land lost to MPI would be $ 7,510.

Property transfer and legal costs would be funded through the Maine Historic Preservation Council and the Conservancy.

Donation would result in permanent protection of this National Register Site. Further, donation of the site and funding to the Conservancy and requiring the Conservancy to maintain existing recreational access represents an economical means of balancing recreational and cultural resource needs. Removal of this recreation site from 84 the project boundary would have no adverse effects because access for existing uses would be maintained and the extensive recreation facility enhancements proposed elsewhere in the project areas would adequately provide for future access needs. We find that donation of this site would be worth the cost, and therefore, we recommend that MPI file proof of donation of land and $ 5,000 and a revised Exhibit G with the Commission.

Inflatable flashboard, dam resurfacing, minimum flow gate, and new turbine at the Abenaki Project The settlement agreement provides that MPI install an inflatable flashboard system to replace the existing wooden flashboards on the Abenaki dam, and install a gate to release minimum flows to the Abenaki bypassed reach. Further, MPI would resurface the dam concurrently with the work at the dam. The estimated annual cost of these improvements would be $ 162,941.

The inflatable flashboard system would not appreciably increase station generation, but it would allow greater control over Abenaki impoundment fluctuations, reducing erosion and protecting riparian habitats; eliminate flashboard outage periods; and eliminate safety issues related to manual flashboard replacement. The new minimum flow gate would provide a reliable means of delivering required minimum flows to the bypassed reach. Dam resurfacing would improve the condition of the dam. Therefore, we find that these improvements are worth their cost and recommend that MPI prepare plans and schedules to install the inflatable flashboard system, install a minimum flow gate, and resurface the Abenaki dam, and file them with the Commission for approval at least 180 days prior to the start of any work related to these improvements.

MPI's proposal to install a 2.94 MW turbine/ generator unit at the Abenaki powerhouse would benefit developmental resources and offset the costs of environmental measures associated with relicensing both projects. We recommend that MPI file annual reports starting in 2008, as proposed, regarding its plans for the installation of the new unit. We further recommend that MPI prepare a plan to carry out the installation and submit it to the Commission at least 180 days prior to the start of installation.

VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES Under the provisions of Section 10( j) of the FPA, each hydroelectric license issued by the Commission shall include conditions based on recommendations provided by federal and state fish and wildlife agencies. These recommendations are submitted pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and are intended for the protection, mitigation, and enhancement of such resources affected by the project. 21 Bureau of Parks and Recreation, 1983, Maine Department of Conservation, Maine State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan: Assessment and Policy Plan, V. 1., December 1993; Maine Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission, 1984, Strategic Plan for Management of Atlantic Salmon in the State of Maine, Augusta, Maine, July 1984, with appendices; Maine Department of Conservation, 1982. Maine Rivers Study Final Report, Augusta, Maine, May 1982; Maine State Planning Office, 1987, State of Maine Comprehensive Rivers Management Plan, V. 1 3, Augusta, Maine, May 1987; MSPO, 1992, Maine Comprehensive Rivers Management Plan, V. 4, Augusta, Maine, December 1992; MSPO, 1993, Kennebec River Resource Management Plan, Augusta, Maine, February 1993; New England Division of Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE), 1985, Hydrology of Floods  Kennebec River Basin, Maine, Department of the Army, Waltham, Massachusetts, October 1985, with appendices; USACE, 1988, Hydrology of Floods  Kennebec River Basin, Maine, Part II, Department of the Army, Waltham, Massachusetts, May 1988, with appendices; USACE, 1989, Hydrology of Floods  Kennebec River Basin, Maine reconnaissance report), Department of the Army, Waltham, Massachusetts, March 1989, Two volumes; United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( FWS), Canadian Wildlife Service, 1986, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Department of Interior, May 1986; FWS, 1989, Final Environmental Impact Statement  Atlantic Salmon Restoration in New England, 1989  2021, Department of Interior, Newton Corner, Massachusetts, May 1989, with appendices; FWS, Undated, Fisheries USA: The Recreational Fisheries Policy of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC; National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS), Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar)  Amendment 1 to the New England Fishery Management Council's ( NEFMC) Fish Management Plan ( FMP) on Atlantic salmon ( March 1988), October 1998; NMFS, 1998; Final Amendment # 11 to the Northeast Multi species Fishery Management Plan; Amendment # 9 to the Atlantic Sea Scallop FMP; Amendment # 1 to the Monkfish FMP; Amendment # 1 to the Atlantic Salmon FMP; and Components of the Proposed Atlantic Herring FMP for Essential Fish Habitat, V. 1, October 7, 1998; NMFS, 2000, Fishery Management Report No. 36 of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission: Interstate FMP for American Eel ( Anguilla rostrata), Prepared by the American Eel Plan Development Team, April 2000; National Park Service, 1982, The Nationwide Rivers Inventory. Department of Interior, Washington, DC, January 1982.

85 No federal or state resource agencies filed any 10( j) recommendations for the Anson or Abenaki Project.

IX. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Section 10( a) ( 2) of the FPA requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with federal and state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, and conserving waterways affected by the project. Under section 10( a)( 2), federal and state agencies filed sixteen plans are relevant to the Anson and Abenaki Projects. We reviewed these plans and found that the projects as proposed are consistent with these comprehensive plans. 21 86 X. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT We've prepared this environmental assessment for the Anson and Abenaki Projects pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

With our recommended measures the projects would operate as ROR, minimum flows would be released to the Abenaki bypassed reach, continuous minimum flows would be released downstream of both projects, water level and streamflow monitoring devices would be installed at both projects, upstream and downstream passage for American eel and Atlantic salmon at both project would be provided, restoration for Atlantic salmon would be funded by both projects, new recreation facilities would be constructed at both projects, and cultural resources and shorelands would be protected at both projects.

Based on our analysis, issuance of new licenses for the Anson and Abenaki Projects, with our recommended environmental measures would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.

XI. LITERATURE CITED Anderson, R. O., and R. M. Neumann. 1996. Length, weight, and associated structural indices. Pages 447 482 in B. R. Murphy and D. W. Willis, editors. Fisheries techniques, 2nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.

Bailey, R. G. 1979. Ecoregions of the United States. United States Department of Agriculture. Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.

Bormann, R. E. 1982. Agricultural disturbance and forest recovery. Yale University. Ph. D Thesis. 244 pp.

Caldwell, D. W. 1998. Roadside geology of Maine. Mountain Press Publishing, Missoula, Montana. 317 pp.

Cowie, Ellen. 2000. Archeological Phase 0 Study and Phase I Survey of the Abenaki Project ( FERC No. 2364), Somerset County Maine. University of Maine at Farmington Archeology Research Center, Farmington, Maine.

DeGraff, R. M., and D. D. Rudis. 1986. New England wildlife: habitat, natural history, and distribution. The University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA. 1986. 87 DeGraaf, Richard. 1992. New England Wildlife: habitat, natural history, and distribution. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, U. S. Forest Service.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC). 2001. Revised List of Comprehensive Plans, June 2001. FERC office of Energy Projects, Washington, D. C.

_____ 1997. Final environmental impact statement. Kennebec River Basin, Maine. Washington, DC.

Friends of the Kennebec River. 2000. http:// www. gwi. net/% 7Efks/ ksalmon. html.

Kennebec Hydro Developers Group ( KHDG). 1998. Agreement between members of the Kennebec Hydro Developers Group, The Kennebec Coalition, The National Marine Fisheries Service, The State of Maine, and The US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Kennebec Valley Council of Governments ( KVCOG). 1994. Overall economic development program, 1994 update, Kennebec Valley District. KVCOG, Winslow, Maine.

Kleinschmidt Associates ( Kleinschmidt). 2000a. Existing water quality report. Pittsfield, Maine.

_____ 2000b. Existing fisheries surveys. Kleinschmidt, Pittsfield, Maine.

_____ 2001a. Fish passage and protection alternatives assessment and plan. Kleinschmidt, Pittsfield, Maine. October 2001.

_____ 2001b. Resource utilization study report. Kleinschmidt, Pittsfield, Maine. November 2001.

_____ 2001c. Cumulative effects analysis. Kleinschmidt, Pittsfield, Maine. November 2001.

_____ 2001d. Upper Anson impoundment habitat assessment. Kleinschmidt, Pittsfield, Maine. November 2001.

_____ 2001e. Abenaki bypass instream flow study. Kleinschmidt, Pittsfield, Maine. November 2001.

Kuchler, A. W. 1966. Potential natural vegetation. United States Department of 88 Agriculture. Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.

Lotic, Inc. 2000. Report of benthic macroinvertebrate communities collected from the Kennebec River within the Anson and Abenaki Projects. Unity, Maine.

Madison Paper Industries ( MPI). 1984. Anson Project Application for Amendment of License for Major Project, Volume I and II.

_____ 1997a. Licensed hydropower development recreation report. Anson Project ( FERC No. 2365). MPI, Madison, Maine.

_____ 1997b. Licensed hydropower development recreation report. Abenaki Project ( FERC No. 2364). MPI, Madison, Maine.

_____ 1999. Anson and Abenaki Projects ( FERC Nos. 2365 and 2364) Initial information package. MPI, Madison, Maine. Sept. 99.

_____ 2002a. Anson Project. Application for New License, Major Project  Existing Dam. Madison Paper Industries, Madison, Maine. April 2002.

_____ 2002b. Abenaki Project. Application for New License, Major Project  Existing Dam. Madison Paper Industries, Madison, Maine. April 2002.

_____ 2002c. Anson and Abenaki Projects, Applicant Prepared Environmental Assessment. Madison Paper Industries, Madison, Maine. April 2002.

Madison Planning Board. 1995. Town of Madison comprehensive plan update. Madison Planning Board, Madison, Maine. Jun 95.

Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission ( MASC). 1995. Maine Atlantic Salmon Restoration and Management Plan, 1995 2000. Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission, Bangor, Maine.

_____ 1997. Maine Atlantic Salmon Management Plan with recommendations pertaining to staffing and budget matters. Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission, Bangor, Maine.

Maine Department of Conservation. 1993. Maine State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan: Assessment and Policy Plan. Volume 1. Maine. December 1993. 193 pp. 89 Maine Department of Environmental Protection ( MDEP. 1996a. State of Maine 1996 Water quality assessment. MDEP, Augusta, Maine.

_____ 1996b. 1994 Surface Water Ambient Toxics Monitoring Program, Technical Report. MDEP, Augusta, Maine.

_____ 1997. 1995 Surface water Ambient Toxics Monitoring Program, Technical Report. MDEP. Augusta, Maine.

_____ 1998. Kennebec River Data Report, 1997 Survey. MDEP, Augusta, Maine.

_____ 1999a. Kennebec River Data Report, 1998 Survey. MDEP, Augusta, Maine.

_____ 1999b. 1996 Surface Water Ambient Toxics Monitoring Program, Technical Report. MDEP, Augusta, Maine.

_____ 1999c. Biomonitoring retrospect, fifteen year summary for Maine rivers and streams. MDEP, Augusta, Maine.

_____ 2000a. Kennebec River Modeling Report, Final, April 2000. MDEP, Augusta, Maine.

_____ 2000b. 1997 Surface Water Ambient Toxics Monitoring Program, Technical Report. MDEP, Augusta, Maine.

_____ 2000c. 1998 Surface Water Ambient Toxics Monitoring Program, Technical Report. MDEP. Augusta, Maine.

_____ 2000d. Dioxin Monitoring Program, State of Maine, 1999. MDEP, Augusta, Maine.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game ( MDIFG). 1969. Fishery Management in the Kennebec River. MDIFG, Augusta, Maine.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife ( MDIFW). 1999. Kennebec River Fishery Management ( N. Anson to Sandy River Confluence). Prepared by Dave Boucher. Augusta, Maine.

Maine Department of Marine Resources ( MDMR). 1988. Anadromous fisheries in the Kennebec River estuary. MDMR, Augusta, Maine. 90 _____ 1996. The Maine eel and elver fishery. MDMR, Augusta, Maine.

North American Electric Reliability Council ( NERC). 2000. Reliability assessment 2000 2009. NERC, Princeton, New Jersey.

Maine Fish Commission ( MFC). 1867. Reports of the commissioners of fisheries of the State of Maine. Owen & Nash. Augusta, Maine.

_____ 1868. Reports of the commissioners of fisheries of the State of Maine. Owen & Nash, Augusta, Maine.

Maine Natural Areas Program ( MNAP). 1996. Biological diversity in Maine. Department of Conservation, Augusta, Maine. 80 pp.

Raleigh, R. F. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: brook trout. U. S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/ OBS 82/ 10.24. 42 pp.

Raleigh, R. F., T. Hickman, R. C. Solomon, and P. C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability information: rainbow trout. U. S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/ OBS 82/ 10.60. 64 pp.

Raleigh, R. F., L. D. Zuckerman, and P. C. Nelson. 1986. Habitat suitability index models and instream flow suitability curves: brown trout, revised. U. S. Dept. Int., Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS/ OBS 82/ 10.124. 65 pp.

Roberts, Janet. 2001a. Anson Project National Register Nomination Form. Brunswick, Maine.

_____ 2001b. Abenaki Project National Register Nomination Form. Brunswick, Maine.

Starks Planning Board. 1989. Starks Comprehensive Plan. Prepared by Starks Planning Board with North Kennebec Regional Planning Commission. Winslow, Maine. 63+ pp.

Town of Anson ( Anson). 1992 . Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. Town of Anson, Anson, Maine.

______. 1998. Comprehensive Plan. Town of Anson, Anson, Maine Town of Madison ( Madison). 1992. Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. Town of Madison, Madison, Maine. 91 United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries ( CFF). 1874. On the Salmon of Maine. A. C. Hamlin, author. In: Commissioner's Report for United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries 1872/ 73  1874/ 75. pp. 338 356.

_____ 1887. The River Fisheries of Maine. In: The Fisheries and Fishery Industries of the United States. C. G. Atkins, author, and G. B. Good, ed. Section V, Volume I. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 673 728 pp.

United States Department of Agriculture ( USDA). 1972. Somerset County Soil Survey.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( FWS). 1981. Interim aquatic base flow policy. FWS, Region 5, Newton Corners, MA.

_____ 1990. National wetlands inventory maps. Maps for the Anson and Madison Area from Regional Director Region V. FWS, Newton Corner, MA.

Woodlot Alternatives ( Woodlot). 2001. Anson and Abenaki Projects ( FERC Nos. 2365 and 2364). Terrestrial Resources Field Studies. December, 2000. Topsham, Maine.

XII. LIST OF PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS Nan Allen NEPA Coordinator, Water Resources, Fisheries Resources, Terrestrial Resources, and Threatened and Endangered Species ( Fisheries Biologist, M. S. Biology)

Charles Hall  Need for Power and Developmental Analysis ( Civil Engineer; B. S., Geology; Master of Engineering, Civil)

Jean Potvin  Land Use, Recreation Resources, and Cultural Resources ( Environmental Protection Specialist, B. S. Recreation and Parks Management)