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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commission
staff
recommend
the
following
measures:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

19
No
intervenors
opposed
relicensing
the
Anson
or
Abenaki
Project.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The
recreation
enhancements
are
discussed
in
the
Recreation
Resources
section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)
