Report of Contact

RONALD A. KREISMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW 25 PAGE STREET HALLOWELL, MAINE 04347-1418 (207) 626 - 0248 email: [email protected]

September 12, 2009

Fred Ayer, Executive Director Low Impact Hydropower Institute 34 Providence Street Portland, Maine 04103

RE: RE-CERTIFICATION REVIEW – RAQUETTE RIVER PROJECTS

Dear Fred,

Attached is my report and recommendation for the requested re-certification of the Raquette River Projects (Upper, Middle, Lower). The format for my report involves utilizing LIHI’s certification review document done for the original certifications (in 2004), and then updating the analysis and contact information, presented all in one document. In this way, you and your board can see what has changed and what has remained the same, with all the information contained in one place.

Please be aware that my three voice messages throughout August to NYDEC’s water quality person, Mark Woythal, were never returned, but I do not believe that any information that he might possess would be determinative based on the record I have reviewed and assembled, and my discussion with other contacts at NYDEC.

Please contact me with any questions that you might have.

Sincerely,

Ronald A. Kreisman

Low Impact Hydropower Institute Certification Review

Raquette River Projects Carry Falls Project FERC #2060 Upper Raquette River Project FERC # 2084 Middle Raquette River Project FERC # 2320 Lower Raquette River Project FERC # 2330

Introduction:

 Application for Re-Certification: filed by letter dated July 2, 2009 by Brookfield Renewable Power Inc.(Brookfield) on behalf of Erie Boulevard Hydropower, L.P., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Brookfield. Brookfield acquired the project from Reliant Energy.

An application for Low Impact Hydro Certification was filed with the Low Impact Hydro Institute (LIHI) in June 2004 by Erie Boulevard Hydropower, LP (Reliant Energy), for four FERC-licensed hydropower projects on the Raquette River in St. Lawrence County in northern New York. The application includes the following projects, which include a total of 14 different developments over the length of the Raquette River.1

Project/Development River Mile Generation (MW) Dam Crest Elevation Carry Falls Project 68 0 MW = storage only 1385 ft Upper Raquette River Project 102.4 Mw Stark 66 23,872 kW 1355 ft Blake 62 13,913 kW 1250.5 ft Rainbow Falls 56 22,828 kW 1181.5 ft Five Falls 54 22,828 kW 1077.0 ft South Colton 52 18,948 kW 973.5 ft Middle Raquette River Project 49.4 MW Higley 47 7,300 kW 880.6 ft Colton 45 30,101 kW 835.0 ft Hannawa 39 7,200 kW 548.5 ft Sugar Island 38 4,800 kW 470.0 ft Lower Raquette River Project 12.0 MW Norwood 28 2,000 kW 326.1 ft

1 The application does not include the Piercefield Project upstream of Carry Falls, which is also owned by Erie. Several smaller exempt projects on the Raquette are not included in this application (Yaleville, Unionville, Hewwittville, Sissonville). The Potsdam Project (FERC #2869), owned by the Village of Potsdam, is not included.

East Norfolk 23 3,500 kW 287.9 ft Norfolk 22 4,500 kW 254.1 ft Raymondville 20 2,000 kW 209.6 ft

A copy of the application was posted on the LIHI website July 9, 2004, with a public comment period ending September 9, 2004. No comments were received during that period.

The applicant’s projects were previously owned by the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation before later acquisition by Reliant Energy through its Erie Boulevard Hydropower, LP affiliate. In 1992, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) had denied without prejudice Niagara Mohawk’s application for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Niagara Mohawk then appealed the certification, and settlement negotiations ensued to resolve issues pertaining to issuance of the certification and the new license. The original FERC license expired in 1993 and the project operated under an annual license in the interim period until the settlement negotiations were completed and the new license was issued. FERC issued a draft environmental assessment (EA) in 1996, and following comments by several parties, a final EA was issued on June 30, 2000, noting that the water quality certification appeal was ongoing. The licenses were issued following an Offer of Settlement signed in April 1998 (version dated March 13, 1998) by Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation and sixteen other parties2. New FERC licenses were issued for the four Raquette Projects on February 13, 2002.

A description of each development and each project is included in Attachment A.

 Re-certification update on project location, site characteristics, and general post- certification licensing history: Subsequent to certification, the four Raquette River projects were purchased by Brookfield from Reliant. No revisions or amendments to the settlement, FERC license, or the water quality certification have occurred for the Carry Falls, Upper and Middle Projects.

For the Lower Project, in June 2006 Brookfield applied for, and in December was granted, a license amendment in which Brookfield was permitted to (1) increase the installed capacity at each of the four locations of the Lower Project (i.e., Norwood, East Norfolk, Norfolk and Raymondville) by replacing the existing turbines with variable-pitch Kaplan turbines and (2) change the mode of operation at these four sites from store- and-release to run-of-river. In addition, Brookfield agreed to (1) accelerate installation of one-inch trash racks for downstream migration and upstream eel passage at each of the four projects earlier than the dates agreed to in the comprehensive settlement and ordered by FERC upon license renewal, and (2) implement a revised stream flow and water level monitoring plan to ensure that the new run-of-river mode would not result in insufficient flow downstream of the projects, particularly below the Raymondville project,

2 Adirondack Council, Adirondack Mountain Club (ADK), Adirondack Park Agency, American Canoe Association, American Rivers, American Whitewater, Association for the Preservation of the Adirondacks, Jordan Club, National Audubon Society, New York Rivers United, New York State Conservation Council, New York State Department of Conservation, North Country Raquette River Advocates, St. Lawrence County, US Fish & Wildlife Service, US National Park Service.

which is the first dam on the Raquette upriver from the St. Lawrence, approximately 18 miles from its confluence.

A careful review by LIHI of FERC filings and issuances subsequent to certification, plus conversations with Brookfield and state and federal natural resource agency personnel, reveals:

(1) very occasional exceedances of flow requirements have occurred, but no violations have been found;

(2) apparent compliance with all other state and federal license conditions, including schedules for installation of downstream and upstream fish passage, EXCEPT FOR

(3) one meaningful compliance issue discovered by LIHI, in Brookfield’s failure to comply with a FERC license requirement (December 2006) emerging from Brookfield’s license amendment request, with the same requirement contained in its new, October 2006 New York state water quality certification. Brookfield was required to file, by August 7, 2007, a revised stream flow and water level monitoring plan following consultation with NYDEC and USFWS. On August 2, 2007, Brookfield requested an extension of time until September 28, 2007 to submit the revised plan, to try to “satisfactorily resolve” critical comments on the plan it had received from NYDEC. FERC never responded in writing to the request, and Brookfield has never filed a plan. The only other communication on this matter in the FERC public record is a February 14, 2008 email from NYDEC reminding FERC that DEC “is still waiting” for the plan. Further discussion of this issue is contained in attached contact reports, describing discussions on this matter with Brookfield, NYDEC, and USFWS.

LIHI has received no correspondence in the five years since certification from either the licensee or third parties stating that any violations or non-compliance with these documents has occurred.

 Re-certification update on project structures and operations. No changes have taken place in project structures or operations other than those noted above regarding the Lower project as well as, for all the projects, as required by the FERC license and/or settlement (e.g., minimum flows, fishways for eels, etc.). Apparently, the run-of-river operation mode has not yet been implemented on the Lower projects.

Environmental Context

The Raquette River begins in the Adirondack highlands at Blue Mountain Lake, Raquette Lake and Long Lake, then flows northwest past Potsdam to Massena, NY before emptying into the St. Lawrence River/Seaway at the St. Regis Indian Reservation in Franklin County. The St. Lawrence River flows northeastward into the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

The projects are in a largely rural, forested area that is dependent on forestry, some agriculture (in the lower valley), wood products, and tourism. The Village of Potsdam, midway along the Raquette River, is home of Clarkson University and other colleges.

The current hydropower dams were built in the 1930s. Historically, the river has been developed for water power for sawmills, paper mills, tanneries, and other industry.

The Adirondack Park boundary runs through the Upper Raquette Project. Carry Falls, Stark, Blake, and Rainbow are entirely within the Park boundary, while part of Five Falls is within the Park.

The area experiences cold, snowy winters and short summers. Annual precipitation is about 40 inches. As the river flows down the north face of the Adirondacks, it transitions from coldwater habitat above the applicant projects, to a coolwater aquatic community/fishery as the river reaches the lower gradients. Water quality is considered good to excellent, although acid deposition causes pH to be elevated in the Adirondacks where buffering is low. The river ecosystem is generally low in nutrients and fine sediments, so total productivity is relatively low.

General Description of the Raquette River Project Settlement Agreement and FERC Orders

Key issues in the Settlement Agreement include  providing minimum flows in bypass reaches,  providing a minimum baseflow in the river below Raymondville,  providing flows for fish spawning and downstream passage, and  reducing the reservoir drawdowns particularly at Carry Falls and Stark.

The drawdown at Carry Falls was reduced from 53 feet to 30 feet with implementation of a new guide curve, and the drawdown at Stark was reduced from 23 feet to 1 foot or less. The settlement limits drawdowns in other reservoirs of only a half foot to two feet.

Also, the settlement includes requirements for:  constructing portage facilities and trails at many of the developements,  maintaining and improving recreation access,  transferring certain lands for recreational access into the project boundary,  implementing scheduled whitewater releases for boating primarily in the Colton bypass reach, and also at Hannawa and Sugar Island.  establishing a Raquette River Advisory Committee (RRAC) to advise and provide comments on the recreation plan for the projects, and to approve expenditure of a $5000 annual fund for mitigation and enhancement projects.

The settlement agreement also requires a streamflow monitoring plan for flow and water level monitoring, including gages visible to the public.

In a settlement provision that remained separate from the FERC licensing and this Low Impact Hydropower application, Niagara Mohawk agreed to convey over 12,000 acres to New York State.

On June 11, 2002, the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation issued Water Quality Certifications for the Lower and Middle Raquette Projects, and also for the Upper Raquette and Carry Falls Projects. The WQCs included by reference the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

On February 13, 2002, FERC issued an order accepting the Settlement Agreement and four orders containing new license provisions for the four subject Projects, with a common expiration date of December 21, 2033.

 Re-certification update on key environmental and recreational issues. Based on discussions with contacts and a review of the post-licensing FERC record, no new key environmental or recreational issues (e.g., new species listed under ESA) have emerged since the four Raquette projects received LIHI certification in 2004 other than Brookfield’s failure to propose, and therefore the failure to have a final approved new flow and water level monitoring plan for the Lower projects. It should be noted that the failure to have this plan has not caused environmental problems, since LIHI has been informed by NYDEC that run-of-river operations have apparently not commenced below Raymondville, the area that NYDEC is concerned about if water levels drop too low. Nor have new or different aspects or problems regarding previously-known key issues been raised (e.g., flows that were provided in settlement agreement were inadequate to resolve habitat or recreation release issues).

Issues Resulting from the Certification Review

In interviews conducted by L&WA, the resource agencies and interested parties expressed a consistently positive attitude toward the Settlement Agreement and new FERC License, and satisfaction with Erie’s implementation of the requirements in the Agreement and FERC. With only a few minor delays for reasonable “real life” issues, Erie has reportedly met the timetables established for completing plans, agency coordination, and construction of facility improvements. There appear to be no significant issues that conflict with the Settlement Agreement, the License and the Low Impact Criteria.

 Re-certification update on issues resulting from re-certification review. The positive attitude noted above largely continued from the agencies, who felt that particularly the new flow regimes were very positive. Regarding the failure to file and complete the flow and water level monitoring plan, the agencies noted that previous Brookfield personnel let certain things drop, but because run-of-river had not been implemented, it did not rise to the top of the agencies’ too-full plates. Since Brookfield has new personnel overseeing this project, and following correspondence from LIHI inquiring as to this compliance failure, LIHI has been informed that there is a renewed commitment to resolve this matter and that a meeting between Brookfield and NYDEC has been scheduled for Fall 2009.

Public Comment:

There were no public comments received outside of the interview process by the reviewer.

 Re-certification update on public comment. No public comments were received outside of the interview process.

Conclusion:

Based on our review of project documents filed by the applicant, and available from FERC, and on the interviews conducted with knowledgeable parties, I conclude that this project meets the current criteria for Low Impact Hydropower Certification. I therefore recommend certification.

 Re-certification conclusion and recommendation: Decision on re-certification should be held in abeyance until a flow and water level monitoring plan for the Lower projects has been agreed upon between Brookfield, NYDEC and USFWS, and approved by FERC. Certification prior to this occurring may appear to reward Brookfield for its failure to comply with a license condition. Once this issue is satisfactorily resolved, re- certification is recommended.

LIHI might suggest to Brookfield that once these actions have occurred that Brookfield send written documentation showing as much to LIHI, which would be LIHI’s trigger for the re-certification process to re-start and reach conclusion.

Independent Re-Certification Reviewer:

Ronald A. Kreisman, Esq.

Low Impact Certification Criteria:

A. Flows [PASS]

1) Is the Facility in Compliance with Resource Agency Recommendations issued after December 31, 1986 regarding flow conditions for fish and wildlife protection, mitigation and enhancement (including in-stream flows, ramping and peaking rate conditions, and seasonal and episodic instream flow variations) for both the reach below the tailrace and all bypassed reaches?

YES = Pass, Go to B N/A = Go to A2 NO = Fail

Yes. PASS

The pertinent resource agency recommendations were provided in the form of the Settlement Agreement and were incorporated into both the state’s 401 Water Quality Certifications (WQC), dated June 11, 1998, and the FERC Orders, dated February 13, 2002. The required flows are being implemented according to the schedule in the WQC and Settlement Agreement. All required plans were filed and approved by FERC after appropriate consultation with resource agencies

Minimum flows requirements are as follows (see FERC Orders for more details):

Project/Development Schedule Required Flows Date Carry Falls Project NA No bypass reach Upper Raquette River Project Stark 2003 45 cfs / 90 cfs Blake 2003 55 cfs; 120 cfs for walleye spawning season Rainbow Falls 2005 20 cfs Five Falls 2004 50 cfs; 145 cfs for walleye spawning season South Colton 2004 20 cfs/ 60 cfs Middle Raquette River Project Higley None required in bypass; 20 cfs fish movement Colton 2002 Seasonal schedule: 100/240/200/125/90 cfs Hannawa 2002 50/95/65 cfs Sugar Island 2002 300/400 cfs

Lower Raquette River Project Norwood 2002 No bypass flows required; 20 cfs fish movement East Norfolk 2002 75 cfs Norfolk 2002 55 cfs + 20 cfs Raymondville 2002 No bypass flow required; 20 cfs fish movement

Baseflow requirements below Raymondville: 560 cfs in normal or wet years 290 cfs in dry years

The Settlement Agreement and FERC Order also include requirements for filing and implementing a plan for monitoring headwater and tailwater elevations, base flows and minimum flows. These plans were approved by FERC and are being implemented.

A letter dated August 14, 2003 from David Stillwell of US Fish and Wildlife Service to Reliant Energy indicated that inspections of the flow and fish movement measures undertaken to date on the Raquette developments were satisfactory.

2) Not applicable

3) Not applicable

 Re-certification review regarding flows: With the one exception of the missing revised monitoring and water flow plan noted above, no change. Flows have almost always been in compliance. Problems are promptly reported to FERC, appear to occur only very occasionally, are short-term in nature, and appear to be due to circumstances beyond Brookfield’s control. Correction appears to be prompt. No violations of flow regime has been found by FERC. FWS and NYDEC appear happy with the flows, both downstream and in the controls implemented in the impoundments.

B. Water Quality [PASS]

1) Is the Facility either: a) In Compliance with all conditions issued pursuant to a Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification issued for the Facility after December 31, 1986? OR

L&WA has confirmed, through interviews with NYSDEC, that the Raquette River Project is in compliance with all conditions contained in the Clean Water Act - Section 401 Water Quality Certifications (WQC) issued for the four projects on June 11, 2002. The Section 401

WQC includes and incorporates the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, compliance with the WQC implies compliance with the entire Settlement Agreement, including the provisions that were specifically excluded from the FERC license. We have found no instances to date where the applicant has failed to meet the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

The WQC contains standard provisions related to erosion and sediment control for project maintenance and construction activities. The NYSDEC has confirmed that Erie has properly consulted with the Department when there has been any construction at the projects that triggers 401 certification conditions. The most prominent occurrence was for redevelopment of the Higley development.

There has been no maintenance dredging, and there is none planned. b) In Compliance with the quantitative water quality standards established by the state that support designated uses pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act in the Facility area and in the downstream reach?

YES = Go to B2 NO = Fail

2) Is the Facility area or the downstream reach currently identified by the state as not meeting water quality standards (including narrative and numeric criteria and designated uses) pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act?

YES = Go to B3 NO = Pass

Yes. Carry Falls Reservoir is on the 2002 303(d) list of waterbodies that fail to meet one or more applicable water quality standards.

3) If the answer to question B.2 is yes, has there been a determination that the Facility is not a cause of that violation?

YES = Pass NO = Fail

Yes. PASS

The 2002 NYSDEC 303(d) list indicates that the Carry Falls Reservoir is in non-attainment of water quality standards (categorical: fish consumption) due to mercury contamination from atmospheric deposition. There are no indications that the Raquette Projects contribute to the non-attainment.

 Re-certification review regarding water quality: no change. Atmospheric deposition is the source for all areas of the projects identified in the Section 303(d) listing.

C. Fish Passage and Protection [PASS]

1) Is the Facility in Compliance with Mandatory Fish Passage Prescriptions for upstream and downstream passage of anadromous and catadromous fish issued by Resource Agencies after December 31, 1986?

YES = Go to C5 N/A = Go to C2 NO = Fail

L&WA has confirmed with both the USFWS and the NYSDEC that upstream passage for anadromous or catadromous fish was not a management objective at the time of the Settlement Agreement, and no prescriptions or provisions have been made in the agreement or the FERC licenses. The FERC MPEA states at page 125, “Because there are no anadromous fish species in the reach of the Raquette being considered in this MPEA, anadromous fish passage is not recommended at this time”.

Eels presently get as far upstream as Hannawa Falls without passage structures. There are reports from USFWS and NYSDEC that stray Pacific salmon which were stocked in Lake Ontario are sometimes found below Raymondville. Also, Bill Gordon of NYSDEC mentioned that sturgeon may occur in the lower Raquette River, but that passage is not deemed desirable.

The 2002 Settlement Agreement and the new FERC licenses contain the relevant requirements by Resource Agencies for downstream fish passage in the form of required downstream passage flows, modifications to the structures and streambed in order to make the flows more “fish friendly”, and scheduled installation of 1 inch clear spaced bar trashracks to prevent/reduce entrainment. The 2002 Settlement Agreement supercedes previous prescriptions issues by USDOI in 1999.

Further, the US Departments of Interior and Commerce have also reserved their authority to prescribe fish passage facilities for the Raquette Project, and Article 403 of the FERC license reserves FERC authority to require construction, operation and maintenance of any such prescribed fish passage facilities.

2) Are there historic records of anadromous and/or catadromous fish movement through the Facility area, but anadromous and/or catadromous fish do not presently move through the Facility area (e.g., because passage is blocked at a downstream dam or the fish run is extinct)?

YES = Go to C2a NO = Go to C3

FERC’s Final Multiple Project Environmental Assessment notes that “Up to the turn of the century, … the lower Raquette River shared the fish fauna of the St. Lawrence River (including Atlantic salmon), which were unable to travel upstream past Hannawa Falls.” (pg 104). Our discussions with fisheries biologists at US FWS and NYSDEC indicate that it is not known whether the historic Atlantic salmon populations were sea-run or landlocked. Also, the historic record indicates that Atlantic salmon had disappeared from the Raquette River (in the late 1800s) long before the dams were built (in the 1930s), presumably due to pollution, previous dams (for paper mills, sawmills and other industry), overfishing, and clearcutting in the watershed resulting in higher water temperatures.

a) If the fish are extinct or extirpated from the Facility area or downstream reach, has the Applicant demonstrated that the extinction or extirpation was not due in whole or part to the Facility?

YES = Go to C2b N/A = Go to C2b NO = Fail

N/A. See response to #2 above.

b) If a Resource Agency Recommended adoption of upstream and/or downstream fish passage measures at a specific future date, or when a triggering event occurs (such as completion of passage through a downstream obstruction or the completion of a specified process), has the Facility owner/operator made a legally enforceable commitment to provide such passage?

3) If, since December 31, 1986:

a) Resource Agencies have had the opportunity to issue, and considered issuing, a Mandatory Fish Passage Prescription for upstream and/or downstream passage of anadromous or catadromous fish (including delayed installation as described in C2a above), and

Yes, they did.

b) The Resource Agencies declined to issue a Mandatory Fish Passage Prescription,

The agencies included fish passage conditions in the Settlement Agreement.

c) Was a reason for the Resource Agencies’ declining to issue a Mandatory Fish Passage Prescription one of the following: (1) the technological infeasibility of passage, (2) the absence of habitat upstream of the Facility due at least in part to inundation by the Facility impoundment, or (3) the anadromous or catadromous fish are no longer present in the Facility area and/or downstream reach due in whole or part to the presence of the Facility?

NO = Go to C5 N/A = Go to C4 YES = Fail

See response to C2 above. The lack of anadromous fish in the river is not attributed to the presence of the applicant’s facilities.

L&WA has confirmed with both the USFWS and the NYSDEC that upstream passage for anadromous or catadromous fish was not a management objective at the time of the Settlement Agreement, and no prescriptions or provisions have been made in the settlement agreement or the FERC licenses. The FERC MPEA states at page 125 “Because there are no anadromous fish species in the reach of the Raquette being considered in this MPEA, anadromous fish passage is not recommended at this time”.

Nevertheless, in Article 403 of each FERC license, the Department of Interior has reserved its right to issue fish passage prescriptions in the future in the event circumstances change.

4) Skip.

5) Is the Facility in Compliance with Mandatory Fish Passage Prescriptions for upstream and/or downstream passage of Riverine fish?

Yes. The Settlement Agreement and FERC license requirements for downstream fish passage at all 14 developments are intended to provide for downstream passage of riverine fish, and American eels in the lower river. There are no mandatory prescriptions for the

upstream passage of riverine fish. L&WA has confirmed that Erie is on schedule with implementing the downstream fish passage requirements.

6) Is the Facility in Compliance with Resource Agency Recommendations for Riverine, anadromous and catadromous fish entrainment protection, such as tailrace barriers?

YES = Pass, go to D N/A = Pass, go to D NO = Fail

The Settlement Agreement and FERC License require the phased future installation of 1-inch clear spacing physical barrier (bars or overlay) at the location of the existing trash racks at each development, beginning in 2002 to 2007 in the Lower Raquette; 2007 to 2011 in the Middle Raquette, and 2013 to 2019 in the Upper Raquette. The new one inch trashracks are already installed at Higley, several years ahead of schedule, as a result of the redevelopment construction there. Parties to the settlement commented that the fish protection structures were not viewed by the parties as a high priority, and thus were scheduled for future installation to spread the costs out over time.

 Re-certification review regarding fish passage and protection: For all fish passage that was required by the settlement and by FERC’s December 2006 license amendments for the Lower projects, no change and in full compliance. Further, the FWS that there are no new issues that would require additional fish passage beyond what is required by the settlement.

D. Watershed Protection [PASS]

1) Is the Facility in Compliance with Resource Agency Recommendations, or, if none, with license conditions, regarding protection, mitigation or enhancement of lands inundated by the Facility or otherwise occupied by the Facility, and regarding other watershed protection, mitigation and enhancement activities?

YES and N/A= Pass NO = Fail

A key issue in the Settlement Agreement was to reduce the pond level fluctuations at Carry Falls, Stark, and other project developments to improve habitat, recreational values, and to protect shoreline. Erie has implemented a new “guide curve” for Carry Falls that sets seasonal pond elevation targets and reduces the drawdown from 55 feet to 30 feet. In addition, the drawdown at the Stark impoundment (which backwaters to Carry Falls) was

reduced from as much as 23 feet down to 1 foot or less (due to the reduced drawdown at Carry Falls and the decoupling of the operation of the two reservoirs).

The parties to the settlement negotiation were careful to consider the value of the Carry Falls storage for peaking power and river regulation, and accordingly carefully balanced the multiple resource values of the river in limiting the drawdown to 30 feet. The June 2002 Water Quality Certification provides assurance that the watershed and shoreline resources are protected.

Pond level fluctuations have been reduced at other project impoundments as part of the license terms.

The FERC licenses and WQCs also require erosion and sediment control plans for any new construction, maintenance and management facilities on project lands. According to the FERC licenses, conveyance of land rights for project lands (e.g. utility easements) to other parties also requires standards and protocols for protection, maintenance and enhancement of surrounding lands.

In addition, a provision of the Settlement Agreement provides for adding certain lands associated with recreation access, canoe portages, and recreation trails to be within the project boundary. Further, a provision of the settlement agreement outside of the FERC project boundaries required the previous owner, Niagara Mohawk, to convey 12,000 acres of neighboring lands to the State of New York for permanent protection as part of the Settlement Agreement to mitigate for project impacts.

 Re-certification review regarding watershed protection: See discussion under Flows criteria above regarding successful limitations and controls on pond level fluctuations.

E. Threatened and Endangered Species Protection [PASS]

1) Are threatened or endangered species listed under state or federal Endangered Species Acts present in the Facility area and/or downstream reach?

YES = Go to E2 NO = Pass, go to F

Bald eagle nest sites, including at least one active site, exist near the Carry Falls impoundment.

The yellow lampmussel exists in the vicinity of the Lower and Middle Raquette Projects, and is considered a species of concern/interest by the FWS and NYS DEC.

The FERC MPEA notes that two state-listed species have been documented in the vicinity of the projects: the common loon (a protected wildlife/special concern species), and the spruce grouse (a threatened species).

2) N/A

3) N/A

4) N/A

5) If E.2. and E.3. are not applicable, has the Applicant demonstrated that the Facility and Facility operations do not negatively affect listed species?

The Settlement Agreement, signed by state and federal resource agencies, declares that project facilities and operations consistent with the agreement will have no adverse effect on federal or state listed threatened or endangered species.

Article 407 of the FERC Order Issuing New License for the Carry Falls and Upper Raquette Projects, issued February 13, 2003, required Erie to file a bald eagle protection and management plan that contains measures for implementing any necessary signage to warn users not to disturb nests, and monitoring the results of implemented measures, and reporting to US FWS, NYSDEC and FERC. The required plan was prepared including consultation with NYSDEC and USFWS, and was filed with FERC on April 11, 2003. An Order from FERC dated July 17, 2003 accepted and approved the plan. At this time, the agencies have decided not to mark the nests with warning signs, in order to avoid attracting attention from users which are normally dispersed over a remote area. NYSDEC monitors the nests.

During settlement discussions, US FWS requested that Erie conduct a study of the yellowlampmussel population. In July 2000, Erie conducted surveys following a study plan developed in consultation with US FWS and NYSDEC. The surveys indicated that yellow lampmussel is more abundant in the Raquette River than previously noted, and stable, self- sustaining populations exist where they had not been previously reported. The FERC MPEA concluded that reductions in pond level fluctuations at several project impoundments would improve and increase habitat further for yellow lampmussel, so no further studies or requirements were recommended.

The Settlement Agreement, WQC and FERC licenses require reductions in the pond level fluctuations (including seasonal limits) to enhance fish and wildlife habitat, including habitat for nesting waterfowl. These provisions will benefit the common loon. The spruce grouse is an upland species that is unlikely to be impacted by project operations. The Resource agencies had the opportunity, but did not include specific provisions in the Settlement Agreement regarding loons, or spruce grouse.

 Re-certification review regarding threatened and endangered species: no change. No new species have been listed and no new issues have arisen.

F. Cultural Resource Protection [PASS]

1) If FERC-regulated, is the Facility in Compliance with all requirements regarding Cultural Resource protection, mitigation or enhancement included in the FERC license or exemption?

YES = Pass, go to G N/A = Go to F2 NO = Fail

On February 6, 2002, Erie signed a fully revised “Programmatic Agreement” with FERC, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for the four Raquette River projects, with the St. Regis Tribe and the US Department of Interior as concurring parties. By letter dated February 11, 2002, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation filed with FERC the executed agreement that amended the previous 1996 Programmatic Agreement. On April 14, 2003, Erie submitted its required Historic Property Management Plan to FERC, and has yet to receive a response. Erie reports that it has consulted as necessary with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe on ground disturbing activities.

2) Skip.

 Re-certification review regarding cultural resource protection: no change. No new issues have arisen.

G. Recreation [PASS]

1) If FERC-regulated, is the Facility in Compliance with the recreational access, accommodation (including recreational flow releases) and facilities conditions in its FERC license or exemption?

YES = Go to G3 N/A = Go to G2 NO = Fail

Erie filed a recreation plan in accordance with the License orders and settlement agreement. A Raquette River Advisory Council (RRAC) has convened and has established its bylaws,

and will advise the Project owner on issues related to recreation, and other resource enhancements.

Land & Water Associates has confirmed that the recreation facility improvements required in the FERC license are being completed according to schedule in a timely manner, in consultation with parties to the settlement agreement, including the Adirondack Mountain Club. The parties we contacted expressed satisfaction with Erie’s efforts and progress, and expressed no problems with compliance with the License or Settlement recreation requirements.

The previous project owner, Niagara Mohawk, conducted extensive studies in the pre- application and settlement processes determine the most highly valued whitewater releases. The settlement agreement calls for annual releases, according to an annual whitewater budget, at Colton (the most highly values bypass reach), Sugar Island and/or Hannawa. Releases have been well received by the whitewater boaters.

 Re-certification review regarding recreation: No change. No new issues have arisen.

H. Facilities Recommended for Removal [PASS]

1) Is there a Resource Agency Recommendation for removal of the dam associated with the Facility?

NO = Pass YES = Fail

The Settlement Agreement does not include any condition relating to dam removal of the subject project in whole or part. The Settlement Agreement states that “no signator to this Settlement has, or is, advocating decommissioning of any development of the Raquette River Projects or any of the project facilities during the term of the new licenses for the Raquette River Projects.”

 Re-certification review regarding facilities recommended for removal: No change.

Reports of Contacts [2009 RE-CONTACT STATUS SHOWN BELOW EACH NAME]

Mark Woythal NYSDEC (Albany Office) Attempted to recontact; did not respond to 3 voice messages left over a 4 week period

Bruce Carpenter NY Rivers United Re-contacted, although NY Rivers United no longer in business

Betty Lou Bailey Adirondack Mountain Club Did not re-contact, as (1) no apparent issues of concern to Club have emerged, and (2) Ms. Bailey passed away, and no known successor contact

Steve Patch, Project Biologist US Fish and Wildlife Service Re-contacted

Andrew Fahlund American Rivers Re-contacted

Alice Richardson NYSDEC Re-contacted

Bill Gordon NYSDEC Did not re-contact; no apparent need based on information provided by Alice Richardson

John Omohundro Adirondack Mountain Club Did not re-contact, as no apparent issues of concern to Club have emerged

Peter Skinner American Whitewater Did not re-contact, as no apparent issues of concern to American Whitewater have emerged

Sheree Bonaparte St. Regis Mohawk Tribe Did not re-contact, as no apparent issues of concern to tribe have emerged

John Montan St. Lawrence County Planning Commission Did not re-contact, as no apparent issues of concern to Commission have emerged

Tom Skutnick, Project Manager Erie Boulevard Hydropower, LLC Contacted Dan Parker, Brookfield’s designated representative Joe Kuta NYSDEC, Division of Water Re-contacted

George Outcalt Adirondack Park Agency Did not re-contact, as no apparent issues of concern to APA have emerged

RAQUETTE RIVER PROJECTS Report of Contact

Date of Conversation: July 29, 2004

Person Contacted: Mark Woythal

Affiliation: NYSDEC

Telephone Number: 518-402-8847

Reviewer: David Van Wie

Summary of Discussion:

Mark said to contact Alice Richardson, who is more familiar with the final negotiations and implementation.

Mark said he is comfortable with the established base flows: this will have a major impact on the entire river system. Better base flows in the lower river may attract other species from the river system, including salmonids. He says there are salmonids (Pacific salmon from Lake Ontario) at the lower project, Raymondville, and there is a poaching problem there.

Mark said there was no real advocacy for dam removal or other more wholesale restoration of the ecosystem, which has changed into a warmwater/cool water habitat. The river is lacking in “bed load” or fine substrates which would be necessary for significant salmonid habitat. They have found a few trout in some tributaries, but establishing larger populations is questionable.

Eels get past 8 dams. The agreements predated some of the latest concern about eels. There are no prescriptions for moving these fish and there is a lot of habitat, so this may be an issue in the future depending on further monitoring of eels in the region. USFWS has reserved authority for prescriptions, so the issue can be revisited in the future.

Report of Contact -- 2009 Re-Certification

Date of Conversation: Three attempts made and voice messages left by reviewer in August, 2009. No return call-backs from Mr. Woythal.

Report of Contact

Person Contacted: Andrew Fahlund

Affiliation: American Rivers

Telephone Number: 202-347-9230 ext 3022

Andrew noted right away that he is on the Board of the Low Impact Hydropower Institute, so he did not want to create any appearance of conflict in his roles. He said Bruce Carpenter did most of the negotiating on the Hoosic and Raquette projects, and is familiar with the issues on those rivers.

I asked if he could identify any general issues regarding the Raquette River, without specific comment or opinion of his own, which I should delve into, simply as a matter of priority or interest. He said the Settlement is acceptable and a better outcome than might have occurred in a contested decision. The process was cheaper, and there were significant environmental gains in the entire river system, which are consistent with the criteria.

He commented on how challenging it can be to apply the Low Impact criteria to a large project like the Raquette which has had such cumulative impacts from flow, fish passage and water quality, in a way that has changed the entire river ecosystem over many years, in conjunction with other watershed issues. The ecosystem will make great gains as it responds to the new flows and facilities. The parties accepted the settlement as an acceptable way to maintain the hydropower values and address the environmental issues.

Date of Conversation: August 18 , 2009 Application Reviewer: Ron Kreisman

Person Contacted: Andrew Fahlund Vice President, American Rivers 1101 14th Street Suite 1400 Washington, DC 20005 202-347-9230

I contacted Andrew by email to confirm that he no longer had any involvement in this project although AR was a signatory on the settlement (he confirmed) and to ask him

whether I should still contact Bruce Carpenter, which is what he suggested five years ago during the original certification due diligence. He stated that New York Rivers United was no longer in business, but gave me Bruce’s cell phone number and also suggested that I email John Seebach. John stated by email that if Bruce was no longer available or familiar, he had some other names of people who I might be able to contact.

Report of Contact

Person Contacted: Bruce Carpenter

Affiliation: New York Rivers United

Bruce has no concerns with the status of project, or the settlement agreement. He said that Erie has been very cooperative, and timely in completing obligations. Bruce has some wariness about the implications of so many transfers of the licenses, that as people less familiar with the settlement process are involved, there is more uncertainty. But he said the local operators are very knowledgeable and helpful.

He said the settlement went through at a critical time in moving to deregulation, and there were some land transfer issues that are not part of the relicensing process. He said the Raquette has been “one of our best successes” as a major river agreement, including projects with high value for peaking power using innovative compromises to maintain peaking power values while also addressing environmental issues. The agreement included projects that were not yet up for relicensing so they were able to achieve benefits sooner than otherwise might have.

The baseflow below the Raymondville project will provide great benefits to the ecosystem. I asked about how the river, in transition, is expected to improve, and how will they know if it is improving enough. Bruce said that they did a lot of Delphi flow studies and were able to compare flows and resulting habitat in certain reaches across rivers . He said the conclusion is that the flows are as good as they can get it while still operating the hydropower projects for renewable energy.

Bruce believes the license implementation is pretty much on schedule. The whitewater people are very enthused about the opportunities, and how Erie is scheduling releases to allow sort of a whitewater tour at different locations.

In the bypass reaches, the habitat is already showing signs of supporting a high valued fishery.

They tried to get the Piercefield project included in the settlement but could not. They had to work through some wetlands issues with the Adirondack Park folks. Now the Piercefield is done, and he wonders if that project should be included in the Low Impact certificate.

Date of Conversation: September 3, 2009 Application Reviewer: Ron Kreisman

Person Contacted: Bruce Carpenter Former Exec. Dir., NY Rivers United Phone: 315-271-9073

Bruce stated that his information was not current because NY Rivers United no longer exists, as of approximately one year ago. He said he hasn’t heard about any major issues or “blow ups”, although he also said that the absence of a rivers advocacy organization in New York state means that there is no “eyes and ears” that is collecting information. He stated that he believes all the fish passage and flow regime changes from the settlement were being implemented on schedule.

Report of Contact

Date of Conversation: July 30, 2004 and August 4, 2004

Person Contacted: Steve Patch

Affiliation: US Fish & Wildlife Service, Cortland, NY

Steve has no concerns about the implementation of the FERC license and settlement agreement at the Raquette either. Erie is doing things pretty well on time, and very much consistent with agreements.

The most significant issues were getting flows into the bypass reaches, and finding how to set the gates to get flows that are fish friendly. He believes the river will respond to the new flows, particularly below Raymondville. Colton and Sugar Island look good, but they haven’t done eco-sampling yet. Stark and Blake have new flows.

Steve said there were no proposals for dam removal. The river would not afford opportunities to restore significant cold water habitat. Historically, there were trout in the river many years ago, but changes in land use and temperature affected the habitat. Trout are still found in few places and tributaries.

The trails and portages are still being completed, and should provide good access to the entire river.

In the second call, I mentioned that the FERC EA said that St.Lawrence River species, including Atlantic Salmon, had once occurred as far upstream as Hannawa Falls. I asked Steve about the historical existence of anadromous fish in the Raquette. He said there has been no real resolution as to whether historical populations of Atlantic salmon were sea-run or landlocked. He said there was some pool and riffle habitat, but they are not sure what kind of population the river could have supported. The salmon may have been long gone before the dams were built… they disappeared in the late 1800s, and the dams were built in the 1930s. Other factors leading to loss of salmonid populations were clearcutting in the watershed causing higher water temperatures. Also there were many old mills, earlier dams, and pollution in the river from towns and industry.

He said the eel issue has become more high profile in recent years. Eels get upstream in small numbers, but it is not clear what population could be maintained in the river.

Date of Conversation: August 14, 2009 Application Reviewer: Ron Kreisman

Person Contacted: Steve Patch Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service New York Field Office 3817 Luker Road Cortland, NY 13045 607-753-9334

Steve is USFWS person with principal responsibility for Raquette. We spoke for an extended period of time about what has happened in the last 5 years. Steve was highly involved in settlement for FWS. He said that Brookfield is good to work with, although he wonders what will happen as Brookfield regionalizes its operations and moves people to Massachusetts.

FLOWS: Confirmed what Alice Richardson said, namely that generally Brookfield has timely implemented flows required in settlement, and does well at regulating impoundment and base flows. Have been instances of not meeting requirements in impoundments, but few and far between and based on short-term electrical trips, which are attended to promptly. He also confirmed that where Brookfield was required by settlement to re-water and to control impoundment fluctuations it has made a big difference in restoring or stabilizing fish populations, especially in the re-watering of a few long bypass channels. He mentioned Sugar Island and Colton. “About as good as it can get, given the existence of these dams and the number of them on the Raquette.”

He acknowledged the outstanding flow issue below Raymondville that I discussed with Alice, but believes it will be dealt with satisfactorily this Fall.

OTHER WATER QUALITY ISSUES: None.

FISH PASSAGE: Also confirmed that no anadromous passage required per issued licenses and settlement, stating that there is “no serious migratory fishery except eels left on the Raquette”. For catadromous (eel), confirmed what Alice said, namely that Brookfield has implemented all license and settlement requirements in a timely way. He added that all the dams except Sugar Island have downstream passageways next to trash racks with about 20 cfs flow and believes a lot of the eel are migrating downstream using these, that plunge pools below spillways are OK, and that Sugar Island is small impoundment which Steve does not believe contains many eels and therefore is not worried about eel passage there.

Steve emphasized that he was comfortable with no effectiveness testing based on not only the studies on the St. Lawrence, but that these eel are actually St. Lawrence eel that are going up the Raquette (“same cohort, turning left”).

ESA: No issues raised by Steve.

Report of Contact

Date of Conversation: August 4, 2004

Person Contacted: Alice Richardson

Affiliation: NYSDEC

I asked Alice about the salmonids in the St. Lawrence ecosystem and the Raquette. She confirmed that the salmonids in the Raquette are stray Pacific salmon that were stocked in Lake Ontario. She said that Atlantic salmon are failing all over the place in the St. Lawrence region. Some landlocked salmon are stocked in the Salmon River, with some reproduction happening, but not a sustaining population.

On the Raquette River, the objective was only for downstream passage, not for upstream. Upstream is not an objective of NYSDEC. Alice said that eel still get to Sugar Island and may get to Hannawa without additional upstream fish passage. Anadromous fish are not a management objective for the Raquette, and catadromous fish were not an objective for this river at the time of relicensing.

Alice said that there have been no issues with implementation as far as she is concerned. Erie has been timely, cooperative, and notify agencies of problems or issues. They are adhering to the Settlement Agreement.

I asked Alice about bald eagle issues. She said that there was a report to FERC that there are eagles nests in the area of the upper dams. Erie has coordinated with the agencies and they have agreed so far to not post warnings that would make the areas more conspicuous. Bill Gordon and Blanch Towne are the contact persons for ESA issues.

Alice said there are no issues with water quality. At Five Falls, Erie had to move some rocks in the bypass reach, and they did a good job avoiding disturbance of sediments. Work was coordinated with NYSDEC.At the redevelopment at Higley, the contractors did a good job. Areas were well maintained, no instances of concern.

Alice confirmed that the Carry Falls Reservoir is on the 303d list due to mercury and other waters in the watershed are on the list due to acid rain, not due to project facilities. Ann Rice at the Division of Water can provide more information.

I asked about the extended schedule for installing trash racks. Alice said that this was not a major issue for this project, and that they wanted be consistent with other projects statewide,

while allowing Erie to spread the costs out for work that was not viewed as critical to be done right away.

Person Contacted: Alice Richardson Biologist NYSDEC Region 6 317 Washington Street Watertown, NY 13601 315-785-2267

Alice is DEC person with principal responsibility for Racquette and implementation of 401 certification and settlement agreement for DEC. We spoke for an extended period of time about what has happened in the last 5 years. She was not at DEC when settlement was executed.

In 2006 DEC issued WQC for Lower Raquette projects that incorporated settlement terms plus certain changes in flow operations desired by Brookfield post-settlement. (When FERC did not get the language of 401 right, DEC had to appeal, and FERC corrected itself.)

FLOWS: Generally, Brookfield has timely implemented flows required in settlement, and does well at regulating impoundment and base flows. Have been instances of not meeting requirements in impoundments, but few and far between and based on short- term electrical trips, which are attended to promptly. DEC is notified. DEC has never issued non-compliance notice on these.

She also said that where Brookfield was required by settlement to re-water and to control impoundment fluctuations she feels it has made a big difference in restoring or stabilizing fish populations, especially in the re-watering of a few long bypass channels.

One outstanding flow issue is below the lowermost project, Raymondville. Apparently this is an ~ 18 mile stretch below project to St. Lawrence, in which she states that there is a meaningful fishery of lake sturgeon and salmonids. Per Dec 2006 FERC order, Brookfield was allowed to switch this project (and other Lower Raquette projects) to run- of-river operation, but was to submit a monitoring plan by August 2007 to ensure minimum baseflow was maintained. Brookfield asked for an extension until September 2007 for plan, but it has not been submitted to FERC because agency consultation was never followed through on after draft plan submitted earlier in 2007 was objected to by DEC. Alice said that has not been an urgent issue because ROR has not been implemented and DEC has therefore not been pushing, and previous Brookfield manager, Tom Stuknick, was slow to attend once DEC voiced opposition, and that DEC

“shares the blame.” But she said that it is important that Brookfield get it right, get it done, and that Brookfield come up with a way to ensure there will always be baseflow there and not an accidental trip that dries up a portion of the channel before corrected. Does not believe damage has been done from delay; new Brookfield person, Dan Parker, seems to be prompter and that they have recently had discussions about the need to get this closed this Fall.

OTHER WATER QUALITY ISSUES: None, except for referral to Joe Kuta (see below).

FISH PASSAGE: Confirmed that no anadromous passage required per issued licenses and settlement. For catadromous (eel) Brookfield has implemented all license and settlement requirements in a timely way, meaning one inch trash racks for downstream, and upstream that was ordered per Dec 2006 FERC order. Also, DEC has gone out and “thrown ideas around” re: plunge pools and Brookfield “usually agrees.” DEC is fine with what Brookfield is doing, although USFWS is lead on eel.

However, in response to my question of, “beyond legal compliance, how do you know that on downstream passage eels actually are being diverted from turbines on downstream passage, actually passing over spillways, and doing it in a way that is safe to them, Alice acknowledged that “they don’t know.” No downstream tracking by radio telemetry, etc. Similar answer to question on effectiveness of upstream passage. She did say that from other projects on the St Lawrence where eel passage was heavily studied, they gained a lot of confidence in terms of what works and what doesn’t, but no site-specific data on effectiveness on the Raquette.

Only new possible issue is that the threatened Eastern Sand Darter has shown up in some upstate NY rivers. She was not sure if Raquette is one of them and will check with colleague and get back to me if an issue. However, even if located in Raquette, Alice stated that she believes the flow established in settlement that Brookfield is operating would be all the habitat conservation that would be required.

I did not hear back from her on this issue.

Report of Contact

Person Contacted: John Montan

Affiliation: St. Lawrence County Planning Office

While Erie received the licenses fairly recently and the operating history under the licenses is not long, John was not aware of any deficiencies, unresolved issues or failure to perform on license conditions. There has been good participation by Erie and all parties.

An issue he believes needs to be monitored is the ability to accurately measure flows. He said that some of the measures to “throttle” the water are pretty primitive, and need to be checked, although he had no reason to believe there are any deficiencies.

John said that he understands that the transfer of lands to NYSDEC has been completed, including surveying and mapping.

John mentioned that the Raquette River research fund ($5000/year to go to projects not required in license or for compliance) is moving forward. They are discussing building an ADA platform at the non-Erie Potsdam project in town.

As Erie is purchased by Brascan, he wonders how the follow through with the Settlement Agreement will change, although he noted that the staff remain the same despite the change in ownership.

John also noted that the St. Regis tribe was a late arrival to the process (not involved in original settlement discussions), but that their concerns appear to have been met in the License and cultural resources plan. He said he would email me a name of a contact at the tribe.

Report of Contact

Person Contacted: John Omohundro

Affiliation: Adirondack Mountain Club

John said that his impression is that Erie has provided just about everything that the Club and recreation interests have asked for. Erie’s engineers are working on the designs, and everything seems according to plan. The Raquette River Advisory Committee is meeting later this week, its first meeting since establishing the bylaws, and they will review progress to date, and determine how to spend some available funds.

John said that Niagara Mohawk had historically owned land which were kept undeveloped and provided habitat. The project owners have been praised as good land stewards. They did the right thing and conveyed most of these land to the state in fee or through conservation easements.

The only black mark on the issue is that certain lands around Carry Falls outside of the FERC projects were kept by a subsidiary of Niagara Mohawak for development into a “New Hollywood” community. It is going through the Adirondack Park Authority process, and appears to be designed to be low impact (cluster of cottages). The club wishes that this didn’t happen but it is outside of the hydro realm, and they didn’t have enough leverage.

John said that the recreation developments within the Settlement Agreement were not considered to have any impact on the bald eagle. The strategy so far has been to be low key in the eagle protection plan.

A third area of concern for John is the cultural/historical issues. He had to push to include the Colton Tannery and the Hannawa red sandstone powerhouse in the license documents. He is not sure what the status of the cultural management plan, but he wants to be sure that they are protected.

All in all, John said the Club is happy with how the Raquette projects were relicensed and are being managed.

Report of Contact

Person Contacted: Tom Skutnik, Project Manager – Raquette Project

Affiliation: Erie Boulevard Hydropower, LLC

Water level monitoring plan - Tom gave me an update on the modifications needed for each development to provide required flows in a way that is conducive to fish movement (concentrating flows, directing flows as needed, plunge pools), including construction of new gates in stop log structures. Consultation with agencies is occurring, and progress is satisfactory. Some measures are ahead of schedule, such as trashracks at Higley

Recreational enhancements – Progress is satisfactory for 2004 projects at Colton, Hannawa and Sugar Island, expect to go out to bid soon. He has coordinated with John Omohundro to determine specific needs. Contractor installed a canoe put in at Higley a couple years ahead of schedule. Other projects are on schedule.

Whitewater studies and releases – Releases were provided at Colton, and got good reviews. There doesn’t seem to be any interest for releases at Hannawa or Sugar Island. Chris Koll is trying to schedule releases to coordinate with other rivers.

Cultural Resources - Plan filed in February 2002 was submitted to Commission in April 03. Erie will be filing annual reports, and conducting investigations for any major ground disturbance activities.

ESA Plan – bald eagle plan – has been accepted by FERC. Strategy is to keep things at a low profile.

Dredging/WQ - aside from work at Higley, there are no significant projects planned.

Land transfer to NY State - The transfer of 12,000 acres of conservation easements to the state was a Niagara Mohawk responsibility as part of the Settlement Agreement. This is outside the project boundary and not part of Erie’s requirements in the settlement.

Property easements, conveyances – There are not major issues under this Article. Erie files a conveyance report.

Piercefield project – was not included in the Settlement Agreement because of pond fluctuations and wetland issues and concerns by the Adirondack Park agency. The issues have been addressed and a new license application was filed last November. No action yet on the license. When a new license is issued, they may want to include this in the Low Impact certification as well. Report of Contact -- 2009 Re-Certification

Date of Conversation: Emails in August and September, 2009 Application Reviewer: Ron Kreisman

Person Contacted: Dan Parker, Brookfield Renewable Power, L.P. Tel. 315-267-1036 email: [email protected]

My contacts with Dan, to gain answers to certain questions that I had, were via emails. Below I have included the substantive portion of the relevant emails (original and follow- up) in which Dan answers the questions that I posed to him.

Hi Ron-

Responses below in green. When you have reviewed them, please let me know if you have any further quesitons. Thanks.

Danny -----Original Message----- From: Ronald Kreisman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 2:48 PM To: Parker, Daniel Subject: RE: LIHI re-certification application, Raquette River Project

Hi Dan --

Thanks for getting back to me. Below, following your answers, are a few follow-up questions for you in red. If you don't get to them today, I will be seeing them when I am back from vacation the beginning of next week. Thanks.

Ron Kreisman

-----Original Message----- From: Parker, Daniel [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 9:29 AM To: [email protected] Cc: Faulds, Sean; Elmer, Jon; Uncher, Thomas Subject: RE: LIHI re-certification application, Raquette River Project

Mr. Kreisman-

As you suggested my replies are included next to your questions below. Please do not hesitate to contact me by email or phone if you have further questions. As Sean and I completed the recertification applicatio jointly, I do not have any other details to add.

Thanks for your review, Danny -----Original Message----- From: Ronald Kreisman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 9:44 AM To: Parker, Daniel Subject: LIHI re-certification application, Raquette River Project

Dear Mr. Parker:

I am a consultant to the Low Impact Hydropower Institute, conducting the data gathering and review on Brookfield's application for re-certification of its Raquette River facilities. Fred Ayer told me that you are Brookfield's contact person on these projects.

At this point, I have reviewed a series of documents related to the projects (including the FERC license, the settlement agreement, the internal analysis prepared by LIHI prior to the original certification, as well as FERC’s docket since 2004). I am about to begin discussions with USFWS, NYDEC, etc. about the projects to update information since they were certified in 2004. I wanted to check in with you to ask you to answer a few quick questions set forth below and, of course, provide you the opportunity to add anything to Sean Faulds' July 2nd application letter, although I am not suggesting anything is needed. Filling in the information requested next to the question in a reply email is fine. If it is easier, don’t hesitate to call me.

Also, should an issue of significance emerge from my discussions with third parties, I will contact you so we can discuss further.

QUICK QUESTIONS:

1. Impoundment, minimum and bypass flows:

A. From FERC's website, I see that by order dated December 5, 2006, for P-2330 Brookfield was tosubmit your revised stream flow and water level monitoring plan within sevenmonths of that date, and that you requested an extension of that on August 2nd,2007. Following that filing, I was unable to find a copy of any plan that yousubmitted, any agency consultation comments, etc. on the FERC site. Could youapprise me of the status of that plan, and email me copies of the approved planand agency comments on it? Is there an approved and operational plan? Wesentthe reviseddraft planto the resource agencies (NYSDEC and USFWS) in 2007 and received severalcomments in reply in 2008. My predecessor, Tom Skutnik, was working with AliceRichardson/DEC and Steve Patch/FWS to address their concerns. Since I have comeinto this position, I have had severalconversations withAlice and Steve but,due to the Oswegatchie relicensingwhich all of us are involved in, we have notconvened a conference call to resolve the stream flow plan concerns. Thatshould be accomplished this fall.[RON --]Has Brookfield notified FERC that you areabout oneyear out-of-time in filing a plan, even with theextension yourequested, and that you havecommitted to a dateby which the plan, post-agencyconsultation, will be submitted?I am locating all of thecorrespondence from my predecessor, Tom Skutnik and will put the pieces togetherto bring this up todate.

B. I noted on the FERC site that Brookfield reported occasional, short-term variations from the flow or impoundment limits in a few of the impoundments. My review of corresponding FERC letters

was that FERC has never found there to be a violation of license terms from these occasional variations. Is that correct? Yes, your assessment is correct.

2. Eel passage:

It appears that all eel passage required to date hasbeen installed at the various facilities. Could you provide me a list of thefacilities that now have upstream and downstream passage at this point? Also,can you apprise me of whether any post-installation effectiveness testing hasbeen done at any of the facilities by either Brookfield or, for instance, FWS,although I realize that such testing is not a requirement of thesettlement? No downstreameel passage has been installed at any of our facilities, other than passagethrough the turbines or over the spillways. Upstream passage has beeninstalled at Yaleville, East Norfolk, and Raymondville. It is being installedin 2009 at Norwood and Norfolk. That will complete the installations that wehave committed to.[RON --] My understanding is that Brookfield was toinstall one-inch trash racks to divert mature downstream-migrating eels fromgoing into the turbines. At what projects has this occurred? Also, have youinstalled plunge pools below the spillways, or any other type of mitigation forthe diverted eels?The one inch trash racks were not specifically for eels, but forany fish in the river that may move downstream. Certainly, since eels need tomigrateout of the system in order to complete their life cycle, theirprotection is more significant but the racks would similarly protect allspecies.One-inch racks have been installed at Raymondville, Norfolk,E.Norfolk, and Norwood. The remaining sites have staggered installation dates outto 2019. We have met our deadlines for all installationstodate. Where we have fish passage structure ( gates, sluices,etc.) we have located them such that there are plunge pools below the outlets.For the most part, these are natural pools. No other eel mitigation hasoccurred

Finally, do you have any anecdotal data as to downstream eel mortalitypost-implementation of the downstream measures that you have accomplished?No. Thereisan occasionalimpact from fishermen who kill eels caught while targetingother sportfish but that is unrelated to ourefforts.

3. Contacts --

Based on documents in the file and at FERC, for environmental information, I was going to contact Steve Patch at the FWS and Alice Richardson at DEC. Are these still the right people? Also, do you have an updated contact for Adirondack Mountain Club, anyone you are dealing with on flows/boating issues? Yes, these are the current contacts for the respective agencies. [RON --] No contact for Adirondack Mountain Club? Sorry. I missed this question in your earlier email. John Omohundro, 315- 265-8365, or

[email protected], [email protected] , is the local club contact.

Thanks for your help. Again, don't hesitate to call at number below if easiest. My pleasure!

Ron Kreisman 25 Page Street Hallowell, ME 04347 207-626-0248 (ph) 207-626-0202 (fax) [email protected] (email)

Report of Contact

Person Contacted: Bill Gordon

Affiliation: NYSDEC

Bill has moved from Fisheries over to Wildlife, and is not directly involved in the Raquette at present. He was involved in the Settlement negotiations.

As far as he understands, the settlement terms are ahead of schedule, but he hasn’t been to the Projects to verify this. Also, all seems to be going well with the bald eagle monitoring, but that is managed by Blanche Town (315-639-6122).

Regarding historical populations of salmonids, it was presumed early in the settlement discussions that salmon could make it up into the Raquette, but with other issues in the St. Lawrence affecting salmon, it appears to be a remote possibility that they could really be reestablished there. They didn’t want to require major investments in advance of any real need. A FERC license reopener for fish passage prescriptions could be used in the future.

Eels are also in jeopardy in the St. Lawrence, but they were not a management objective for the Raquette at the time. Sturgeon can go up to Raymondville, but there was no push to establish passage.

Bill feels it would be nice if there was more free-flowing river habitat in the Raquette, but if you are going to keep the hydropower you should manage the fisheries as impoundments. His biggest issue was fertility of the aquatic ecosystem, with high flushing rates. Not much could be done to enhance fertility.

At Carry Falls, there is a mercury problem that is atmospheric in nature, probably aggravated by acid rain. There was no debate or concern that the reservoir fluctuations were a major contributing factor to the mercury problem.

Report of Contact

Person Contacted: Sheree Bonaparte

Affiliation: St. Regis Tribe, Historic Preservation Officer

Sheree has been in this position since September, so was not involved in the 2002 revisions to the Cultural Resource Programmatic Agreement. Since September, she has involved in Piercefield Project, where the Tribe did not sign the agreement.

She said her concern is that the cultural resources issues are viewed by the licensee and FERC as discrete locations for archaeology or even anthropology, whereas the tribes view cultural and historic resources as being the entire region that were used by ancestors, and which have been modified by the commercial projects. The tribe’s cultural lifestyle had changed over this time.

She said that the tribe’s environmental officer, Ken Jock (508-358-5937), has had past concerns regarding the low flows in the lower river. She will be meeting with him this week and can discuss the issues, and get back to me or provide comments through the LIHI website. I emailed her the web site information and my contact information.

Report of Contact

Person Contacted: Peter Skinner

Affiliation: American Whitewater

Peter was involved in the settlement negotiations. He said that the whitewater people have been quite happy with the releases, and with the cooperation received from Erie/Reliant in scheduling releases. He said the Chris Koll sits down each year with Erie/Reliant to schedule releases in a manner that coordinates with releases from other nearby rivers, so boaters can move from one river to another on consecutive days.

The only complaint they have is that Erie has not provided them with information or a “one way” data link to AWA’s website on information relating to dispatched releases. Erie has been great with planned, scheduled whitewater releases, but sometimes the dispatcher must pass higher flows or spill water in certain reaches because of turbine maintenance or other short term generation reasons. AWA would like to be able to post this information real-time, or even with short notice so that boaters can know if a river is/will be boatable due to unusual or unplanned, but dispatched releases. The dispatchers have said they can provide information as desired, but have not been instructed to do so. Peter heard that there was some concern voiced about competitive issues in spot market generation, but he said that other project owners have been cooperative with the existing Web-based boating information. AWA would like to see if they can resolve this issue, which they understood to be part of the Settlement but it was not spelled out specifically in the agreement.

Report of Contact

Date of Conversation: September 7, 2004

Person Contacted: George “Skip” Outcalt

Affiliation: Adirondack Park Agency

Mr. Outcalt noted that only the Carry Falls and part of the Upper Raquette Projects are inside the Adirondack Park boundary. He said he is not aware of any issues of compliance, or concerns about the Settlement or implementation of the FERC license and permits. Issues he highlighted as important to review included installation of the new trashracks (fish entrainment), funding the River Fund, and implementing/monitoring flows and water levels of the impoundments. He said that the Niagara Mohawk land transfers have been carried out.

He suggested I talk with Steve Patch at USFWS, and possibly contact the Jordan Club, a large landowners on Carry Falls reservoir.

Report of Contact

Date of Conversation: September 9, 2004

Person Contacted: Joe Kuta

Affiliation: NYSDEC, Division of Water

Joe checked the 303d list, and the state’s PWL (Priority Waterbody List) to determine any non- attainment or WQ issues in the Raquette River mainstem. He said the only listing is Carry Falls, which is listed for fish consumption/mercury due to atmospheric deposition. He found nothing about listings for acid rain or other issues related to the dams. He said acidity is a problem in many waterbodies in the region, but apparently the cause of listing in the Raquette River.

Person Contacted: Joe Kuta Wastewater engineer/inspector NYSDEC Region 6 317 Washington Street Watertown, NY 13601 315-785-2519

I called Joe at suggestion of colleague Alice Richardson (above) in response to my question as to whether there were any non-flow water quality issues/exceedances for which the projects were responsible (e.g. low dissolved oxygen, thermal stratification etc). Alice referred me to Joe, who does enforcement and inspections on municipal and industrial point sources that discharge into Raquette, based on reports she had heard. Joe discussed two point source incidences in which dissolved oxygen assimilative capacity fell below where it should have been. In neither of these is responsibility apparently with Brookfield in terms of a different flow regime, and no action taken against Brookfield.

APPENDIX A

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS From FERC Orders Dated February 13, 2002

The Raquette River, with a drainage basin of 1,269 square miles, originates in the Adirondack Mountains, flows generally north-northwest for more than 120 miles, and empties into the St. Lawrence River near Massena, New York. Most of the basin is sparsely populated, with much of the land forested and brushland. The region’s economy depends primarily on recreational tourism and timber-based industries.

The Lower, Middle, and Upper Raquette River Projects have a combined installed capacity of 161.462 megawatts (MW), and are operated to provide peak energy and capacity to the regional grid. The projects generate annually an average of 831 gigawatt- hours (Gwh) of power. Carry Falls functions as a seasonal storage reservoir.

Farthest upstream is the Carry Falls Project No. 2060, located between river mile (RM) 68 and 75. The project includes an 826-foot-long dam that varies in height from 63 to 76 feet, and a 7-mile-long reservoir with a 3,000-acre surface area. It has no generating facilities, providing instead seasonal and daily flow regulation to facilitate the peaking and load-following operation of the Upper Raquette River Project and optimize downstream power generation.

Immediately downstream, from RM 52 to 68, is the 102.389-MW Upper Raquette River Project No. 2084. The project consists of five developments: Stark Falls, Blake Falls, Rainbow Falls, Five Falls, and South Colton. Each development has a dam, reservoir, and powerhouse. The project typically operates in either a peaking or load- following mode, using releases from its and the Carry Falls reservoirs.

About five miles below the Upper Raquette River Project, from RM 38 to 47, is the 47.073-MW Middle Raquette River Project No. 2320. This project consists of four developments, each with a dam, reservoir, and powerhouse: Higley, Colton, Hannawa, and Sugar Island. Higley operates as a re-regulating development to provide steadier flows for the downstream hydroelectric facilities. The other three developments operate run of river with a pondage mode. Erie has increased the installed capacity of the Higley development by 2.33 MW, from the existing 4.97 to 7.3 MW.

Twenty miles downstream and just above the mouth of the river, from RM 19 to 27, is the 12.0-MW Lower Raquette River Project No. 2330. The project consists of four developments, each with a dam, reservoir, and powerhouse: Norwood, East Norfolk, Norfolk, and Raymondville. The project typically operates in a store-and-release pulsing or peaking mode, using releases from the upstream projects. During periods of high flows, the project may operate run of river.

The Carry Falls Project works consist of:

(a) a 826-foot-long dam; (b) a 568-foot-long by 76-foot-high concrete gravity spillway with a crest elevation of 1,386 feet mean sea level (msl); (c) a 258-foot-long by 63-foot-high concrete gated non-overflow spillway with two 14.5 foot by 27-foot taintor regulating gates, two 10-foot-square low-level sluice gates, and an intake structure with two 15-foot-square openings for future power installation; (d) five earth dikes totaling approximately 2,500 feet in length, with lengths varying from 320 feet to 1,015 feet, maximum heights varying from 12 feet to 31 feet, and each with a crest width of 12 feet at elevation 1,392 feet msl with upstream and downstream slopes of 3:1 and 2.5:1 respectively; and (e) a 7-mile-long reservoir with a surface area of 3,000 acres and a usable storage capacity of 104,463 acre-feet at a normal pool elevation 1,385 msl.

The Upper Raquette Project works consist of five developments:

The Stark development comprising: (a) a 35-foot-high concrete gravity dam with a 294-foot-long by 35-foot high concrete overflow section with a crest elevation of 1,355.0 feet above mean sea level (msl) and a 94-foot-long control gate section consisting of two 27-foot-long by 15-foot-high radial taintor gates with a crest elevation of 1,340.8 feet msl, a low-level sluice gate section consisting of one motor controlled 12-foot square slide gate, and a 6-foot-wide stoplog section; (b) seven earthen saddle dikes with a crest elevation of 1,362.0 feet, totaling approximately 3,700 feet in length, each 16 feet wide with upstream and downstream slopes of 3:1 and 2.5:1, respectively; (c) a 1.5-mile-long reservoir at normal pool elevation 1,355.0 feet; (d) a concrete intake structure housing the trashracks and trashrack raking structure, and a 18.33-foot-high by 18.66-foot-wide motor-driven slide gate; (e) a 651-foot-long, 18-foot-diameter welded steel pipeline; (f) a 75-foot-long by 73-foot-wide concrete powerhouse containing a 23,872 kilowatt (kW) generating unit; and (g) appurtenant facilities.

The Blake development comprising: (a) a 75-foot-high concrete gravity dam with a 592-foot-long by 80-foot-high concrete overflow section with a crest elevation of 1,250.5 feet msl and a 140-foot-long non-overflow section with a crest elevation of 1,266.0 feet; (b) three earthen dikes with a crest elevation of 1,259.5 feet, totaling approximately 1,840 feet in length, each 16 feet wide with upstream and downstream slopes of 3:1 and 2.5:1, respectively; (c) a 5.5-mile-long reservoir at normal pool elevation 1,250.5 feet; (d) a concrete intake structure housing the trashracks and trashrack

raking structure, and a 18.33-foot-high by 18.66-foot-wide motor-driven slide gate; (e) a 731-foot-long, 18-foot-diameter welded steel pipeline; (f) a 75-foot-long by 73-foot-wide concrete powerhouse containing a 13,913 kW generating unit; and (g) appurtenant facilities.

The Rainbow development comprising: (a) a 2,677-foot-long by 75-foot-high concrete gravity-type dam with a 751-foot-long by 81.5-foot-high concrete overflow section with a crest elevation of 1,181.5 feet msl and two non-overflow sections totaling 120 feet and 176 feet in length, respectively; (b) two earthen saddle dikes with a crest elevation of 1,190.0 feet, totaling approximately 2,570 feet in length, each 16 feet wide with upstream and downstream slopes of 3:1 and 2.5:1, respectively; (c) a 3.5-mile-long reservoir at normal pool elevation 1,181.5 feet; (d) a concrete intake structure housing the trashracks and trashrack raking structure, and a 18.33-foot-high by 18.66-foot-wide motor-driven slide gate; (e) a 645-foot-long, 18-foot-diameter welded steel pipeline; (f) a 75-foot-long by 73-foot-wide concrete powerhouse containing a 22,828 kW generating unit; and (g) appurtenant facilities.

The Five Falls development comprising: (a) a 1,750-foot-long by 50-foot-high concrete gravity dam flanked at each end by earthen dikes totaling approximately 1,190 feet in length, each 16 feet wide with upstream and downstream slopes of 3:1 and 2.5:1, respectively; (b) a 500-foot-long concrete gravity ogee overflow spillway with a crest elevation of 1,077.0 feet; (c) a 6-foot-wide stoplog section with a sill elevation of 1,072.0 feet; (d) a 1.0-mile-long reservoir at normal pool elevation 1,077.0 feet; (e) a 60-foot- long gated concrete intake structure housing the trashracks and trashrack raking structure, and a 18.33-foot-high by 18.66-foot-wide motor-driven slide gate; (f) a 1,399-foot-long, 18-foot-diameter welded steel pipeline; (g) a 75-foot-long by 73-foot-wide concrete powerhouse containing a 22,828 kW generating unit; and (h) appurtenant facilities.

The South Colton development comprising: (a) a 970-foot-long, 45-foot-high concrete gravity-type dam and earthen abutments; (b) a 592-foot-long, 42-foot-high concrete gravity ogee spillway with a crest elevation of 973.5 feet msl; (c) a 6-foot-wide stoplog section with a sill elevation of 968.0 feet; (d) a 1.5-mile-long reservoir at normal pool elevation 973.5 feet; (e) a 60-foot-long gated concrete intake structure housing the trashracks and trashrack raking structure, and a 18.33-foot-high by 18.66-foot-wide motor-driven slide gate; (f) a 1,300-foot-long, 18-foot-diameter pipeline; (g) a 75-foot- long by 73-foot-wide concrete powerhouse containing a 18,948 kW generating unit; and (h) appurtenant facilities.

The Middle Raquette Project works consist of four developments:

The Higley development (in 2002 prior to redevelopment of powerhouse and penstock) comprising: (a) a 34-foot-high concrete gravity dam with 3-foot-high wooden

flashboards, a 209-foot-long concrete gravity ogee-crested spillway, two flood gates, eight steel forebay gates each measuring 12 feet high by 5 feet, 9 inches wide, a trashrack, and two 10-foot-high by 8-foot-wide waste gates; (b) a 742-acre reservoir at normal pool elevation 883.6 feet above mean sea level (msl); (c) a 160-foot-long by 50- foot-wide flume formed by concrete retaining walls on each side; (d) a powerhouse measuring 64 feet to a side by 38 feet high containing three generating units with a total capacity of 4,972 kilowatts (kW). In its recent redevelopment, Erie has increased the installed capacity of the Higley development by 2.33 MW, from the existing 4.97 to 7.3 MW: (e) an intake structure with a 14 x 14 foot headgate, a 13-foot-diameter, 225-foot- long steel pipeline, and a powerhouse measuring 90 feet long and 53 feet wide containing a 7,300 kW generating unit; and (f) appurtenant electrical and mechanical facilities.

The Colton development comprising: (a) a 27-foot-high concrete gravity dam with 2-foot-high flashboards, an 8-foot-wide log flume, a trash gate, and a 204.67-foot- long ogee-crested spillway equipped with a single taintor gate measuring 10 feet high and 25 feet wide; (b) a 195-acre reservoir at normal pool elevation 837.0 feet msl; (c) a concrete intake structure with a brick superstructure, which measures 50 feet wide by 30 feet long by 12 feet high overall, equipped with a motor driven, 16-foot-high by 25.5- foot-wide, taintor gate; (d) a steel pipeline, 11,090 feet long with a diameter of 13.5 feet and 2,100 feet long with a diameter of 12 feet; (e) a 80-foot-high Johnson differential surge tank; (f) three penstocks of lengths 160 feet, 140 feet, and 125 feet, and diameters of 7.5 feet, 7.5 feet, and 9 feet respectively; (g) a brick and structural steel powerhouse measuring 165 feet long and 46 feet wide containing three generating units with a total capacity of 30,101-kW; and (h) appurtenant electrical and mechanical facilities.

The Hannawa development comprising: (a) a 38-foot-high stone and concrete dam with 3.5-foot-high wooden flashboards, a log chute, a motor operated taintor gate measuring 14 feet high by 28 feet wide, an ogee-crested spillway, and a sluice gate; (b) a 204-acre reservoir at normal pool elevation 552.0 feet msl; (c) a headworks structure with five sliding timber gates, all of which are 18 feet high, three are 9.7 feet wide, one is 9 feet wide, and one is 8.8 feet wide; (d) a 2,700-foot-long canal measuring 30 feet wide at the bottom, 120 feet wide at the top, and an average of 22 feet deep, equipped with trashracks that completely cover the canal entrance; (e) two 10-foot-diameter penstocks of 190 feet in length; (f) a sandstone and structural steel powerhouse measuring 66 feet wide by 248 feet long by 40 feet high containing two generating units with a total capacity of 7,200-kW; and (g) appurtenant electrical and mechanical facilities.

The Sugar Island development comprising: (a) a 37-foot-high concrete gravity dam with two taintor gates and a 192-foot-long spillway; (b) a 29-acre reservoir at normal pool elevation 470.0 feet msl; (c) a concrete and brick intake structure with trashracks and a steel headgate measuring 14 feet wide by 16 feet high; (d) a 4,700-foot-long steel pipeline; (e) a 71-foot-high surge tank; (f) two 8-foot-diameter penstocks; (g) a brick and structural steel powerhouse measuring 35 feet wide by 67 feet long by 30 feet high

containing two generating units with a total capacity of 4,800-kW; and (f) appurtenant electrical and mechanical facilities.

The Lower Raquette Project works consist of four developments:

The Norwood development comprising: (a) a 188-foot-long by 23-foot-high concrete gravity dam with 1-foot-high wooden flashboards; (b) a 350-acre reservoir at normal pool elevation 327.1 feet above mean sea level (msl); (c) a concrete intake structure with steel trashracks oriented 90 degrees to the direction of flow, a skimmer section, and three motor-operated steel sliding gates; (d) two timber flood gates, one 9 feet, 9 inches wide by 12 feet high, and the other 12 feet high by 12 feet wide; (e) a concrete log chute with stoplog opening 11 feet, 2 inches wide by 4 feet, 6 inches high; (f) a concrete and brick powerhouse 59 feet, 9 inches long by 43 feet wide by 34 feet high containing a 2,000-kW generating unit; (g) a 3-mile-long, 23 kilovolt (kV) transmission line connecting the Norwood and Norfolk developments; and (h) appurtenant facilities;

The East Norfolk development comprising: (a) a concrete gravity dam with seven hand-operated sluice gates measuring 8 feet wide by 9 feet high protected by steel trashracks oriented 24 degrees to the direction of flow; (b) a 4-foot by 4-foot pond drain; (c) a 135-acre reservoir at normal pool elevation 287.9 feet msl; (d) a concrete intake structure equipped with steel trashracks oriented 90 degrees to the direction of flow, a skimmer section, and an ice chute with a steel sliding gate; (e) a 32-foot-wide by 1,408- foot-long oval steel flume; (f) a powerhouse containing a 3,500 kW generating unit; (g) a 0.86-mile-long, 23 kV transmission line connecting the East Norfolk and Norfolk developments; and (h) appurtenant facilities;

The Norfolk development comprising: (a) a 20-foot-high concrete dam with 10- inch-high flashboards, three 12-foot-wide by 10-foot-high steel headworks gates, and two 9-foot-wide by 9-foot-high sluice gates; (b) a 10-acre reservoir at normal pool elevation 254.9 feet msl; (c) a 1,275-foot-long power canal; (d) a 700-foot-long, 14-foot-diameter wood stave pipeline protected by two steel trashracks oriented 90 degrees to the direction of flow, a skimmer section, and a 6-foot-wide by 6-foot-high ice sluice gate used for flushing ice and debris downstream; (e) a 14-foot-diameter, 103-foot-long steel penstock fitted with a motor-operated 14-foot-diameter butterfly valve; (f) a concrete and brick powerhouse measuring 52 feet, 6 inches wide by 50 feet, 7 inches long by 35 feet high containing a 4,500 kW generating unit; (g) a short 2.4 kV underground transmission line and a 2.32-mile-long, 115 kV transmission line connecting the Norfolk and Raymondville developments; and (h) appurtenant facilities; and

The Raymondville development comprising: (a) a 292-foot, 6-inch-long by 17- foot-high concrete gravity dam having two-foot-high rubber and steel flashboards; (b) two 4-foot by 4-foot pond drains; (c) a 50-acre reservoir at normal pool elevation 211.6 feet msl; (d) a 48-foot-wide by 447-foot-long concrete power flume having trashracks

oriented 90 degrees to the direction of flow, an ice chute, and three steel flume intake gates, each 12 feet wide by 10 feet high; (e) a concrete, brick, and steel powerhouse measuring 59 feet, 9 inches wide by 42 feet long by 34 feet high containing a 2,000 kW generating unit; and (f) appurtenant facilities.