UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 66 FERC 62,067 FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Lawrence E. and Veronica Project No. 11124-000 P. Smith Maine ORDER ISSUING LICENSE (Minor Project) Issued February 3, 1994 INTRODUCTION Lawrence E. and Veronica P. Smith (applicants) filed a license application under Part I of the Federal Power Act (Act) to continue to operate and maintain the existing 350-kilowatt (kW) Upper Kezar Falls Project located on the Ossipee River in York and Oxford Counties, Maine. 1/ BACKGROUND The application for license for Project No. 11124 was originally filed as part of Project No. 9340 which included both the upper and lower Kezar Falls developments. 2/ On May 3, 1991, in response to a petition for rehearing of the licensing order for Project No. 9340 (which licensed both developments), the Commission modified the license by removing the upper development, created Project No. 11124 for the upper development, and directed the applicants to conduct certain flow studies. 3/ The flow studies were completed and the results filed. Notice of the application for Project No. 9340 has been published. No protests were filed and no agency objected to issuance of the license. Those entities that were intervenors in the Project No. 9340 proceeding will also be considered to have intervenor status for Project No. 11124. The intervenors and their concerns are discussed below. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) filed a timely motion to intervene in the licensing proceeding on August 18, 1986. The DEP wanted to protect certain interests, including making sure that the Kezar Falls Project was best adapted to the State of Maine's "Comprehensive Hydropower Plan", dated October 1, 1982. The DEP does not oppose the project. The Saco River Salmon Club (Club) and five other organizations filed a timely motion to intervene in the licensing 1/ The Ossipee River is a navigable waterway of the United States. 43 FERC  61,537 (1988). 2/ Lawrence E. and Veronica P. Smith, 53 FERC  62,069 (1990). 3/ Lawrence E. and Veronica P. Smith, Order on Rehearing, 55 FERC  61,184 (1991). 2 proceeding on May 29, 1990, in response to the public notice for the project as amended on January 2, 1990. The Club requested that the Commission prepare a comprehensive plan for the Saco River Basin before acting on the Kezar Falls application, because the Ossipee River discharges into the Saco River about 6.5 miles downstream of the project. The Club additionally requested that the applicants construct upstream and downstream fish passage facilities at both developments. As stated in the order for Project No. 9340, preparation of a comprehensive plan for the Saco River Basin is not necessary nor required. Additionally, I have determined that construction of fish passage facilities at the project is not necessary at the present time. A more detailed discussion of this matter is provided in the attached environmental assessment (EA) for Project No. 11124 and the Comprehensive Development section of this order. The Commission's staff issued a draft EA for the project on September 24, 1993. Comments were filed by Maine Department of Environmental Protection, U.S. Department of the Interior, Water Resources Division, and John D. Gleason, attorney for the applicants. These letters were reviewed by the staff and appropriate corrections and clarifications were incorporated into the final EA attached to this order. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project structures consist of a rock-filled timber crib dam about 8 feet high by 270 feet long surmounted by flashboards approximately 1.8 feet high; a concrete gravity dam with an ogee crest about 11 feet high by 196 feet long surmounted by 1.8-foot- high flashboards, and containing two 6-foot by 6-foot waste gates adjacent to its island abutment; an impoundment with a normal water surface elevation of 366.7 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) and a surface area of about 10 acres; a power canal about 700 feet long with an average width of about 100 feet; stoplog slots at a single lane bridge crossing the power canal; a concrete flume about 132 feet long with an average width of 33 feet, extending from the power canal, under State Route 25, to the powerhouse; a concrete and brick powerhouse with approximate dimensions of 23 feet by 37 feet, containing one vertical turbine and generator unit rated at 350 kilowatts (kW); a tailrace about 60 feet long that passes beneath a non-project mill building; a 40-foot-long underground transmission line; and appurtenant facilities. WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION By letter dated March 2, 1993, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (MDEP) recommended that conditions in the Section 401 water quality certificate (WQC) for the Kezar 3 Falls Project No. 9340, dated April 25, 1990, be applied to the Upper Kezar Falls Project. The WQC conditions which pertain to the Upper Development require that 1) the Upper Kezar Falls Project operate in a run-of-river mode (outflow equals inflow); and 2) a 30 cfs minimum flow, or inflow, whichever is less, be maintained from the Upper Kezar Falls Dam at all times. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The Maine State Planning Office is responsible for reviewing the proposed project for consistency with Maine's Coastal Management Program. The Upper Kezar Falls Project is not located within Maine's coastal zone boundary and is not expected to affect coastal resources, therefore, no consistency certification is required. SECTION 18 FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS The Department of the Interior (Interior) currently does not require facilities specifically designed to pass fish upstream or downstream at upper and lower Kezar Falls. Interior states that should management objectives for the Ossipee River change, fish passage facilities may be needed in the future. Therefore, Interior requests that Section 18 reservation of authority be placed in any license issued for the Upper Kezar Falls Project. Article 404 reserves Interior's authority under Section 18. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FEDERAL AND STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES Section 10(j) of the Act requires the Commission to include license conditions, based on recommendations of Federal and state fish and wildlife agencies, for the protection, mitigation of adverse impacts to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources. Pursuant to Section 10(j) of the Act, staff made a determination that the recommendations of the Federal and state fish and wildlife agencies are consistent with the purposes and requirements of Part I of the Act and applicable law. Staff has addressed the concerns of the Federal and state fish and wildlife agencies in the EA and the license includes conditions consistent with the recommendations of the agencies. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Section 10(a)(2) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. 803(a)(2), requires the Commission to also consider the extent to which the project is consistent with federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. Under section 10(a)(2), federal and state agencies filed seven comprehensive plans with the Commission that address various resources in Maine. Of these, staff identified and reviewed three plans relevant to this 4 project. 4/ No conflicts were found. Staff also reviewed the Saco River Strategic Plan for Fisheries Management published in January 1987 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), the Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission, and the Maine Department of Marine Resources. I find the Upper Kezar Falls Project to be compatible with this plan. The Saco River Salmon Club, American Rivers, the Atlantic Salmon Federation, the North Conway Chapter of Trout Unlimited, the Natural Resources Council of Maine, and Trout Unlimited (conservation groups), in their motion to intervene for Project No. 9340, dated May 29, 1990, state that before acting on the license application for the Kezar Falls Project, the Commission must first direct the preparation of a comprehensive plan for the Saco River Basin (SRB) pursuant to section 10(a)(1) of the Act. The Commission has determined that section 10(a)(1) of the Act does not require the Commission to prepare a single comprehensive plan for a particular river basin before acting on a license application for a project located in that basin. 5/ Based on review of the agency and public comments filed on this project, and on staff's independent analysis and assessment of the project pursuant to sections 4(e), 10(a)(1), and 10(a)(2) of the Act, I find that the Upper Kezar Falls Project is best adapted to a comprehensive plan for the proper use, conservation, and development of the Ossipee River. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT The comprehensive development of the project was considered and discussed for both the upper and lower developments in the order issued for Project No. 9340. Additional discussion is provided below. Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the Act, require the Commission to give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project is located. When the Commission reviews a project, the recreational, fish and wildlife resources, and other nondevelopmental values of the involved waterway are considered equally with power and other developmental values. In determining whether, and under what conditions, a hydropower 4/ Strategic plan for management of Atlantic salmon in the state of Maine, 1984, Maine Atlantic Sea-Run Salmon Commission; State of Maine comprehensive rivers management plan, 1987, Maine State Planning Office; The Saco River: a plan for recreational management, 1983, Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission. 5/ See 55 FERC  61,184. 5 license should be issued, the Commission must weigh the various economic and environmental tradeoffs involved in the decision. A. Recommended Alternative Based on staff's independent review and evaluation of the proposed Upper Kezar Falls project, agency recommendations, and the recommended alternative, I have selected issuing a license for the proposed project, with additional staff-recommended environmental measures, as the preferred option. I recommend this option because: (1) with these measures, the environmental effects of subsequent operation would be minor; (2) these measures would protect or improve fish, wildlife, recreation, and cultural resources; and (3) the electricity generated from a renewable resource would be provided, thus reducing the use of existing fossil-fueled, steam-electric generating plants; thereby, conserving nonrenewable energy resources, and reducing atmospheric pollution, and global warming. The beneficial effects (in addition to the air quality benefits) on the environment associated with the licensing of the Upper Kezar Falls Project would result from the required environmental measures. These measures include: (a) operating the project in a run-of-river mode; (b) establishing a minimum flow of 40 cfs from the Upper dam, as measured at the base of the dam, or inflow, whichever is less, for the protection of fisheries and water quality in the bypassed reach of the Ossipee River; (c) preparing and implementing a plan to measure and report project flows, water surface elevations, and operation records to monitor compliance with the run-of-river mode of operation and flow releases to the upper and lower bypassed reaches; (d) grouting the upper timber crib dam to reduce fish entrapment on the dam; (e) repainting existing project appurtenances to match the color of adjacent facilities and improve the overall appearance of the development; and (f) implementing the recreation and canoe access facility plan filed January 31, 1987, and supplemented December 29, 1989. B. Developmental and Nondevelopmental Uses of the Waterway The project would provide a number of benefits. An estimated 2,116,000 kWh (currently worth $126,960) of relatively 6 low-cost electricity would be generated annually from a clean, domestic, reliable, and renewable energy resource. Establishing a minimum flow in the upper bypassed reach would have positive, long-term impacts on water quality, fisheries habitat, and aesthetics, and would be consistent with agency fishery management goals established for the reach. Grouting the rock fill in the upper development's timber crib dam would prevent the potential impingement of fish in the crib works. Applicants propose no new construction or improvements at the Upper Kezar Falls Hydroelectric Project, other than recapping the dam and improving canoe and fishing access facilities. The cost for modifying the timber crib dam, painting project appurtenances, and making improvements to the existing canoe and fishing access facilities are minor. 6/ Hence, the levelized project costs are only the operation and maintenance costs and administrative and general expenses. These costs are small compared to the value of the power in the region, and the project would have positive levelized net annual benefits. The Upper Kezar Falls plant currently generates on average about 2,188,000 kWh annually under leakage conditions at the upper dam. Staff estimates, with the recommended 40 cfs minimum flow, the Upper Kezar Falls plant would generate about 2,116,000 kWh annually. Energy generation would be reduced by about 72,000 kWh per year, or about 3.3 percent less than present generation. The levelized value of this lost generation would be about $7,840 annually. The long-term benefit to anadromous and resident fishery resources from additional minimum flow releases warrant the reduction in power benefits. I conclude that the project is economical, even with the required enhancement measures. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT On December 21, 1992, the applicants requested that Project No. 9340 be amended to include the facilities and conditions pertinent to Project No. 11124 so as to reduce paperwork and facilitate license compliance. Action on this request will be deferred until after the issuance of this license. OTHER FINDINGS An EA was issued for this project. Background information, analysis of impacts, support for related license articles, and the basis for a finding of no significant impact on the environment are contained in the EA attached to this order and 6/ Estimated cost for providing upstream and downstream fish passage facilities have not been included in the economic analysis because of the uncertainty of these possible future actions. 7 the EA for Project No. 9340. Issuance of this license is not a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The design of this project is consistent with the engineering standards governing dam safety. The project will be safe if operated and maintained in accordance with the requirements of this license. Analysis of related issues is provided in the Safety and Design Assessment for Project No. 9340. I conclude that the project would not conflict with any planned or authorized development, and would be best adapted to comprehensive development of the waterway for beneficial public uses. LICENSE TERM In 1986, the Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA) modified section 15 of the FPA to specify that any license issued shall be for a term which the Commission determines to be in the public interest, but not less than 30 years, nor more than 50 years. In accordance with the Order on Rehearing for Project No. 9340, the license for the Upper Kezar Falls Project will be for a term of approximately 37 years ending concurrently with the license for the Lower Kezar Fall Project so that relicensing of the two projects can be considered simultaneously. THE DIRECTOR ORDERS: (A) This license is issued to Lawrence E. and Veronica P. Smith (Licensee), for a period ending September 30, 2030, effective the first day of the month in which this order is issued, to operate and maintain the Upper Kezar Falls Project. This license is subject to the terms and conditions of the Act, which is incorporated by reference as part of this license, and subject to the regulations the Commission issues under the provisions of the Act. (B) The project consists of: (1) All lands, to the extent of the Licensee's interests in those lands shown by exhibit G: (New exhibits A, F, and G were not filed for Project No. 11124 after the order on rehearing for Project No. 9340, 55 FERC  61,184 (1991); therefore, the applicable exhibits A, F and G filed for Project No. 9340 apply to Project No. 11124.) 8 Exhibit G- FERC No. 9340- Showing 4 38 Upper Facility 5 39 Upper Facility (2) Project works consisting of: (a) a rock-filled timber crib dam about 8 feet high by 270 feet long surmounted by flashboards approximately 1.8 feet high; (b) a concrete gravity dam with an ogee crest about 11 feet high by 196 feet long surmounted by 1.8-foot-high flashboards, and containing two 6- foot by 6-foot waste gates adjacent to its island abutment; (c) an impoundment with a normal water surface elevation of 366.7 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) and a surface area of about 10 acres; (d) a power canal about 700 feet long with an average width of about 100 feet; (e) stoplog slots at a single lane bridge crossing the power canal; (f) a concrete flume about 132 feet long with an average width of 33 feet, extending from the power canal, under State Route 25, to the powerhouse; (g) a concrete and brick powerhouse with approximate dimensions of 23 feet by 37 feet, containing one vertical turbine and generator unit rated at 350 kilowatts (kW); (h) a tailrace about 60 feet long that passes beneath a non-project mill building; (i) a 40- foot-long underground transmission line; and (j) appurtenant facilities. The project works generally described above are more specifically shown and described by those portions of exhibits A and F shown below: Exhibit A - The following sections of exhibit A filed January 2, 1990: Section 1.0, page A-4, entitled "Generators"; Section 2.0, page A-5, entitled "Turbines"; and Sections 8.1.7, 8.2.7, and 8.3 on pages A-13, A-14, and A-15, describing the switchyards, transmission lines, and appurtenant equipment. Exhibit FERC No. Showing F-1 9340-41 Site Plan, Upper and Lower Sites F-2 9340-42 Site Plan, Upper Site F-3 9340-43 Rock-filled Timber Crib Dam; Plan, Elevation, & Section; Upper Site F-4 9340-44 Concrete Dam; Plan, Elevation, & Sections; Upper Site 9 F-10 9340-8 Upper Facility, Existing Powerhouse Floor Plan F-11 9340-9 Upper Facility, Existing Powerhouse Elevations F-12 9340-10 Upper Facility, Existing Powerhouse Transverse & Longitudinal Sections F-13 9340-11 Upper Facility, Existing Draft Tube & Tailrace Sections (3) All of the structures, fixtures, equipment or facilities used to operate or maintain the project, all portable property that may be employed in connection with the project, and all riparian or other rights that are necessary or appropriate in the operation or maintenance of the project. (C) The exhibits A, F, and G described above are approved and made part of the license. (D) The following sections of the Act are waived and excluded from the license for this minor project: 4(b), except the second sentence; 4(e), insofar as it relates to approval of plans by the Chief of Engineers and the Secretary of the Army; 6, insofar as it relates to public notice and to the acceptance and expression in the license of terms and conditions of the Act that are waived here; 10(c), insofar as it relates to depreciation reserves; 10(d); 10(f); 14, except insofar as the power of condemnation is reserved; 15; 16; 19; 20; and 22. (E) This license is subject to the articles set forth in Form L-9, (October 1975), entitled "Terms and Conditions of License for Constructed Minor Project Affecting Navigable Waters of the United States", and the following additional articles: Article 201. The Licensee shall pay the United States an annual charge, effective the first day of the month in which this license is issued, for the purpose of reimbursing the United States for the cost of administration of Part I of the Act as determined by the Commission. The authorized installed capacity for that purpose is 460 horsepower. Article 401. The Licensee shall operate the Upper Kezar Falls Project in a run-of-river mode for the protection of water quality and aquatic resources in the Ossipee River. The Licensee shall at all times act to minimize the fluctuations of the 10 reservoir surface elevation, i.e., maintain a discharge from the project so that, at any point in time, flows, immediately downstream from the project tailrace, approximate the sum of inflows to the project reservoir. Run-of-river operation may be temporarily modified if required by operating emergencies beyond the control of the Licensee, or for short periods upon mutual agreement between the Licensee and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, and Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. If the flow is so modified, the Licensee shall notify the Commission as soon as possible, but no later than 10 days after each such incident. Article 402. The Licensee shall release a minimum flow of 40 cubic foot per second (cfs) from the Upper Kezar Falls dam, as measured at the base of the dam, or inflow, whichever is less, for the protection of aquatic resources and water quality in the bypassed reach of the Ossipee River. In addition, the Licensee shall maintain approximately 1 cfs in the side channel, located 200 feet downstream of the Upper Kezar Falls dam, to assure that this channel is at all times watered. This flow may be temporarily modified, if required by operating emergencies beyond the control of the Licensee, or for short periods upon mutual agreement between the Licensee and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, and Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. If the flow is so modified, the Licensee shall notify the Commission as soon as possible, but no later than 10 days after each such incident. Article 403. The Licensee shall file with the Commission for approval, within 180 days from the date of issuance of the license, a plan to monitor compliance with the run-of-river mode of operation and flow release to the bypassed reach, as stipulated in Articles 401 and 402, respectively. The plan shall include but not be limited to: (1) an implementation schedule; (2) the location, design, and calibration of gaging equipment, if needed; (3) the method of data collection; and (4) a provision for providing flow data and water surface elevation data to the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, and Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife within 30 days from the date of the agency's request for the data. The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the plan. Upon Commission approval the Licensee shall implement the plan, including any changes required by the Commission. 11 Article 404. Authority is reserved to the Commission to require the Licensee to construct, operate, and maintain, or provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of, such fishways as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to Section 18 of the Federal Power Act. Article 405. The Licensee, before starting any land- clearing or land-disturbing activities, other than those specifically authorized in this license, including recreation developments at the project, shall consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). If the Licensee discovers previously unidentified archeological or historic properties during the course of constructing or developing project works or other facilities at the project, the Licensee shall stop all land-clearing and land- disturbing activities in the vicinity of the properties and consult with the SHPO. In either instance, the Licensee shall file for Commission approval a cultural resource management plan (plan) prepared by a qualified cultural resource specialist after having consulted with the SHPO. The plan shall include the following items: (1) a description of each discovered property indicating whether it is listed on or eligible to be listed on the National Register of Historic Places; (2) a description of the potential effect on each discovered property; (3) proposed measures for avoiding or mitigating effects; (4) documentation of the nature and extent of consultation; and (5) a schedule for mitigating effects and conducting additional studies. The Commission may require changes to the plan. The Licensee shall not begin land-clearing or land- disturbing activities, other than those specifically authorized in this license, or resume such activities in the vicinity of a property, discovered during construction, until informed that the requirements of this article have been fulfilled. Article 406. The Licensee, to protect the visual character and quality of the Upper Kezar Falls timber-crib dam and its surrounding landscape, shall use the concrete grouting method described on page A-11 of the amended license application filed on January 2, 1990. Article 407. The Licensee shall, prior to beginning land- clearing, ground-disturbing, or spoil producing activities at the location of the proposed upper impoundment canoe take out, depicted in figure E 2.6-1 of the amended application, consult with the Maine State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and file for Commission approval the written report of an archaeological survey of the area that would be affected by developing the proposed canoe take out. The Licensee shall ask 12 the SHPO to comment on the report, and shall include the SHPO's comments concerning the report as part of the material to be filed pursuant to this article. The Commission reserves the right to require changes to the report. Article 408. The Licensee shall implement the recreation plan, filed January 31, 1987, and supplemented December 29, 1989, which is approved and made a part of the license. The plan, consisting of 2 pages of text and 1 drawing (additional information response 5) filed January 31, 1987, and pages E-18 through E-20 and 1 drawing, figure E 2.6-1, filed December 29, 1989, provides for improved public access in the project area. The canoeing signs proposed in the January 31, 1987, filing shall also indicate fishing access opportunities. The licensee shall, within 90 days of completion of the public access facilities, file for approval by the Commission, revised exhibits A, F, and G, to describe and show the project as-built. In addition, the Licensee shall operate and maintain or arrange for the operation and maintenance of the aforementioned facilities during the term of the license. Article 409. (a) In accordance with the provisions of this article, the Licensee shall have the authority to grant permission for certain types of use and occupancy of project lands and waters and to convey certain interests in project lands and waters for certain types of use and occupancy, without prior Commission approval. The Licensee may exercise the authority only if the proposed use and occupancy is consistent with the purposes of protecting and enhancing the scenic, recreational, and other environmental values of the project. For those purposes, the Licensee shall also have continuing responsibility to supervise and control the use and occupancies for which it grants permission, and to monitor the use of, and ensure compliance with the covenants of the instrument of conveyance for, any interests that it has conveyed, under this article. If a permitted use and occupancy violates any condition of this article or any other condition imposed by the Licensee for protection and enhancement of the project's scenic, recreational, or other environmental values, or if a covenant of a conveyance made under the authority of this article is violated, the Licensee shall take any lawful action necessary to correct the violation. For a permitted use or occupancy, that action includes, if necessary, canceling the permission to use and occupy the project lands and waters and requiring the removal of any non-complying structures and facilities. (b) The type of use and occupancy of project lands and waters for which the Licensee may grant permission without prior Commission approval are: (1) landscape plantings; (2) non- commercial piers, landings, boat docks, or similar structures and facilities that can accommodate no more than 10 watercraft at a time and where said facility is intended to serve single-family 13 type dwellings; and (3) embankments, bulkheads, retaining walls, or similar structures for erosion control to protect the existing shoreline. To the extent feasible and desirable to protect and enhance the project's scenic, recreational, and other environmental values, the Licensee shall require multiple use and occupancy of facilities for access to project lands or waters. The Licensee shall also ensure, to the satisfaction of the Commission's authorized representative, that the use and occupancies for which it grants permission are maintained in good repair and comply with applicable state and local health and safety requirements. Before granting permission for construction of bulkheads or retaining walls, the Licensee shall: (1) inspect the site of the proposed construction, (2) consider whether the planting of vegetation or the use of riprap would be adequate to control erosion at the site, and (3) determine that the proposed construction is needed and would not change the basic contour of the reservoir shoreline. To implement this paragraph (b), the Licensee may, among other things, establish a program for issuing permits for the specified types of use and occupancy of project lands and waters, which may be subject to the payment of a reasonable fee to cover the Licensee's costs of administering the permit program. The Commission reserves the right to require the Licensee to file a description of its standards, guidelines, and procedures for implementing this paragraph (b) and to require modification of those standards, guidelines, or procedures. (c) The Licensee may convey easements or rights-of-way across, or leases of, project lands for: (1) replacement, expansion, realignment, or maintenance of bridges and roads for which all necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) storm drains and water mains; (3) sewers that do not discharge into project waters; (4) minor access roads; (5) telephone, gas, and electric utility distribution lines; (6) non- project overhead electric transmission lines that do not require erection of support structures within the project boundary; (7) submarine, overhead, or underground major telephone distribution cables or major electric distribution lines (69-kV or less); and (8) water intake or pumping facilities that do not extract more than one million gallons per day from a project reservoir. No later than January 31 of each year, the Licensee shall file three copies of a report briefly describing for each conveyance made under this paragraph (c) during the prior calendar year, the type of interest conveyed, the location of the lands subject to the conveyance, and the nature of the use for which the interest was conveyed. (d) The Licensee may convey fee title to, easements or rights-of-way across, or leases of project lands for: (1) construction of new bridges or roads for which all necessary state and federal approvals have been obtained; (2) sewer or effluent lines that discharge into project waters, for which all necessary federal and state water quality certification or 14 permits have been obtained; (3) other pipelines that cross project lands or waters but do not discharge into project waters; (4) non-project overhead electric transmission lines that require erection of support structures within the project boundary, for which all necessary federal and state approvals have been obtained; (5) private or public marinas that can accommodate no more than 10 watercraft at a time and are located at least one- half mile from any other private or public marina; (6) recreational development consistent with an approved Exhibit R or approved report on recreational resources of an Exhibit E; and (7) other uses, if: (i) the amount of land conveyed for a particular use is five acres or less; (ii) all of the land conveyed is located at least 75 feet, measured horizontally, from the edge of the project reservoir at normal maximum surface elevation; and (iii) no more than 50 total acres of project lands for each project development are conveyed under this clause (d)(7) in any calendar year. At least 45 days before conveying any interest in project lands under this paragraph (d), the Licensee must submit a letter to the Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing, stating its intent to convey the interest and briefly describing the type of interest and location of the lands to be conveyed (a marked exhibit G or K map may be used), the nature of the proposed use, the identity of any federal or state agency official consulted, and any federal or state approvals required for the proposed use. Unless the Director, within 45 days from the filing date, requires the Licensee to file an application for prior approval, the Licensee may convey the intended interest at the end of that period. (e) The following additional conditions apply to any intended conveyance under paragraph (c) or (d) of this article: (1) Before conveying the interest, the Licensee shall consult with federal and state fish and wildlife or recreation agencies, as appropriate, and the State Historic Preservation Officer. (2) Before conveying the interest, the Licensee shall determine that the proposed use of the lands to be conveyed is not inconsistent with any approved exhibit R or approved report on recreational resources of an exhibit E; or, if the project does not have an approved exhibit R or approved report on recreational resources, that the lands to be conveyed do not have recreational value. (3) The instrument of conveyance must include covenants running with the land adequate to ensure that: (i) the use of the lands conveyed shall not endanger health, create a nuisance, or otherwise be incompatible with overall project recreational use; and (ii) the grantee shall take all reasonable precautions to insure that the construction, operation, and maintenance of structures or facilities on the conveyed lands will occur in a 15 manner that will protect the scenic, recreational, and environmental values of the project. (4) The Commission reserves the right to require the Licensee to take reasonable remedial action to correct any violation of the terms and conditions of this article, for the protection and enhancement of the project's scenic, recreational, and other environmental values. (f) The conveyance of an interest in project lands under this article does not in itself change the project boundaries. The project boundaries may be changed to exclude land conveyed under this article only upon approval of revised exhibit G or K drawings (project boundary maps) reflecting exclusion of that land. Lands conveyed under this article will be excluded from the project only upon a determination that the lands are not necessary for project purposes, such as operation and maintenance, flowage, recreation, public access, protection of environmental resources, and shoreline control, including shoreline aesthetic values. Absent extraordinary circumstances, proposals to exclude lands conveyed under this article from the project shall be consolidated for consideration when revised exhibit G or K drawings would be filed for approval for other purposes. (g) The authority granted to the Licensee under this article shall not apply to any part of the public lands and reservations of the United States included within the project boundary. (F) The Licensee shall serve copies of any Commission filing required by this order on any entity specified in this order to be consulted on matters related to that filing. Proof of service on these entities must accompany the filing with the Commission. (G) The applicants' December 21, 1992, amendment request that Project No. 9340 be amended to include the facilities and conditions pertinent to Project No. 11124 is deferred until this license order becomes final. 16 (H) This order is issued under authority delegated to the Director and constitutes final agency action. Requests for rehearing by the Commission may be filed within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. section 385.713. The filing of a request for rehearing does not operate as a stay of the effective date of this order or of any other date specified in this order, except as specifically ordered by the Commission. The Licensee's failure to file a request for rehearing shall constitute acceptance of this order. Fred E. Springer Director, Office of Hydropower Licensing Form L-9 (October, 1975) FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF LICENSE FOR CONSTRUCTED MINOR PROJECT AFFECTING NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES Article 1. The entire project, as described in this order of the Commission, shall be subject to all of the provisions, terms, and conditions of the license. Article 2. No substantial change shall be made in the maps, plans, specifications, and statements described and designated as exhibits and approved by the Commission in its order as a part of the license until such change shall have been approved by the Commission: Provided, however, That if the Licensee or the Commission deems it necessary or desirable that said approved exhibits, or any of them, be changed, there shall be submitted to the Commission for approval a revised, or additional exhibit or exhibits covering the proposed changes which, upon approval by the Commission, shall become a part of the license and shall supersede, in whole or in part, such exhibit or exhibits there- tofore made a part of the license as may be specified by the Commission. Article 3. The project area and project works shall be in substantial conformity with the approved exhibits referred to in Article 2 herein or as changed in accordance with the provisions of said article. Except when emergency shall require for the protection of navigation, life, health, or property, there shall not be made without prior approval of the Commission any substan- tial alteration or addition not in conformity with the approved plans to any dam or other project works under the license or any substantial use of project lands and waters not authorized herein; and any emergency alteration, addition, or use so made shall thereafter be subject to such modification and change as the Commission may direct. Minor changes in project works, or in uses of project lands and waters, or divergence from such approved exhibits may be made if such changes will not result in a decrease in efficiency, in a material increase in cost, in an adverse environmental impact, or in impairment of the general scheme of development; but any of such minor changes made without the prior approval of the Commission, which in its judgment have produced or will produce any of such results, shall be subject to such alteration as the Commission may direct. Article 4. The project, including its operation and maintenance and any work incidental to additions or alterations authorized by the Commission, whether or not conducted upon lands 2 of the United States, shall be subject to the inspection and supervision of the Regional Engineer, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in the region wherein the project is located, or of such other officer or agent as the Commission may designate, who shall be the authorized representative of the Commission for such purposes. The Licensee shall cooperate fully with said repre- sentative and shall furnish him such information as he may require concerning the operation and maintenance of the project, and any such alterations thereto, and shall notify him of the date upon which work with respect to any alteration will begin, as far in advance thereof as said representative may reasonably specify, and shall notify him promptly in writing of any suspen- sion of work for a period of more than one week, and of its resumption and completion. The Licensee shall submit to said representative a detailed program of inspection by the Licensee that will provide for an adequate and qualified inspection force for construction of any such alterations to the project. Con- struction of said alterations or any feature thereof shall not be initiated until the program of inspection for the alterations or any feature thereof has been approved by said representative. The Licensee shall allow said representative and other officers or employees of the United States, showing proper credentials, free and unrestricted access to, through, and across the project lands and project works in the performance of their official duties. The Licensee shall comply with such rules and regula- tions of general or special applicability as the Commission may prescribe from time to time for the protection of life, health, or property. Article 5. The Licensee, within five years from the date of issuance of the license, shall acquire title in fee or the right to use in perpetuity all lands, other than lands of the United States, necessary or appropriate for the construction main- tenance, and operation of the project. The Licensee or its successors and assigns shall, during the period of the license, retain the possession of all project property covered by the license as issued or as later amended, including the project area, the project works, and all franchises, easements, water rights, and rights or occupancy and use; and none of such properties shall be voluntarily sold, leased, transferred, abandoned, or otherwise disposed of without the prior written approval of the Commission, except that the Licensee may lease or otherwise dispose of interests in project lands or property without specific written approval of the Commission pursuant to the then current regulations of the Commission. The provi- sions of this article are not intended to prevent the abandonment or the retirement from service of structures, equipment, or other project works in connection with replacements thereof when they become obsolete, inadequate, or inefficient for further service due to wear and tear; and mortgage or trust deeds or judicial sales made thereunder, or tax sales, shall not be deemed volun- tary transfers within the meaning of this article. 3 Article 6. The Licensee shall install and thereafter main- tain gages and stream-gaging stations for the purpose of deter- mining the stage and flow of the stream or streams on which the project is located, the amount of water held in and withdrawn from storage, and the effective head on the turbines; shall pro- vide for the required reading of such gages and for the adequate rating of such stations; and shall install and maintain standard meters adequate for the determination of the amount of electric energy generated by the project works. The number, character, and location of gages, meters, or other measuring devices, and the method of operation thereof, shall at all times be satisfac- tory to the Commission or its authorized representative. The Commission reserves the right, after notice and opportunity for hearing, to require such alterations in the number, character, and location of gages, meters, or other measuring devices, and the method of operation thereof, as are necessary to secure ade- quate determinations. The installation of gages, the rating of said stream or streams, and the determination of the flow thereof, shall be under the supervision of, or in cooperation with, the District Engineer of the United States Geological Sur- vey having charge of stream-gaging operations in the region of the project, and the Licensee shall advance to the United States Geological Survey the amount of funds estimated to be necessary for such supervision, or cooperation for such periods as may be mutually agreed upon. The Licensee shall keep accurate and suf- ficient records of the foregoing determinations to the satis- faction of the Commission, and shall make return of such records annually at such time and in such form as the Commission may prescribe. Article 7. The Licensee shall, after notice and opportunity for hearing, install additional capacity or make other changes in the project as directed by the Commission, to the extent that it is economically sound and in the public interest to do so. Article 8. The Licensee shall, after notice and opportunity for hearing, coordinate the operation of the project, electri- cally and hydraulically, with such other projects or power systems and in such manner as the Commission may direct in the interest of power and other beneficial public uses of water resources, and on such conditions concerning the equitable shar- ing of benefits by the Licensee as the Commission may order. Article 9. The United States specifically retains and safeguards the right to use water in such amount, to be deter- mined by the Secretary of the Army, as may be necessary for the purposes of navigation on the navigable waterway affected; and the operations of the Licensee, so far as they affect the use, storage and discharge from storage of waters affected by the license, shall at all times be controlled by such reasonable rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Army may prescribe in the interest of navigation, and as the Commission may prescribe for the protection of life, health, and property, and in the interest of the fullest practicable conservation and 4 utilization of such waters for power purposes and for other beneficial public uses, including recreational purposes, and the Licensee shall release water from the project reservoir at such rate in cubic feet per second, or such volume in acre-feet per specified period of time, as the Secretary of the Army may prescribe in the interest of navigation, or as the Commission may prescribe for the other purposes hereinbefore mentioned. Article 10. On the application of any person, association, corporation, Federal agency, State or municipality, the Licensee shall permit such reasonable use of its reservoir or other project properties, including works, lands and water rights, or parts thereof, as may be ordered by the Commission, after notice and opportunity for hearing, in the interests of comprehensive development of the waterway or waterways involved and the con- servation and utilization of the water resources of the region for water supply or for the purposes of steam-electric, irriga- tion, industrial, municipal or similar uses. The Licensee shall receive reasonable compensation for use of its reservoir or other project properties or parts thereof for such purposes, to include at least full reimbursement for any damages or expenses which the joint use causes the Licensee to incur. Any such compensation shall be fixed by the Commission either by approval of an agree- ment between the Licensee and the party or parties benefiting or after notice and opportunity for hearing. Applications shall contain information in sufficient detail to afford a full under- standing of the proposed use, including satisfactory evidence that the applicant possesses necessary water rights pursuant to applicable State law, or a showing of cause why such evidence cannot concurrently be submitted, and a statement as to the relationship of the proposed use to any State or municipal plans or orders which may have been adopted with respect to the use of such waters. Article 11. The Licensee shall, for the conservation and development of fish and wildlife resources, construct, maintain, and operate, or arrange for the construction, maintenance, and operation of such reasonable facilities, and comply with such reasonable modifications of the project structures and operation, as may be ordered by the Commission upon its own motion or upon the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior or the fish and wildlife agency or agencies of any State in which the project or a part thereof is located, after notice and opportunity for hearing. Article 12. Whenever the United States shall desire, in connection with the project, to construct fish and wildlife facilities or to improve the existing fish and wildlife facili- ties at its own expense, the Licensee shall permit the United States or its designated agency to use, free of cost, such of the Licensee's lands and interests in lands, reservoirs, waterways and project works as may be reasonably required to complete such facilities or such improvements thereof. In addition, after notice and opportunity for hearing, the Licensee shall modify the 5 project operation as may be reasonably prescribed by the Commis- sion in order to permit the maintenance and operation of the fish and wildlife facilities constructed or improved by the United States under the provisions of this article. This article shall not be interpreted to place any obligation on the United States to construct or improve fish and wildlife facilities or to relieve the Licensee of any obligation under this license. Article 13. So far as is consistent with proper operation of the project, the Licensee shall allow the public free access, to a reasonable extent, to project waters and adjacent project lands owned by the Licensee for the purpose of full public utili- zation of such lands and waters for navigation and for outdoor recreational purposes, including fishing and hunting: Provided, That the Licensee may reserve from public access such portions of the project waters, adjacent lands, and project facilities as may be necessary for the protection of life, health, and property. Article 14. In the construction, maintenance, or operation of the project, the Licensee shall be responsible for, and shall take reasonable measures to prevent, soil erosion on lands adjacent to streams or other waters, stream sedimentation, and any form of water or air pollution. The Commission, upon the request or upon its own motion, may order the Licensee to take such measures as the Commission finds to be necessary for these purposes, after notice and opportunity for hearing. Article 15. The Licensee shall clear and keep clear to an adequate width lands along open conduits and shall dispose of all temporary structures, unused timber, brush, refuse, or other material unnecessary for the purposes of the project which results from the clearing of lands or from the maintenance or alteration of the project works. In addition, all trees along the periphery of project reservoirs which may die during opera- tions of the project shall be removed. All clearing of the lands and disposal of the unnecessary material shall be done with due diligence and to the satisfaction of the authorized representa- tive of the Commission and in accordance with appropriate Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations. Article 16. Material may be dredged or excavated from, or placed as fill in, project lands and/or waters only in the prose- cution of work specifically authorized under the license; in the maintenance of the project; or after obtaining Commission approval, as appropriate. Any such material shall be removed and/or deposited in such manner as to reasonably preserve the environmental values of the project and so as not to interfere with traffic on land or water. Dredging and filling in a navigable water of the United States shall also be done to the satisfaction of the District Engineer, Department of the Army, in charge of the locality. Article 17. If the Licensee shall cause or suffer essential project property to be removed or destroyed or to become unfit 6 for use, without adequate replacement, or shall abandon or dis- continue good faith operation of the project or refuse or neglect to comply with the terms of the license and the lawful orders of the Commission mailed to the record address of the Licensee or its agent, the Commission will deem it to be the intent of the Licensee to surrender the license. The Commission, after notice and opportunity for hearing, may require the Licensee to remove any or all structures, equipment and power lines within the pro- ject boundary and to take any such other action necessary to restore the project waters, lands, and facilities remaining within the project boundary to a condition satisfactory to the United States agency having jurisdiction over its lands or the Commission's authorized representative, as appropriate, or to provide for the continued operation and maintenance of nonpower facilities and fulfill such other obligations under the license as the Commission may prescribe. In addition, the Commission in its discretion, after notice and opportunity for hearing, may also agree to the surrender of the license when the Commission, for the reasons recited herein, deems it to be the intent of the Licensee to surrender the license. Article 18. The right of the Licensee and of its successors and assigns to use or occupy waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, or lands of the United States under the license, for the purpose of maintaining the project works or otherwise, shall absolutely cease at the end of the license period, unless the Licensee has obtained a new license pursuant to the then existing laws and regulations, or an annual license under the terms and conditions of this license. Article 19. The terms and conditions expressly set forth in the license shall not be construed as impairing any terms and conditions of the Federal Power Act which are not expressly set forth herein. 7 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSE Upper Kezar Falls Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 11124-000 Maine Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Hydropower Licensing Division of Project Review 825 N. Capitol Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 January 14, 1994 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 I. APPLICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR POWER AND ACTION . . . . . . . . . . 2 A. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 B. Need for Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 III. PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A. Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 B. Proposed Environmental Measures . . . . . . . . . . . 3 C. No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 D. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 IV. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A. Agency Consultation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 B. Water Quality Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 C. Coastal Zone Management Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 V. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A. General Description of the Locale . . . . . . . . . . 8 1. Saco River Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 2. Potential for Cumulative Impacts . . . . . . . . 9 B. Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1. Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2. Fishery Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 3. Threatened and Endangered Species . . . . . . . 20 4. Aesthetic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 5. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 6. Recreation and Other Land and Water Uses . . . . 24 C. Impacts of the No-Action Alternative . . . . . . . . 24 VI. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE . . 24 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES . . . . . 27 VIII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . 27 IX. LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 X. LIST OF PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Location of the project site and project 4 features for the proposed Kezar Falls Project, FERC Project No. 11124, Maine. 2. Location of the Saco River Basin and the 10 location of principal obstructions to natural flow patterns in the basin. iii SUMMARY On July 10, 1985 Lawrence E. and Veronica P. Smith (Smiths) filed an application for a license (the original application was amended on January 2, 1990) for the existing Kezar Falls Project No. 9340, consisting of the Upper Kezar Falls development and the Lower Kezar Falls development. Subsequently, the Commission determined that the upper and lower developments should be governed by separate licenses; project No. 9340 for the Lower Kezar Falls Project and project No. 11124 for the Upper Kezar Falls Project. Project No. 9340 was licensed on October 24, 1990. The Upper Kezar Falls project is located on the Ossipee River near the Town of Parsonsfield, Maine. Smiths propose no new capacity nor no new construction, with the exception of enhancing canoe facilities and capping the timbercrib dam. Upper Kezar Falls has an installed nameplate capacity of 350 KW; the maximum hydraulic capacity is 400 cubic feet per second (cfs) and the average project generation is currently 2,188 MWh per year. The EA attached to this order analyzes the effects of the existing Upper Kezar Falls Project on the Ossipee River and recommends measures in order to protect and enhance the environmental resources. These measures are: 1. Operate the Upper Kezar Falls Project in a run-of-river mode for the protection of water quality and aquatic resources in the Ossipee River. 2. Release a minimum flow of 40 cfs from the upper dam and maintain approximately 1 cfs in the side channel 200 feet downstream of the dam, for the protection of aquatic resources and water quality in the bypassed reach of the Ossipee River. 3. File, and upon approval implement, a plan to measure and report project flows, water surface elevations, and operation records to monitor compliance with the run-of- river mode of operation and flow releases to the upper and lower bypassed reaches. 4. Cap the upper timber crib dam to protect fish from entrapment. 5. Implement the recreation and canoe access facility plan filed January 31, 1987 and supplemented December 29, 1989. Based on our independent review and evaluation of the proposed Upper Kezar Falls project, agency recommendations, and the no-action alternative, we have selected issuing a license for the proposed project, with additional staff-recommended enhancement measures, as the preferred option. We recommend this iv option because: (1) with enhancement measures, the environmental effects of subsequent operation would be minor; (2) the enhancement measures would protect or enhance fish, wildlife, recreation, and cultural resources; and (3) the electricity generated from a renewable resource would be provided, thus reducing the use of existing fossil-fueled, steam-electric generating plants; thereby, conserving nonrenewable energy resources, and reducing atmospheric pollution, and global warming. No reasonable action alternatives to the project have been identified for assessment. The no-action alternative has been considered and is addressed in the environmental analysis and the comprehensive development sections of this EA. By letter dated March 2, 1993 the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (MDEP) recommended that conditions in Section 401 water quality certificate (WQC) for the Kezar Falls Project, dated April 25, 1990, be applied to the Upper Kezar Falls Project. The WQC requires that 1) the Upper Kezar Falls Projects operate in a run-of-river mode (outflow equals inflow); and 2) a 30 cfs minimum flow, or inflow, whichever is less, be maintained from the Upper Kezar Falls Dam at all times. A 30 cfs minimum flow, as required in the WQC to protect water quality, is less stringent than MDIFW's and FWS's 40 cfs flow recommendation to enhance aquatic habitat. Our recommendation for a 40 cfs minimum flow from the Upper Kezar Falls Dam encompasses the WQC flow of 30 cfs. Pursuant to Section 10(j) of the Federal Power Act (Act), we make a determination that the recommendations of the Federal and state fish and wildlife agencies are consistent with the purposes and requirements of Part I of the Act and applicable law. Section 10(j) of the Act requires the Commission to include license conditions, based on recommendations of Federal and state fish and wildlife agencies, for the protection of, mitigation of adverse impacts to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources. We have addressed the concerns of the Federal and state fish and wildlife agencies and made recommendations consistent with those of the agencies. Based on our independent environmental analysis, we conclude in the EA that issuance of a license for the Upper Kezar Falls Project would not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF HYDROPOWER LICENSING, DIVISION OF PROJECT REVIEW Upper Kezar Falls Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 11124-000 Maine January 14, 1994 INTRODUCTION The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued the Upper Kezar Falls Project Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for comment on September 24, 1993. Three letters, as listed in section IV.C (and attached to this EA as Appendix A), were received in response to the DEA. These letters were reviewed by the staff and appropriate corrections and clarifications have been incorporated into this EA. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) requested that we correct an error in citations. The U.S. Department of the Interior (Interior) recommended that the entire published period of record for the project's flow gaging station should be used in developing flow statistics. Our response to Interior's concern for flow statistics is included in section V.B.1.a of the EA. The Smiths requested changes in our analysis of cultural resources, and provided a recently conducted reconnaissance survey report which clarifies the status of known cultural resources at the project, along with comments from the Maine State Historic Preservation Officer. We agree with the Smiths' request and this new information has been incorporated in the revised section V.B.5 of the EA. I. APPLICATION On July 10, 1985 Lawrence E. and Veronica P. Smith (Smiths) filed an application for a license (the original application was amended on January 2, 1990) for the existing Kezar Falls Project No. 9340, consisting of the Upper Kezar Falls development and the Lower Kezar Falls development. Subsequently, the Commission determined that the upper and lower developments should be governed by separate licenses; Lower Kezar Falls Project No. 9340 and Upper Kezar Falls Project No. 11124. Project No. 9340, Upper Kezar Falls, was issued a license on October 24, 1990. The consultation and application for Project 9340 would apply for Project No. 11124 with the exception that, by Commission order dated May 3, 1991, that the Smiths would be required to conduct a habitat based flow study to identify minimum flow needs for the bypassed reach of the Saco River in the upper development. These studies were completed and the Smiths filed a final report with the Commission on December 21, 1992. 2 II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR POWER AND ACTION A. Purpose Smiths propose no new capacity or new construction, with the exception of enhancing canoe facilities and capping the upper timbercrib dam. Upper Kezar Falls has an installed nameplate capacity of 350 KW; the maximum hydraulic capacity is 400 cubic feet per second (cfs) and, with the proposed 40 cfs minimum flow, the project would generate an average of 2,116 MWh per year that would be sold to the Central Maine Power Company (CMPC). B. Need for Power and Action The applicants (Smiths) are not an electric utility with a distribution system capable of serving end-use customers. If the project is licensed, the Licensees would continue to supply the output to CMPC. The project would be operated as a run-of-river facility and, as such, would be best suited to serve base-load requirements. The project would be located in the New England Power Pool (NEPOOL) of the Northeast Power Coordinating Council (NPCC) reliability region. According to NPCC's April 1, 1990, DOE Code IE-411 Report, the average annual growth rate in summer peak demand for the 10-year period from 1990 to 1999 is forecasted to be 2.2 percent. The average annual growth rate for total energy requirements, for the same period, is projected to be 2.0 percent. The IE-411 report shows that a total of 2,460 megawatts (MW) of "contingent resources" are included in the future capacity resources beginning in 1995 through 1999, in order to achieve a nominal 20 percent reserve margin. Contingent resources are potentially available, uncommitted resources capable of being developed within the required time frame, such as expansion of demand-side management programs, 7/ additional non-utility generation, additional purchases, or additional utility generation. The NEPOOL region presently utilizes the Upper Kezar Fall's 350 kW of existing power generating capacity and the 2,188 kWh per year of total energy that the project currently produces. The major portion of the electric energy produced in the NEPOOL region is generated by fossil-fueled units. The output of the project would be available to off-load fossil-fueled units, 7/ Demand-side management programs include conservation among other load management strategies. 3 thereby reducing the consumption of non-renewable primary energy resources, and reducing atmospheric pollution. III. PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES A. Proposed Project 1. Description of Facilities. (See figure 1.) Upper Kezar Falls is currently an operating unlicensed project consisting of: (1) a rock-filled timber crib dam about 8 feet high by 270 feet long surmounted by flashboards approximately 1.8 feet high; (2) a concrete gravity dam with an ogee crest about 11 feet high by 196 feet long surmounted by 1.8- foot-high flashboards, and containing two 6-foot by 6-foot waste gates adjacent to its island abutment; (3) an impoundment with a normal water surface elevation of 366.7 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) and a surface area of about 10 acres; (4) a power canal about 700 feet long with an average width of about 100 feet; (5) stoplog slots at a single lane bridge crossing the power canal; (6) a concrete flume about 132 feet long with an average width of 33 feet, extending from the power canal under State Route 25, to the powerhouse; (7) a concrete and brick powerhouse with approximate dimensions of 23 feet by 37 feet, containing one vertical turbine and generator unit rated at 350 kilowatts (kW); (8) a tailrace about 60 feet long that passes beneath a non-project mill building; (9) a 40-foot-long, underground transmission line; and (10) appurtenant equipment. The top-of-flashboard elevation at both dams is 366.7 feet NGVD and the normal tailwater elevation at the upper powerhouse is 353.7 feet. B. Proposed Environmental Measures 1. Construction: No construction is proposed. 2. Operation: The Smiths propose to: (1) continue to operate the project in a run-of-river mode; (2) to maintain the present impoundment level; (3) to release a continuous minimum flow of 40 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, into the bypassed reach; and (4) maintain at least 1 cfs flow in the side channel of the bypassed reach approximately 200 feet downstream of the dam. The Smiths would install appropriate staff gages and/or other devices to control and monitor the proposed minimum flow releases and run-of-river mode of operation. The Smiths also propose: (1) to either cap the upper development timber crib dam with wood planking or grout the rock- filled cribbing with concrete in order to prevent the potential 4 figure 1 5 impingement of fish that may drop into the crib works from the impoundment; (2) to install upstream and downstream fish passage facilities at such time as they are deemed necessary; (3) to allow the FWS to inspect the project area at any time to monitor compliance with the License's terms and conditions; and (5) to improve existing informal canoeing and fishing access sites at the two dams and at the upper impoundment (Smith, 1986a, 1987a, and 1989). C. No-Action Alternative Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to operate under the terms and conditions of the existing license, with no change in existing environmental conditions. Because no participant advocates continuing the status quo, we use this alternative to establish baseline environmental conditions for comparison with other alternatives. The alternative of license denial and project decommissioning is discussed below in section III.D. D. Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study We considered several other alternatives to the applicant's relicensing proposal but eliminated them from detailed study because they are not reasonable in the circumstances of this case. They are: (1) Federal takeover and operation of the project; (2) Issuing a nonpower license; and (3) Decommissioning the project. We don't consider Federal takeover to be a reasonable alternative. Federal takeover and operation of the project would require Congressional approval. While that fact alone wouldn't preclude further consideration of this alternative, there is no evidence to indicate that Federal takeover should be recommended to Congress. No party has suggested Federal takeover would be appropriate and no federal agency has expressed an interest in operating the project. Issuing a nonpower license wouldn't provide a long-term resolution of the issues presented. A nonpower license is a temporary license which the Commission will terminate whenever it determines that another governmental agency will assume regulatory authority and supervision over the lands and facilities covered by the nonpower license. In this case, no agency has suggested its willingness or ability to do so. No party has sought a nonpower license, and we have no basis for concluding that the project should no longer be used to produce power. Thus, a nonpower license is not a realistic alternative to relicensing in these circumstances. Project decommissioning could be accomplished with or without dam removal. Either alternative would involve denial of 6 the relicense application and surrender or termination of the existing license with appropriate conditions. No participant has suggested that dam removal would be appropriate in this case, and we have no basis for recommending it. Thus, dam removal is not a reasonable alternative to relicensing the project with appropriate mitigation and enhancement measures. The second decommissioning alternative would involve retaining the dam and disabling or removing equipment used to generate power. Project works would remain in place and could be used for historic or other purposes. This would require us to identify another government agency willing and able to assume regulatory control and supervision of the remaining facilities. No agency has stepped forward, and no participant has advocated this alternative. Nor have we any basis for recommending it. Because the power supplied by the project is needed, a source of replacement power would have to be identified. In these circumstances, we don't consider removal of the electric generating equipment to be a reasonable alternative. IV. CONSULTATION AND COMPLIANCE A. Agency Consultation Agency consultation and comments filed for Kezar Falls Project No. 9340 (the combined upper and lower developments) also apply to Upper Kezar Falls Project No. 11124. All comments for Project No. 9340 and Project No. 11124 become part of the record and were considered during our analysis of the proposed project. 1. The following agencies and entities provided comments on the initial application (Project No. 9340) or filed a motion to intervene in response to the public notice dated 07/28/86. Commenting agencies and other entities Date of letter Maine Department of Inland Fisheries 09/18/86 and Wildlife Maine Office of Energy Resources 09/19/86 Department of the Army, New England 09/22/86 Division Corps of Engineers United States Department of the Interior, 10/02/86 Office of Environmental Project Review United States Environmental Protection 10/03/86 Agency Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission 10/06/86 Maine Department of Marine Resources 10/10/86 Motions to intervene Date of motion Maine Department of Environmental Protection 08/12/86 7 X The Smiths did not respond to the public notice comments or motion(s) to intervene. 2. The following agencies and entities provided comments on the application for Project No. 9340 or filed a motion to intervene in response to the public notice dated 03/27/90. Commenting agencies and other entities Date of letter Department of the Army, New England 05/03/90 Division Corps of Engineers Maine Department of Environmental Protection 05/11/90 United States Department of the Interior, 05/21/90 Office of Environmental Project Review Motions to intervene Date of motion Saco River Salmon Club, American Rivers, 05/29/90 Atlantic Salmon Federation, North Conway Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Natural Resources Council of Maine, and Trout Unlimited X The Smiths did not respond to the public notice comments or motion(s) to intervene. 3. The following agencies and entities provided comments on Project No. 11124 or provided comments in response the public notice dated 02/9/93. Commenting agencies and other entities Date of letter Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 12/08/92 Maine Department of Environmental Planning 03/02/93 United States Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Project Review 12/02/92, 04/01/93 4. The following agencies and entities provided comments on the Draft EA for Project No. 11124 in response the public notice dated 09/24/93. All of the agency's comments have been incorporated into this EA. Commenting agencies and other entities Date of letter 8 Maine Department of Environmental Protection 10/07/93 U.S. Department of the Interior, Water Resources Division 10/12/93 John D. Gleason, Attorney for V.P. and 12/21/93 L.E. Smith [applicants] B. Water Quality Certification By letter dated March 2, 1993 the Maine Board of Environmental Protection (MDEP) recommended that conditions in Section 401 water quality certificate (WQC) for the Kezar Falls Project No. 9340, dated April 25, 1990, be applied to the Upper Kezar Falls Project. The WQC conditions which pertain to the Upper Development require that 1) the Upper Kezar Falls Project operate in a run-of-river mode (outflow equals inflow); and 2) a 30 cfs minimum flow, or inflow, whichever is less, be maintained from the Upper Kezar Falls Dam at all times. A 30 cfs minimum flow from the dam at the Upper Development, as required in the WQC to protect water quality, is less stringent than MDIFW's and FWS's 40 cfs flow recommendation required to enhance aquatic habitat. We agree that all the conditions in the WQC would protect water quality in the Ossipee River and they should be included in any license issued for the Upper Kezar Falls Project. Our recommendation for a 40 cfs minimum flow from the Upper Kezar Falls Dam encompasses the WQC flow of 30 cfs. C. Coastal Zone Management Act The Maine State Planning Office is responsible for reviewing the proposed project for consistency with Maine's Coastal Management Program (CMP). The Upper Kezar Falls Project is not located within Maine's coastal zone boundary and is not expected to affect coastal resources, therefore, no consistency certification is required. V. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS A. General Description of the Locale 1. Saco River Basin (Source: McLaughlin et al., 1987). The Saco River Basin (SRB) occupies a 1,697-square-mile area, of which 870 square miles are located in east-central New Hampshire and 827 square miles are in southwestern Maine (figure 2). The Saco River has three major tributaries that account for 43.7 percent of the basin's total drainage area: the Swift, the Ossipee, and the Little Ossipee Rivers. The topography of the basin varies widely. Rugged terrain and mountain peaks reaching more than 5,000 feet typify the basin's northern region. Much of the central area of the basin 9 contains steep hills, broad valleys, and elevations from 500 to 800 feet. Low rolling hills rising above broad, flat floodplains characterize the basin's southern coastal area (New England River Basins Commission, 1980, in McLaughlin et al., 1987). The natural flow pattern in the SRB is affected by numerous dams and impoundments. Most of the nearly 200 impoundments are for recreational use; however, major hydroelectric facilities are also present. There are 17 principal obstructions to fish movement in the SRB (figure 2). Ten of these obstructions are on the Saco River, three are on the Ossipee River, three are on the Little Ossipee River, and one is on the Ellis River. The SRB's water quality is generally excellent, primarily due to limited economic development in its middle and upper portions. Localized problems do exist, particularly in the coastal areas where urban development is concentrated. The water supply in the SRB meets the demands of its 84,380 residents and its industries (New England River Basins Commission, 1980, in McLaughlin et al., 1987). The basin's attractive environment for recreational development and the coastal belt's favorable conditions for urban and industrial growth are expected to generate increased demands for water supply. The predominant use of the land and waters within the watershed is for recreation (New England River Basins Commission, 1980, in McLaughlin et al., 1987). The White Mountain region provides year-round opportunities for many different types of recreational activities. The coastal area is within Maine's prime region for tourism. The Saco River between Conway and Hiram is probably the most popular section of river for canoeists in New England (Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission, 1983, in McLaughlin et al., 1987). 2. Potential for Cumulative Impacts. The Commission recognizes the importance of analyzing both the site-specific and cumulative impacts of hydropower developments when making licensing decisions. Cumulative impacts are the additive and interactive impacts on resources caused by multiple developments 10 figure 2 11 and actions within a defined geographic scope.8/ The individually minor impacts of multiple actions, when added together in space and time, may amount to collectively significant cumulative impacts. The existing environment shows the effects of past and present actions and provides the context for determining the significance of cumulative impacts from future actions. The Saco River Basin is the primary geographical boundary for our cumulative impact analysis. As part of our environmental analysis, we examined all resource areas, including geological, water quality, fish and wildlife, cultural, and recreational, in regards to how the Upper Kezar Falls Project would affect them. In our analysis, however, we have placed emphasis on analyzing the cumulative effects of the project on anadromous fisheries that could be affected cumulatively by the proposed licensing of the Upper Kezar Falls Project. We based our decision on the regional significance and geographical distribution of the resources within the river basin. The location of existing licensed and exempted project facilities in the basin is listed as follows. The location of the respective project dams are shown on figure 2. Licensed and exempted projects in the SRB, as of 05/25/93. (Exempted projects are indicated by an " * ") Project No. Project name License Issued License Expired 2528 Cataract 6/29/89 5/31/29 2527 Skelton 8/20/68 12/31/93 2194 Bar Mills 5/11/56 6/30/05 2531 West Buxton 1/29/88 12/31/17 2529 Bonny Eagle 11/19/70 12/31/93 2530 Hiram 12/22/82 11/30/22 1365* Swans Falls Pending Application 8788* Ledgemere 9340 Kezar Falls 10/24/90 9/30/30 Anadromous Fisheries 8/ The Council on Environmental Quality defines cumulative impacts as impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impacts of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR, Part 1508.7). 12 a. Status of Anadromous fisheries: Anadromous fishes in the Saco River Basin are valuable for their contribution to both sport and commercial fisheries. The anadromous fishes inhabiting the Saco River Basin of primary management importance include alewife, American shad, and Atlantic salmon which are targeted for restoration by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), Maine Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission (ASRSC), and Maine Department of Marine Resources (MDMR). The Cataract project, a multi-dam project, provides the first obstruction to fish passage in the Saco River basin. At present, fish passage facilities have been installed on the lower-most dams at the Cataract Project. Passage at the Springs and Bradbury dams, the upper dams at Cataract is pending. Atlantic salmon is an important sport fish in the Saco River basin. American shad are only taken as incidental to the alewife fishery. Alewife are currently harvested in the Cataract Project area for use as lobster bait (McLaughlin et al., 1987). All of these species were historically common in the Saco River Basin (Foster and Atkins, 1868), but have diminished in numbers from adverse impacts associated with dam construction and industrial development in the Saco-Biddeford area (McLaughlin et al., 1987). Due to the efforts of federal and state agencies to restore anadromous fish to the river and to recent improvements in water quality, the potential for successful anadromous fisheries in the basin has improved. However, inadequate upstream passage and no downstream passage facilities past dams on the mainstem Saco River continues to have an adverse cumulative impact on the anadromous fish resources in this river basin. Historically, Atlantic salmon migrated upriver, after negotiating the natural falls in the Saco-Biddeford area, to as far as Hiram Falls (about 50 miles upstream), where many were harvested (Foster and Atkins, 1868). The Ossipee and Little Ossipee Rivers, which flow into the Saco River, were also utilized by these sea-run salmon. Some were able to pass Hiram and Swan Falls to reach spawning habitat in New Hampshire (Foster and Atkins, 1868). Dam construction along the Saco River and industrial development, leading to a decrease in water quality, led to the loss of this viable fishery for Atlantic salmon in the early nineteenth century. Stocking efforts in the late nineteenth century proved unsuccessful in restoring the salmon fishery. Stocking efforts in the 1970's and 1980's have had limited success, and returning adult salmon have been reported as far upriver as West Buxton Dam (McLaughlin et al., 1987). American shad and alewives were historically important in the lower Saco River. A commercial gill net fishery existed for shad below Biddeford in the 1950's and early 1960's (Foster and Atkins, 1868), but were eliminated due to pollution from textile mills. Maine Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) has reported that American shad have reestablished a reproducing population in the lower Saco River, although they presently do not represent a 13 significant fishery. Alewives also were abundant in the Saco River, but were adversely affected by development of the Saco River. There is presently a viable gill-net fishery for alewives near the Cataract Project. b. Potential for Cumulative Impacts on anadromous fishery: Anadromous fisheries in the river basin could be cumulatively affected by multiple hydropower developments causing: fish entrainment mortality and injury, hindrances to fish movements and migrations, altered flows and habitat, and decreased aeration. We emphasized anadromous fisheries in our analysis because of their importance for recreational fishing and because fish in the future may have access to the project area. As indicated in sections V.B.1. and V.B.2., operating the Upper Kezar Falls Project in a run-of-river mode would benefit anadromous fisheries in the Saco River Basin. Furthermore, fish passage would be provided at the upper and lower Kezar Falls dams, when required by the MDIFW and FWS. Bypass facilities at the upper dam consist of an angled trashrack with 1.5-inch bar spacing at the powerhouse to divert fish away from the turbine intakes to an existing sluiceway. Attraction flows of approximately 15 cfs would be needed at the sluiceway to pass Atlantic salmon smolts and kelts. When downstream passage is required, the final design and implementation schedule would be subject to development and approval by the appropriate state and federal agencies. Thus, any cumulative adverse impacts to the anadromous fisheries would be minimal if the project is licensed as recommended in the EA, and some cumulative beneficial impacts would be realized by implementing our fish protection and enhancement measures. B. Proposed Action We reviewed the proposed project in relation to the environmental resources in the project impact area and conclude that there would be no direct or indirect adverse environmental effects on geological and soil resources, and terrestrial resources, because no change in the run-of-river operation and no construction affecting geological or terrestrial resources is proposed. No enhancement measures for these resources were recommended by the resource agencies. 1. Water Resources Affected Environment: a. Streamflow. The Upper and Lower Kezar Falls Projects are located on the Ossipee River which is about 18 miles in length. 14 The Ossipee River originates at Ossipee Lake and discharges into the Saco River, about 6.5 miles downstream of the project area. The following flow parameters are extrapolated from 65 years (1917 through 1981) of United States Geological Survey (USGS) records for hydrologic gaging station No. 01065500, located on the Ossipee River near Cornish, Maine, located about 6 miles downstream of Lower Kezar Falls dam. The drainage area at this gage is 452 square miles and the drainage area at Upper Kezar Falls is 416 square miles. The mean annual discharge at the project is 804 cfs with a minimum and maximum historical discharge of 65 cfs, recorded in 1929, and 17,200 cfs, recorded in 1936, respectively. Additional flow parameters for the Ossipee River related to the project area are as follows: high flow: approximately 1,750 cfs; flow exceeded 10 percent of the time, low flow: approximately 225 cfs; flow exceeded 90 percent of the time 7Q10 flow: 120 cfs (the 7Q10 flow refers to the minimum 7-day average flow rate expected to occur once every 10 years and is based on 0.29 cfs per square mile of drainage area). Interior recommended that the entire published period of record for the gaging station (77 years) should be used in developing flow statistics. Staff notes that 74 complete years (1917 through 1990) of flow data are currently available for gaging station No. 01065500. Flow duration statistics for the 65 year (1917 through 1981) and 74 year periods of record are essentially identical. Staff bases its calculations on the 65 year period of record to be consistent with the analysis for the Lower Kezar Falls Project. The upper dam creates a shallow 10-acre impoundment that is 1,800 feet long, with a water surface elevation of 366.7 feet USGS datum. The lower dam creates a 4.5-acre impoundment that is 1,360 feet long, with a water surface elevation of 352.2 feet USGS datum. b. Water Quality. The state of Maine classifies the water of the Ossipee River upstream of the Upper Kezar Falls Dam as Class B-1, and as Class C from the tailwater of the upper dam site to its confluence with the Saco River. The Class C designation indicates that the water quality is satisfactory for recreational boating and fishing, and is suitable for fish and wildlife habitat. Unless adequately treated, however, the water is unsuitable for potable water supplies and water contact recreation. There are currently three major dischargers in the area; G.T.E. Sylvania (200 gallons per day of wash-down water), Robinson Manufacturing Company (3,800 gallons per day of treated sanitary water), and the town of Kezar Falls which discharges municipal waters directly to the river. For Class C waters, the state dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration standard is not less than 6 milligrams per liter (mg/l). 15 A water quality study was performed by the Smiths from August 16 through 20, 1988. Five sets of consecutive diurnal temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) data were collected at a total of seven locations in the headponds and bypassed reaches of the upper and lower dams. The data were collected under leakage conditions and high summer water temperatures (23.5 to 27 degrees Celsius). The data indicate that temperature and DO concentrations did not vary among the seven locations sampled. Daytime DO concentrations ranged from 7.8 mg/l (95 percent saturation) to 8.2 mg/l (100 percent saturation) with an average of 8.0 mg/l. Night time DO concentrations were slightly less, with a range of 7.1 mg/l (81 percent saturation) to 8.2 mg/l (93 percent saturation) and an average of 7.8 mg/l. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) provided water quality data for the project area in July 1985, which show similar results. These results indicate the DO standard is generally met; DO is near saturation in this reach of the Ossipee River during low flows and high water temperatures, which is generally the most critical period for water quality. Environmental impacts and recommendations State water quality standards are currently met in the project area under leakage conditions. The Smith's propose to operate Upper Kezar Falls in a run-of-river mode and provide additional flows over the upper dam up to a total of 40 cfs minimum flow. A 40 cfs minimum flow exceeds the 30 cfs minimum required by the MDEP in the WQC to protect water quality. Therefore, no significant impacts to water quality are expected with Smiths' proposed operation. a. Run-of-river operation. The FWS, MDIFW, and MDEP recommend that the Upper Kezar Falls project operate in a run-of- river mode, whereby outflows from the project equal inflows, and fluctuations above the dam (in the project reservoir) are minimized. The Smiths propose to operate the upper and lower dams in a run-of-river mode and maintain headpond elevations of 352.2 feet at the lower dam and 366.7 feet at the upper dam, USGS datum, whenever possible. Operating in a run-of-river mode would protect aquatic habitat, and fisheries by minimizing fluctuations of water surface levels both upstream and downstream of the project. Therefore, we recommend that the Licensee be required to operate the project in this manner. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: None 2. Fishery Resources Affected Environment: Anadromous: X Absent. Present. 16 The Saco River Strategic Plan for Fisheries Management (McLaughlin et al., 1987) identifies Atlantic salmon habitat in the Ossipee River with potential to rear large numbers of Atlantic salmon smolts. The surveyed portion of the Ossipee River contains 5,816 Atlantic salmon habitat units with the potential to produce up to 11,632 Atlantic salmon smolts. The plan identifies the need for adequate flow releases at both the upper and lower Kezar Falls dams to maintain suitable habitat and provide a pathway for anadromous species. According to the plan, the Upper and Lower Kezar Falls Projects could affect approximately 9 percent of the Atlantic salmon habitat identified in the Ossipee River. There are 421 habitat units upstream of the upper dam, 102 habitat units between the upper and lower dams, and 5,293 habitat units downstream of the lower dam to the Ossipee River's confluence with the Saco River. The Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission (ASRSC) does not presently anticipate active management of the habitat upstream of the lower (and upper) Kezar Falls dams (i.e., there are no plans to stock Atlantic salmon above the lower dam at this time) (letter dated December 26, 1989). As restoration efforts progress, this reach could become increasingly important and fish would be stocked again in the future. The ASRSC and the FWS (letter dated December 15, 1989) have identified plans for potential widespread stocking of salmon fry in the Saco River. In addition, the Saco River Salmon Club (SRSC) has identified plans to construct a hatchery to provide Atlantic Salmon fry for stocking in the Saco River (letter from John D. Echeverria, American Rivers, Washington D.C., May 29, 1990). Resident: Absent. X Present. The Ossipee River is also managed by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) for coldwater fisheries, specifically brook trout and Atlantic salmon. In April and June of 1990 the MDIFW stocked a total of 1,330 adult brook trout (8 to 10 inches in length) in the Ossipee River downstream of the lower Kezar Falls dam (personal communication, Steve Timpano, Fisheries Biologist, MDIFW, Augusta, Maine, July 27, 1990). The MDIFW plans to start a fall fishery by stocking additional brook trout in the Ossipee River in September and October. Ossipee Lake, located approximately 10 miles upstream of the Upper Kezar dam, is stocked with landlocked Atlantic salmon. According to the MDIFW, the Ossipee River also has the following fish: smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, brown trout, rainbow trout, yellow perch, white perch, creek chub, chain pickerel, common shiner, golden shiner, white sucker, black-nose dace, and fall fish. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: a. Instream flows in the Upper Kezar Falls bypassed reach: 17 The Upper Kezar Falls Project has a 900-foot-long bypassed reach of the Ossipee River between the dam and powerhouse tailrace. Flows in this bypassed reach are currently limited to leakage, measured by Smiths to be approximately 20 cfs in 1992. By Order dated May 3, 1991, the Commission directed the Smiths to develop a habitat-based flow study plan to determine the flow needed from the upper Kezar Falls dam to protect and enhance fishery resources in the upper bypassed reach. The Smiths conducted an Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) study and submitted a final report and flow proposal for the upper bypassed reach on December 21, 1992. The habitat-based study was designed to quantify fishery habitat at flows between leakage (approximately 20 cfs as measured in 1992) and 74 cfs, and identify the flow in this range that would provide the greatest amount of optimal habitat for fisheries in the upper bypassed reach. Juvenile and adult smallmouth bass, and fry and juvenile Atlantic salmon were chosen as the evaluation species. The results of the Smiths' flow study show that throughout the entire study reach habitat for all evaluation species combined is optimized at 40 cfs. A 40 cfs flow provides from 95 to 100 percent of the maximum habitat available for each species throughout the year. In general, flows greater than 40 cfs slightly increase habitat area for smallmouth bass but decrease habitat for Atlantic salmon. Habitat for smallmouth bass and Atlantic salmon decreases at flows less than 40 cfs. In addition, a small side channel exists about 200 feet downstream of the upper dam. Approximately 1 cfs flow would keep this side channel adequately watered. Based on the IFIM study results, the Smiths propose to maintain a 40 cfs minimum flow in the upper bypassed reach through leakage and spillage at the upper dam. Also, at least 1 cfs of this flow will be directed to the side channel of the upper reach to keep this area watered. The FWS (letter dated December 2, 1992) and the MDIFW (letter dated December 8, 1992) concur with Smiths' proposal. The MDIFW is principally concerned with maintaining DO and temperature in the upper bypassed reach to support fishery management goals in downstream river segments. The FWS is concerned with maintaining and enhancing fishery habitat in the upper bypassed reach for resident species and transient individuals which may be washed downstream into the reach from areas upstream of the project. We conclude that fishery resources would be enhanced and water quality would be maintained with Smiths' minimum flow proposal. Presently, there are no required minimum flows maintained in the upper bypassed reach. A 40 cfs flow will provide adequate habitat for fisheries while providing flow for generating purposes. Therefore, we conclude that, for any license issued for the Upper Kezar Falls Project, 18 the Licensees should immediately implement the release of the minimum flows, as proposed, in the upper bypassed reach. The United States Department of the Interior (Interior) recommends that the stream flow monitoring plan, submitted for Kezar Falls Project No. 9340, be revised to include the required minimum flow at the upper Kezar Falls dam. The Smiths agreed to install appropriate staff gages to monitor project operation flows and bypass flows at the upper and lower bypassed reaches of the project. We agree that a revised plan, which outlines procedures for monitoring run-of-river operation and the method for providing and monitoring the minimum flows in the upper and lower reaches, is appropriate. Therefore, within 3 months of receiving a license, we recommend the Licensee file such a revised plan with the Commission. b. Fish Passage and Fish Protection: The Ossipee River is a tributary of the Saco River and is a part of the SRB. The FWS and the MDIFW indicate that inadequate fish passage facilities preclude restoration of three anadromous fishes, including the alewife, American shad, and Atlantic salmon in the Saco River. These species were historically common in the Saco River and also occurred in the Ossipee River (Foster and Atkins, 1868); however, dam construction and industrial development, leading to decreased water quality, eliminated these species in the basin. Several federal and state resource agencies, principally the FWS, the MDIFW, the ASRSC, and the Maine Department of Marine Resources (MDMR), are currently restoring anadromous fish to the SRB. The potential for restoration of anadromous fish in the SRB has recently improved due to improvements in water quality. The restoration effort includes, in part, upgrading the existing upriver fish passage facilities on the Saco River, increasing fishway capacities at dams, maintaining habitat integrity, and establishing minimum flows. The installation and upgrading of fish passage facilities on the SRB is being coordinated on a river-wide basis, with efforts to date primarily centered on the Saco River where the greatest need exists. Stocking efforts in the 1970's and 1980's have had limited success at reintroducing these species in the SRB. Returns of adult salmon have been reported as far up river as West Buxton dam, two dams downstream of the Kezar Falls Project on the Saco River (McLaughlin et al., 1987). No returns of these species, however, have been identified in the Kezar Falls Project area. Therefore, passage of fish at the upper and lower Kezar Falls dams is not currently a management objective for the Ossipee River and passage facilities are not immediately needed. The MDIFW (letter dated December 26, 1989), Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission (ASRSC), and Interior (letter dated May 21, 1990) currently do not require facilities specifically designed to pass fish upstream or downstream at upper and lower Kezar Falls. Interior states that should management objectives for the 19 Ossipee River change, fish passage facilities may be needed in the future. Therefore, Interior requests that Section 18 reservation of authority be placed in any license issued for the Upper and Lower Kezar Falls Projects (letter dated May 21, 1990). The Smiths agreed to provide fish passage at the upper and lower Kezar Falls dams, when required by the MDIFW and FWS. Downstream passage would likely be required before upstream passage, thus Smiths provided conceptual design plans for downstream passage at each site. Conceptual plans for the upper dam consist of an angled trashrack with 1.5-inch bar spacing at the powerhouse to divert fish away from the turbine intakes to an existing sluiceway. Attraction flows of approximately 15 cfs would be needed at the sluiceway to pass Atlantic salmon smolts and kelts. All flows required to operate the downstream fish passage facility could be used to meet the minimum flow requirements for the upper bypassed reach of the Ossipee River. The Smiths demonstrated that an effective fish passage design is possible, and the current proposal does not preclude the development of effective fish passage at the upper dam. When downstream passage is required, the final design and implementation schedule would need to be developed and approved by the appropriate state and federal agencies. Section 18 of the Act provides the Secretary of Interior the authority to prescribe fishways. 9/ Although fish passage facilities may not be recommended by Interior at the time of project licensing, as is the case for the Upper and Lower Kezar Falls Projects, the Commission should include license articles which reserve Interior's prescription authority. 10/ We recognize that future fish passage needs and management objectives cannot always be predicted at the time of license issuance. Under these circumstances, and upon receiving a specific request from Interior, it is appropriate for the Commission to reserve Interior's authority to prescribe fishways. The SRSC, American Rivers, the Atlantic Salmon Federation, the North Conway Chapter of Trout Unlimited, the Natural Resources Council of Maine, and Trout Unlimited (Conservation groups), filed comments on Project No. 9340 but filed no additional comments for the Upper Kezar Falls Project No. 11124. A motion to intervene for Project No. 9340 was filed May 29, 1990. Conservation Groups requested that the project license be provisioned to require upstream and downstream fish passage 9/ Section 18 of the Federal Power Act provides: "The Commission shall require construction, maintenance, and operation by a licensee at its own expense ... such fishways as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of Interior as appropriate." 10/ Lynchburg hydro associates, 39 FERC  61,079 (1987). 20 facilities within one year of receiving notice from the FWS or the ASRSC of plans to initiate a scheduled stocking program above the projects. Conservation Groups also requested that the Commission prepare a comprehensive plan for the Saco River Basin before acting on the application. We believe Conservation Groups' concerns pertaining to the Kezar Falls Project have been adequately addressed in the Environmental Assessment (EA) and license issued by the Commission for Project 9340. We are recommending similar conditions for the Upper Kezar Falls Project No. 11124. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: The implementation of effective measures for Atlantic salmon passage at the project in the future would enhance the Saco River Basin's restoration program. These beneficial project-related improvements would contribute toward reducing adverse cumulative impacts to this important target resource attributed to the presence of dams in the basin. 3. Threatened and Endangered Species Affected Environment: The FWS determined that, no Federally listed or proposed threatened and endangered species under the jurisdiction of FWS are known to occur in the project area, with the exception of occasional, transient, individuals including bald eagles (personal communication, Gordon Russel, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concord, New Hampshire, February 5, 1990). No further consultation with FWS under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is required. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: Continued project operation is not likely to adversely affect any Federally listed or proposed threatened and endangered species. 4. Aesthetic Resources Affected Environment: The existing upper and lower developments have a well-maintained appearance, and are viewed as established and generally unobtrusive features within their rural river community setting. The developments' dams, dikes, gate structures, and powerhouses, and a natural island at the upper site, divide the river within the project area into a series of impoundments, canals, bypassed segments, channels, and natural stream segments. This complex water supply system exhibits a variety of visual characteristics: quiet pools; free-flowing runs; turbulent riffles and rapids; and partially exposed, boulder covered streambeds. Cascading flows over the spillways of the project dams also add to the aesthetic interest and value of the river during times when the capacity of the existing project turbines is exceeded. Views of the existing project facilities and associated landscape features are available from State Route 25, which 21 borders the upper development site on the north side of the river, and from a stone arch bridge that crosses the river immediately upstream from an existing mill building complex that also occupies the upper site. Both the upper and lower project site areas are also visible from the numerous homes that are located along the river's shorelines. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: Repainting of existing project appurtenances: Several existing, minor project appurtenances at the upper and lower development sites are painted yellow and red. These brightly colored features contrast negatively with the visual character of their surroundings. The features have not been painted these colors for safety reasons (personal communication, John Slagle, License Coordinator, Kleinschmidt Associates, Pittsfield, Maine, May 25, 1990). Therefore, we recommend that these appurtenant facilities, which include motors, gate structures, and hand railings, be repainted to match the gray color of other adjacent project components. This measure would effectively improve the project's visual integrity and its compatibility with the predominant colors of the characteristic landscape. Modification of existing timber crib dam: The Smiths propose to either cap the existing timber crib dam at the upper development site with wood planking or grout the rock-filled cribbing with concrete to prevent the potential impingement of fish in the crib works. We consider the concrete grouting alternative to be a more visually compatible solution to this problem than the wood planking option. The juxtaposition and contrasting visual character of the impoundment above the dam and the bypassed river segment below the dam draw attention to the dam from passing motorists and area recreationists. The whitewater created by flows over the rock fill adds to the visual attraction of the dam. The flashboard, timber cribbing, and rock-fill components of the dam blend well with the adjacent wooded shorelines and exposed boulder and cobble covered streambed below the dam, resulting in a visually interesting and harmonious combination of natural and man-made landscape features at this location. Capping the dam with wood planking would cover up the rock fill -- the most effective design element in terms of visually blending the dam with its surroundings -- and would accentuate the lineal configuration of the dam -- the most conflicting design element with respect to the visual character of the natural river landscape. Grouting the rock fill with concrete, on the other hand, would cause less change to the dam's visual character and its degree of visual compatibility (assuming that the grout would only be placed in the cracks and voids between the rocks, leaving most of the rocks' surface exposed). Therefore, from an aesthetic standpoint, we recommend that the 22 licensees use the concrete grouting option for modifying the timber crib dam. 5. Cultural Resources Affected Environment: The only potential this project might have for affecting cultural resources listed in or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) would be in connection with proposed improvements to the existing upper impoundment canoe take-out site depicted in figure E 2.6-1 of the amended application. Accordingly, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) recommended the Smiths survey this area sufficiently to determine whether there would be any such effects (letter to Andrew E. Sims from Earle G. Shettleworth, Jr., State Historic Preservation Officer, Maine Historic Preservation Commission, Augusta, Maine, November 21, 1989). On November 24, 1993, based on the SHPO's recommendation, a Phase I survey was conducted for the Smiths in the areas that would be affected by the proposed site improvements (letter to Andrew Sims from James B. Petersen, Director, University of Maine at Farmington Archaeology Research Center, Farmington, Maine, November 26, 1993). No archaeological materials were found. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: Upon review of the survey report, the SHPO determined that the proposed project would have no effect upon any structure or site of historic, architectural, or archaeological significance as defined by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (letter to Andrew E. Sims from Earle G. Shettleworth, Jr., State Historic Preservation Officer, Maine Historic Preservation Commission, Augusta, Maine, December 6, 1993). In view of the results of discovery efforts and the SHPO's determination, we also find that the project would have no effect on any structure, site, building, district, or object listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register. Although every reasonable effort has been made to determine whether there are listed or eligible National Register properties in the project area, whether they would be affected by the proposed project, and whether the effect would be adverse, there remains a possibility for affecting National Register Properties. First, such properties, including previously unidentified properties, could be affected by future ground-disturbing activities not covered by the relicensing action. Secondly, there is still a possibility, though remote, there could be significant undiscovered properties in the project area that could be adversely affected by the proposed development at the upper impoundment canoe take-out site or by project operation. Therefore, we recommend that, before engaging in any ground disturbance not covered by the proposed licensing action, the 23 Smiths should take the following actions: (a) consult with the SHPO; (b) based on consultations with the SHPO, prepare a plan describing the appropriate course of action and a schedule for carrying it out; (c) file the plan for Commission approval; and (d) do nothing to affect National Register or eligible properties until notified by the Commission that all these requirements have been satisfied. We further recommend that if previously unidentified archaeological or historic properties are discovered during project operation, or during the course of constructing or developing project works or other facilities at the project, including the proposed development at the upper impoundment canoe take-out site, the Smiths should take the following actions: (a) consult with the SHPO; (b) based on consultations with the SHPO, prepare a plan describing the appropriate course of action and a schedule for carrying it out; (c) file the plan for Commission approval; and (d) take the necessary steps to protect the discovered properties from further impact until notified by the Commission that all of these requirements have been satisfied. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: No impacts, adverse or otherwise, would result from licensing the proposed project. 6. Recreation and Other Land and Water Uses Affected Environment: The Ossipee River in the project area is used for canoeing, fishing, hunting, and trapping. Although recreational use is low, there has been a recent increase in canoeing and fishing use (Smith, 1989). Informal recreational river access is available at the upper impoundment and at both the upper and lower dam sites. The upper impoundment site has a canoe take-out area and parking lot. The dam sites each have a take-out, a put-in, and a portage trail for canoeing. These trails are also used for fishing access. Environmental Impacts and Recommendations: The Smiths propose to improve canoeing access facilities at the informal upper impoundment site located on the north bank of the river 1,600 feet upstream of the timber crib dam. Improvements include clearing brush and upgrading the dirt road to provide safe vehicle access. The Smiths also propose to improve the existing river access trails used for both canoeing and fishing access at the upper and lower dam sites. Signs would be provided at both sites for public information and safety. The FWS, the MDIFW, and the Maine Bureau of Parks and Recreation agree with the Smiths' proposal to provide canoe portage and angler access at the upper and lower dam sites (Smith, 1989). 24 Because of the recent increase in canoeing and fishing use of the project area and because of the potential for greater demand for angler access due to the anticipated improved fishery (see issue 3), there is a need for enhanced canoeing and fishing opportunities in the project area. We conclude that Smiths' plan to improve the take-out area at the upper impoundment and to upgrade public access at the upper and lower dam sites would provide for the recreational needs of the project area. Therefore, the licensees, within one year from the date of issuance of the license, should implement the recreation plan filed January 31, 1987, and supplemented December 29, 1989. The canoeing signs proposed in the January 31, 1987, filing should also indicate fishing access opportunities. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts: None C. Impacts of the No-Action Alternative Under the no-action alternative, the project would continue to operate as it has in the past and environmental resources would not be changed. VI. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE Sections 4(e) and 10(a)(1) of the Act, require the Commission to give equal consideration to all uses of the waterway on which a project is located. When the Commission reviews a project, the recreational, fish and wildlife resources, and other nondevelopmental values of the involved waterway are considered equally with power and other developmental values. In determining whether, and under what conditions, a hydropower license should be issued, the Commission must weigh the various economic and environmental tradeoffs involved in the decision. A. Recommended Alternative Based on our independent review and evaluation of the proposed Upper Kezar Falls project, agency recommendations, and the recommended alternative, we have selected issuing a license for the project, with additional staff-recommended environmental measures, as the preferred option. We recommend this option because: (1) with environmental measures, the environmental effects of subsequent operation would be minor; (2) these measures would protect or improve fish, wildlife, recreation, and cultural resources; and (3) the electricity generated from a renewable resource would be provided, thus reducing the use of existing fossil-fueled, steam-electric generating plants; thereby, conserving nonrenewable energy resources, and reducing atmospheric pollution, and global warming. The project would provide a number of benefits. An estimated 2,116 Mwh (currently worth $126,960) of relatively low- cost electricity would be generated annually from a clean, 25 domestic, reliable, and renewable energy resource for use by CMP. Establishing a minimum flow in the upper bypassed reach would have positive, long-term impacts on water quality, fisheries habitat, and aesthetics, and would be consistent with agency fishery management goals established for the reach. Grouting the rock fill in the upper development's timber crib dam would prevent the potential impingement of fish in the crib works. The total project's cost accrues from operation and maintenance of the entire hydropower complex. This cost is negligible when compared to the value of the power. The beneficial effects (in addition to the air quality benefits) on the environment associated with the licensing of the Upper Kezar Falls Project would result from the required environmental measures. These measures include: (a) operating the project in a run-of-river mode; (b) establishing a minimum flow of 40 cfs from the Upper dam, as measured at the base of the dams, or inflow, whichever is less, for the protection of fisheries and water quality in the bypassed reach of the Ossipee River; (c) preparing and implementing a plan to measure and report project flows, water surface elevations, and operation records to monitor compliance with the run-of-river mode of operation and flow releases to the upper and lower bypassed reaches; (d) grouting the upper timber crib dam to reduce fins entrapment on the dam; (e) repainting existing project appurtenances to match the color of adjacent facilities and improve the overall appearance of the development; and (f) implementing the recreation and canoe access facility plan filed January 31, 1987, and supplemented December 29, 1989. B. Developmental and nondevelopmental uses of the waterway Smiths propose no new construction or improvements at the Upper Kezar Falls Hydroelectric Project, other than recapping the dam and improving canoe and fishing access facilities. The cost for modifying the timber crib dam, painting project appurtenances, and making improvements to the existing canoe and fishing access facilities are minor11/. Hence, the levelized 11/ Estimated cost for providing upstream and downstream fish passage facilities have not been included in our economic analysis because of the uncertainty of these possible future 26 project costs are only the operation and maintenance costs and administrative and general expenses. These costs are small compared to the value of the power in the region. The Upper Kezar Falls plant currently generates on average about 2,188 Mwh annually under leakage conditions at the upper dam. We estimate, with the recommended 40 cfs minimum flow, the Upper Kezar Falls plant would generate about 2,116 Mwh annually (assuming 20 cfs leakage and 20 cfs loss in generation). Energy generation would be reduced by about 72,000 Kwh per year, or about 3.3 percent less than present generation. The levelized value of this lost generation would be about $7,840 annually, based on Smiths' existing power sales contract. Neither the resource agencies nor the Commission Staff has proposed any measures which would significantly affect the project's generation or cost. The long-term benefit to anadromous and resident fishery resources from additional minimum flow releases warrant the reduction in power benefits. We conclude that the project is economical, even with the recommended enhancement measures. Section 10(a)(2) of the Act requires the Commission to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with Federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. Under Section 10(a)(2), Federal and state agencies filed a total of eight comprehensive plans for Maine and three plans for the United States that address various resources in Maine. Of these, we identified and reviewed two plans relevant to this project. 12/ No conflicts were found. Based on a review of the agency and public comments filed in this proceeding, and on the staff's independent analysis pursuant to Sections 4(e), 10(a)(1), 10(a)(2) of the Act, we conclude that issuing a license for the Upper Kezar Falls Project, with the required environmental measures and other special license conditions, would permit the best comprehensive development of the Ossipee River. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES Pursuant to Section 10(j) of the Act, we make a determination that the recommendations of the Federal and state actions. 12/ Maine rivers study-final report, Maine Department of Conservation, May 1982; and State of Maine comprehensive rivers management plan, Maine State Planning Office, December 1992. 27 fish and wildlife agencies are consistent with the purposes and requirements of Part I of the Act and applicable law. Section 10(j) of the Act requires the Commission to include license conditions, based on recommendations of Federal and state fish and wildlife agencies, for the protection of, mitigation of adverse impacts to, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources. We have addressed the concerns of the Federal and state fish and wildlife agencies and made recommendations consistent with those of the agencies. VIII. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The project is constructed and operating. Consequently, there would be no construction related impacts. Continued project operation would result in minor adverse impacts that are largely mitigated and offset by project benefits. On the basis of our independent environmental analysis, issuance of a license for the Upper Kezar Falls project would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. IX. LITERATURE CITED Appalachian Mountain Club. 1978. Appalachian Mountain Club river guide; Central/Southern New England, 2: 331-354. Bailey, R. G. 1980. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. Department of Agriculture. Miscellaneous publication no. 1391. 77pp. Foster, N. W., and C. G. Atkins. 1868. First report of the Commissioners of the Fisheries of the State of Maine for 1867. pp. 28-33, cited in Dube (1983). Maine Department of Conservation. 1988. Maine state comprehensive outdoor recreation plan. Bureau of Parks and Recreation, Augusta, Maine. Volumes 1 and 2. McLaughlin, E.; U. Pierce, Jr.; N. Dube; and L. Flagg. 1987. Saco River strategic plan for fisheries management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laconia, New Hampshire; Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Gray, Maine; Maine Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission, Bangor, Maine; and Maine Department of Marine Resources, Augusta, Maine; respectively. New England River Basins Commission. 1980. Saco and Southern Maine coastal river basins overview. Boston, Massachusetts. New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Commission. 1975. Saco River Basin water quality management plan, staff report 69. Concord, New Hampshire. 28 Saco Environmental Advisory Committee. 1973. The Saco River corridor: the view from the valley. Report to the Governor, the 106th session of the Maine legislature and the people of Maine. Smith, L. E. and V. P. 1985. Application for license for the Kezar Falls Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 9340-000, Maine. Power Technics Incorporated. July 8, 1985. . 1986a. Correction of deficiencies and additional information on the application for license for the Kezar Falls Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 9340-000, Maine. Power Technics Incorporated. February 20, 1986. . 1986b. Correction of deficiencies and additional information on the application for license for the Kezar Falls Hydroelectric Project, FERC Project No. 9340-000, Maine. Power Technics Incorporated. March 18, 1986. . 1987a. Additional information on the application for license for the Kezar Falls Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 9340-000, Maine. Power Technics Incorporated. January 31, 1987. . 1987b. Additional information on the application for license for the Kezar Falls Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 9340-000, Maine. Power Technics Incorporated. April 29, 1987. . 1989. Amendment to the application for license for the Kezar Falls Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 9340-000, Maine. Kleinschmidt Associates. December 29, 1989. . 1990. Supplemental information on the application for license for the Kezar Falls Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 9340-000, Maine. Kleinschmidt Associates. February 27, 1990. . 1992. Supplemental information on the application for license for the Kezar Falls Hydroelectric Project, FERC No. 11124-000, Maine. Kleinschmidt Associates. December 21, 1992. Southern Maine Regional Planning Commission. 1983. The Saco River - a plan for recreation management. X. LIST OF PREPARERS Monte TerHaar -- Environmental Coordinator (M.S. Environmental Engineering, M.S Biology) Pete Leitzke -- Geologist (M.A., Geological Sciences)