`
`JANET T. MILLS
`GOVERNOR
`
`STATE OF MAINE
`
`DEPARTMENT OF MARINE RESOURCES
`21 STATE HOUSE STATION
`
`AUGUSTA, MAINE
`04333-0021
`
`PATRICK C. RELIHER
`COMMISSIONER
`
`December 22, 2021
`
`Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
`888 First Street, N.E.
`Washington, D.C. 20426
`
`RE: Notice Of Intent To Prepare An Environmental Impact Statement For The Proposed
`Project Relicense, Interim Species Protection Plan, And Final Species Protection Plan,
`Request For Comments On Environmental Issues, Schedule For Environmental Review,
`AndSoliciting Scoping Comments on the Lockwood (FERC No. 2574), Hydro-Kennebec
`(FERC No. 2611), Shawmut (FERC No. 2322), and Weston (FERC No. 2325) Hydroelectric
`Projects.
`
`Dear Secretary Bose:
`
`The Maine Department of Marine Resources (MDMR)has received the Commission’s request for
`comments on the scope of issues to address in the EIS for the Lockwood (FERC No. 2574), Shawmut
`(FERC No, 2322), Hydro-Kennebec (FERC No. 2611), and Weston (FERC No. 2325) projects. MDMR
`offers the attached comments on alternatives and impacts, as well as identification of information,
`studies, and analyses concerning impacts affecting the quality of the human environment.
`
`Please contact Casey Clark at Casey.Clark@maine.gov or at 207-350-9791 if you have any questions.
`
`
` Patrick Kelihet
`
`
`.
`
`Commissioner
`
`ce:
`
`Sean Ledwin, Paul Christman, MDMR
`John Perry, Jason Seiders MDIFW
`Kathy Howatt, MDEP
`Peter Lamothe, Julianne Rosset, Bryan Sojkowski, USFWS
`Julie Crocker, Matt Buhyoff, Dan Tierney, Don Dow, NOAA
`
`PHONE:(207) 624-6550
`
`FAX: (207) 624-6024
`
`OFFICES AT 32 BLOSSOM LANE, MARQUARDT BUILDING, AUGUSTA, MAINE
`http://www. Maine.gov/dmr
`
`

`

`1
`
`
`
`The Maine Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) is writing to provide comments in
`reference to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) NOTICE OF INTENT TO
`PREPARE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED
`PROJECT RELICENSE, INTERIM SPECIES PROTECTION PLAN, AND
`FINAL SPECIES PROTECTION PLAN, REQUEST FOR COMMENTS ON
`ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, SCHEDULE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AND
`SOLICITING SCOPING COMMENTS that was issued on November 23, 2021. In addition,
`MDMR has provided comments in response to Brookfield’s November 5, 2021 letter to FERC
`(Responses to Comments on DEA for Shawmut Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. P-2322-069),
`which are included in Appendix A and B.
`
`MDMR is a cabinet level agency of the State of Maine established to regulate, conserve, and
`develop marine, estuarine, and diadromous fish resources; to conduct and sponsor scientific
`research; to promote and develop marine coastal industries; to advise and cooperate with state,
`local, and federal officials concerning activities in coastal waters; and to implement, administer,
`and enforce the laws and regulations necessary for these purposes. MDMR translocates every
`adult salmon that enters the Lockwood Project fish lift, stocks every egg that contributes to those
`runs in the Sandy River, monitors and enumerates the parr and outmigrating smolts, permits the
`new smolt stocking program by USFWS, stocks river herring (Alewife and Blueback Herring)
`and American Shad into habitat upstream of the Lockwood Project, chairs the Merrymeeting Bay
`Salmon Habitat Recovery Unit Interagency committee that focuses on the Kennebec River,
`manages recreational and commercial harvests of sea-run fish in the drainage, and reports on the
`science and health of the runs through various technical and scientific forums. MDMR scientists
`are experts on the biology and fish passage needs of Atlantic salmon and other diadromous fish
`species in the Kennebec River and have expended considerable effort to develop
`recommendations and models based on the best available science to recommend to regulators.
`
`FERC staff recommendations in the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the Shawmut
`Project did not adequately rely upon the expertise of MDMR, Maine’s resource agency for
`restoration of diadromous species. While not mandatory, the conditions recommended by
`MDMR should be considered an “integral part” of the evaluation of the Lockwood, Hydro-
`Kennebec, Shawmut, and Weston Projects per the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA),
`which requires consultation “with a view to the conservation of wildlife resources by preventing
`loss of and damage to such resources.” It was clearly Congress’s intent in passing the 1986
`amendments to the Federal Power Act (Act of October 16, 1986, Public Law 99-495, 100 Stat.
`1243), based on the statute and House report on the amendment, that the federal and state fish
`and wildlife agencies recommendations should be “requiring heavy reliance and acceptance by
`FERC.” MDMR should be adequately consulted with, and our recommendations more seriously
`considered in the EIS, as the state manager of diadromous fisheries resources in the Kennebec
`River. While MDMR appreciates that FERC has indicated that they will take a more
`comprehensive look at the four projects through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the
`recent initiation of ESA consultation using the existing proposals and analysis, lack of
`communication regarding the future status of our 10(j) meeting, and lack of directed effort with
`MDMR to resolve outstanding issues is concerning. MDMR is cautiously optimistic that this
`expanded EIS will provide an opportunity for FERC to pay significant attention to, and pay a
`
`

`

`2
`
`MDMR comments on the EIS for Lockwood, Shawmut, Hydro-Kennebec and Weston
`
`high level of concern for, all environmental aspects of hydropower development, including fish
`and wildlife protection, mitigation, and enhancement recommendations by MDMR and other
`resource agencies, as required.
`
`The Lockwood, Hydro Kennebec, Shawmut, and Weston dam sites are complex and present
`significant uncertainty regarding the ability to effectively pass fish with the proposed fishways.
`When there are a series of fishways within a migration corridor for diadromous species, such as
`in the lower Kennebec River, the risks increase that one or more underperforming fishways will
`result in significant cumulative negative impacts. This includes fishways developed using best
`practices such as USFWS design criteria (USFWS 2019). The cumulative impacts of four dams
`and associated fishways will require reliance on very high passage performance at each project to
`ensure Atlantic salmon recovery and other important species goals are achievable. In addition to
`impeding access to critical headwater habitat, dams and associated impoundments also impose
`thermal challenges for diadromous species that can compound the effects of climate change. The
`large area of impounded water and significant numbers of dams between the only climate
`resilient habitat for Atlantic Salmon in the Kennebec River (the Sandy River, upper Kennebec
`River, and Carrabassett River) and significant areas of habitat for other species, creates an
`increasing urgency to find new and comprehensive solutions within the Kennebec drainage to
`ensure safe, timely, and effective passage. Without meaningful measures and protections
`proposed for American Shad, Alewife, Blueback Herring, American Eel, and Sea Lamprey, the
`individual and cumulative impacts to these species are significant.
`
`MDMR continues to advocate that specific performance measures and standards be required for
`the target species (Atlantic Salmon, American Shad, Alewife, Blueback Herring, Sea Lamprey),
`and improved passage of American Eel, beyond those proposed in the Staff Recommendations
`with Mandatory Conditions in the DEA. MDMR has also recommended specific alternative fish
`passage approaches, technologies, and management, including on the Shawmut Project Interim
`Species Protection Plan1 and the Lower Kennebec Species Protection Plan and Draft Biological
`Assessment2, that should be incorporated by reference into our comments on the EIS.
`
`In this filing in response to FERCs request, MDMR summarizes our specific recommendations
`for alternatives at each project, requests specific analysis, provides updates on new information
`for consideration during EIS development, and responds to sections of two letters submitted by
`Brookfield in Appendix A and B.3 Our recommendations and supporting documentation for the
`
`
`
`1 Accession Number: 20210915-5082.
`
`2 Accession Number: 20210825-5159.
`
` 3
`
` On October 11, 2021, Brookfield submitted to FERC a Response to Comments letter regarding
`the Lower Kennebec Species Protection Plan and Draft Biological Assessment for the Lockwood
`(FERC No. 2574), Hydro Kennebec (FERC No. 2611), and Weston (FERC No. 2325) Projects.
`
`
`PHONE: (207) 624-6550
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OFFICES AT 32 BLOSSOM LANE, MARQUARDT BUILDING, AUGUSTA, MAINE
`http://www.Maine.gov/dmr
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FAX: (207) 624-6024
`
`

`

`3
`
`MDMR comments on the EIS for Lockwood, Shawmut, Hydro-Kennebec and Weston
`
`Shawmut relicensing and amendment process for the Lockwood, Hydro-Kennebec, and Weston
`Projects, should be considered pursuant to our roles defined in the Federal Power Act and
`FWCA, with the stated purpose to adequately and equitably protect, mitigate damages to, and
`enhance, fish and wildlife (including related spawning grounds and habitat) affected by the
`development, operation, and management of the projects. Analysis of ESA Atlantic salmon
`recommendations should be conducted consistent with FERC’s proactive conservation mandate
`articulated in Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA and case law.
`
`General Recommendations for the Lockwood, Hydro Kennebec, Shawmut, and Weston
`Project
`
`The Licensee should be responsible for providing, operating, maintaining, and evaluating
`volitional upstream fish passage facilities at the Lockwood, Hydro Kennebec, Shawmut, and
`Weston projects that shall be capable of passing the minimum populations annually in a safe,
`timely, and effective manner. A high performance standard is required at each project to address
`the cumulative impacts of the four projects and meet agency goals. Therefore, FERC should
`require performance standards and performance testing for each of the target species and at all
`four projects. New information, such as Rubenstein (2021), new climate models by USGS, and a
`newly developed model by NMFS and MDMR to inform downstream passage timing for salmon
`smolts should be utilized to inform fish passage infrastructure needs and management at the
`dams. MDMR has also demonstrated that Sea Lamprey populations are affected by the project,
`are an important species requiring access to historic habitats, and that fishways at all projects
`should operate 24 hours per day to accommodate their predominately nocturnal upstream
`movement. MDMR requests that FERC not rely on the proposed guidance booms as safe,
`timely, and effective downstream passage for all species. USFWS has summarized passage data
`on guidance booms in a recent filing.4 The data in their summary demonstrates that guidance
`booms do not provide safe, timely, and effective passage for salmon smolts or adult river herring
`and guidance booms to not meet current USFWS design criteria. MDMR recommends that all
`project passage measures comport with the USFWS Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria
`(2019) and based on those criteria, we recommend screening all operating turbines with angled,
`full-depth bar racks with clear space less than or equal to 0.75 inches. The best available data
`indicate that racks with 0.5-inch clear space are most protective for multiple species and life
`stages. This size screening was recently recommended by NMFS at the Moosehead Project in
`the Penobscot River and is under consideration by resource agency engineers. Normal
`velocities, measured perpendicular to and one foot upstream of the racks, must be of two feet per
`second or less to avoid impingement of target species. The rack structures must be angled, with
`sweeping velocities greater than or equal to normal velocities, to promote guidance to one or
`more dedicated bypasses. MDMR does not support downstream passage through hydropower
`turbines for a highly endangered species such as Atlantic salmon, or other important diadromous
`
`
`
`On October 12, 2021, Brookfield submitted to FERC a Response to Comments letter regarding
`Interim Species Protection Plan and Draft Biological Assessment for the Shawmut Project.
`
`4 Accession Number: 20211217-5213.
`
`PHONE: (207) 624-6550
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OFFICES AT 32 BLOSSOM LANE, MARQUARDT BUILDING, AUGUSTA, MAINE
`http://www.Maine.gov/dmr
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FAX: (207) 624-6024
`
`

`

`4
`
`MDMR comments on the EIS for Lockwood, Shawmut, Hydro-Kennebec and Weston
`
`species, even in small numbers. Current study methods limit our ability to assess all aspects of
`potential impacts from passage through hydropower turbines, and instead these studies only bear
`information on instantaneous mortality and delay. Therefore, any allowance of this type of
`entrainment, when reasonable alternatives exist, is not in the best interest of restoration and
`sustainability of these important resources. MDMR notes that FERC has stated similar
`comments on the record for the West Enfield Project (FERC No. 2600), “it is not [emphasis
`added] our position that the primary means of downstream passage should be the turbines.”5
`
`Recommendations for the Lockwood Project
`
`MDMR recommends that if the planned upstream bypass fishway moves forward as designed,
`Brookfield should also construct a flume with a trapping and sorting facility to connect the
`existing fish lift to the headpond. MDMR recommends the new fishway and lift with flume
`connection to the headpond operate concurrently as certain flow regimes will provide more
`attraction flows towards each section of the river at different times. MDMR understands
`Brookfield has already developed a design for the flume connection as stated in their 2016 ISPP
`Annual Report.67 MDMR believes it would be impossible for Brookfield to meet their own
`proposed efficiency and timing standards for salmon without this action based on the false
`attraction issues, and the licensee would certainly not meet MDMR goals for the co-evolved
`species based on past performance of similar projects (see previous DMR comments on the SPP
`for more details). The new information from Rubenstein (2021), site conditions, and existing
`information at fishways (Table 2) provides a reasonable basis for the need to implement these
`fish passages proactively.
`
`MDMR notes that upstream eel passage was not considered during the design process of the
`volitional bypass facility, and the current location of the upstream eel passage will not be
`accessible after the vertical slot fishway is constructed. There is no question that upstream eel
`passage will need to be relocated. MDMR also recommends that FERC require the
`development, with agency input and approval, of a new upstream eel passage.
`
`MDMR recommends that the Tuff-Boom guidance device in the power canal be removed and
`Brookfield be required to follow the USFWS Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria (2019) in
`designing and installing a full depth guidance structure. The structure should be angled relative
`to the bulk river flow and have a surface area of adequate size to ensure normal velocities of less
`than two feet per second across operating conditions.
`
`Recommendations for the Hydro Kennebec Project
`
`
`
`5 Accession Number: 20170525-3014
`
`6 Accession Number: 20170331-5212
`
`7 90% design drawings dated April 19th, 2017 were distributed to the resource agencies as “Issued for Bid”. These
`designs will be filled separately as Critical Energy Infrastructure Information (CEII).
`
`PHONE: (207) 624-6550
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OFFICES AT 32 BLOSSOM LANE, MARQUARDT BUILDING, AUGUSTA, MAINE
`http://www.Maine.gov/dmr
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FAX: (207) 624-6024
`
`

`

`5
`
`MDMR comments on the EIS for Lockwood, Shawmut, Hydro-Kennebec and Weston
`
`MDMR recommends that the Hydro Kennebec fish lift be rigorously tested and modified as
`necessary but has no specific additional recommendations for upstream passage at this time.
`
`The Hydro Kennebec Project has two pit-type Kaplan turbine units that are each capable of
`operating over a flow range of 1,550 cfs to 3,961 cfs. The Hydro Kennebec trashracks have a
`bar spacing of 3.5 inches wide by 8.0 inches high clear spacing, which can cause entrainment of
`some Atlantic salmon kelts (EA Table 8).8 The downstream passage facility at the Hydro
`Kennebec Project consists of a floating angled guidance boom that is intended to guide fish to a
`4-foot wide by 8-feet deep gated surface bypass slot capable of passing 320-cfs (4% of station
`flow). The bypass slot discharges into a plunge pool which flows out to the tailrace.
`
`MDMR recommends that the floating boom guidance device be removed, and Brookfield be
`required to follow the USFWS Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria (2019) in designing and
`installing a full depth guidance structure. The structure should be angled relative to the bulk
`river flow and have a surface area of adequate size to ensure normal velocities of less than two
`feet per second across operating conditions. We support Brookfield’s SPP proposal to relocate
`the bypass gate, which will be designed to pass at least 5% of station flow and will include an
`Alden weir, which should further improve attraction flow conditions resulting in a greater
`proportion of fish finding and using the bypass. We recommend that the bar rack extend to the
`downstream edge of the new bypass gate to ensure adequate guidance.
`
`
`Recommendations for the Shawmut Project
`
`MDMR believes it would be impossible for Brookfield to meet its own efficiency and timing
`standards without additional action based on the false attraction issues for salmon and would
`certainly not meet mandatory conditions for alosines or MDMR goals for co-evolved species.
`The new information from Rubenstein (2021), site conditions, and existing information at
`fishways (Table 2) provides a reasonable basis for the need to implement highly effective fish
`passages proactively. The failures to meet fish passage standards at Lockwood and Milford,
`described in previous comments, speak to the need for an alternative analysis, to be completed
`with the resource agencies, to explore options that accomplish passage goals and efficiency while
`preventing any impacts to the operations of the SAPPI Somerset Mill.
`Alternatives, such as a Nature Like Fishway (NLF), may be feasible, practical and a reasonable
`alternative and that could improve the chances for Brookfield to meet agency goals and ESA
`requirements for passage efficiency and timing. This type of fish passage approach was used at
`the Howland site on the Piscataquis River successfully. Kleinschmidt, Brookfield’s fisheries
`consultant, provided the following statement on that project “Fish passage effectiveness studies
`have shown that fish passage survival and efficiency is near 100% and exceeds the performance
`standards set by agencies to support species recovery. The project has also met the needs of the
`
`
`
`8 Accession Number: 20170526-5061
`
`
`
`PHONE: (207) 624-6550
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OFFICES AT 32 BLOSSOM LANE, MARQUARDT BUILDING, AUGUSTA, MAINE
`http://www.Maine.gov/dmr
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FAX: (207) 624-6024
`
`

`

`6
`
`MDMR comments on the EIS for Lockwood, Shawmut, Hydro-Kennebec and Weston
`
`local population to assure agreed-upon impoundment levels.”9 While the Shawmut concept
`differs from Howland in the hydraulic head, spillway length, channel length, and operating
`status, it is of a reasonably similar scale, shares common configurational characteristics (long,
`competing spillway and other conveyances), and is a useful point of reference for the schematic
`NLF channel layouts. The proposed concept would meet agreed upon impoundment levels that
`would prevent any operational impacts to the Sappi Somerset mill.
`MDMR recommends that Brookfield be required to follow the USFWS Fish Passage
`Engineering Design Criteria (2019) in designing and installing a full depth guidance structure.
`The structure should be angled relative to the bulk river flow and have a surface area of adequate
`size to ensure normal velocities of less than two feet per second across operating conditions. In
`2011, the Licensee consulted with the resource agencies, conducted CFD modeling, and
`developed conceptual plans for an angled bar rack FERC should require this be implemented
`using updated USFWS Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria (2019).10
`
`Recommendations for the Weston Project
`The Weston Project comes with added complexity due to a second channel. MDMR believes that
`current fishway proposal will be inadequate due to false attraction of fish to the secondary
`channel. MDMR believes it would be impossible for Brookfield to meet their own efficiency
`and timing standards for upstream passage without additional actions based on the false
`attraction issues for salmon and would certainly not meet MDMR goals for other species based
`on past performance of similar projects. The new information from Rubenstein (2021), site
`conditions, and existing information at fishways (Table 2) provides a reasonable basis to find
`solutions that address the complexity of this site. MDMR recommends that FERC require the
`development of alternatives, with agency input and approval, of a second fishway to be
`constructed concurrently with the existing fishway. MDMR also recommends the current
`fishway proposal be amended to include a second entrance to reduce delay of fish that approach
`the project from the opposite side of the powerhouse.
`
`MDMR recommends that Brookfield be required to follow the USFWS Fish Passage
`Engineering Design Criteria (2019) in designing and installing a full depth guidance structure.
`The structure should be angled relative to the bulk river flow and have a surface area of adequate
`size to ensure normal velocities of less than two feet per second across operating conditions. The
`existing information from salmon smolt survival studies at the project provides reasonable basis
`for the need to implement this downstream fish passage measure proactively. Specifically,
`studies at Weston in 2013-2015 demonstrated that the debris boom at the project failed to guide
`
`
`
`9 Klienschmidt Group. (2017). Kleinschmidt Project Concludes Successful River Restoration in Maine [Press
`release]. Retrieved from https://www.acec.org/default/assets/File/2017-18%20FF%20Kleinschmidt-
`Howland%20Bypass%20PR.PDF.
`
`10 The Forebay Rack and Sluiceway Plan and CFD Modeling will be filled as an attachment to this filing. The
`concept designs for the Forebay Rack and Sluiceway will be filled separately as Critical Energy Infrastructure
`Information (CEII).
`
`PHONE: (207) 624-6550
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OFFICES AT 32 BLOSSOM LANE, MARQUARDT BUILDING, AUGUSTA, MAINE
`http://www.Maine.gov/dmr
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FAX: (207) 624-6024
`
`

`

`7
`
`MDMR comments on the EIS for Lockwood, Shawmut, Hydro-Kennebec and Weston
`
`20-41% of smolts away from the current trash racks for the project turbines and those smolts
`were subsequently entrained.11
`
`MDMR also recommends that FERC require the development, with agency input and approval,
`of a new downstream bypass at the South Channel dam adjacent to log sluice, which is currently
`proposed as the downstream bypass. The new downstream bypass should have both surface and
`submerged entrances and should be capable of passing a minimum flow of five percent of station
`hydraulic capacity in accordance with USFWS Fish Passage Engineering Design Criteria (2019).
`The existing information from Atlantic Salmon smolt survival studies at the project provides
`reasonable basis for the need to implement these downstream fish passage measures. The
`survival studies at the Weston Project have documented the log sluice as the route of passage
`with the lowest estimated survival.12
`
`MDMR also recommends that FERC require the development, with agency input and approval,
`of a new project operation plan that would prioritize spill to ensure safe, timely, and effective
`downstream passage. Specifically, MDMR suggests the use of the Taintor gates or stanchion
`gates at the North Channel Dam should be explored during the downstream migration season.
`This measure is prudent because operation of the log sluice, which has a capacity of
`approximately 600 cfs and would be located directly adjacent to a new downstream bypass,
`would attract fish away from the new downstream bypass and therefore reduce survival of
`downstream migrants.
`
`Recommendations for Analysis
`
`MDMR requests that FERC compare mortality without and with full-depth screening at each of
`the four projects for all target species, with a focus on achieving mandatory conditions and
`MDMR performance standards. Specifically, FERC should conduct a blade strike analysis for
`each of the four projects for the following target species/life stages (adult and juvenile Atlantic
`salmon, alewife, blueback herring, American shad; adult American eel; and juvenile sea
`lamprey). This analysis would be an expanded version of Table 7 of the DEA. Further, FERC
`should estimate minimum sizes of each of the target species/life stages (adult and juvenile
`Atlantic salmon, alewife, blueback herring, American shad; adult American eel; and juvenile sea
`lamprey) that would be physically excluded from trash racks with 0.5-inch, 0.75-inch, 1 inch,
`and existing bar spacing for each of the four projects. This analysis would be an expanded
`version of Table 8 of the DEA. FERC should also estimate the normal and sweeping velocities
`for these rack structures, which would be an expanded version of Table 9 of the EA.
`
`When using fish numbers for analysis, MDMR recommends FERC use production potential
`estimates or recovery targets to inform the contrast between alternatives rather than comparisons
`using existing poor baseline conditions, represented by very poor fish passage numbers at
`Lockwood dam. If existing runs are used, they should be properly caveated and use the most up
`
`11 Accession Number: 20160329-5151. 239-240.
`
`
`
`12 ID. 239-246.
`
`PHONE: (207) 624-6550
`
`OFFICES AT 32 BLOSSOM LANE, MARQUARDT BUILDING, AUGUSTA, MAINE
`http://www.Maine.gov/dmr
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FAX: (207) 624-6024
`
`

`

`8
`
`MDMR comments on the EIS for Lockwood, Shawmut, Hydro-Kennebec and Weston
`
`to date information. For example, 100,000 smolts are now stocked in the Kennebec annually in
`addition to egg planting and natural spawning, therefore returns will be higher based on inputs
`than they were historically and more smolts are passing the projects during their downstream
`migration. For Atlantic salmon, the federal agencies just developed and finalized a final
`recovery plan, which is also an accepted comprehensive plan, so analysis should be conducted to
`demonstrate how any proposed project with conditions would meet those recovery goals and be
`consistent with the federal comprehensive plan.13
`
`MDMR also requests FERC assess all proposed downstream measures to ensure they meet
`USFWS design criteria for downstream passage. Criteria for downstream passage are
`summarized below. Please refer to the 2019 USFWS guidance document for detailed
`information.
`
`1. 3/4-inch or less clear spacing to physically exclude American eel, smolts, and adult
`alosines.
`2. Normal velocities (perpendicular vectors measured one foot upstream of the rack) of two
`feet per second, or less, in order to avoid impingement.
`3. Sweeping velocities greater than, or equal to, the normal velocity to promote guidance to
`one or more bypasses.
`4. An angled or inclined orientation such that the rack physically guides fish towards one or
`more bypasses.
`5. A total bypass flow at a minimum of five percent of station hydraulic capacity.
`
`New Information
`
`Delays at dams impact spawning success and iteroparity rates in Atlantic Salmon (Rubenstein
`2021)
`
`Recent research by the University of Maine at Orono, in collaboration with MDMR, indicated
`that upstream migrating Atlantic Salmon were delayed below both Lockwood Dam and Milford
`Dam on average two to three weeks (Rubenstein 2021), which is much longer the 48-hour
`passage that will likely be required at each of four projects on the Kennebec. Salmon delayed
`below dams experienced a much warmer temperature regime than they would have experienced
`if their migration was not impeded by dams. The high temperatures encountered by salmon
`downstream of dams often exceeded lethal thresholds and more frequently exceeded
`temperatures determined to be stressful to Atlantic Salmon than fish that were able to reach
`cooler, upstream reaches (Rubenstein 2021, Frechette et al. 2018). Rubenstein (2021) directly
`linked the warmer temperature regime experienced by salmon below dams to loss of critical
`energy stores, which translated to reductions in spawning success, survival, and ability to repeat
`spawn (Rubenstein 2021).
`
`
`
`
`13 NMFS and USFWS. 2019. Draft Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population
`Segment of Atlantic Salmon.
`
`PHONE: (207) 624-6550
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OFFICES AT 32 BLOSSOM LANE, MARQUARDT BUILDING, AUGUSTA, MAINE
`http://www.Maine.gov/dmr
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FAX: (207) 624-6024
`
`

`

`9
`
`MDMR comments on the EIS for Lockwood, Shawmut, Hydro-Kennebec and Weston
`
`Using a bioenergetics model (Lennox et al. 2018) parameterized with observed Kennebec and
`Penobscot River water temperatures, run timing, and passage efficiencies, Rubenstein (2021)
`clearly demonstrated that delays incurred at dams greatly reduce spawning success and rates of
`iteroparity in the Kennebec and Penobscot rivers, relative to a “no-dam” scenario. Such impacts
`of delay are well supported for sea-run species in the literature (Glebe and Leggett 1981; Jonsson
`et. al. 1997; Bowerman et. al. 2007; Martin et al. 2015; Fenkes et al. 2016).
`
`Observed delays were similar at the Milford and Lockwood fish lifts (Rubenstein 2021),
`therefore, MDMR suggests that delays at Hydro-Kennebec, Shawmut, and Weston projects could
`also be comparable, and associated with an increase in the number of fish that would run out of
`energy before spawning, presumably to die unless they abandoned their migration (Rubenstein
`2021). Specifically, using Kennebec River temperatures and a no dams present scenario, 93% of
`the migrating adult salmon would be expected to spawn successfully, of which nearly 17.4%
`would have enough energy to survive spawning and have the chance to spawn again (Rubenstein
`2021). Under a one dam scenario, the number of fish that would die before spawning increased
`from 7% (no dams) to 10.5%; with four dams, 37.4% of salmon would be expected to die before
`even one spawning attempt, a previously unquantified estimate (Rubenstein 2021). This
`effectively means that for salmon spawning in a river upstream of four dams (as is the case for
`the Sandy River), more than one out of three returning adults would die prior to spawning
`because of delays caused by the dams. This is additional incremental mortality previously not
`quantified.
`
`Under the four-dam scenario (like that experienced by Atlantic Salmon returning to spawn in the
`Sandy River without trucking), a mere 4.9% would arrive on the spawning grounds with
`sufficient energy to survive spawning and migrate downstream as kelts (Rubenstein 2021). In
`addition, this research shows that reasonable estimates of delay at four dams result in an
`approximately 72% decrease in the number of fish that would have the energy to recondition
`after spawning, which allows fish to return to spawn again in subsequent years, between the no-
`dam scenario and the four-dam scenario, and further negatively impacts population persistence
`of the Distinct Population Segment (DPS). This estimate does not account for additive
`downstream passage mortality of kelts, which was predicted by NOAA to be 49%-58% in their
`August 28, 2020 preliminary prescription for the Shawmut project. Taken together, it is
`unsurprising that iteroparity rates for Atlantic salmon have been reduced to near zero in Maine
`rivers (Lawrence et al. 2016, Maynard et al. 2017, Rubenstein 2021) and recovery has lagged.
`Repeat spawning Atlantic salmon are predominantly female, contribute disproportionately to
`productivity, and increase population persistence, particularly in years of low maiden-spawner
`returns (Fleming 1996; Lawrence et al. 2016; Bordeleau et al. 2020).
`
`Smolt Run Timing
`
`Using rigorously collected long