KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC Lewiston, Maine

FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION

LOWER BARKER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 2808

Prepared for:

Prepared by:

Pittsfield, Maine www.KleinschmidtGroup.com

January 2017

FINAL LICENSE APPLICATION

LOWER BARKER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT FERC NO. 2808

Prepared for:

KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC Lewiston, Maine

Prepared by:

Pittsfield, Maine www.KleinschmidtUSA.com

January 2017

INITIAL STATEMENT BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

LOWER BARKER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT PROJECT NO. 2808

APPLICATION FOR LICENSE FOR MINOR PROJECT LESS THAN 5MW

INITIAL STATEMENT (Pursuant to 18 CFR 4.61)

(1) KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC (hereinafter “Licensee” or KEI (Maine)) applies to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (hereinafter “FERC” or “Commission”) for a subsequent license for the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project (hereinafter “Project”), as described in the attached exhibits. The Project is currently licensed to KEI (Maine) as Project No. 2808, by Order dated February 23, 1979.

(2) The location of the Project is:

State or territory: Maine County: Androscoggin Township or nearby towns: Auburn Stream or other body of water: Little Androscoggin River

(3) The exact name, business address, and telephone number of the applicant are:

KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC 37 Alfred Plourde Parkway, Suite 2 Lewiston, Maine 04240 Telephone: 207-786-8834

(4) The exact name, business address, and telephone number of each person authorized to act as agent for the applicant in this application are:

Lewis Loon Operations and Maintenance Manager 37 Alfred Plourde Parkway, Suite 2 Lewiston, Maine 04240 Telephone: 207-786-8834

(5) The applicant is a citizen of the United States and is not claiming preference under section 7(a) of the Federal Power Act. See 16 U.S.C. 796.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project - 1 - License Application (6) (a) The statutory or regulatory requirements of the State of Maine, in which the Project is located, which would, assuming jurisdiction and applicability, affect the Project with respect to bed and banks, and to the appropriation, diversion and use of water for power purposes, and with respect to the right to engage in the business of developing, transmitting, and distributing power and in any other business necessary to accomplish the purposes of the license under the Federal Power Act are:

Water Quality Permit from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to ashore compliance of section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act.

(b) The steps which the Applicant has taken, or plans to take, to comply with each of the laws cited above are:

The applicant will apply for the 401 Water Quality Certification per 18 CFR § 5.23 (b).

(7) Brief Project description:

The Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project is located in Androscoggin County in southwestern Maine. The Project is situated on the Little Androscoggin River. Located approximately 2,000 feet upstream from the confluence of the Little Androscoggin River with the Androscoggin River, the Project is in the City of Auburn. Project works include a concrete dam with spillway, non-overflow stoplog and gate sections; a power canal, intake and gate house; an underground concrete penstock; a transformer and substation; and a powerhouse containing one turbine generator unit. The Project boundary generally includes the dam, bypass reach, buried penstock, and the powerhouse. The Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project operates as a run-of-river facility with a continuous minimum flow of 20 cfs is conveyed to the bypass reach. Inflows less than 170 cfs (minimum hydraulic capacity plus minimum flows) are passed at the dam. Flows in excess of 520 cfs (maximum hydraulic capacity plus minimum flows) are likewise spilled. The Project has a turbine rated at 1,950 hp (1.5 MW) and a generator rated at 1,200 kW.

(8) Lands of the United States.

The Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project is located entirely on private lands.

(9) Construction of the Project.

This is an existing project and no new construction is planned in association with this relicensing.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project - 2 - License Application ADDITIONAL GENERAL INFORMATION (Pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 5.18)

(1) Identify every person, citizen, association of citizens, domestic corporation, municipality, or state that has or intends to obtain and will maintain any proprietary right necessary to construct, operate, or maintain the Project:

KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC (Licensee) has obtained and will maintain any proprietary rights necessary to construct, operate, or maintain the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2808) (Project).

(2) Identify (providing names and addresses):

(i) Every county in which any part of the Project, and any Federal facilities that would be used by the Project is located:

The Project is located in Androscoggin County, Maine. County offices are located at:

Androscoggin County Clerk Androscoggin County 2 Turner Street Auburn, Maine 04210

(ii) Every city, town, or similar local political subdivision:

(a) In which any part of the Project is or is to be located and any Federal facility that is or is to be used by the Project is located:

The Project is located in the State of Maine, Androscoggin County on the Little Androscoggin River in the City of Auburn, and is located entirely on private lands. City offices are located at:

Susan Clements Auburn City Clerk 60 Court Street Auburn, Maine 04210

(b) That has a population of 5,000 or more people and is located within 15 miles of the existing or proposed Project dam:

The adjacent City of Lewiston has an approximate population of 36,437. City offices are located at:

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project - 3 - License Application Kathleen Montejo Lewiston City Clerk 27 Pine Street Lewiston, Maine 04240

(iii) Every irrigation district, drainage district, or similar special purpose political subdivision:

There are no irrigation district, drainage district, or similar special purpose political subdivision affected by the project.

(iv) Every other political subdivision in the general area of the Project that there is reason to believe would be likely to be interested in, or affected by, the application:

There are no other political subdivision in the general area of the Project that there is reason to believe would be likely to be interested in, or affected by, the application.

(v) All Indian Tribes that may be affected by the Project.

The project boundary includes a very limited reach of the Little Androscoggin River. While the project area has been documented as historically being inhabited by the Abenaki, none of Maine's five federally recognized Indian tribes have indicated religious or cultural significance to historic properties within the project boundary. The Penobscot Indian Nation has expressed an interest in the potential cultural resources within the Project.

(3) The Applicant has, in accordance with 18 CFR § 5.18 (3)(i), made a good-faith effort to notify, by certified mail, the following entities of the filing of this application:

(a) Every property owner of record of any interest within the bounds of the Project;

(b) The entities listed in (2) above;

A complete listing of appropriate agencies, tribes, local governments, non-governmental organizations, and abutting property owners to which this license application was distributed to are provided in Appendix A.

(4) In accordance with 18 CFR § 4.61 of the Commission's regulations, the following Exhibits are attached to and made a part of this application:

Exhibit A – Project Description and Description of Operations

Exhibit E – Environmental Report

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project - 4 - License Application Exhibit F – General Design Drawings (provided under separate cover as CEII for security purposes)

Exhibit G – Project Boundary Maps

Exhibit H – Description of Project Management and Need for Project Power

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project - 5 - License Application ______,2017.

SUBSCRIPTION

‘Ibis Application for License tbr the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2808. k executed in the State of Maine. Countv of Androscoggin, by Signee of KEI(Maine) Power Management (III) LLC (37 AIfred Plourde Parkway, Suite 2, Lewiston, Maine). who. being duly sworn. deposes and says that the contents ofthis application are truc to die best of his I her knowledge or belierand that be/ she is authorized w execute this application on behalFofKEl (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC. The undersigned bas signed this application thislay

KET(Maip) PQw$rManagement (III) LLC

SrVP4Coc

VERIFICATION

SWORN to before me, Commissioner for Oaths for the Province ofQuebec and outside the Province ofQuebec, this 3p’ day of JQnûv 2017.

My commission expires on: Tul saoiK

Lower Harker Hydroelectric Project -6- K!einschmi& Licciise Application CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Andrew Qua, Senior Project Manager, Kleinschmidt, hereby certify that I have this day served upon each person designated on the attached Distribution List notice of availability and/or a copy of the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 2808, Application for Final License. Dated this 30th day of January 2017.

By: ______Andrew Qua Senior Project Manager Kleinschmidt

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project - 7 - License Application

APPENDIX A

DISTRIBUTION LIST

Lower Barker Distribution List January 2017

Federal Agencies State Agencies

John T. Eddins Kathy Howtt Office of Project Review Bureau of Land Resources Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Maine Department of Environmental Protection 401 F Street NW 22 State House Station Suite 308 Augusta, ME 04333-0022 Washington, DC 20001-2637 Gail Wippelhauser Kevin Mendik Maine Department of Marine Resources NPS Hydro Program Manager 21 State House Station National Park Service Augusta, ME 04333 United States Department of the Interior 15 State Street, 10th Floor Kirk Mohney Boston, MA 02109-3572 Director Maine Historic Preservation Commission Andrew L. Raddant 55 Capitol Street Regional Environmental Officer 65 State House Station U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Augusta, ME 04333 Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance Northeast Region Todd Burrowes 15 State Street Coastal Program Suite 400 Bureau of Geology, Natural Areas, and Coastal Boston, MA 02109 Resources 93 State House Station Ralph Abele Augusta, ME 04333 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 5 Post Office Square Nick Bennett Suite 100 Natural resources Council of Maine Boston, MA 02109-3946 3 Wade Street Augusta, ME 4330 Nicholas Stasulis Data Section Chief John Perry United States Geological Survey Fisheries Biologist 196 Whitten Rd Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife Augusta, ME 04333 284 State Street 41 State House Station Jay Clement Augusta, ME 04333-0041 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 675 Western Avenue #3 Jim Vogel Manchester, ME 04351 Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry Antonio Bentivoglio Division of Parks and Public Lands U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 18 Elkins Lane, Harlow Building 306 Hatchery Road Augusta, ME 04333-0022 East Orland, ME 04431 James Pellerin Bill McDavitt Regional Fisheries Biologist National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife National Marine Fishieries Service RR1 55 Great Republic Drive 358 Shaker Road Gloucester, MA 01930 Gray, ME 04039

Lower Barker Distribution List January 2017

NGO Tribes

Brain Graber Johnna Blackhair Director, Northeast Region Regional Director, Eastern Regional Office American Rivers Bureau of Indian Affairs 136 West Street, Ste 5 545 Marriott Drive Ste 700 Northampton, MA 01060 Nashville, TN 37214

John R.J. Burrows Jennifer Pictou Atlantic Salmon Federation THPO Fort Andross Aroostook Band of Micmacs 14 Maine Street 7 Northern Road Brunswick, ME 04011 Presque Isle, ME 04796

Landis Hudson Chris Sockalexis Executive Director THPO Maine Rivers Cultural and Historic Preservation Program P.O. Box 782 Natural Resources Department Yarmouth, ME 04096 Penobscot Indian Nation 12 Wabanaki Way Thomas Rumpf Indian Island, ME 04468 The Nature Conservancy 14 Main Street, Ste 401 Sharri Venno Brunswick, ME 04011 Environmental Planner Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Lee Margolin 88 Bell Road Mollyockett Chapter Littleton, ME 04730 Trout Unlimited 5 Bow Street Donald Soctomah Otisfield, ME 04270 Pleasant Point Reservation Passamaquoddy Tribe of Indians Michael Auger P.O. Box 343 Executive Director Perry, ME 04667 Androscoggin Land Trust P.O. Box 3145 Reuben Clayton Cleaves Auburn, ME 04212 Chief Passamaquoddy Tribe of Indians Pleasant Point Neil Ward P.O. Box 343 Program Director Perry, ME 04667 Androscoggin River Alliance 14 Ambrose Way Local / Governments Leeds, ME 04263 Barbara Fortier Steve Heinz Environmental Planner Conservation Chair Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments Sebago Trout Unlimited 125 Manley Road P.O. Box 8401 Auburn, ME 04210 Portland, ME 04104 Ronald Chicione Bob Nasdor District #2 American Whitewater Androscoggin County Commissioner 65 Blueberry Hill Lane 2 Turner Street Sudbury, MA 01776 Auburn, ME 04210

Lower Barker Distribution List January 2017 Dan Goyette City Engineer City of Auburn 60 Court Street Auburn, ME 04210

Eric Cousens Director of Planning and Permiting City of Auburn 60 Court Street, Ste 104 Auburn, ME 04210

Susan Gammon Androscoggin Valley Soil & Water Conservation District 254 Goodard Road Lewiston, ME 04240

John Storer Aurburn Water District P.O. Box 414 Auburn, ME 04212

Gary Johnson City of Auburn 60 Court Street Auburn, ME 04210

EXHIBIT A

PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE FOR MINOR PROJECT LESS THAN 5MW

LOWER BARKER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 2808)

KEI (MAINE) POWER MANAGEMENT (III) LLC

EXHIBIT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PROJECT LOCATION ...... 1-1

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT...... 2-1 2.1 PROJECT FEATURES ...... 2-1 2.1.1 EXISTING UNITS ...... 2-1 2.1.2 PROVISION FOR FUTURE UNITS ...... 2-1 2.2 PROJECT OPERATION ...... 2-1 2.2.1 CURRENT PROJECT OPERATION ...... 2-1 2.2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATION ...... 2-2 2.2.3 PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES ...... 2-2 2.3 AVERAGE ANNUAL GENERATION ...... 2-3 2.3.1 FLOW DATA ...... 2-7 2.3.2 HYDRAULIC CAPACITY OF THE PROJECT ...... 2-7 2.3.3 RIVER FLOW DATA ...... 2-7 2.4 PROJECT STRUCTURES ...... 2-7 2.4.1 IMPOUNDMENT DATA ...... 2-7 2.4.2 DAM...... 2-9 2.4.3 INTAKE, CANAL, AND PENSTOCK ...... 2-12 2.4.4 POWERHOUSE ...... 2-14 2.4.5 BYPASS REACH AND TAILRACE ...... 2-16 2.4.6 APPURTENANT FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT ...... 2-17 2.4.7 PROPOSED FACILITIES ...... 2-19 2.5 ESTIMATED COST OF THE PROJECT ...... 2-19

3.0 PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT ...... 3-1

4.0 ESTIMATED COST OF RELICENSING ...... 4-1

5.0 VALUE OF PROJECT POWER ...... 5-1

6.0 ESTIMATED CHANGE IN PROJECT GENERATION ...... 6-1

7.0 UNDEPRECIATED NET INVESTMENT (BOOK VALUE) OF THE PROJECT ...... 7-1

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project - i - Final License Application TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D) 8.0 ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF THE PROJECT ...... 8-1

9.0 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM ...... 9-1

10.0 PROJECT SAFETY PROGRAM ...... 10-1

11.0 REFERENCES ...... 7

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2-1 HISTORICAL MONTHLY GENERATION TOTALS AT THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT 2007-2016 (MWH) ...... 2-5 TABLE 2-2 PRO-RATED DAILY AVERAGE MINIMUM, MAXIMUM, AND MONTHLY MEAN INFLOWS AT THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT (JANUARY 1985 TO DECEMBER 2015) ...... 2-6 TABLE 2-3 LOWER BARKER PROJECT STRUCTURES ...... 2-18 TABLE 6-1 GENERATION LOSSES ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED BYPASS MINIMUM FLOWS . 6-1

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1-1 LOWER BARKER PROJECT LOCATION MAP ...... 1-2 FIGURE 2-1 COMPARISON OF PRORATED RIVER FLOW DATA FROM THE SOUTH PARIS USGS GAGE (#01057000) TO THE DISCONTINUED AUBURN USGS GAGE (#01058500) .. 2-4 FIGURE 2-2 HEADPOND RATING CURVE FOR THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT ...... 2-11 FIGURE 2-3 TAILWATER RATING CURVE FOR THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT...... 2-17

LIST OF PHOTOS

PHOTO 2-1 LOWER BARKER IMPOUNDMENT ...... 2-8 PHOTO 2-2 LOWER BARKER PROJECT ...... 2-9 PHOTO 2-3 LOWER BARKER DAM NON-OVERFLOW WASTE GATE SECTION, SPILLWAY AND UPPER PORTION OF THE BYPASS REACH ...... 2-10 PHOTO 2-4 LOWER BARKER DAM NON-OVERFLOW STOP-LOG SECTION ...... 2-12 PHOTO 2-5 POWER CANAL AND GATE HOUSE ...... 2-13 PHOTO 2-6 GATEHOUSE ...... 2-14 PHOTO 2-7 PROJECT POWERHOUSE ...... 2-15 PHOTO 2-8 PROJECT POWERHOUSE TAILRACE ...... 2-16 PHOTO 10-1 PUBLIC SAFETY NOTIFICATIONS PART 12 SIGNAGE AT POWERHOUSE ...... 10-2 PHOTO 10-2 PART 12 SIGNAGE AT TAILRACE ...... 10-4 PHOTO 10-3 FENCING AND PART 12 SIGNAGE AT GATE HOUSE ...... 10-5 PHOTO 10-4 BOAT BARRIER AT LOWER BARKER IMPOUNDMENT ...... 10-6

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project - ii - Final License Application

APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE FOR MINOR PROJECT LESS THAN 5MW

LOWER BARKER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 2808)

KEI (MAINE) POWER MANAGEMENT (III) LLC

EXHIBIT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.0 PROJECT LOCATION

The Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project (Project) is located near the City of Auburn in Androscoggin County in southwestern Maine. The Project is situated on the Little Androscoggin River approximately 2,000 feet upstream of the river’s confluence with the Androscoggin River (See Figure 1-1). Project works include a concrete dam with spillway, non-overflow stoplog and gate sections; a power canal, intake and gate house; an underground concrete penstock; a transformer and substation; and a powerhouse containing one turbine generator unit. The Project boundary generally includes the impoundment, dam, buried penstock, and the powerhouse. The Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project operates as a run-of-river facility with a continuous minimum flow of 20 cubic feet a second (cfs) conveyed to the bypass reach. Inflows less than 170 cfs (minimum hydraulic capacity plus minimum flows) are passed at the dam. Flows in excess of 520 cfs (maximum hydraulic capacity plus minimum flows) are likewise spilled. The Project has a total rated capacity of 1.5 MW.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 1-1 Final License Application

FIGURE 1-1 LOWER BARKER PROJECT LOCATION MAP

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 1-2 Final License Application

2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT

2.1 PROJECT FEATURES

2.1.1 EXISTING UNITS

The Project powerhouse contains one generating unit. The turbine is a 1500 mm, 1,950 hp (1.5 MW), 305 rpm, double-regulated semi-Kaplan Allis Chalmers 5XA horizontal tube turbine. The unit turbine is connected to an IHI speed increaser then to a horizontal, 1,667 KVA Louis Allis generator with a capacity of 1,200 kW at 46 feet of head.

2.1.2 PROVISION FOR FUTURE UNITS

There are no provisions for future units at the Project.

2.2 PROJECT OPERATION

2.2.1 CURRENT PROJECT OPERATION

The Project operates as a run-of-river facility with a continuous minimum flow of 20 cfs conveyed to the bypass reach. Inflows less than 170 cfs (minimum hydraulic capacity plus minimum flows) are passed at the dam. Flows in excess of over 520 cfs (maximum hydraulic capacity plus minimum flows) are likewise spilled. Because the Project is run-of-river, there is minimal available storage behind the dam.

The headpond elevation is measured by a pressure transducer in the headpond and monitored via a PLC in the powerhouse, which regulates turbine flows based on this elevation (pond level control). Turbine operation is automated and can be adjusted or shut down remotely, but startup must be done on-site. In 2007, KEI (Maine) installed a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) to monitor the headpond levels of the Project and maintain compliance with run-of- river operations. The SCADA also minimizes fluctuations of the reservoir and allows the Project to be remotely started or shutoff from KEI (Maine)'s Operations and Maintenance facility in Lewiston, ME, though plant operators visit the site daily. In conjunction with the instrumentation that monitors Project operation, a telephone paging system notifies Project personnel of operational problems via cellular telephones; the paging system is equipped with a battery backup.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-1 Final License Application

KEI (Maine) releases a minimum flow of 20 cfs to the bypassed reach. From June 1 through November 15, KEI (Maine) releases the minimum flow from the stoplog section of the dam, which also provides downstream fish passage. During the remainder of the year, KEI (Maine) releases the minimum flow from one of the fixed gates on the dam (FERC, 2011). The minimum flow was determined in consultation with agencies and was intended "to enhance fishery resources" (FERC, 1979). Furthermore, inflows outside of the hydraulic capacity of the Lower Barker Project are spilled at the dam providing additional water to the bypassed reach.

2.2.2 PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATION

KEI (Maine) proposes to increase the existing minimum flow of 20 cfs to 50 cfs to the bypassed reach. The Licensee is not proposing any additional changes to current operations. KEI (Maine) has requested FERC approval to install a new turbine unit with the same generating capacity but capable of generating at a somewhat lower inflow. Specifications for this until are not included in the license application. Should FERC approve the new unit outside of the license process, KEI (Maine) will submit a supplement to the license application, providing new unit specifications.

KEI (Maine) acknowledges agency recommendations for a higher minimum flow (recommendations ranging from a minimum of 113 to an ABF level of 176 cfs) and associated benefits to aquatic habitat and resources. KEI (Maine) maintains that the proposed bypass flow of 50 cfs provides sufficient incremental increases to aquatic habitat for the species and life stages evaluated, maintains the structure and function of aquatic habitat, and provides adequate water depth for zone of passage conditions for migratory and resident fish species of management interest in the reach. . Further, due to channel geometry and topography (wide shallow channel with large boulder and ledge substrate), recommended flows are unlikely to improve recreational boating opportunities. However, KEI (Maine) is currently in discussions with agencies regarding an alternative, mutually agreeable flow proposal.

2.2.3 PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES

KEI (Maine) proposes to increase the existing minimum flow of 20 cfs to 50 cfs to the bypassed reach. Effects of this proposed change on environmental resources are discussed in Exhibit E.

KEI (Maine) is also proposing to upgrade the existing downstream fish passage system to reduce entrainment potential for outmigrating diadromous fish species. Due to site characteristics the

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-2 Final License Application

exact configuration of a modified fishway has yet to be determined. In the fall of 2016, KEI (Maine) conducted a bathymetric survey in the vicinity of the upstream end of the intake canal which will be used to develop a preliminary design for the fishway modifications. The design will be developed in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Should the design progress sufficiently to allow for construction prior to license expiration, KEI (Maine) will consult with FERC to assess whether modifying the existing downstream fishway would require an amendment to the current license or if FERC would prefer to approve the structure as part of the new license.

No additional environmental measures are proposed at this time.

In comments on the draft license application, MDIFW recommends signage, parking and identification of existing foot access provisions to the tailrace/bypass area and formalizing the existing hand-carry boat launch at the impoundment with appropriate signage and parking. KEI (Maine) agrees to these improvements and proposes to consult with MDIFW for implementation of these measures as a condition of the new license.

2.3 AVERAGE ANNUAL GENERATION

Based upon generation records for 2007 through 2016, the average system generation was 5,087 MWH per year. Annual generation for years 2007 through 2016 is provided in Table 2-1; generation in 2014 was 5,915 MWh, in 2015 it was 4,224 MWh, and in 2016 generation was 2,595 MWh.

The monthly generation from 2007 through 2016 ranged from a high of 872 MWH in December 2006May 2012 to a low of 0 MWH during several months of the period of record. Table 2-1 contains historical average monthly generation at the Project for the period 2007 through 2016.

Flow for the project was calculated using data from USGS gage No. 01057000 (Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, Maine), approximately 22 miles northwest of the Lower Barker Project (Google Earth, 2013b), from 1985 to 2015. Data was pro-rated to the additional drainage area for the Lower Barker site. Based on this pro-rated data, the mean annual daily flow at the Project is 694 cfs. A summary of pro-rated daily average flows at the Project by month from January 1985 to December 2015 is presented in Table 2-2. Inflows to the Project exceed the maximum capacity (plus minimum flow requirements) approximately 59 percent of the time, on

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-3 Final License Application

average. Prior to selecting the South Paris USGS gage for this relicensing and associated flow duration curves and other hydrologic analyses, KEI (Maine) compared data from the Auburn USGS gage (#01058500) to prorated data from the South Paris gage (#01057000) for the period of time where both gages were active (1940-1982). As can be seen in Figure 2-1, the prorated data from the South Paris gage is very similar to the data at the Auburn gage.

FIGURE 2-1 COMPARISON OF PRORATED RIVER FLOW DATA FROM THE SOUTH PARIS USGS GAGE (#01057000) TO THE DISCONTINUED AUBURN USGS GAGE (#01058500)

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-4 Final License Application

TABLE 2-1 HISTORICAL MONTHLY GENERATION TOTALS AT THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT 2007-2016 (MWH)

MONTH 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 AVERAGE January 711 790 644 219 514 584 663 758 620 0 550 February 291 762 392 540 392 552 617 539 418 321 482 March 654 697 609 657 709 812 780 505 503 206 613 April 756 718 716 638 688 484 811 719 707 747 698 May 753 698 676 485 834 872 679 799 294 329 642 June 459 458 525 172 254 549 680 566 447 117 423 July 8 366 778 133 0 212 789 454 115 0 286 August 0 767 713 0 0 101 252 335 3 0 217 September 0 501 84 0 0 93 454 0 13 0 115 October 41 507 0 282 43 323 67 90 305 33 169 November 659 555 3 244 447 631 296 327 332 217 371 December 643 586 33 363 710 648 305 823 467 625 520

TOTAL 4,975 7,405 5,173 3,733 4,591 5,861 6,393 5,915 4,225 2,595 5,087 ANNUAL

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-5 Final License Application

TABLE 2-2 PRO-RATED DAILY AVERAGE MINIMUM, MAXIMUM, AND MONTHLY MEAN INFLOWS AT THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT (JANUARY 1985 TO DECEMBER 2015)1 Minimum Pro- Maximum Pro- Mean Pro-Rated Rated Rated Daily Average Daily Average Daily Average Month Inflow Inflow Inflow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) January 489 88 15,269 February 379 88 3,978 March 998 97 15,512 April 2,034 209 32,871 May 916 73 16,144 June 634 36 15,803 July 327 15 6,467 August 281 4 7,051 September 196 3 8,801 October 528 15 9,482 November 786 63 10,406 December 762 92 12,254 Annual 694 3 32,871 Source: USGS, 2016

Between 2007 and 2016, the Project generated an average annual energy output of 5,087,000 kWh at a plant factor of 48.4 percent, calculated as follows:

(5,087,000 kWH/year) / (1,200 kW2 x 8,760 hours/year) = 0.484Estimated Average head

The estimated average head for the Lower Barker Project is 49 feet. This value is based upon a full pond surface elevation of 164.7 feet NAVD88 and a normal tailwater elevation of 115.6 feet NAVD88.

1 The Auburn flow gage (USGS Gage 01058500) located near the Lower Barker Dam was discontinued in 1982. The coincident period of record for both the Auburn and South Paris (USGS Gage 01057000) gages 10-5-1972 to 10-5-1982 was selected and compared. The FDC of each set of raw data was developed, and then a proration factor of (DA Auburn Gage/DA South Paris Gage) and was calculated to multiply the South Paris FDC to match the Auburn FDC; where n is some number less than 1 used to adjust the factor, and was adjusted in order to match the prorated flow to Auburn as best as possible. The Auburn gage drainage area is smaller than the Lower Barker Dam's, so the prorated South Paris data was further prorated by (DA Lower Barker Dam/DA Auburn Gage) 0.8. Annual and monthly FDCs were developed from this final prorated data. 2 The Project’s turbine is rated at 1.5 MW (1,500 kW) but the generator is limiting at 1,200 kW; therefore 1,200 kW was used in this calculation.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-6 Final License Application

2.3.1 FLOW DATA

2.3.2 HYDRAULIC CAPACITY OF THE PROJECT

The estimated maximum hydraulic capacity of the Project generating units is approximately 500 cfs and a minimum hydraulic capacity of 150 cfs.

2.3.3 RIVER FLOW DATA

The Lower Barker Project is located on the Little Androscoggin River in southwestern Maine. The Little Androscoggin River drainage covers two counties, Androscoggin and Oxford. The river is approximately 52 miles long from its headwaters to its confluence with the Androscoggin River (USGS, 2013c). Among the major lakes and tributaries in the basin are Bryant Pond, Thompson Lake, Andrews Brook, Black Brook, Cushman Stream, Meadow Brook, and Bog Brook (Maine Legislature, 1989). The Project is located approximately 2,000 feet upstream from the confluence of the Little Androscoggin River with the Androscoggin River in Androscoggin County in Auburn, Maine.

The maximum peak flow recorded during the period of record (water years 1913 to 1924 and 1931 to 2013), as measured at the USGS No. 01057000 gage upstream of the Lower Barker Project, was approximately 9,340 cfs, which occurred in April 1, 1987. The lowest peak flow recorded during that time was approximately 0.6 cfs, which occurred in September, 17 and 21, 1995 (USGS, 2015).

2.4 PROJECT STRUCTURES

The Project consists of a concrete dam with spillway, non-overflow stoplog and gate sections; a power canal, intake and gate house; an underground concrete penstock; a transformer and substation; and a powerhouse containing one turbine generator unit. Table 2-3 provides a summary of the facilities and installed equipment.

2.4.1 IMPOUNDMENT DATA

The Project reservoir is approximately 0.65 miles in length from the base of the Upper Barker Dam to the Lower Barker Dam (Photo 2-1). The impoundment is approximately 16.5 acres in surface area at the normal full pond elevation of 164.7 feet NAVD88. The impoundment has a variable depth along its approximately 3,400-foot-long reach. The Project impoundment ranges

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-7 Final License Application in width from approximately 50 to 185 feet. Its maximum depth is approximately 30 feet near the dam and it is approximately 3,000 feet in length. The Project reservoir holds 150 acre-feet at normal operating level (USACE, 2013) with a maximum dam storage of 210 acre-feet. Because the Project is run-of-river, there is minimal available usable storage behind the dam. Figure 3-1 provides a headwater rating curve for the Project impoundment.

PHOTO 2-1 LOWER BARKER IMPOUNDMENT

Source: Google.com Upper Barker Dam (Red), Lower Barker Dam (Yellow)

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-8 Final License Application

2.4.2 DAM

The Project's dam is a concrete Ambursen slab and buttress style structure 30 feet in height and 232 feet long with a crest elevation of 163.5 feet NAVD883. The dam consists of a 46-foot-long non-overflow section that has two waste gates that measure 8 feet high by 10 feet wide (invert elevation approximately 144 feet NAVD88) (Photo 2-2) along the left buttress. The dam has a 125-foot-long spillway topped by 14-inch high flashboards that result in a normal full pond water surface elevation of 164.7 feet NAVD88. The non-overflow section of the dam adjacent to the power canal is 61 feet long and has six 7-foot-wide by 5-foot-high stop-log sections (invert elevation approximately 162 feet NAVD88) and one 4-foot-wide by 5-foot-high stop-log section (invert elevation approximately 162 feet NAVD88) (Photo 2-4) with a top deck elevation of 169.6 feet NAVD88 (FERC, 1991) (Photo 2-2). The discharge capacity of the spillway is 12,600 cfs.

PHOTO 2-2 LOWER BARKER PROJECT

Stoplog Section Power Canal Waste Gate Section Spillway

Gatehouse

Source: Bing.com

3 North American Vertical Datum of 1988

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-9 Final License Application

PHOTO 2-3 LOWER BARKER DAM NON-OVERFLOW WASTE GATE SECTION, SPILLWAY AND UPPER PORTION OF THE BYPASS REACH

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-10 Final License Application

Lower Barker Mills FERC No. 2808-ME Headpond Rating Curve 174

173

172

171

170

169

168

167

166

Headpond Elevation (ft, NAVD 88) NAVD (ft, Elevation Headpond 165

164

163 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 River Flow (cfs)

FIGURE 2-2 HEADPOND RATING CURVE FOR THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-11 Final License Application

PHOTO 2-4 LOWER BARKER DAM NON-OVERFLOW STOP-LOG SECTION

2.4.3 INTAKE, CANAL, AND PENSTOCK

The intake canal is approximately 20 feet wide and 60 feet long. The Project’s gate house is approximately 35 foot long by 20 foot wide located at the end of the power canal. The intake gate house consists of a single gate, equipped with trashracks measuring approximately 18.5 feet wide by 14.5 feet high with 2-inch clear spacing. Water is then diverted into the penstock, which is concrete, measures 650-feet long4, and is 10-feet wide by 8-feet high. The entire penstock runs underground from the headgate to the powerhouse.

4 The current license describes the penstock as being 780 feet based on the original construction proposal, however based on field measurements, the penstock measures 650-feet long, and is 10-feet-wide by 8-feet high.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-12 Final License Application

PHOTO 2-5 POWER CANAL AND GATE HOUSE

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-13 Final License Application

PHOTO 2-6 GATEHOUSE

2.4.4 POWERHOUSE

The Project powerhouse is located approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the dam. The powerhouse, which houses a single turbine-generating unit, is a concrete structure that measures 50-feet long by 25-feet wide5 (Photo 2-7). The powerhouse contains one 1500 mm, 1,950 hp (1.5 MW), 305 rpm, double-regulated semi-Kaplan Allis Chalmers 5XA horizontal tube turbine connected to an IHI speed increaser then to a horizontal, 1,667 KVA Louis Allis generator with a capacity of 1,200 kW at 46 feet of head. The unit, manufactured in 1979, has a maximum hydraulic capacity of 500 cfs and a minimum hydraulic capacity of 150 cfs.

5 The current license describes the powerhouse dimensions as 55-feet by 20-feet based on the original construction proposal, however based on field measurements, the powerhouse is 50-feet by 25-feet.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-14 Final License Application

PHOTO 2-7 PROJECT POWERHOUSE

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-15 Final License Application

2.4.5 BYPASS REACH AND TAILRACE

The Project bypass reach extends from the Lower Barker Dam downstream approximately 3,000 feet to the tailrace and is on average approximately 100 feet wide. The tailrace has an approximate width of 110 feet at the discharge area (FERC, 1979). Figure 4-1 provides a tailwater rating curve for the Lower Barker Project.

PHOTO 2-8 PROJECT POWERHOUSE TAILRACE

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-16 Final License Application

Lower Barker Mills FERC No. 2808-ME Tailwater Rating Curve at Powerhouse 145

140

135

130

125

120

115

110 Headpond Elevation (ft, NAVD 88) NAVD (ft, Elevation Headpond

105

100 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 River Flow (cfs)

FIGURE 2-3 TAILWATER RATING CURVE FOR THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT.

2.4.6 APPURTENANT FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

The Project generator is connected to the distribution line via a 250-foot-long, 4.2 kV underground power line (FERC, 1991). The single line diagram for the Project is provided in Section 9.0.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-17 Final License Application

TABLE 2-3 LOWER BARKER PROJECT STRUCTURES STRUCTURES DAM WITH SPILLWAY 30 foot high by 232 feet long, made of concrete. The barrier is broken into three sections including 46 foot long gate section, 125 foot long concrete crest, and a 61 foot long deck.

Normal Pond elevation 164.7 feet NAVD88 Spillway 125 feet long with flashboards NON-OVERFLOW SECTION 46 foot long with two waste gates Waste Gate 1 (along left buttress) 8 feet high by 10 feet wide Waste Gate 2 (along left buttress) 8 feet high by 10 feet wide Non-overflow section (adjacent to power 61 feet long with seven stop-log sections canal) Stop-log sections six, 7 foot wide by 5 foot high Stop-log sections one, 4 foot wide by 5 feet high Flashboards 14 inches high POWER CANAL 60 feet long by 20 feet wide by approximately 9.6 feet deep. The canal has seven stop-log sections that lead up to the intake gate house. INTAKE GATE HOUSE 35 foot long by 20 foot wide, single gate, to the right of the stop- log section, equipped with trashracks. Trashracks 18.6 feet wide by 14.6 feet high with 2 inch clear spacing PENSTOCK 650 feet long approximately 8 feet high by 10 feet wide with 6 foot by 8.5 foot, made of concrete, and runs underground to the powerhouse POWERHOUSE 50 feet long by 25 feet wide, made of concrete, located approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the dam Turbine unit one 1500 mm, 1,950 hp (1.5 MW), 305 rpm, double-regulated semi-Kaplan Allis Chalmers 5XA horizontal tube turbine Generator IHI speed increaser then to a horizontal, 1,667 KVA Louis Allis generator with a capacity of 1,200 kW at 46 feet of head

Unit Capacities The unit, manufactured in 1979, has a maximum hydraulic capacity of 500 cfs and a minimum hydraulic capacity of 150 cfs.

BYPASS REACH AND TAILRACE Extends from the Lower Barker Dam downstream approximately 3,000 feet with a normal tailrace elevation of 116 feet.

TRANSFORMER AND SUBSTATION The Project generator is connected to the distribution line via a 250-foot-long, 4.2 kV underground power line

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-18 Final License Application

2.4.7 PROPOSED FACILITIES

As noted above, the Licensee is also proposing to upgrade the existing downstream fish passage system to reduce entrainment potential for outmigrating diadromous fish species, with designs to be developed in consultation with NMFS and USFWS. There are no additional changes to existing facilities proposed for the Lower Barker Project.

2.5 ESTIMATED COST OF THE PROJECT

Costs for upgrade of the downstream fish passage system will likely range between $500,000 and $900,000 for design and installation, plus $40,000 a year for maintenance and operations. No changes or additions to the existing Project structures are proposed as part of this relicensing.

KEI (Maine) proposes to implement MDIFW recommended enhancements of formalizing recreation access signage and parking and estimates that these improvements will cost approximately $15,000 with an annual maintenance cost of approximately $2,500 per year.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-19 Final License Application

3.0 PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT

The Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project is operated for the production of hydroelectric power. The power generated by this Project is integrated into KEI (Maine), and sold to Central Maine Power. Central Maine Power provides reliable high voltage electric power to over 600,000 people within the state of Maine.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 3-1 Final License Application

4.0 ESTIMATED COST OF RELICENSING

KEI (Maine) estimates that the cost of relicensing the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project is approximately $400,000. This cost includes both internal administrative costs and external expenses (e.g. consultant costs) over the course of the traditional licensing process (TLP).

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-1 Final License Application

5.0 VALUE OF PROJECT POWER

The Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project is operated in run-of-river mode and is part of KEI’s (Maine) portfolio of generation supply options. Power generated from the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project has an average value of $205,000, including Renewable Energy Credits.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 5-1 Final License Application

6.0 ESTIMATED CHANGE IN PROJECT GENERATION

The Project will continue to operate in a run-of-river mode. However, with the proposed increase of the minimum flow from 20 cfs to 50 cfs, the higher minimum flow will reduce the amount of water available for generation; therefore, decreasing the overall production of the facility. Similarly, the agency recommended increase to 176 will reduce water available for generation. Table 6-1 provides calculated losses in generation at several flow increments including the proposed 50 cfs and approximate recommended flow (i.e., 175 cfs as close approximation of 176 cfs).

TABLE 6-1 GENERATION LOSSES ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED BYPASS MINIMUM FLOWS Bypass Reach 2003 - 2013 Average Reduction to Annual Cost of Reduction in Minimum Flow Annual Generation Average Generation Annual Generation (cfs) (MWH) (MWH) ($2017) 20 5,293 ------50 5,024 -269 -$10,857 80 4,787 -506 -$20,407 100 4,623 -671 -$27,026 175 4,061 -1,232 -$49,663 200 3,884 -1,409 -$56,780 300 3,259 -2,034 -$81,961

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 6-1 Final License Application

7.0 UNDEPRECIATED NET INVESTMENT (BOOK VALUE) OF THE PROJECT

The undepreciated net investment for the Project is approximately $914,584.00 as of July 31, 2016. The annual operation and maintenance costs of running the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project facility is $143,200.95 with the annual administrative expenses being approximately $42,073.70.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 7-1 Final License Application

8.0 ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST OF THE PROJECT

The total annual cost to operate the Project, including administrative costs, insurance, operations and maintenance, general and other expenses is as follows:

• administrative costs $42,073.70 • insurance $22,456.32 • operations and maintenance $143,200.95 • general and other expenses (Included in the above)

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 8-1 Final License Application

9.0 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 9-1 Final License Application

10.0 PROJECT SAFETY PROGRAM

The existing Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project is classified as a low hazard project and KEI (Maine) is exempt from filing an Emergency Action Plan with the Commission. Due to the low hazard classification of this dam, no Potential Failure Mode Analysis has been conducted at this site and therefore no Potential Failure Modes have been identified. The Dam Safety Surveillance and Monitoring Program and Report (DSSMP) defines the appropriate monitoring for the water retaining project works. The DSSMP for the Project was filed with the FERC in February 2011.

In addition, Section 10(c) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) authorizes FERC to establish regulations requiring licensees to operate and properly maintain their projects for the protection of life, health, and property. FERC Part 12 regulations include such safety measures as signage and exclusion devices. License Article 23 requires the licensee to install and operate such signs, lights, sirens, or other safety devices to warn the public of fluctuations in flow from the Project and protect the public in its recreational use of Project lands and waters.

KEI (Maine) was required by FERC to file a public safety plan for the Project, which depicts the public safety devices installed at the Project and their location. The Commission approved the Public Safety Plan on January 11, 1993. KEI (Maine) maintains fences, handrails, a locked entrance gate and warning signs to protect the public from the hazards of Project operations (Photo 10-1 through Photo 10-4). KEI (Maine) also seasonally installs a boat barrier before May 31 and removes the barrier by October 12 annually (Photo 10-4). According to the most recent FERC Environmental Inspection Report (issued April 8, 2011), KEI (Maine) was reported to be in compliance with its requirements with regard to public safety.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 10-1 Final License Application

PHOTO 10-1 PUBLIC SAFETY NOTIFICATIONS PART 12 SIGNAGE AT POWERHOUSE

Signs: Sign: Boat Barrier “Danger, no diving or swimming, “Beware, water Installed at the severe undercurrents” Fence rises rapidly” end of May, “Danger, Keep Out” removed after “Beware, water rises rapidly upstream” Columbus Day Intake canal

Sign: Spillway “Danger, Dam Ahead” Signs (2) “Danger, Keep out”

Powerhouse

Gatehouse

Signs: “Danger, no diving or swimming, Sign: severe undercurrents” “Beware, water “Danger, Keep Out” Fence surrounds rises rapidly” intake area

Signs: “Beware, water rises rapidly, Dam Upstream” “Danger, no diving or swimming, severe undercurrent” Lower Barker FERC # 2808-ME Public Safety Plan September 2009

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 10-2 Final License Application

PHOTO 10-2 PART 12 SIGNAGE AT POWERHOUSE

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 10-3 Final License Application

PHOTO 10-2 PART 12 SIGNAGE AT TAILRACE

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 10-4 Final License Application

PHOTO 10-3 FENCING AND PART 12 SIGNAGE AT GATE HOUSE

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 10-5 Final License Application

PHOTO 10-4 BOAT BARRIER AT LOWER BARKER IMPOUNDMENT

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 10-6 Final License Application

11.0 REFERENCES

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. Flood Insurance Study: Androscoggin County. [Online] URL: http://www.starrteam.com/starr/RegionalWorkspaces/RegionI/AndroscogginMEriverine/Preliminary%20 Maps/Preliminary%20Flood%20Insurance%20Study%20 (FIS)/23001CV002A.pdf. Accessed December 10, 2013.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1979. Order Issuing License for Barker's Mill Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2808). 6 FERC ¶61,175. Issued February 23, 1979.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1991. Order approving as-built exhibits re Consolidated Hydro Maine, Inc for Barker Mill Lower Project 2808 (FERC No p-2808). Accession No. 19910610-0239. Filed June 5, 1991.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement Lower Androscoggin River Basin Hydroelectric Projects Maine. July, 1996. Accessed November 6, 2013.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2011. Environmental Inspection Report for Barker's Mill Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2808). Accession No.: 20110408-5042. Filed April 7, 2011.

Google Earth. 2013b. " USGS No. 01057000." +44° 18'12.00" N and 70°32'22.00"W. Accessed November 11, 2013.

Maine Legislature. 1989. MRS Title 38 §467. Classification of major river basins, Maine Revised Statutes. [Online] URL: http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/38/title38sec467.pdf. Accessed November 7, 2013.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013. National Inventory of Dams. [Online] URL: http://geo.usace.army.mil/pgis/f?p=397:4:1473658987832501::NO. Accessed November

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013a. USGS 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, Maine. [Online] URL: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/wys_rpt?dv_ts_ids=63890&wys_water_yr=2015&site_no =01057000&agency_cd=USGS&adr_water_years=2006%2C2007%2C2008%2C2009% 2C2010%2C2011%2C2012%2C2013%2C2014%2C2015&referred_module=. Accessed November 1, 2016.

EXHIBIT E

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE FOR MINOR PROJECT LESS THAN 5MW

LOWER BARKER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 2808)

KEI (MAINE) POWER MANAGEMENT (III) LLC

EXHIBIT E ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION ...... 1-1 1.2 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS...... 1-2 1.2.1 SECTION 401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT ...... 1-2 1.2.2 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ...... 1-2 1.2.3 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT...... 1-3 1.2.4 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT ...... 1-3 1.2.5 MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT ...... 1-3

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 2-1 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 2-1 2.1.1 EXISTING PROJECT FACILITIES ...... 2-1 2.2 PROJECT LANDS AND WATERS ...... 2-7 2.3 EXISTING PROJECT OPERATION ...... 2-7 2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT FACILITIES ...... 2-7 2.5 PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATION ...... 2-8 2.6 PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES ...... 2-8

3.0 PRE-FILING CONSULTATION RECORD ...... 3-1 3.1 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ...... 3-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ...... 4-1 4.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN ...... 4-1 4.1.1 REFERENCES ...... 4-4 4.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS...... 4-6 4.2.1 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE ...... 4-6 4.2.2 TEMPORAL SCOPE ...... 4-6 4.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ...... 4-6 4.3.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...... 4-6 4.3.1.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 4-6 4.3.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 4-9 4.3.1.3 REFERENCES ...... 4-10 4.3.2 WATER RESOURCES ...... 4-11

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project - i - Final License Application TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)

4.3.2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 4-11 4.3.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 4-23 4.3.2.3 REFERENCES ...... 4-24 4.3.3 FISH AND AQUATIC RESOURCES ...... 4-26 4.3.3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 4-26 4.3.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 4-45 4.3.3.3 REFERENCES ...... 4-47 4.3.4 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES ...... 4-49 4.3.4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 4-49 4.3.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 4-54 4.3.4.3 REFERENCES ...... 4-55 4.3.5 RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED TERRESTRIAL SPECIES ...... 4-57 4.3.5.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 4-57 4.3.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 4-61 4.3.5.3 REFERENCES ...... 4-62 4.3.6 RECREATION, AESTHETICS, AND LAND USE ...... 4-64 4.3.6.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 4-64 4.3.6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 4-86 4.3.6.3 REFERENCES ...... 4-87 4.3.7 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES ...... 4-91 4.3.7.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 4-91 4.3.7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 4-93 4.3.7.3 REFERENCES ...... 4-94 4.3.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 4-95 4.3.8.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 4-95 4.3.8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 4-96 4.3.8.3 REFERENCES ...... 4-96 4.3.9 TRIBAL RESOURCES ...... 4-97 4.3.9.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 4-97 4.3.9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ...... 4-97

5.0 PROJECT ECONOMICS ...... 5-1

6.0 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ...... 6-1

7.0 REFERENCES ...... 7-1

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 3-1 DESCRIPTION AND STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL STUDIES FOR LOWER BARKER RELICENSING ...... 3-2 TABLE 4-1 LITTLE ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER HYDRO PROJECTS ...... 4-3 TABLE 4-2 DAILY MEAN, MINIMUM, AND MAXIMUM INFLOWS BY MONTH FOR THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT (JANUARY 1985 TO DECEMBER 2015)...... 4-12 TABLE 4-3 TYPICAL PERCENTAGE OF TIME BY MONTH THAT RIVER FLOW IS OUTSIDE THE HYDRAULIC CAPACITY RANGE OF THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT (150 TO 500 CFS) (JANUARY 1985 TO DECEMBER 2015)...... 4-12

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project - ii - Final License Application TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)

TABLE 4-4 ESTABLISHED AND PROPOSED MAINE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR SELECT PARAMETERS ...... 4-14 TABLE 4-5 AVERAGE, MINIMUM, AND MAXIMUM WATER TEMPERATURE THROUGHOUT THE WATER COLUMN IN THE LOWER BARKER IMPOUNDMENT DURING THE LAKE TROPHIC SAMPLING, JUNE ‒ OCTOBER, 2015 ...... 4-17 TABLE 4-6 AVERAGE, MINIMUM, AND MAXIMUM DO CONCENTRATION AND DO PERCENT SATURATION THROUGHOUT THE WATER COLUMN IN THE LOWER BARKER IMPOUNDMENT DURING THE LAKE TROPHIC SAMPLING, JUNE ‒ OCTOBER, 2015 ...... 4-17 TABLE 4-7 WATER TEMPERATURE (⁰C), DO CONCENTRATION (MG/L) AND DO PERCENT SATURATION IN THE BYPASSED REACH AND TAILRACE, LOWER BARKER PROJECT, JULY 7 ‒ SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 ...... 4-20 TABLE 4-8 MDEP WATER QUALITY MONITORING RESULTS FROM UPSTREAM OF THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT ...... 4-21 TABLE 4-9 UPSTREAM FISH PASSAGE COUNTS AT THE BRUNSWICK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (1983-2016)...... 4-29 TABLE 4-10 ANNUAL RIVER HERRING STOCKING RECORDS FOR THE LITTLE ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER ...... 4-30 TABLE 4-11 2015 NIGHTTIME AMERICAN EEL SURVEY RESULTS, LOWER BARKER PROJECT. 4-32 TABLE 4-12 STOCKING RECORDS FOR THE LITTLE ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER, 2013 – 2016...... 4-34 TABLE 4-13 SUMMARY OF MBI 2003 ELECTROFISHING RESULTS, ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER NEAR LEWISTON-AUBURN...... 4-34 TABLE 4-14 COMPARISON OF TARGET AND ACTUAL FLOW RELEASES, LOWER BARKER PROJECT INSTREAM FLOW STUDY...... 4-36 TABLE 4-15 HABITAT SUITABILITY, PERCENT INCREASE, AND CUMULATIVE INCREASE IN SUITABILITY IN THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT BYPASSED REACH...... 4-41 TABLE 4-16 WETTED WIDTH COMPARED TO BANKFULL WIDTH, LOWER BARKER PROJECT INSTREAM FLOW STUDY...... 4-41 TABLE 4-17 MONTHLY MEDIAN INFLOW AND HABITAT USE BY TARGET SPECIES AND LIFE STAGES ...... 4-43 TABLE 4-18 FRESHWATER MUSSELS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE LITTLE ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER...... 4-44 TABLE 4-19 INVASIVE PLANTS POTENTIALLY OCCURRING WITHIN THE PROJECT ...... 4-50 TABLE 4-20 RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT AREA...... 4-57 TABLE 4-21 LENGTH OF TIME (HOUR) IMPOUNDMENT WOULD BE DRAWN DOWN TO PROVIDE A FLOW OF 300 CFS AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME (HOUR) NEEDED TO REFILL THE LOWER BARKER IMPOUNDMENT...... 4-81 TABLE 4-22 LENGTH OF TIME (HOUR) IMPOUNDMENT WOULD BE DRAWN DOWN TO PROVIDE A FLOW OF 500 CFS AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME (HOUR) NEEDED TO REFILL THE LOWER BARKER IMPOUNDMENT...... 4-81

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project - iii - Final License Application TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)

TABLE 4-23 LENGTH OF TIME (HOUR) IMPOUNDMENT WOULD BE DRAWN DOWN TO PROVIDE A FLOW OF 660 CFS AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME (HOUR) NEEDED TO REFILL THE LOWER BARKER IMPOUNDMENT...... 4-82 TABLE 4-24 LAND USES IN ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY ...... 4-82 TABLE 4-25 POPULATION STATISTICS FOR AUBURN, ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY AND MAINE . 4-91 TABLE 4-26 EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS FOR AUBURN, ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY AND MAINE ...... 4-93

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 4-1 HOURLY WATER TEMPERATURE TIME SERIES IN THE TAILRACE AND BYPASSED REACH, JULY 7 ‒ SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 ...... 4-19 FIGURE 4-2 HOURLY DO CONCENTRATION AND DO PERCENT SATURATION TIME SERIES IN THE TAILRACE AND BYPASSED REACH, JULY 7 ‒ SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 ...... 4-20 FIGURE 4-3 HABITAT SUITABILITY CURVES FOR ATLANTIC SALMON, BROWN TROUT, AND RAINBOW TROUT, LOWER BARKER PROJECT, LITTLE ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER. ... 4-40 FIGURE 4-4 WETLANDS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT ...... 4-52 FIGURE 4-5 RECREATION INVENTORY MAP ...... 4-72

LIST OF PHOTOS

PHOTO 2-1 LOWER BARKER IMPOUNDMENT ...... 2-3 PHOTO 2-2 LOWER BARKER PROJECT ...... 2-4 PHOTO 2-3 LOWER BARKER DAM NON-OVERFLOW WASTE GATE SECTION, SPILLWAY AND UPPER PORTION OF THE BYPASS REACH ...... 2-4 PHOTO 2-4 LOWER BARKER DAM NON-OVERFLOW STOP-LOG SECTION ...... 2-5 PHOTO 2-5 POWER CANAL AND GATE HOUSE ...... 2-5 PHOTO 2-6 GATEHOUSE ...... 2-6 PHOTO 2-7 PROJECT POWERHOUSE ...... 2-6 PHOTO 4-1 BOAT BARRIER AND INFORMAL HAND-CARRY BOAT LAUNCH LOCATED ALONG THE BARKER MILL TRAIL UPSTREAM OF THE LOWER BARKER DAM ...... 4-73 PHOTO 4-2 REPRESENTATIVE PHOTO OF THE BARKER MILL TRAIL ...... 4-73 PHOTO 4-3 PATH LEADING TO THE TAILRACE BELOW THE LOWER BARKER DAM ...... 4-74 PHOTO 4-4 SULLIVAN SQUARE PARK ...... 4-75 PHOTO 4-5 PLAYGROUND AND BENCHES IN BONNEY PARK ...... 4-76 PHOTO 4-6 BONNEY PARK CONNECTS TO LEWISTON VIA THE RIVERWALK AND AN OLD RAILROAD BRIDGE...... 4-76 PHOTO 4-7 MOULTON PARK CONSISTS OF OPEN LAWN AND A SKATE PARK ...... 4-77 PHOTO 4-8 A HAND-CARRY BOAT LAUNCH IS AVAILABLE IN LITTLE ANDY PARK ...... 4-78

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project - iv - Final License Application TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D)

PHOTO 4-9 A SMALL PLAYGROUND, PICNIC TABLES, BENCHES, AND OPEN GRASS SPACE ARE AVAILABLE IN LITTLE ANDY PARK ...... 4-79 PHOTO 4-10 LOWER BARKER PROJECT ...... 4-85 PHOTO 4-11 VIEW OF LOWER BARKER DAM FROM MILL STREET DURING THE WINTER MONTHS ...... 4-86

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – STUDY REPORT APPENDIX B – FLOW DURATION CURVES APPENDIX C – DLA COMMENT RESPONSE MATRIX AND DLA COMMENT LETTERS

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project - v - Final License Application

APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE FOR MINOR PROJECT LESS THAN 5MW

LOWER BARKER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 2808)

KEI (MAINE) POWER MANAGEMENT (III) LLC

EXHIBIT E ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC (KEI Maine) is using the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC or Commission) Traditional Licensing Process (TLP) for the relicensing of the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project (Project). The Licensee is filing a Draft License Application (DLA).

1.1 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION

The format of Exhibit E generally follows the Commission’s guidelines for preparing an Environmental Report (ER). The purpose of the ER format is to:

• Describe the existing and proposed project facilities, including project lands and waters; • Describe the existing and proposed project operation and maintenance plan, to include measures for protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PME) with respect to each resource affected by the project proposal; and • A description of steps taken by the applicant in consulting with Federal, state, and local agencies.

Important issues that are addressed in this report include fishery resources, water quality, wetlands, aquatic habitat, instream flows, entrainment, state and federally protected and rare species, cultural and historical resources, tribal, and recreational access.

The Exhibit E contains the content specified by 18 CFR § 4.61 and includes the following seven sections:

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 1-1 Final License Application

Section 1 – Introduction - including purpose of action and need for power, statutory and regulatory requirements, and public review and comment Section 2 – Proposed Action - including a description of existing and proposed project facilities, proposed project operation, and proposed protection mitigation and enhancement measures. Section 3 – Pre-filing consultation record Section 4 – Environmental Analysis Section 5 – Economic Analysis Section 6 – Consistency with Comprehensive Plans Section 7 – References

1.2 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

1.2.1 SECTION 401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT

The Applicant is subject to Water Quality Certification under Section 401(a)(1) of the federal Clean Water Act of 1977. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection establishes numeric water-quality standards consistent with the Clean Water Act and state law under Title 38, Chapter 3.

1.2.2 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

Under provisions of Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), a federal agency that authorizes, permits, or carries out activities must consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to ensure that its actions will not jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. A federal agency is required to consult USFWS if an action “may affect” listed species or designated critical habitat, even if the effects are expected to be beneficial. A “may affect” determination includes actions that are “not likely to adversely affect,” as well as “likely to adversely affect” listed species. If the action is “not likely to adversely affect” listed species (i.e., the effects are beneficial, insignificant, or discountable), and the USFWS agrees with that determination, the USFWS provides concurrence in writing and no further consultation is required. If the action is “likely to adversely affect” listed species, then the federal action agency must request initiation of formal consultation. This request is made in writing to the USFWS, and must include a complete initiation package. Formal consultation concludes with the USFWS’s issuance of a biological opinion to the federal action agency.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 1-2 Final License Application

1.2.3 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT

This act, administered by NOAA, provides for the management of the nation’s coastal resources, including the Great Lakes. The goal is to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation’s coastal zone.”

The Project is not located within a Coastal Zone and therefore is not subject to the Coastal Zone Management Act.

1.2.4 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (Public Law 89-665; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) is legislation intended to preserve historical and archaeological sites in the United States of America.

Cultural resources studies were completed in 2015, with supplemental surveys conducted in 2016.

1.2.5 MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT

This act is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in U.S. federal waters. First passed in 1976, the Magnuson-Stevens Act fosters long-term biological and economic sustainability of our nation's marine fisheries out to 200 nautical miles from shore.

The New England Fishery Management Council (NEFMC) is one of eight regional fishery management councils created by the 1976 Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, renamed Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act in 1996, to manage living marine resources within that area. The NEFMC is responsible for the creation of management plans for fishery resources (FMPs) in Federal waters off of the New England States (which include Maine).

Critical habitat has been designated for the Atlantic salmon within the Androscoggin River.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 1-3 Final License Application

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION

This section describes the Lower Barker Project and KEI (Maine)’s proposal for continued operation of the Lower Barker Project. This section includes a description of the Project as it exists and is operated under the existing license, a description of proposed operations and measures for the new license, and an analysis of proposed operations and measures on existing resources.

2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1.1 EXISTING PROJECT FACILITIES

The Project operates as a run-of-river facility with a continuous flow requirement of 20 cubic feet per second (cfs). The Project’s dam is a concrete Ambursen slab and buttress style structure 30 feet in height and 232 feet long with a normal full pond water surface elevation of 164.7 feet NAVD88.

The following information provides a more detailed description, of the existing Project:

• The Project reservoir is approximately 0.65 miles in length from the base of the Upper Barker Dam to the Lower Barker Dam (Photo 2-1) with a surface area of 16.5 acres and a maximum dam storage of 210 acre-feet. • The concrete Ambursen slab and buttress-style dam consists of the following principal components (Photo 2-2):

o A 46-foot-long non-overflow section that has two waste gates that measure 8 feet high by 10 feet wide (invert elevation approximately 144 feet NAVD88) along the left buttress (Photo 2-3).

o A 125-foot-long spillway topped by 14-inch high flashboards that result in a normal full pond water surface elevation of 164.7 feet NAVD88.

o The right side non-overflow section of the dam adjacent to the power canal is 61 feet long and has six 7-foot-wide by 5-foot-high stop-log sections (invert elevation approximately 162 feet NAVD88) and one 4-foot-wide by 5-foot-high stop-log section (invert elevation approximately 162 feet NAVD88) with a top deck elevation of 169.6 feet NAVD88 (FERC, 1991) (Photo 2-4). • A 60-foot long power canal that is approximately 20 feet wide (Photo 2-5). • A 35-foot-long by 20-foot-wide intake gate house consisting of a single gate at the end of the power canal, equipped with trashracks measuring approximately 18.6 feet wide by 14.6 feet high with 2-inch clear spacing (Photo 2-6).

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-1 Final License Application

• The penstock is concrete, measures 650 feet1 long by 8 feet in diameter and runs underground from the intake gate house to the powerhouse. The powerhouse is a concrete structure that measures 50 feet long by 25 feet wide (Photo 2-7).

• The powerhouse contains one 1500 mm, 1,950 hp (1.5 MW), 305 rpm, double-regulated semi-Kaplan Allis Chalmers 5XA horizontal tube turbine connected to an IHI speed increaser then to a horizontal, 1,667 KVA Louis Allis generator with a capacity of 1,200 kW at 46 feet of head. The unit, manufactured in 1979, has a maximum hydraulic capacity of 500 cfs and a minimum hydraulic capacity of 150 cfs. • The powerhouse and tailrace are located approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the dam (FERC, 1979). • KEI (Maine) maintains and operates a downstream fish bypass at the Lower Barker Project to facilitate the passage of juvenile and post-spawned river herring and other emigrating fish species. • The Project generator is connected to the distribution line via a 250-foot-long, 4.2 kV underground power line (FERC, 1991). • Average annual generation for 2014 was approximately 5,915 MWH, 2015 was approximately 4,224.93 MWH, and in 2016 was approximately 2,595 MWH.

1 4 The current license describes the penstock as being 780 feet based on the original construction proposal, however based on field measurements, the penstock measures 650-feet long, and is 10-feet-wide by 8-feet high.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-2 Final License Application

PHOTO 2-1 LOWER BARKER IMPOUNDMENT

Source: Google.com Upper Barker Dam (Red), Lower Barker Dam (Yellow)

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-3 Final License Application

PHOTO 2-2 LOWER BARKER PROJECT

Stoplog Section Power Canal Waste Gate Section Spillway

Gatehouse

Source: Bing.com

PHOTO 2-3 LOWER BARKER DAM NON-OVERFLOW WASTE GATE SECTION, SPILLWAY AND UPPER PORTION OF THE BYPASS REACH

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-4 Final License Application

PHOTO 2-4 LOWER BARKER DAM NON-OVERFLOW STOP-LOG SECTION

PHOTO 2-5 POWER CANAL AND GATE HOUSE

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-5 Final License Application

PHOTO 2-6 GATEHOUSE

PHOTO 2-7 PROJECT POWERHOUSE

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-6 Final License Application

2.2 PROJECT LANDS AND WATERS

The FERC Project boundary for the Lower Barker Project is provided in Exhibit G. The Project boundary encompasses the impoundment up to normal headpond elevation 165.6 feet NAVD88 and extends upstream to the base of the Upper Barker Dam. The Project boundary encloses the dam, buried penstock, and the powerhouse. There are no Federal lands within or adjacent to the Project boundary.

2.3 EXISTING PROJECT OPERATION

The Project is operated as run-of-river with no impoundment fluctuation. The headpond is maintained at an elevation slightly above the spillway crest, allowing a veil of water to overtop the dam to satisfy the 20 cfs minimum flow requirement. The Project has a maximum hydraulic capacity of 500 cfs and a minimum hydraulic capacity of 150 cfs. Inflows less than 170 cfs (minimum hydraulic capacity plus minimum flows) are passed at the dam. Flows in excess of 500 cfs (maximum hydraulic capacity plus minimum flows) are likewise spilled over the dam or passed through existing gates into the bypassed reach.

From June 1 through November 15, KEI (Maine) releases the minimum flow from the stoplog gate near the intake to the power canal, which serves as the downstream fish passage. Water and fish exiting the gate, discharge into a plunge pool, cascade down a small set of bedrock falls, and rejoin the Little Androscoggin immediately downstream of the dam. During the remainder of the year, KEI (Maine) releases the minimum flow from one of the fixed gates or via spill (FERC, 2011). This bypassed flow, determined in consultation with agencies, was intended "to enhance fishery resources" (FERC, 1979). River flow typically exceeds the maximum hydraulic capacity of the turbine 38 percent of the time and is less than the minimum capacity approximately 22 percent of the time, resulting in the provision of flows to the bypassed reach approximately 60 percent of the year, depending on the type of water year (e.g., wet, dry, normal).

2.4 PROPOSED PROJECT FACILITIES

KEI (Maine) is not proposing any new or modified Project facilities as part of this relicensing.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-7 Final License Application

2.5 PROPOSED PROJECT OPERATION

The Licensee is proposing to continue to operate the Project as run-of-river. KEI (Maine) is proposing increase the minimum flow to the bypassed reach to 50 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less. The mechanism for releasing the minimum flow is not yet finalized. The Project will continue to provide flows through stoplog section to provide downstream fish passage from June 1 through November 15.

2.6 PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES

KEI (Maine) proposes to increase the existing minimum flow of 20 cfs to 50 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, to the bypassed reach. KEI (Maine) acknowledges agency recommendations for a higher minimum flow (recommendations ranging from a minimum of 113 to an ABF level of 176 cfs) and associated benefits to aquatic habitat and resources. KEI (Maine) maintains that the proposed bypass flow of 50 cfs provides sufficient incremental increases to aquatic habitat for the species and life stages evaluated, maintains the structure and function of aquatic habitat, and provides adequate water depth for zone of passage conditions for migratory and resident fish species of management interest in the reach. Further, due to channel geometry and topography (wide shallow channel with large boulder and ledge substrate), recommended flows are unlikely to improve recreational boating opportunities. However, KEI (Maine) is currently in discussions with agencies regarding an alternative, mutually agreeable flow proposal.

KEI (Maine) is also proposing to upgrade the existing downstream fish passage system to reduce entrainment potential for outmigrating diadromous fish species. Due to site characteristics the exact configuration of a modified fishway has yet to be determined. In the fall of 2016, KEI (Maine) conducted a bathymetric survey in the vicinity of the upstream end of the intake canal which will be used to develop a preliminary design for the fishway modifications. The design will be developed in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Should the design progress sufficiently to allow for construction prior to license expiration, KEI (Maine) will consult with FERC to assess whether modifying the existing downstream fishway would require an amendment to the current license or if FERC would prefer to approve the structure as part of the new license.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-8 Final License Application

KEI (Maine) received numerous comments on its DLA relative to upstream and downstream fish passage measures (Appendix C). The Licensee has been holding informal discussions about fish passage for diadromous fish species with the NMFS, USFWS, MDMR, and MDIFW and intends to attempt to resolve fish passage issues at the Lower Barker Project through these negotiations. KEI believes that permanent upstream anadromous fish passage is not justified at present, but is considering interim measures (e.g., support existing trap and truck, monitoring studies) until a biologically justifiable number of fish return.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-9 Final License Application

3.0 PRE-FILING CONSULTATION RECORD

3.1 STaKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

The Notice of Intent (NOI) and PAD for the Lower Barker Project were issued to stakeholders and filed with FERC on January 31, 2014. FERC approved the use of the TLP on March 19, 2014. KEI (Maine) conducted a joint meeting and site visit on May 19, 2014. The following provides a summary of consultation correspondence over the course of the relicensing process to date, including development and filing of draft and revised study plans and reports (Appendix A) and associated agency meetings:

2014 01/31/2014 The Lower Barker NOI and PAD were filed with FERC and mailed to stakeholders. 02/14/2014 Letters inviting the Aroostook Band of Micmacs, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians, Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point, Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township, and Penobscot Indian Nation to participate in relicensing process. 03/19/2014 FERC accepted TLP 04/30/2014 KEI (Maine) sent out joint agency meeting letter 05/19/2014 KEI (Maine) conducted joint agency meeting and site visit 05/05/2014 MEIFW comments provided on PAD 06/17/2014 MEIFW study request 07/03/2014 American Whitewater commented on PAD and study request 07/09/2014 MDMR commented on PAD 07/10/2014 NMFS commented on PAD and study request 07/16/2014 City of Auburn commented on PAD and study request 07/16/2014 MDEP commented on PAD and study request 07/18/2014 USFWS commented and study request

2015 04/23/2015 American Whitewater commented on Proposed Study Plan 05/06/2015 NOAA commented on PSP 05/06/2015 City of Auburn commented on PSP 05/06/2015 MDEP commented on PSP 05/06/2015 MEIFW commented on PSP 06/05/2015 KEI (Maine) filed a Proposed Study Plan with FERC. A list of studies and their status are provided in Table 3-1.

2016 05/10/2016 City of Auburn request for recreational flow studies in coordination with River Day 05/17/2016 KEI submitted Draft Study Report for agency review 06/10/2016 KEI provided response letter to City of Auburn

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 3-1 Final License Application

10-24-2016 KEI distributed and filed the Draft License Application

2017 01/05/2017 FERC comments on DLA 01/17/2017 American Whitewater comments on DLA 01/19/2017 State of Maine Department of Marine Resources comments on DLA 01/20/2017 State of Maine Department of Environmental Protection comments on DLA 01/20/2017 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service comments on DLA 01/21/2017 State of Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife comments on DLA 01/23/2017 City of Auburn comments on DLA 01/23/2017 National Marine Fisheries Service comments on DLA

With the exception of some comment letters provided by stakeholders on the DLA, pre-filing consultation correspondence listed above is not included with the License Application because these documents and letters are already in the administrative record on eLibrary. Appendix C provides a matrix of comments received on the draft application, including an explanation of how comments have been addressed in the final application, as appropriate. All comment letters are also included in Appendix C.

TABLE 3-1 DESCRIPTION AND STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL STUDIES FOR LOWER BARKER RELICENSING STUDY DESCRIPTION STATUS Water Quality Completed in 2015 – Section 4.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrates Completed in 2015 – Section 4.3.3 Nighttime American Eels Completed in 2015 – Section 4.3.3 Phase 1 completed in 2015 – Minimum Flow in the Bypassed Reach Phase 2 completed in 2016 Section 4.3.2 Historic Properties* Completed in 2015 and 2016 Reconnaissance Study completed in 2015 Cultural Study* Phase 1 study to be completed in 2016 Facility Inventory Completed in 2016 – Section 4.3.9 Recreational Needs Whitewater Flow Evaluation planned for 2016, as seasonal flows allow * These reports contain confidential information and are being provided to SHPO and FERC under separate cover.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 3-2 Final License Application

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

4.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN

The Lower Barker Project is located at river mile 0.25 on the Little Androscoggin River in the City of Auburn, within Androscoggin County, Maine. The Androscoggin River watershed extends from northeastern New Hampshire to the coast of Maine where it joins the Kennebec River to form Merrymeeting Bay. The watershed has a total drainage of 3,530 square miles (sq mi) (FERC 1996). At 164 miles long, the Androscoggin River is the third largest river in Maine. The Androscoggin River basin contains over 100 dams, 16 of which are used for hydropower generation (ENSR, 2007). Among the major streams and rivers in the basin are the Kennebago River, Rangeley River, Sabattis River, Sunday River, and the Little Androscoggin River (Maine Rivers, 2013).

The Little Androscoggin River basin, where the Project is located, is a sub-basin of the Androscoggin River watershed. The Little Androscoggin River basin, originates in Bryant Pond in Woodstock, Maine approximately 29 miles northwest of the Project area (Google Earth, 2013a). The Little Androscoggin drainage covers two counties, Androscoggin and Oxford. The Little Androscoggin River is approximately 52 miles long from its headwaters to its confluence with the Androscoggin River (USGS, 2013c). Among the major lakes and tributaries in the basin are Bryant Pond, Thompson Lake, Andrews Brook, Black Brook, Cushman Stream, Meadow Brook, and Bog Brook (Maine Legislature, 1989). The Project is located approximately 2,000 feet upstream from the confluence of the Little Androscoggin River with the Androscoggin River in Androscoggin County in Auburn, Maine.

Androscoggin County is located in southwestern Maine. The County encompasses 14 cities and towns including the second and fourth largest cities in the state, Lewiston and Auburn respectively. The Lewiston-Auburn metro area is a center for retail trade, services and manufacturing. The major topographic feature of Androscoggin County is the Androscoggin River which divides the "twin cities" of Lewiston and Auburn. The remainder of the topography is generally moderate, varying from forested hills to flat farmlands (AVCOG, 2011).

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-1 Final License Application

The mean annual daily flow into the Project is estimated to be 667 cubic feet per second (cfs), pro-rated from the USGS No. 01057000 (Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, Maine) on the Little Androscoggin River (USGS, 2015), approximately 22 miles northwest of the Lower Barker Project (Google Earth, 2013b). The maximum peak flow recorded during the period of record (water years 1913 to 1924 and 1931 to 2013), as measured at the USGS No. 01057000 gage upstream of the Lower Barker Project, was approximately 9,340 cfs, which occurred in April 1, 1987. The lowest peak flow recorded during that time was approximately 0.6 cfs, which occurred in September 17 and 21, 1919 (USGS, 2015).

Until the late 19th century, agriculture was the primary land use of the Little Androscoggin River basin. The amount of lands used for agricultural purposes peaked in 1880 before steadily declining through the end of the 20th century. Following the decline in agriculture many lands reverted to their original, forested state. Today, the majority of the basin remains forested (Ireland, 1998).

The Project lies wholly within Androscoggin County, Maine, which has a land area of approximately 468 square miles (U.S. Census, 2012a). The Project vicinity is dominated by forestland, approximately 61% of the total land cover, followed by agriculture at approximately 13% of the land cover. Overall, only a small percentage of the Project vicinity is developed (6.4%) (NOAA C-CAP, 2006). As such, the major land uses in Androscoggin County are forestry, agriculture and urban development, contained within 14 cities and towns, the largest of which is the Lewiston-Auburn metropolitan area where the Project is located (FERC, 1996).

The Lower Barker Project is located wholly within the City of Auburn, which is comprised of a mix of urban development and forested areas. Auburn was incorporated as a town in 1842. In the mid-1850s Auburn emerged as a "powerful and well-organized city" (Men, 1889), noted for its multitude of mills and factories (FERC, 1996). Today, many of the mills and factories are defunct and the areas of Auburn closest to the Project are zoned as general business; multi- family urban and suburban; and rural residential (Auburn, 2011).

The shoreline of the Project impoundment is predominantly wooded. Project operations and maintenance are the primary activities that occur on project lands. There are no formal public

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-2 Final License Application recreation facilities at the Project and access to the dam is blocked to unauthorized vehicles or pedestrians.

The Little Androscoggin River was historically home to many industrial sites that took advantage of the river as an energy source and water supply. The main types of industry developed on the Little Androscoggin River were textile and paper mills. As time progressed, large-scale factories began to leave the area and, as of today, only light industrial development and small businesses remain along the Little Androscoggin River (FERC, 1996).

There are 6 dams on the lower and middle reaches of the main stem Little Androscoggin River, listed in Table 4-1 in ascending order. The historical use of the river as an energy source is evident as a majority of the dams were constructed prior to 1945. Six of the dams are currently used for hydroelectric generation. Five of the dams are privately owned while the remaining three are owned by local municipalities (Table 4-1) (USACE, 2013). The Little Androscoggin River is also utilized for recreational purposes; the majority of which are fishing and boating (FERC, 1996).

TABLE 4-1 LITTLE ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER HYDRO PROJECTS PROJECT OWNER RESERVOIR HEIGHT OF GENERATION AREA (AC) DAM (FT) CAPACITY (KW)1 Lower Barker KEI (Maine) Power 150 30 1,500 Management (III) LLC. Upper Barker KEI (Maine) Power 255 24 1,000 Management (III) LLC. Hackett Mills Hackett Mills Hydro 480 8 470 Associates Mechanic Falls/ KEI (Maine) Power 103 15.4 1,310 Marcal Dam Management (IV) LLC Welchville Town of Oxford 5232 16 NA Biscoe Falls John Crouch Jr. & Sons 126 15 50 Source: USACE, 2013; FERC, 1996

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-3 Final License Application

4.1.1 REFERENCES

Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments (AVCOG). 2011. Androscoggin County Hazard Mitigation Plan. [Online] URL: http://www.androscogginema.org/HazMit.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2013.

City of Auburn (Auburn). 2011. City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan: 2010 Update. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/doc/commissioner/landuse/compplanning/plans/4_19_11_Auburn _CP.pdf. Accessed November 13, 2013.

ENSR Corporation (ENSR). 2007. "Chapter 5 Androscoggin River Basin." Historic Flooding in Major Drainage Basins, Maine. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/doc/commissioner/flood/docs/maineriverbasin/maineriverbasinrep ort_chap5.pdf. October, 2007. Accessed November 7, 2013.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1979. Order Issuing License for Barker's Mill Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2808). 6 FERC ¶61,175. Issued February 23, 1979.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement Lower Androscoggin River Basin Hydroelectric Projects Maine. July, 1996. Accessed November 6, 2013.

Google Earth. 2013a. "Bryant Pond." 44°22'12.69"N and 70°38'46.92"W. Accessed November 6, 2013.

Google Earth. 2013b. "USGS No. 01057000." +44° 18'12.00" N and 70°32'22.00"W. Accessed November 11, 2013.

Ireland, Lloyd C. 1998. Maine's Forest Area, 1600-1995: Review of Available Estimates. [Online] URL: http://www.umaine.edu/mafes/elec_pubs/miscpubs/mp736.pdf. Accessed November 7, 2013.

Maine Rivers. 2013. Androscoggin A Brief History. [Online] URL: http://mainerivers.org/watershed-profiles/androscoggin-watershed/. Accessed November 14, 2013.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Coastal Change Analysis Program (NOAA C-CAP). 2006. Land Cover Atlas Androscoggin County, Maine. [Online] URL: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/ccapatlas/. Accessed November 14, 2013.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013. National Inventory of Dams. [Online] URL: http://geo.usace.army.mil/pgis/f?p=397:4:1473658987832501::NO. Accessed November 8, 2013.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-4 Final License Application

U.S. Census. 2012a. QuickFacts: Androscoggin County, Maine. [Online] URL: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/23/23001.html. Accessed November 11, 2013.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013a. USGS 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, Maine. [Online] URL: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/me/nwis/uv/?site_no=01057000&PARAmeter_cd=00065,0006 0. Accessed November 6, 2013.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013b. USGS 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, Maine Little Androscoggin River Basin. [Online] URL: http://water.usgs.gov/nwc/NWC/sw/man/S01057000.html. Accessed November 7, 2013.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013c. Feature Detail Report for: Little Androscoggin River. [Online] URL: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:798291530516154::NO::P3_FID:5 69659. Accessed December 5, 2013.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013b. USGS 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, Maine Little Androscoggin River Basin. [Online] URL:http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/wys_rpt?dv_ts_ids=63890&wys_water_yr=2015&si te_no=01057000&agency_cd=USGS&adr_water_years=2006%2C2007%2C2008%2C20 09%2C2010%2C2011%2C2012%2C2013%2C2014%2C2015&referred_module=. Accessed November 1, 2016.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-5 Final License Application

4.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

4.2.1 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE

The geographic scope of analysis for cumulatively affected resources is defined by the physical limits or boundaries of the proposed action's effect on the resources and the limits or boundaries of contributing effects from other activities within the river basin. Because the proposed action can affect resources differently, the geographic scope for each resource may vary.

4.2.2 TEMPORAL SCOPE

The temporal scope of the environmental analysis includes a discussion of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and their effects on each resource that could be cumulatively affected. Based on the potential term of a new license for the Project, the temporal scope for analysis of cumulatively affected resources will look 30-50 years into the future, with focus on how reasonably foreseeable future actions affect resources. The discussion of historical information is limited to available information for the resource areas.

4.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES

4.3.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.3.1.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Project is located in the Central Interior biophysical region of Maine. This area is identified by its flat to gently low rolling hills and heavily forested land. While most of the region is underlain by sedimentary and metamorphic bedrock, a sizeable granitic pluton does exist southwest of Androscoggin Lake. The northwest border of the region roughly follows the inland extent of the glacial submergence that occurred in the state, and therefore the lowlands of the Lower Androscoggin Valley is filled with glaciomarine clays and silts (MDIFW, 2005).

The topography of the Project vicinity, Androscoggin County, is heavily forested with low, rolling hills. Androscoggin County contains 860 lakes and ponds as well as approximately 750 miles of rivers and streams (USGS, 2007). The tallest peak in Androscoggin County is Shackley Hill in town of Livermore. Shackley Hill is 1,222 feet high and is located approximately 22 miles north of the Project (Peakbagger, 2013).

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-6 Final License Application

Bedrock near the Project is composed primarily of stratified sedimentary, volcanic and metamorphic rocks as well as intrusive igneous rocks. Specifically, the bedrock in the vicinity of the Project includes gneiss, schist, granite, granodiorite and gabbro (MDACF, 2013)

SOILS

Maine soils were formed when the last glacier in Maine melted approximately 12,500 years ago and moved across the state in a northwest to southeasterly direction. Rock fragments and soil material were deposited as till, or as water-sorted sediments in streams, rivers, lake and the ocean. Land, depressed by the glacier, rebounded slowly, creating a complex pattern of soils derived from till, sediments, sands, and gravel (Ferwerda et. al, 1997).

Androscoggin County is composed of mainly loamy and sandy soils, formed mostly from granite, gneiss, metasandstone, schist. Additionally, some areas of Androscoggin County contain soils more clayey and loamy in nature. These soils are labeled as Skerry-Hermon-Monadnock- Colonel; Adams-Croghan-Naumburg; and Scantic-Lamoine-Buxton-Lyman (Ferwerda et. al, 1997).

Generally, the soils surrounding the dam are fine sandy loams, with some silty loams (USDA, 2013). The most common type of soil near the Project is characterized by the USDA as Made Land, which is a very gravelly sandy loam, moderately well drained, with a slope of 0 to 35 percent. The Project is also surrounded by Hartland, Scantic, Belgrade, Suffield, and Adams soils. Hartland soils are characterized as well-drained, very fine sandy loams, with slopes ranging from 0 to 25 percent. Parent material for Hartland type soils is course-silty glaciolacustrine deposits. Scantic soils are characterized as silt loam, with slopes ranging from 0 to 3 percent. Parent material for Scantic soils is fine glaciolacustrine deposits and/or fine-silty marine deposits. Belgrade soils are characterized as very fine sandy loam, with slopes ranging from 8 to 15 percent. Parent material for Belgrade soils is coarse-silty glaciolacustrine deposits. Suffield soils are characterized as silt loam, with slopes ranging from 15 to 30 percent. Parent material for Suffield soils is fine glaciolacustrine deposits. Adams soils are characterized as somewhat excessively drained, loamy sands, with slopes ranging from 0 to 30 percent. Parent material for Adams soils is sandy glaciofluvial deposits derived from crystalline rock. (USDA, 2013).

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-7 Final License Application

RESERVOIR SHORELINE AND STREAM BANK CONDITIONS

As discussed above, soils immediately surrounding the Project are primarily composed of moderately well drained, very gravelly sandy loam (USDA, 2013). Slopes range from 0 to 35 percent. Just upstream of the dam, soils along the shoreline are composed of Hartland very fine sandy loam, with 15 to 25 percent slopes. These soils are well drained and are typically found in lakebeds. Suffield silt loam soils are also found upstream of the dam, and are characterized as moderately well drained with slopes of 15 to 30 percent (USDA, 2013). Downstream of the dam, soils are predominantly "Made Land".

Shorelines immediately surrounding the Project impoundment are heavily forested, with some localized commercial and residential areas. Slopes are generally gentle along the impoundment. Downstream of the dam, the streambank and riverbed is primarily composed of rock and sand. Shorelines are very steep in the immediate vicinity of the dam and continue to be steep along the bypassed reach to the confluence of the Little Androscoggin River with the Androscoggin River.

EROSION

According to the 2010 State Hazard Mitigation Plan, all areas in Maine are susceptible to erosion, due to farming and crop cultivation throughout the state. Erosion can also occur in the area because of hurricanes, flooding, and wildfires, among other reasons (MDDVEM, 2010).

The Natural Resources Conservation Survey has assessed the susceptibility of the soils surrounding the Project to erosion caused by water including rainfall and stormwater run-off. Factor K estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and saturated hydraulic conductivity with values ranging from 0.02 to 0.69; the larger value indicating greater susceptibility to sheet and rill erosion by water. The Factor K values for the soils surrounding the Project range from 0.17 (Adams soils) to 0.49 (Belgrade and Hartland soils), indicating a moderate susceptibility to erosion from water. However, the majority of these soils are along the impoundment, which has relatively stable elevations from run-of-river operations. Downstream of the dam, the majority of soils are very gravelly sandy loam and the bypassed reach is armored with bedrock (USDA, 2013). The shoreline surrounding the Project is also heavily forested, which aids in stabilizing the banks.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-8 Final License Application

4.3.1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

PROPOSED ACTION

KEI (Maine) proposes to continue operating the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project as a run-of- river facility but with a higher minimum flow of 50 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less. Run-of- river operations minimize large fluctuations of flow to downstream reaches, thus providing more stable flows. Such stability will minimize the potential for erosion within the Project boundary.

The periodic impoundment drawdowns, associated with maintenance or emergency operations may have the potential to contribute to erosion within the Project boundary, but these events occur only on a very rare basis.

Recreation facilities are not over utilized by the public within the Project boundary and the soils present along the riverbank range from moderately low to moderate erodibility. The continued use of recreation facilities is therefore not expected to have significant adverse effects on soil stability within the Project boundary. Maintenance and grading associated with recreational facilities will occur only in areas where the soil is already disturbed; these activities would not likely contribute to additional erosion.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the no-action alternative, the Project would operate in the same manner as under the previous license. The Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project would continue to operate as a run-of- river facility with a minimum flow of 20 cfs or inflow into the reservoir (whichever is less). Run- of-river operation will minimize large fluctuations of flow in downstream reaches and provide stable flows. Such stability minimizes the potential for erosion within the Project boundary. Periodic impoundment drawdowns associated with maintenance or emergency operations or natural flood events may have the potential to contribute to erosion within the Project boundary. These events, though, occur on very rare occasions. By continuing run-of-river operations at the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project, Project operations are not expected to have significant adverse effects on the local soil and geology.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-9 Final License Application

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

Unavoidable adverse effects are those effects that may still occur after implementation of protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PME) measures. Some small amounts of erosion and sedimentation do have the potential to occur within the Project boundary if flooding events were to occur. Such events would contribute to erosion or scouring downstream of the Project. However, operation of the Project has a limited effect, if any, on geological resources and soil; therefore, additional PME measures are not warranted.

4.3.1.3 REFERENCES

Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (MDACF). 2013. Maine Geological Survey. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/dacf/mgs/pubs/online/bedrock/state.htm Accessed November 22, 2013.

Maine Department of Defense, Veterans, and Emergency Management (MDDVEM). 2010. 2010 State Hazard Mitigation Plan. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/mema/mitigation/mema_mit_plans.shtml Accessed November 25, 2013.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). 2005. Maine’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/ifw/wildlife/reports/wap.html. Accessed November 25, 2013.

Peakbagger.com (Peakbagger). 2013. Shackley Hill, Maine. [Online] URL: http://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=6715. Accessed December 9, 2013.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). 2013. Web Soil Survey. [Online] URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Accessed November 25, 2013.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. Scoping of Flood Hazard Mapping Needs for Androscoggin County, Maine. [Online] URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1131/ofr_2007_1131.pdf. Accessed December 9, 2013.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-10 Final License Application

4.3.2 WATER RESOURCES

4.3.2.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

WATER QUANTITY

The Lower Barker Project is operated as run-of-river (i.e., inflow equals outflow) and can generate electricity at river flows ranging from 150 cfs to 500 cfs, which are the approximate minimum and maximum hydraulic capacities of the turbine. Flows that pass through the turbine are discharged into the Little Androscoggin River approximately 0.57 river miles (RM) downstream of Lower Barker Dam, creating a 3,000-foot-long bypassed reach; a minimum flow of 20 cfs is conveyed to the bypassed reach to protect aquatic and fishery resources. Inflows less than 150 cfs and more than 500 cfs are spilled over the dam or passed through existing gates into the bypassed reach.

The impoundment extends upstream approximately 0.65 miles to the Upper Barker Project (FERC No. 3562) Dam. The reservoir has a storage capacity of 150 acre-feet (USACE, 2013) and a volume of 210 acre-feet. The impoundment has a surface area of approximately 16.5 acres at the normal pond elevation of 164.7 feet (NAVD88). The drainage area upstream of the dam is approximately 357 square miles. According to FEMA flood maps, the depth of the impoundment in the vicinity of the dam varies from 5 to 10 feet (FEMA, 2012); immediately upstream of the dam (i.e., at or near the face of the dam), the impoundment is approximately 30 feet deep. The impoundment does not provide sufficient storage capacity for flood control (FERC, 1979).

The mean, median, minimum, and maximum annual inflows of the Little Androscoggin River at the Lower Barker Project are estimated to be 694 cfs, 350 cfs, 3 cfs, and 32,871 cfs, respectively (Table 4-2). River flow typically exceeds the maximum hydraulic capacity of the turbine 38 percent of the time and is less than the minimum capacity approximately 22 percent of the time, resulting in the provision of flows to the bypassed reach approximately 60 percent of the year, depending on the type of water year (e.g., wet, dry, normal) (Table 4-3). KEI (Maine) is typically able to generate electricity approximately 78 percent of the year, assuming a normal water year. Appendix B provides flow duration curves for the Lower Barker Project for the period January 1985 to December 2015.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-11 Final License Application

TABLE 4-2 DAILY MEAN, MINIMUM, AND MAXIMUM INFLOWS BY MONTH FOR THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT (JANUARY 1985 TO DECEMBER 2015).2 MEAN INFLOW MEDIAN INFLOW MINIMUM MAXIMUM MONTH (CFS) (CFS) INFLOW (CFS) INFLOW (CFS) January 489 306 88 15,269 February 379 282 88 3,978 March 998 574 97 15,512 April 2,034 1,364 209 32,871 May 916 676 73 16,144 June 634 343 36 15,803 July 327 141 15 6,467 August 281 92 4 7,051 September 196 83 3 8,801 October 528 248 15 9,482 November 786 535 63 10,406 December 762 467 92 12,254 Annual 694 350 3 32,871

TABLE 4-3 TYPICAL PERCENTAGE OF TIME BY MONTH THAT RIVER FLOW IS OUTSIDE THE HYDRAULIC CAPACITY RANGE OF THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT (150 TO 500 CFS) (JANUARY 1985 TO DECEMBER 2015). PERCENT OF TIME PERCENT OF TIME LESS THAN 150 GREATER THAN CUMULATIVE MONTH (CFS) 500 (CFS) PERCENT January 8% 22% 30% February 10% 15% 25% March 5% 55% 60% April 0% 94% 94% May 1% 68% 69% June 16% 32% 48% July 52% 16% 68% August 61% 13% 74% September 70% 8% 78% October 31% 27% 58% November 4% 54% 58% December 2% 46% 48% Annual 22% 38% 60%

2 River flow data was obtained from USGS Gage No.01057000 (Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, Maine, approximately 22 miles northwest of the Lower Barker Project) for the time period January 1985 to December 2015, and pro-rated to account for the additional drainage area for the Lower Barker site. The drainage area at the USGS gauge is 73.5 square miles, and the drainage area at the Lower Barker dam is 357.4 square miles; therefore, the data from the gage were pro-rated by a factor of 4.9 (=357.4/73.5).

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-12 Final License Application

EXISTING USES OF WATER

Currently there is light industrial and small business activity along the Little Androscoggin River. The current uses of water in the vicinity of the Lower Barker Project are hydropower generation and wastewater assimilation. There are seven dams upstream of the Lower Barker Project on the Little Androscoggin River, four of which (Upper Barker, Hackett Mills, Mechanic Falls, and Biscoe Falls) are used for hydropower generation (USACE, 2013). There are no permitted water withdrawals from the impoundment for purposes other than hydropower generation.

There are active Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits on the Little Androscoggin River. These include permits issued to the Auburn Sewerage District (permit #ME0100005; EPA, 2013); the Paris Utility District (permit #ME0100951); the Norway municipal wastewater treatment facility (permit #ME0100455), Pioneer Plastics Corporation in Auburn (permit #ME0000540); the Mechanic Falls Sanitary District (permit #0100391); and the town of Oxford (permit #ME0102873) (EPA 2016).

INSTREAM FLOW USES

KEI (Maine) uses the Little Androscoggin River for hydroelectric generation. In addition, from June 1 through November 15, KEI (Maine) releases the minimum flow (20 cfs) from the stoplog section of the dam, which also provides downstream fish passage. During the remainder of the year, KEI (Maine) releases the minimum flow from one of the fixed gates on the dam (FERC, 2011). This minimum flow, determined in consultation with agencies, was intended "to enhance fishery resources" (FERC, 1979). Furthermore, inflows outside of the hydraulic capacity of the Lower Barker Project are spilled at the dam providing additional water to the bypassed reach.

EXISTING WATER RIGHTS

KEI (Maine) holds all of the flowage easements necessary to operate the Lower Barker Project. There is no development within the Project boundary and no streams are located within the Project boundary or within the vicinity of the Project that are affected by headpond fluctuations or by generation releases.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-13 Final License Application

WATER QUALITY

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Maine statute 38 MRSA §464-470 establishes the state of Maine’s classification system for surface waters. The lower section of the Little Androscoggin River from South Paris, Maine, to the confluence with the Androscoggin River is a Class C waterway (Maine Legislature, 1989). The quality of Class C waters must support the designated uses of drinking water supply after treatment, fishing, agriculture, recreation in and on the water, industrial process and cooling water supply, hydroelectric power generation, and habitat for fish and other aquatic life. Discharges in Class C waterways are permitted to cause some changes to aquatic life, provided that the receiving waters remain of sufficient quality to support all species of fish indigenous to the receiving waters and to maintain the structure and function of the resident biological community (Maine Legislature 1989, 38 MRSA§465).

The state of Maine has established Class C water quality standards for dissolved oxygen (DO), iron, and chloride, and has developed draft criteria for total phosphorus, chlorophyll-a, pH, water transparency (i.e., Secchi disk depth), and aluminum (Table 4-4).

TABLE 4-4 ESTABLISHED AND PROPOSED MAINE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR SELECT PARAMETERS

WATER PARAMETER CRITERIA CLASSIFICATION >5 mg/l or 60% saturation; 30-day Dissolved Oxygen average of 6.5 mg/l in salmonid Class C spawning areas Ironb 1000 µg/l or 1 mg/l Statewide Chlorideb 230,000 µg/l or 230 mg/l Statewide Aluminumb 87 µg/l or 0.087 mg/l Statewide Total Phosphorusc ≤ 33 µg/l (0.033 mg/l) Class C Water Column Chlorophyll-ac ≤ 8 µg/l (0.008 mg/l) Class C Secchi Disk Depthc ≥ 2.0 m Class C pHc 6.0 – 8.5 Class C aMaine Legislature 1989 bMDEP 2012a cMDEP 2012b

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-14 Final License Application

At the request of the MDEP, KEI (Maine) completed lake trophic, riverine, and benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring during the late spring, summer, and fall of 2015 to assess baseline water quality. KEI (Maine) employed lake trophic, riverine, and macroinvertebrate sampling methods in accordance with MDEP’s protocols (MDEP 2014a; Davies and Tsomides 2002). The goal of this study was to collect baseline water quality information and to use the information to assess whether the Little Androscoggin River in the Lower Barker Project area meets applicable water quality standards and provides for the designated uses of the waterway. The objectives of the study were to evaluate:

• effects of the impoundment on the designated use “recreation in and on the water”; • effects of the project on the designated use “habitat for fish and aquatic life”; • effects of the project on DO; • whether the Little Androscoggin River attains Class C water quality standards at the project based on the composition of the benthic macroinvertebrate community; and • whether the current operating regime and minimum flow requirements are maintaining the structure and function of the resident biological community.

The complete baseline water quality and benthic macroinvertebrate study reports are provided in Appendix A.

IMPOUNDMENT WATER QUALITY

KEI (Maine) performed lake trophic sampling in the impoundment twice a month from June through October 2015, using an epilimnetic core3 to collect measurements of total alkalinity, color, pH, chlorophyll-a, and total phosphorus. During each sampling event, KEI (Maine) also collected Secchi disk transparency measurements and water temperature and DO profiles at 1- meter intervals with a YSI 550A. All samples were collected in the afternoon between 12:15 and 16:05. The impoundment water quality sampling station was located approximately 200 feet (61 meters) upstream of the dam in approximately 13.0 feet (4 meters) of water. The water is nearly 30 feet deep immediately upstream of the dam; however, the sampling station was located upstream of the boat barrier because of safety concerns. KEI (Maine) provided MDEP with a map of proposed sample locations on June 8, 2015 via e-mail (Appendix B of the final study

3 Small-diameter hosing used to take a sample of the water column.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-15 Final License Application

report), and stated that if a deep spot was located between the boat barrier and the dam, it may not be accessible because of safety concerns; KEI (Maine) did not receive a response from MDEP. The Lower Barker Project is frequently shut-down during the summer months as a result of low water levels or maintenance; therefore, all river flow is spilled over the dam in those instances, potentially exposing researchers to hazardous conditions during sampling. On December 20, 2016, MDEP requested additional information regarding why the lake trophic sample location was upstream of the boat barrier in shallower water than directly upstream of the dam; KEI (Maine) provided a memo to MDEP on January 5, 2017, explaining the reason for selection of the sample location and including additional data analysis demonstrating that the Lower Barker project attained existing water quality standards and designated uses of the waterway. A copy of the memo is provided in Appendix C of the final study report.

On August 13, 2015, KEI (Maine) collected additional water samples for analysis of conductivity, dissolved organic carbon, and dissolved metals. The main findings of the water quality monitoring in the Lower Barker impoundment are:

• Total phosphorus ranged from 0.013 to 0.031 mg/l with an average 0.021 mg/l. These levels are below the proposed state standard upper limit of 0.033 mg/l for Class C waters. • Color ranged from 23 to 46 PCU with an average of 33.5 PCU. • Chlorophyll-a ranged from 0.0024 to 0.0037 mg/l with an average of 0.0030 mg/l which is less than the proposed state standard upper limit of 0.008 mg/l. • Total alkalinity ranged from 12 to 23 mg/l with an average of 18.1 mg/l indicating that the water had adequate buffering capacity. • pH ranged from 6.5 to 7.0 with an average of 6.8. All pH values were within the recommended range of 6.0 to 8.5 for Class C waters. • The Secchi disk transparency ranged from 1.3 to 4.1 meters with an average of 2.5 meters. • The trophic state index for the impoundment was 40 which is categorized as mesotrophic. • Conductivity was 135 µS/cm. • The concentrations of iron (0.65 mg/l) and chloride (23 mg/l) were less than the established standards. • The concentrations of dissolved metals and nutrients were (mg/l): nitrate = 0.09, sulfate = 4, calcium = 8.7, magnesium = 1.7, potassium = 1.5, silica = 4.2, sodium = 12, aluminum = <0.2, and dissolved organic carbon = 1.7.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-16 Final License Application

• The water temperatures at the beginning (June) and end (October) of the monitoring period were approximately 17⁰C and 9⁰C (63⁰F and 49⁰F), respectively (Table 4-5). The highest water temperatures were observed in late July through early September (approximately 23⁰C to 24⁰C or 73⁰F to 75⁰F). • The DO concentration was highest at the beginning and end of the monitoring period with values greater than 9 mg/l in June and greater than 10 mg/l in October (Table 4-6). DO was lower and exhibited a similar range throughout July, August, and September (approximately 8 to 9 mg/l). • The DO percent saturation was relatively uniform throughout the entire sampling period with a range of approximately 90 percent to 104 percent (Table 4-6). • The DO measurements exceeded the state standard for Class C waters of 5 mg/l or 60 percent saturation throughout the June to October sampling period, demonstrating that the water of the Lower Barker impoundment is well oxygenated. • Water temperature and DO exhibited little to no variation throughout the water column.

TABLE 4-5 AVERAGE, MINIMUM, AND MAXIMUM WATER TEMPERATURE THROUGHOUT THE WATER COLUMN IN THE LOWER BARKER IMPOUNDMENT DURING THE LAKE TROPHIC SAMPLING, JUNE ‒ OCTOBER, 2015 SAMPLE AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM DATE (⁰C) (⁰C) (⁰C) (⁰F) (⁰F) (⁰F) 6/9 17.3 17.2 17.4 63.1 63.0 63.3 6/24 19.3 19.3 19.4 66.8 66.7 66.9 7/7 22.0 21.8 22.3 71.6 71.2 72.1 7/23 23.3 23.1 23.8 74.0 73.6 74.8 8/13 22.6 21.8 24.1 72.7 71.2 75.4 8/26 23.5 23.2 23.9 74.3 73.8 75.0 9/9 23.7 21.9 24.7 74.7 71.4 76.5 9/22 19.9 19.7 20.1 67.8 67.5 68.2 10/6 12.9 12.7 13.2 55.2 54.9 55.8 10/22 9.4 9.3 9.5 48.9 48.7 49.1

TABLE 4-6 AVERAGE, MINIMUM, AND MAXIMUM DO CONCENTRATION AND DO PERCENT SATURATION THROUGHOUT THE WATER COLUMN IN THE LOWER BARKER IMPOUNDMENT DURING THE LAKE TROPHIC SAMPLING, JUNE ‒ OCTOBER, 2015 SAMPLE DO (MG/L) DO (% SATURATION) DATE AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM 6/9 9.2 9.2 9.3 96.0 95.1 96.7 6/24 9.4 9.4 9.4 101.7 101.4 101.8 7/7 8.7 8.7 8.7 99.6 99.0 100.3 7/23 8.2 7.9 8.6 96.5 92.2 101.2 8/13 8.7 8.6 8.9 101.2 98.2 102.4

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-17 Final License Application

SAMPLE DO (MG/L) DO (% SATURATION) DATE AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM 8/26 8.4 7.8 8.7 98.9 91.9 103.4 9/9 8.4 7.9 8.6 99.2 89.7 103.7 9/22 8.7 8.6 8.8 95.3 94.2 96.2 10/6 10.6 10.6 10.7 100.6 99.9 101.5 10/22 10.5 10.4 10.7 91.9 90.4 93.3

RIVERINE DO AND WATER TEMPERATURE

KEI (Maine) monitored DO and water temperature at two locations downstream from the dam using Onset Hobo U26-001 DO data loggers. One logger was on the river left4 side of the bypassed reach approximately 1,250 feet (381 meters) downstream from the dam in a potential salmonid spawning area (see Section 4.3.2); the second logger was approximately 225 feet (69 meters) downstream from the powerhouse. The loggers were programmed to sample the DO concentration at 1-hour intervals from July 7 to September 9, 2015, during the summer low flow and high temperature period. The water temperature and DO monitoring in the Lower Barker bypassed reach and tailrace demonstrated that (Table 4-7, Figure 4-1, and Figure 4-2):

• The water temperature in the bypassed reach ranged from 20.0⁰C (68.0⁰F) to 26.4⁰C (79.6⁰F) with an average of 23.1⁰C (73.7⁰F). • The water temperature in the tailrace ranged from 17.5⁰C (63.5⁰F) to 26.4⁰C (79.6⁰F) with an average of 22.5⁰C (72.6⁰F). • The DO concentration in the bypassed reach ranged from 6.36 to 9.37 mg/l with an average of 8.50 mg/l, and the percent saturation ranged from 75.3 to 107.7 percent with an average of 99.9 percent. • The DO concentration in the tailrace ranged from 7.15 to 9.69 mg/l with an average of 8.32 mg/l, and the percent saturation ranged from 80.9 to 108.4 percent with an average of 96.6 percent. • The DO measurements in the bypassed reach and tailrace exceeded the state standard for Class C waters of 5 mg/l or 60 percent saturation throughout the monitoring period.

From the beginning of sampling through July 23, the average water temperature in the bypassed reach (22.9⁰C) was approximately 2⁰C warmer than water temperature in the tailrace (20.8⁰C). It is difficult to identify the reason for the difference in water temperature between the two

4 All references to river left or river right are from the perspective of an observer looking downstream.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-18 Final License Application locations, however, there are several possible explanations, including cooler water being drawn from the impoundment, equipment error, or vandalism that resulted in abnormal values. The logger was found out of the water on July 23. The logger was moved further away from shore and buried under boulders to prevent further vandalism. After July 23, the water temperature in the tailrace and bypassed reach were in better agreement.

FIGURE 4-1 HOURLY WATER TEMPERATURE TIME SERIES IN THE TAILRACE AND BYPASSED REACH, JULY 7 ‒ SEPTEMBER 9, 2015

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-19 Final License Application

FIGURE 4-2 HOURLY DO CONCENTRATION AND DO PERCENT SATURATION TIME SERIES IN THE TAILRACE AND BYPASSED REACH, JULY 7 ‒ SEPTEMBER 9, 2015

TABLE 4-7 WATER TEMPERATURE (⁰C), DO CONCENTRATION (MG/L) AND DO PERCENT SATURATION IN THE BYPASSED REACH AND TAILRACE, LOWER BARKER PROJECT, JULY 7 ‒ SEPTEMBER 9, 2015 DO T (⁰C ) T (⁰F) CONCENTRATION DO SATURATION (%) (MG/L) Bypassed Reach Average 23.1 73.7 8.50 99.9 Median 23.1 73.6 8.52 100.1 Minimum 20.0 68.0 6.36 75.3 Maximum 26.4 79.6 9.37 107.7 Tailrace Average 22.5 72.6 8.32 96.6 Median 22.6 72.6 8.32 97.0 Minimum 17.5 63.5 7.15 80.9 Maximum 26.4 79.6 9.69 108.4

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-20 Final License Application

COMPARISON TO PREVIOUS WATER QUALITY DATA

MDEP collected water quality data at the confluence of the Little Androscoggin River and the Androscoggin River (approximately 0.75 river miles downstream of the Lower Barker Project) during the summer of 2010 (MDEP, 2011). The concentrations of chlorophyll-a (0.0025 to 0.0036 mg/l) and total phosphorus (0.018 to 0.022 mg/l) were within the range observed in the Lower Barker impoundment in 2015. In addition, MDEP sampled water quality in July and August 2014 and July 2015 approximately 8.3 river miles upstream of the Lower Barker Dam (Table 4-8). Those results demonstrated that waters upstream of the Lower Barker Project attain Class C criteria for DO and draft criteria for pH and total phosphorus. The water temperature and total alkalinity values from MDEP’s 2014 and 2015 sampling were consistent with KEI (Maine)’s measurements in the Lower Barker impoundment in 2015.

TABLE 4-8 MDEP WATER QUALITY MONITORING RESULTS FROM UPSTREAM OF THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT

TOTAL TOTAL TEMPERATURE DO CONDUCTIVITY DATE PH PHOSPHORUS ALKALINITY (⁰C) (MG/L) (µS/CM) (MG/L) (MG/L) 7/14/2014 25.0 7.9 7.14 ‒ ‒ 83 7/22/2014 22.2 7.4 6.06 0.020 15 97 8/12/2014 22.3 8.4 6.9 0.017 ‒ 84 7/15/2015 23.6 7.8 7.13 0.019 17 98.5 Source: MDEP Biomonitoring Unit; http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/biomonitoring/data.htm

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES At the request of the MDEP, KEI (Maine) monitored benthic macroinvertebrates downstream of the Lower Barker Dam to assess whether waters in the Project area meet Class C water quality standards and to evaluate the benthic community structure and function. Standard rock bags were installed at two sites: Site 1 was approximately 850 feet below the dam in the bypassed reach and Site 2 was approximately 2,600 feet downstream of the dam (approximately 400 feet downstream of the powerhouse). Three samplers were placed at each sample site on July 22, 2015, and were left in the river for approximately 28 days (± 4 days) to allow for invertebrate colonization.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-21 Final License Application

The monitoring results demonstrated that the benthic macroinvertebrate communities downstream of the Lower Barker Dam were abundant and rich in taxa. Filter-feeders represented a sizable proportion of the communities. Filter-feeding caddisflies constituted more than 34 percent of the total abundance at Site 1 and more than 57 percent at Site 2. The community structure and function found downstream of the dam, specifically the presence of stoneflies and mayflies, indicates that there has been little, if any, change in the resident biological community. Sensitive mayflies and stoneflies represented a considerable segment of the community; 13 taxa at Site 1 and 12 taxa at Site 2 represented 38 percent and 30 percent of the communities, respectively. The macroinvertebrate community downstream of the Lower Barker Dam on the Little Androscoggin River attains Class C aquatic life standards and maintains the structure and function of the resident benthic macroinvertebrate community. In fact, the benthic macroinvertebrate community was representative of Class A aquatic life standards, which is the 2nd highest water class in the state of Maine; this classification was supported by MDEP’s independent review of the data.

HABITAT AND AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA MDEP guidelines state that for the structure and function of aquatic habitat to be maintained in an impoundment and for the designated use of habitat for fish and other aquatic life to be attained, at least 75 percent of the littoral zone must remain wet at all times. KEI (Maine) operates the Lower Barker Project in a run-of-river mode, which results in infrequent adjustments to the headpond level for emergency or maintenance. As such, the littoral zone is wetted throughout the year during normal operations. KEI (Maine) proposed no studies of the impoundment littoral zone in its June 5, 2015, final study plan, which was provided to the MDEP.

MDEP guidelines also state that for structure and function to be maintained in free-flowing rivers or streams, at least 75 percent of the cross section of the river must be wet at all times. To assess the MDEP guidelines, KEI (Maine) conducted an instream flow study in 2015 and 2016 to evaluate the available aquatic habitat and wetted stream width in the bypassed reach downstream of the dam. Two transects in the bypassed reach were measured at five flows (35 cfs, 46 cfs, 108 cfs, 197 cfs, and 301 cfs) released from the dam. These flows wetted approximately 73 percent to 94 percent of the bankfull width. Detailed methods and results of the instream flow study are provided in Section 4.3.2.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-22 Final License Application

4.3.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

PROPOSED ACTION

KEI (Maine) is proposing to continue to operate the Lower Barker Project as run-of-river where natural inflow to the dam is equal to the outflow and there is limited water storage in the reservoir. The water quality monitoring in 2015 demonstrated that total phosphorus, chlorophyll- a, and water clarity were below the proposed state standard upper limits for Class C waters and did not indicate the presence of culturally induced algal blooms in the impoundment. Furthermore, benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring demonstrated that the bypassed reach and the reach of the Little Androscoggin River downstream of the powerhouse attain aquatic life standards and that the current minimum flow of 20 cfs maintains the structure and function of the macroinvertebrate community. Project waters upstream and downstream of the dam met or exceeded Class C standards for DO, dissolved metals, and nutrients. The 2015 studies demonstrated that under the current operating regime, the Little Androscoggin River at the Lower Barker Project meets the designated uses of “recreation in and on the water” and “habitat for fish and other aquatic life” and meets applicable water quality standards for Class C waters. MDEP concluded in their January 20, 2017, letter providing comments on the DLA that KEI (Maine) provided sufficient information regarding the trophic state of the Lower Barker impoundment but additional information and data collection is warranted for water temperature and DO in the deepest area of the impoundment.

KEI (Maine) is proposing a minimum flow of 50 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, to the bypassed reach. This flow is expected to increase the availability of suitable aquatic habitat for target fish species (e.g., salmonids) and macroinvertebrates and will keep 75 percent or more of the bypassed reach wet at all times.

As such, the proposed action is expected to affect the distribution of water downstream, increasing the water quantity, and enhancing the water quality and the designated beneficial uses of the Little Androscoggin River in the Project area.

NO-ACTION ALtERNATIVE

Under the current operating plan, the Little Androscoggin River at the Lower Barker Project attains applicable water quality standards and meets the designated uses of “recreation in and on

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-23 Final License Application

the water” and “habitat for fish and other aquatic life.” Continued run-of-river operation of the Lower Barker Project is not expected to alter the water quality of the impoundment, bypassed reach, or tailrace and will continue to maintain the resident fish and aquatic organism community.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

Current operation of the Lower Barker Project does not adversely affect the water resources in the Little Androscoggin River; however, KEI (Maine) may need to temporarily alter water levels in the impoundment, bypassed reach, or tailrace for routine maintenance or repairs. This may result in short-term periods of erosion or sedimentation into the impoundment or downstream river reaches.

4.3.2.3 REFERENCES

Davies, S. P. and L. Tsomides. 2002. Methods for biological sampling and analysis of Maine’s rivers and streams. ME Dept. of Env. Prot. Augusta, ME. 31p.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2016. Maine Final Individual Permits. [Online} https://www3.epa.gov/region1/npdes/permits_listing_me.html. Accessed January 24, 2017.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1979. Order Issuing License for Barker's Mill Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2808). 6 FERC ¶61,175. Issued February 23, 1979.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. Flood Insurance Study: Androscoggin County. [Online] URL: http://www.starrteam. com/starr/RegionalWorkspaces/RegionI/AndroscogginMEriverine/Preliminary%20 Maps/Preliminary%20Flood%20Insurance%20Study%20(FIS)/23001CV002A.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2016.

Maine Legislature. 1989. MRSA Title 38 §464-467. Classification of major river basins, Maine Revised Statutes. [Online] URL: http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes. Accessed December 15, 2015.

Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP). 2011. Lower Androscoggin River Basin Water Quality Study Modeling Report. March 2011. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/rivers_and_streams/modelinganddatareports /androscoggin/2011/lowerandromodelreport_final_march_2011.pdf.

Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP). 2012a. Chapter 584 Surface Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants. July 29, 2012. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/wd/general.html.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-24 Final License Application

Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP). 2012b. Draft Chapter 583 Nutrient Criteria for Surface Waters. June 12, 2012.

Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP). 2014a. Maine Department of Environmental Protection Sampling Protocol for Hydropower Studies - Lakes, Ponds and Impoundments and Rivers and Streams. June 2014.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013. National Inventory of Dams. [Online] URL: http://geo.usace.army.mil/pgis/f?p=397:4:1473658987832501::NO. Accessed November 8, 2013.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-25 Final License Application

4.3.3 FISH AND AQUATIC RESOURCES

4.3.3.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

DIADROMOUS FISH SPECIES

The Little Androscoggin River, which enters the main stem Androscoggin River on its west bank just below Lewiston Falls, historically supported large runs of diadromous fish, including river herring (alewife and blueback herring), American shad, Atlantic salmon, sea lamprey, and American eel. Two species of sturgeon (Atlantic and shortnose) occur in lower Androscoggin River, but did not occur in the Little Androscoggin River historically (ASSRT, 2007; SSSRT, 2010). Most sea-run fish ascended the Little Androscoggin up to Biscoe Falls, which is approximately 35 river miles above the confluence with the main stem Androscoggin River (MDMR, 2010). Lewiston Falls, which is 22 river miles above tidewater, is the natural upstream migration barrier on the main stem of the Androscoggin River for diadromous species, except Atlantic salmon and American eel, which are able to ascend past Lewiston Falls (MDMR, 2016a).

The dam built in 1807 in Brunswick at head-of-tide, which is 23 river miles downstream of the Lower Barker Project, excluded anadromous fish from the Androscoggin River until fish passage measures were implemented in the main stem in the 1980s. In 1982, Central Maine Power Company (CMP) rebuilt the hydroelectric facility in Brunswick (FERC No. 2284), the first dam on the main stem Androscoggin River. During reconstruction, CMP built an upstream fishway with a trapping and sorting facility and a downstream passage system for diadromous and resident fish species. Upstream and downstream passage was provided at the Pejepscot Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 4784), the second main stem dam on the Androscoggin River, in 1987, and at the Worumbo Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 3428), the third and final main stem dam on the Androscoggin River, in 1988.

MDMR began an Anadromous Fish Restoration Program in the lower Androscoggin River in the early 1980s. The primary focus of the restoration plan has been to restore alosine species (i.e., American shad, alewives, and blueback herring) to the lower main stem and tributaries below Lewiston Falls, while increasing the restoration potential for other native species such as Atlantic salmon and American eel (MDMR, 2010). A major strategy of the restoration plan has been to trap migrating adult river herring at the Brunswick Project and transport them into upstream

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-26 Final License Application spawning habitat. MDMR personnel operate the Brunswick fishway from May through October each year. The majority of river herring collected in the Brunswick fishway are alewife, although some blueback herring may ascend the fishway (MDMR, 2010). Statewide, the commercial in- river herring fishery is comprised of 97 percent alewife and 3 percent blueback herring (MDMR, 2010).

RIVER HERRING

MDMR has captured approximately 1,779,000 adult river herring at the Brunswick fishway since 1983 (Table 4-9). A large percentage of these fish are passed upstream via an active trap and truck program implemented by MDMR. MDMR’s total adult river herring release target for the Androscoggin watershed is 27,358 river herring into 1,846 hectare (ha) of upstream habitat available for restoration, which is equivalent to 14.8 fish per ha (i.e., 6 fish per acre) (MDMR, 2010). During the past eleven years (2006-2016), the number of adults captured at the Brunswick fishway available for transport and release was greater than current management targets (Table 4-9). The numbers of adult river herring captured during this period are likely the result of improved downstream passage for post-spawn adults and juveniles (MDMR, 2010). The 10-year average and 10-year median (2007-2016) fishway returns of adult herring to the Brunswick fishway are approximately 79,000 and 69,000 (Table 4-9).

Lakes and ponds in the Little Androscoggin watershed upstream of the Lower Barker Dam that are currently stocked by MDMR include Lower Range Pond, Marshall Pond, and Taylor Pond (MDMR, 2010). MDMR has stocked nearly 200,000 adult river herring in the Little Androscoggin River since 1983 (Table 4-10). During recent years (i.e., 2007-2016), these habitats have typically attained or exceeded their target stocking density of 14.8 fish per hectare (ha). Other lakes and ponds historically stocked by MDMR in the Little Androscoggin River include Thompson Lake, Tripp Lake, Hogan Pond, and Whitney Pond (MDMR, 2010). Hogan Pond, Whitney Pond, and Thompson Pond are no longer stocked with herring because of legislative restrictions or current fisheries management objectives do not support the effort.

River herring are also passed into the main steam at the Brunswick Dam, which allows them to ascend upriver to spawning habitats. The Licensee of the Worumbo Project passed 32,000 river herring in 2014 and 60,000 river herring in 2015 through the upstream fish passage system (personal communication, Brown Bear Hydro II, July 2016).

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-27 Final License Application

AMERICAN SHAD

MDMR supplemented the American shad population in the Androscoggin River through a hatchery rearing program using stock from the Merrimack River (Massachusetts and New Hampshire) until 2009. MDMR transported pre-spawn adult American shad to hatchery facilities in Waldoboro, Maine, where they were artificially spawned and reared to fingerling size, then stocked below Auburn adjacent to spawning and nursery habitat. From 1999-2008, MDMR stocked over 5.5 million juvenile American shad in the lower Androscoggin River (MDMR, 2010). Since 1985, MDMR has also transferred over 7,800 pre-spawn American shad from the Merrimack, Connecticut, and Androscoggin rivers for release below Lewiston Falls. The American shad hatchery and stocking program ended in 2009 due to lack of funding (MDMR, 2010). The Licensee of the Brunswick Dam has passed 1,428 American shad since operations began in 1982; 1,123 (78.6 percent) of the total were passed in 2016 (Table 4-9). American shad are passed into the Brunswick headpond; the fish lifts at the Pejepscot and Worumbo Projects allow for continued passage to Lewiston-Auburn (MDMR, 2010). In 2015, 18 American shad were passed at the Worumbo Project (personal communication, Brown Bear Hydro II, July 2016). The 10-year average and 10-year median (2007-2016) fishway returns of adult American shad to the Brunswick fishway are 122 and 4 (Table 4-9).

ATLANTIC SALMON Atlantic salmon are a federally endangered species protected under the ESA.5 Just over 800 Atlantic salmon have been passed at the Brunswick fishway since it was installed in the 1980s (Table 4-9). Only a few adult salmon return to the Androscoggin River annually; since 2000, an average of 10 adult salmon have been collected from the Brunswick fishway (Table 4-9).6 Salmon are passed into the Brunswick headpond to allow for continued volitional upstream passage through the main stem of the Androscoggin River. The fish lifts at the Pejepscot and Worumbo Projects allow for continued passage to Lewiston-Auburn. In 2015, 0 Atlantic salmon were passed at the Worumbo Project (personal communication, Brown Bear Hydro II, July 2016). Most Atlantic salmon arriving at the Brunswick Project are believed to be strays from other river systems (personal communication, Paul Christman, MDMR). The 10-year average

5 Section 4.3.4 provides additional information about the listing history, critical habitat, and recovery plans for Atlantic salmon. 6 Maximum return during that period was 44 (2011) and minimum return was 0 (2013).

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-28 Final License Application

and 10-year median (2007-2016) fishway returns of adult American shad to the Brunswick fishway are 13 and 8 (Table 4-9). In 2011, MDMR completed a radio-telemetry study evaluating Atlantic salmon habitat use and mainstem fish passage in the lower Androscoggin River. MDMR documented one adult Atlantic salmon and some spawning habitat in the bypassed reach below the Lower Barker Dam (MDMR, 2011).

TABLE 4-9 UPSTREAM FISH PASSAGE COUNTS AT THE BRUNSWICK HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (1983-2016). YEAR ADULT HERRING AMERICAN SHAD ATLANTIC SALMON* 1983 601 0 21 1984 2,650 0 91 1985 23,895 0 21 1986 35,471 0 81 1987 63,523 0 26 1988 74,341 0 14 1989 100,895 0 19 1990 95,574 1 185 1991 77,511 0 21 1992 45,050 0 15 1993 5,202 1 44 1994 19,190 1 25 1995 32,002 3 16 1996 10,198 2 39 1997 5,540 2 1 1998 25,189 5 4 1999 8,909 87 5 2000 9,551 88 4 2001 18,196 0 5 2002^ 104,520 0 2 2003^ 53,732 7 3 2004^ 113,686 12 12 2005 25,896 0 10 2006^ 34,239 3 6 2007^ 60,662 6 21 2008^ 92,359 1 18 2009^ 44,725 0 24 2010^ 39,689 22 9 2011^ 54,886 0 44 2012^ 170,191 11 0 2013^ 69,104 0 2 2014^ 68,749 0 4 2015^ 71,887 53 2 2016^ 121,010 1,123 7

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-29 Final License Application

YEAR ADULT HERRING AMERICAN SHAD ATLANTIC SALMON* Total 1,778,823 1,428 801 10-yr 79,326 122 13 10-yr 68,927 4 8 * Approximately 85 percent of returning salmon are of hatchery origin (MDMR data files). ^ attains or exceeds stocking goals of 14.8 fish/hectare. Source: personal communication, Mike Brown, MDMR, July 11, 2016.

TABLE 4-10 ANNUAL RIVER HERRING STOCKING RECORDS FOR THE LITTLE ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER

STOCKING LOCATION LOWER MARSHALL TAYLOR TOTAL YEAR RANGE POND POND POND RELEASE 1983 0 312 2,126 2,438 1984 217 499 2,626 3,342 1985 1,505 504 2,502 4,511 1986 1,364 514 3,846 5,724 1987 0 633 3,907 4,540 1988 1,768 522 3,672 5,962 1989^ 1,821 1,308 3,807 6,936 1990 2,085 595 2,261 4,941 1991 1,720 650 3,770 6,140 1992 1,718 600 3,207 5,525 1993 911 617 1,625 3,153 1994 1,745 593 4,068 6,406 1995^ 1,669 1,592 3,593 6,854 1996 1,793 689 3,779 6,261 1997 1,723 711 2,810 5,244 1998^ 1,852 930 4,336 7,118 1999 0 0 2,489 2,489 2000 1,748 612 3,801 6,161 2001^ 1,889 612 4,225 6,726 2002 1,595 609 1,477 3,681 2003 1,033 0 3,835 4,868 2004 1,654 612 3,731 5,997 2005 0 0 0 0 2006^ 3,999 1,629 3,875 9,503 2007^ 3,699 1,497 7,996 13,192 2008^ 2,499 1,499 4,500 8,498 2009^ 1,968 1,148 4,517 7,633 2010 1,327 1,272 3,232 5,831 2011^ 1,493 1,527 4,317 7,337 2012^ 1,616 1,453 4,318 7,387 2013 1,552 0 0 1,552 2014^ 1,506 1,117 4,080 6,703

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-30 Final License Application

STOCKING LOCATION LOWER MARSHALL TAYLOR TOTAL YEAR RANGE POND POND POND RELEASE 2015^ 2,186 1,496 4,555 8,237 2016^ 2,481 1,499 4,496 8,476 Total 54,136 27,851 117,379 199,366 ^ total attains or exceeds stocking goal of 14.8 fish/ha (i.e., 6 fish/acre) for the Little Androscoggin River. Source: personal communication, Gail Wippelhauser and Mike Brown, MDMR.

AMERICAN EEL In general, few American eels have been documented recently in the Androscoggin River (MBI, 2006; MDMR, 2016b; Miller Hydro Group, 2013; Miller Hydro Group, 2014), although it is likely they occurred in greater numbers historically. The Licensee of the Worumbo Project installs an upstream eel ladder annually to pass juvenile American eels; 17 and 131 eels were captured there during the 2012 and 2013 monitoring periods, respectively (Miller Hydro Group, 2013 and Miller Hydro Group, 2014). There are no other upstream eel passage systems on the Androscoggin River or on any of the Little Androscoggin River dams (personal communication, Gail Wippelhauser, MDMR).

At the request of MDMR, KEI (Maine) performed a series of nighttime surveys in 2015 to assess the need and potential location for an upstream eelway at the Lower Barker Project. The objectives of the study were to:

• conduct systematic nighttime surveys to identify the presence, abundance, distribution, and behavior of juvenile eels at the Lower Barker Project; • identify areas where eels congregate or attempt to ascend wetted structures; and • identify potential locations for an upstream eel passage system.

KEI (Maine) used binoculars and spotlights to search for juvenile eels along the downstream face of the dam and spillway, the spill gates, and the bedrock outcrops downstream of the dam. Each survey lasted 1 to 1.5 hours and took place after sunset. KEI (Maine) noted the location of congregating eels, the approximate number and size class of eels at each location, behavior patterns, and weather conditions.

KEI (Maine) performed 11 surveys and observed a total of 44 eels during the monitoring period (Table 4-11). In comparison to other river systems in Maine, the number of eels observed at the

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-31 Final License Application

Lower Barker Project is very low. Appendix A provides the complete 2015 Nighttime American Eel Monitoring Report.

TABLE 4-11 2015 NIGHTTIME AMERICAN EEL SURVEY RESULTS, LOWER BARKER PROJECT.

DATE NO. EELS OBSERVED LENGTH (MM) June 9 0 ‒ June 11 0 ‒ June 16 10 100-150 (4-6 inches) June 18 0 ‒ June 25 0 ‒ 3 eels 75-150 mm (3-6 inches), 1 eel 300 July 7 5 mm (12 inches), 1 eel 600 mm (24 inches) July 9 0 ‒ July 14 24 75-150 (3-6 inches) July 16 1 ‒ July 29 1 ‒ August 5 3 ‒ Total 44 ‒

FISH PASSAGE KEI (Maine) maintains and operates a downstream fish bypass at the Lower Barker Project to facilitate the passage of juvenile and post-spawned river herring and adult American eel. KEI (Maine) provides downstream fish passage by releasing 20 cfs (also the current minimum instream flow release) through a stop-log section of the main dam on the river right7 near the intake and small power canal. The fish bypass flow discharges directly into a large plunge pool, and then drops over a small set of bedrock falls. KEI (Maine) uses a notched weir in the plunge pool to verify that 20 cfs is released to provide fish passage. The downstream fish passage system is typically operated from June 1 through November 15 of each year, which aligns with the outmigration of juvenile and post-spawned herring as well as adult American eel.

KEI (Maine) is proposing to upgrade the existing downstream fish passage system to reduce entrainment potential for outmigrating diadromous fish species. Due to site characteristics the exact configuration of a modified fishway has yet to be determined. In the fall of 2016, KEI (Maine) conducted a bathymetric survey in the vicinity of the upstream end of the intake canal

7 All references to river right and river left are from the perspective of an observer looking downstream.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-32 Final License Application

which will be used to develop a preliminary design for the fishway modifications. The design will be developed in consultation with the NMFS and USFWS. Should the design progress sufficiently to allow for construction prior to license expiration, KEI (Maine) will consult with FERC to assess whether modifying the existing downstream fishway would require an amendment to the current license or if FERC would prefer to approve the structure as part of the new license.

RESIDENT FISH AND FISHERIES MANAGEMENT MDIFW stocked approximately 4,100 brown trout and rainbow trout (9 to 11 inches) in 2013 to 2016 at Mechanic Falls, Auburn, and Minot to support angling opportunities in the Little Androscoggin River (Table 4-12). Within stocking areas, MDIFW manages the Little Androscoggin as a put-grow-take trout fishery (personal communication, Francis Brautigam, MDIFW). There is currently no stocking downstream of the Lower Barker Dam although MDIFW has stocked this reach historically (personal communication, Francis Brautigam, MDIFW). The MDIFW’s fishery management goal for the Little Androscoggin River, including the bypassed reach associated with the Lower Barker Project, is to develop a trout fishery that persists April 1 – October 31 (MDIFW study request letter to the Commission, June 17, 2014). MDIFW does not actively manage this reach of the Little Androscoggin for brook trout, Maine’s only native trout species.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-33 Final License Application

TABLE 4-12 STOCKING RECORDS FOR THE LITTLE ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER, 2013 – 2016. RAINBOW BROWN YEAR TROUT TROUT TOTAL 2013 2,050 2,050 4,100 2014 2,050 2,050 4,100 2015 2,050 2,050 4,100 2016 1,804 2,250 4,054 Source: MDIFW, 2016.

The Midwest Biodiversity Institute (MBI) sampled the main stem of the Androscoggin River in 2003 near Lewiston-Auburn, 0.8 miles from the confluence with the Little Androscoggin River (MBI, 2006). MBI collected nine species via electrofishing in a 0.6-mile reach. The assemblage was dominated by smallmouth bass (Table 4-13). All species were typical of the lower reaches of Maine’s large warmwater river systems. Given the proximity to the Lower Barker Project, KEI (Maine) expects a similar resident fish species assemblage to occur. According to staff from the MDIFW, no recent sampling has occurred in or near Project waters (personal communication, Francis Brautigam, MDIFW). The stakeholders requested no studies of the freshwater fish assemblage as part of the relicensing of the Lower Barker Project.

TABLE 4-13 SUMMARY OF MBI 2003 ELECTROFISHING RESULTS, ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER NEAR LEWISTON-AUBURN. SPECIES NO. COLLECTED RELATIVE PERCENTAGE Smallmouth bass 78 67.2% White sucker 17 14.7% Redbreast sunfish 6 5.2% American eel 4 3.4% Pumpkinseed sunfish 4 3.4% Rainbow trout 2 1.7% Spottail shiner 2 1.7% Yellow perch 2 1.7% Fallfish 1 0.9% Total Catch1 116 - 1 In addition to the species listed in Table 4-13, MBI also collected a single largemouth bass from the main stem at the next downstream most station in the Lewiston-Auburn area. Source: Yoder et al. 2006.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-34 Final License Application

AQUATIC HABITAT Head pond – The impoundment has a surface area of approximately 16.5 acres at a normal full pond elevation of 164.7 feet8. According to FEMA flood maps, the depth of the impoundment varies from 5 to 10 feet (FEMA, 2012); however, water depth immediately upstream near the face of the dam is approximately 30 feet. The volume of the impoundment is 150 acre-feet with a maximum storage of 210 acre-feet (USACE, 2013). The width of the impoundment ranges from approximately 50 to 185 feet. KEI (Maine) operates the Lower Barker Project in a run-of-river mode (i.e., inflow to the dam matches outflow from the powerhouse). Because the Lower Barker Project is operated as in a run-of-river mode, there is minimal available storage behind the dam. KEI (Maine) maintains the headpond levels in compliance with run-of-river operations through use of a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system. The impoundment is generally riverine in character (i.e., shallow and narrow).

Bypassed Reach – Operation of the Lower Barker Project results in the diversion of water from approximately 3,000 feet of low to moderate gradient riverine habitat below the dam (i.e., the bypassed reach). KEI (Maine) proposes to provide a minimum flow of 50 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, to maintain aquatic habitat in the bypassed reach during non-spill periods (i.e., at river flows less than 150 cfs or greater than 500 cfs, which is the station’s operating range). The original minimum flow requirement was developed during the original licensing proceedings in the 1980s to enhance aquatic and fishery resources. FERC adopted the 20 cfs minimum flow because it was based on field observations done in collaboration with state and local interests (FERC, 1979).

At the request of the MDEP, MDIFW, and the USFWS, KEI (Maine) performed an instream flow study in 2015 and 2016 to evaluate the suitability of aquatic habitat in the bypassed reach across a range of flows released from the dam. KEI (Maine) identified three river transects with the USFWS and MDIFW during a 2015 habitat mapping survey. KEI (Maine) also established a 4th transect just upstream of the powerhouse to gage river flows released from the dam; this transect was only used for stream gaging and for measuring wetted widths. KEI (Maine) used standard hydraulic engineering calculations to determine how much to open the deep flood gates to provide the target flows for the study, which were 20, 50, 100, 175, and 300 cfs. Adjustments

8 Elevation datum is NAVD88.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-35 Final License Application

to the gate settings were made as needed to attain the target flow based on the stream gaging. There are leaks from the dam from numerous areas that resulted in additional water in the reach during the flow releases from the dam; this additional water was included in the measurements. Sources of leakage include the flashboards, two deep gates, and the 7 surface stop-log gates near the intake area. Table 4-14 provides a summary of the flows that were released and measured in the field.

TABLE 4-14 COMPARISON OF TARGET AND ACTUAL FLOW RELEASES, LOWER BARKER PROJECT INSTREAM FLOW STUDY. TARGET FLOW GAGED FLOW PLUS RELEASE NO. (CFS) LEAKAGE (CFS) 1 20 35 2 50 46 3 100 108 4 175 197 5 300 301

As put forward in the June 5, 2015, study plan, KEI (Maine) used Atlantic salmon fry, parr, and spawning adults; adult brown trout; and adult rainbow trout to evaluate the relationship between river flow in the bypassed reach and suitable aquatic habitat. Each of these species and life stages has habitat suitability criteria (i.e., preferred water depth, water velocity, and substrate conditions), which are described in published habitat suitability index (HSI) data.

Prior to the releases of water from the dam, KEI (Maine) established temporary habitat transect lines (i.e., transects 1, 2, and 3) that ran from the river right bank to the river left bank. A marked measuring tape was attached to each line so that known “stations” could be established across transects. During each flow release from the dam, KEI (Maine) collected water depth (feet) and mean column water velocity (feet per second) data at approximately 2 to 4 foot intervals (i.e., stations) along each established transect and at distinct changes in microhabitat conditions (e.g., changes in substrate or notable differences in water depth or water velocity). Measurements of depth and velocity were taken at the same station along each transect during each flow release. KEI (Maine) also collected substrate information at each station,9 measured the wetted stream width at each transect at each flow release, established temporary stream staff gages to confirm

9 Substrate data were collected at each transect during the low-flow releases.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-36 Final License Application

that each target flow stabilized prior to transect data collection, and photographed each transect at each flow release. Photographs of each transect at each flow release were taken from the same or similar vantage point.

All field data were entered into a Microsoft Excel database; depth and velocity data for each transect at each flow release are included in Appendix J of the final study report. Depth, velocity, and substrate data collected in the field were then compared to habitat suitability criteria of target life stages of Atlantic salmon, brown trout, and rainbow trout. KEI (Maine) used a look up function in Excel to assign a suitability ranking between 0.0 (unsuitable) to 1.0 (optimal) for each individual measurement of depth, velocity, and substrate across each transect for each species and life stage. The product of the depth, velocity, and substrate suitability ranking values was generated to arrive at a composite suitability value for each station along the transects. These composite values were then summed across each transect and for all transects cumulatively to generate a total habitat suitability value for each flow release for each species and life stage. Tabular summaries and charts were then developed showing the relationship between discharge and habitat suitability for each flow release and for each species and life stage.

Habitat suitability values for 0, 20, and 175 cfs10 were calculated based on the slope of the data from the five releases made in the field. The available habitat data from the five releases for each fish species and life stage were fitted with regression curves using Microsoft Excel to interpolate between known data points and to extrapolate values outside of the range of the known data. Various regression methods were tested for each set of data and equations that maximized the goodness of fit to the data were selected (i.e., the R2 statistical metric) as best as possible without losing the general trend of the data (i.e., a regression equation may have provided a better R2, but if the shape of the curve did not follow the general trend of the data it was not selected).

The MDEP has a “long-standing and rebuttable presumption” that at least 75 percent of the cross section of a river must be wetted at all times for aquatic life structure and function to be maintained in a free-flowing river or stream. Further, MDEP guidelines state that for the structure and function of aquatic habitat to be maintained in an impoundment and for the designated use of habitat for fish and other aquatic life to be attained, at least 75 percent of the

10 Although 175 cfs was a target flow, the release in the field was 197 cfs; therefore, WUA values were interpolated.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-37 Final License Application

littoral zone must remain wet at all times. KEI (Maine) operates the Lower Barker Project in a run-of-river mode, which results in infrequent adjustments to the headpond level for emergency or maintenance. As such, the littoral zone is wetted throughout the year during normal operations. KEI (Maine) proposed no studies of the impoundment littoral zone in its June 5, 2015, final study plan, which was provided to the MDEP.

To address MDEP’s policy for the bypassed reach, KEI (Maine):

• surveyed the river bed elevation of transect 2 and transect 4; • measured the wetted widths at transect 2 and transect 4 at each of the five flows released from the dam; • determined the elevation of the water surface at transect 2 and transect 4 at each of the five flows released from the dam; and, • measured the width of the river channel at its bankfull elevation at transect 2 and transect 4.

Transects 2 and 4 were selected because the geometry of the river bank was such that the bankfull elevation could be readily determined. The river right bank of transect 1 was altered by construction of a large stone retaining wall, and transect 3 traversed four separate channels; therefore, these transects were not suitable for determining the wetted width or bankfull channel elevation. KEI (Maine) estimated the channel’s bankfull width visually at transect 2 and 4 using standard bankfull indicators (e.g., obvious breaks in slope topography, presence of permanent vegetation, roots). The wetted width at each release was then compared to the bankfull width to determine the percentage of the river bed that was wetted.

Because KEI (Maine) operates the Lower Barker Project as run-of-river, the Little Androscoggin River downstream of the powerhouse is not affected by operations; therefore, KEI (Maine) collected no wetted width measurements downstream of the powerhouse.

The results of the study demonstrated that the existing minimum flow (20 cfs) provides some suitable habitat throughout the reach for trout and salmon; however, habitat suitability increased for all species and life stages at higher flows released from the dam (Figure 4-3, Table 4-15). In summary:

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-38 Final License Application

• The existing minimum flow of 20 cfs will maintain 70 to 82 percent of available suitable aquatic habitat for Atlantic salmon fry and parr and 18 to 24 percent of available suitable aquatic habitat for adult rainbow and brown trout (Table 4-15). • A flow of 35 cfs provides 70 to 81 percent of available suitable aquatic habitat for Atlantic salmon fry and parr; 8 percent for adult salmon; and 22 to 29 percent of available suitable aquatic habitat for adult rainbow and brown trout (Table 4-15). • A flow of 46 cfs provides 82 to 90 percent of available suitable aquatic habitat for Atlantic salmon fry and parr; 20 percent for adult salmon; and 35 to 40 percent of available suitable aquatic habitat for adult rainbow and brown trout (Table 4-15). • A flow of 108 cfs provides 96 to 100 percent of available suitable aquatic habitat for Atlantic salmon fry and parr; 62 percent for adult salmon; and 66 to 73 percent of available suitable aquatic habitat for adult rainbow and brown trout (Table 4-15). • A flow of 175 cfs provides 100 percent of available suitable aquatic habitat for Atlantic salmon fry and parr; 90 percent for adult salmon; and 83 to 89 percent of available suitable aquatic habitat for adult rainbow and brown trout (Table 4-15). • A flow of 197 cfs provides 96 to 97 percent of available suitable aquatic habitat for Atlantic salmon fry and parr; 96 percent for adult salmon; and 83 to 89 percent of available suitable aquatic habitat for adult rainbow and brown trout (Table 4-15). • A flow of 301 cfs provides 89 to 92 percent of available suitable aquatic habitat for Atlantic salmon fry and parr; 100 percent for adult salmon; 100 percent of available suitable aquatic habitat for adult rainbow and brown trout (Table 4-15). • All flows released from the dam provided approximately 70 to 100 percent of the available suitable habitat for Atlantic salmon fry and parr (Figure 4-3 and Table 4-15). • Habitat suitability increased for Atlantic salmon fry and parr until the release of 108 cfs, after which it increased in small increments or became less suitable (Figure 4-3 and Table 4-15). • Habitat suitability increased for Atlantic salmon spawning adults and adult brown trout until 175 cfs, after which it either remained essentially unchanged or increased at more gradual rates at the higher flows (Figure 4-3 and Table 4-15). • Habitat suitability increased for adult rainbow trout until 175 cfs, at which point it flattened out until 197 cfs, after which additional gains in habitat suitability occurred (Figure 4-3 and Table 4-15). • The biggest increases in habitat suitability for all five species and life stages occurred between 46 cfs and 108 cfs (Figure 4-3 and Table 4-15). • Habitat suitability increased by approximately 10 percent (Atlantic salmon fry), 14 percent (Atlantic salmon parr), 33 percent (adult brown trout), 31 percent (adult rainbow trout), and 42 percent (spawning Atlantic salmon) between 46 and 108 cfs (Figure 4-3 and Table 4-15).

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-39 Final License Application

* habitat suitability values at 0, 20, and 175 cfs were interpolated based on the slope of the curve from data points measured in the field (dashed lines indicate interpolated values).

FIGURE 4-3 HABITAT SUITABILITY CURVES FOR ATLANTIC SALMON, BROWN TROUT, AND RAINBOW TROUT, LOWER BARKER PROJECT, LITTLE ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-40 Final License Application

TABLE 4-15 HABITAT SUITABILITY, PERCENT INCREASE, AND CUMULATIVE INCREASE IN SUITABILITY IN THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT BYPASSED REACH.

ALL TRANSECTS SUITABLE HABITAT (COMPOSITE) Species/Life stage 0 cfs* 20 cfs* 35 cfs 46 cfs 108 cfs 175 cfs* 197 cfs 301 cfs Atlantic salmon (spawning adults) 0 0 2 5 16 24 25 26 Atlantic salmon (fry) 32 34 34 38 42 42 40 37 Atlantic salmon (parr) 32 35 35 41 48 50 49 46 Brown trout (adult) 4 7 8 11 20 25 25 28 Rainbow trout (adult) 2 6 8 12 23 29 29 35 PERCENT OF MAXIMUM SUITABILITY Species/Life stage 0 cfs* 20 cfs* 35 cfs 46 cfs 108 cfs 175 cfs* 197 cfs 301 cfs Atlantic salmon (spawning adults) 0% 0% 8% 20% 62% 90% 96% 100% Atlantic salmon (fry) 77% 82% 81% 90% 100% 100% 96% 89% Atlantic salmon (parr) 64% 70% 70% 82% 96% 100% 97% 92% Brown trout (adult) 14% 24% 29% 40% 73% 89% 89% 100% Rainbow trout (adult) 6% 18% 22% 35% 66% 83% 83% 100% CUMULATIVE PERCENT INCREASE Species/Life stage 0 cfs* 20 cfs* 35 cfs 46 cfs 108 cfs 175 cfs* 197 cfs 301 cfs Atlantic salmon (spawning adults) - 0% 8% 12% 42% 29% 5% 4% Atlantic salmon (fry) - 5% -1% 9% 10% 0% -4% -7% Atlantic salmon (parr) - 7% 0% 12% 14% 4% -3% -6% Brown trout (adult) - 9% 5% 11% 33% 17% 0% 11% Rainbow trout (adult) - 12% 4% 13% 31% 17% 0% 17% * interpolated values based on slope of curve from five flow releases in the field.

MDEP Wetted Cross Section Width – All five flows at transect 4 wetted more than 75 percent of the bankfull width (Table 4-16). Four releases (46, 108, 197, and 301) wetted more than 75 percent of the bankfull width at transect 2; the low flow release of 35 cfs wetted approximately 73 percent of the bankfull width at transect 2 (Table 4-16).

TABLE 4-16 WETTED WIDTH COMPARED TO BANKFULL WIDTH, LOWER BARKER PROJECT INSTREAM FLOW STUDY. FLOW PERCENT RELEASE BANKFULL WIDTH 35 73.1% 46 78.2% Transect 2 108 90.8% 197 92.7% 301 93.6% 35 77.8% 46 77.8% Transect 4 108 83.3% 197 88.9% 301 92.2%

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-41 Final License Application

The 3,000-foot river reach between the Lower Barker Dam and powerhouse provides a variety of aquatic habitats for fish and other organisms. The reach also provides angling and recreational activities. Dry summer conditions typically result in low river levels in the Little Androscoggin River (i.e., summer baseflow conditions) as compared to other times of the year. Often a river channel will become narrow and confined, restricted to the deepest portions of the channel during low-flow periods, becoming recharged intermittently following precipitation. Aquatic organisms have adapted over time to summer baseflow conditions (Lang, 1999).

The results of the instream flow study demonstrate that the biggest improvements in habitat suitability in the bypassed reach for Atlantic salmon, brown trout, and rainbow trout occur up to a river flow of approximately 108 cfs (i.e., 100 cfs plus leakage). At higher river flows, habitat suitability does not improve, decreases slightly, or increases at a more gradual rate. River flows of approximately 40 to 45 cfs are expected to keep at least 75 percent of the bypassed reach channel wetted. The USFWS’s Aquatic Base Flow (ABF) flow recommendation, which is the default recommendation in the absence of a site-specific study, for the Lower Barker Project is 176 cfs (July 14, 2014, letter from the USFWS to FERC, Comments on the Pre-Application Document and Submission of Study Requests for the Lower Barker Project). This value, which equates to 0.5 cfs per square mile of drainage above the Lower Barker Dam, is derived from hydrologic data from unregulated rivers in the northeast, including the Little Androscoggin River at the South Paris USGS gage. The August median flow statistic relied on by the USFWS to develop their ABF is 0.28 cfs per square mile of drainage for the Little Androscoggin River (Kulik, 1990; Lang, 1999), which is equivalent to 98.5 cfs (i.e., 352 sq. miles * 0.28 cfs = 98.5 cfsm). This is considered by the USFWS to be a protective flow for aquatic resources (Lang, 1999).

A minimum flow for the bypassed reach needs to take into account habitat use by target species and life stages throughout the year, the availability of water throughout the year, the varying hydrology during each bio-period of interest, and the operational constraints of the Project (Bovee et al. 1998). Different species and life stages often have conflicting habitat and flow requirements. For example, adult trout and juvenile salmon have the potential to occur in the Little Androscoggin River at the same time, but each has different habitat requirements. Table 4-15 shows the timeframe that target species and life stages would be expected to occur in the bypassed reach, if salmon restoration is successful at some point in the future and if MDIFW

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-42 Final License Application

stocks the reach in the future in comparison to monthly median river flow in the Little Androscoggin River.11 Atlantic salmon spawning and egg incubation would occur between November and April when river flow is relatively high as compared to the summer and fall months. Atlantic salmon fry would hatch and inhabit the reach during May and June; parr would potentially occupy the reach throughout the year, including summer months when flows are characteristically very low. The bypassed reach would likely be managed during the open water fishing season from April 1 through October 31 as a put-grow-take brown and rainbow trout fishery.

TABLE 4-17 MONTHLY MEDIAN INFLOW AND HABITAT USE BY TARGET SPECIES AND LIFE STAGES ATLANTIC ATLANTIC ATLANTIC MEDIAN BROWN RAINBOW MONTH SALMON SALMON SALMON FLOW (CFS) TROUT TROUT SPAWNING FRY PARR January 306 X X X February 282 X X X March 574 X X April 1,364 X X X May 676 X X X X June 343 X X X X July 141 X X X August 92 X X X September 83 X X X October 248 X X X November 535 X X X December 467 X X X * Highlighted median flow values indicate the naturally occurring, low flow month in various bio-periods for target species in the Little Androscoggin River

Appendix A provides the complete Bypassed Reach Instream Flow Study Report.

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT NMFS identifies essential fish habitat (EFH) for fish species that are commercially-managed under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. EFH is defined as the “habitat necessary for managed fish species to complete their life cycle such that the fishery can be harvested sustainably.” The Little Androscoggin River is considered EFH for Atlantic salmon (NMFS, 1998; NMFS, 2016). The effects of Project operations on aquatic habitat were addressed

11 South Paris gage prorated to the site, period of record 1985-2015.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-43 Final License Application

during the water quality and instream flow studies. KEI (Maine) is proposing a new minimum instream flow that will be protective of Atlantic salmon habitat in the Project area.

BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES At the request of the MDEP, KEI (Maine) sampled the benthic macroinvertebrate community in the bypassed reach and downstream of the Lower Barker powerhouse in 2015. Section 4.3.2 describes the methods and results of the monitoring. The benthic macroinvertebrate communities downstream of the Lower Barker Dam were moderately abundant and very rich in taxa. Filter- feeding caddisflies, sensitive mayflies, and stoneflies, which are quality forage taxa for trout and salmon and indicators of good water quality, represented a considerable segment of the community. Based on the study results, the benthic macroinvertebrate community in the bypassed reach and the Little Androscoggin River downstream of the powerhouse is representative of Class A aquatic life standards, which is the 2nd highest water class in the state of Maine; this classification was supported by MDEP’s independent review of the data. Appendix A provides the complete 2015 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Report.

FRESHWATER MUSSELS There are ten native freshwater mussel species known to occur in Maine waters, of which five common species have been reported from the Little Androscoggin River (Table 4-18). The stakeholders requested no studies of the freshwater mussel community as part of the relicensing of the Lower Barker Project. Additional life history information on these five species was provided as part of the pre-application documents submitted to the Commission by KEI (Maine) on January 31, 2014.

TABLE 4-18 FRESHWATER MUSSELS KNOWN TO OCCUR IN THE LITTLE ANDROSCOGGIN RIVER. COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Eastern elliptio Elliptio complanata Eastern floater Pyganodon cataracta Eastern lampmussel Lampsilis radiate radiata Eastern pearlshell Margaritifera Triangle floater Alasmidonta undulata Source: Nedeau et al., 2000.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-44 Final License Application

4.3.3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

PROPOSED ACTION KEI (Maine) is proposing to continue to operate the Lower Barker Project as a run-of-river development with minimal impoundment drawdowns except during periods of maintenance or emergency operations. Proposed run-of-river (i.e., inflow matches outflow) operations will minimize the effects of operations on downstream aquatic resources and shoreline aquatic habitats. KEI (Maine) is also proposing to provide a minimum flow to the bypassed reach of 50 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less. As demonstrated by the instream flow study completed in 2015 and 2016, the provision of the proposed minimum flow to the bypassed reach is expected to increase the availability of suitable aquatic habitat in the reach for target fish species of management interest (i.e., Atlantic salmon, should they be restored to the river system, adult rainbow trout, and adult brown trout) and other aquatic organisms (e.g., freshwater mussels and aquatic invertebrates). The proposed minimum flow is also expected to keep more than 75 percent of the channel’s bankfull width wetted at all times. During periods of time when river flow is less than or greater than the turbine capacity (150 and 500 cfs), KEI (Maine) will divert additional water to the bypassed reach, which is expected to maintain geomorphic processes in the small reach (e.g., movement of substrates, movement of woody debris).

KEI (Maine) acknowledges agency recommendations for a higher minimum flow (recommendations ranging from a minimum of 113 to an ABF level of 176 cfs) and associated benefits to aquatic habitat and resources. KEI (Maine) maintains that the proposed bypass flow of 50 cfs provides sufficient incremental increases to aquatic habitat for the species and life stages evaluated, maintains the structure and function of aquatic habitat, and provides adequate water depth for zone of passage conditions for migratory and resident fish species of management interest in the reach. Further, due to channel geometry and topography (wide shallow channel with large boulder and ledge substrate), recommended flows are unlikely to improve recreational boating opportunities. However, KEI (Maine) is currently in discussions with agencies regarding an alternative, mutually agreeable flow proposal.

The proposed minimum flow release is expected to also increase angling opportunities because the reach will contain more fishable and wadeable aquatic habitat. It is unlikely that increasing minimum flows even up to the agency recommended ABF (176 cfs) will result in depth increases

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-45 Final License Application

that will substantially improve boating capability, although there may be some limited increase. The new minimum flow could result in changes to MDIFW’s trout stocking program, which could result in more brown and rainbow trout being stocked and an improved fishery in the bypassed reach during the open water fishing season.

KEI (Maine) is also proposing to modify the existing downstream fish passage system to reduce entrainment potential for outmigrating diadromous fish species. Due to site characteristics the exact configuration of a modified fishway has yet to be determined. In the fall of 2016, KEI (Maine) conducted a bathymetric survey in the vicinity of the upstream end of the intake canal which will be used to develop a preliminary design for the fishway modifications. The design will be developed in consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Should the design progress sufficiently to allow for construction prior to license expiration, KEI (Maine) will consult with FERC to assess whether modifying the existing downstream fishway would require an amendment to the current license or if FERC would prefer to approve the structure as part of the new license.

KEI (Maine) received numerous comments on its DLA relative to upstream and downstream fish passage measures (Appendix C). The Licensee has been holding informal discussions about fish passage for diadromous fish species with the NMFS, USFWS, MDMR, and MDIFW and intends to attempt to resolve fish passage issues at the Lower Barker Project through these negotiations. KEI believes that permanent anadromous fish passage is not justified at present, but is considering interim measures (e.g., support existing trap and truck, monitoring studies) until a biologically justifiable number of fish return.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Existing aquatic habitat in the impoundment and bypassed reach will be maintained under the existing operating conditions (i.e., run-of river operations and a minimum flow of 20 cfs to the bypassed reach). During periods of time when river flow is less than or greater than the turbine capacity (150 and 500 cfs), additional water will be diverted to the bypassed reach, which is expected to maintain geomorphic processes in the small reach (e.g., movement of substrates, movement of woody debris). The existing minimum flow of 20 cfs will maintain 70 to 80 percent of available suitable aquatic habitat for Atlantic salmon fry and parr and 18 to 24 percent available suitable aquatic habitat for adult rainbow and brown trout in the bypassed reach. As

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-46 Final License Application

demonstrated by the 2015 benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring, the existing minimum flow regime is expected to maintain a diverse and rich macroinvertebrate community.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS Operation of the Lower Barker Project may result in the entrainment or impingement of individual fish. These effects will largely to be ameliorated by the development of a new downstream fishway. The upstream movements of a small number of American eels may be delayed or blocked by the presence of the dam. Anglers in the bypassed reach may be subjected to varying flows during operational adjustments or rare outages due to maintenance. KEI (Maine) may need to temporarily alter water levels in the impoundment, bypassed reach, or tailrace for routine maintenance or repairs. This may result in short-term periods of erosion or sedimentation into the impoundment or downstream river reaches.

4.3.3.3 REFERENCES

Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT). 2007. Status Review of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. February 23, 2007. 174 pp.

Davies, S.P. and L. Tsomides. 2002. Methods for biological sampling and analysis of Maine’s rivers and streams. ME Dept. of Env. Prot. Augusta, ME. 31p.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1979. Order Issuing License for Barker's Mill Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2808). 6 FERC ¶61,175. Issued February 23, 1979.

Kleinschmidt. 2015. Initial Study Report. American Tissue Project FERC No. 2809. May 2016.

Kulik, B.K. 1990. A Method to Refine the New England Aquatic Base Flow Policy. Rivers. Volume 1, Number 1. 8-22.

Lang, V. 1999. Questions and Answers on the New England Flow Policy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, New Hampshire. 24 pages.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). 2016. Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife - Current Stocking Information. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/ifw/fishing/reports/stocking/stocking.htm. Accessed July 8, 2016.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-47 Final License Application

Maine Department of Marine Resources (MDMR). 2016a. Anadromous Fish Restoration in the Androscoggin River Watershed. 2015 Report on the Operation of the Brunswick Fishway FERC #2284. May 2016.

MDMR. 2016b. Androscoggin River Project. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/dmr/science- research/searun/programs/androscoggin.html. Accessed July 8, 2016.

MDMR. 2011. Androscoggin River Atlantic Salmon Tagging and Tracking Project 2011. 7 pages.

MDMR. 2010. Androscoggin River Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Report - 2010.

Midwest Biodiversity Institute (MBI). 2006. The Spatial and Relative Abundance Characteristics of the Fish Assemblages in Three Maine Rivers: 2002 and 2003. Technical report MBI/12-05-1. September 1, 2006.

Miller Hydro Group. 2013. Worumbo Project Annual Fish Passage Status Report. July 29, 2013.

Miller Hydro Group. 2014. Worumbo Project Annual Fish Passage Status Report. July 11, 2014.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Essential Fish Habitat Description Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). [Online] URL: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/salmon.pdf. Accessed July 8, 2016.

NMFS. 2016. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Mapper. [Online] URL: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. Accessed July 22, 2016.

Nedeau, J., McCollough, M.A., and Swartz, B. 2000. The Freshwater Mussels of Maine. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta. 118 pp.

Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team (SSSRT). 2010. A Biological Assessment of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. November 1, 2010. 417 pp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013. National Inventory of Dams. [Online] URL: http://geo.usace.army.mil/pgis/f?p=397:4:1473658987832501::NO. Accessed November

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-48 Final License Application

4.3.4 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES

4.3.4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

VEGETATION As discussed above, the Project is located in the Central Interior biophysical region of Maine, characterized by flat to gently rolling terrain. The region is a transition zone as dominant vegetation changes from a northern Appalachian forest dominated by oak, pine, and mixed hardwoods in southern Maine to a spruce-fir-northern hardwood forest in northern and eastern Maine (MDIFW, 2005).

Upland habitats that occur most frequently in the Project Vicinity include: deciduous and mixed forest; coniferous forest; grassland, agriculture and old fields; and urban and suburban areas (MDIFW, 2005). The Project itself is dominated by deciduous forest and areas of urban and suburban development.

DECIDUOUS

The entire shoreline is dominated by deciduous forest which is common to the Central Interior region. Overstory species may include white ash (Fraxinus americana), red maple (Acer rurbrun), and red oak (Quercus rubra). Other overstory species may include American elm, (Ulmus americana), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), or sugar maple (Acer saccharum). Shrub-layer vegetation is represented by species such as maple- leaved viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium) or saplings of American beech and maple. Herbaceous vegetation commonly found in this habitat includes bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), Canada mayflower (Maiabthemum canadense), wild sarsaparilla (Aralia nudicaulis) twinflower (Linnaea borealis) and trillium (Trillium sp.) (FERC, 1996).

URBAN/SUBURBAN

Urban and suburban areas are categorized as such when the percent cover by buildings, road and other impervious surfaces is greater than vegetative cover (MDIFW, 2005). These areas are predominantly associated with the twin cities of Lewiston and Auburn within the Project vicinity. The Project is surrounded by this land cover type.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-49 Final License Application

The Project provides limited wildlife habitat with a small impoundment and limited areas of forested upland within and surrounding the Project boundary. The area immediately surrounding the Project consists of a narrow band of riparian forest surrounded by extensive urban and residential development, including an active railroad track along the northern shore and Mill Street along the southern shore.

There are currently 19 invasive plant species that are known to occur in Maine (MDACF, 2013) (Table 4-19). Several of the invasive plants occurring in Maine may be found at or near the Project, including garlic mustard, honeysuckle, purple loosestrife, and wood blue grass. Aquatic plants such as hydrilla and curly pond weed are not likely to occur near the Project since they prefer to grow in still or slow-flowing water, such as in a lake or pond and have not been documented to date (MDACF, 2013).

TABLE 4-19 INVASIVE PLANTS POTENTIALLY OCCURRING WITHIN THE PROJECT SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Alliaria petiolata Garlic mustard Berberis thunbergii Japanese barberry Celastrus orbiculata Asiatic bittersweet Cynanchum louiseae Black swallowwort Eleagnus umbellata Autumn olive Fallopia japonica Japanese knotweed Frangula alnus Glossy buckthorn Impatiens glandulifera Himalayan balsam Lonicera morrowii Morrow honeysuckle Lonicera tartarica Tartarian honeysuckle Lythrum salicaria Purple loosestrife Myriophyllum heterophyllum Variable-leaf milfoil Phragmites australis Common reed Poa nemoralis Wood blue grass Rhamnus cathartica Common buckthorn Rosa multiflora Multiflora or Rambler rose Source: MDACF, 2013

Variable leaf-milfoil is reported from the Little Androscoggin River watershed in Hogan Pond, well-above the Project (MDEP, 2013). Variable leaf-milfoil is a submerged aquatic plant with densely packed whorled leaves, and is usually found along the shorelines of lakes and ponds. Individuals can grow in water depths of up to 10-12 feet, forming dense mats near the surface. The plant produces spike-like flowers that grow above the water’s surface from mid to late

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-50 Final License Application

summer. The species reproduces primarily by fragmentation and it can break apart easily due to wave action produced by boats or other disturbances. The introduction of a fragment can result in the infestation of an entire lake. Once introduced, it is virtually impossible to eradicate (MDEP 2013). While the variable-leaf milfoil is documented as being present in Androscoggin County and in reaches of the Little Androscoggin River, it has not been observed at the Project (MVLMP, 2013).

WETLANDS The majority of the wetlands in the Project area are classified by the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) as R2UBH, or riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded (USFWS, 2011a) (Figure 4-4). Low, slow flowing water is characteristic in these areas and the substrate consists mainly of sand and mud (USGS 2006a). Unconsolidated bottoms include wetland habitats with at least 25 percent cover of particles smaller than stones and a vegetative cover less than 30 percent. They are also characterized by a lack of large stable surfaces for plant and animal attachment (USGS, 2006b). Riverine unconsolidated bottom wetlands provide habitat for a variety of species such as the northern leopard frog, green frog, bullfrog, American toad and snapping turtles (see Section 4.3.3).

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-51 Final License Application

FIGURE 4-4 WETLANDS IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT

Source: USFWS, 2012

Additionally, forested wetlands (PFO1C) are located adjacent to the Project boundary and in close proximity to the Project (USFWS, 2012). Wetlands with this classification are defined as palustrine, forested and seasonally flooded (USFWS 2011b). These wetlands, are characterized by deciduous woody vegetation in the overstory. Common species may include green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red maple (Acer rubrum), or silver maple (Acer saccharinum) among others. Shrub layer vegetation may include species such as speckled alder (Alnus incanna) or winterberry (Ilex verticillata). In general herbaceous vegetation includes species tolerant of shade and seasonal inundation such as ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris) or sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis). These areas are seasonally flooded so that surface water is present for extended periods especially early in the growing season (USFWS 2011b). There are 4.87 acres of PFO1C wetlands located within or adjacent to the Project boundary (USFWS, 2012).

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-52 Final License Application

Some of the wildlife species that are commonly found in freshwater wetlands and may be found in the wetlands near the Project include: wood ducks; loons; snapping and painted turtles; dragonflies; damselflies and warblers and other songbirds (MDEP, 2013).

Riparian habitat is the specialized zone of vegetation that serves as the interface between the upland vegetation community and the riverine environment. This zone provides numerous valuable functions such as maintaining streambank stability, sediment filtration, and floodplain processes. Littoral zone habitat is the shallow water area along the perimeter of the impoundment; typically consisting of the shoreline zone located between the high and low water levels.

The banks of the Little Androscoggin River in the vicinity of the Project provide riparian and littoral habitat to a variety of species. Common plant species found in riparian areas include species such as silver maple, green ash, red maple, alder and willow (FERC, 1996). The shoreline habitats of the Little Androscoggin River, including the Project, likely provides habitat for species such as muskrat and habitat generalists such as striped skunk, eastern painted turtle, kingfisher, and osprey. Waterfowl species that may be found in the littoral zone of the Little Androscoggin River include the common goldeneye and the common merganser, as well as the American black duck, the Canada goose, the mallard, and the wood duck (MDIFW, 2005).

Shoreline habitats of the Project are limited to the immediate riparian and littoral zones and a narrow band of upland mixed forest, as discussed in Section 4.3.5. As mentioned, the riparian habitat found along the Project impoundment and bypassed reach is heavily forested, with primarily deciduous forests. The littoral zone is limited to a very narrow band given run-of-river operations.

WILDLIFE There are approximately 60 mammalian species found in Maine, not associated with the marine environment. Due to habitat constraints within the Project (i.e., fragmentation due to urban development) large mammals such as moose, white-tailed deer, or black bear are likely to be uncommon within the Project boundary. Large mammals that may occur are likely transient individuals and do not represent resident populations. Common mammals found with the Project area and immediate vicinity are primarily habitat generalists accustomed to urban development.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-53 Final License Application

Common mammals such as these include red fox, raccoon, opossum, skunk, eastern chipmunk, eastern gray squirrel, red squirrel, and the white-footed mouse. The close proximity of hardwood riparian forest and the river likely provides habitat for bat species such as the little brown myotis, silver haired bat, and big brown bat (Degraaf, 2001).

Maine provides habitat for 292 species of birds statewide. Based on habitat available within the Project common birds that may occur include. the black-caped chickadee, white-breasted nuthatch, black and white warbler, blue jay, red eyed verio, least flycatcher, and wild turkey. Raptor species that may occur within the Project are likely those that prefer hardwood dominated landscapes may include sharp shined hawk or broad winged hawk or species common to rivers and water bodies such as the osprey and bald eagle. Shorebirds may include the, solitary, upland and spotted sandpipers as well as wading birds such as the great blue heron (MDIFW, 2005).

A number of exotic wildlife species are known to occur in Maine. These include bird species such as the rock pigeon, European starling, and house sparrow, as well as mammal species such as the house mouse and Norway rat (MISN, 2013).

Based on the habitat found within and surrounding the Project, invasive insects with the potential to occur within the Project area and immediate vicinity include the European fire ant, gypsy moth, and winter moth. The European fire ant has been identified in costal Kennebec County and is known to inhabit areas with urban development. Gypsy moth infestations are most prevalent in central and southern Maine and generally prefer hardwood trees (i.e., oak, aspen, and birch) for feeding. The winter moth occurs along the Maine coast, although may be more widespread and prefers to feed on hardwoods including oak, maple, ash, cherry, and apple trees (MISN, 2013).

4.3.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

PROPOSED ACTION The Licensee proposes to continue to operate the Project in run-of-river mode, which minimizes any fluctuation in the impoundment, and therefore no new impacts to the terrestrial resources along the impoundment are likely. The Licensee proposes to release a continuous minimum flow of 50 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, to the Lower Barker bypass reach.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-54 Final License Application

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Any effects of flows and water levels on wildlife, wetlands and associated wildlife habitat caused by passing inflows at the Project, will continue to occur. This operating regime would continue to sustain current availability and quality of wetland habitat and the wildlife species that utilized the existing habitat.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS The existing quantity and quality of wetlands, wildlife, and wildlife habitat in the Project will not likely be adversely affected by normal fluctuations in water surface due to run-of-river operations. In most cases shoreline vegetation (i.e., emergent vegetation) is accustomed to occasional inundation and exposure and short-term water level changes which result from natural water level fluctuation, and there is no additional stress on shoreline vegetation; therefore, continued operation of the Project in this manner would not adversely affect shoreline emergent wetlands, the availability of wildlife habitat, or on the species utilizing it. Vegetation along the shoreline is accustomed to natural water fluctuations and are adapted to survive periods of exposure or inundation. On rare occasions, KEI (Maine) may need to temporarily alter water levels in the impoundment, bypassed reach, or tailrace for routine maintenance or repairs. Limited effects on shoreline species may include desiccation if exposure is prolonged (Cronk and Fennessy 2001; Bain and Mills 2004).

4.3.4.3 REFERENCES

Bain, M. and K. Mills. 2004. Modeling Hydroecological Relations for Assessing Impacts of Water Regulation on Lake Ontario. Report to the Environmental Technical Working Group, International Joint Commission, St. Lawrence River Study Board.

Cronk, Julie K. and M. Siobhan Fennessy. 2001. Wetland Plants – Biology and Ecology. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, FL.

DeGraaf, R.M. and Yamasaki. 2001. New England Wildlife: Habitat, natural history and distribution. 2nd edition. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. 482 pp.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Lower Androscoggin River Basin Hydroelectric Projects, Maine. FERC 2283-005, 11482-000).

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-55 Final License Application

Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (MDACF). 2013. Maine Invasive Plant Fact Sheets. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/dacf/mnap/features/invasive_plants/invsheets.htm#currinv Accessed November 27, 2013.

Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP). 2013. Wetland Life. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/wetlands/life.html. Accessed December 9, 2013.

Maine Invasive Species Network (MISN). 2013. University of Maine: Maine Invasive Species Network. [Online] URL: http://umaine.edu/invasivespecies/ Accessed November 26, 2013.

Maine Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program (MVLMP). 2013. VLMP Center for Invasive Aquatic Plants. [Online] URL: http://www.mciap.org/ Accessed November 27, 2013.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011a. National Wetlands Inventory Wetland Decoder. [Online] URL: http://137.227.242.85/Data/interpreters/wetlands.aspx. Accessed November 26, 2013.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. National Wetlands Inventory Mapper – Androscoggin County, Maine. [Online] URL: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands- Mapper.html Accessed on November 26, 2013.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006a. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States: Riverine Systems. [Online] URL: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/riverine.htm. Accessed November 26, 2013

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006b. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States: Unconsolidated Bottom. [Online] URL: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/unconsol.htm. Accessed November 26, 2013.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-56 Final License Application

4.3.5 RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED TERRESTRIAL SPECIES

4.3.5.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Licensee performed an initial assessment in 2013 for the potential occurrence of rare, threatened, and endangered species within the Lower Barker Project area by reviewing information provided by the Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP), the MDIFW, and USFWS. As part of KEI (Maine)’s diligence, the Licensee has requested an updated official species list from the USFWS on July 20, 2016, to address additional species or changes in status of the species that were identified in 2013. Based on the new species list, the Small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) (SWP) has been added to the list for the Project area and the Red knot has been removed (USFWS 2016). In 2013, there were no rare botanical features documented in the Lower Barker Project area (personal communication, Don Cameron, MNAP) and the red knot (Calidris canutus) was considered a proposed species for listing under the ESA.

The Licensee’s determination of the potential for a species to occur was based a species its known distribution in the vicinity of the Lower Barker Project. The Licensee has identified four rare, threatened, or endangered species that have the potential to occur in the Lower Barker Project area (Table 4-20).

TABLE 4-20 RARE, THREATENED, AND ENDANGERED SPECIES THAT MAY OCCUR IN THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT AREA. FEDERAL COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS* Fish Atlantic salmon Salmo salar FE Flowering Plant Small whorled pogonia Isotria medeoloides FT Mammal Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis FT/SE Lasionycteris Silver-haired bat noctivagans SC Source (USFWS 2016) *FE (Federally Endangered), FT (Federally Threatened), SE (State Endangered), SC (Special Concern)

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-57 Final License Application

The USFWS has identified one fish, one flowering plant, and one mammal, as listed on the federal endangered species list (USFWS, 2016) for Androscoggin County: the Atlantic salmon (ATS), the Small whorled pogonia (SWP), and the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB), which is also listed as State Endangered under the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). In addition, based on the available habitat and ranges of the species listed, the silver- haired bat (SHB) listed as Species of Special Concern and may also occur in the Lower Barker Project area (MDIFW, 2011).

On October 8, 2015 the Service published a not warranted finding on the petition to list the American eel (FR 80, No 195, 2015/10/08, pp 60834-60838). As a result the American eel is currently provided no protection under the ESA. Further detail can be found in Section 4.3.2.

ATLANTIC SALMON

Atlantic salmon are an anadromous fish species with a complex life history. Individuals spend the majority of their adult life in marine environments but return to freshwater rivers and streams to spawn (Fay et al. 2006). Atlantic salmon are native to the North Atlantic Ocean and have been found worldwide as far south as Portugal in the eastern Atlantic and the Connecticut and Housatonic Rivers in the western Atlantic, and north to Ungava Bay in Quebec as well as the Nastapoka River in Hudson Bay (Morin 1991). Atlantic salmon were initially listed as endangered on November 17, 2000, on eight coastal Maine watersheds by the NMFS and the USFWS (65 FR 69459). NMFS and the USFWS expanded the listing to include Atlantic salmon that inhabit large Maine rivers (Androscoggin, Kennebec, and Penobscot) that were partially or wholly excluded in the initial listing (74 FR 29344; June 19, 2009). NMFS determined that Atlantic salmon that inhabit the Gulf of Maine watersheds from the Androscoggin River eastward to the Dennys River are a distinct population segment (i.e., GOM DPS) and thus should be listed as a “species.”

Currently, the GOM DPS includes Atlantic salmon that occupy freshwater from the Androscoggin River to the Dennys River, as well as anywhere Atlantic salmon occur in the estuarine and marine environments. The historical upstream limits of the species freshwater range are primarily determined by impassable falls in the Penobscot River watershed, including Big Niagara Falls on Nesowadnehunk Stream in Township 3 Range 10, Grand Pitch Falls on

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-58 Final License Application

Webster Brook in Trout Brook Township, and Grand Falls on the Passadumkeag River (74 FR 29344; June 19, 2009). Additionally, conservation hatchery populations maintained by Green Lake National Fish Hatchery and Craig Brook National Fish Hatchery are included in the GOM DPS. Landlocked and commercially raised salmon are excluded from the listing (74 FR 29344; June 19, 2009).

Although ATS in the Androscoggin are part of the Merrymeeting Bay Salmon Habitat Recovery Unit (SHRU); the Little Androscoggin is not classified as critical habitat (i.e., critical to the recovery of the species) (NMFS 2009; personal communication, Jeff Murphy, NMFS, December 11, 2013). The Little Androscoggin River HUC 10 watershed does not actually include the Little Androscoggin River. This particular HUC 10 watershed includes only the Androscoggin River and its tributaries from the confluence with the Kennebec up to, but not including, the Little Androscoggin River.

A draft Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine DPS of Atlantic salmon was submitted for public review on March 29, 2016. The recovery plan represents a recovery strategy based on the biological and ecological needs of the species as well as current threat-term viability (USFWS and NOAA, 2016). This plan supersedes the approved 2005 plan for the DPS listed in 2000. This plan reflects a new recovery planning approach (termed the Recovery Enhancement Vision, or REV) being adopted by the USFWS. REV plans focus on the statutory elements of recovery criteria, recovery actions, and time and cost estimates (USFWS and NOAA, 2016).

SMALL WHORLED POGONIA

The MNAP maintains a list of rare, threatened, and endangered plants found within the state of Maine, which includes about 353 species (MDACF, 2013). One plant species, the Small whorled pogonia, is documented as occurring within Androscoggin County (USFWS, 2016b). The Small whorled pogonia (SWP), was federally listed as an endangered species in 1982, and reclassified as a threatened species in 1993 (USFWS, 2012).

There is no critical habitat designated for this species at this time. The USFWS prepared a recovery plan and revised that plan in 1992. The Recovery Plan describes and prioritizes actions needed to help recover the species (USFWS, 2016b).

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-59 Final License Application

The Small whorled pogonia produces a smooth, hollow stem from 2 to 14 inches tall and topped by 5 or 6 leaves in a circular arrangement (false whorl). One or two flowers stand in the center of the whorl of leaves. The leaves are milky-green or grayish-green, and the flower is yellowish- green with a greenish-white lip. In the northern part of the species range, plants with flowering buds emerge from the leaf litter in May and bloom in June (USFWS, 2012). Characteristics of this species’ habitat include a sparse herb and shrub layer, a relatively open understory canopy, thick leaf litter on the forest floor, and gently sloping ground. Soils in which small whorled pogonia grows are generally acidic and dry during most of the growing season. Small whorled pogonia is almost always found in proximity to features that create long-persisting breaks in the forest canopy; light availability could be a limiting factor for this species (USFWS, 2012).

No other rare plant species or unique plant communities are known to occur within the Lower Barker Project area. The stakeholders requested no studies of botanical species as part of the relicensing.

BATS

The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is listed as a federally threatened species and is listed as Endangered at the state level. The silver-haired bat is a species of special concern in the state of Maine. The NLEB was listed as threatened on April 2, 2015, with a final rule published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2016. On April 27, 2016, the USFWS determined that the designation of critical habitat for the species was not prudent; therefore, no critical habitat is established for the NLEB (USFWS, 2016a).

The northern long-eared bat feeds on invertebrates and is known to glean prey from vegetation and water surfaces. The NLEB winters in underground caves and cave like structures, but summers singly or in small colonies in cavities, under bark, or in hollows of live and dead trees typically greater than 3 in. in diameter. Suitable roosting trees also include exfoliating bark, cavities, or cracks (USFWS, 2016a). The silver-haired bat is a summer resident of Maine and inhabits clear-cuts, coniferous forest, and mixed forest. The silver-haired bat also feeds primarily on insects, often over ponds, streams, and forest clearings (DeGraaf, 2001).

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-60 Final License Application

Currently there is a narrow band of hardwood riparian forest along the impoundment which is fragmented by urban development. While the Project falls within the range of the NLEB it is unlikely that the overwintering or summer roosting occurs with the Project, although feeding may occur over the impoundment. This is also true for the silver haired bat. Based on their known distribution, these bat species could occur in the Lower Barker Project area. The stakeholders requested no bat studies of as part of the relicensing.

MIGRATORY BIRDS

The protection of birds is regulated by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)).

Bald eagles are no longer listed under the ESA, but maintain federal protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Bald eagles typically nest within 0.25 to 1 mile of large bodies of open water, such as lakes and large rivers. Eagles nest in large, super-canopy trees or snags often in late-successional forest. They prefer a nest site at the edge of the forest, near foraging areas, unobstructed views, and with little human disturbance. Most eagles forage primarily on fish, with lesser quantities of waterfowl, carrion, and small mammals. The bald eagle often winters along large interior or coastal bodies of water that remain free of ice. Except during migration, bald eagles are seldom found far from water (WVDNR 2012). The stakeholders requested no bald eagle studies of as part of the relicensing. KEI (Maine) knows of no active nests in the Lower Barker Project area.

4.3.5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

PROPOSED ACTION The licensee’s proposal to provide a minimum flow of 50 cfs (or inflow, whichever is less) is unlikely to adversely affect the Atlantic salmon, Small whorled pogonia, Northern Long-Eared Bat, or migratory birds or their habitats. As the Project would continue to operate in run-of-river mode, water levels will continue to be similar as under current operation, and therefore would continue to sustain current availability and quality of habitat.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-61 Final License Application

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Any flows and water levels caused by passing inflows at the Project will continue to occur. As discussed above, this operating regime would continue to sustain current availability and quality of wetland habitat and the wildlife species that utilized the existing habitat. The no-action alternative would also maintain existing downstream minimum flows.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS No unavoidable impacts to the Atlantic salmon, small whorled pogonia and northern long-eared bat, are anticipated to occur, as minimum flow, ground impact, and roosting habitat will not be affected by the proposed action (i.e., no tree clearing is proposed). Bat foraging may take place over the reservoir and along the shoreline; however, the run-of-river operation of the Project will not affect the ability of the bats to access foraging habitat or limit potential prey species (e.g., invertebrates).

4.3.5.3 REFERENCES

Cornell Lab of Ornithology (CLO). 2013. All About Birds: Red Knot. [Online] URL: http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/red_knot/lifehistory Accessed December 2, 2013.

DeGraaf, R.M. and M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History, and Distribution. University Press of New England, Lebanon, NH.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). 2010a. Maine Endangered Species Act Definitions. [Online] URL: https://maine.gov/ifw/wildlife/species/endangered_species/handbook.htm. Accessed December 19, 2013.

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). 2011. Species of Special Concern. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/ifw/wildlife/endangered/specialconcern.htm Accessed December 2, 2013.

NatureServe Explorer (NatureServe). 2013. Calidris canutus rufa. [Online] URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Calidris+canutus +rufa Accessed December 2, 2013.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-62 Final License Application

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. Species of Concern: River herring (Alewife & Blueback herring) Alosa pseudoharengus and Alosa aestivalis.

National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources (NMFS). 2013a. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). [Online] URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/atlanticsalmon.htm Accessed December 2, 2013. USFWS. 2012. Maine Field Office: Small whorled pogonia. [Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/mainefieldoffice/Small_whorled_pogonia.html Accessed July 20, 2016.

USFWS. 2013a. Species by County Report: Androscoggin, ME. [Online] URL: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/countySearch!speciesByCountyReport.action?fips=23001 Accessed December 2, 2013.

USFWS. 2016. Maine Ecological Services Field Office: Official Species List. Conducted July 20, 2016.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016a. Species Profile: Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Available online at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/index.html Accessed July 20, 2016.

USFWS. 2016b. Small Whorled Pogonia (isotria medeoloides). [Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/plants/smallwhorledpogoniafs.html Accessed July 20, 2016.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA-Fisheries. 2016. Draft recovery plan for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). 61 pp.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-63 Final License Application

4.3.6 RECREATION, AESTHETICS, AND LAND USE

4.3.6.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Within the Project Vicinity, there are 14 state parks, trails, campgrounds, and reserved lands (MDPPL, 2013c). Some notable parks include Androscoggin Riverlands State Park, Range Ponds State Park, and Bradbury Mountain State Park. Androscoggin Riverlands State Park, located just north of the City of Auburn in the neighboring town of Turner, approximately 7 miles from the Project, is the fifth largest park in the Maine parks system. The park includes 10 miles of hiking and biking trails as well as extensive opportunities for boating and fishing in the Androscoggin River (MDPPL, 2013a). Range Ponds State Park, located approximately 7 miles southwest of the Project in the town of Poland, provides opportunities for swimming, boating, fishing, and hunting (MDPPL, 2013b). Range Ponds State Park is the sixth most popular day use park in Maine, hosting 5.6% of all park visitors (Roper, 2006). Bradbury Mountain State Park, located approximately 13 miles southeast of the Project in the town of Pownal, is one of the first state parks established in Maine and offers various activities including camping, hiking, and cross-country skiing (MDPPL, 2013d).

REGIONAL RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES

The Project is contained within the Maine Lakes and Mountains tourism region as defined by the Maine Office of Tourism (MOT). In 2012, those visiting the Maine Lakes and Mountains region accounted for 9% of all over-night and day trips taken in Maine (MOT, 2012b). Among those visiting the region, the City of Auburn was one of the most popular destinations accounting for 18% and 19% of all day and over-night visitors respectively in 2012 (MOT, 2012a).The Maine Lakes and Mountains area is home to hundreds of glacial lakes and mountains widely known for its outdoor recreation opportunities including skiing, hiking, boating, and fishing (MOT, 2013).

Recreation activities occurring in the Project vicinity are generally traditional outdoor pursuits such as fishing, hunting, hiking, camping and boating. Several municipal and state parks, as well as NGO funded conservation lands are within a short distance of the Project.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-64 Final License Application

RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY Within Androscoggin County, there are a number of municipal recreation areas, particularly within the urban centers for Lewiston and Auburn. Between these two cities, there are 32 municipal parks, all of which are located within an eight mile radius of the Project. These parks provide the following amenities: playgrounds; picnic areas; softball fields; hand-carry and trailered boat launches; basketball courts; swimming pool; birding and wildlife watching opportunities; disc golf; skateboarding; multi-use trails supporting hiking, cross-country skiing, and snowshoeing; and ATV and snowmobiling trails. Some parks in the vicinity of the Project are (recreation sites included in the recreation inventory are described below):

• Mount Apatite - a 325 acre park located in the City of Auburn. The park has several miles of trails and is a popular site for mineral collection (Maine Trail Finder, 2013a). Mount Apatite is approximately 3.4 miles west from the Project. • Thorncrag Nature Sanctuary - a 372 acre wildlife preserve in the City of Lewiston, located approximately 3.5 miles northeast from the Project. The preserve has 3.5 miles of trails and is a popular site for bird and nature watching (Stanton Bird Club, 2013). • Sherwood Forest - a 78 acre conservation area in the City of Auburn owned in partnership between the City of Auburn and the Androscoggin Land Trust (ALT), a local non-profit. Sherwood Forest has 2.4 miles of trails as well as an outdoor classroom (Maine Trail Finder, 2013b). The Forest is approximately 1 mile south from the Project. • Garcelon Bog - a 109 acre conservation area in the City of Lewiston, approximately 2.5 miles northeast from the Project. The bog has two trails that pass through a variety of habitats and provides an area for bow hunters and outdoor education (Sun Journal, 2011b). • Barker Mill Trail - A public walking trail that runs parallel to the Little Androscoggin River. It was refurbished in 2011, making the trail accessible for pedestrians after many years of disuse (Sun Journal, 2011a). This trail is maintained by the ALT and runs parallel to the Little Androscoggin River starting at the Lower Barker Dam and continuing upstream for approximately one mile before ending at the Upper Barker Dam. The trail provides fishing access to the Little Androscoggin River (ALT, 2011) • Little Andy Park- A public boat launch located downstream of the Project on the Little Androscoggin River. The hand-carry boat launch provides access to both the Little Androscoggin River and the Androscoggin River. The park includes a pull-over for loading boats, and picnic tables (ARWC, 2012) and serves as the terminus of the informal canoe portage around Lower Barker Dam. The park is approximately 0.3 miles northeast from the Project • Rodney Bonney Memorial Park - A public park in the City of Auburn, located approximately 0.4 miles northeast from the Project. The park consists of an open grassy area with several park benches. The park is part of the Lewiston-Auburn Greenways Trail

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-65 Final License Application

system. The park ends at a pedestrian walkway connecting the City of Auburn with the City of Lewiston located on an old railroad trestle bridge (Maine Trail Finder, 2013c). • Moulton Park - A public park in the City of Auburn, located approximately 0.3 miles north from the Project. The park consists of an open field, and a small skate park. This park is terminus of a branch of the Lewiston-Auburn Greenways Trail system (Maine Trail Finder, 2013c).

EXISTING PROJECT RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES Based on observations, it appears that the public is accessing the bypassed reach for angling through the Project boundary and an informal parking area exists adjacent to the gate house. In informal hand-carry boat access exists upstream of the intake canal with informal parking. Currently, none of these access points are considered formal access points in the Project boundary.

RECREATIONAL USE STUDY Based upon stakeholder request, KEI (Maine) conducted a recreation use study to evaluate existing recreation facilities, use, and opportunities within the Project boundary and surrounding area. The study was conducted in three phases. Phase 1 involved a literature review of existing information about river channel characteristics, hydrology, current and planned recreational opportunities, and flow data for the Little Androscoggin River. Phase 2 included a recreation facilities inventory to document all formal and informal access and facilities within the Project boundary and the immediate surrounding area. Phase 2 also included a review of previous Form 80 filings. Phase 3 is intended to evaluate the suitability of the bypassed reach for on-water activities including shoreline angling, wade angling and flatwater and whitewater boating. However, the study which was planned for 2016 has yet to be conducted due to lack of sufficient inflow to provide the intended flow releases without drawing down the impoundment. Provided that sufficient river flow is available during the spring of 2017, KEI (Maine) intends to conduct on-water evaluation of flow releases as defined in the Revised Study Plan. While exact dates need to be identified and vetted with AWW and the City of Auburn, KEI (Maine) will target late April/early May for this effort, at period when river temperatures are warming and high spring flow conditions are most likely to make target flows achievable.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-66 Final License Application

PHASE 1 LITERATURE REVIEW KEI (Maine) reviewed existing information about recreation opportunities; the physical and hydrological characteristics of the Lower Barker impoundment and bypassed reach; and flow data for the Little Androscoggin River. Information on the physical characteristics and hydrology of the project area are provided in Section 4.3.2. Below is a summary of management plans that cover recreation resources within the Project vicinity.

2014-2019 Maine State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan The Maine State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (MSCORP) provides information on the supply and demand for outdoor recreation opportunities in Maine, assesses recreation issues, provides an implementation plan, as well as serves to qualify Maine for funding from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to acquire or develop lands for public outdoor recreation. There are no recommendations specific to the Lower Barker Project, but the recreation goals outlined in the MSCORP may be applied by governments at the state, county, or municipal levels including Androscoggin County and the cities of Lewiston and Auburn. Recreation priorities outlined in the MSCORP that may bear relevance to the Project are (MDACF, 2015):

• To connect Mainers with the health and wellness benefits of outdoor recreation; • To support regionally connected trail systems in less developed regions to increase access and enhance economic development; • To connect to future tourism markets through recreation interests; and • To increase access to and awareness of local and regional recreation opportunities through effective communication and collaboration between the public, municipal, and private landowners.

City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan: 2010 Update The City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan: 2010 Update is an update to the original City Comprehensive Plan. The update was developed to expand upon policies outlined in the original Comprehensive Plan and to create new policies to address emerging issues for the City. The 2010 Update serves as a decision-making tool for the City when addressing issues concerning natural resources, public facilities and infrastructure, historic preservation, economic and community development, housing, and recreation and open space. The plan does not specifically

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-67 Final License Application

address recreation activities at the Lower Barker Project. Among the recreation goals of the 2010 Update that may bear relevance to the Project are (City of Auburn, 2011):

• To increase recreation and boat access to the Androscoggin River and Little Androscoggin River; • To improve current recreational river access through trail and park maintenance; • To increase the amount of open space in the City by collaborating with local conservation organizations including the Androscoggin Land Trust (ALT), overseers of the Lower Barker Trail, and the Lake Auburn Watershed Protection Commission (LAWPC); and • To maintain and enhance city trails by supporting the efforts of local conservation and outdoor recreation organizations.

Western Maine Regional Open Space Policy The Western Maine Regional Open Space Policy (WMROSP) was published by the Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments (AVCOG), a resource sharing organization for all the municipalities in Androscoggin, Franklin, and Oxford Counties. The WMROSP does not identify any specific lands for conservation, but develops policies to be used by the AVCOG, member municipalities, and State and federal agencies and directs conservation opportunities in the future. Among the goals of the ROSP that may bear relevance to the Project are (AVCOG, 2009):

• To promote open spaces as a way to improve Western Maine's "Quality of Place"; • To promote economic development which protects and conserves open spaces; • To work with private land owners to continue the tradition of public access to private lands for outdoor recreation; and • To conserve energy and encourage the growth of alternative energy sources including wind and hydroelectric.

2014 New Auburn Village Center Study The New Auburn Village Center Study builds upon the 2009 New Auburn Master Plan and outlines the holistic development of New Auburn through strategic improvements to infrastructure, transportation, and open spaces (T. Y. Lin International, 2014). The study is focused on the development of approximately 38 acres in the vicinity of the Lower Barker Project and promotes the development of the economy and infrastructure of the area while

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-68 Final License Application

leveraging the assets provided by the Androscoggin and Little Androscoggin Rivers. Specific components of the study which may be relevant to the Project are:

• To promote connectivity and open space planning to revitalize the economy of New Auburn by providing new recreation opportunities and access to the river; • To relocate or close bridges and roads to provide access to the Androscoggin and Little Androscoggin Rivers; and • To expand the Riverwalk by connecting the riverfront with trails and open spaces.

Androscoggin River Greenway Plan The Greenway plan was developed through collaboration between the Androscoggin Land Trust, the City of Auburn, and the City of Lewiston to provide access (e.g., pedestrian, bike, river) and a network of trails connecting the Androscoggin River corridor with surrounding neighborhoods, businesses, and recreation opportunities (Wright-Pierce, 2013). Objectives of the plan are to maintain existing pedestrian and bicycle greenway segments and trails; to develop and improve the greenway by creating loop trails connecting with the river; to extend the Riverwalk; to improve and expand boat access to the river; and to create and improve portage routes. Specific components of the plan in the vicinity of the Lower Barker Project include developing the New Auburn Loop trail, improving on-road and off-road pedestrian and bike trails along the Little Androscoggin River, and constructing a pedestrian bridge across the Little Androscoggin River to connect the Barker Mill Trail with Moulton Park.

City of Lewiston Comprehensive Plan The Lewiston Comprehensive Plan establishes the vision for future development and strategies for sustainable growth (City of Lewiston, 2015). The plan outlines the framework for implementing public policy, protecting natural resources, making land use decisions, and supporting public and private investments and developments. The plan does not specifically address recreation opportunities at the Lower Barker Project or the Little Androscoggin River. Objectives of the plan that may be relevant to the Project include:

• Supporting the Androscoggin Land Trust Greenway Plan and developing the Riverfront; • Developing and restoring the canals for recreation and economic purposes; • Maintaining, upgrading and rehabilitating existing public parks and recreation facilities through additional signage, parking, and restroom facilities;

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-69 Final License Application

• Expanding public access and recreation opportunities along the riverfront; • Expanding the trail system to connect rural and urban areas; and • Improving and creating walking, biking, and hiking trails.

Riverfront Island Master Plan The Riverfront Island Master Plan focuses on developing Lewiston’s downtown riverfront and making it an urban and commercial riverfront destination (City of Lewiston, 2012). Goals of the plan which may be relevant to the Project are:

• to continue to develop the Riverwalk by providing water access and scenic views; • to create and improve connections between new and existing parks and the Riverfront and; • to make the area more walkable and create a Canal Walk.

PHASE 2 RECREATION INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT

KEI (Maine) completed an inventory of existing recreation sites and facilities within the Project boundary and in the immediate vicinity of the Lower Barker Project on July 7, 2016. KEI (Maine) collected GPS points, photographs, and noted the amenities available at each site.

KEI (Maine) permits public use of the Project land and waters for recreation; however, there are no formal recreation facilities within the Project boundary. KEI (Maine) has limited ownership of the lands surrounding the Project. The lands surrounding the Project structures are densely forested with a steep and rocky ravine leading down to the water. According to an Environmental Inspection Report conducted by FERC on September 15, 2009, there is "little potential for recreational opportunities" (FERC, 2011) at the Project site.

Barker Mill Trail The Barker Mill Trail runs parallel to the Little Androscoggin River beginning next to the Lower Barker Dam and continuing upstream approximately 0.6 miles to the Upper Barker Dam (Figure 4-5). The trail is maintained by ALT. The trail provides a walking and biking path, shoreline access to the impoundment for angling, and an informal hand-carry boat launch; an informal trail provides access to the tailwater and bypassed reach immediately downstream of the dam (Figure 4-5, Photo 4-1, Photo 4-2, and Photo 4-3). There is no formal portage route at the Project, but paddlers can traverse the dam via an informal 0.3 mile portage route (egress from the

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-70 Final License Application

impoundment at the Barker Mill Trail to Mill Street to Second Street to ingress downstream at the Little Andy Park boat launch). KEI (Maine) seasonally implements a boat barrier in the impoundment above the dam, installing it from May 31 through October 12. The trail has two entrances, and parking is available for approximately 10 vehicles next to the dam.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-71 Final License Application

FIGURE 4-5 RECREATION INVENTORY MAP

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-72 Final License Application

PHOTO 4-1 BOAT BARRIER AND INFORMAL HAND-CARRY BOAT LAUNCH LOCATED ALONG THE BARKER MILL TRAIL UPSTREAM OF THE LOWER BARKER DAM

PHOTO 4-2 REPRESENTATIVE PHOTO OF THE BARKER MILL TRAIL

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-73 Final License Application

PHOTO 4-3 PATH LEADING TO THE TAILRACE BELOW THE LOWER BARKER DAM

Sullivan Square Sullivan Square is located approximately 0.2 miles downstream of the Lower Barker Dam (Photo 4-4). The park contains a picnic area, benches, and a walking path (Photo 4-4). The park is accessible from South Main Street

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-74 Final License Application

PHOTO 4-4 SULLIVAN SQUARE PARK

Bonney Park Bonney Park is a public park located approximately 0.4 miles northeast from the Project (Photo 4-5). The park is part of the Lewiston-Auburn Greenways Trail system. The park consists of an open grassy area for picnicking or playing sports, several park benches, a walking/biking path, and a playground (Photo 4-5). The park also contains trashcans, signage, and lighting. Bonney Park connects the City of Auburn with the City of Lewiston via the Riverwalk and a pedestrian walkway along an old railroad trestle bridge (Photo 4-6). The park is accessible from Main Street and from Moulton Park. Parking is available for approximately 6 vehicles.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-75 Final License Application

PHOTO 4-5 PLAYGROUND AND BENCHES IN BONNEY PARK

PHOTO 4-6 BONNEY PARK CONNECTS TO LEWISTON VIA THE RIVERWALK AND AN OLD RAILROAD BRIDGE.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-76 Final License Application

Moulton Park Moulton Park is a public park located approximately 0.3 miles north of the Lower Barker Dam (Photo 4-7). The park consists of an open field, a skate park, and a walking/biking path (Photo 4-7). The walking path connects Moulton and Bonney Parks. Access to the Little Androscoggin River is provided from an informal path connecting the park to the bypassed reach downstream of the Lower Barker Dam (Photo 4-7). The park contains signage and lighting. An entrance is also located in the southwest corner of the park off of Hutchins Street.

PHOTO 4-7 MOULTON PARK CONSISTS OF OPEN LAWN AND A SKATE PARK

Little Andy Park Little Andy Park is a public park located approximately 0.3 miles northeast of the Lower Barker Dam (Photo 4-9). A hand-carry boat launch is located in the park which provides access to both the Little Androscoggin River and the Androscoggin River (Photo 4-9). The park serves as the terminus of the informal canoe portage around Lower Barker Dam. Little Andy Park consists of a small playground, including a hop scotch and four square court, open lawn, picnic tables, benches, scenic view of the rivers, bike racks, a walking/biking path, signage, trash cans, and

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-77 Final License Application

lighting (Photo 4-9). A drop off zone is located at the entrance to the park, and parking is available for approximately 20 vehicles off of Pulsifer Street.

PHOTO 4-8 A HAND-CARRY BOAT LAUNCH IS AVAILABLE IN LITTLE ANDY PARK

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-78 Final License Application

PHOTO 4-9 A SMALL PLAYGROUND, PICNIC TABLES, BENCHES, AND OPEN GRASS SPACE ARE AVAILABLE IN LITTLE ANDY PARK

FORM 80 REVIEW KEI (Maine) reviewed the recreation use results for the three previous FERC Form 80, Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Reports completed in 2003, 2010, and 2015. In 2002, the annual total number of recreation days was estimated to be 193 between the months of April and October (Ridgewood, 2003). Monitoring for a Form 80 took place from April through October of 2010. During that time, there were 25 total visitors observed, resulting in an estimated 50 recreation days associated with the Project.

KEI (Maine) completed spot counts between April 2014 and March 2015 on a random sample of 179 days comprising 151 weekdays, 25 weekend days, and 3 holiday weekend days for the 2015 Form 80 monitoring effort. The annual total number of recreation days was estimated to be 520 with 314 recreation days in summer (April through October 2014) and 206 recreation days in winter (November 2014 through March 2015). KEI (Maine) observed people fishing, walking dogs, hiking, and sightseeing.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-79 Final License Application

Also in response to stakeholder requests, KEI (Maine) intended to conduct a whitewater flow demonstration in 2016 but there was insufficient inflow during the fall recreation season occurred such that target flow releases could be provided. Provided that sufficient river flow is available during the spring of 2017, KEI (Maine) intends to conduct on-water evaluation of flow releases as defined in the Revised Study Plan. While exact dates need to be identified and vetted with AWW and the City of Auburn, KEI (Maine) will target late April/early May for this effort, at period when river temperatures are warming and high spring flow conditions are most likely to make target flows achievable.

WHITEWATER FLOW ANALYSIS As indicated by current flow conditions, inflow to the Project during the recreation season is limited, making it difficult to “schedule” whitewater releases without compromising KEI (Maine)’s ability to meet pond level requirements. KEI (Maine) analyzed Little Androscoggin River flow data12 to evaluate the availability of water for three whitewater flow releases (300 cfs, 500 cfs, and 660 cfs) downstream of the Lower Barker Dam, the length of time the impoundment would need to be drawn down to provide the whitewater flows, and the amount of time needed to refill the impoundment. Inflows to the Project that occur infrequently (flow exceeded 25 percent of the time), on average (flow exceeded 50 percent of the time), and frequently (flow exceeded 75 percent of the time) were analyzed. In order to provide the whitewater flows, the Lower Barker impoundment would need to be drawn down during the recreation season (specifically June through September) and would require several hours to refill (Table 4-21, Table 4-22, and Table 4-23). For example, under typical flow conditions (50 percent exceedance) in July, in order to provide an outflow of 300 cfs, the water available in the impoundment would be used up within 11 hours and would require 15 hours to refill (Table 4-21). Similarly, storage would be used up in approximately 5 hours and 3.5 hours to provide flows of 500 cfs and 660 cfs, respectively (Table 4-22 and Table 4-23), and would require 15 hours to refill at both 500 cfs and 660 cfs.

12 Flow data was obtained from USGS Gage 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, Maine, for the time period 1/1/1985 to 12/31/2014. The monthly exceedance values were pro-rated to the drainage area of the Lower Barker dam.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-80 Final License Application

TABLE 4-21 LENGTH OF TIME (HOUR) IMPOUNDMENT WOULD BE DRAWN DOWN TO PROVIDE A FLOW OF 300 CFS AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME (HOUR) NEEDED TO REFILL THE LOWER BARKER IMPOUNDMENT.

LENGTH OF TIME FOR DRAWDOWN BEFORE LENGTH OF TIME TO REFILL IMPOUNDMENT AVAILABLE STORAGE IS USED (HR)* (HR)* 25% 50% 75% 25% 50% 75% MONTH EXCEEDANCE EXCEEDANCE EXCEEDANCE EXCEEDANCE EXCEEDANCE EXCEEDANCE January --- 536.6 21.1 --- 6.6 9.4 February --- 101.0 19.0 --- 6.9 9.9 March ------138.5 ------6.8 April ------May ------June ------17.4 ------10.3 July --- 11.4 7.7 --- 15.0 42.0 August 50.1 8.7 6.9 7.4 25.1 101.2 September 15.8 8.4 6.9 11.0 29.0 113.6 October --- 34.9 9.4 --- 8.0 20.9 November ------December ------220.1 ------6.7 *--- cases where inflow is greater than outflow and no drawdown is necessary.

TABLE 4-22 LENGTH OF TIME (HOUR) IMPOUNDMENT WOULD BE DRAWN DOWN TO PROVIDE A FLOW OF 500 CFS AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME (HOUR) NEEDED TO REFILL THE LOWER BARKER IMPOUNDMENT.

LENGTH OF TIME FOR DRAWDOWN BEFORE LENGTH OF TIME TO REFILL IMPOUNDMENT AVAILABLE STORAGE IS USED (HR)* (HR)* 25% 50% 75% 25% 50% 75% MONTH EXCEEDANCE EXCEEDANCE EXCEEDANCE EXCEEDANCE EXCEEDANCE EXCEEDANCE January 42.3 8.9 6.3 4.2 6.6 9.4 February 17.9 8.3 6.1 4.8 6.9 9.9 March ------8.5 ------6.8 April ------May ------38.0 ------4.2 June --- 11.0 6.0 --- 5.8 10.3 July 10.2 5.1 4.2 6.0 15.0 42.0 August 7.7 4.5 3.9 7.4 25.1 101.2 September 5.8 4.3 3.9 11.0 29.0 113.6 October --- 7.2 4.6 --- 8.0 20.9 November ------9.4 ------6.3 December --- 42.3 8.7 --- 4.2 6.7 *--- cases where inflow is greater than outflow and no drawdown is necessary.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-81 Final License Application

TABLE 4-23 LENGTH OF TIME (HOUR) IMPOUNDMENT WOULD BE DRAWN DOWN TO PROVIDE A FLOW OF 660 CFS AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME (HOUR) NEEDED TO REFILL THE LOWER BARKER IMPOUNDMENT.

LENGTH OF TIME FOR DRAWDOWN BEFORE LENGTH OF TIME TO REFILL IMPOUNDMENT AVAILABLE STORAGE IS USED (HR)* (HR)* 25% 50% 75% 25% 50% 75% EXCEEDANC EXCEEDANC EXCEEDANC EXCEEDANC EXCEEDANC EXCEEDANC MONTH E E E E E E January 8.9 5.0 4.1 4.2 6.6 9.4 February 6.9 4.8 4.0 4.8 6.9 9.9 March --- 31.8 4.9 --- 3.1 6.8 April ------May ------8.7 ------4.2 June 41.6 5.6 3.9 3.0 5.8 10.3 July 5.4 3.5 3.0 6.0 15.0 42.0 August 4.6 3.2 2.9 7.4 25.1 101.2 September 3.8 3.1 2.9 11.0 29.0 113.6 October 15.1 4.4 3.3 3.5 8.0 20.9 November --- 16.4 5.1 --- 3.4 6.3 December --- 8.9 4.9 --- 4.2 6.7 *--- cases where inflow is greater than outflow and no drawdown is necessary.

LAND USES WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT The Project lies wholly within Androscoggin County, Maine, which has a land area of approximately 467 (U.S. Census, 2012a). The Project vicinity is dominated by forestland, approximately 61% of the land cover, followed by agriculture at approximately 13% of the land cover. Overall, only a small percentage of the Project Vicinity is developed (6.4%) (Table 4-24) (NOAA C-CAP, 2006).

TABLE 4-24 LAND USES IN ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY LAND USE SQUARE MILES PERCENT Developed 31.76 6.4% Agricultural 65.82 13.2% Forestland 304.26 61.2% Wetlands 43.68 8.8% Grasslands 3.19 0.6% Scrub/Shrub 14.48 2.9% Barren Land 3.33 0.7% Open Space 5.43 1.1% Open Water 25.29 5.1% Total 497.24 100% Source: NOAA C-CAP, 2006.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-82 Final License Application

The Lower Barker Project is located completely within the City of Auburn. Auburn has a mix of urban development and forested areas (Table 4-24). The immediate shoreline of the Project impoundment is predominantly wooded but surrounded by development (Section 4.1). Land use on privately owned lands in the City, including those adjacent to the Project boundary, are regulated by the Auburn Planning & Permitting department. The areas of Auburn closest to the Project are zoned as general business; multi-family urban and suburban; and rural residential (Section 4.1) (Auburn, 2011). Any development on private lands requires the appropriate permits and must adhere to the design and development standards of the Auburn Planning & Permitting department.

LAND USE AND MANAGEMENT OF PROJECT LANDS Project operations and maintenance are the primary activities that occur on Project lands. There are no formal public recreation facilities at the Project and access to the dam is blocked to unauthorized vehicles or pedestrians.

AESTHETIC RESOURCES The Lower Barker Project is located wholly within the City of Auburn in the Lewiston Auburn metropolitan area in Androscoggin County. The Project vicinity is predominantly rural, consisting of rugged forests and agricultural lands with minimal development in 14 towns and cities across the County (FERC, 1996). The largest area of urban development is the Lewiston- Auburn Metropolitan Area. The City of Auburn is mostly urban with pockets of forests in the outer edges of the City. Lands surrounding the Project are densely forested with a steep rocky gorge leading down to the Project waters (FERC, 2011).

VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE PROJECT VICINITY The Lower Barker Project is located within a relatively urban section of Androscoggin County. The Little Androscoggin River originates at Bryant Pond, 29 miles away from the Project, in Oxford County. The River flows southeasterly through Oxford and Androscoggin counties to its confluence with the Androscoggin River in the City of Auburn.

Approximately 70% of Androscoggin County is forested (Ireland, 1998). A majority of the forested areas in the Project vicinity lie to the north and west of the Project. However, there are segments of forested lands within close vicinity of the Project.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-83 Final License Application

A paved public road runs parallel to the Project area, therefore making the Project area visible for most public travel. The Barker Mill Trail is a walking trail developed by the ALT. This trail runs parallel to the Little Androscoggin River starting upstream of the Project at the Upper Barker Dam and ending at the driveway to the Project. The Trail provides views of the Project areas and facilities for pedestrians.

NEARBY SCENIC ATTRACTIONS Within the Project vicinity are numerous scenic attractions of local and regional importance. There are 14 state and 32 municipal parks in the Project vicinity (MDPPL, 2013c). These parks offer a variety of trails which offer views of the Androscoggin River and its tributaries, and other scenic lands.

There are numerous covered bridges in the Maine Lakes and Mountains region. Most covered bridges in Maine were built between the mid-1800s and early 1900s. At its peak Maine had 120 covered bridges, today only nine remain. Six of those bridges are located in the Maine Lakes and Mountain region, they include: Babb's Bridge, Bennett Bridge, Hemlock Bridge, Lovejoy Bridge, Parsonsfield-Porter Bridge, and Sunday River Bridge (Artist's Bridge). The Sunday River Bridge is often referred to as Artist's Bridge because it is the most painted and photographed covered bridge in Maine (MLMTC, 2013).

There are four scenic byways located within the Maine Lakes and Mountains Region. The Rangeley Lakes Scenic Byway is designated a National Scenic Byway, by the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. The Byway extends approximately 36 miles through western Maine and offers magnificent views of Mooselookmeguntic Lake, Sandy River, Beaver Pond, and Toothaker Island. The byway also provides opportunity for wildlife watching, and outdoor recreation (DOT FHA, 2013). Grafton Notch is a state scenic byway that extends approximately 21 miles through Grafton Notch State Park. The byway offers scenic views of Lake Umbagog, Screw Auger Falls, and Mother Walker Falls (MDOT, 2013a). Pequawket Trail is a state scenic byway that extends approximately 60 miles and goes through westernmost section of the White Mountains National Forest on the New Hampshire border. The byway offers scenic views of Mount Washington, Hemlock Covered Bridge, and Jockey Cap Rock (MDOT, 2013b). State Route 27 is a state scenic byway that extends approximately 47 miles from the

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-84 Final License Application

Canadian border to central Maine. The byway offers scenic views of Mount Abraham, Carabassett River, and Cathedral Pines, the largest area of old growth forest in Maine (MDOT, 2013c).

VISUAL CHARACTER OF PROJECT LANDS AND WATERS The Lower Barker development has a small impoundment with a storage capacity of approximately 150 acre-feet (USACE, 2013). The Project boundary encompasses the impoundment up to elevation 166.6 feet NAVD88 and extending upstream to the base of the Upper Barker Dam. The Project boundary also includes the dam, buried penstock, and the powerhouse. The Lower Barker Dam is constructed of concrete and measures 30 feet high by 230 feet long. The Project has a powerhouse constructed of concrete and measuring 55 feet by 20 feet (Photo 4-10). The powerhouse and tailrace are located approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the dam (FERC, 1979). Lands adjacent to the Project boundary are forested, but quickly give way to urban development.

A public road runs parallel to the Project area. During winter months the Project area is highly visible from this road, however the foliage fills in during fall and summer months obscuring views of the Project (Photo 4-11).

PHOTO 4-10 LOWER BARKER PROJECT

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-85 Final License Application

PHOTO 4-11 VIEW OF LOWER BARKER DAM FROM MILL STREET DURING THE WINTER MONTHS

Source: Google.com Street View, 2013

4.3.6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

KEI (Maine) is not proposing to add new recreational facilities to the Project but rather to make enhancements recommended by MDIFW. In comments on the draft license application, MDIFW recommends signage, parking and identification of existing foot access provisions to the tailrace/bypass area and formalizing the existing hand-carry boat launch at the impoundment with appropriate signage and parking. KEI (Maine) agrees to these improvements and proposes to consult with MDIFW for implementation of these measures as a condition of the new license. These enhancements will better inform the public that access to the river exists and will identify formal parking at the project facilities.

It is unlikely that increasing minimum flows even up to the agency recommended ABF (176 cfs) will result in depth increases that will substantially improve boating capability, although there may be some limited increase.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-86 Final License Application

KEI (Maine)’s proposal to increase the minimum flow to 50 cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, will result in a marginal change in the downstream aesthetics of the bypassed reach during times of low flow.

The proposed action will have no effect on land use at the Project.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The no-action alternative will have the same effect on recreation and land use as the proposed action. Under the no-action alternative, the minimum flow in the bypassed reach would continue to be 20 cfs, and therefore there would be no change to the aesthetics of the bypassed reach.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS KEI (Maine) may need to temporarily alter water levels in the impoundment, bypassed reach, or tailrace for routine maintenance or repairs. This may result in short-term periods of low aesthetic views and recreational use of the downstream river reaches.

4.3.6.3 REFERENCES

Androscoggin River Watershed Council (ARWC). 2012. Androscoggin River Trail Access Sites Lower Androscoggin- Riverlands. [Online] URL: http://arwc.camp7.org/Resources/Documents/Lower%20Androscoggin_Riverlands.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2013.

Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments (AVCOG). 2009. Western Maine Regional Open Space Policy Draft. [Online] URL: http://www.avcog.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/42. Accessed July 28, 2016.

City of Auburn. 2011. City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan: 2010 Update. [Online] URL: http://www.auburnmaine.org/CMSContent/Planning/Comprehensive_Plan_FINAL_Appr oved_4_19_11.pdf. Accessed November 13, 2013.

City of Lewiston. 2012. Riverfront Island Master Plan. [Online] URL: http://www.lewistonmaine.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2350. Accessed July 28, 2016.

City of Lewiston. 2015. City of Lewiston Comprehensive Plan. [Online] URL: http://www.lewistonmaine.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6141. Accessed July 28, 2016.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-87 Final License Application

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1979. Order Issuing License for Barker's Mill Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2808). 6 FERC ¶61,175. Issued February 23, 1979.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement Lower Androscoggin River Basin Hydroelectric Projects Maine. July, 1996. Accessed November 6, 2013Maine Division of Parks and Public Lands (MDPPL). 2013a. Androscoggin Riverlands. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/cgi- bin/online/doc/parksearch/details.pl?park_id=98. Accessed November 12, 2013.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2011. Environmental Inspection Report for Barker's Mill Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2808). Accession No.: 20110408-5042. Filed April 7, 2011.

Ireland, Lloyd, C. 1998. Maine's Forest Area, 1600-1995: Review of Available Estimates. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station. [Online] URL: http://www.umaine.edu/mafes/elec_pubs/miscpubs/mp736.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2013.

Lewiston-Auburn Sun Journal (Sun Journal). 2011a. Barker Mil Trail in New Auburn to Reopen. [Online] URL: http://www.sunjournal.com/city/story/1077859. Accessed November 13, 2013.

Lewiston-Auburn Sun Journal (Sun Journal). 2011b. Photos: Lewiston's Garcelon Bog Permanently Conserved. [Online] URL: http://www.sunjournal.com/comment/88227. Accessed November 13, 2013.

Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry (MDACF) Bureau of Parks & Lands. 2015. Maine State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 2014-2019. [Online] URL: https://www1.maine.gov/dacf/parks/publications_maps/docs/final_SCORP_rev_10_15_p lan_only.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2016.

Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2013a. Grafton Notch. [Online] URL: http://www.exploremaine.org/byways/lakes-mtns/graftonnotch.shtml. Accessed November 20, 2013.

Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2013b. Pequawket Trail (Route 113). [Online} URL: http://www.exploremaine.org/byways/lakes-mtns/pequawkettrail.shtml. Accessed November 20, 2013.

Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2013c. State Route 27. [Online] URL: http://www.exploremaine.org/byways/lakes-mtns/staterte27.shtml. Accessed November 20, 2013.

Maine Division of Parks and Public Lands (MDPPL). 2013b. Bradbury Mountain State Park. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/cgi- bin/online/doc/parksearch/details.pl?park_id=12. Accessed November 12, 2013.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-88 Final License Application

Maine Division of Parks and Public Lands (MDPPL). 2013c. Parks & Lands Search Results: Maine Lakes and Mountains. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/cgi- bin/online/doc/parksearch/search_info.pl. Accessed November 12, 2013.

Maine Division of Parks and Public Lands (MDPPL). 2013d. Range Ponds State Park. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/cgi-bin/online/doc/parksearch/details.pl?park_id=11. Accessed November 12, 2013.

Maine's Lakes and Mountains Tourism Council (MLMTC). 2013. Covered Bridges. [Online] URL: http://www.mainelakesandmountains.com/things_to_do/sightseeing_tours/covered_bridg e/. Accessed November 20, 2013.

Maine Trail Finder. 2013a. Mount Apatite. [Online] URL: http://www.mainetrailfinder.com/Trail/mount-apatite/. Accessed November 12, 2013.

Maine Trail Finder. 2013b. Sherwood Forest Conservation Area. [Online] URL: http://www.mainetrailfinder.com/Trail/sherwood-forest-conservation-area/. Accessed November 13, 2013.

Maine Trail Finder. 2013c. Lewiston-Auburn Greenway Trails. [Online] URL: http://www.mainetrailfinder.com/trail/lewistonauburn-greenway-trails/. Accessed December 19, 2013.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Change Analysis Program (NOAA C-CAP). 2006. Land Cover Atlas Androscoggin County, Maine. [Online] URL: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/ccapatlas/. Accessed November 14, 2013.

Ridgewood Maine Hydro Partners, L.P. 2003. FERC Form 80, Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Report, Barker's Mill Lower. Accession No.: 200030530-0105. Filed April 1, 2003.

Stanton Bird Club. 2013. Thorncrag Nature Sanctuary. [Online] URL: http://www.stantonbirdclub.org/thorncrg.htm. Accessed November 13, 2013.

T. Y. Lin International. 2014. New Auburn Village Center Study. Prepared for Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center and the City of Auburn. [Online] URL: http://www.auburnmaine.gov/CMSContent/Planning/New_Auburn_Redevelopment/NA VCP_8_25_14_FINAL_DRAFT.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2016.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013. National Inventory of Dams. [Online] URL: http://geo.usace.army.mil/pgis/f?p=397:4:1473658987832501::NO. Accessed November 8, 2013.

U.S. Census. 2012a. QuickFacts: Androscoggin County, Maine. [Online] URL: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/23/23001.html. Accessed November 11, 2013.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-89 Final License Application

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHA). 2013. Rangeley Lakes Scenic Byway. [Online] URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/byways/13830. Accessed November 20, 2013.

Wright-Pierce 2013. Androscoggin Land Trust Androscoggin River Greenway Plan. [Online] URL: https://issuu.com/wrightp/docs/androscoggin_greenway_plan_wright-pierce. Accessed June 29, 2016.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-90 Final License Application

4.3.7 SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES

4.3.7.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Approximately 61% of Androscoggin County, where the Project is located, is forested (NOAA C-CAP, 2006). Although forests account for approximately 90% of Maine's land use, a vast majority of those lands are privately owned and forest-related jobs account for only 2.4% of Maine's jobs and 1.1% of jobs in Androscoggin County. Manufacturing and merchant wholesaler are the largest employer in Androscoggin County, followed by retail sales and health services (U.S. Census, 2016a).

POPULATION In 2015 an estimated 107,233people were living in Androscoggin County, making it the fifth most populated county in the state of Maine. Of those people living in Androscoggin County 22,871 were living in the City of Auburn (Table 4-25). The City of Auburn is the fifth largest city in the state of Maine. Androscoggin County as a whole is less densely populated, with a population density of 230.2 people/mi², compared to the City of Auburn which has a population density of 388.6 people/mi². From 2010 to 2015 the population of the county declined by -0.4% and the population of Auburn decreased by -0.8%. The population changes for both Androscoggin County and Auburn were lower than the growth experienced statewide in Maine during that time (0.1%) (U.S. Census 2015a, 2015b).

TABLE 4-25 POPULATION STATISTICS FOR AUBURN, ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY AND MAINE CITY OF ANDROSCOGGIN AUBURN COUNTY MAINE Population Population (2015 estimate) 22,871 107,233 1,329,328 Population (2012) 22,972 107,609 1,329,192 Population (2010) 23,052 107,702 1,328,361 Population Growth (2000 to 2015) -0.8 -0.4 0.1 Geography (2010) Land area in square mile 59.33 467.93 30,842.92 Population Density 388.6 230.2 43.1 Age (2015) Persons under 5 years (2015) X 6% 4.90% Persons under 18 years (2015) X 21.90% 19.30% Persons 65 years and over (2015) X 16.40% 18.80% Race (2015)

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-91 Final License Application

CITY OF ANDROSCOGGIN AUBURN COUNTY MAINE Caucasian X 92.70% 94.90% Black or African American (2015) X 3.80% 1.40% American Indian and Alaska Native(2015) X 0.4 0.7 Asian (2015) X 0.9 1.2 Native Hawaiian and Other (2015) X Z Z Two or More Races (2015) X 2.2 1.7 Hispanic or Latino (2015) X 1.8 1.6 Source: U.S. Census 2015a, 2015b X (not applicable), Z (Value greater than zero but less than half unit of measure shown)

HOUSING AND INCOME In 2014, the annual per capita personal income for Androscoggin County was $24,734, slightly below the state of Maine per capita personal income of $27,332. Between 2010 and 2014, Androscoggin County had 44,391 households and an average household size of approximately 2.35 individuals. From 2010-2014, the County had a higher percent of persons below poverty level than the state average, 15.4% and 14.1% respectively. (U.S. Census 2016a).

Auburn residents had an annual per capita income of $26,545 in 2014, comparable to the overall average for the state of Maine. The percentage of persons below poverty level in the City from 2010-2014 was larger than the poverty rate for Androscoggin County at 17.0% (U.S. Census 2016b).

Approximately 88.6% of the population of Androscoggin County had an education attainment of high school graduate or higher, while 19.9% held Bachelor's degrees or higher (U.S. Census 2016a). Approximately 89.9% of the population of Auburn had an education attainment of high school graduate or higher, while 24.9% held Bachelor's degrees or higher (U.S. Census 2016b).

EMPLOYMENT Table 4-26 below provides 2010-2014 data on employment sources in the City of Auburn and Androscoggin County. In Androscoggin County the manufacturing and retail sectors are the largest employers. The health care services and merchant sectors were also important. In July 2015, Androscoggin County was ranked 6th out of 16 counties for lowest unemployment rate at

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-92 Final License Application

3.9%. This is comparable to the mean unemployment rate for the state of Maine which was 4.4% (MCWRI, 2016).

In 2012, there were 63.7% of individuals in the labor force in the City of Auburn. As with the county, the manufacturing and retail sectors provided the greatest number of jobs employing 1,840,753 of the workforce. The retail trade and manufacturing sectors were the next largest employers, accounting for approximately 305,943 jobs respectively (U.S. Census 2016b). In 2012, Auburn was ranked 7th out of 14 towns and cities in Androscoggin County for lowest unemployment rate at 7.2%. This is slightly below the county unemployment rate of 7.4% (MCWRI, 2012).

TABLE 4-26 EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS FOR AUBURN, ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY AND MAINE

CITY OF ANDROSCOGGIN AUBURN COUNTY MAINE Civilian labor force Employment Status (2010 - 2014) Percent Employed 63.70% 65.60% 63.80% Non-Farm Employment by Industry Accommodation and food services sales (2012) 70995 153320 2901347 Health care and social assistance (2012) 154828 947468 10297043 Manufacturer shipments (2012) 993710 1886855 16044543 Merchant wholesaler sales (2012) 151115 473945 12961262 Total retail sales (2012) 847043 1818065 21521714 Retail sales per capita (2012) 36873 16895 16192 Source: U.S. Census, 2015a, 2015b

4.3.7.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action will have no significant effects on socioeconomics. The existing labor force will continue to work at the Project. Maintenance of recreation facilities will have a negligible impact to workload, and no new jobs are anticipated to be created. Regular inspections and maintenance of the facilities is not expected to significantly increase recreation use by commercial outfitters, and as such, it would not significantly affect socioeconomics.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-93 Final License Application

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE There are no anticipated effects to socioeconomics by continuing to operate the Project as it is in the existing license.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The Project would cumulatively, with other hydroelectric projects in the region, result in beneficial socioeconomic effects including potential energy savings and creation of jobs.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS The proposed Project would result in no unavoidable adverse effects to the regional socioeconomics.

4.3.7.3 REFERENCES

Maine Center for Workforce Research and Information (MCWRI). 2012. Unemployment and Labor Force. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/labor/cwri/laus.html. Accessed November 11, 2013.

U.S. Census. 2011a. Selected Economic Characteristics 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Androscoggin County. [Online]. URL: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk. Accessed November 11, 2013.

U.S. Census. 2011b. Selected Economic Characteristics 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Auburn city. [Online] URL: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk. Accessed November 11, 2013.

U.S. Census. 2015a. QuickFacts: Androscoggin County, Maine. [Online] URL: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/23/23001.html. Accessed July 20, 2016.

U.S. Census. 2015b. QuickFacts: Auburn (city), Maine. [Online] URL: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/23/2302060.html. Accessed July 20, 2016.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-94 Final License Application

4.3.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.3.8.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECT The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) defines an Area of Potential Effect (APE) as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. KEI (Maine) has delineated the APE for the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project in consultation with the Maine State Historic Preservation Commission (SHPC) through the process of Study Plan Development. The APE at the Lower Barker Project is defined as all lands within the FERC Project Boundary, including the powerhouse, tailrace, headrace, dam, downstream recreation area, and extends upstream to Upper Barker Dam. No improvements or enhancements are proposed beyond this line.

CULTURAL RESOURCES Gray & Pape, Inc. (Gray & Pape), was retained to conduct a Phase 1 Pre-Contact Period archaeological sensitivity assessment (including reconnaissance survey) for the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project. The assessment was in compliance with Federal and State legislation and regulations concerning impacts to archaeological properties from federally-funded or permitted activities including; the national Historic Preservation Act of 1966 amended 1992 (54 USC 300101), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91-990, 42 USC 4321), Executive Order 11593, 1971 (16 USC 470), Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties (36 CFR 800), and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (PL 93- 291). Professional archaeological work in Maine is regulated by two chapters in the Code of Maine Rules: Chapters 100 and 812 (Sections 089c100 and 089c812, respectively). Archaeological site records access procedures and standards are contained in Chapter 100. The composition and functions of the Archaeological Advisory Committee, the credential requirements from persons on the Commission’s approved lists of archaeologists, procedure for review of credentials, procedure for removal from approved lists, and environmental impact project guidelines and procedures are contained in Chapter 812.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-95 Final License Application

Based upon the results of Gray & Pape’s initial assessment, MHPC required additional field investigations in 2016. Gray & Pape conducted this work and has developed a report that concludes not additional survey work is necessary, which has been provided to MHPC for review.

Pre‐historical archaeological surveys have been completed along the banks of the Androscoggin River and the Little Androscoggin River (upstream of the Project) and one historic archaeological site, the Fort Laurel Hill Native American settlement, is documented in the vicinity of the Project (City of Auburn, 2010).

4.3.8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action will result in some increase in bypass flows that are not likely to affect cultural resources. Any construction related disturbance related to the fish passage improvements would occur along the access road adjacent to the power canal, which is already highly disturbed. KEI (Maine) would continue to manage the historic properties within the APE in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA. This means that KEI (Maine) would comply with Section 106 on a case-by-case basis.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Under the no-action alternative, the Project would continue to operate as required by the current Project license (i.e., there would be no change to the existing environment). KEI (Maine) would continue to manage the historic properties within the APE in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA. This means that KEI (Maine) would comply with Section 106 on a case-by-case basis.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS KEI (Maine) has proposed no changes to the operations or the facilities of the Lower Barker Project that will have unavoidable adverse effects.

4.3.8.3 REFERENCES

Gray & Pape, Inc. 2016. Phase I Pre-Contact Period Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment for the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project Relicensing, Auburn, Androscoggin County, Maine. February 24, 2016.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-96 Final License Application

4.3.9 TRIBAL RESOURCES

4.3.9.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Project area has been documented as being historically inhabited by the Abenaki but there are no tribal lands within the Project boundary and there are no federal reservations in the vicinity of the Project.

The Project occupies a limited reach of the Little Androscoggin River and is operated in run-of- river mode, which more closely matches the natural hydrologic regime of the River. As such, project operations are not expected to affect any resources that may impact cultural or economic interests.

The Project boundary includes a very limited reach of the Little Androscoggin River. While the Project area has been documented as historically being inhabited by the Abenaki, none of Maine's five federally recognized Indian tribes have indicated religious or cultural significance to historic properties within the Project boundary. The Penobscot Indian Nation on December 2, 2013, expressing an interest in the potential cultural resources of the Project (personal correspondence, Chris Sockolexis, PIN, December 2, 2013). In addition, KEI (Maine) hosted an early agency consultation meeting on December 17, 2013 to which representatives of the five federally recognized tribes were invited though none of the tribes were in attendance at the meeting.

4.3.9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action will not likely negatively affect tribal resources. There are no known tribal resources in lands proposed to be removed from the Project boundary.

NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE Continued operation of the Project under the no-action alternative is unlikely to affect Tribal resources; the licensee would address any tribal resources, should they be discovered, on a case- by-case basis.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-97 Final License Application

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS The licensee has not identified any unavoidable adverse effects on tribal resources.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-98 Final License Application

5.0 PROJECT ECONOMICS

The annual operation and maintenance cost, relicensing costs, cost of proposed measures, lost generation from minimum flows, and the value of project power is provided in Exhibit A of this license application..

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 5-1 Final License Application

6.0 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Power Act , 16 USC § 803(a)(2)(A), requires FERC to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with Federal or State comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway affected by the project. FERC Order No. 481- A, issued on April 27, 1988, established that FERC will accord FPA Section 10(a)(2)(A) comprehensive plan status to any Federal or State plan that:

• Is a comprehensive study of one or more of the beneficial uses of a waterway or waterways; • Specifies the standards, the data, and the methodology used; and • Is filed with the Secretary of the Commission.

In accordance with Section 10(a) (1) of the FPA, the list of Commission approved federal and state comprehensive plans was reviewed to determine applicability to the Lower Barker Project. The federal resource agencies, as well as the State of Maine, have prepared a number of comprehensive plans, which provide a general assessment of a variety of environmental conditions in Maine. These plans address water quality, water pollution control, wetlands, recreation, and land management issues. In addition, the State of Maine’s plans include policies related to ensuring that the State’s energy needs are met and supporting hydropower, a renewable and indigenous source, as a valuable portion of the energy mix.

Relevant comprehensive plans, as well as a description of the consistency of the Project as proposed with those plans are contained in Exhibit H, Section 2.8 of this application.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 6-1 Final License Application

7.0 REFERENCES

Androscoggin Land Trust (ALT). 2011. Neighbors Gather to Improve Barker Mill Trail. [Online] URL: http://www.androscogginlandtrust.org/news/16-neighbors-gather-to- improve-barker-mill-trail. Accessed November 13, 2013. Androscoggin River Watershed Council (ARWC). 2012. Androscoggin River Trail Access Sites Lower Androscoggin- Riverlands. [Online] URL: http://arwc.camp7.org/Resources/Documents/Lower%20Androscoggin_Riverlands.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2013. Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments (AVCOG). 2009. Western Maine Regional Open Space Policy Draft. [Online] URL: http://www.avcog.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/42. Accessed July 28, 2016. Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments (AVCOG). 2011. Androscoggin County Hazard Mitigation Plan. [Online] URL: http://www.androscogginema.org/HazMit.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2013. Atlantic Sturgeon Status Review Team (ASSRT). 2007. Status Review of Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus oxyrinchus). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. February 23, 2007. 174 pp. Bain, M. and K. Mills. 2004. Modeling Hydroecological Relations for Assessing Impacts of Water Regulation on Lake Ontario. Report to the Environmental Technical Working Group, International Joint Commission, St. Lawrence River Study Board. City of Auburn (Auburn). 2011. City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan: 2010 Update. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/doc/commissioner/landuse/compplanning/plans/4_19_11_Auburn _CP.pdf. Accessed November 13, 2013. City of Auburn. 2011. City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan: 2010 Update. [Online] URL: http://www.auburnmaine.org/CMSContent/Planning/Comprehensive_Plan_FINAL_Appr oved_4_19_11.pdf. Accessed November 13, 2013. City of Lewiston. 2012. Riverfront Island Master Plan. [Online] URL: http://www.lewistonmaine.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/2350. Accessed July 28, 2016. City of Lewiston. 2015. City of Lewiston Comprehensive Plan. [Online] URL: http://www.lewistonmaine.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6141. Accessed July 28, 2016 Cornell Lab of Ornithology (CLO). 2013. All About Birds: Red Knot. [Online] URL: http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/red_knot/lifehistory Accessed December 2, 2013. Cronk, Julie K. and M. Siobhan Fennessy. 2001. Wetland Plants – Biology and Ecology. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, FL. Davies, S. P. and L. Tsomides. 2002. Methods for biological sampling and analysis of Maine’s rivers and streams. ME Dept. of Env. Prot. Augusta, ME. 31p.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 7-1 Final License Application

DeGraaf, R.M. and M. Yamasaki. 2001. New England Wildlife: Habitat, Natural History, and Distribution. University Press of New England, Lebanon, NH. DeGraaf, R.M. and Yamasaki. 2001. New England Wildlife: Habitat, natural history and distribution. 2nd edition. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. 482 pp. DeGraaf, R.M. and Yamasaki. 2001. New England Wildlife: Habitat, natural history and distribution. 2nd edition. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England. 482 pp. ENSR Corporation (ENSR). 2007. "Chapter 5 Androscoggin River Basin." Historic Flooding in Major Drainage Basins, Maine. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/doc/commissioner/flood/docs/maineriverbasin/maineriverbasinrep ort_chap5.pdf. October, 2007. Accessed November 7, 2013 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2013. Maine Final Individual Permits. [Online} URL:http://www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/permits_listing_me.html. Accessed December 10, 2013. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. Flood Insurance Study: Androscoggin County. [Online] URL: http://www.starrteam. com/starr/RegionalWorkspaces/RegionI/AndroscogginMEriverine/Preliminary%20 Maps/Preliminary%20Flood%20Insurance%20Study%20(FIS)/23001CV002A.pdf. Accessed July 10, 2016. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2012. Flood Insurance Study: Androscoggin County. [Online] URL: http://www.starrteam.com/starr/RegionalWorkspaces/RegionI/AndroscogginMEriverine/Preliminary%20 Maps/Preliminary%20Flood%20Insurance%20Study%20(FIS)/23001CV002A.pdf. Accessed July 27, 2016. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1979. Order Issuing License for Barker's Mill Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2808). 6 FERC ¶61,175. Issued February 23, 1979. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement Lower Androscoggin River Basin Hydroelectric Projects Maine. July, 1996. Accessed November 6, 2013. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement Lower Androscoggin River Basin Hydroelectric Projects Maine. July, 1996. Accessed November 6, 2013Maine Division of Parks and Public Lands (MDPPL). 2013a. Androscoggin Riverlands. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/cgi- bin/online/doc/parksearch/details.pl?park_id=98. Accessed November 12, 2013. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 1996. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Lower Androscoggin River Basin Hydroelectric Projects, Maine. FERC 2283-005, 11482-000). Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2011. Environmental Inspection Report for Barker's Mill Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2808). Accession No.: 20110408-5042. Filed April 7, 2011.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 7-2 Final License Application

Ferwerda, John A., Kenneth J. LaFlamme, Norman R. Kalloch, Jr. and Robert V. Rourke. (1997). The Soils of Maine. University of Maine, Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station. [Online] URL: http://www.umaine.edu/mafes/elec_pubs/miscrepts/mr402.pdf Accessed November 25, 2013. Google Earth. 2013a. "Bryant Pond." 44°22'12.69"N and 70°38'46.92"W. Accessed November 6, 2013. Google Earth. 2013b. "USGS No. 01057000." +44° 18'12.00" N and 70°32'22.00"W. Accessed November 11, 2013. Gray & Pape, Inc. 2016. Phase I Pre-Contact Period Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment for the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project Relicensing, Auburn, Androscoggin County, Maine. February 24, 2016. Ireland, Lloyd C. 1998. Maine's Forest Area, 1600-1995: Review of Available Estimates. [Online] URL: http://www.umaine.edu/mafes/elec_pubs/miscpubs/mp736.pdf. Accessed November 7, 2013. Ireland, Lloyd, C. 1998. Maine's Forest Area, 1600-1995: Review of Available Estimates. Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station. [Online] URL: http://www.umaine.edu/mafes/elec_pubs/miscpubs/mp736.pdf. Accessed November 11, 2013. Kleinschmidt. 2015. Initial Study Report. American Tissue Project FERC No. 2809. May 2016. Kulik, B.K. 1990. A Method to Refine the New England Aquatic Base Flow Policy. Rivers. Volume 1, Number 1. 8-22. Lang, V. 1999. Questions and Answers on the New England Flow Policy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, New Hampshire. 24 pages. Lewiston-Auburn Sun Journal (Sun Journal). 2011a. Barker Mil Trail in New Auburn to Reopen. [Online] URL: http://www.sunjournal.com/city/story/1077859. Accessed November 13, 2013. Lewiston-Auburn Sun Journal (Sun Journal). 2011b. Photos: Lewiston's Garcelon Bog Permanently Conserved. [Online] URL: http://www.sunjournal.com/comment/88227. Accessed November 13, 2013. Maine Center for Workforce Research and Information (MCWRI). 2012. Unemployment and Labor Force. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/labor/cwri/laus.html. Accessed November 11, 2013. Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (MDACF). 2013. Maine Geological Survey. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/dacf/mgs/pubs/online/bedrock/state.htm Accessed November 22, 2013. Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (MDACF). 2013. Maine Invasive Plant Fact Sheets. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/dacf/mnap/features/invasive_plants/invsheets.htm#currinv Accessed November 27, 2013.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 7-3 Final License Application

Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (MDACF). 2013. Maine Natural Areas Program: Maine Rare Plant List and Rare Plant Fact Sheets. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/dacf/mnap/features/rare_plants/plantlist.htm Accessed December 2, 2013. Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry (MDACF) Bureau of Parks & Lands. 2015. Maine State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 2014-2019. [Online] URL: https://www1.maine.gov/dacf/parks/publications_maps/docs/final_SCORP_rev_10_15_p lan_only.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2016. Maine Department of Defense, Veterans, and Emergency Management (MDDVEM). 2010. 2010 State Hazard Mitigation Plan. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/mema/mitigation/mema_mit_plans.shtml Accessed November 25, 2013. Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP). 2011. Lower Androscoggin River Basin Water Quality Study Modeling Report. March 2011. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/rivers_and_streams/modelinganddatareports /androscoggin/2011/lowerandromodelreport_final_march_2011.pdf. Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP). 2012a. Chapter 584 Surface Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants. July 29, 2012. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/wd/general.html Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP). 2012b. Draft Chapter 583 Nutrient Criteria for Surface Waters. June 12, 2012. Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP). 2013. Wetland Life. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/wetlands/life.html. Accessed December 9, 2013. Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP). 2014a. Maine Department of Environmental Protection Sampling Protocol for Hydropower Studies - Lakes, Ponds and Impoundments and Rivers and Streams. June 2014. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). 2005. Maine’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/ifw/wildlife/reports/wap.html. Accessed November 25, 2013. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). 2010a. Maine Endangered Species Act Definitions. [Online] URL: https://maine.gov/ifw/wildlife/species/endangered_species/handbook.htm. Accessed December 19, 2013. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). 2011. Species of Special Concern. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/ifw/wildlife/endangered/specialconcern.htm Accessed December 2, 2013. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). 2016. Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife - Current Stocking Information. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/ifw/fishing/reports/stocking/stocking.htm. Accessed July 8, 2016.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 7-4 Final License Application

Maine Department of Marine Resources (MDMR). 2016a. Anadromous Fish Restoration in the Androscoggin River Watershed. 2015 Report on the Operation of the Brunswick Fishway FERC #2284. May 2016. Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2013a. Grafton Notch. [Online] URL: http://www.exploremaine.org/byways/lakes-mtns/graftonnotch.shtml. Accessed November 20, 2013. Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2013b. Pequawket Trail (Route 113). [Online} URL: http://www.exploremaine.org/byways/lakes-mtns/pequawkettrail.shtml. Accessed November 20, 2013. Maine Department of Transportation (MDOT). 2013c. State Route 27. [Online] URL: http://www.exploremaine.org/byways/lakes-mtns/staterte27.shtml. Accessed November 20, 2013. Maine Division of Parks and Public Lands (MDPPL). 2013b. Bradbury Mountain State Park. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/cgi- bin/online/doc/parksearch/details.pl?park_id=12. Accessed November 12, 2013. Maine Division of Parks and Public Lands (MDPPL). 2013c. Parks & Lands Search Results: Maine Lakes and Mountains. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/cgi- bin/online/doc/parksearch/search_info.pl. Accessed November 12, 2013. Maine Division of Parks and Public Lands (MDPPL). 2013d. Range Ponds State Park. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/cgi-bin/online/doc/parksearch/details.pl?park_id=11. Accessed November 12, 2013. Maine Invasive Species Network (MISN). 2013. University of Maine: Maine Invasive Species Network. [Online] URL: http://umaine.edu/invasivespecies/ Accessed November 26, 2013. Maine Legislature. 1989. MRS Title 38 §467. Classification of major river basins, Maine Revised Statutes. [Online] URL: http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/38/title38sec467.pdf. Accessed November 7, 2013. Maine Legislature. 1989. MRSA Title 38 §464-467. Classification of major river basins, Maine Revised Statutes. [Online] URL: http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes. Accessed December 15, 2015. Maine Rivers. 2013. Androscoggin A Brief History. [Online] URL: http://mainerivers.org/watershed-profiles/androscoggin-watershed/. Accessed November 14, 2013. Maine Trail Finder. 2013a. Mount Apatite. [Online] URL: http://www.mainetrailfinder.com/Trail/mount-apatite/. Accessed November 12, 2013. Maine Trail Finder. 2013b. Sherwood Forest Conservation Area. [Online] URL: http://www.mainetrailfinder.com/Trail/sherwood-forest-conservation-area/. Accessed November 13, 2013.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 7-5 Final License Application

Maine Trail Finder. 2013c. Lewiston-Auburn Greenway Trails. [Online] URL: http://www.mainetrailfinder.com/trail/lewistonauburn-greenway-trails/. Accessed December 19, 2013. Maine Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program (MVLMP). 2013. VLMP Center for Invasive Aquatic Plants. [Online] URL: http://www.mciap.org/ Accessed November 27, 2013. Maine's Lakes and Mountains Tourism Council (MLMTC). 2013. Covered Bridges. [Online] URL: http://www.mainelakesandmountains.com/things_to_do/sightseeing_tours/covered_bridg e/. Accessed November 20, 2013. MDMR. 2010. Androscoggin River Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Report - 2010. MDMR. 2011. Androscoggin River Atlantic Salmon Tagging and Tracking Project 2011. 7 pages. MDMR. 2016b. Androscoggin River Project. [Online] URL: http://www.maine.gov/dmr/science- research/searun/programs/androscoggin.html. Accessed July 8, 2016. Midwest Biodiversity Institute (MBI). 2006. The Spatial and Relative Abundance Characteristics of the Fish Assemblages in Three Maine Rivers: 2002 and 2003. Technical report MBI/12-05-1. September 1, 2006. Miller Hydro Group. 2013. Worumbo Project Annual Fish Passage Status Report. July 29, 2013. Miller Hydro Group. 2014. Worumbo Project Annual Fish Passage Status Report. July 11, 2014. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Essential Fish Habitat Description Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). [Online] URL: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/salmon.pdf. Accessed July 8, 2016. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009. Species of Concern: River herring (Alewife & Blueback herring) Alosa pseudoharengus and Alosa aestivalis. National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources (NMFS). 2013a. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). [Online] URL: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/atlanticsalmon.htm Accessed December 2, 2013. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coastal Change Analysis Program (NOAA C-CAP). 2006. Land Cover Atlas Androscoggin County, Maine. [Online] URL: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/ccapatlas/. Accessed November 14, 2013. NatureServe Explorer (NatureServe). 2013. Calidris canutus rufa. [Online] URL: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Calidris+canutus +rufa Accessed December 2, 2013. Nedeau, J., McCollough, M.A., and Swartz, B. 2000. The Freshwater Mussels of Maine. Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Augusta. 118 pp. NMFS. 2016. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Mapper. [Online] URL: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. Accessed July 22, 2016.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 7-6 Final License Application

Peakbagger.com (Peakbagger). 2013. Shackley Hill, Maine. [Online] URL: http://www.peakbagger.com/peak.aspx?pid=6715. Accessed December 9, 2013. Ridgewood Maine Hydro Partners, L.P. 2003. FERC Form 80, Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Report, Barker's Mill Lower. Accession No.: 200030530-0105. Filed April 1, 2003. Shortnose Sturgeon Status Review Team (SSSRT). 2010. A Biological Assessment of shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Regional Office. November 1, 2010. 417 pp. Stanton Bird Club. 2013. Thorncrag Nature Sanctuary. [Online] URL: http://www.stantonbirdclub.org/thorncrg.htm. Accessed November 13, 2013. T. Y. Lin International. 2014. New Auburn Village Center Study. Prepared for Androscoggin Transportation Resource Center and the City of Auburn. [Online] URL: http://www.auburnmaine.gov/CMSContent/Planning/New_Auburn_Redevelopment/NA VCP_8_25_14_FINAL_DRAFT.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2016. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013. National Inventory of Dams. [Online] URL: http://geo.usace.army.mil/pgis/f?p=397:4:1473658987832501::NO. Accessed November 8, 2013. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013. National Inventory of Dams. [Online] URL: http://geo.usace.army.mil/pgis/f?p=397:4:1473658987832501::NO. Accessed November 8, 2013. U.S. Census. 2011a. Selected Economic Characteristics 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Androscoggin County. [Online]. URL: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk. Accessed November 11, 2013. U.S. Census. 2011b. Selected Economic Characteristics 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Auburn city. [Online] URL: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk. Accessed November 11, 2013. U.S. Census. 2012a. QuickFacts: Androscoggin County, Maine. [Online] URL: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/23/23001.html. Accessed November 11, 2013. U.S. Census. 2015a. QuickFacts: Androscoggin County, Maine. [Online] URL: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/23/23001.html. Accessed July 20, 2016. U.S. Census. 2015b. QuickFacts: Auburn (city), Maine. [Online] URL: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/23/2302060.html. Accessed July 20, 2016. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). 2013. Web Soil Survey. [Online] URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Accessed November 25, 2013. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Highway Administration (FHA). 2013. Rangeley Lakes Scenic Byway. [Online] URL: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/byways/13830. Accessed November 20, 2013.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 7-7 Final License Application

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011a. National Wetlands Inventory Wetland Decoder. [Online] URL: http://137.227.242.85/Data/interpreters/wetlands.aspx. Accessed November 26, 2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. National Wetlands Inventory Mapper – Androscoggin County, Maine. [Online] URL: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands- Mapper.html Accessed on November 26, 2013. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016a. Species Profile: Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis). Available online at http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nlba/index.html Accessed July 20, 2016. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA-Fisheries. 2016. Draft recovery plan for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). 61 pp. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006a. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States: Riverine Systems. [Online] URL: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/riverine.htm. Accessed November 26, 2013 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2006b. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States: Unconsolidated Bottom. [Online] URL: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/unconsol.htm. Accessed November 26, 2013. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2007. Scoping of Flood Hazard Mapping Needs for Androscoggin County, Maine. [Online] URL: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2007/1131/ofr_2007_1131.pdf. Accessed December 9, 2013. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013a. USGS 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, Maine. [Online] URL: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/me/nwis/uv/?site_no=01057000&PARAmeter_cd=00065,0006 0. Accessed November 6, 2013. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013b. USGS 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, Maine Little Androscoggin River Basin. [Online] URL: http://water.usgs.gov/nwc/NWC/sw/man/S01057000.html. Accessed November 7, 2013. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2013c. Feature Detail Report for: Little Androscoggin River. [Online] URL: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:798291530516154::NO::P3_FID:5 69659. Accessed December 5, 2013. USFWS. 2012. Maine Field Office: Small whorled pogonia. [Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/mainefieldoffice/Small_whorled_pogonia.html Accessed July 20, 2016. USFWS. 2013a. Species by County Report: Androscoggin, ME. [Online] URL: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/countySearch!speciesByCountyReport.action?fips=23001 Accessed December 2, 2013.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 7-8 Final License Application

USFWS. 2013b. Maine Field Office – Ecological Services: Endangered and Threatened Species. [Online] URL: http://www.fws.gov/mainefieldoffice/Endangered_and_Threatened_Species.html Accessed December 2, 2013. USFWS. 2016. Maine Ecological Services Field Office: Official Species List. Conducted July 20, 2016. USFWS. 2016b. Small Whorled Pogonia (isotria medeoloides). [Online] URL: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/plants/smallwhorledpogoniafs.html Accessed July 20, 2016. Wright-Pierce 2013. Androscoggin Land Trust Androscoggin River Greenway Plan. [Online] URL: https://issuu.com/wrightp/docs/androscoggin_greenway_plan_wright-pierce.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 7-9 Final License Application

APPENDIX A

STUDY REPORT

ATTACHED SEPARATELY

APPENDIX B

FLOW DURATION CURVES

Little Androscoggin River at Lower Barker Dam Annual Flow Duration Curve Prorated from USGS Gage No. 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, ME, 01/01/1985 - 12/31/2015 14,000

Annual FDC 12,000 Min Capacity Max Capacity

10,000

8,000

6,000 Daily Discharge (cfs)

4,000

2,000

0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Exceedance Little Androscoggin River at Lower Barker Dam January Flow Duration Curve Prorated from USGS Gage No. 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, ME, 01/01/1985 - 12/31/2015 14,000

January FDC 12,000 Min Capacity Max Capacity

10,000

8,000

6,000 Daily Discharge (cfs)

4,000

2,000

0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Exceedance Little Androscoggin River at Lower Barker Dam February Flow Duration Curve Prorated from USGS Gage No. 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, ME, 01/01/1985 - 12/31/2015 14,000

February FDC 12,000 Min Capacity Max Capacity

10,000

8,000

6,000 Daily Discharge (cfs)

4,000

2,000

0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Exceedance Little Androscoggin River at Lower Barker Dam March Flow Duration Curve Prorated from USGS Gage No. 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, ME, 01/01/1985 - 12/31/2015 14,000

March FDC 12,000 Min Capacity Max Capacity

10,000

8,000

6,000 Daily Discharge (cfs)

4,000

2,000

0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Exceedance Little Androscoggin River at Lower Barker Dam April Flow Duration Curve Prorated from USGS Gage No. 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, ME, 01/01/1985 - 12/31/2015 14,000

April FDC 12,000 Min Capacity Max Capacity

10,000

8,000

6,000 Daily Discharge (cfs)

4,000

2,000

0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Exceedance Little Androscoggin River at Lower Barker Dam May Flow Duration Curve Prorated from USGS Gage No. 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, ME, 01/01/1985 - 12/31/2015 14,000

May FDC 12,000 Min Capacity Max Capacity

10,000

8,000

6,000 Daily Discharge (cfs)

4,000

2,000

0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Exceedance Little Androscoggin River at Lower Barker Dam June Flow Duration Curve Prorated from USGS Gage No. 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, ME, 01/01/1985 - 12/31/2015 14,000

June FDC 12,000 Min Capacity Max Capacity

10,000

8,000

6,000 Daily Discharge (cfs)

4,000

2,000

0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Exceedance Little Androscoggin River at Lower Barker Dam July Flow Duration Curve Prorated from USGS Gage No. 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, ME, 01/01/1985 - 12/31/2015 14,000

July FDC 12,000 Min Capacity Max Capacity

10,000

8,000

6,000 Daily Discharge (cfs)

4,000

2,000

0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Exceedance Little Androscoggin River at Lower Barker Dam August Flow Duration Curve Prorated from USGS Gage No. 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, ME, 01/01/1985 - 12/31/2015 14,000

August FDC

12,000 Min Capacity Max Capacity

10,000

8,000

6,000 Daily Discharge (cfs)

4,000

2,000

0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Exceedance Little Androscoggin River at Lower Barker Dam September Flow Duration Curve Prorated from USGS Gage No. 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, ME, 01/01/1985 - 12/31/2015 14,000

September FDC 12,000 Min Capacity Max Capacity

10,000

8,000

6,000 Daily Discharge (cfs)

4,000

2,000

0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Exceedance Little Androscoggin River at Lower Barker Dam October Flow Duration Curve Prorated from USGS Gage No. 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, ME, 01/01/1985 - 12/31/2015 14,000

October FDC 12,000 Min Capacity Max Capacity

10,000

8,000

6,000 Daily Discharge (cfs)

4,000

2,000

0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Exceedance Little Androscoggin River at Lower Barker Dam November Flow Duration Curve Prorated from USGS Gage No. 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, ME, 01/01/1985 - 12/31/2015 14,000

November FDC 12,000 Min Capacity Max Capacity

10,000

8,000

6,000 Daily Discharge (cfs)

4,000

2,000

0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Exceedance Little Androscoggin River at Lower Barker Dam December Flow Duration Curve Prorated from USGS Gage No. 01057000 Little Androscoggin River near South Paris, ME, 01/01/1985 - 12/31/2015 14,000

December FDC 12,000 Min Capacity Max Capacity

10,000

8,000

6,000 Daily Discharge (cfs)

4,000

2,000

0 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 Exceedance

APPENDIX C

DLA COMMENT RESPONSE MATRIX AND DLA COMMENT LETTERS

Commenting Document Comment Response Agency/Stakeholder FERC Initial Statement The telephone number reported in the initial statement is incorrect. Please This has been corrected in the final application. ensure that the correct telephone number for the applicant and the person authorized to act as agent for the applicant are provided. FERC Initial Statement The maximum hydraulic capacity plus minimum flows are reported as This has been corrected in the final application. 520 cfs, but 500 cfs is reported in Exhibit A (pages 1-1 and 2-1) and in Exhibit E (page 2-7). Please correct this discrepancy. FERC Exhibit A Per section 4.61(c)(1)(x) of the Commission’s regulations, please Design alternatives/details have not fully been examined but it is anticipated that improvements would include capital and operation and maintenance costs for upgrading the costs on the order of $500,000 to $900,000 and with an annual O&M cost $40,000. downstream fish passage system. FERC Exhibit A Per section 4.61(c)(5) of the Commission’s regulations, please include the An estimate of lost generation for various bypass flow increments has been incorporated in Section 6 of generation effects (i.e., the amount of generation lost and estimated cost) of Exhibit A. the proposed minimum flows. MDMR Exhibit A On page 2-2 of Exhibit A the licensee proposes to increase the existing KEI acknowledges agency recommendations for a higher minimum flow (recommendations ranging from a minimum flow of 20 cfs to 50 cfs to the bypassed reach. The USFWS is minimum of 113 to an ABF level of 176) and associated benefits to aquatic habitat and resources. KEI recommending a year-round, minimum, aquatic base flow in the bypassed maintains that the proposed bypass flow of 50 cfs provides sufficient incremental increases to aquatic reach of 176 cfs. The MDMR concurs with this recommendation habitat across species and life stages evaluated and achieves MDEP wetted width guidelines. Further, due to channel geometry and topography (wide shallow channel with large boulder and ledge substrate), recommended flows are unlikely to improve recreational boating opportunities. However, KEI is currently in discussions with agencies regarding an alternative, mutually agreeable flow proposal.

MDMR Exhibit A On page 2-2 the licensee proposes to upgrade the existing downstream fish The Licensee has begun informal fish passage discussions with the NMFS, USFWS, MDMR, and MDIFW passage system to reduce entrainment potential for out-migrating diadromous and intends to attempt to resolve fish passage issues at the Lower Barker Project through these fish species. Currently, downstream fish passage is provided for out- negotiations. migrating alewife and American eel by releasing 20 cfs (the current minimum instream flow release) through a stop-log section of the main dam on the river right near the intake and small power canal. We look forward to consulting with the Licensee on the design and testing of an upgraded downstream fish passage facility, and offer the following recommendations: MDMR Exhibit A An appropriate amount of attraction water for the downstream fish passage The downstream fishway will be designed in consultation with NFMS, USFWS, and MDMR. These facility is needed. The USFWS is recommending that 25 cfs (5% of station factors will be addressed during the design phase. capacity) be passed through the facility. The NMFS is recommending that 102.4-205 cfs (5-10% of the high design flow of 2,048 cfs) be passed through the facility. The MDMR recommends that all or a portion of the minimum aquatic base flow of 176 cfs be passed through the downstream fish passage facility as attraction water. The actual flow will be determined by the approach velocity at the bar rack, which should be less than 2 feet per second MDMR Exhibit A Emigratingto avoid impingement. adult and juvenile fish need to be excluded from the power canal The downstream fishway will be designed in consultation with NFMS, USFWS, and MDMR. These by means of a full-depth, angled bar rack with 0.75 inch clear spacing. factors will be addressed during the design phase.

MDMR Exhibit A The discharge height at the exit of the downstream fishway, depth and volume The downstream fishway will be designed in consultation with NFMS, USFWS, and MDMR. These of the plunge pool, and configuration of the bedrock channel below the factors will be addressed during the design phase. plunge pool needs to be evaluated to ensure they pass fish downstream without injury or delay.

FERC Exhibit A On page 2-14 of Exhibit A, you state that “The tailrace is located The end of the bypass reach and tailrace are approximatetly 3,000 feet downstream of the dam. The text in approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the dam… ” We cannot Exhibit A has been clarified. determine how you arrived at 2,000 feet or what distance you are trying to convey. From the Project Location Map on page 1-2, the straight line distance from the dam to the point where the tailrace empties into the Lower Androscoggin is about 800 feet. Please clarify what this number represents and provide the correct this measurement FERC Exhibit A Footnote #3 appears to be missing a portion of the intended text. The text has been corrected. Please correct this in the final license application. MDEP Exhibit A Section 2.6.3 - Intake, Canal, and Penstock (p. 2-10): Footnote 3 is The text has been corrected. incomplete. USFWS Exhibit A The Licensee is proposing to increase the existing minimum flow from 20 to 50 cfs to the bypassed reach. The Service requests additional flow in the bypass reach. As stated in our July 18, 2014 letter, the Service released the Interim New England Flow Policy for New England Stream Flow Recommendations (Stream Flow Policy) on February 13, 1981 USFWS Exhibit A Where a minimum of 25 year of U.S Geological Survey gaging records exist at or near a project site on a river that is basically free- flowing, the Service shall recommend that the Aquatic Base Flow KEI acknowledges agency recommendations for a higher minimum flow (recommendations ranging from a release for all times of the year be equivalent to the median August minimum of 113 to an ABF level of 176) and associated benefits to aquatic habitat and resources. KEI flow for the period of record unless superseded by spawning and maintains that the proposed bypass flow of 50 cfs provides sufficient incremental increases to aquatic incubation flow habitat across species and life stages evaluated and achieves MDEP wetted width guidelines. Further, due recommendations. The Service shall recommend flow releases to channel geometry and topography (wide shallow channel with large boulder and ledge substrate), equivalent to the historical median stream flow throughout the recommended flows are unlikely to improve recreational boating opportunities. However, KEI is currently applicable spawning and incubation periods. USFWS Exhibit A For rivers where inadequate flow records exist or for rivers regulated in discussions with agencies regarding an alternative, mutually agreeable flow proposal. by dams or upstream diversions, the Service shall recommend that the aquatic base flow release be 0.5 cubic feet per second per square mile of drainage, as derived from the average of the median August monthly records for the representative New England stream. The 0.5 cubic feet per second per square mile shall apply to all times of the year, unless superseded by spawning and incubation flow recommendations. The Service shall recommend flow release of 1.0 cfs per square mile in the fall/winter and 4.0 cfs per square mile in the spring for the entire applicable spawning and incubation periods. USFWS Exhibit A Appropriate attraction flow for the downstream fish passage system is The downstream fishway will be designed in consultation with NFMS, USFWS, and MDMR. These needed. A minimum of 5 percent of station capacity is recommended factors will be addressed during the design phase. to pass through the downstream bypass, 25 cfs for this site. USFWS Exhibit A Out-migrating adults and juveniles must be diverted away from the The downstream fishway will be designed in consultation with NFMS, USFWS, and MDMR. These power canal by means of an angled or inclined bar rack with 0.75 inch factors will be addressed during the design phase. clear spacing. Details of the downstream bypass should be approved by Service engineering USFWS Exhibit A The hydraulic conditions at the entrance to the downstream bypass The downstream fishway will be designed in consultation with NFMS, USFWS, and MDMR. These must be appropriate so out-migrants commits to using it. Service factors will be addressed during the design phase. engineering recommends geometry similar to the NU-Alden weir which induces a uniform acceleration rate over the length of the USFWS Exhibit A The downstream bypass must be safe, timely, and effective in passing The downstream fishway will be designed in consultation with NFMS, USFWS, and MDMR. These out-migrants. This entails normal velocities (normal to the face of the factors will be addressed during the design phase. intake racks or screens within the power canal) to be less than two feet per second to avoid impingement and sweeping velocities (parallel to the rack) that are equal to or greater than the normal velocity. Location and total flow are additional parameters that will affect the overall efficiency of the bypass. USFWS Exhibit A The existing bedrock channel for out-migrants must be evaluated for The downstream fishway will be designed in consultation with NFMS, USFWS, and MDMR. These passage safety and where appropriate changes made to prevent injury. factors will be addressed during the design phase. The openings for the downstream bypass should be of sufficient depth and allow for enough volume to safely move fish into the tailrace without risk of injury. USFWS Exhibit A The FERC footnote 6 states that the, “river has been classified as The Licensee has begun informal fish passage discussions with the NMFS, USFWS, MDMR, and MDIFW suitable for fish and wildlife habitation”. Since 1979, fishways have and intends to attempt to resolve fish passage issues at the Lower Barker Project through these been built at the three lower dams; Brunswick (1982), Pejepscot negotiations. (1987), and Worumbo (1988). As such the Service will prescribe upstream fish passage measures at the Project under our Federal Power Act authorities. USFWS Exhibit A The DLA states that the plant factor is 49 percent and provides an This section has been revised utilizing generation data from 2007-2015. equation showing how this number was derived. The equation on p. 2- 5 results in a plant factor of 0.61 (61 percent) which does not agree with the aforementioned value. In addition, the equation uses 6,393,000 kWH/year which is the annual generation for 2013 but the text states that the average of 2003 and 2012 was used, which would be 5,183,200 kWH/year. If the value of 5,183,200 kWH/year is used within the equation, the plant factor is 49 percent as noted. The Service recommends using the information provided on p. 2-2, which says that the average annual generation from 2003-2015 was 5,259,000 MWH/year. Please recalculate the equation on p. 2-5 and the plant factor. USFWS Exhibit A The Service notes that the Licensee is changing the turbine, and Comment noted. Turbine data has not been modified because FERC has not yet approved the upgrade, therefore station capacities, and this information is not included in the which is proposed under the current license. DLA. The DLA was sent to the agencies on October 14, 2016, and on November 28, 2016, the Licensee informed FERC that they were proposing to replace the existing turbine. The relevant information for the new turbine is that the minimum hydraulic capacity is 80 cfs (vs 150 cfs) and a maximum hydraulic capacity of 500 cfs. The Service recommends making these changes and updating the document where appropriate (ex: Exhibit A Section 5.0 Value of Project Power, Exhibit E Section 2.4 Proposed Project Facilities). USFWS Exhibit A Page 2-6. Section 2.5.2 River Flow Data - Please correct the river flow data provided in this section as the Service believes it is inaccurate. In addition, since these numbers are inaccurate please check data in Table 2-1, 2-2, and Appendix B Flow Duration Curves, Exhibit E Section 4.1 General Description of the River Basin, for accuracy and update the document as appropriate. Prior to selecting the South Paris USGS gage for this relicensing process, KEI (Maine) compared data from the Auburn USGS gage (#01058500) to prorated data from the South Paris gage (#01057000) for the period of time where both gages were active (1940-1982). The data were nearly identical. Therefore, it is USFWS Exhibit A The Service also concurs with National Oceanic and Atmospheric our professional opinion that corrections to the data are not needed, nor is stream gaging near the Lower Administration’s (NOAA) comments regarding highly variable results Barker Project necessary. A graphic showing the data comparison is provided as Figure 2-1 in revised using the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) South Paris gage No. Exhibit A. Given the similarity in the data between the prorated gage and the discontinued gage, 01057000. This gage is approximately 46 miles upstream from the adjustments to the data reported in Exhibit A are not necessary. Further, it is the opinion of our contracted Project. An alternative is to use USGS gage No. 01058500 which was professional hydrolgocial engineers that corrections to the data are not needed, nor is stream gaging near the less than a mile from the Project, however, this gage was discontinued Lower Barker Project necessary. in 1982. Because of the lack of a gaging station in close proximity to the lower Little Androscoggin river the Service recommends either contracting with the USGS to reestablish the USGS gage in Auburn (gage No 01058500) or install appropriate instrumentation to be able to provide accurate flow statistics (similar to what USGS collects) at the Project. Location of instrumentation should be coordinated and approved by Service personnel. USFWS Exhibit A Where a minimum of 25 year of U.S Geological Survey gaging Comment noted. records exist at or near a project site on a river that is basically free- flowing, the Service shall recommend that the Aquatic Base Flow release for all times of the year be equivalent to the median August flow for the period of record unless superseded by spawning and incubation flow recommendations. The Service shall recommend flow releases equivalent to the historical median stream flow throughout the applicable spawning and incubation periods.

MDIFW Exhibit A Section 2.2.2 and Section 2.2.3: The licensee is proposing to increase Comment noted. minimum flow in the bypass reach from 20 cfs to 50 cfs. It is MDIFW’s position that the proposed minimum flow provisions of 50 cfs in the bypass reach are inadequate for resident fish and aquatic resources, and would not fully support any stocking programs that may be initiated by the MDIFW. Therefore, MDIFW requests additional flow in the bypass reach. MDIFW Exhibit A Recommended aquatic base flow calculations for regulated rivers (0.5 KEI acknowledges agency recommendations for a higher minimum flow (recommendations ranging from a cfs/mi2 of drainage) suggest a minimum flow of 176 cfs would be minimum of 113 to an ABF level of 176) and associated benefits to aquatic habitat and resources. KEI more appropriate for the bypass reach. In addition, Table 22 of the maintains that the proposed bypass flow of 50 cfs provides sufficient incremental increases to aquatic Bypass Minimum Flow Study submitted by the licensee indicates habitat across species and life stages evaluated and achieves MDEP wetted width guidelines. Further, due fairly large increases in habitat suitability for adult salmonids up to to channel geometry and topography (wide shallow channel with large boulder and ledge substrate), 175 cfs with only minimal incremental gains in suitability above 175 recommended flows are unlikely to improve recreational boating opportunities. However, KEI is currently cfs. The proposed minimum flows should be reevaluated to reflect in discussions with agencies regarding an alternative, mutually agreeable flow proposal. current resident and diadromous fish management needs. MDIFW Exhibit A Section 2.2.3 and Section 2.6.7: The licensee is proposing to upgrade The Licensee has begun informal fish passage discussions with the NMFS, USFWS, MDMR, and MDIFW the existing downstream fish passage system, but proposes no and intends to attempt to resolve fish passage issues at the Lower Barker Project through these upstream fish passage facilities. MDIFW will defer to the other State negotiations. and Federal resource agencies in regards to fish passage for diadromous fish, and we will support their recommendations. NOAA Exhibit A Section 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 - the high design flow for downstream fish The downstream fishway will be designed in consultation with NFMS, USFWS, and MDMR. These passage is the annual 5% exceedance flow of 2,048 cfs. As a result, factors will be addressed during the design phase. the downstream fish bypass should convey a minimum of 102.4 cfs to 205 cfs to the bypass reach. NOAA Exhibit A Section 2.2.3 commend the Licensee for being proactive with regards The downstream fishway will be designed in consultation with NFMS, USFWS, and MDMR. These to the protection of emigrating diadromous species. We look forward factors will be addressed during the design phase. to working with the Licensee during the design, construction, and monitoring phases of this downstream fish bypass project. NOAA Exhibit A NOAA intends to prescribe upstream fish passage measures at the The Licensee has begun informal fish passage discussions with the NMFS, USFWS, MDMR, and MDIFW Lower Barker Project under our Federal Power Act authority and intends to attempt to resolve fish passage issues at the Lower Barker Project through these negotiations. NOAA Exhibit A The calculation for the plant factor appears to be in error. The text This section has been revised utilizing generation data from 2007-2015. says that the calculated plant factor is 49% for the period 2003-2012, but the equation shows a calculation of 61%. The cited annual generation for 2013 appears to have been used, not the average of the period of 2003-2012. Using the full period available in the license application (2003-2013), we estimate the plant factor to be 50%. Given that, on average, the plant doesn’t operate 50% of the time. The project seems to be an insignificant regional power supplier. This will need to be considered in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) assessment when evaluating nonenergy, social and environmental interests. NOAA Exhibit A Page 2-8. Little information is provided about the dam. The report Comment noted. KEI routinely inspects the integrity of project facilities and conducts routine safety does not indicate the structural condition of the dam. The facilities are inspections and repairs. in such condition that we are concerned about the long term viability of the project. NOAA Exhibit A Section 2.3 (Average Annual Generation) The Licensee states that Prior to selecting the South Paris USGS gage for this relicensing process, KEI (Maine) compared data from flow for the project was calculated using data from U.S. Geological the Auburn USGS gage (#01058500) to prorated data from the South Paris gage (#01057000) for the Survey (USGS) gage No. 01057000. We conducted an independent period of time where both gages were active (1940-1982). The data were nearly identical. Further, it is the hydrologic analysis and determined that proration of that gage data opinion of our contracted professional hydrolgocial engineers that corrections to the data are not needed, resulted in nor is stream gaging near the Lower Barker Project necessary. A graphic showing the data comparison is high variability. USGS gage No. 01057000 is located in the upper provided as Figure 2-1 in revised Exhibit A. watershed whereas the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project is in the lower watershed. Between the two locations, there are numerous lakes and ponds that attenuate precipitation events such that a direct proration may not be reflective of flow at Lower Barker. We NOAA Exhibit A Section 2.6 Project Structures. The footnotes on page 2-10 and 2-12 The text has been corrected. have typographical errors. NOAA Exhibit A Section 4.3 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives, Page 4-11. The Comment noted. draft application states that “KEI (Maine) is typically able to generate electricity approximately 78 percent of the year, assuming a normal water year.” This statement is belied by the earlier mention of the low plant factor. This 78% estimate does not account for the reliability of the existing equipment. We anticipate an increase in the minimum bypass flow which will lower the percent of time the project will be able to operate. Plus, precipitation event patterns are changing in the northeast. We are experiencing more intense events followed by longer periods of dry. This change in the availability of water will affect Project generation. NOAA Exhibit A As cited on page 4-28, “In 2015, 18 American shad were passed at The Licensee has begun informal fish passage discussions with the NMFS, USFWS, MDMR, and MDIFW the Worumbo Project…” and “MDMR documented one adult Atlantic and intends to attempt to resolve fish passage issues at the Lower Barker Project through these salmon and some spawning habitat in the bypassed reach below the negotiations. Lower Barker dam…” Later (page 4-31), the application starts to formulate the argument that the number of eels surveyed below the dam (44) is very low. The access and documented presence of multiple diadromous species below the dam should be used to compel upstream passage. The Worumbo Project (FERC # 3428) on an annual basis has submitted reports to FERC that include annual passage numbers for American shad, Atlantic salmon and river herring. Based on these filings, we know that diadromous fish have unimpeded access to the base of the Barker Lower Project. We anticipate that with a greater minimum flow requirement in the bypass reach, use of the bypass channel’s habitat by diadromous fish will FERC Exhibit E On page 4-45, you note that the proposed minimum flow increase (from 20 Due to the width and configuration of the channal, as well as large boulder substrate, the proposed cfs to 50 cfs) could enhance angling opportunities. Please discuss in your minimum flow increase is unlikely to cause an appreciable change to boating opportunities. Based on license application whether the increased flow might also enhance other recommendations from MDIFW, KEI (Maine) is proposing to make existing access to the river and parking recreational opportunities (e.g., boating, water play) and whether you propose more formalized through installation of signage. any improvements to public access or other facilities to accommodate such use (e.g., paths, put-ins, take-outs, signs, parking, restrooms, etc.).

FERC Exhibit E On page 4-78, you state that a planned whitewater boating flow study could A schedule of potential dates for the on-water assessment has been incorporated. This study will be not be completed in 2016 (due to insufficient flows and scheduling issues), coordinated with the City of Auburn and American Whitewater. However, we note that the City of Auburn but that you still expect to complete an on-water assessment in the spring of held a "River Day" on September 17, 2016. River flows at that time were insufficient to run the turbine 2017. The Commission’s regulations allow you to provide this information unit and thus well below the desired whitewater flows. KEI reiterates the fact that the project cannot be after filing the license application (see 4.38(c)(3)(ii)), and we recommend that operated to provide whitewater flows in a ridgidly planned manner. Such flows can strictly occur when you conduct the on-water assessment in the spring of 2017, as proposed. inflow to the project is sufficient to shut down (i.e., inflow is within the turbine capacity and can be spilled Please include in your final license application a schedule indicating rather than used for generation). approximate dates you expect to conduct the on-water assessment and when you will file the results. The City of Auburn asks that you coordinate the timing of the flow study and on-water assessment with the City so that it can schedule a “River Day” or other public event. Such coordination is encouraged; however, the on-water assessment should remain the primary objective and should not be delayed unnecessarily to accommodate the event.

FERC Exhibit E If boating flows in the bypass reach are proposed as a result of the study, This will be addressed in supplimental filings associated with the on-water flow study, provided flows are please explain the timing, duration, and frequency of anticipated flows, the sufficent at a reasonable time of year to safely access the bypass reach. type of boating experience to be provided (e.g., beginner, intermediate, expert), and the effects of increased bypass flows on power generation and other uses within the bypass reach. Include a summary of consultation with stakeholders regarding any recreational flows you propose for the bypass reach. MDMR Exhibit E On page 2-8 the licensee proposes to increase the existing minimum flow of KEI acknowledges agency recommendations for a higher minimum flow (recommendations ranging from a 20 cfs to 50 cfs to the bypassed reach. The USWS is recommending a year- minimum of 113 to an ABF level of 176) and associated benefits to aquatic habitat and resources. KEI round, minimum, aquatic base flow in the bypassed reach of 176 cfs. The maintains that the proposed bypass flow of 50 cfs provides sufficient incremental increases to aquatic MDMR concurs with this recommendation. habitat across species and life stages evaluated and achieves MDEP wetted width guidelines. Further, due to channel geometry and topography (wide shallow channel with large boulder and ledge substrate), recommended flows are unlikely to improve recreational boating opportunities. However, KEI is currently in discussions with agencies regarding an alternative, mutually agreeable flow proposal.

MDMR Exhibit E The licensee has not proposed to provide upstream fish passage despite the The Licensee has begun informal fish passage discussions with the NMFS, USFWS, MDMR, and MDIFW documented presence of alewife, American eel, and Atlantic salmon below and intends to attempt to resolve fish passage issues at the Lower Barker Project through these the Project as described on pages 4-26 and 4-32. Upstream fish passage negotiations. facilities have been operational at the three dams downstream of Lower Barker Project for at least 28 years. Passage was installed at the Brunswick Dam in 1982, the Pejepscot Dam in 1987, and the Worumbo Dam in 1988. The MDMR will recommended that upstream fish passage facilities for anadromous and catadromous species be included as a condition of the new license for this Project MDMR Exhibit E Page 4-6 does not clearly define the geographic scope of analysis for Comment noted. KEI's understanding is that FERC will define the geographic scope of cumulative effects cumulative effects. MDMR recommends that geographic scope of the analysis during NEPA Scoping. KEI contends that as a run-of-river project, resources that may be cumulatively for cumulatively affected resources for the Lower Barker Project be defined affected by operations are limited. by the physical limits or boundaries of (1) the proposed action's affect on the resources, and (2) contributing effects from other hydropower and non- hydropower activities within the Androscoggin River Basin. As such, the geographic scope for migratory fish should include the Androscoggin River Basin from Snow Falls (upstream of the LB) to the mouth of the Little Androscoggin River and the Mainstem Androscoggin River from the Lewiston Falls Project (FERC No. 2303) to the Brunswick Project (FERC No. 2284). MDMR recommends this geographical scope because the operation and maintenance of the LB project, in combination with other hydroelectric projects in the Androscoggin River Basin may potentially cumulatively affect migratory fish, aquatic habitat, and wetlands in these areas. MDMR Exhibit E Page 4-27 incorrectly lists Pleasant Pond and Sabbathday Pond as being Pleasant Pond and Sabbathday Pond have been removed from the text. ponds in the Little Androscoggin watershed that MDMR has or is currently stocking with river herring. Pleasant Pond is located in the Kennebec River drainage and Sabbathday Pond is located in the Royal River drainage.

MDMR Exhibit E Page 4-31 compares the number of American eels observed during similar The sentence referencing the American Tissue Project has been removed. The Licensee has entered formal monitoring studies in 2015 at the LB Project (44 eels) and the American fish passage discussions with the NMFS, USFWS, MDMR, and MDIFW and intends to attempt to resolve Tissue project (over 1,000 eels). These two sites are not comparable. LB is fish passage issues at the Lower Barker Project through these negotiations. the fourth dam on the Androscoggin River, and only the third dam provides upstream ell passage. American Tissue is the second barrier on a tributary to the Kennebec River, and the first dam is only a partial barrier to upstream migration (G. Wippelhauser, MDMR, unpublished data).

MDMR Exhibit E Page 4-35 indicates that MDEP, MDIFW, and the USFWS requested that The statement was specific to defining the impetus for the instream flow study, therefore the text has not KEI (Maine) perform an instream flow study in 2015 and 2016 to evaluate been edited. In their June 27, 2014, letter, MDMR requested information related to usptream fish passage the suitability of aquatic habitat in the bypassed reach across a range of flows and river hydraulics associated with upstream fish passage. 1) KEI (Maine) compared data from the released from the dam. This paragraph also should indicate that MDMR Auburn USGS gage (#01058500) to prorated data from the South Paris gage (#01057000) for the period of requested KEI (Maine) gather information that will be needed to design time where both gages were active (1940-1982). The data were nearly identical. A comparison of the upstream fish passage for anadromous species, specifically to 1) verify gauge prorated data is provided in Figure 2-1, Exhibit A of the FLA, 2) KEI (Maine) provided headpond and prorations, 2) develop current headwater and tailwater rating curves, and 3) tailwater curves in its June 5, 2015, Final Study Plan; these have been incorprated into the FLA (Exhibit measure water velocity and water depth at different flows in the bypass and A), and 3) KEI (Maine) collected a suite of water depth and velocity data in the bypass reach during the tailrace during the upstream migration season or at flows that would be instream flow study; however, data were not collected in the tailrace - this information can be collected experienced during the migration season (May 1 - October 31). prior to any developments related to upstream fish passage that may occur at the site in the future. As noted in the final study plan (June 5, 2015), study requests related to fish passage were not adopted because fish MDEP Exhibit E The applicant notes that the deepest location in the impoundment, which is KEIpassage provided is considered MDEP witha post-license a map depicting compliance proposed activity. sample locations at the Lower Barker Project on June typically the sampling point required by the Department, is 30 feet deep; 8, 2015 via e-mail and requested approval of the proposed sample sites; KEI did not receive a response however, according to the applicant this deep area is located immediately from MDEP. A copy of the e-mail and map is included in Appendix B of the final study report. KEI is upstream of the dam and was a safety concern. However, there is no record of currently consulting with MDEP regarding additional DO and water temperature sampling in 2017. Department staff notification or approval of sampling at this much shallower depth. Reviewing the FSR, it appears that there is an opportunity to sample the deep area safely from the walkway of the non-overflow stop-log section of the dam (Photo 1, p. 10). Additionally, boating to the area during a period of no flow over the spillway may also be possible. Additional data is needed to verify attainment of Maine Class C DO criteria in the impoundment. Based on the results provided by the applicant in the DLA and FSR, the Department concludes that the applicant has provided sufficient information regarding the trophic state of the Lower Barker impoundment but additional information and data collection is warranted for water temperature and DO in the deepest area of the impoundment. The Department will provide guidance to the applicant on collecting this additional data in the summer of 2017. MDEP Exhibit E The Department does not agree with the applicant’s conclusions of cross- KEI acknowledges agency recommendations for a higher minimum flow (recommendations ranging from a section Flow study. Although depth and velocity data subsequently submitted minimum of 113 to an ABF level of 176) and associated benefits to aquatic habitat and resources. KEI to the agencies by the applicant shows that 75% of the bankfull width at maintains that the proposed bypass flow of 50 cfs provides sufficient incremental increases to aquatic Transect 4 is wetted at 46 cfs, depths are not adequate for aquatic life and habitat across species and life stages evaluated and achieves MDEP wetted width guidelines. Further, due habitat. Based on the Department’s review of the study results and the depth to channel geometry and topography (wide shallow channel with large boulder and ledge substrate), and velocity data subsequently provided by the applicant, the Department recommended flows are unlikely to improve recreational boating opportunities. However, KEI is currently does not agree that increasing the bypass reach flow from 20 cfs to 50 cfs in discussions with agencies regarding an alternative, mutually agreeable flow proposal. meets Maine’s habitat and aquatic life criteria as proposed by the applicant. Based on the Department’s analysis, the Department will require that the applicant release at least 113 cfs into the bypass reach and may propose higher flows after consultation with the other resource agencies.

MDEP Exhibit E Section 2.6 – Proposed Environmental Measures (p. 2-8): The applicant This statement has been updated. notes its plan to complete a bathymetric survey in the vicinity of the upstream end of the intake in the fall of 2016 to develop a preliminary design of the downstream fishway modifications. Given that this time has passed, the applicant should submit this data or update this statement. MDEP Exhibit E Section 4.1 – General Description of River Basin (p. 4-1): The applicant The text has been updated. states the drainage area of the Androscoggin River watershed (3,530 mi2) and the Little Androscoggin River watershed (350 mi2) but does not include the drainage area for the Lower Barker Project. This information should be provided. Given the close proximity to the confluence with the Androscoggin River, it should be relatively similar in size to the Little Androscoggin River watershed drainage area, albeit slightly smaller. MDEP Exhibit E Section 4.2.1 – Geographic Scope of Cumulative Effects (p. 4-6): The Under the TLP, FERC will determine the geographic scope of cumulative effects under the NEPA scoping applicant notes that the geographic scope for each resource may vary, but process. thereafter does not seem to define the scope for each resource in the DLA. The geographic scope of cumulative effects for each resource should be included in the Final License Application (FLA). MDEP Exhibit E Section 4.6.1 – Geology and Soils (p. 4-6): The applicant should include A map of soils surrounding the Project has been incorporated into this section. maps of local geology and soils within and around the Lower Barker project area in the FLA. MDEP Exhibit E Section 4.3.3.1 - Water Quantity (p. 4-11): The applicant states that the The text has been clarifed throughout the FLA. drainage area upstream of the dam is approximately 357 mi2; however, as noted in Comment 8, they state that the drainage area for the entire Little Androscoggin River watershed is approximately 350 mi2. Additionally, footnote 1 for Table 4.2 (p. 4-12) lists the drainage area for the Lower Barker dam as 357.4 mi2. The applicant needs to clarify the drainage areas for the total Little Androscoggin River and the Lower Barker Project.

MDEP Exhibit E Section 4.3.3.1 – Existing Uses of Water (p. 4-13): The applicant notes that The text has been updated. there is one active Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit on the Little Androscoggin River (permit ME0100005); however, there are also municipal discharges at South Paris, Norway, Mechanic Falls, and a new discharge permit for the casino in Oxford. MDEP Exhibit E Section 4.3.3.1 - Water Quality (p. 4-15): At the request of DEP, the The text has been updated. applicant completed trophic, riverine, and benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring during the late spring, summer, and fall of 2015. The last bullet point states the objective of whether the current operating regime and minimum flow requirements are maintaining structure and function of the resident benthic macroinvertebrate community; however, the objective is to see if operations and minimum flows maintain the structure and function of the resident biological community and not just benthic macroinvertebrates.

MDEP Exhibit E Section 4.3.3.1 – Comparison to Previous Water Quality Data (p. 4-21): The The text has been corrected. applicant notes that data previously collected by the Department demonstrated that waters upstream of the Lower Barker Project meet Class C standards for DO, pH, and total phosphorus. These are actually criteria and not standards, this language should be updated. Also, there is only a draft criterion for total phosphorus. MDEP Exhibit E Section 4.3.3.1 – Benthic Macroinvertebrates (p. 4-21): The applicant needs The text has been corrected. to clarify sampling Site 2 and the length of the bypass reach. They state that Site 2 is approximately 1,750 ft. downstream of the dam and approximately 400 ft. downstream of the powerhouse (tailrace); however, in section 2.6.5 Bypass Reach and Tailrace (p. 2-14 in Exhibit A) the applicant states that the bypass reach extends approximately 3,000 ft. downstream of the dam with the tailrace located approximately 2,000 ft. downstream of the dam. This does not make sense. The bypass reach should end where the tailrace begins.

MDEP Exhibit E Section 4.3.3.1 – Habitat and Aquatic Life Criteria (p. 4-22): The applicant As noted in the Final Study Plan (June 2015), which was developed in consultation with MDEP, KEI only presents wetted width information for two transects (Transects 2 and 4). (Maine) proposed to assess the extent to which various bypass reach flows attain the MDEP standard of ¾ The applicant subsequently submitted depth and velocity data for all four wetted stream width relative to bankfull conditions at "one or more transects." The transect selection site transects to the resource agencies in January 2017. The Department requests visit was done in July 2015; agencies were invited to attend, but MDEP was unable to attend. The reasons that data and analysis of the depth and velocity data for all four transects be for selecting Transect 2 and Transect 4 are clearly described in the DLA and FLA. The depth and velocity included in the FLA. data for all four transects is included in the final study report. MDEP Exhibit E Section 4.3.5 – Fish and Aquatic Resources (p. 4-26): The applicant The Licensee has begun informal fish passage discussions with the NMFS, USFWS, MDMR, and MDIFW summarizes the diadromous fish species that historically occurred in the and intends to attempt to resolve fish passage issues at the Lower Barker Project through these watershed and current conditions in the Little Androscoggin and negotiations. Androscoggin Rivers. Based on the information provided, river herring, American shad, Atlantic salmon, and American eel are present downstream of the Lower Barker dam. The Department notes that any fish species present in the vicinity of the dam need safe, timely, and effective fish passage to meet the State’s designated use for fish habitat. The Department will consult with the resource agencies to determine what species need passage and the timeframe for installing such facilities. Although the applicant proposes to upgrade the existing downstream fish passage system (p. 4-32), there is no mention of upstream fish passage in the DLA.

MDEP Exhibit E Section 4.3.5.1 Aquatic Habitat (p. 4-37): For the aquatic habitat study there As noted in the Final Study Plan (June 2015), which was developed in consultation with MDEP, KEI were four transects established, but only two (Transects 2 and 4) were (Maine) proposed to assess the extent to which various bypass reach flows attain the MDEP standard of ¾ selected by the applicant to demonstrate attainment of Maine Water Quality wetted stream width relative to bankfull conditions at "one or more transects." The transect selection site Standards due to the geometry of the river bank. The Department believes all visit was done in July 2015; agencies were invited to attend, but MDEP was unable to attend. The reasons four transects are valid for analysis. As noted above in Comment 5, for selecting Transect 2 and Transect 4 are clearly described in the DLA, Final Study Report, and FLA. No Department staff analyzed all four transects to calculate flows that meet edits to the text or analysis have been made. habitat criteria under three scenarios. MDEP Exhibit E MDEP Wetted Cross Section Width (p. 4-39): Table 4-16 (p. 4-40) is not The depth and velocity data for all four transects is included in the final study report. useful without the depth/velocity and wetted width data collected at each transect. As noted in Comment 12, this data should be included for all four transects in the FLA. MDEP Exhibit E MDEP Wetted Cross Section Width (p. 4-42): The applicant states that The correct table is included in the FLA. “Table 4-15 shows the timeframe that target species and life stages would be expected to occur in the bypassed reach…”; however, Table 4-15 does not show this. Table 4-15 reflects the habitat suitability for target species based on the flow study. This should be corrected and the referenced table should be included in the FLA. MDEP Exhibit E Benthic Macroinvertebrates (p. 4-43): A summary table or tables should be The results of the benthic macroinvertebrate study are discussed in greater detail in the Water Resources provided in the FLA. Section of the FLA and in the Final Study Report. No additional text or tables have been added.

MDEP Exhibit E Section 5.0 Economic “Analysis” (p. 5-1): There is a typo in the heading, it The text has been corrected. should read “Analysis” not “Analysis”.The economic analysis in this section does not match what is listed in Exhibit A. The applicant should update this information so the two sections are consistent. As noted in previous comments, the minimum bypass flow required by the Department will be at least 113 cfs and potentially greater. Additionally, upstream eel and fish passage facilities/operations will also be required. Section 5.4 should be updated to analyze the effects of PM&E measures on the value of power generated by the project. MDEP Exhibit E Section 6.0 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans (p. 6-1): There is a typo The text has been corrected. in the second paragraph, “Williams Project’ should be “Lower Barker Project”. MDEP Exhibit E Appendix B – Flow Duration Curves: The applicant should include lines The minimum and maximum hydraulic capacities were added to the graphs and are included in Appendix depicting the minimum and maximum hydraulic capacity flows (150 and 500 B. cfs) in the flow duration curves. The Y-axis may need to be adjusted for individual duration curves to better show the hydraulic capacity flow range.

AWW Exhibit E The Licensee has provided no information with regard to project impacts on Comment note. KEI maintains that the project is operated in a run-of-river mode on a river where inflow recreational boating or angling. While the Licensee acknowledges that during the recreation season are typically too low to operate the facility. As such, managed flow releases there is some angling use in the project boundary, the lack of sufficient flows, for recreation are not possible in comparison to large peaking facilities on large rivers. access, and passage facilities certainly have an adverse impact. Further, the Licensee has made no attempt to quantify its impact or propose appropriate PM&E measures to mitigate project impacts. AWW Exhibit E The Licensee has yet to complete the on-water controlled-flow boating study or even attempt to coordinate study preparations with American Whitewater, so we do not know the minimum acceptable or optimal boating flows in the bypassed reach. AWW Exhibit E The Licensee states that it is “willing to provide releases in the spring of 2017 for this assessment, provided sufficient river flow exists during a reasonable time to be in the river.” We recommend that it coordinate its effort with American Whitewater, given our considerable experience with similar controlled flow studies over a period of over 25 years. We expect that the Licensee will follow all standard methodologies for conducting the study and preparing the study report. The Licensee should also identify an appropriate portage route around the dam whose design is consistent with approved standards for accessible trails. USFWS Page 4-42. The Licensee correctly states the Services July 18, 2014, recommendation of 176 cfs as the minimum bypass flow derived by multiplying the area upstream of the dam (352 square miles) by 0.5 cfs to produce 176 cfs. However, the Licensee also states that, “the August median flow statistic relied on by the Service is 0.28 cfs per square mile of drainage for the Lower Androscoggin River”. The Service’s 1981 ABF policy is clear: “For rivers where inadequate flow records exist or for rivers regulated by dams or upstream diversions, the Service shall recommend that the aquatic base flow release by 0.5 cfs per square mile of drainage.” There are 4 operating hydro projects above Lower Barker (Upper Barker FERC No. 3562, Hackett Mills FERC No. 6398, Marcal FERC No. 11482, and Biscoe Falls). The river is regulated. For these cases the Service used 0.5 cfs multiplied by the area above the dam. USFWS Page 4-45. Due to the low numbers of American eels observed during the The Licensee has begun informal fish passage discussions with the NMFS, USFWS, MDMR, and MDIFW survey in 2016 the Licensee is not proposing to install upstream eel passage and intends to attempt to resolve fish passage issues at the Lower Barker Project through these at this juncture. American eels have access to the Project area and thus should negotiations. be allowed to pass upstream. Presence of eel fishways on dams has increased eel abundance in these watersheds in the last decade (Shepard, 2015). The Service will prescribe upstream eel passage measures at the Project under our Federal Power Act authorities. AWW Exhibit E Based on the information provided in the DLA, we recommend that the Comment noted. KEI (Maine) does not intend to decommission the Project. Licensee perform a cost-benefit analysis of project decommissioning. Auburn Exhibit E requests that FERC consider requiring more than the inadequate Form 80 MIDFW recommended that KEI (Maine) provide adequate foot access to the bypass, signage to indicate process for assessing recreational demand and access for: 1) existing access is access to the river and to designate existing informal parking to formalize recreation access at the project. poor and although it receives heavy use at times the lack of high quality KEI has agreed to these measures. access in itself reduces potential use; 2) the Form 80 data appears to be collected poorly showing many data forms filled out; MDIFW Exhibit E Section 4.1, Table 4-1: The table appears to have several discrepancies or The text has been corrected. inconsistencies. For example, while it includes the dam on Hicks Pond, there is no mention of the dam in Paris as well as other lake dams in the drainage.

MDIFW Exhibit E Section 4.3.5, Page 4-27: Pleasant Pond and Sabbathday Lake are not in the The text has been corrected. Little Androscoggin River drainage. This should be corrected. MDIFW Exhibit E Section 4.3.5, Page 4-33 and Table 4-12: The document states that “MDIFW The information included in Table 4-12 was obtained from the historical fish stocking reports provided on stocked approximately 22,000 brown trout and rainbow trout in 2013 and the MDIFW website and included the stocking of 17,600 fingerlings in 2013 and 18,232 fingerlings in 2014 at Mechanic Falls, Auburn, and Minot to support 2014. Table 4-12 has been updated to only include the adult stocking numbers. angling opportunities in the Little Androscoggin River (Table 4-12).” These numbers are incorrect and should be corrected. In 2013 and 2014, 2,450 rainbow trout where stocked by MDIFW each year. MDIFW Exhibit E Section 4.3.11.1, Page 4-69: The document states that “KEI (Maine) permits Comment noted. public use of the project land and waters for recreation; however, there are no formal recreation facilities within the project boundary. KEI (Maine) has limited ownership of the lands surrounding the Project. The lands surrounding the Project structures are densely forested with a steep and rocky ravine leading down to the water. According to an Environmental Inspection Report conducted by FERC on September 15, 2009, there is "little potential for recreational opportunities" (FERC, 2011) at the project site....” Furthermore, it goes on to state that “The trail provides a walking and biking path, shoreline access to the impoundment for angling, and an informal hand- carry boat launch; an informal trail provides access to the tailwater and bypassed reach immediately downstream of the dam (Figure 4-5, Photo 4-1, Photo 4-2, and Photo 4-3).”

MDIFW Exhibit E Consequently, MDIFW requests formal access improvements including: (1) KEI (Maine) agrees to such improvements and will consult with MDIFW in make suitable improvements adequate signage, parking and foot access provisions to the tailrace/bypass of signage and formalized access/parking as a condition of the new license. area; and that (2) the existing hand-carry boat launch at the impoundment should be more formal with appropriate signage and parking. We request that the applicant should work with MDIFW to ensure any access improvements made by the licensee are suitable. NOAA Exhibit E Section 1.2 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements, Page 1-3. The Licensee Comment noted. does not mention that the project is located in Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Atlantic salmon under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Instead, the Licensee mentions the existence of critical habitat for Atlantic salmon in the Androscoggin River. Though the Lower Androscoggin River is designated critical habitat, the Lower Barker project is located outside of the designated critical habitat in the Little Androscoggin River. Therefore, Section 7 consultation (Section 1.2.2) is not required, but EFH consultation between the Commission and us is necessary for licensure of the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project. NOAA Exhibit E Section 2.1 Project Description, Page 2-2, First Bullet – We note an The length of the penstock has been corrected. inconsistency with the length of the penstock throughout the draft license application.

NOAA Exhibit E Section 2.3 Existing Project Operations, Page 2-7. This section indicates that The text has been clarified. minimum flow is provided by spill. It also indicates that outside of the downstream fish passage season, the minimum flow is conveyed through the gates. The means for providing the minimum flow should be clarified.

NOAA Exhibit E Section 2.5 Proposed Project Operations, Page 2-8. The Project will continue Comment noted. to provide flows through the stop log section as a downstream fish passage measure. Based on our observations of the condition at the stop log bays, these do not provide safe timely and effective passage. NOAA Exhibit E Section 4.3 Proposed Acton and Action Alternatives, Page 4-9. The Licensee The text has been clarified. claims that providing a minimum flow will minimize erosion in downstream reaches within the Project boundary. We are unclear how a minimum flow requirement has any bearing on erosion occurring in downstream reaches.

NOAA Exhibit E Page 4-11. The first sentence of the last paragraph has a typographical error – The text has been corrected. ‘monthly inflows’ should be ‘annual inflows’. NOAA Exhibit E Section 4.3.5.1. Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) was historically The text has been corrected. distributed in the Androscoggin River watershed (Beamish 1980) and should be included in the list of diadromous species. NOAA Exhibit E Page 4-31 intend to prescribe upstream fish passage measures for American The Licensee is currently holding informal fish passage discussions with the NMFS, USFWS, MDMR, and eel under our Federal Power Act authority. The Licensee should plan on MDIFW and intends to attempt to resolve fish passage issues at the Lower Barker Project through these implementing both interim and permanent measures during the new license. negotiations. In addition, the report notes that the survey was “along the downstream face of the dam and spillway, the spill gates, and the bedrock outcrops downstream of the dam”. The tailrace should have been included in the survey. If eels are falsely attracted to the tailrace, this can cause delay and impede upstream migration. Attraction to the powerhouse tailrace could lead to an adverse effect of the Project that is not being documented.

NOAA Exhibit E Page 4-32. The Fish Passage sub-section describes the existing downstream The downstream fishway will be designed in consultation with NFMS, USFWS, and MDMR. fish passage measures at the project and the need for improvements to accomplish safe, timely, and effective downstream fish passage at the project. We concur and appreciate the willingness to rectify the situation. NOAA Exhibit E Page 4-42. The report states: “The results of the instream flow study Comment noted. demonstrate that the biggest improvements in habitat suitability in the bypassed reach for Atlantic salmon, brown trout and rainbow trout occur up to a river flow of approximately 100 cfs (plus leakage).” However, Figure 4-3 suggests that a better flow for salmon is 175 cfs, which is also a plateau for rainbow trout and brown trout. In addition, the narrative on page 4-38 indicates that a flow of 175 cfs provides 99 to 100 percent of the available aquatic habitat for Atlantic salmon fry and parr, 90.5 percent for adult salmon. A flow of 46 cfs reduces the available habitat to 82 to 90 percent for salmon fry and parr and only 20 percent for adult salmon.

NOAA Exhibit E Based on the bypass reach habitat suitability shown in Table 4-15, a Comment noted. minimum bypass reach flow of 175 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, to maximize benefits to all life stages of Atlantic salmon is the most appropriate for environmental and management interests. The bypass reach minimum flow can be provided through the combination of the improved downstream fish passage measure and the installed upstream anadromous fish passage measure. The 175 cfs minimum flow is consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife aquatic base flow guidelines described on Page 4-42.

NOAA Exhibit E Page 4-43. The application suggests that a bypass minimum flow should be Comment noted. tied to management actions, specifically “…if salmon restoration is successful at some point in the future and if MDIFW stocks the reach in the future…” While the bypass reach is not designated as critical habitat for listed Atlantic salmon, salmon have access to the bypass reach and the bypass reachprovides important habitat for downstream migration of silver eels and stocked alewife

NOAA Exhibit E Page 4-43. The Licensee incorrectly cites our EFH description for Atlantic Exhibit E has been updated accordingly. KEI (Maine) will rely on the results of the studies performed and salmon (NMFS 1998) and the online mapping tool (NMFS 2016). The measures proposed to address any potential habitat issues for Atlantic salmon. NOAA EFH description states, “Atlantic salmon EFH includes all aquatic habitats in the watersheds of the identified rivers, including all tributaries, to the extent that they are currently or were historically accessible for salmon migration.” The Little Androscoggin River is the largest tributary to the Androscoggin River which is listed in the EFH designation and does not have a natural barrier until Snow Falls, approximately 50 miles upstream from the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project. Therefore, the project encompasses Atlantic salmon EFH that is both currently and historically accessible.

NOAA Exhibit E Page 4-45. The application states “Due to the overall low numbers of The Licensee has begun informal fish passage discussions with the NMFS, USFWS, MDMR, and MDIFW American eels in the lower Androscoggin River and as documented during and intends to attempt to resolve fish passage issues at the Lower Barker Project through these 2015 eel monitoring, KEI (Maine) is proposing no upstream eel passage at negotiations. this juncture.” We disagree with Licensees finding that upstream eel passage is not warranted at this juncture. American eel have access to the Project area. There is no biological basis for creating an arbitrary trigger for eel passage that may be adversely affected by project effects such as unnaturally low flow in the bypass.

NOAA Exhibit E Section 5.3 Value of Power Generated by the Project, Page 5-1. The average Comment noted. Based on informal fish passage disscussion between KEI (Maine) and agencies, KEI value of the project is listed at $207,400, yet in Exhibit A the average value (Maine) anticipated conducting its own assessment of fish passage alternatives to aid in the group's is $205,000. Based on the pending prescription for both upstream and discision making. downstream fish passage at the project, we recommend a full fish passage feasibility study that quantifies the effect of PM&E measures on the value of the project (see AIR, Section 3).

NOAA Exhibit E Section 6 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans, Page 6-1. The text is The text has been corrected. referring to the Williams Project when it should be referring to the Lower Barker project. FERC Exhibit F Per section 4.61(e) of the Commission’s regulations, please provide a Comment noted. supporting design report. NOAA Exhibit G The bypass reach should be included in the Project Boundary. Comment noted.

NOAA Exhibit H Not consistent with these comprehensive plans without providing safe, KEI (Maine) disagrees with comments that the Project is not in compliance with these plans. While it is timely, and effective fish passage and protection measures: Maine Atlantic acknowledged that the Project presents a barrier to fish passage in the Little Androscoggin River, there is Sea-Run Salmon Commission, Management of Atlantic salmon in the State no current mandate for providing upstream fish passage, nor have returning numbers of migratory species of Maine: A Strategic Plan – July 1984. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries in the mainstem Androscoggin River been restored to a level that justifies near term upstream fish passage Commission. 1999. Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan facilities. The project currently has downstream fish passage facilities to support State stocking programs for shad and river herring. (Report No. 35). April 1999. Atlantic States and KEI is informally discussing potential near term (implimentation under a new license) improvements to Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000. Technical Addendum 1 to Amendment these facilities. 1 of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring. February 9, 2000. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2009. Amendment 2 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring, Arlington, Virginia. May 2009.Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2010. Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring, Arlington, Virginia. February 2010. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000. Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American eel (Anguilla rostrata). (Report No. 36). April 2000. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Atlantic salmon restoration in New USFWS AIR SectionEngland: 2. Final 7 states environmental that the costs impact to upgrade statement the downstream1989-2021. fishDepartment passage of system have not been developed and the Licensee does not plan to install upstream passage. The Service supports NOAA's request for an assessment of Fish Passage Alternatives. The goal of the requested study is to assess the feasibility and costs of improving fish passage, survival, and efficiency for alewife, blueback herring, American shad, American eel, sea lamprey, and Atlantic salmon at the Project through an analysis of design alternatives. The results of this study will help determine the best method (fish passage location and type, trapping and trucking, dam removal) for passing fish The Licensee has begun informal fish passage discussions with the NMFS, USFWS, MDMR, and MDIFW upstream and downstream at this site. and intends to attempt to resolve fish passage issues at the Lower Barker Project through these NOAA AIR Request the applicant provide an assessment of fish passage alternatives for negotiations. ATS, American Eel, Sea lamprey, alewife, blueback herring and American shad. NOAA AIR In Section 2.7, the Licensee states that costs to upgrade the downstream fish passage system have not been developed. The Fishway Design Alternatives Analysis is needed to identify upstream and downstream fish passage alternatives for target species, the feasibility of each alternative, as well as the associated capital, operational, and maintenance costs of each alternative1. This information will inform the NEPA analysis. MDMR Final Study Report Please include Transect Channel designations in Fig 11 on page 49 An updated map was provided to the agencies via e-mail on January 3, 2017. The map illustrating the transect channels is included in the Final Study Report.

MDMR Final Study Report Please include all depth and velocity measurements made along the four The depth and velocity data for all four transects are included in the Final Study Report. transects MDMR Final Study Report Please verify that Photo 9 shows Transect 1 at 46 cfs and Photo 12 shows The photos have been reviewed and are correct. Transect 1 at 108 cfs - they appear to be the same photo MDEP Final Study Report Figure 2 (p. 9): Figure 2 did not display properly. The applicant needs to This has been corrected in the final study report. correct this in the FLA. MDEP Final Study Report Figure 3 (p. 20): Water temperature in the tailrace was lower in July than the While it is difficult to specifically identify the reason for the difference in water temperature between the bypass reach but then water temperatures in the two reaches were relatively two locations, there are several possible explanations, including: cooler water being drawn from the the same from the end of July through the rest of the study period. The impoundment, equipment error, or vandalism (the logger was found out of the water on July 23) that applicant should provide an explanation on this temperature difference at the resulted in abnormal values. The logger was moved further away from shore and buried under boulders to beginning of the study period. prevent further vandalism. After July 23, the water temperature in the tailrace and bypassed reach were in better agreement.

MDEP Final Study Report Section 2.3.4.2 Dissolved Oxygen: the applicant mentions that some erratic Graphs showing all of the DO data are included in the Final Study Report. DO measurements (values between 4.5 and 7.0 mg/l) occurred in the bypass reach dataset from August 12 at 8:00 pm to August 13 at 4:00 pm. The applicant states that bio-fouling, sedimentation, and/or equipment malfunction were the likely causes of the erratic measurements and removed the data from the final dataset. This data as well as all the raw data needs to be submitted to the Department. MDEP Final Study Report Section 5.3.2 Results (p. 52): In bullet point 4, the applicant notes the flow This information was presented in Table 21 of the Final Study Report. There are leaks from the dam from of 108 cfs is actually 100 cfs plus leakage. Where is the leakage coming numerous areas that resulted in additional water during each release from the dam. Sources of leakage from? Is the leakage present at all flows? The note on leakage is only include the flashboards, two deep gates, and the 7 surface stop-log gates near the intake area. The text of included for the 108 cfs flow, which seems odd. The applicant needs to the report has been updated accordingly. clarify the effect of leakage on all flow releases. MDEP Final Study Report Appendix A: Transect 4 photographs for each flow release are not included. Transect 4 was only used for stream gaging and for wetted width measurements. Transect 4 was not a The applicant should include these photographs in the FLA. component of the habitat suitability evaluation; thus, photographs of Transect 4 were not taken during the flow releases, however, a few representative photographs of Transect 4 are included in the final study report. Auburn Final Study Report recommended that FERC require the recreational flow studies prior to approving the DLA

NOAA Final Study Report Page 3. The Licensee discusses our request for additional upstream fishway The Licensee has begun informal fish passage discussions with the NMFS, USFWS, MDMR, and MDIFW studies. We maintain that a full fish passage feasibility study is necessary to and intends to attempt to resolve fish passage issues at the Lower Barker Project through these inform the NEPA analysis at the project. We have photo-documentation of negotiations. diadromous species as well as the eel study confirming presence at the base of the dam. Therefore, fish passage and protection measures are warranted at license issuance. In addition, an active restoration plan for the Androscoggin River (MDMR 2010) has included stocking upstream from the project. Safe, timely and effective upstream and downstream passage is vital to the restoration of sea-run fish in the Androscoggin River and Little Androscoggin River systems. NOAA Final Study Report Page 41. The Licensee summarizes the juvenile eel study within this section. The Licensee has begun informal fish passage discussions with the NMFS, USFWS, MDMR, and MDIFW This project is the fourth barrier an eel would encounter on its upstream and intends to attempt to resolve fish passage issues at the Lower Barker Project through these migration and a dedicated eelway is present only at Worumbo. Installation of negotiations. eel ways in Maine have led to increased abundance in the watersheds (Shepard 2015). We anticipate all dams downstream of Lower Barker will have dedicated eelways by 2030. We intend to prescribe permanent upstream eel passage measures at the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project. We request that Licensee consults with us and other resource agencies during the design process.

NOAA Final Study Report Page 47. The Licensee describes the channel cross sections (i.e. transects) and No backwatering was noted during the study. Transect 4 was located approximaetly 415-feet upstream from selection in the IFIM study. The first three transect locations were influenced the powerhouse. At all flows during the study, there was measurable velocity in a downstream direction. by the USFWS and MDIFW such that the appropriate habitats of interest The final study report has been updated accordingly. were included in the study. Transect 4 was located just upstream from the powerhouse and was used by the Licensee as a gauging station for dam released flows. The report should make it clear whether or not the powerhouse discharge or flow in the Androscoggin River cause backwater NOAA Final Study Report Pageeffects 47. at Thethe gaugingLicensee transect. states, ‘this transect was selected for gaging because it The final study report has been updated accordingly. had laminar flow from bank to bank.’ Natural river channels do not have laminar flow under any circumstances, natural channel flows can be less turbulent, but not laminar. NOAA Final Study Report Page 48. The Licensee states that each transect was evaluated independently The final study report has been updated accordingly. using criteria for abundant refugia. This sentence is not clear which transects used large boulder, small boulder or instream cover as one of the refugia criteria. When referring to a certain percentage of substrate, the report does not make it clear how these percentages were determined.

NOAA Final Study Report At our request, the Licensee provided all the station, depth and velocity data The data in Table 22 was rounded to the nearest whole value in the final study report. that were collected in the field at each transect.The measured discharges at the other transects provide some insight into the overall measurement error that occurred during the study. Given this measurement error, we disagree with habitat values being reported down to the tenth of a percent in Table 22. We also maintain that reported depths and velocities at Transects 2 and 3 likely overestimate depths and velocities for a given reported discharge, and depth and velocities are Transect 1 are likely underestimate depths and velocities for a given reported discharge.

NOAA Final Study Report Page 58. The Licensee cites Lang (1999) regarding low flow conditions as a Comment noted. natural limiting period that does not cause major population changes. However, our concern relates to low flow conditions that occur in the bypass and maximum generation is occurring in the powerhouse for extended periods and during seasons when low flow would not be expected. The effect of project operations on the bypass reach occur when the flow should be 200 cfs but is only 50 cfs in the bypass reach which are unnatural low flows conditions. These low flow conditions have an effect on natural resources such as increasing the frequency of reduced habitat and increased predation. NOAA Final Study Report Appendix A Transect Photographs. Some of the flow photos in the final study The photos have been reviewed and are correct. Cross sections of Transect 2 and Transect 4 are included in plan appear to be in error. For example, Photo A12 (Transect 1 at 108 cfs) the final study report. appears to have conditions identical to Photo A9 (Transect 1 at 46 cfs). A final, corrected flow study plan should be filed and include the proper photos and all of the cross section plots. Auburn General The cooperation of KEI is an essential component of our economic and Comment noted. recreational strategies and we recognize that it may be to the advantage of KEI to minimize notice and public involvement in the licensing process as this may reduce the perceived recreation demand in the project area. Auburn General - recreation The Licensee states that it is "willing to provide releases in the spring of Comment noted. As identified in Exhibit E, KEI (Maine) will coorinate with AWW and the City, targeting 2017 for this assessment, provided sufficient riverflow exists during a late April/early May to conduct the on-water assessment, being the time that spring flows are more likely to reasonable time to be in the river". We recommend that it coordinate its effort provide inflow sufficient to achieve target flows for the assessment. with the City of Auburn and American Whitewater, given our considerable experience with similar controlled-flow studies over a period of over 25 years. We expect that the licensee will follow all standard methodologies for conducting the study and preparing the study report. The Licensee should also identify an appropriate portage route around the dam. MDIFW General To help ensure that our Agency responds in a timely manner, all future Comment noted and incorporated. general electronic correspondence should be sent to [email protected]. Alternatively, though not preferred, mailings and notifications can be sent to: Environmental Review Coordinator Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 284 State Street, 41 SHS Augusta, ME 04333-0041 NOAA Fish passage The facility has no entrainment prevention other than an isolated trash rack perpendicular to flow at the downstream end of the power canal with 2-inch clear bar racks. NOAA Fish passage There was inadequate attraction flow and guidance to the stop log bay entrance. The depth of water directly in front of the stop log bays was shallow limiting the effectiveness of bypass entrance efficiency. NOAA Fish passage The stop log bays used for the downstream fish passage entrance were clogged with debris and only a few inches of water were spilling over the installed stop logs. Debris should be managed daily to improve passage effectiveness and adequate depth is needed at the downstream entrance to commit emigrating fish NOAA Fish passage There was little difference in depth of flow over the spillway flashboards compared to the designated downstream fish passage entrance. For fish that pass over the spillway, they first impact the concrete of the spillway and then fall 30 feet to either a plunge pool of varying water depth or directly onto The Licensee has begun informal fish passage discussions with the NMFS, USFWS, MDMR, and MDIFW bedrock. This can lead to injury. and intends to attempt to resolve fish passage issues at the Lower Barker Project through these NOAA Fish passage The spill over the stop logs in the stop log bays impacted the concrete below negotiations. and then the bedrock before entering the first plunge pool. This can lead to injury. NOAA Fish passage In the first plunge pool, fish must pass over a notched weir to a second plunge pool. The sharp-crested, notched weir flow impacts the concrete and bedrock before entering the second plunge pool. This can lead to injury.

NOAA Fish passage In the second plunge pool, fish must pass through a steep, jagged bedrock gradient approximately 15 to 20 feet in height before reaching the toe of the dam and egress to downstream reaches. This can lead to injury.

NOAA Fish passage Though not noticed during the inspection, there is the potential for delay and increased predation in each of the plunge pools for is oriented or injured downstream migrating fish. 20170105-3076 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/05/2017

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, D. C. 20426 January 5, 2017

OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS

Project No. 2808-016–Maine Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project KEI (Maine) Power Management, Inc.

Lewis Loon 37 Alfred Plourde Parkway, Suite 2 Lewiston, ME 04240

Subject: Staff Comments on Draft License Application for the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project

Dear Mr. Loon:

On October 24, 2016, you filed a draft license application with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) for the 1.2-megawatt Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project. We have reviewed the draft license application, and provide our comments in the enclosed Schedule A.

If you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Karen Sughrue at (202) 502-8556 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

David Turner, Chief Northwest Branch Division of Hydropower Licensing

Enclosure: Schedule A

cc: Mailing List Public Files 20170105-3076 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/05/2017

Schedule A Project No. 2808-016

DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION COMMENTS

Initial Statement

1. As you are aware, the telephone number reported in the initial statement is incorrect. Please ensure that the correct telephone number for the applicant and the person authorized to act as agent for the applicant are provided.

2. The maximum hydraulic capacity plus minimum flows are reported as 520 cfs, but 500 cfs is reported in Exhibit A (pages 1-1 and 2-1) and in Exhibit E (page 2-7). Please correct this discrepancy.

Exhibit A

3. Per section 4.61(c)(1)(x) of the Commission’s regulations, please include capital and operation and maintenance costs for upgrading the downstream fish passage system.

4. Per section 4.61(c)(5) of the Commission’s regulations, please include the generation effects (i.e., the amount of generation lost and estimated cost) of the proposed minimum flows.

5. On page 2-14 of Exhibit A, you state that “The tailrace is located approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the dam… ” We cannot determine how you arrived at 2,000 feet or what distance you are trying to convey. From the Project Location Map on page 1- 2, the straight line distance from the dam to the point where the tailrace empties into the Lower Androscoggin is about 800 feet. Please clarify what this number represents and provide the correct this measurement if needed.

6. Footnote #3 appears to be missing a portion of the intended text. Please correct this in the final license application.

Exhibit E

7. On page 4-45, you note that the proposed minimum flow increase (from 20 cfs to 50 cfs) could enhance angling opportunities. Please discuss in your license application whether the increased flow might also enhance other recreational opportunities (e.g., boating, water play) and whether you propose any improvements to public access or other facilities to accommodate such use (e.g., paths, put-ins, take-outs, signs, parking, restrooms, etc.). 20170105-3076 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/05/2017

Schedule A Project No. 2808-016

8. On page 4-78, you state that a planned whitewater boating flow study could not be completed in 2016 (due to insufficient flows and scheduling issues), but that you still expect to complete an on-water assessment in the spring of 2017. The Commission’s regulations allow you to provide this information after filing the license application (see 4.38(c)(3)(ii)), and we recommend that you conduct the on-water assessment in the spring of 2017, as proposed. Please include in your final license application a schedule indicating approximate dates you expect to conduct the on-water assessment and when you will file the results. The City of Auburn asks that you coordinate the timing of the flow study and on-water assessment with the City so that it can schedule a “River Day” or other public event. Such coordination is encouraged; however, the on-water assessment should remain the primary objective and should not be delayed unnecessarily to accommodate the event.

9. If boating flows in the bypass reach are proposed as a result of the study, please explain the timing, duration, and frequency of anticipated flows, the type of boating experience to be provided (e.g., beginner, intermediate, expert), and the effects of increased bypass flows on power generation and other uses within the bypass reach. Include a summary of consultation with stakeholders regarding any recreational flows you propose for the bypass reach.

Exhibit F

10. Per section 4.61(e) of the Commission’s regulations, please provide a supporting design report. 20170105-3076 FERC PDF (Unofficial) 01/05/2017 Document Content(s) P-2808-016Letter1.DOC...... 1-3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2808)

AMERICAN WHITEWATER’S COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION AND FINAL STUDY REPORT FOR THE LOWER BARKER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT, FERC PROJECT NO. 2808

American Whitewater submits these comments to FERC in response to the Draft License Application (DLA) and Final Study Report (August 2016) for the relicensing of KEI (Maine) Power Management, LLC’s (“Licensee”) Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No. 2808) (“Project.”). Our organization has previously submitted comments and study requests requesting that the Licensee study the impact of its hydroelectric operations on the recreational opportunities available to non-motorized boaters in the Project area.

In its DLA, the Licensee proposes no significant change to current operations save a minor increase in minimum conservation flows in the natural river channel (bypassed reach). Based on our review of the Licensee’s DLA and Environmental Report, we recommend that FERC and the Licensee explore project decommissioning and dam removal as an alternative to project relicensing, as the negligible value of power generated by the project is outweighed by its negative environmental impacts.

Background

American Whitewater has been engaged in hydropower relicensing processes across the country for over 25 years and has worked with FERC and numerous licensees to study the impact of hydroelectric projects on recreational boating opportunities. We have assisted with recreational facility and use assessments and controlled whitewater boating flow studies during the relicensing process on rivers throughout the Northeastern region of the United States including the Deerfield, Kennebec, Rapid, Magalloway, Moose, Beaver, Raquette, and Penobscot rivers.

American Whitewater and other stakeholders requested that the Licensee conduct a controlled-flow boating study in the 3,000-foot bypassed reach to determine the potential opportunity for recreational boating in the Project boundary. In response, the Licensee agreed to conduct a Recreation Needs Study designed to meet the following objectives:

1 1) Existing recreation facilities - KEI (Maine) will conduct an inventory, photo document, and map existing recreation facilities, locations, available amenities and site conditions at the Project. KEI (Maine) will also inventory and map existing recreation facilities in proximity to the Project that support recreation use of the Little Androscoggin River or lands adjacent to the Project boundary.

2) Existing recreation use - KEI (Maine) will review the FERC Form 80 data to determine the existing recreation use of the project facilities and overall use of the Project for recreation purposes. KEI (Maine) will review existing recreation use data from studies and plans conducted by such organizations as the ALT and the City of Auburn.

3) Existing recreation opportunities - KEI (Maine) will evaluate the recreation opportunities afforded by the project impoundment and bypassed reach. To that end, KEI (Maine) will conduct a preliminary on-land assessment and photo document the bypassed reach under a flow of 500 cfs. The on-land assessment will help inform the parameters of the onwater assessment that will assess the bypass reach under various flow conditions including 500 cfs, 300 cfs, and 660 cfs (May median). During the Bypassed Minimum Flow Study, KEI (Maine) will also photo document the bypassed reach upstream and downstream of and note velocities and water depths for the selected transects to evaluate the opportunity for on-water activities under various low flow releases.

4) Potential future recreation access and opportunities - KEI (Maine) will consider opportunities for improvements to existing access sites or the provision of additional access within the project boundary.

The Licensee’s Final Study Plan described a phased study approach involving literature review (Phase 1), on-land assessment (Phase 2), and Focus Group and Field Reconnaissance (Phase 3). During Phase 3, the Licensee committed to the following:

KEI (Maine) will evaluate the suitability of the bypassed reach for on-water activities including shoreline angling, wade angling and flatwater and whitewater boating. Shoreline and wade angling opportunities are anticipated to be generally limited to the reach just downstream of the dam, as most of the bypass reach is otherwise inaccessible by foot.

An expert panel of whitewater boaters affiliated with American Whitewater and/or local paddling clubs will be compiled to conduct an on-water assessment. This will involve at least three facilitated expert panel on-water evaluations to

2 analyze the recreation value and safety concerns at the Lower Barker bypass reach at various flow levels for various activities. The on-water assessment will be scheduled when inflows to the Project are sufficiently high to be provided in the bypass reach within an estimated recreational flow range (between 300 and 660 cfs). The target flow levels will be 300 cfs, 500 cfs (project capacity), and 660 cfs (May median flow). The expert panel will complete post-evaluation surveys (Appendix A) to document characteristics of the Lower Barker bypass reach with respect to the suitability of flows for wade angling, swimming, flat-water paddling, and whitewater paddling; features such as rapids and eddies; existing and potential ingress and egress locations; and any potential safety hazards.

The Licensee agreed that the controlled-flow whitewater boating study would follow the standard methodology that is utilized by FERC and other licensees.1 The purpose of the study is to provide FERC with sufficient information to conduct a NEPA review of the project. FERC is required by Section 4(e) of the Federal Power Act to give “equal consideration to the purposes of energy conservation, the protection, mitigation of damage to, and enhancement of, fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat), the protection of recreational opportunities, and the preservation of other aspects of environmental quality.” Its efforts to date have failed to provide FERC with a sufficient basis for evaluating the License Application.

Draft License Application

The Licensee operates the project as a run-of-river facility (inflows equal outflows on an instantaneous basis). Flows from the Little Androscoggin are diverted through a power canal to a 1.2 MW powerhouse. The hydraulic capacity of the project ranges from 150 cfs to 500 cfs, and the project is required to release minimum flows of 20 cfs into the bypassed reach. There is minimal storage behind the dam and the Licensee endeavors to maintain stable pond levels.

Project operations have a substantial impact on flows into the bypassed reach as follows:

Flow Bypassed Reach Flows <170 cfs All flows spilled into bypassed reach >170 cfs and <520 cfs 20 cfs released into bypassed reach >520 cfs All flows above 500 cfs spilled into bypassed reach

1 Doug Whittaker, Bo Shelby, and John Gangemi. 2005. Flows and Recreation: A Guide to Studies for River Professionals. Prepared for the Hydropower Reform Coalition and National Park Service – Hydropower Recreation Assistance. [Online] URL: http://www.nps.gov/hydro/flowrec.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2015.

The Licensee’s current mode of operation substantially alters the natural flow regime. The Project spills minimum flows, rather than naturally variable flows, into the bypassed reach approximately 43 percent of the time, and diminishes natural flows 78 percent of the time. The resultant unnatural variations are detrimental to both the recreational use of the river and aquatic habitat as they prevent the occurrence of important biological triggers that take place in a natural flow regime. To a limited extent, the Licensee recognizes that its operations fail to provide suitable aquatic habitat and proposes to increase minimum flows into the bypassed reach from 20 cfs to 50 cfs. However, the Licensee’s own study demonstrates that the proposed base flow is inadequate to maintain a healthy aquatic habitat.

Aquatic Habitat

The Licensee conducted a Bypass Reach Minimum Flow Study to evaluate the habitat suitability of the bypassed reach for a range of fish species at various life stages. The study involved habitat mapping and identification of transects (Phase 1) followed by an instream flow study (Phase 2). During the latter phase, the Licensee evaluated the impact of flows ranging from 20 cfs (the current base flow) to 300 cfs on the suitability of aquatic habitat for Atlantic salmon fry, parr, and spawning adults; adult brown trout; and adult rainbow trout. The results of the study showed that the current base flow of 20 cfs failed to provide suitable habitat for all target species at all life stages.

The results of the study demonstrated the following:

• A flow of 46 cfs, approximately the flow that the Licensee proposes as a base flow under a new license, provided only 20 percent of available Atlantic adult spawning habitat; and 35 to 40 percent available suitable aquatic habitat for adult rainbow and brown trout.

• A flow of 108 cfs provides 96 to 100 percent of available suitable aquatic habitat for Atlantic salmon fry and parr; 61 percent of available adult spawning habitat; and 66 to 72.5 percent available suitable aquatic habitat for adult rainbow and brown trout.

• A flow of 175 cfs provides 99 to 100 percent of available suitable aquatic habitat for Atlantic salmon fry and parr; 90.5 percent of available adult spawning habitat; and 83 to 89 percent available suitable aquatic habitat for adult rainbow and brown trout.

Given the MDIFW fishery management goal of developing a trout fishery in the Androscoggin River including the bypassed reach below the Lower Barker Dam, the Licensee’s proposed flows are plainly inadequate. While the instream flow study provides some support for

4 the Licensee’s proposed flow of 50 cfs in terms of habitat suitability for Atlantic salmon fry and parr, the Licensee’s proposed minimum instream flows fail to provide suitable habitats for Atlantic salmon spawning adults, adult brown trout, and adult rainbow trout. The study found that suitable habitat increased significantly for all species until the release of 108 cfs, and suitable habitat for Atlantic salmon spawning adults, adult brown trout, and adult rainbow trout showed significant increases until the release of 175 cfs. Instream flows are the stream flow levels that will protect and preserve instream resources and values.

The Licensee calculates the drainage area at the project as 350 mi2. The current minimum flow of 20 cfs represents 0.057 cfsm, or approximately 11 percent of the USFWS’s Aquatic Base Flow (ABF) flow recommendation of 176 cfs for the Lower Barker Project, which is the recommended default flow in the absence of a site-specific study. This equates to approximately 0.5 cfsm of the drainage area above the Lower Barker Dam. ABF flows of 108 cfs (0.3 cfsm), 50 cfs (0.14 cfsm) as proposed by the Licensee, and 20 cfs (0.11 cfsm) under the current license, fail to provide sufficient suitable habitat in the bypassed reach.

Recreation Resources

The Licensee proposes no change in its mode of operation that would meaningfully improve recreational opportunities that are impacted adversely by project operations today. Under current license conditions, recreational use of the bypassed reach is severely limited by the lack of any formal access points, the lack of real-time flow information, and the lack of predictable and adequate boatable flows. The Licensee has provided no information with regard to project impacts on recreational boating or angling. While the Licensee acknowledges that there is some angling use in the project boundary, the lack of sufficient flows, access, and passage facilities certainly have an adverse impact. Further, the Licensee has made no attempt to quantify its impact or propose appropriate PM&E measures to mitigate project impacts.

The Licensee has yet to complete the on-water controlled-flow boating study or even attempt to coordinate study preparations with American Whitewater, so we do not know the minimum acceptable or optimal boating flows in the bypassed reach. According to the Licensee, project inflows are less than the generational minimum of 170 cfs (150 cfs plus 20 cfs minimum flows) 22 percent of the time and greater than the generational maximum of 520 cfs (500 cfs plus 20 cfs minimum flows) 35 percent of the time. Project operations likely have an adverse impact on recreational boating opportunities between 43 and 65 percent of the time assuming that optimal boating flows are within the project’s generational capacity. The Licensee states that it is “willing to provide releases in the spring of 2017 for this assessment, provided sufficient riverflow exists during a reasonable time to be in the river.” We recommend that it coordinate its effort with American Whitewater, given our considerable experience with similar controlled-

5 flow studies over a period of over 25 years. We expect that the Licensee will follow all standard methodologies for conducting the study and preparing the study report. The Licensee should also identify an appropriate portage route around the dam whose design is consistent with approved standards for accessible trails.

Project Economics

According to the Licensee, the project has an average annual value of $205,000, including Renewable Energy Credits. The total annual cost to operate the project, including administrative costs, insurance, operations and maintenance, general and other expenses is as follows: 1) administrative costs $42,073.70; 2) insurance $22,456.32; 3) operations and maintenance $143,200.95. Based on this information contained in the DLA, the project loses $2,730.97 annually. These estimates exclude lowered revenue that would result from increasing minimum flows from 20 cfs to 50 cfs as proposed (or more substantially by increasing minimum flow to a more appropriate level as warranted by the results of the instream flow study) or the cost of other PM&E measures that would provide minimum acceptable or optimal boating opportunities that will be identified in the as yet to be conducted controlled-flow recreational boating study. While the Licensee has not disclosed the cost of increasing minimum flows or other PM&E measures, they will likely negatively impact project revenues under any new license granted by FERC.

While the Licensee claims that the Barker Mill Project results in socioeconomic benefits in terms of energy savings and job creation, it does not quantify these supposed benefits in terms of the amount of energy savings or the number of jobs. While the Licensee claims that decommissioning the project would require the replacement of 5,293 MWh through the ISO New England Market whose cost would be significantly higher, it makes no attempt to quantify the replacement costs. FERC cannot meaningfully evaluate the License Application without this data. The Licensee should provide this additional information as part of its Final License Application so that FERC can determine whether relicensing of the Project is in the public interest. Based on the information provided in the DLA, we recommend that the Licensee perform a cost-benefit analysis of project decommissioning.

Conclusion

American Whitewater submits these comments as part of the record for the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project relicensing, and requests that the Licensee revise its Draft License Application and complete the required steps to address the concerns raised. Thank you for considering these comments.

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of January, 2017.

______Bob Nasdor Northeast Stewardship Director American Whitewater 65 Blueberry Hill Lane Sudbury, MA 01776

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 2808 KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to Rule 2010 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, I hereby certify that I have this day caused the foregoing American Whitewater’s Comments in

Response to the Draft License Application and Final Study Report for the Lower Barker

Hydroelectric Project (P-2808) to be served upon each person designated on the official service list compiled by the Secretary in this proceeding.

Dated this 17th day of January 2017.

Megan Hooker American Whitewater

STATE OF MAINE D EPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

PAUL R. LEPAGE PAUL MERCER GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER

January 20, 2017

Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426

RE: FERC 2808, Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project Draft License Application and Final Study Report Comments

Dear Secretary Bose:

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (Department) reviewed the Draft License Application (DLA) and Final Study Report (FSR) submitted to FERC on October 24, 2016 by KEI (Maine) Power Management, Inc. (applicant) for the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project (FERC 2808), located on the Little Androscoggin River within the City of Auburn in Androscoggin County, Maine.

The Lower Barker Project (project) consists of a concrete dam with spillway, non-overflow stop- log and gate sections; a power canal; intake and gatehouse; an underground concrete penstock; a transformer and substation; and a powerhouse containing one turbine generator unit. The dam creates a 16.5-acre reservoir approximately 0.65 miles in length that extends to the base of the Upper Barker Dam, with a maximum storage capacity of 210 acre-feet. The project operates as a run-of-river facility with a continuous minimum flow of 20 cfs conveyed to the bypass reach. The project has a total rated capacity of 1.2 MW, with an average annual system generation of approximately 5,260 MWH although there is considerable variability year to year. The DLA provides detailed information on project structures and operations.

The Department recognizes that the applicant is proposing to increase the existing minimum flow in the bypass reach from 20 cfs to 50 cfs. The applicant is also proposing to upgrade the existing downstream fish passage system to reduce entrainment potential for out-migrating diadromous fish species, although the specific modifications for the fishway are not included in the DLA. There are no additional changes in operations or environmental measures proposed by the applicant in the DLA.

The Department has the following comments on the DLA and FSR:

Water Quality Study Comments

1. The applicant completed several water quality studies in 2015 and 2016 to demonstrate attainment of Maine Water Quality Standards including:

AUGUSTA BANGOR PORTLAND PRESQUE ISLE 17 STATE HOUSE STATION 106 HOGAN ROAD, SUITE 6 312 CANCO ROAD 1235 CENTRAL DRIVE, SKYWAY PARK AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0017 BANGOR, MAINE 04401 PORTLAND, MAINE 04103 PRESQUE ISLE, MAINE 04769 (207) 287-7688 FAX: (207) 287-7826 (207) 941-4570 FAX: (207) 941-4584 (207) 822-6300 FAX: (207) 822-6303 (207) 764-0477 FAX: (207) 760-3143 website: www.maine.gov/dep

Letter to K. Bose January 20, 2017 Page 2 of 9

a. Trophic state study in the Lower Barker impoundment. b. Water temperature and dissolved oxygen study in the Lower Barker bypass and tailrace reaches. c. Benthic macroinvertebrate study in the Lower Barker bypass and tailrace reaches. d. Cross-section flow study in the Lower Barker bypass reach.

These studies were requested by the Department to evaluate current water quality conditions in the Lower Barker project area and determine whether current and proposed project operations meet Maine Water Quality Standards, specifically the designated uses of recreation in and on the water and habitat for fish and other aquatic life, as well as numeric dissolved oxygen (DO) criteria for Class C waters. The DLA and FSR present methodologies, data results, analysis, and discussion on each of the requested studies. The Department reviewed the information submitted by the applicant and has the following comments on the completed water quality studies:

2. Trophic State Study in the Lower Barker Impoundment

The applicant performed trophic state sampling in the Lower Barker impoundment twice per month from June through October 2015. Water quality sampling occurred at the boat barrier, which is approximately 200 feet upstream of the dam and is approximately 13 feet deep. The applicant notes that the deepest location in the impoundment, which is typically the sampling point required by the Department, is 30 feet deep; however, according to the applicant this deep area is located immediately upstream of the dam and was a safety concern. In response to a request by the Department, the applicant provided additional information to justify sampling at the shallower boat barrier location.

The Department recognizes the safety concerns raised by the applicant; however, there is no record of Department staff notification or approval of sampling at this much shallower depth. Given the significantly deeper area near the dam, the Department needs to know the distance from the dam to the slope break shown in photo 1 of the memo submitted by the applicant to the Department. It appears to be a short distance, but no matter how small, the deeper area could be thermally stratified and provide a cooler summer refuge for cold-water fish. Therefore, it is important to know water temperature and DO concentrations in this deep area when the station is generating and when it is not. Knowing the frequency of generation, especially in a summer like last year, might inform the likelihood of the deep water being mixed with surface water and therefore homothermous and oxygenated. Reviewing the FSR, it appears that there is an opportunity to sample the deep area safely from the walkway of the non-overflow stop-log section of the dam (Photo 1, p. 10). Additionally, boating to the area during a period of no flow over the spillway may also be possible.

Analysis of sampling results indicates that the Lower Barker impoundment is mesotrophic to eutrophic. Although Secchi disk transparency was below 2.0 m on several occasions during the study period, chlorophyll-a concentrations indicate no algal blooms occurred that would Letter to K. Bose January 20, 2017 Page 3 of 9

prevent attainment of Maine Water Quality Standards. Impoundment water temperature and DO profiles collected at the boat barrier indicate that the Lower Barker impoundment does not thermally stratify with water temperature and DO concentrations remaining relatively stable throughout the water column. Measured DO concentrations throughout the water column were above 7.5 mg/l for the entire study period; however, sampling did not occur in the deepest area of the impoundment. Additional data is needed to verify attainment of Maine Class C DO criteria in the impoundment.

Based on the results provided by the applicant in the DLA and FSR, the Department concludes that the applicant has provided sufficient information regarding the trophic state of the Lower Barker impoundment but additional information and data collection is warranted for water temperature and DO in the deepest area of the impoundment. The Department will provide guidance to the applicant on collecting this additional data in the summer of 2017.

3. Water Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Study in Bypass and Tailrace Reaches

Water temperature and DO data were collected downstream of the Lower Barker dam in the bypass and tailrace reaches following Department sampling protocols. Water temperature and DO concentrations were measured hourly from July 7 to September 9, 2015 using Onset Hobo data loggers. Results indicate that DO concentrations in the bypass and tailrace reaches exceeded the Maine Class C criteria of 5 mg/l or 60 percent saturation throughout the monitoring period. Additionally, bypass reach DO concentrations surpassed the 30-day average DO criteria of 6.5 mg/l for salmonid spawning areas.

Based on the results and information contained in the DLA and FSR, the Department concludes that the applicant has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the Lower Barker project meets applicable Class C DO criteria downstream of the dam.

4. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Study

The applicant collected benthic macroinvertebrate samples downstream of the Lower Barker dam in the bypass and tailrace reaches following Department sampling protocols. Rock bags were placed at two sites on July 22, 2015 and were left in the river for 27 days (August 18, 2015) to allow colonization. Results indicate that the benthic macroinvertebrate samples exceeded Class C aquatic life standards. The Department’s independent review using a linear discriminant model showed that the community composition meets Class A standards.

Based on the results and information contained in the DLA and FSR, the Department concludes that the applicant has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the benthic macroinvertebrate community in the bypass and tailrace reaches meets and exceeds Class C aquatic life standards.

Letter to K. Bose January 20, 2017 Page 4 of 9

5. Cross-Section Flow Study (Aquatic Habitat Study)

At the request of the resource agencies including the Department, the applicant conducted an instream flow study in the bypass reach to evaluate habitat suitability for brown trout, rainbow trout, and Atlantic salmon under a range of flow releases and to demonstrate attainment of the designated use of habitat for fish and other aquatic life under Maine statute.

The study was completed in two phases. The first phase was completed on July 7, 2015 and involved surveying the bypass reach and mapping aquatic mesohabitats (e.g. pool, riffle, run) based on predominant physical and hydrological characteristics. The results from the phase one study identified three river transects that were representative of the reach as a whole for the second phase of the study. The applicant also established a fourth transect to gage river flows during phase two of the study.

Phase two of the study was completed in June 2016 and involved measuring depth and velocity along each transect at 2 to 4-foot intervals at specified target flows released at the Lower Barker dam. Wetted widths for each transect at each flow were also recorded. Transect 4 was used to verify target flow rates from the dam. The applicant analyzed data to determine total habitat suitability for each flow release for each species and life stage. The applicant also analyzed bankfull wetted width conditions at Transects 2 and 4 to determine which flows wetted at least 75% of the channel. This analysis was completed based on the Department’s rebuttable presumption that a hydropower project demonstrates attainment of the habitat and aquatic life criteria if 75% of the cross-sectional area of the affected river or stream is maintained, as measured at bankfull conditions.1 This guideline may be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine alternative flows under several circumstances, including where available data indicate that flows are insufficient to protect all existing and designated uses.

According to the applicant, results from the bypass reach flow study revealed that the biggest improvements in habitat suitability for the target species occurred up to a river flow of approximately 108 cfs. At higher river flows, habitat suitability did not improve, decreased slightly, or increased at a more gradual rate. The applicant also concluded that a flow of 40 cfs to 45 cfs is expected to keep at least 75% of the bypass reach channel wetted.

The Department does not agree with the applicant’s conclusions. Although depth and velocity data subsequently submitted to the agencies by the applicant shows that 75% of the bankfull width at Transect 4 is wetted at 46 cfs, depths are not adequate for aquatic life and habitat. Department staff analyzed depth and velocity data at all four transects under three scenarios:

1 See Department Rule 06-096 CMR 581(5) Regulations Relating to Water Quality Evaluations - Zone of Passage. Also note that hydropower projects have been found to be discharges for the purpose of 401 certification by the Supreme Court of the United States in S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 547 U.S. 370 (2006). Letter to K. Bose January 20, 2017 Page 5 of 9

 Macroinvertebrate Community: depth ≥ 0.2 ft. and velocity ≥ 0.2 fps  Fish Community Riffle: depth ≥ 0.5 ft.  Fish Community Run: depth ≥ 1.0 ft.

Based on these scenarios, 52 cfs would be required to maintain the macroinvertebrate community and 113 cfs to 280 cfs to maintain the fish community depending on the reach (riffle vs. run). Additionally, Figure 12 (p. 54 of the FSR) depicts the habitat suitability curves for Atlantic salmon, brown trout, and rainbow trout based on the bypass reach flow study. It is evident from the graph that habitat suitability for spawning adult Atlantic salmon, brown trout, and rainbow trout increases considerably from 46 cfs to 108 cfs and continues to increase at a reasonable rate up to 175 cfs (interpolated).

Based on the Department’s review of the study results and the depth and velocity data subsequently provided by the applicant, the Department does not agree that increasing the bypass reach flow from 20 cfs to 50 cfs meets Maine’s habitat and aquatic life criteria as proposed by the applicant. Based on the Department’s analysis, the Department will require that the applicant release at least 113 cfs into the bypass reach and may propose higher flows after consultation with the other resource agencies.

General Comments

DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION

Exhibit A

6. Section 2.6.3 - Intake, Canal, and Penstock (p. 2-10): Footnote 3 is incomplete.

Exhibit E

7. Section 2.6 – Proposed Environmental Measures (p. 2-8): The applicant notes its plan to complete a bathymetric survey in the vicinity of the upstream end of the intake in the fall of 2016 to develop a preliminary design of the downstream fishway modifications. Given that this time has passed, the applicant should submit this data or update this statement.

8. Section 4.1 – General Description of River Basin (p. 4-1): The applicant states the drainage area of the Androscoggin River watershed (3,530 mi2) and the Little Androscoggin River watershed (350 mi2) but does not include the drainage area for the Lower Barker Project. This information should be provided. Given the close proximity to the confluence with the Androscoggin River, it should be relatively similar in size to the Little Androscoggin River watershed drainage area, albeit slightly smaller.

9. Section 4.2.1 – Geographic Scope of Cumulative Effects (p. 4-6): The applicant notes that the geographic scope for each resource may vary, but thereafter does not seem to define the Letter to K. Bose January 20, 2017 Page 6 of 9

scope for each resource in the DLA. The geographic scope of cumulative effects for each resource should be included in the Final License Application (FLA).

10. Section 4.6.1 – Geology and Soils (p. 4-6): The applicant should include maps of local geology and soils within and around the Lower Barker project area in the FLA.

11. Section 4.3.3.1 - Water Quantity (p. 4-11): The applicant states that the drainage area upstream of the dam is approximately 357 mi2; however, as noted in Comment 8, they state that the drainage area for the entire Little Androscoggin River watershed is approximately 350 mi2. Additionally, footnote 1 for Table 4.2 (p. 4-12) lists the drainage area for the Lower Barker dam as 357.4 mi2. The applicant needs to clarify the drainage areas for the total Little Androscoggin River and the Lower Barker Project.

12. Section 4.3.3.1 – Existing Uses of Water (p. 4-13): The applicant notes that there is one active Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit on the Little Androscoggin River (permit ME0100005); however, there are also municipal discharges at South Paris, Norway, Mechanic Falls, and a new discharge permit for the casino in Oxford.

13. Section 4.3.3.1 - Water Quality (p. 4-15): At the request of DEP, the applicant completed trophic, riverine, and benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring during the late spring, summer, and fall of 2015. The last bullet point states the objective of whether the current operating regime and minimum flow requirements are maintaining structure and function of the resident benthic macroinvertebrate community; however, the objective is to see if operations and minimum flows maintain the structure and function of the resident biological community and not just benthic macroinvertebrates.

14. Section 4.3.3.1 – Comparison to Previous Water Quality Data (p. 4-21): The applicant notes that data previously collected by the Department demonstrated that waters upstream of the Lower Barker Project meet Class C standards for DO, pH, and total phosphorus. These are actually criteria and not standards, this language should be updated. Also, there is only a draft criterion for total phosphorus.

15. Section 4.3.3.1 – Benthic Macroinvertebrates (p. 4-21): The applicant needs to clarify sampling Site 2 and the length of the bypass reach. They state that Site 2 is approximately 1,750 ft. downstream of the dam and approximately 400 ft. downstream of the powerhouse (tailrace); however, in section 2.6.5 Bypass Reach and Tailrace (p. 2-14 in Exhibit A) the applicant states that the bypass reach extends approximately 3,000 ft. downstream of the dam with the tailrace located approximately 2,000 ft. downstream of the dam. This does not make sense. The bypass reach should end where the tailrace begins.

16. Section 4.3.3.1 – Habitat and Aquatic Life Criteria (p. 4-22): The applicant only presents wetted width information for two transects (Transects 2 and 4). The applicant subsequently submitted depth and velocity data for all four transects to the resource agencies in January Letter to K. Bose January 20, 2017 Page 7 of 9

2017. The Department requests that data and analysis of the depth and velocity data for all four transects be included in the FLA.

17. Section 4.3.5 – Fish and Aquatic Resources (p. 4-26): The applicant summarizes the diadromous fish species that historically occurred in the watershed and current conditions in the Little Androscoggin and Androscoggin Rivers. Based on the information provided, river herring, American shad, Atlantic salmon, and American eel are present downstream of the Lower Barker dam. The Department notes that any fish species present in the vicinity of the dam need safe, timely, and effective fish passage to meet the State’s designated use for fish habitat. The Department will consult with the resource agencies to determine what species need passage and the timeframe for installing such facilities. Although the applicant proposes to upgrade the existing downstream fish passage system (p. 4-32), there is no mention of upstream fish passage in the DLA.

18. Section 4.3.5.1 Aquatic Habitat (p. 4-37): For the aquatic habitat study there were four transects established, but only two (Transects 2 and 4) were selected by the applicant to demonstrate attainment of Maine Water Quality Standards due to the geometry of the river bank. The Department believes all four transects are valid for analysis. As noted above in Comment 5, Department staff analyzed all four transects to calculate flows that meet habitat criteria under three scenarios.

19. MDEP Wetted Cross Section Width (p. 4-39): Table 4-16 (p. 4-40) is not useful without the depth/velocity and wetted width data collected at each transect. As noted in Comment 12, this data should be included for all four transects in the FLA.

20. MDEP Wetted Cross Section Width (p. 4-42): The applicant states that “Table 4-15 shows the timeframe that target species and life stages would be expected to occur in the bypassed reach…”; however, Table 4-15 does not show this. Table 4-15 reflects the habitat suitability for target species based on the flow study. This should be corrected and the referenced table should be included in the FLA.

21. Benthic Macroinvertebrates (p. 4-43): A summary table or tables should be provided in the FLA.

22. Section 5.0 Economic “Nalysis” (p. 5-1): There is a typo in the heading, it should read “Analysis” not “Nalysis”.

The economic analysis in this section does not match what is listed in Exhibit A. The applicant should update this information so the two sections are consistent.

As noted in previous comments, the minimum bypass flow required by the Department will be at least 113 cfs and potentially greater. Additionally, upstream eel and fish passage facilities/operations will also be required. Section 5.4 should be updated to analyze the effects of PM&E measures on the value of power generated by the project. Letter to K. Bose January 20, 2017 Page 8 of 9

23. Section 6.0 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans (p. 6-1): There is a typo in the second paragraph, “Williams Project’ should be “Lower Barker Project”.

24. Appendix B – Flow Duration Curves: The applicant should include lines depicting the minimum and maximum hydraulic capacity flows (150 and 500 cfs) in the flow duration curves. The Y-axis may need to be adjusted for individual duration curves to better show the hydraulic capacity flow range.

Exhibit G

25. The bypass reach should be included in the Project Boundary.

FINAL STUDY REPORT

26. Figure 2 (p. 9): Figure 2 did not display properly. The applicant needs to correct this in the FLA.

27. Figure 3 (p. 20): Water temperature in the tailrace was lower in July than the bypass reach but then water temperatures in the two reaches were relatively the same from the end of July through the rest of the study period. The applicant should provide an explanation on this temperature difference at the beginning of the study period.

28. Section 2.3.4.2 Dissolved Oxygen: the applicant mentions that some erratic DO measurements (values between 4.5 and 7.0 mg/l) occurred in the bypass reach dataset from August 12 at 8:00 pm to August 13 at 4:00 pm. The applicant states that bio-fouling, sedimentation, and/or equipment malfunction were the likely causes of the erratic measurements and removed the data from the final dataset. This data as well as all the raw data needs to be submitted to the Department.

29. Section 5.3.2 Results (p. 52): In bullet point 4, the applicant notes the flow of 108 cfs is actually 100 cfs plus leakage. Where is the leakage coming from? Is the leakage present at all flows? The note on leakage is only included for the 108 cfs flow, which seems odd. The applicant needs to clarify the effect of leakage on all flow releases.

30. Appendix A: Transect 4 photographs for each flow release are not included. The applicant should include these photographs in the FLA.

Other Comments

31. The FLA should include final reports and data summaries for all of the studies requested by stakeholders.

Letter to K. Bose January 20, 2017 Page 9 of 9

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DLA and FSR. Feel free to contact me at [email protected] or (207) 441-1732 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Michael O’Connor Licensing Project Manager Bureau of Land Resources Maine Department of Environmental Protection

cc: Lewis Loon, Sherri Loon (KEI) Gail Wippelhuaser, Paul Christman (MDMR) John Perry, Jim Pellerin (MDIFW) Antonio Bentivoglio, Steven Shepard, Bryan Sojkowski (USFWS) Bill McDavitt, Bjorn Lake (NOAA) Andy Qua, Jesse Wechsler (Kleinschmidt)

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Ecological Services Maine Field Office 306 Hatchery Road East Orland, Maine 04431 Telephone: 207/469-7300 Fax: 207/902-1588 January 20, 2017 Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20426

RE: Comments on the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2808) Draft License Application

Dear Ms. Bose:

These are the comments of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regarding the KEI Power Management LLC (KEI or Licensee) Draft Application for a New License (DLA) for the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2808). The Service received the DLA on October 14, 2016 with a 90-day due date of January 22, 2017.

Project Description

The Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project (Project) is located near the City of Auburn in Androscoggin County, Maine. The Project is located on the Little Androscoggin River approximately 2,000 feet upstream of the river’s confluence with the Androscoggin River. The Project consists of a concrete dam with spillway, non-overflow stoplog and gate sections, a power canal with an intake and gate house, an underground concrete penstock, a transformer and substation, and a powerhouse containing one turbine. Starting from river-right to river-left there is the power canal, the 61 foot long non-overflow sections with stop-logs used to supply the required 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) minimum flow, a central 125 foot long spillway topped with 14-inch flashboards, and a waste gate section with two 8 feet high by 10 feet wide waste gates. The power canal is equipped with a gate house which has trashracks with 2-inch clear spacing. The project powerhouse is approximately 2000 feet downstream of the dam which creates a bypass channel that bifurcates with both channels totaling approximately 3800 feet.

The Project operates as a run-of-river facility with a continuous minimum flow of 20 cfs conveyed to the bypass reach. The existing turbine has a minimum hydraulic capacity of 150 cfs and a maximum hydraulic capacity of 500 cfs which a nameplate capacity of 1.2MW.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION

1. Exhibit A

Page 2-2. Section 2.2.2 Proposed Project Operations

The Licensee is proposing to increase the existing minimum flow from 20 to 50 cfs to the bypassed reach. The Service requests additional flow in the bypass reach. As stated in our July 18, 2014 letter, the Service released the Interim New England Flow Policy for New England Stream Flow Recommendations (Stream Flow Policy) on February 13, 1981. This Stream Flow Policy was developed due to the need for instream flow criteria to sustain indigenous aquatic organisms throughout the year and established flow recommendations at water projects in New England.

The Stream Flow Policy states: a) Where a minimum of 25 year of U.S Geological Survey gaging records exist at or near a project site on a river that is basically free-flowing, the Service shall recommend that the Aquatic Base Flow release for all times of the year be equivalent to the median August flow for the period of record unless superseded by spawning and incubation flow recommendations. The Service shall recommend flow releases equivalent to the historical median stream flow throughout the applicable spawning and incubation periods. b) For rivers where inadequate flow records exist or for rivers regulated by dams or upstream diversions, the Service shall recommend that the aquatic base flow release be 0.5 cubic feet per second per square mile of drainage, as derived from the average of the median August monthly records for the representative New England stream. The 0.5 cubic feet per second per square mile shall apply to all times of the year, unless superseded by spawning and incubation flow recommendations. The Service shall recommend flow release of 1.0 cfs per square mile in the fall/winter and 4.0 cfs per square mile in the spring for the entire applicable spawning and incubation periods.

The Little Androscoggin River watershed is 352 square miles. Using the part (b) formula, because river is regulated, the minimum aquatic base flow should be 176 cubic feet per second in the bypass reach. Habitat in this reach could prove suitable for spawning adults and outmigrating juvenile diadromous species. The bypass reach minimum flow should be reevaluated with current management priorities in mind.

Page 2-2. Section 2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures

The Licensee is proposing to upgrade the existing downstream fish passage system to reduce entrainment potential for outmigrating diadromous fish species. We support the Licensee in this endeavor, look forward to working with the Licensee during the design, construction, and monitoring phases of this project, and offer the following recommendations:

• Appropriate attraction flow for the downstream fish passage system is needed. A minimum of 5 percent of station capacity is recommended to pass through the downstream bypass, 25 cfs for this site. • Outmigrating adults and juveniles must be diverted away from the power canal by means of an angled or inclined bar rack with 0.75 inch clear spacing. Details of the downstream bypass should be approved by Service engineering. • The hydraulic conditions at the entrance to the downstream bypass must be appropriate so outmigrants commits to using it. Service engineering recommends geometry similar to the NU-Alden weir which induces a uniform acceleration rate over the length of the bypass. • The downstream bypass must be safe, timely, and effective in passing outmigrants. This entails normal velocities (normal to the face of the intake racks or screens within the power canal) to be less than two feet per second to avoid impingement and sweeping velocities (parallel to the rack) that are equal to or greater than the normal velocity. Location and total flow are additional parameters that will affect the overall efficiency of the bypass. • The existing bedrock channel for outmigrants must be evaluated for passage safety and where appropriate changes made to prevent injury. The openings for the downstream bypass should be of sufficient depth and allow for enough volume to safely move fish into the tailrace without risk of injury.

The Licensee does not propose any environmental measures to protect upstream migrants. Currently diadromous species (Atlantic salmon, alewife, blueback herring, American shad, American eel, and sea lamprey) have the ability to reach the Project due to fishways at the three lower dams. There are also resident species (brook trout, brown trout, rainbow trout, and white suckers) that migrate within the river system.

The Service notes that the previous license issued, March 2, 1979, states;

The Little Androscoggin River was noted for large runs of Atlantic salmon, alewife, and shad until Barker’s Mill dam was built in 1874. State and federal agencies indicated that the river has potential for future anadromous fish runs once water quality improves6 and fish passage facilities are installed at the downstream Brunswick Project. A fishway may thus be needed at Project No 2808 (Lower Barker) in the next 5 to 10 years.

The FERC footnote 6 states that the, “river has been classified as suitable for fish and wildlife habitation”. Since 1979, fishways have been built at the three lower dams; Brunswick (1982), Pejepscot (1987), and Worumbo (1988). As such the Service will prescribe upstream fish passage measures at the Project under our Federal Power Act authorities.

Page 2-5. Section 2.3 Average Annual Generation

The DLA states that the plant factor is 49 percent and provides an equation showing how this number was derived. The equation on p. 2-5 results in a plant factor of 0.61 (61 percent) which does not agree with the aforementioned value. In addition, the equation uses 6,393,000 kWH/year which is the annual generation for 2013 but the text states that the average of 2003 and 2012 was used, which would be 5,183,200 kWH/year. If the value of 5,183,200 kWH/year

is used within the equation, the plant factor is 49 percent as noted. The Service recommends using the information provided on p. 2-2, which says that the average annual generation from 2003-2015 was 5,259,000 MWH/year. Please recalculate the equation on p. 2-5 and the plant factor.

The Service notes that the Licensee is changing the turbine, and therefore station capacities, and this information is not included in the DLA. The DLA was sent to the agencies on October 14, 2016, and on November 28, 2016, the Licensee informed FERC that they were proposing to replace the existing turbine. The relevant information for the new turbine is that the minimum hydraulic capacity is 80 cfs (vs 150 cfs) and a maximum hydraulic capacity of 500 cfs. The Service recommends making these changes and updating the document where appropriate (ex: Exhibit A Section 5.0 Value of Project Power, Exhibit E Section 2.4 Proposed Project Facilities).

Page 2-6. Section 2.5.2 River Flow Data

Please correct the river flow data provided in this section as the Service believes it is inaccurate. In addition, since these numbers are inaccurate please check data in Table 2-1, 2-2, and Appendix B Flow Duration Curves, Exhibit E Section 4.1 General Description of the River Basin, for accuracy and update the document as appropriate.

The Service also concurs with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) comments regarding highly variable results using the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) South Paris gage No. 01057000. This gage is approximately 46 miles upstream from the Project. An alternative is to use USGS gage No. 01058500 which was less than a mile from the Project, however, this gage was discontinued in 1982. Because of the lack of a gaging station in close proximity to the lower Little Androscoggin river the Service recommends either contracting with the USGS to reestablish the USGS gage in Auburn (gage No 01058500) or install appropriate instrumentation to be able to provide accurate flow statistics (similar to what USGS collects) at the Project. Location of instrumentation should be coordinated and approved by Service personnel.

2. Exhibit E

Page 4-42. The Licensee correctly states the Services July 18, 2014, recommendation of 176 cfs as the minimum bypass flow derived by multiplying the area upstream of the dam (352 square miles) by 0.5 cfs to produce 176 cfs. However, the Licensee also states that, “the August median flow statistic relied on by the Service is 0.28 cfs per square mile of drainage for the Lower Androscoggin River”. The Service’s 1981 ABF policy is clear: “For rivers where inadequate flow records exist or for rivers regulated by dams or upstream diversions, the Service shall recommend that the aquatic base flow release by 0.5 cfs per square mile of drainage.” There are 4 operating hydro projects above Lower Barker (Upper Barker FERC No. 3562, Hackett Mills FERC No. 6398, Marcal FERC No. 11482, and Biscoe Falls). The river is regulated. For these cases the Service used 0.5 cfs multiplied by the area above the dam.

Page 4-45. Due to the low numbers of American eels observed during the survey in 2016 the Licensee is not proposing to install upstream eel passage at this juncture. American eels have access to the Project area and thus should be allowed to pass upstream. Presence of eel fishways

on dams has increased eel abundance in these watersheds in the last decade (Shepard, 2015). The Service will prescribe upstream eel passage measures at the Project under our Federal Power Act authorities.

3. Additional InformationRequest

Section 2. 7 states that the costs to upgrade the downstream fishpassage system have not been developed and the Licensee does not plan to install upstream passage. The Service supports NOAA's request foran assessment of Fish Passage Alternatives. The goal of the requested study is to assess the feasibilityand costs of improving fishpassage, survival, and efficiencyfor alewife, blueback herring, American shad, American eel, sea lamprey, and Atlantic salmon at the Project through an analysis of design alternatives. The results of this study will help determine the best method (fish passage location and type, trapping and trucking, dam removal) for passing fish upstream and downstream at this site.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Lower Baker DLA. Please contact Antonio Bentivoglio at 207/781-8364 Extension 18 or by email at [email protected] you have any questions.

Anna Harris Project Leader Maine Field Office cc: Gail Wipplehauser, MaineDMR-Augusta, Maine Jim Pellerin, MDIFW- William McDavitt, NOAA-Gloucester, MA Kathy Howatt, MaineDEP, Augusta, Maine

REFERENCES Shepard, Steve. 2015. American eel biological species report. U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Hadley, Massachusetts. xii+120 pages.

5 STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF INLAND FISHERIES & WILDLIFE 284 STATE STREET 41 STATE HOUSE STATION

PAUL R. LEPAGE AUGUSTA ME 04333-0041 CHANDLER E. WOODCOCK GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER

VIA ELECTRONIC FILING

January 21, 2017

Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426

Subject: Comments on the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2808) Draft License Application

Dear Secretary Bose:

The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) received and reviewed a Draft License Application for the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2808) dated October 24, 2016. MDIFW is a cabinet level agency of the State of Maine, and under Maine State Law (12 MRSA, §10051) MDIFW’s mandate is “ …to preserve, protect, and enhance the inland fisheries and wildlife resources of the State; to encourage the wise use of these resources; to ensure coordinated planning for the future use and preservation of these resources; and to provide for effective management of these resources .” Based on our statutory responsibility we have prepared the following comments and recommendations.

COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION (DLA)

Wildlife Concerns

Our Agency has not identified any wildlife concerns associated with the operations of this Project.

Inland Fisheries Concerns

Exhibit A

Section 2.2.2 and Section 2.2.3: The licensee is proposing to increase minimum flow in the bypass reach from 20 cfs to 50 cfs. It is MDIFW’s position that the proposed minimum flow provisions of 50 cfs in the bypass reach are inadequate for resident fish and aquatic resources, and would not fully support any stocking programs that may be initiated by the MDIFW. Therefore, MDIFW requests additional flow in the bypass reach.

Recommended aquatic base flow calculations for regulated rivers (0.5 cfs/mi 2 of drainage) suggest a minimum flow of 176 cfs would be more appropriate for the bypass reach. In addition, Table 22 of the Bypass Minimum Flow Study submitted by the licensee indicates fairly large increases in habitat suitability for adult salmonids up to 175 cfs with only minimal incremental gains in suitability above 175 cfs. The proposed minimum flows should be reevaluated to reflect current resident and diadromous fish management needs.

PHONE: FISH AND WILDLIFE ON THE WEB: EMAIL ADDRESS: (207) 287-5254 www.maine.gov/ifw [email protected]

Letter to Secretary Bose Comments RE: MDIFW Comments on the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2808) Draft License Application January 21, 2017

Section 2.2.3 and Section 2.6.7: The licensee is proposing to upgrade the existing downstream fish passage system, but proposes no upstream fish passage facilities. MDIFW will defer to the other State and Federal resource agencies in regards to fish passage for diadromous fish, and we will support their recommendations.

Exhibit E

Section 2.5 and Section 2.6: Similar issues and responses to those discussed in Exhibit A above.

Section 4.1, Table 4-1: The table appears to have several discrepancies or inconsistencies. For example, while it includes the dam on Hicks Pond, there is no mention of the dam in Paris as well as other lake dams in the drainage.

Section 4.3.5, Page 4-27: Pleasant Pond and Sabbathday Lake are not in the Little Androscoggin River drainage. This should be corrected.

Section 4.3.5, Page 4-33 and Table 4-12: The document states that “MDIFW stocked approximately 22,000 brown trout and rainbow trout in 2013 and 2014 at Mechanic Falls, Auburn, and Minot to support angling opportunities in the Little Androscoggin River (Table 4-12).” These numbers are incorrect and should be corrected. In 2013 and 2014, 2,450 rainbow trout where stocked by MDIFW each year.

Section 4.3.11.1, Page 4-69: The document states that “KEI (Maine) permits public use of the project land and waters for recreation; however, there are no formal recreation facilities within the project boundary. KEI (Maine) has limited ownership of the lands surrounding the Project. The lands surrounding the Project structures are densely forested with a steep and rocky ravine leading down to the water. According to an Environmental Inspection Report conducted by FERC on September 15, 2009, there is "little potential for recreational opportunities" (FERC, 2011) at the project site....” Furthermore, it goes on to state that “The trail provides a walking and biking path, shoreline access to the impoundment for angling, and an informal hand-carry boat launch; an informal trail provides access to the tailwater and bypassed reach immediately downstream of the dam (Figure 4-5, Photo 4-1, Photo 4-2, and Photo 4-3).”

Access to surface waters of the State and their fishery resources are important State and Department goals. As development pressures and the human population increase, public access opportunities to water resources diminishes, while the demand for water-based outdoor activities continues to climb. This scenario is particularly prevalent in southern Maine.

In Maine, MDIFW stocks coldwater species at many bypass and tailrace areas associated with hydropower projects across the State when public access and minimum flows are suitable to support stocking programs. These stockings are typically very popular and can provide seasonal or year-round angling for coldwater or resident warmwater fish species close to developed communities where stream fishing opportunities are otherwise often limited. In addition, hydropower impoundments offer recreational boating and angling for resident warmwater species.

Consequently, MDIFW requests formal access improvements including: (1) adequate signage, parking and foot access provisions to the tailrace/bypass area; and that (2) the existing hand-carry boat launch at the impoundment should be more formal with appropriate signage and parking. We request that the applicant should work with MDIFW to ensure any access improvements made by the licensee are suitable.

Page 2 of 3

Letter to Secretary Bose Comments RE: MDIFW Comments on the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2808) Draft License Application January 21, 2017

To help ensure that our Agency responds in a timely manner, all future general electronic correspondence should be sent to [email protected] . Alternatively, though not preferred, mailings and notifications can be sent to:

Environmental Review Coordinator Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 284 State Street, 41 SHS Augusta, ME 04333-0041

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft License Application for the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project. If you have any specific questions, please feel free to contact me directly by phone at 207-287-5254 or by email at [email protected].

Best regards,

John Perry Environmental Review Coordinator

Cc: James Pellerin--MDIFW Region A Fisheries Division, Gray Francis Brautigam--MDIFW Augusta Headquarters Oliver Cox, Gail Wippelhauser--MDMR Kathy Howatt--MDEP Antonio Bentivoglio, Steven Shepard--USFWS Sean McDermott--NMFS

Page 3 of 3

Form Date Week/Weekend Monitors Initials Form Weather Start Form Weather End Form Time # Vehicles # People Activity Wunderground weather

4/5/2014 Weekday B. Foss Sunny/Windy Sunny/ Windy 5Pm 1 1 Fishing O.cast 4/16/2014 --- B. Foss Partly sunny Partly sunny 3:00 PM 1 2 Fishing Clear 4/17/2014 Weekday B Partly sunny Partly sunny ---- 0 0 Clear 4/18/2014 Weekend B Cloudy Cloudy ---- 0 0 Clear 4/19/2014 Weekend B Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 4/20/2014 Weekday B Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear 4/21/2014 --- B Partly sunny Partly sunny --- 0 0 Clear 4/22/2014 Weekday B Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 Clear 4/23/2014 Weekday B Light showers Light showers --- 0 0 O.cast 4/24/2014 --- B ------0 0 O.cast 4/25/2014 --- B Partly sunny Partly sunny --- 0 0 Clear 4/27/2014 --- B Partly sunny Partly sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 4/28/2014 --- B Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 4/30/2014 --- B Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 O.cast

5/1/2014 Weekday B. Foss Partly sunny Partly sunny PM 0 5 Walking 2 dogs O.cast 5/1/2014 --- B. Foss Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 5/3/2014 --- B Partly sunny Partly sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 5/6/2014 --- B Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 Mostly cloudy 5/7/2014 --- B ------0 0 Clear 5/8/2014 Weekday B Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 O.cast 5/10/2014 Weekend B Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 5/12/2014 Weekday B Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 5/13/2014 Weekday B Cloudy/Light showers Light showers --- 0 0 O.cast 5/14/2014 Weekday B Partly sunny Partly sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 5/15/2014 Weekday B Partly sunny Partly sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 5/16/2014 Weekday B Sunny Sunny 4PM 1 1 Fishing O.cast 5/17/2014 Weekend B Light showers Light showers 12:20 PM 1 1 Fishing O.cast 5/18/2014 Weekend B Sunny Sunny AM 1 3 Fishing O.cast 5/19/2014 Weekday B Cloudy Cloudy 11:00 AM 0 0 @ O.cast 5/20/2014 Weekday B Cloudy Cloudy 15:00 0 0 O.cast 5/22/2014 Weekday B Light showers Light showers 15:00 AM 0 0 O.cast 5/23/2014 Weekday B Light showers Light showers 15:00 PM 1 6 children + 1 adult Fishing O.cast 5/24/2014 --- B Partly sunny Partly sunny 8:30 AM 0 0 O.cast 5/26/2014 Weekday B Cloudy Cloudy 9:30 AM 0 0 Mostly cloudy 5/27/2014 Weekday B Light showers Light showers 7:00 AM 0 0 O.cast 5/28/2014 Weekday B Cloudy Cloudy 6:45 0 0 O.cast 5/29/2014 Weekend B Heavy rain Heavy rain 6:45 AM 0 0 Clear 5/30/2014 Weekday B Light showers Light showers 7:00 AM 0 0 Clear 5/31/2014 Weekend B Partly sunny Partly sunny 11:00 0 1 Walking dog O.cast

6/2/2014 Weekday B Sunny Sunny 10:00 0 0 12:15 PM Clear 6/4/2014 Weekday B Cloudy Cloudy 17:00PM O.cast 6/6/2014 Weekday B Partly sunny Partly sunny 13:00 PM 0 0 Mostly cloudy 6/8/2014 Weekend B Sunny Sunny 13:00 0 0 Clear 6/9/2014 Weekday B Sunny Sunny 8:00 AM 0 0 Clear 6/11/2014 Weekday --- Sunny Sunny 9:00AM 0 0 Clear 6/12/2014 Weekday B Light showers Light showers 10:00 AM 0 0 O.cast 6/16/2014 Weekend Partly sunny Partly sunny 12:30 AM 0 0 Clear 6/17/2014 Weekday B Sunny Sunny 13:00 AM 0 0 Clear 6/18/2014 Weekday B. Foss Sunny Sunny 7:30 AM 0 0 Mostly cloudy 6/25/2014 Weekday B Heavy rain Heavy rain 20:00 PM 0 0 O.cast 6/26/2014 Weekday B Light showers Light showers 13:30 PM 1 1 1 O.cast 6/28/2014 Weekend B Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear 6/30/2014 Weekday B Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear

7/1/2014 Weekday B Light showers Light showers 13:00 PM 0 0 O.cast 7/3/2014 --- B Light showers Light showers 15:00 PM 0 0 Partly cloudy 7/4/2014 Weekend --- Heavy rain/Wind Heavy rain/Wind 12:00 AM 0 0 O.cast 7/7/2014 --- B Sunny Sunny 9:00 AM 0 0 Clear 7/10/2014 Weekend B Sunny Sunny 13:00 PM 0 0 Clear 7/12/2014 Weekend B Partly sunny Partly sunny 17:00 PM 0 0 Clear 7/13/2014 Weekend B Sunny Sunny 9:30 AM 0 0 Clear 7/15/-- Weekend B Partly sunny Partly sunny 11:00 PM 0 0 O.cast 7/16/2014 Weekday B Heavy rain Heavy rain 18:00 PM 0 0 O.cast 7/16/2014 Weekday B Cloudy Cloudy 18:00 PM 1 Vehicle + 2 Trailers 2 Fishing Partly cloudy 7/17/2014 Weekday B Partly sunny Partly sunny 11:00 0 0 O.cast 7/20/2014 Weekend B Cloudy Cloudy 12:30 PM 0 1 Man + 2 Children 1 O.cast 7/21/2014 Weekday B Sunny Sunny 10:30 0 0 Clear 7/22/2014 Weekday B Sunny Sunny 10:30 AM 1 2Men Clear 7/22/2014 --- B Sunny Sunny 10:30 AM 0 0 Clear 7/23/2014 Weekday B Sunny Sunny 12:30 PM 1 1 1 Clear 7/24/2014 --- B Sunny Sunny 14:00 PM 0 0 O.cast 7/27/2014 Weekend B. Foss Cloudy Light showers 12:30 PM 0 0 O.cast 7/28/2014 Weekday B. Foss Heavy rain Heavy rain 9:00 AM 0 0 O.cast

8/1/2014 --- B. Foss ------13:00 PM 0 0 Partly cloudy 8/12/2014 Weekday Jerry Partly sunny Partly sunny 7:30 AM 0 0 O.cast 8/13/2014 Weekday Jerry Cloudy Cloudy 7:30 AM 0 0 O.cast 8/14/2014 Weekday Jerry Partly sunny Partly sunny 7:30 AM 0 0 O.cast 8/15/2014 Weekday Jerry Light showers Light showers 3:20 PM 0 0 O.cast 8/16/2014 Weekend Jerry Heavy rain Heavy rain --- 0 0 Mostly cloudy 8/19/2014 Weekend B. Foss Sunny Sunny 9:00 AM 0 0 Clear 8/22/2014 Weekday Jerry Cloudy Cloudy 1:00 PM 0 0 O.cast 8/24/2014 Weekend Jerry Sunny Sunny 10:30 AM 0 0 Clear 8/25/2014 Weekday B. Foss Sunny Sunny 8:00 AM 0 0 Clear 8/29/2014 --- Jerry Partly sunny Partly sunny 14:10 PM 0 0 Clear

9/4/2014 Weekday B. Foss Sunny Sunny 10:30 AM 0 0 Clear 9/8/2014 Weekday --- Sunny Sunny 15:00 PM 0 0 Clear 9/10/2014 Weekday B. Foss Sunny Sunny 12:00 PM 0 0 Mostly cloudy 9/14/2014 Weekend B. Foss Sunny Sunny 12:00 PM 0 0 Clear 9/15/2014 Weekday B. Foss Partly sunny Partly sunny 13:00 PM 0 0 Clear 9/16/2014 Weekday B. Foss Light showers Light showers 13:00 PM 0 0 O.cast 9/17/2014 Weekday Jerry Sunny Sunny 8:00 AM 0 0 Clear 9/18/2014 Weekday Jerry Sunny Sunny 7:30 AM 1 3 2 Sight seeing/Fishing Clear 9/19/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny 13:00 0 2 2 Walking Clear 9/22/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny 12:00 PM 1 1 Walking Clear 9/23/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny 7:00 - 15:00 0 0 Mostly cloudy 9/24/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny 14:00 PM 2 2 2-Fishing Mostly cloudy 9/25/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny 15:50 1 2 2 Clear 9/26/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear 9/29/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Partly sunny Partly sunny --- 0 Clear 9/30/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 O.cast

10/1/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Light showers Cloudy --- 0 0 O.cast 10/2/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 O.cast 10/6/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Partly sunny Sunny --- 0 0 0 Clear 10/17/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Heavy rain Heavy rain --- 0 0 Scattered clouds 10/18/2014 Weekend Philip Humphrey Partly sunny Partly sunny --- 1 1 1 Fishing O.cast 10/20/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Partly sunny Partly sunny --- 0 0 Clear 10/21/2021 Weekday Philip Humphrey Light showers Light showers --- 0 0 O.cast 10/23/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Heavy rain Light showers --- 0 0 O.cast 10/24/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 O.cast 10/25/2014 Weekend Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear 10/27/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 Scattered clouds 10/28/2014 Weekend Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 10/29/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Partly sunny Partly sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 10/30/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 10/31/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Partly sunny --- 0 0 O.cast

11/1/2014 Weekend Philip Humphrey Light showers Light showers --- 2 2 Cars at head gate area O.cast 11/3/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Partly sunny 10:00 AM 1 2 Cars parked, 2 people Clear 11/4/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Partly sunny Sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 11/5/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 Clear 11/6/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 O.cast 11/7/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 O.cast 11/10/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 11/11/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 3 3 Clear 11/12/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 11/13/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny 1:00 PM 1 1 Clear 11/14/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Snow Snow --- 0 0 O.cast 11/17/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Snow Snow 9:30 AM 0 0 O.cast 11/18/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Partly sunny Partly sunny 10:35 AM 0 0 Mostly cloudy 11/19/2014 --- Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny 11:00 AM 1 Green Bus 10 Hiking Clear 11/20/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 11/21/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Mostly cloudy 11/22/2014 Weekend Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 Clear 11/23/2014 Weekend Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Scattered clouds 11/24/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Heavy rain Heavy rain --- 0 0 O.cast 11/25/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 Clear 11/26/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Snow --- 0 0 O.cast 11/28/2014 Holiday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Mostly cloudy

12/1/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 Scattered clouds 12/2/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Partly sunny --- 0 0 Clear 12/3/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Heavy rain Snow --- 0 0 O.cast 12/4/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 Clear 12/5/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 12/8/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear 12/9/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 O.cast 12/10/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy/Heavy rain Cloudy/Light showers --- 0 0 O.cast 12/11/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 O.cast 12/13/2014 Weekend Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 12/15/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 Clear 12/16/2014 Weekday --- Cloudy Cloudy 8:30 AM 1 1 O.cast 12/17/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Heavy rain Heavy rain --- 0 0 O.cast 12/18/2014 --- Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 O.cast 12/19/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 Clear 12/22/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 O.cast 12/23/2014 --- Philip Humphrey Heavy rain Light showers --- 0 0 O.cast 12/26/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear 12/29/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear 12/30/2014 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear

1/2/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 1/5/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear 1/7/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Partly cloudy 1/8/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear 1/11/2015 --- Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 O.cast 1/12/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Snow Snow --- 0 0 O.cast 1/13/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear 1/16/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy 1:00 0 2 2 People sliding O.cast 1/19/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 O.cast 1/21/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear 1/22/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear 1/30/2015 --- Philip Humphrey Snow Snow --- 0 0 O.cast

2/2/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Snow Snow --- 0 0 O.cast 2/6/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 O.cast 2/13/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear 2/20/2015 --- Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 O.cast 2/23/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear 2/25/2015 --- Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 Clear 2/27/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear

3/2/2015 --- Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 O.cast 3/3/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear 3/4/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Cloudy Cloudy --- 0 0 Partly cloudy 3/5/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear 3/6/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Clear 3/9/2015 Weekday Philip Humphrey Sunny Sunny --- 0 0 Mostly cloudy

National Marine Fisheries Service's Comments on KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC Draft License Application for the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2808)

January 23, 2017 On October 24, 2016, KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC filed a draft license application (DLA) for a new major license at the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project on the Little Androscoggin River in Maine. Below are our comments on the DLA. We also include our key observations from our fishway passage engineer’s 2016 inspection to provide context to our comments. Lastly, we are including an additional information request.

1. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT LICENSE APPLICATION 1.1 Exhibit A Section 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. The Licensee proposes to increase the minimum flow to 50 cfs in the bypass reach. Current operation of the facility discharges bypass flows through the downstream fish bypass system. Additional flow will need to be provided for the bypass reach through the downstream fish bypass system. The downstream fish bypass should accommodate 5 to 10% of the high design flow for the fish passage measure (NMFS 2011). The high design flow is the mean daily average streamflow that is exceeded 5% of the time during periods when migrating fish are present at the site. Diadromous species currently present upstream of the site are alewife and American eel. After upstream fish passage is provided at the site, we anticipate American shad, blueback herring, sea lamprey, and Atlantic salmon will also be present upstream from the project. This diverse array of diadromous species requires downstream passage through most of the year. Therefore, the high design flow for downstream fish passage is the annual 5% exceedance flow of 2,048 cfs. As a result, the downstream fish bypass should convey a minimum of 102.4 cfs to 205 cfs to the bypass reach.

Section 2.2.3. The Licensee proposes to upgrade the existing downstream fish bypass system to minimize entrainment of diadromous species at the project. We commend the Licensee for being proactive with regards to the protection of emigrating diadromous species. We look forward to working with the Licensee during the design, construction, and monitoring phases of this downstream fish bypass project. Properly designed, the proposed upgrade could remedy the following existing deficiencies with the downstream fish bypass system:

 Appropriate attraction flow (see preceding paragraph),  Entrainment prevention by constructing an angled or inclined bar rack with 0.75 inch clear spacing in the power canal,  Improved hydraulic conditions at the bypass entrance to commit downstream migrants,  Safe, timely, and effective conveyance to the bypass reach, and  Adequate plunge pool depth and discharge height at the downstream fish bypass exit.

The Licensee does not propose environmental measures for the protection of upstream migrating fish. We intend to prescribe upstream fish passage measures at the Lower Barker Project under our Federal Power Act authority. The previous license for the Lower Barker project was issued in 1979, before upstream fish passage measures were installed at the lower Androscoggin River mainstem dams. Presently, the three lowermost Androscoggin River mainstem dams have functioning fishways. Diadromous species have access to the Little Androscoggin River to the base of the Lower Barker Project, and will need safe, timely and effective passage to provide access to habitat in the Little Androscoggin River, above the Lower Barker project.

Page 2-5. The calculation for the plant factor appears to be in error. The text says that the calculated plant factor is 49% for the period 2003-2012, but the equation shows a calculation of 61%. The cited annual generation for 2013 appears to have been used, not the average of the period of 2003-2012. Using the full period available in the license application (2003-2013), we estimate the plant factor to be 50%. Given that, on average, the plant doesn’t operate 50% of the time. The project seems to be an insignificant regional power supplier. This will need to be considered in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) assessment when evaluating nonenergy, social and environmental interests.

Page 2-8. Little information is provided about the dam. The report does not indicate the structural condition of the dam. The facilities are in such condition that we are concerned about the long term viability of the project

Section 2.3 (Average Annual Generation) The Licensee states that flow for the project was calculated using data from U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage No. 01057000. We conducted an independent hydrologic analysis and determined that proration of that gage data resulted in high variability. USGS gage No. 01057000 is located in the upper watershed whereas the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project is in the lower watershed. Between the two locations, there are numerous lakes and ponds that attenuate precipitation events such that a direct proration may not be reflective of flow at Lower Barker. We recommend using the daily flow data from the decommissioned USGS gage No. 01058500 for future historical hydrologic analyses.

Section 2.6 Project Structures. The footnotes on page 2-10 and 2-12 have typographical errors.

Section 4.3 Proposed Action and Action Alternatives, Page 4-11. The draft application states that “KEI (Maine) is typically able to generate electricity approximately 78 percent of the year, assuming a normal water year.” This statement is belied by the earlier mention of the low plant factor. This 78% estimate does not account for the reliability of the existing equipment. We anticipate an increase in the minimum bypass flow which will lower the percent of time the project will be able to operate. Plus, precipitation event patterns are changing in the northeast. We are experiencing more intense events followed by longer periods of dry. This change in the availability of water will affect Project generation.

As cited on page 4-28, “In 2015, 18 American shad were passed at the Worumbo Project…” and “MDMR documented one adult Atlantic salmon and some spawning habitat in the bypassed reach below the Lower Barker dam…” Later (page 4-31), the application starts to formulate the argument that the number of eels surveyed below the dam (44) is very low. The access and documented presence of multiple diadromous species below the dam should be used to compel upstream passage. The Worumbo Project (FERC # 3428) on an annual basis has submitted reports to FERC that include annual passage numbers for American shad, Atlantic salmon and river herring. Based on these filings, we know that diadromous fish have unimpeded access to the base of the Barker Lower Project. We anticipate that with a greater minimum flow requirement in the bypass reach, use of the bypass channel’s habitat by diadromous fish will increase.

1.2 Exhibit E Section 1.2 Statutory and Regulatory Requirements, Page 1-3. The Licensee does not mention that the project is located in Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Atlantic salmon under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Instead, the Licensee mentions the existence of critical habitat for Atlantic salmon in the Androscoggin River. Though the Lower Androscoggin River is designated critical habitat, the Lower Barker project is located outside of the designated critical habitat in the Little Androscoggin River. Therefore, Section 7 consultation (Section 1.2.2) is not required, but EFH consultation between the Commission and us is necessary for licensure of the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project.

Section 2.1 Project Description, Page 2-2, First Bullet – We note an inconsistency with the length of the penstock throughout the draft license application.

Section 2.3 Existing Project Operations, Page 2-7. This section indicates that minimum flow is provided by spill. It also indicates that outside of the downstream fish passage season, the minimum flow is conveyed through the gates. The means for providing the minimum flow should be clarified.

Section 2.5 Proposed Project Operations, Page 2-8. The Project will continue to provide flows through the stop log section as a downstream fish passage measure. Based on our observations of the condition at the stop log bays, these do not provide safe timely and effective passage.

Section 4.3 Proposed Acton and Action Alternatives, Page 4-9. The Licensee claims that providing a minimum flow will minimize erosion in downstream reaches within the Project boundary. We are unclear how a minimum flow requirement has any bearing on erosion occurring in downstream reaches.

Page 4-11. The first sentence of the last paragraph has a typographical error – ‘monthly inflows’ should be ‘annual inflows’.

Section 4.3.5.1. Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) was historically distributed in the Androscoggin River watershed (Beamish 1980) and should be included in the list of diadromous species.

Page 4-31. American eel are acknowledged to be present at the site and do attempt to pass the dam. We disagree with the Licensee’s assertion that the numbers are too low for installation of an eel ladder. We intend to prescribe upstream fish passage measures for American eel under our Federal Power Act authority. The Licensee should plan on implementing both interim and permanent measures during the new license. In addition, the report notes that the survey was “along the downstream face of the dam and spillway, the spill gates, and the bedrock outcrops downstream of the dam”. The tailrace should have been included in the survey. If eels are falsely attracted to the tailrace, this can cause delay and impede upstream migration. Attraction to the powerhouse tailrace could lead to an adverse effect of the Project that is not being documented.

Page 4-32. The Fish Passage sub-section describes the existing downstream fish passage measures at the project and the need for improvements to accomplish safe, timely, and effective downstream fish passage at the project. We concur and appreciate the willingness to rectify the situation.

Page 4-42. The report states: “The results of the instream flow study demonstrate that the biggest improvements in habitat suitability in the bypassed reach for Atlantic salmon, brown trout and rainbow trout occur up to a river flow of approximately 100 cfs (plus leakage).” However, Figure 4-3 suggests that a better flow for salmon is 175 cfs, which is also a plateau for rainbow trout and brown trout. In addition, the narrative on page 4-38 indicates that a flow of 175 cfs provides 99 to 100 percent of the available aquatic habitat for Atlantic salmon fry and parr, 90.5 percent for adult salmon. A flow of 46 cfs reduces the available habitat to 82 to 90 percent for salmon fry and parr and only 20 percent for adult salmon.

Based on the bypass reach habitat suitability shown in Table 4-15, a minimum bypass reach flow of 175 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, to maximize benefits to all life stages of Atlantic salmon is the most appropriate for environmental and management interests. The bypass reach minimum flow can be provided through the combination of the improved downstream fish passage measure and the installed upstream anadromous fish passage measure. The 175 cfs minimum flow is consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife aquatic base flow guidelines described on Page 4-42.

Page 4-43. The application suggests that a bypass minimum flow should be tied to management actions, specifically “…if salmon restoration is successful at some point in the future and if MDIFW stocks the reach in the future…” While the bypass reach is not designated as critical habitat for listed Atlantic salmon, salmon have access to the bypass reach and the bypass reach

provides important habitat for downstream migration of silver eels and stocked alewife.

Page 4-43. The Licensee incorrectly cites our EFH description for Atlantic salmon (NMFS 1998) and the online mapping tool (NMFS 2016). The NOAA EFH description states, “Atlantic salmon EFH includes all aquatic habitats in the watersheds of the identified rivers, including all tributaries, to the extent that they are currently or were historically accessible for salmon migration.” The Little Androscoggin River is the largest tributary to the Androscoggin River which is listed in the EFH designation and does not have a natural barrier until Snow Falls, approximately 50 miles upstream from the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project. Therefore, the project encompasses Atlantic salmon EFH that is both currently and historically accessible.

Page 4-45. The application states “Due to the overall low numbers of American eels in the lower Androscoggin River and as documented during 2015 eel monitoring, KEI (Maine) is proposing no upstream eel passage at this juncture.” We disagree with Licensees finding that upstream eel passage is not warranted at this juncture. American eel have access to the Project area. There is no biological basis for creating an arbitrary trigger for eel passage that may be adversely affected by project effects such as unnaturally low flow in the bypass.

Section 5.3 Value of Power Generated by the Project, Page 5-1. The average value of the project is listed at $207,400, yet in Exhibit A the average value is $205,000. Based on the pending prescription for both upstream and downstream fish passage at the project, we recommend a full fish passage feasibility study that quantifies the effect of PM&E measures on the value of the project (see AIR, Section 3).

Section 6 Consistency with Comprehensive Plans, Page 6-1. The text is referring to the Williams Project when it should be referring to the Lower Barker project.

1.3 Exhibit H Pages 2-8 and 2-10 through 2-12, the Licensee lists the following comprehensive plans recognized by the FERC.

 Maine Atlantic Sea-Run Salmon Commission, Management of Atlantic salmon in the State of Maine: A Strategic Plan – July 1984.  Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 1999. Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring. (Report No. 35). April 1999.  Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000. Technical Addendum 1 to Amendment 1 of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring. February 9, 2000.  Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2009. Amendment 2 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring, Arlington, Virginia. May 2009.

 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2010. Amendment 3 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring, Arlington, Virginia. February 2010.  Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. 2000. Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American eel (Anguilla rostrata). (Report No. 36). April 2000.  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Atlantic salmon restoration in New England: Final environmental impact statement 1989-2021. Department of the Interior, Newton Corner, Massachusetts. May 1989.

Each of these comprehensive plans lists impaired aquatic connectivity as a cause of diminished populations, an existing threat to maintaining populations, and the removal of barriers as a condition of recovery of each species. As an existing barrier and impediment to the upstream and downstream migration of Atlantic salmon, river herring, American shad, and American eel, the current operation of the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project is not consistent with these comprehensive plans without providing safe, timely, and effective fish passage and protection measures.

1.4 Final Study Report Page 3. The Licensee discusses our request for additional upstream fishway studies. We maintain that a full fish passage feasibility study is necessary to inform the NEPA analysis at the project. We have photo-documentation of diadromous species as well as the eel study confirming presence at the base of the dam. Therefore, fish passage and protection measures are warranted at license issuance. In addition, an active restoration plan for the Androscoggin River (MDMR 2010) has included stocking upstream from the project. Safe, timely and effective upstream and downstream passage is vital to the restoration of sea-run fish in the Androscoggin River and Little Androscoggin River systems.

Page 41. The Licensee summarizes the juvenile eel study within this section. This project is the fourth barrier an eel would encounter on its upstream migration and a dedicated eelway is present only at Worumbo. Installation of eel ways in Maine have led to increased abundance in the watersheds (Shepard 2015). We anticipate all dams downstream of Lower Barker will have dedicated eelways by 2030. We intend to prescribe permanent upstream eel passage measures at the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project. We request that Licensee consults with us and other resource agencies during the design process.

Page 47. The Licensee describes the channel cross sections (i.e. transects) and selection in the IFIM study. The first three transect locations were influenced by the USFWS and MDIFW such that the appropriate habitats of interest were included in the study. Transect 4 was located just upstream from the powerhouse and was used by the Licensee as a gauging station for dam released flows. The report should make it clear whether or not the powerhouse discharge or flow in the Androscoggin River cause backwater effects at the gauging transect.

Page 47. The Licensee states, ‘this transect was selected for gaging because it had laminar flow from bank to bank.’ Natural river channels do not have laminar flow under any circumstances, natural channel flows can be less turbulent, but not laminar.

Page 48. The Licensee states that each transect was evaluated independently using criteria for abundant refugia. This sentence is not clear which transects used large boulder, small boulder or instream cover as one of the refugia criteria. When referring to a certain percentage of substrate, the report does not make it clear how these percentages were determined.

Page 54. Figure 12 clearly shows that habitat in the bypass reach is optimized at 175 cfs. The Licensee proposed increase of 20 to 50 cfs results in only minor increases in habitat suitability.

At our request, the Licensee provided all the station, depth and velocity data that were collected in the field at each transect. We used these data to calculate discharge at each station along the transect using this formula:

Discharge = width x depth x velocity

We then summed up each individual station discharge to get a total discharge at each transect. (Table 1).

Table 1. Reported versus measured discharge values (cfs) Reported gauged flow 35 46 108 197 301 and leakage T1 Calculated from data 27 46 127 184 306 T2 Calculated from data 24 38 132 229 338 T3 Calculated from data 43 49 119 216 364 T4 Calculated from data 36 46 106 195 297

We note that T4 (shown as the gauging transect in the figure on page 49) shows good overall agreement with the reported discharges which represent flow down the bypass reach. The measured discharges at the other transects provide some insight into the overall measurement error that occurred during the study. Given this measurement error, we disagree with habitat values being reported down to the tenth of a percent in Table 22. We also maintain that reported depths and velocities at Transects 2 and 3 likely overestimate depths and velocities for a given reported discharge, and depth and velocities are Transect 1 are likely underestimate depths and velocities for a given reported discharge.

Page 58. The Licensee cites Lang (1999) regarding low flow conditions as a natural limiting period that does not cause major population changes. However, our concern relates to low flow conditions that occur in the bypass and maximum generation is occurring in the powerhouse for

extended periods and during seasons when low flow would not be expected. The effect of project operations on the bypass reach occur when the flow should be 200 cfs but is only 50 cfs in the bypass reach which are unnatural low flows conditions. These low flow conditions have an effect on natural resources such as increasing the frequency of reduced habitat and increased predation.

Appendix A Transect Photographs. Some of the flow photos in the final study plan appear to be in error. For example, Photo A12 (Transect 1 at 108 cfs) appears to have conditions identical to Photo A9 (Transect 1 at 46 cfs). A final, corrected flow study plan should be filed and include the proper photos and all of the cross section plots.

2. FISHWAY PASSAGE ENGINEER’S 2016 INSPECTION KEY POINTS On May 12, 2016, our fishway passage engineer conducted an inspection of the existing downstream fish passage facilities at the project and noticed the following deficiencies:

 The facility has no entrainment prevention other than an isolated trash rack perpendicular to flow at the downstream end of the power canal with 2-inch clear bar racks.  There was inadequate attraction flow and guidance to the stop log bay entrance. The depth of water directly in front of the stop log bays was shallow limiting the effectiveness of bypass entrance efficiency.  The stop log bays used for the downstream fish passage entrance were clogged with debris and only a few inches of water were spilling over the installed stop logs. Debris should be managed daily to improve passage effectiveness and adequate depth is needed at the downstream entrance to commit emigrating fish.  There was little difference in depth of flow over the spillway flashboards compared to the designated downstream fish passage entrance. For fish that pass over the spillway, they first impact the concrete of the spillway and then fall 30 feet to either a plunge pool of varying water depth or directly onto bedrock. This can lead to injury.  The spill over the stop logs in the stop log bays impacted the concrete below and then the bedrock before entering the first plunge pool. This can lead to injury.  In the first plunge pool, fish must pass over a notched weir to a second plunge pool. The sharp-crested, notched weir flow impacts the concrete and bedrock before entering the second plunge pool. This can lead to injury.  In the second plunge pool, fish must pass through a steep, jagged bedrock gradient approximately 15 to 20 feet in height before reaching the toe of the dam and egress to downstream reaches. This can lead to injury.  Though not noticed during the inspection, there is the potential for delay and increased predation in each of the plunge pools for disoriented or injured downstream migrating fish.

3. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUEST Fishway Design Alternatives Analysis In Section 2.7, the Licensee states that costs to upgrade the downstream fish passage system have not been developed. The Fishway Design Alternatives Analysis is needed to identify upstream and downstream fish passage alternatives for target species, the feasibility of each alternative, as well as the associated capital, operational, and maintenance costs of each alternative1. This information will inform the NEPA analysis. Goals and Objectives The goal of the requested additional information is to assess the feasibility and costs of improving fish passage survival and efficiency for anadromous fish at the Lower Barker Project through a design alternatives analysis. The objectives of the additional information request are to identify upstream fish passage alternatives for the Lower Barker Project and to estimate the capital, operational, and maintenance costs of each alternative. Identifying means of providing safe, timely and effective upstream passage at Lower Barker is consistent with the goals in the above mentioned management plans.

Relevant Resource Management Goals and Public Interest Consideration The existing license article for the Lower Barker project was issued in 1979. It has the following language: “The Little Androscoggin River was noted for large runs of Atlantic salmon, alewife, and shad until Barker's Mill dam was built in 1874. State and Federal agencies indicated that the river has potential for future anadromous fish runs once water quality improves' and fish passage facilities are installed at the downstream Brunswick Project (No: 2284). A fishway may thus be needed at Project No. 2808 in the next 5 to 10 years.”

The American Shad Habitat Plan (MDMR, 2014) states that American shad historically spawned in the Little Androscoggin River from its confluence with the Androscoggin River to Biscoe Falls. The lack of an existing upstream fishway currently prevents migratory diadromous species from reaching their historic spawning grounds. The Little Androscoggin River is listed as Essential Fish Habitat for Atlantic salmon for eggs & larvae, juvenile and adults life stages (see archive.nefmc.org/habitat/planamen/original_omnibus/salmon.PDF).

Existing Information and Need for Additional Information Documented alewife passage at the Worumbo project exists based on annual reports filed with FERC. (Table 2).

1 Mattaceunk Hydroelectric Project (P-2520), Determination on Request for New Study, May 12, 2016 (Accession #20160512-3014).

Table 2. Summary of annual returns at the Worumbo Project (FERC Project # 3428) River Year Shad Salmon Herring 2003 26,315 0 1 2004 42,725 7 1 2005 2,038 0 0 2006 9,826 0 2 2007 19,078 0 7 2008 46,749 0 2 2009 14,961 0 1 2010 11,952 0 5 2011 136 0 3 2012 58,654 0 1 2013 28,714 0 1 2014 32,030 0 2 2015 59,200 18 0

In addition, the City of Auburn has documentation of alewife swimming the bypass reach just below the Lower Barker Dam.

A thorough review of potential alternatives upstream fish passage designs, including dam removal, and trapping & trucking operations has not occurred. Recent scientific developments of fishway design and fish behavior have advanced significantly in the past few years.

Public Interest Considerations The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is a federal resource agency.

Project Nexus Restoration of sea-run fish in the Little Androscoggin and Androscoggin Rivers is a stated management goal. Improving the number of returning adults sea-run fish entering Merrymeeting Bay and swimming toward the Brunswick Project requires opening up spawning habitat, including within the Little Androscoggin River watershed (DMR 2010).

Currently, alewife are trapped at the Brunswick Project and transported to lakes throughout the Androscoggin River watershed. Providing volitional passage at Lower Barker is part of a long term plan to allow volitional passage into many of these stocked lakes. The Lower Barker Project presents an impediment to passage of sea-run fish, directly impacting these species. These species include Atlantic salmon, river herring (alewife and river herring are combined), American shad, sea lamprey. In addition, the Little Androscoggin watershed provides habitat for adult American eel. The ability of the Licensee to mitigate that impact is critical to avoiding and

minimizing those impacts. The additional information requested herein will support the broader NEPA analysis of impacts on non-energy related resources.

Species protection plans were either developed or are being developed for the first three FERC licensed projects on the Androscoggin River. These are 1) Brunswick (FERC # 2284) 2) Pejebscot (FERC # 4784) and 3) Worumbo (FERC # 3428). With measures in place to improve upstream and downstream passage at these projects, determining an appropriate alternative for providing safe, timely and effective passage at Lower Barker is consistent with improvements being made at the downstream projects.

Proposed Methodology This additional information should assess all possible methods for providing safe, timely and effective passage to all species of concern which includes alewife, blueback herring, American shad, American eel, sea lamprey and Atlantic salmon. The additional information should describe possible flow changes that may occur under each option. Detailed design specifications are not necessary at this time. Instead, the requested additional information should include a general feasibility discussion with descriptions of each design alternative. In addition, each alternative should include estimates of the associated capital, operational (including the value of lost power production), and maintenance costs. The Licensee should submit a plan that explains the methods that will be used to obtain and analyze the additional information to the Commission and resource agencies for approval before executing the fish passage alternative analysis.

Level of Cost and Effort The cost and effort will depend on the number of alternatives included in the analysis. This additional information will require several months of effort to complete.

4. REFERENCES Lang, V. 1999. Questions and Answers on the New England Flow Policy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, New Hampshire. 24 pages. Maine Department of Marine Resources. 2010. Androscoggin River Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. Prepared by M.E. Brown, V. Crandall, L. Flagg. Bureau of Sea Run Fisheries & Habitat, 172 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333-0021. Project #: AFC- 40. 137 pages. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Essential Fish Habitat Description Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). [Online] URL: http://www.nero.noaa.gov/hcd/salmon.pdf NMFS. 2011. Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design. NMFS, Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon.

NMFS. 2016. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Mapper. [Online] URL: http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper Shepard, S.L. 2015. American eel biological species report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, Massachusetts. xii +120 pages.

EXHIBIT F

GENERAL DESIGN DRAWINGS

Contains Critical Energy Infrastructure Information - Do Not Release –

Exhibit F drawings are provided for federal use only and are not included in the public review version of this license application. This material is considered Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII) particularly with regard to proposed project structures, the incapacity or destruction of which would affect security, economic security, public health, or safety. Members of the public may obtain non-public or privileged information by submitting a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. See www.ferc.gov/legal/ceii-foia.asp for more information.

EXHIBIT G

PROJECT BOUNDARY MAP

70°14'30"W 70°14'15"W 70°14'0"W 70°13'45"W 70°13'30"W 70°13'15"W 70°13'0"W

t e

S v l t

P s A S t r n l r Ave a i side e e a ll h i r H H d c u e O d t e a x r u C fo c L r a H d Lin 1 S R S coln Ter 5 iv t o e W r L 3 t S e t i 5 S e st n ' l v e c W e A r o L z n l i a y A n n H d v c e e S o n t l n n t A Ö e S D y Magnetic north K bur N New D r calculated on 03/08/2016 RO S C t O C G el G N IN R ve I A V ot E in R M

P ierce St REFERENCE POINT 2 ? ve REFERENCE POINT 1 l A T al y h C l 44°5'15"N s l e ? r e r 44°5'15"N a v M e M S la t n o d S nr h o POWERHOUSE A e e v r S e id t a n LOWER BARKER DAM A v M e ad iso n St l PENSTOCK S H t ec m S o r son (BURIED) nd a fer S F Jef t ld O INTAKE t S n t n S u r e D if ls u PROJECT BOUNDARY P

F T ai h rv ird R ie S iv w t er A si v de e D PROJECT BOUNDARY r

R ELEVATION 165.7 (NAVD 88) E V Fo I u rt R h S S ev t N en I th S G t G O C S C O le t a R S v l il es D S G t N t A S k o A E ro tw L B oo d T E St T ig I ht h t L S S t k a o R d R d n la o P e S v C S ix A a ho th r ro rt S te n S t x L t a n N B in th 44°5'0"N S t F 44°5'0"N ift h St

Va t ll S ey d S a e t ro v B A n o rt e a v B A t f a T

e t v S A tt n W o e t n O l n M e a L u B rk F F t ar S ly ll n o t S rr t S T a l C h l ir i te ry H en G a az th M elh S ur t P st a S t t t o T n enth S t S

n i

a d

x M m .

7 olster St 1 B 0

2 PROJECT BOUNDARY 3 2

1 t

0 ELEVATION 164.7 (NAVD 88) S _ ll e p i v a M A

M e

_ n

y o

r o

a B d

n REFERENCE POINT 3 u o B _

t ? EXHIBIT G c e e

j v

o LOWER BARKER HY ADROELECTRIC PROJECT r g P H \ n ri u G o st

_ o

t L

i n A b i arian Dr v h M PROJECT BOUNDARY MAP FEeRC No 2808 x

E UPPER BARKER DAM \ D

X (NON-PROJECT) KEI (MAINE) POWER MANAGEMENT, INC M _ \ r e k 44°4'45"Nr SHEET 1 of 1 a Sixteenth St 44°4'45"N B

e Feet t w S o t

L S n 0 100 200 400 \ I n to E to g

K g n \ n i

a i h 1 inch = 200 feet at 24"x36" t h s

a s a a D W

_ W t n e i

l r i St C nteenth G _ C Project Boundary eve \ S re d S e

I n r f a i G NOTES: vr e \ X l y yard d r Brick D k o 1. THE LOWER BARKER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT IS LOCATED IN AUBURN,c ANDROSCOGGIN COUNTY, MAINE. r d Project Features i

n r

o 2. THE PROJECT BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION, AS REQUIRED BY 18CFR4.41, IS REPRESENTED HERE BY A GRID B

C C \

OF LATITUDE/LONGITUDE AROUND, AND GRATICULES WITHIN, THE MAP FRAME. ANY POSITION IN DEGREES, o m

o S

c MINUTES, AND SECONDS ALONG THE PROJECT BOUNDARY CAN BE DETERMINED USING THESE REFERENCES. Waterbodies h k . e a S r s POINT Easting (FEET) Northing (FEET) t 3. THE REFERENCE POINTS SHOWN USE THE NAD 1983 w u t o d

i MAINE WEST STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM IN FEET. o d m ? Reference Point Reference Point 1 2937430.7736 457161.7120 h 4. KEI (USA) POWER MANAGEMENT, INC IS THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF ALL EXISTING PROJECT FACILITIES AND D c

s r

n EITHER OWNS OR HAS RIGHTS TO ALL PROJECT LANDS. i Reference Point 2 2935718.5929 457251.1030 e l

k 5. THE PROJECT BOUNDARY WAS DEVELOPED BASED ON THE SURVEY DRAWINGS DATED FEBRUARY 25, 2009. \ Railroad \

: PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT BOUNDARY ARE BASED ON ELEVATION 165.7 FEET (NAVD 88). Reference Point 3 2935814.8601 454404.3446 h t a P 70°14'30"W 70°14'15"W 70°14'0"W 70°13'45"W 70°13'30"W 70°13'15"W 70°13'0"W EXHIBIT G FERC NO.2808-

EXHIBIT H

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND NEED FOR PROJECT POWER APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE FOR MINOR PROJECT LESS THAN 5MW

LOWER BARKER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 2808)

KEI (MAINE) POWER MANAGEMENT (III) LLC

EXHIBIT H DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND NEED FOR PROJECT POWER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1

2.0 INFORMATION TO BE SUPPLIED BY ALL APPLICANTS ...... 2-1 2.1 PLANS AND ABILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE PROJECT ...... 2-1 2.1.1 PLANS TO INCREASE CAPACITY OR GENERATION ...... 2-1 2.1.2 PLANS TO COORDINATE THE OPERATION OF THE PROJECT WITH OTHER WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS ...... 2-1 2.1.3 PLANS TO COORDINATE THE OPERATION OF THE PROJECT WITH OTHER ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS ...... 2-2 2.2 NEED FOR THE ELECTRICITY GENERATED BY THE PROJECT ...... 2-2 2.2.1 THE REASONABLE COSTS AND AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF POWER ...... 2-2 2.2.2 INCREASE IN COSTS IF THE LICENSEE IS NOT GRANTED A LICENSE ...... 2-2 2.2.3 EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF POWER ...... 2-3 2.3 NEED, REASONABLE COST AND AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF POWER ...... 2-3 2.4 EFFECT OF POWER ON APPLICANT’S INDUSTRIAL FACILITY ...... 2-3 2.5 NEED OF THE TRIBE FOR ELECTRICITY ...... 2-3 2.6 IMPACTS ON THE OPERATIONS AND PLANNING OF THE LICENSEE’S TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OF RECEIVING OR NOT RECEIVING THE LICENSE ...... 2-3 2.7 STATEMENT OF NEED FOR MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PROJECT FACILITIES OR OPERATIONS ...... 2-4 2.8 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ...... 2-4 2.8.1 OVERVIEW ...... 2-4 2.8.2 FERC APPROVED STATE OF MAINE AND FEDERAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ...... 2-4 2.8.3 RELEVANT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS ...... 2-14 2.9 FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES ...... 2-14 2.10 NOTIFICATION OF AFFECTED LANDOWNERS ...... 2-15 2.11 APPLICANT’S ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION EFFICIENTLY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ...... 2-15 2.12 INDIAN TRIBES AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT ...... 2-15

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project - i - Final License Application TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT’D) 3.0 INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY AN APPLICANT WHO IS AN EXISTING LICENSEE ...... 3-1 3.1 MEASURES PLANNED TO INSURE SAFE MANAGEMENT, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT ...... 3-1 3.2 CURRENT OPERATION OF THE PROJECT ...... 3-1 3.3 PROJECT HISTORY ...... 3-1 3.4 LOST GENERATION DUE TO UNSCHEDULED OUTAGES ...... 3-2 3.5 LICENSEE’S RECORD OF COMPLIANCE ...... 3-4 3.6 ACTIONS AFFECTING THE PUBLIC ...... 3-4 3.7 OWNERSHIP AND OPERATING EXPENSES THAT WOULD BE REDUCED IF THE LICENSE WERE TRANSFERRED ...... 3-4 3.8 ANNUAL FEES FOR USE OF FEDERAL OR NATIVE AMERICAN LANDS ...... 3-4

4.0 REFERENCES ...... 4-1

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2-1 KEI (MAINE) OWNED AND OPERATED PROJECTS IN MAINE ...... 2-1 TABLE 2-2 LIST OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS POTENTIALLY RELEVANT TO THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT ...... 2-14 TABLE 3-1 LOST GENERATION AND EXPLANATION FOR OUTAGE ...... 3-3

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project - ii - Final License Application

APPLICATION FOR NEW LICENSE FOR MINOR PROJECT LESS THAN 5MW

LOWER BARKER HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT (FERC NO. 2808)

KEI (MAINE) POWER MANAGEMENT (III) LLC

EXHIBIT H DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND NEED FOR PROJECT POWER

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project (Project) is an existing, licensed 1,200 MW generating facility owned and operated by KEI (Maine) Power Management (III) LLC (KEI Maine). The project is located in Androscoggin County, Maine, approximately 3,000 feet upstream from the confluence of the Little Androscoggin River with the Androscoggin River in the City of Auburn, Maine. Project works include a concrete dam with spillway, non-overflow stoplog and gate sections; a power canal, intake and gate house; an underground concrete penstock; a transformer and substation; and a powerhouse containing one turbine generator unit. The project boundary generally includes the dam, bypass reach, buried penstock, and the powerhouse. The Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project operates as a run-of-river facility with a continuous minimum flow of 20 cfs is conveyed to the bypass reach. Inflows less than 170 cfs (minimum hydraulic capacity plus minimum flows) are passed at the dam. Flows in excess of 500 cfs (maximum hydraulic capacity plus minimum flows) are likewise spilled.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 1-1 Final License Application

2.0 INFORMATION TO BE SUPPLIED BY ALL APPLICANTS

2.1 PLANS AND ABILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE PROJECT

2.1.1 PLANS TO INCREASE CAPACITY OR GENERATION

KEI (Maine) has no plans to increase the capacity or generation of the Project.

2.1.2 PLANS TO COORDINATE THE OPERATION OF THE PROJECT WITH OTHER WATER RESOURCE PROJECTS

KEI (Maine) owns and operates fifteen operating hydroelectric projects located in Maine (Table 2-1). KEI (Maine) owns two hydroelectric dams on the Little Androscoggin River located upstream of the Lower Barker Project: Upper Barker (FERC No. 3562) and Mechanic Falls (FERC No. 11482). All KEI (Maine) dams in this system operate in a run-of-river mode, and therefore the Project operates independently of other facilities on the river.

TABLE 2-1 KEI (MAINE) OWNED AND OPERATED PROJECTS IN MAINE

PROJECT FERC STATUS NAME OF WATERWAY Browns Mill Exempted Piscataquis River

Damariscotta Licensed Damariscotta Lake North Branch Dead Licensed Eustis River Cobbosseecontee Licensed Gardiner Stream Non- Wilson Stream Greenville Jurisdictional Little Androscoggin Licensed Lower Barker River Little Androscoggin Licensed Mechanics Falls River Milo Exempted Sebec River Non- Pennesseewassee Norway jurisdictional Stream Pittsfield Licensed Sebasticook River Pumpkin Hill Licensed Passadumkeag River Non- Great Works River South Berwick jurisdictional

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-1 Final License Application

PROJECT FERC STATUS NAME OF WATERWAY Little Androscoggin Licensed Upper Barker River Non- Mousam River New Dam jurisdictional Non- Mousam River Old Falls jurisdictional

2.1.3 PLANS TO COORDINATE THE OPERATION OF THE PROJECT WITH OTHER ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

Power generated by the Projects is sold to Central Maine Power (CMP), a utility delivering electricity to customers in central and southern Maine. CMP is a participant in the Independent System Operator (ISO) New England. ISO New England operates as a not-for-profit corporation that coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity, administers the wholesale market, and conducts power system planning for Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and most of Maine.

2.2 NEED FOR THE ELECTRICITY GENERATED BY THE PROJECT

2.2.1 THE REASONABLE COSTS AND AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF POWER

The Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project generates renewable power where electrical output from the Project is sold to CMP. The replacement of energy and capacity provided by the Project (approximately 5,293 MWh annually) would likely be met through other sources in the ISO New England regional market. Alternative sources are likely to be fossil-fired generating units, whose fuel and other variable costs would be significantly higher than those of the Project.

2.2.2 INCREASE IN COSTS IF THE LICENSEE IS NOT GRANTED A LICENSE

If KEI (Maine) is not granted a license, this Project would cease to provide affordable, clean electricity to the CMP and to the ISO New England market. An unquantified increase in costs may occur to the Northeast electric customer if a license for continued operation of the Project was not granted.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-2 Final License Application

2.2.3 EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF POWER

2.2.3.1 EFFECTS ON LICENSEE’S CUSTOMERS

This section is not applicable to KEI (Maine) since the Licensee is a wholesale supplier.

2.2.3.2 EFFECT ON LICENSEE’S OPERATING AND LOAD CHARACTERISTICS

KEI (Maine) is an independent power producer and does not maintain a separate transmission system which could be affected by replacement or alternative power sources.

2.2.3.3 EFFECT ON COMMUNITIES SERVED BY THE PROJECT

See the discussion above in Sections 2.2.1, The Reasonable Costs and Availability of Alternative Sources of Power, and 2.2.2, Increase in Costs if the Licensee is not Granted a License, regarding the loss of the Project’s generation. Because the Licensee cannot predict with any certainty the actual type or location of a potential alternative facility providing replacement power, they cannot specifically discuss potential effects on any particular community.

2.3 NEED, REASONABLE COST AND AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF POWER

KEI (Maine) is an independent power producer and as such does not prepare load and capacity forecasts in reference to any group or class of customers. Rather, ISO New England provides such services.

2.4 EFFECT OF POWER ON APPLICANT’S INDUSTRIAL FACILITY

This section is note applicable as KEI (Maine) does not use electricity generated on-site for powering the Project or any other KEI (Maine) facility.

2.5 NEED OF THE TRIBE FOR ELECTRICITY

This section is not applicable as KEI (Maine) is not an Indian tribe.

2.6 IMPACTS ON THE OPERATIONS AND PLANNING OF THE LICENSEE’S TRANSMISSION SYSTEM OF RECEIVING OR NOT RECEIVING THE LICENSE

This section is not applicable as KEI (Maine) does not operate a transmission system.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-3 Final License Application

2.7 STATEMENT OF NEED FOR MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING PROJECT FACILITIES OR OPERATIONS

KEI (Maine) is proposing a 50 cfs, or inflow if less, minimum flow in the bypassed reach for protection of aquatic habitat. KEI (Maine) is also proposing to develop improvements to the existing downstream fish passage in accordance with appropriate agencies to enhance survival of downstream migrating fish.

2.8 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

2.8.1 OVERVIEW

Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with Commission approved federal and state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, and conserving waterways affected by the project. In accordance with Section 10(a)(1) of the FPA, the list of Commission approved federal and state comprehensive plans was reviewed to determine applicability to the Project. The federal resource agencies, as well as the State of Maine, have prepared a number of comprehensive plans, which provide a general assessment of a variety of environmental conditions in Maine. In addition, the State of Maine’s plans include policies related to ensuring that the State’s energy needs are met and supporting hydropower, a renewable and indigenous source, as a valuable portion of the energy mix. These plans also address water quality, water pollution control, wetlands, recreation, and land management issues. The Project's consistency with FERC-approved state and federal comprehensive plans is discussed below. Comprehensive Plans listed below have not been updated since their development unless otherwise noted. FERC currently lists 28 comprehensive plans for the State of Maine.

2.8.2 FERC APPROVED STATE OF MAINE AND FEDERAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

Note: Unless otherwise noted, these plans have not been updated or updates have not been submitted to FERC for approval since their development dates.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-4 Final License Application

2.8.2.1 STATE OF MAINE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

Maine State Planning Office. 1987. Maine comprehensive rivers management plan. Augusta, Maine. May 1987

In 1982, the Maine State Planning Office submitted to FERC the Maine Comprehensive Rivers Management Plan, which was comprised of two volumes and approved by FERC in October 1982. In 1987, the Maine State Planning Office (MSPO, eliminated in July 2012) submitted to FERC a three-volume update to the Comprehensive Rivers Management Plan. Volumes 1 and 2 of the Plan included the Comprehensive Hydropower Plan and Executive Department Orders and other river-related plans. Volume 3 of the Plan, included in the updated submittal in 1987, contained hydro-related core laws, Executive Orders, and other plans. In 1992 and 1993, the State of Maine produced Volumes 4 and 5 of the Comprehensive Rivers Management Plan, respectively.

State of Maine Comprehensive River Management Plan – December 1992 – Volume 4, Part I

Volume 4 of the State of Maine Comprehensive River Management Plan consists of three sections. Part I is a summary of the revised Core Hydro Laws subsequent to those contained in Volume 3 which were approved in 1987.

The revisions to the Core Hydro Laws contained in Volume 4 of the Plan that are pertinent to the Project are discussed below.

Special Protection for Outstanding Rivers

This law identifies river segments that are protected from further hydroelectric development in the State of Maine.

The Project is not located on an Outstanding River segment, and is therefore compliant with this plan.

Hydropower Relicensing Standards

These standards require that existing hydropower impoundments be managed to protect habitat and aquatic life criteria commensurate with the appropriate water quality classifications. The standards are pertinent to the Lower Barker Project in that the project area is subject to Class A

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-5 Final License Application

water quality standards. Maine statutes at 38 M.R.S.A. subsection 464(10) clarifies that hydropower projects with riverine impoundments must satisfy the aquatic life criteria contained in 38 M.R.S.A. subsection 465(4)(c), which states that the receiving waters shall be of sufficient quality to support all species of fish indigenous to the receiving waters and maintain the structure and function of the resident biological community.

The Lower Barker Project is consistent with the Hydropower Relicensing Standards in that operation of the project impoundment supports all species of indigenous fish and maintains the structure and function of the resident biological community (see Exhibit E, Section 4.5 for details).

State of Maine Comprehensive River Management Plan – December 1992 – Volume 4, Part II – Compilation of Executive Orders and Other Plans

Part II is a compilation of Executive Orders and other plans including Maine resource agency policy regarding hydropower. Part II of Volume 4, Implementing Plans and Orders, contains State resource agency plans and policies regarding hydropower. The following plans and orders are discussed:

State of Maine Statewide River Fisheries Management Plan, June 1982

This Plan is discussed previously under State of Maine Comprehensive Rivers Management Plan, May 1987 – Volume 1.

Lower Kennebec River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan and Inland Fisheries Management Overview, August 1986

This Plan provides site-specific fish restoration recommendations for particular hydro facilities on the Lower Kennebec River and is not directly applicable to the Lower Barker Project.

Maine Comprehensive Hydropower Plan, July 1992

This Plan assessed then current and future demand for hydropower in the State of Maine. Hydropower is recognized as a significant resource available for use in meeting current and future energy needs. The Plan also considers the potential for storage facilities to be developed as generating hydro facilities.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-6 Final License Application

Operation of the Lower Barker Project is consistent with this Plan as it will continue to produce reliable, efficient indigenous energy from hydropower to meet the State of Maine energy needs.

Maine State Agency Hydropower Policy Statements

These policy statements provide the basis for agency comments on hydro-project license applications.

These statements are not directly applicable to the Lower Barker Project as they set out the policy for State agencies to follow in commenting on hydro projects in general. Agency comments on the Project are addressed in the appropriate sections of Exhibit E.

Executive Order Designating the State Agencies Responsible for Water Quality Certification

This order identifies MDEP as the agency responsible for reviewing and providing water quality certification.

The Licensees will apply for water quality certification from MDEP as part of the relicensing process.

Feasibility Study of Maine’s Small Hydropower Potential

This study was performed for the Maine Office Energy Resources and examined the potential for development/expansion of hydropower development of Maine’s low head dams.

This Plan is not applicable to the Lower Barker Project.

Maine Hydropower Licensing and Relicensing Status Report 1989-91

These reports update hydropower licensing and relicensing activities in the State of Maine for 1989 through 1991.

Lower Barker Project relicensing began after this report was written and is not included in this summary of licensing activities.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-7 Final License Application

State of Maine Comprehensive River Management Plan – December 1992 – Volume 4, Part III – Hydropower and Relicensing Reports and Studies

This section of Volume 4 of the State of Maine Comprehensive River Management Plan described the regulations for hydropower relicensing and reported the status of Maine projects with regard to the federal relicensing process.

The studies and reports contained in Part III of the State of Maine Comprehensive River Management Plan are not pertinent to the Lower Barker Project.

Maine Atlantic Sea-Run Salmon Commission, Management of Atlantic salmon in the State of Maine: A Strategic Plan – July 1984.

This Plan lists as its objectives the maintenance of Atlantic salmon populations in rivers where they currently exist, and the restoration of Atlantic salmon populations in historical salmon rivers. The plan also identifies specific strategies to achieve the stated objectives, including fishway installation or improvement, increased hatchery capacity, and diversion of hatchery stocks once natural reproduction increases in stocked rivers.

Maine Department of Conservation, Bureau of Parks and Lands, Maine State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) 2014-2019.

The 2014-2019 SCORP is included in the FERC Comprehensive Plan. This Plan serves as the State’s official policy document for statewide outdoor recreation planning and for acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation areas and facilities. The plan identifies outdoor recreation issues of Statewide importance based upon, but not limited to, input from the public participation program and also provides information about the demand for and supply of outdoor recreation resources and facilities in the state. The SCORP satisfies the requirements of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act (P.I. 88-578) which dictates that each state have an approved SCORP available on file with the National Park Service in order to participate in the LWCF program. The SCORP contains an implementation program that identifies the State’s strategies, priorities, and actions for the obligation of its LWCF apportionment. The SCORP also includes a wetlands priority component with Section 303 of the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986. This wetland component provides information on state wetland conservation planning efforts as reflected in the Maine Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan published in 1988.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-8 Final License Application

The SCORP does not contain any recommendations or assessments that are specific to the Lower Barker Project area.

Maine Department of Conservation, Maine Rivers Study-final report. August, Maine. May 1982.

Under the Energy Policy for the State of Maine, Maine rivers have been inventoried and analyzed to identify important river areas and to rank these areas according to their overall significance as unique and or multiple value natural and recreation resources. This Policy was set forth to develop a strategy for the protection of these areas.

Rivers, river segments and related tributaries identified as possessing significant natural and recreation resources values were placed in one of four significant categories (identified as A, B, C, and D).

A List: Rivers and related corridors possessing a composite natural and recreational resource value with greater than state significance. B List: Rivers and related corridors possessing a composite natural and recreational resource value with outstanding statewide significance. C List: River and river-related corridors or specific areas possessing a composite natural and recreational resource value with state-wide significance D List: Rivers and river-related corridors or specific areas possessing natural and recreational values with regional significance.

The Lower Barker Project is not targeted by this plan.

2.8.2.2 FERC-APPROVED FEDERAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus oxyrhynchus). (Report No. 31) July 1998.

Implementation of Amendment 1 is designed to result in stock recovery, with consequent ecological and economic benefits to coastal ecosystems and fishermen. Recovery of the stock should reestablish Atlantic sturgeon as a unique component of east coast rivers, estuaries and the Atlantic Ocean. Management of a restored and recovered population of Atlantic sturgeon will establish and maintain, subsequent to stock recovery in the future, fishing mortality targets and a

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-9 Final License Application

fishery monitoring program that should: allow managed exploitation; increase market stability; stabilize commercial, and possibly recreational, landings (within the limits of environmental variability in recruitment); and reduce the risk of recruitment failure.

Although the Androscoggin River it recognized as one of the remaining rivers to have spawning occur, the Little Androscoggin is not targeted to be part of the stock recovery.

Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Commission, Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring. (Report No. 35) April 1999.

Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Shad and River Herring was approved in April 1999. More than a decade of declines in commercial landings culminated in the development of Amendment 1 to “protect, enhance, and restore east coast migratory spawning stocks of American shad, hickory shad, and river herrings in order to achieve stock restoration and maintain sustainable levels of spawning stock biomass”. In order to achieve this goal, the FMP requires a number of fishery independent and fishery-dependent monitoring programs as well as stocking and hatchery operations. These include, but are not limited to calculation of annual mortality rate, assessment of spawning stocks, and analysis of mixed stock contribution to ocean landings. Implementation schedules require the states to submit fishing recovery plans for approval by the Management Board by July 1,1999. In addition, the states are required to submit annual reports detailing the results of the fishery-dependent and fishery independent monitoring.

Pre-spawning adult American shad are stocked in the Androscoggin and Kennebec Rivers, American shad fry are being stocked in the Kennebec, Medomak, and Saco Rivers. No restoration plan has been prepared for the Little Androscoggin River. The Lower Barker Project is not targeted by this plans.

Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Commission, Technical Addendum 1 to Amendment 1 of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring. February 9, 2000.

This Addendum was prepared upon review by the Shad and River Herring Management Board, the Board concurred with the Technical Committee’s report and suggested that a technical addendum be developed to address each of the components identified for correction.

As stated below, the Lower Barker Project is not targeted by this addendum.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-10 Final License Application

Atlantic State Marine Fisheries Commission, Technical Amendment 2 of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for shad and river herring. Arlington, Virginia. May 2009.

This Amendment was prepared under the guidance of the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Shad and River Herring Management Board. Technical assistance was provided

by the Shad and River Herring Technical Committee, the River Herring Stock Assessment

Subcommittee, and the Shad and River Herring Advisory Panel.

The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) developed Amendment 3 to its Interstate Fishery Management Plan (or FMP) for Shad and River Herring under the authority of the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act (ACFCMA 1993). Amendment 3 addresses only management measures for American shad. Management measures for alewife and blueback herring (collectively called river herring) are contained in Amendment 2. Shad and river herring management authority lies with the coastal states and is coordinated through the Commission.

The Lower Barker Project is not targeted by this amendment.

Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American eel (Anguilla rostrata) (Report No. 36). – 2000 Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Addendum I-III

The goals of this plan are to protect and enhance the number of American eel in the inland waters of Atlantic states and to provide a sustainable fishery by preventing overharvesting of eels of any life stage. The Plan obligates Maine to instate a management plan and implement the requirements therein.

At this time the individual numbers of American eel observed at the Lower Barker Project are very low in comparison to other nearby project developments, as discussed in Exhibit E.

Atlantic Salmon Restoration in New England, Final Environmental Impact Statement 1989-2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1989

This document discusses the stated aim of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) relative to Atlantic salmon (i.e., the restoration of self-sustaining populations of Atlantic salmon by the year 2021 to several rivers).

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-11 Final License Application

The Lower Barker Project is not targeted by these restoration plans, including regarding the requirement for providing anadromous fish passage.

Fisheries USA: The Recreational Fisheries Policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Policy)

This policy, under the auspices of the 1988 National Recreational Fisheries Policy (National Policy), encompasses the guiding principles, goals, and objectives set forth by the National Policy. The Policy defines the USFWS's stewardship role in management of the Nation’s recreational fishery resources, which include not only angling, but fish watching and photographing. With the Fisheries USA, USFWS committed to accomplish three goals:

• Usability – to optimize the opportunities for people to enjoy the Nation’s recreational fisheries. • Sustainability – to ensure the future of quality and quantity of the Nation’s recreational fisheries; and • Action – to work in partnership with other Federal governmental agencies, states, tribes, conservation organizations, and the public to effectively manage the Nation’s recreational fisheries.

The Licensee is proposing a minimum flow of 50 cfs, or inflow if less, and to consult with agency to identify appropriate improvements to the existing downstream fish passage, which in turn will help ensure the overall healthy fishery. Exhibit E describe the existing fish resource and recreational opportunities the Project provides.

Nationwide Rivers Inventory (National Park Service, January 1982, updated 1995)

In 1981, the “Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI),” was completed for the New England Region. It is a survey of the nation’s rivers conducted to identify segments meeting the minimum criteria for further study and/or potential inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). Once included on the NRI, a river is protected to the extent that pursuant to Section f(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and in accordance with a Presidential Directive and guidance in the form of “Procedures for Interagency Consultation to Avoid or Mitigate Adverse Effects on Rivers in the Nationwide Inventory,” issued by the Council on Environmental Quality:

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-12 Final License Application

“Each federal agency shall, as part of its normal planning and environmental review process, take care to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on Rivers identified in the Nationwide Inventory.” 1

This directive gives guidance to federal agencies on protecting the resources that cause the river to qualify for listing on the NRI.

The Project is not located on any of the river segments listed by NRI.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Final Recovery Plan for the Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Prepared by the Shortnose Sturgeon Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, Maryland. December 1998.

This plans goal is to recover populations to levels of abundance at which they no longer require protection under the ESA. For each population segment, the minimum population size will be large enough to maintain genetic diversity and avoid extinction.

The Little Androscoggin is not identified with this Plan.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service, North American Waterfowl Management Plan – 1986

This Plan identifies waterfowl population goals and outlines the requirements of a waterfowl management and conservation program that would attain these goals. The Plan addresses 37 species of the family Anatidae, (i.e., ducks, geese and swans) which occur in both the United States and Canada. The Plan also discusses groups of similar species in terms of their ecological niche, distribution, abundance, breeding, population status and outlook, and causes of population declines or increases. The Plan outlines a variety of initiatives and recommendations which will enhance and protect waterfowl resources, including: financial incentives for landowners for habitat maintenance; outright purchase of significant habitat; protective zoning; private land conservation promotion; financial participation of private conservation organizations; prioritization of public land management to enhance waterfowl resources; public works planning which considers and mitigates waterfowl resource impacts; and encouragement of joint ventures between private and public groups to enhance and preserve waterfowl habitat. Specific

1 Presidential Directive, August 2, 1979.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-13 Final License Application

recommendations identify areas to be preserved, bag limits, and other hunting limitations for certain species and survey activities.

The majority of initiatives and recommendations contained in this Plan are beyond the scope of the Licensee’s operation of the Lower Barker Project. Continued operation of the Lower Barker Project, as proposed, will have no new effects to project wildlife or their habitats. Additionally, the Licensee’s proposal to protect and maintain the fishery and botanical resources, both of which represent potential forage sources for waterfowl, are identified in Exhibit E.

2.8.3 RELEVANT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS

In addition to the qualifying Federal, state, and Tribal comprehensive waterway plans listed in Section 2.8.2, some resource agencies have developed resource management plans to help guide their actions regarding specific resources of jurisdiction. The resource management plans listed in Table 2-2 may be relevant to the Project and may be useful in the relicensing proceeding for characterizing desired conditions.

TABLE 2-2 LIST OF RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS POTENTIALLY RELEVANT TO THE LOWER BARKER PROJECT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS Fisheries Maine Department of Marine Resources (MDMR). 2010. Androscoggin River Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. March 30, 2010. Recreation, Land Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments (AVCOG). 2009. Use Western Maine Regional Open Space Policy. May 2009. Land Use City of Auburn. 2011. City of Auburn Comprehensive Plan 2010 Update. April 2011. Land Use City of Lewiston. 1997. Comprehensive Plan. May 1997. Recreation, Land City of Auburn. 2009. New Auburn Master Plan. Use

2.9 FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES

KEI (Maine) has considerable experience operating not only the Lower Barker Project but also other hydroelectric projects located in the State of Maine. KEI (Maine) staff are experienced in the operation of hydroelectric projects; the majority of staff have more than 10 years of service with hydroelectric projects, and several staff have more than 15 years of service with hydroelectric plants.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-14 Final License Application

Information regarding the Project’s expected annual costs and value are provided in Exhibit A of this License Application.

2.10 NOTIFICATION OF AFFECTED LANDOWNERS

KEI (Maine) does not propose to expand the Project to encompass additional lands of others. Therefore, notification of adjacent landowners will not be made beyond every property owner of record of any interest in the property within the bounds of the Project per CFR 18 § 4.32 A.

2.11 APPLICANT’S ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION EFFICIENTLY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Because KEI (Maine) is an independent power producer, this section is not applicable to the Project.

2.12 INDIAN TRIBES AFFECTED BY THE PROJECT

There are no Indian tribes affected by the Project.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 2-15 Final License Application

3.0 INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED BY AN APPLICANT WHO IS AN EXISTING LICENSEE

3.1 MEASURES PLANNED TO INSURE SAFE MANAGEMENT, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT

During flood conditions the dam flashboards are designed to fail when subjected to a load equivalent to two feet or more. A description of Project operations may be found within Exhibit A of this License Application.

KEI (Maine)’s regard for public safety is demonstrated by the installation of public safety devices at the Lower Barker Dam. The Commission approved the Public Safety Plan on January 11, 1993. KEI (Maine) maintains fences, handrails, a locked entrance gate and warning signs to protect the public from the hazards of project operations. KEI (Maine) also seasonally installs a boat barrier before May 31 and removes the barrier by October 12 annually. According to the most recent FERC Environmental Inspection Report (issued April 8, 2011), KEI (Maine) was reported to be in compliance with its requirements with regard to public safety.

3.2 CURRENT OPERATION OF THE PROJECT

A description of the Project operation is contained in Exhibit A of this License Application.

3.3 PROJECT HISTORY

The Little Androscoggin Water-Power Co. completed its first dam on the Little Androscoggin River in 1871. Prior to commencing construction the company purchased 121.4 hectares (ha) (300 acres [ac.]) of land from the mouth of the Little Androscoggin River out a mile on both river banks, which include in the now Project Area (Gray & Pape 2016).

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 3-1 Final License Application

Little Androscoggin Water-Power Co. started land development of the Lower Barker Dam in 1872 and by 1874 the Lower Barker Dam was providing power for the textile mill. Thirty-three years after production, the existing wooden dam was replaced with concrete (Gray & Pape 2016).

3.4 LOST GENERATION DUE TO UNSCHEDULED OUTAGES

Table 3-1 below details lost generation from January 2011 – January 2017.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 3-2 Final License Application

TABLE 3-1 LOST GENERATION AND EXPLANATION FOR OUTAGE Offline Online Duration Last Output First Average MWh Before Output of F & G Lost~ Outage After Outage Date Time Date Time hrs kW/h kW/h kW/h MWh Explanation 12-Jan-11 9:00 21-Jan-11 15:30 222:30:00 742 742 165.10 Replacing Packing and TSV Repair 15-Jun-11 8:30 28-Oct-11 12:00 3243:30:00 471 471 1527.69 Penstock Leak 10-Jan-12 8:00 17-Jan-12 16:30 176:30:00 1031 918 975 172.00 Penstock Repair 12-Aug-13 8:00 6-Sep-13 14:45 606:45:00 1128 1218 1173 711.72 HPU, Gen., Runner Blade Repairs 14-Sep-13 8:00 20-Sep-13 12:30 148:30:00 1205 1207 1206 179.09 Coupling and Diodes Repair 2-Nov-13 9:00 4-Nov-13 12:00 51:00:00 218 536 377 19.23 Leaking Rotary Coupler 30-Nov-13 8:00 7-Dec-13 16:00 176:00:00 780 1231 1006 176.97 Penstock Repair 23-Dec-13 7:30 3-Jan-14 8:30 265:00:00 1003 731 867 229.75 Generator Repair 24-Mar-14 4:00 28-Mar-14 10:00 102:00:00 444 596 520 53.04 Penstock Repair 2-Aug-14 12:00 14-Aug-14 12:45 288:45:00 677 817 747 215.70 Jack Shaft Coupler Repair 16-Sep-14 7:30 23-Oct-14 12:45 893:15:00 0 942 471 420.72 Replace Hub Bearing 18-Nov-14 8:00 20-Nov-14 11:00 51:00:00 557 623 590 30.09 Penstock Repair 25-Feb-15 7:30 3-Mar-15 18:00 154:30:00 720 817 769 118.73 Barker Arms Driveway 5-Jul-15 8:00 7-Jul-15 10:15 50:15:00 900 1013 957 48.06 Blown PT, Fuses 3-Nov-15 7:30 4-Nov-15 17:00 33:30:00 655 776 716 23.97 Servo Repair 6-Nov-15 2:15 7-Nov-15 19:00 40:45:00 713 777 745 30.36 Servo Repair 23-Dec-15 9:00 8-Feb-16 15:30 1134:30:00 0 1000 500 567.25 Penstock Line Install 1-Mar-16 7:30 22-Mar-16 12:30 509:00:00 905 905 460.65 Runner Hub Bearing 16-May-16 8:30 18-May-16 12:15 51:45:00 800 800 41.40 Suction Pipe on Gear Box 2-Nov-16 8:00 3-Nov-16 19:00 35:00:00 725 725 25.37 Station Driveway Leak 10-Nov-16 10:30 16-Nov-16 16:30 150:00:00 412 412 61.80 Servo Repair 28-Nov-16 12:30 29-Nov-16 17:00 28:30:00 671 671 19.12 Blade Shaft Unscrewed *kW/h being produced at the time of shutdown. ~MWh as a calculation of kW/h at time of shutdown multiplied by duration hours.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 3-3 Final License Application

3.5 LICENSEE’S RECORD OF COMPLIANCE

The Project has a good record of compliance with the terms and conditions of the existing license. A review of the Licensee’s records indicates no violations of the terms and conditions of the license. In addition, the Licensee has not received any communication from the Commission indicating possible noncompliance.

3.6 ACTIONS AFFECTING THE PUBLIC

The licensee is not proposing any action that directly affects the public. Further information on public safety can be found in Section 3.1 and Exhibit A, Section 10.0.

3.7 OWNERSHIP AND OPERATING EXPENSES THAT WOULD BE REDUCED IF THE LICENSE WERE TRANSFERRED

KEI (Maine) is applying for a long-term license to continue to maintain and operate the Project. Additionally, there is no competing application to take over the Project. Because there is no proposal to transfer the Project license, this section is not applicable to the Project.

3.8 ANNUAL FEES FOR USE OF FEDERAL OR NATIVE AMERICAN LANDS

This section is not applicable to the Project since it uses no Federal or Native American lands.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 3-4 Final License Application

4.0 REFERENCES

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 2015. List of Comprehensive Plans. August, 2015. [Online] URL: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/gen- info/licensing/complan.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2016.

Gray & Pape, Inc. (Gray & Pape). February 2016. Phase I Pre-Contact Period Archaeological Sensitivity Assessment for the Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project Relicensing, Auburn, Androscoggin County, Maine.

Lower Barker Hydroelectric Project 4-1 Final License Application