DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Shawmut Hydroelectric Project, P-2322-069 Maine Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 July 2021 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................... ii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................... vi 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 1.1 APPLICATION ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER .......................................... 1 1.2.1 Purpose of Action ........................................................................................... 1 1.2.2 Need for Power ............................................................................................... 3 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ................................. 4 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT ................................................................. 4 1.4.1 Scoping ........................................................................................................... 4 1.4.2 Interventions ................................................................................................... 5 1.4.3 Comments on the Applications ...................................................................... 5 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................. 6 2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE ............................................................................. 6 2.1.1 Existing Project Facilities............................................................................... 6 2.1.2 Current Project Boundary............................................................................. 12 2.1.3 Project Safety ................................................................................................ 12 2.1.4 Current Project Operation ............................................................................ 12 2.2 APPLICANTS’ PROPOSAL .............................................................................. 14 2.2.1 Proposed Facility and Project Boundary Modifications .............................. 14 2.2.2 Proposed Operation and Environmental Measures...................................... 14 2.3 STAFF ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................................... 17 2.4 STAFF ALTERNATIVE WITH MANDATORY CONDITIONS .................... 19 2.5 ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 22 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 22 3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN ...................................... 22 3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ........................................ 24 3.2.1 Geographic Scope ......................................................................................... 24 3.2.2 Temporal Scope ............................................................................................ 24 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ............................... 25 3.3.1 Aquatic Resources ........................................................................................ 25 3.3.2 Terrestrial Resources .................................................................................... 78 3.3.3 Threatened and Endangered Species............................................................ 81 3.3.4 Land Use and Recreation ............................................................................. 87 3.3.5 Cultural Resources........................................................................................ 92 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ..................................................................... 98 4.1 POWER AND DEVELOPMENTAL BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT ............ 99 4.2 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ............................................................ 101 4.2.1 No-Action Alternative ................................................................................ 102 4.2.2 Applicant’s Proposal .................................................................................. 102 ii 4.2.3 Staff Alternative ......................................................................................... 102 4.2.4 Staff Alternative With Mandatory Conditions........................................... 102 4.3 COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES................................................. 103 5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 104 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE................................................................................................ 104 5.1.1 Measures Proposed by Brookfield ............................................................. 104 5.1.2 Additional Measures Recommended by Staff ........................................... 106 5.1.3 Measures Not Recommended .................................................................... 117 5.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS ........................................................ 129 5.3 FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 129 5.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ................................... 140 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ................................................... 143 APPENDIX A, STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS .................. 144 APPENDIX B, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR’S SECTION 18 PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS ............................................................ 149 APPENDIX C, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE’S SECTION 18 PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS ............................................................ 154 APPENDIX D, SUMMARY OF COST OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES ......... 160 APPENDIX E, DRAFT LICENSE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF .... 181 APPENDIX F, ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 187 APPENDIX G, LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................... 193 APPENDIX H, LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................................................... 201 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of Shawmut and other FERC-licensed hydroelectric projects on the mainstem Kennebec River. .................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Shawmut Hydroelectric Project facilities. ........................................................... 8 Figure 3. Discharge locations of downstream fish passage facilities at the Shawmut Hydroelectric Project. ........................................................................................ 10 Figure 4. Plunge pool located immediately below the forebay bypass gates at the Shawmut Project. ............................................................................................... 11 Figure 5. Location of Recreational Facilities at the Shawmut Hydroelectric Project. ..... 89 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Dams on the Kennebec River. ........................................................................... 23 Table 2. Average, minimum, and maximum daily inflow for the project based on prorated gage data for the period 2004-2019 .................................................... 26 Table 3. Summary of water classifications and water quality criteria. ........................... 27 Table 4. Estimated number of adult Atlantic salmon effectively passing upstream of the Weston Project under existing and proposed passage effectiveness scenarios. 41 Table 5. Estimated number of fish effectively passing upstream of Shawmut Project under existing and proposed passage effectiveness scenarios. ......................... 42 Table 6. Salmon smolt passage route utilization and survival rates for the Shawmut Project from 2013 – 2015.. ................................................................................ 51 Table 7. Immediate turbine passage survival rates of fish based on turbine type and fish size. ..................................................................................................................... 54 Table 8. Minimum sizes of anadromous fishes (total length) physically excluded from trash racks with 1-inch, 1.5-inch, and 3.5-inch bar spacing, based on the body width scaling factors in Smith (1985)................................................................ 54 Table 9. Estimated through screen velocities (fps) under different trash rack spacing alternatives ......................................................................................................... 56 Table 10. Overview of Previously Approved and Ongoing Fish Passage Measures at Lockwood, Hydro-Kennebec, and Weston Projects ......................................... 75 Table 11. Parameters for economic analysis of the project. ............................................ 100 Table 12. Summary of the annual cost of alternative power and annual project cost for four alternatives for the Shawmut Project. ...................................................... 101 Table 13. Analysis of fish and wildlife agency recommendations