Penobscot River Shoreline Survey and Assessment

Transcription

1 Penobscot River Shoreline Survey and Assessment January 4, 2008 PREPARED FOR: Penobscot River Restoration Trust c/o Kleinschmidt Associates PO Box 650; 141 Main Street Pittsfield, ME PREPARED BY: Stantec Consulting (formerly Woodlot Alternatives, Inc.) 30 Park Drive Topsham, ME 04086

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Stantec Consulting ( Stantec, formerly Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 1 ) was contracted by Kleinschmidt Associates (KA) to perform a baseline field assessment and characterization of shoreline natural resources, infrastructure, and erosion at three operating hydroelectric dams in the Penobscot River basin in Maine. The following assessment evaluates the Great Works, Veazie, and Howland impoundments in support of restoring these reaches of the river and is based on the objectives of the Comprehensive Settlement between the dams operator, PPL Maine, LLC and PPL Great Works, LLC (collectively, PPL), and restoration coordinator, The Penobscot River Restoration Trust (PRRT). The PRRT is proposing to purchase and decommission the Great Works, Veazie, and Howland Dams. As part of the decommissioning, dam removal is proposed at the Great Works and Veazie impoundments, while removal of flashboards and construction of a new fish passage structure is proposed at the Howland impoundment. In support of preparing FERC surrender applications for restoration, Stantec has evaluated existing conditions of dominant wetland and botanical resources, rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) species, infrastructure, and impoundment shoreline erosion. In this assessment, following the field characterization of existing impoundment and shoreline conditions observed during low-flow conditions in August 2007, Stantec provides a preliminary assessment of the effects of the no action alternative and the proposed restoration action (e.g., dam removal) at each impoundment. Stantec also reviews additional available information prepared to date by other project consultants. The natural vegetation communities present at each impoundment are relatively representative of the Penobscot River Valley overall, occurring primarily as deciduous floodplain forest and small emergent marshes dominated by common macrophytes. The shorelines of each impoundment have experienced, at a minimum, a moderate level of disturbance following previous anthropogenic disturbances associated with hydroelectric power production, paper mill operations, and/or residential development. As a result, several common exotic/invasive plant species are present, mainly purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), Japanese knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum), and reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea); however, these species primarily occur at low densities. No exemplary or rare natural communities occur within the 1 On October 1, 2007, Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. was acquired by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. i

3 three impoundments, as determined by the Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP) (Appendix A). Numerous terrestrial and aquatic RTE species, including their associated habitats, are documented within the Penobscot River Valley. Of these, the shoreline assessment focused on habitat suitability for the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta), extra-striped snaketail (Ophiogomphus anomalus), Barrow s goldeneye (Bucephala islandica) and Orono sedge (Carex oronensis), which are documented to inhabit the project area. Correspondence from the MNAP reported that four additional rare plant species, including Nantucket shadbush (Amelanchier nantucketensis), purple clematis (Clematis occidentalis), New England violet (Viola nova angeliae), hyssop-leaved fleabane (Erigeron hyssopifolius), and longleaved bluet (Housatonia longifolia) are located south of the Veazie Dam. Directed presence/absence surveys for Orono sedge in the Veazie impoundment were not successful in locating the species. The analysis of aquatic species including fish and mussels is provided by another consulting firm. A variety of erosion conditions were observed within the Veazie, Great Works, and Howland impoundments. Erosion was generally slight to moderate, but Stantec observed areas of severe erosion in a few locations within each impoundment. Evidence of erosion control (e.g., retaining walls and riprap) occurs throughout each of the impoundments. In some locations, erosion controls have been implemented in an effort to stabilize riverbanks. As part of this study, Stantec identifies shoreline erosion and infrastructure. Stantec completed a separate inventory of the existing shoreline infrastructure at the three projects as catalogued in the Penobscot River Shoreline Assessment Infrastructure Review and Identification (Stantec 2007). This study includes both general and specific recommendations regarding erosion based on observed conditions and the scope of this study. ii

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION Goals and Objectives of the Shoreline Survey and Assessment PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION State of Maine Ecoregions Veazie Impoundment (FERC No. 2403) Great Works Impoundment (FERC No. 2312) Howland Impoundment (FERC No. 2721) METHODS Wetland and Botanical Species RTE Species Erosion RESULTS Wetlands and Botanical Species Veazie Impoundment Great Works Impoundment Howland Impoundment RTE Species Documented RTE Species Locations RTE Species Observed During Field Surveys Mapped Habitat Designations Description of Existing RTE Habitat Regulatory Background Erosion Veazie Impoundment Great Works Impoundment Howland Impoundment DISCUSSION Wetlands and Botanical Species Effects of the No Action Alternative Effects of the Proposed Restoration Action RTE Species Effects of the No Action Alternative Effects of the Proposed Restoration Action Erosion Veazie Impoundment Great Works Impoundment Howland Impoundment CONCLUSIONS Wetland and Botanical Species RTE Species Erosion REFERENCES iii

5 Table 1. Table 2. TABLES Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife and Plant Species documented near the Veazie, Great Works, and Howland Impoundments Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species General Habitat Descriptions Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. FIGURES General Project Locus Map Veazie Impoundment Natural Resources Great Works Impoundment Natural Resources Howland Impoundment Natural Resources Veazie Impoundment Soils Great Works Impoundment Soils Howland Impoundment Soils APPENDICES Appendix A. Agency Responses to Requests for Natural Resource Information Appendix B. Wetland Functions and Values Assessment Great Works Dam, Howland Dam, and Veazie Dam Appendix C. Wetland Community Photographs Appendix D. Erosion Photographs Stantec (107232) iv

6 1.0 INTRODUCTION Stantec Consulting ( Stantec, formerly Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. 1 ) was contracted by Kleinschmidt Associates (KA) to perform a baseline field assessment and characterization of shoreline natural resources, infrastructure, and erosion at three operating hydroelectric dams along the Penobscot River in Maine in support of the Penobscot River Restoration Project (Restoration Project). Previously, in 2006, Stantec conducted an initial field identification of infrastructure and a natural resource characterization at each impoundment (Woodlot 2007). Stantec s work followed the feasibility and preliminary environmental assessment conducted by Milone and MacBroom (2004a, 2004b, and 2004c). The Restoration Project is the result of a comprehensive agreement between dam owner PPL Maine, LLC and PPL Great Works, LLC (collectively, PPL), the State of Maine, the US Department of Interior, the Penobscot Indian Nation, the Penobscot River Restoration Trust (PRRT), and several conservation groups. The framework for the Restoration Project is detailed in a wide-ranging river restoration agreement that was filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on June 25, The Restoration Project seeks to restore 11 native searun fish species and their habitat while allowing for continued hydropower production. The agreement, the Lower Penobscot River Comprehensive Settlement Accord (Comprehensive Settlement), was signed by PPL, the Penobscot Indian Nation, several federal and state resource agencies, and several Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). The Penobscot River Restoration Trust was created to carry out the primary aspects of the Restoration Project as presented in the Comprehensive Settlement. The Comprehensive Settlement outlines a process by which the PRRT would have the opportunity to purchase, and subsequently decommission, the Veazie (FERC No. 2403), Great Works (FERC No. 2312), and Howland (FERC No. 2721) hydroelectric projects. The Veazie and Great Works dams are proposed to be removed, while state of the art fish passage is proposed for the Howland Dam. 1.1 Goals and Objectives of the Shoreline Survey and Assessment The goals of the Restoration Project include: 1) restore native sea run fisheries habitat in the river, 2) renew fish sustenance opportunities for the Penobscot Indian Nation, 3) create new opportunities for tourism, business, and communities, and 1 On October 1, 2007, Woodlot Alternatives, Inc. was acquired by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1

7 4) outline general future regulation of the river. The objectives of the Shoreline Survey and Assessment were to: 1) Characterize and map the following existing resources and existing conditions of concern along the shoreline: a) botanical and wetland resources (including exotic/invasive plant species), b) rare, threatened and endangered (RTE) wildlife and plant species, and c) erosion. 2) Identify areas where the proposed action may potentially affect those resources and conditions identified in 1) 3) Provide an assessment of the effects of the proposed Restoration Project on the Penobscot River shoreline area in support of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis, including a discussion of the no-action alternative. 2.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION The Penobscot River basin is located in central Maine between the watersheds of the Saint John, Saint Croix, and Kennebec Rivers. The Penobscot River has a drainage basin area of about 8,750 square miles, a length of 125 miles (north to south), and a maximum width of about 115 miles, making it the second largest river in New England. The lower Penobscot River has been dammed for over 130 years (Milone and MacBroom 2004a, 2004b, and 2004c). The Restoration Project involves actions at three impoundments in the Penobscot River basin. The Veazie Dam is located on the main stem of the Penobscot River, near the head of tide, in the towns of Veazie and Eddington, on the main stem of the Penobscot River. The Great Works Dam is located on the Penobscot River, 7 miles upstream of the Veazie Dam, in the towns of Bradley and Eddington. The Howland Dam is located in the town of Howland on the Piscataquis River just above the confluence of with the Penobscot River (i.e., north of Veazie and Great Works). Each of the three impoundments has been in place for over a century. 2.1 State of Maine Ecoregions In 2005, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) organized areas of the state into eight ecoregions, following the work of McMahon (1990) during their preparation of the Maine Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Ecoregions are delineated in the state according to discrete areas demonstrating similar climate, soil, 2

8 topography, and vegetation. Two ecoregions, the Central Interior and Eastern Lowlands, are represented in the three impoundment project areas. The Veazie and Great Works impoundments are located in the Central Interior Ecoregion, which extends from the foothills of the White Mountains to the lowlands of the lower Penobscot River Valley. In general, this region is characterized by the flat to gently rolling terrain of lower river valleys with increasing relief eastward of the Penobscot River. Poorly drained silt loams occur on the glacio-marine flats of the lower Penobscot Valley. The vegetation communities in the Central Interior Ecoregion transition from Appalachian forest to boreal spruce-fir and northern hardwood forest of northern and eastern Maine (MDIFW 2005). The Howland impoundment is located in the Eastern Lowlands Ecoregion, which totals an area of approximately 2.2 million acres in Maine. The geology of the region is characterized by underlying wet, dense mineral soils resulting from glacio-marine and glacio-lacustrine deposits (MDIFW 2005). Glacio-marine clays are prominent in the Penobscot River basin; however, depressions are often filled with organic soils. As a result, some of the largest forested wetlands in the state occur in the Eastern Lowlands Ecoregion. 2.2 Veazie Impoundment (FERC No. 2403) The Veazie Project is located in the Towns of Veazie and Eddington, Maine. Topography around the dam site is generally flat in the developed area near the river, but rises rapidly on a steep slope in surrounding areas. The east bank has a high steep slope that rises to a nearly level wooded upland area. The Veazie Project is operated as a run-of-river facility. The impoundment area is about 390 acres with a mean pool depth of about 15 feet and an impoundment length of approximately 3.8 miles (Milone and MacBroom 2004a). The dam is not used for flood control or water supply. Information based on Hec-ras modeling (A. Haberstock, Kleinschmidt Associates, personal communication) indicates that the removal of the Veazie Dam would lower the August median water level by 20.8 feet in the portion of the river located at the dam. The August median water level at the head of the impoundment will be.31 feet lower than the existing water surface. 3

9 2.3 Great Works Impoundment (FERC No. 2312) The Great Works Project is located in the southern portion of the Penobscot River basin at river mile 10.7 on the main stem of the Penobscot River, about 11 miles northeast of Bangor, Maine, in the towns of Bradley and Old Town. The impoundment occurs in the lower Penobscot River basin. Approximately 90 percent of the basin s drainage area (some 7,680 square miles) contributes to the flow at the Great Works Dam. The east end of the Great Works Dam is located in the Town of Bradley and the west end is located in the Town of Old Town. The impoundment extends from the dam approximately 1.7 miles northward to the towns of Old Town and Milford (FERC No. 2534). The Great Works Project abuts the former Fort James Mill, a pulp and paper mill closed by the former owner Georgia Pacific. The mill was recently purchased by Red Shield Environmental (Red Shield) investment group. Red Shield is using the mill, and its biomass boiler, to produce bio-refining ethanol fuel and wood pulp. The Great Works Project is licensed by FERC and consists of a dam and powerhouse with a total installed capacity of approximately 7,655 kw. The Great Works Project is operated as a run-ofriver facility. The Great Works Project also has two operating Denil-type fish ladders one located in the tailrace, the other at the west end of the spillway. An older, abandoned fish ladder is located near the center of the spillway. Information based on Hec-ras modeling (A. Haberstock, Kleinschmidt Associates, personal communication) indicates that the removal of the Great Works Dam would lower the August median water level by 11.5 feet in the portion of the river located at the dam. The August median water level at the head of the impoundment will be 2.2 feet lower than the existing water surface. 2.4 Howland Impoundment (FERC No. 2721) The Howland Project is located on the Piscataquis River in Howland, Maine. The site is approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence of the Piscataquis River and the Penobscot River. The Piscataquis River is approximately 65 miles long and drains an area of 1,500 square miles. The average annual flow at the mouth of the Piscataquis River is 2,500 cubic feet per second (cfs). The impoundment and tailrace shorelines are primarily undeveloped with the exception of both shorelines from the dam to the where the Merrill Brook tributary enters the river. The topography is generally flat throughout the impoundment. 4

10 The Howland impoundment is approximately 4.7 miles long and extends upstream to the area of Lowell Island, which is just downstream of the Howland/Maxfield town line. At the average annual flow, with the gates closed and the flashboards up, the impoundment has a surface area of approximately 290 acres and an elevation of feet. The dam is a concrete gravity design that was constructed on existing rock outcrop. It is equipped with a fishway that was constructed by the Bangor Hydroelectric Company in The Denil fishway provides limited upstream passage for anadromous fish via a 4-foot wide concrete pass located adjacent to the powerhouse. Downstream fish passage is provided through operation of the existing 5-foot 9-inch wide trash sluice located adjacent to the trash racks at the Howland site. In 1993, downstream fish passage was enhanced by the installation of a 3-foot 6-inch deep bellmouth weir. The Howland Project is operated as a run-of-river facility. The hydraulic capacity of the turbines is approximately 1,710 cfs. On an annual basis, this turbine capacity is exceeded approximately 47 percent of the time, while the capacity of the turbines and the gates (5,310 cfs) is exceeded approximately 16 percent of the time. When river flows exceed the hydraulic capacity of the units and the gates, water spills over the flashboards or the dam crest. Information based on Hec-ras modeling (A. Haberstock, Kleinschmidt Associates, personal communication) indicates that the partial removal of the Howland Dam would lower the August median water level by 3.6 feet in the portion of the river located at the dam. The August median water level at the head of the impoundment will be.81 feet lower than the existing water surface. 3.0 METHODS During project planning, Stantec reviewed available resources related to the Restoration Project, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping along the Penobscot and Piscataquis Rivers, and additional reports prepared during the preliminary natural resource assessments. KA and Trout Unlimited also communicated to Stantec the current flashboard operations at the Howland Dam and provided past photographs of low flow conditions in the lower impoundment. Following review of available resources, Stantec field scientists completed field surveys as described in the Penobscot River Restoration Studies Shoreline Survey and Assessment Study Plan developed by the PRRT. Field surveys included a wetland characterization of NWI wetlands, habitat assessment and observations of RTE wildlife and plant species, exotic/invasive 5

11 plant species characterization, and significant shoreline erosion. The summary findings of the existing infrastructure are reported separately in the Penobscot River Shoreline Assessment Infrastructure Review and Identification (Stantec 2007). The field data collected documents the existing conditions for the resources of concern and provides the basis for the NEPA analysis at each of the three impoundments. Prior to field mobilization, Stantec sent letters to state and federal agencies, including the MDIFW, Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP) within the Maine Department of Conservation, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to determine if existing or newly identified rare, protected, and/or exemplary resources occur in the vicinity of the project areas (Appendix A). Appendix A includes the state and federal agency responses that were received in 2006 during the preliminary shoreline investigation. The 2006 responses are also included in the Infrastructure and Natural Resource Identification (Woodlot 2007). In preparation for the shoreline survey and assessment, Stantec prepared field maps of the area by overlaying recent aerial photography with NWI wetlands data. In general, shoreline areas were accessed by Stantec field scientists from a boat during low flow conditions. Shoreline areas that were not accessible by boat or that required on the ground inspection were accessed by foot. Additional specifics of the shoreline survey and assessment methodology are presented in the following sections. 3.1 Wetland and Botanical Species The wetland characterization described herein is intended to be used for qualitative assessment in support of the NEPA analysis. Although a formal wetland delineation was not performed, wetland mapping was completed for each project that considered areas to be wetlands based on the technical wetland delineation criteria described in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (i.e., presence of wetland vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology). During the wetland characterization, Stantec scientists investigated wetland boundaries and wetland habitat classifications of existing NWI maps for the project areas (Cowardin et al. 1979). During the wetland characterization, Stantec modified the NWI wetland boundaries on field maps, as necessary, based on the observations during the wetland characterization. The wetland characterization mapping was recorded on field maps. The wetland characterization primarily 6

12 considered wetlands that are hydrologically connected to the impoundment by surface water. Stantec recorded and mapped wetlands that are likely to be surficially connected for some time in a typical year, but that may not have been surficially connected during the shoreline assessment. Wetlands that are mapped, but not described in this report are represented with a cross-hatch pattern. These wetlands were determined to be unaffected by the proposed restoration based on the observed field conditions or they are located beyond the area of investigation. Stantec recorded surficial hydrology observations in late August 2007 and, therefore, considers the conditions to be typical, annual low-flow conditions in each impoundment. Further, Stantec scientists meandered through much of the shoreline within 500 feet of the normal high-water line to identify all new wetland areas that may have been overlooked during mapping by the NWI Program. Wetlands that continued beyond 500 feet from the river were not investigated unless Stantec scientists observed a dynamic change in the wetland community vegetation and/or hydrology (e.g., change from Palustrine Scrub-Shrub wetland (PSS) PSS to Palustrine Forested wetland [PFO]). Moreover, Stantec mapped new wetlands according to NWI habitat classifications, placing emphasis on direct evidence of wetland hydrology (e.g., inundation, dominance of wetland vegetation, soil saturation, water stains, deposition of waterborne debris/sediments, and drainage patterns) to support the approximate boundary of wetlands. Stantec characterized dominant vegetation to classify wetland plant communities in accordance with the Natural Landscapes of Maine (Gawler and Cutko 2003); noted vegetation structure and relative density; and, located and mapped measurable stands of exotic/invasive plant occurrences near the shoreline. Exotic/invasive plant species were identified and reported (i.e., relative dominance) during wetland and botanical surveys. Species noted include, but are not limited to: purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), common reed (Phragmites australis), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica), invasive honeysuckles (Lonicera spp.), and invasive buckthorns (Rhamnus and Frangula spp.). Large areas of plant infestations and monocultures were mapped using a Geographic Positioning System (GPS), as necessary. Stantec also evaluated the likelihood that shoreline areas would be colonized by the identified exotic/invasive plant species following restoration. In wetlands anticipated to experience a project effect, Stantec conducted a Functions and Values Assessment (FVA) using the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) New England 7

13 Highway Methodology (Appendix B). For each wetland type, standard data was recorded on Corps data sheets, noting the applicable biotic (e.g., plant and wildlife species and communities present, plant structure, wildlife food sources) and abiotic (e.g., soils, hydrology, topographic position) wetland characteristics. Appendix C provides photographs of representative and dominant wetland communities in each impoundment. Wetlands were evaluated for their ability to perform 13 functions and values, as outlined in the Corps Highway Methodology Workbook, with emphasis on Principal functions that may be present. For the purposes of the FVA, similar types of wetlands are described as a group when shared characteristics are present. The FVA format follows Attachment 12 of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA) permit application. 3.2 RTE Species Stantec employed two techniques to identify and characterize RTE plant and wildlife species documented to occur within the impoundments. The techniques included: 1) habitat suitability assessments for identified RTE species and 2) directed field surveys at known locations of RTE species. Stantec assessed habitat suitability for the following RTE species: bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Barrow s goldeneye (Bucephala islandica), wood turtle (Clemmys insculpta), extra-striped snaketail (Ophiogomphus anomalus), and Orono sedge (Carex oronensis). Directed field surveys were conducted for Orono sedge. The locations of RTE species were located with GPS, if possible. Agency responses received prior to the field survey were reviewed for new RTE species not previously identified in the vicinity of the impoundments. Stantec did not investigate aquatic species (i.e., mussels and fish) during the shoreline assessment and survey, as they are being reported by another member of the project team. 3.3 Erosion In an effort to evaluate areas that may be affected by the Restoration Project, Stantec identified and described current erosion conditions within each of the three impoundments and areas immediately downstream of each dam. Emphasis was given to areas of significant erosion. Stantec documented field conditions in order to provide a qualitative assessment of the possible cause(s) of erosion and the potential post restoration condition in areas of significant erosion. Significant areas of erosion were surveyed using GPS and photo-documented by Stantec field 8

14 scientists. Stantec also identified significant areas of erosion that may benefit from biostabilization erosion control measures. 4.0 RESULTS Stantec conducted field surveys of the existing shoreline conditions during the last two weeks of August The results of the field surveys are presented below. State and federal agency responses are located in Appendix A. Additional wetland community descriptions and photographs are provided in the FVA (Appendix B). A catalogue of the shoreline infrastructure is located in Penobscot River Shoreline Assessment Infrastructure Review and Identification (Stantec 2007). 4.1 Wetlands and Botanical Species The vegetation communities along the shorelines of the impoundment areas are a mosaic of upland forest, forested wetlands, and relatively small, occasionally occurring emergent marshes. The most common type of wetland community occurring at each site is deciduous floodplain forest. The natural resource mapping, including the wetland characterization, is located in Figures 2-4. No exemplary or rare natural communities occur within the three impoundments as determined by the MNAP (Appendix A). State listed rare plant species are discussed in Section Appendix C provides a photo summary of representative and dominant wetland communities in each of the impoundment areas. Additional wetland community descriptions and photographs are provided in the FVA (Appendix B). During the shoreline assessment, Stantec observed one or more of the following signs of hydrology: inundation, dominance of wetland vegetation, soil saturation, water stains, deposition of water-borne debris/sediments, and drainage patterns. Overall the impoundments lack measurable stands of exotic/invasive plant species near wetland communities. Reed canarygrass, honeysuckles, Japanese knotweed, and purple loosestrife were the most common invasive/exotic plant species present in riparian areas; however, their densities were much lower than native plant species in many vegetation communities at the time of the survey. Stantec did not observe common reed in the impoundments. For the purpose of this report, Stantec considered narrowleaf cattail (Typha angustifolia) to be a potentially exotic/invasive plant species. In wetlands, where Stantec observed narrowleaf cattail, it was not occurring as dominant over native wetland plant species. Therefore, the species was not 9

15 considered to be as equally aggressive as the exotic/invasive species of concern identified in the Shoreline Assessment Study Plan prepared by the PRRT. Soil maps of the project area, which were confirmed during the field survey, are located in Figures 5-7. The soils throughout the entire Penobscot River Valley are collectively from the Suffield Buxton-Biddeford Association, a grouping of dominant soil series that exist in the region (USDA 1963). Soils occurring in the southern portion of the county are silty, welldrained to very poorly drained, and occur on rolling hills and depressed topography typically occurring along the principal rivers and streams at elevations less than 250 feet above sea level. The principal soils in the association are Suffield (5 to 10%), Buxton (approximately 30%), Scantic (approximately 25%), and Biddeford (approximately 20%). Areas are slowly to very slowly permeable with many of the poorly and very poorly drained areas occurring as forest. Large tracts of land were previously cleared for agriculture; however, drainage is a problem unless lands are drained and/or ditched Veazie Impoundment The Veazie impoundment is approximately 3.8 miles long beginning at the Veazie Dam and ending near the northern tip of Ayers Island (Milone and MacBroom 2004a). Residential development and disturbance along the Veazie shorelines is uncommon, with the majority occurring along the southwestern and northwestern portion of the impoundment shoreline. Overall, the shoreline area, within 500 feet of the river, is a mosaic of agricultural land and mature forest; wetland communities are infrequent, but occur in gently sloping and flat areas adjacent to the river. Upland oak and pine forests along the river are located upslope of steep embankments, usually occurring at elevations greater than feet. The dominant wetland community within the Veazie impoundment is characterized as a Silver Maple Floodplain Forest (Gawler and Cutko 2003). The partially closed forest canopy is dominated by silver maple (Acer saccharinum) along the western and eastern shorelines of the Veazie impoundment. The seasonal flood regimes in the impoundment have created several variations of this community, as represented by seasonal and semi-permanent flooding. Near Ayer s Island along the western shoreline (Figure 2 Map Sheet 2), the water regime varies from seasonally flooded/saturated to semi-permanently flooded, unlike the seasonally flooded/saturated water regime occurring along the eastern shoreline (Cowardin et al. 1979). 10

16 In addition to silver maple, red maple (Acer rubrum) is also sporadically present in the tree stratum of the floodplain forest, with aerial coverage generally below 20 percent. Representative of the community statewide, pole and shrub communities are not well developed in the Veazie Dam project area and include small patches of several dominant species. Green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and referenced maple species are present as poles. Occasionally, green ash, red maple, and honeysuckle species (Lonicera spp.) exist at low densities in a few scattered locations as shrubs. The herbaceous layer ranges from well developed to sparse and includes varying compositions and spatial patterns. Dominant species include white snakeroot (Ageratina altissima), sensitive fern, false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), purple stem beggar ticks (Bidens connata), and ostrich fern. Purple loosestrife and reed canarygrass occur at low densities in small patches or individual stems at the interface of the floodplain forest and river. The community also has relatively large patches of water-borne sediment and debris depositions that have created bare ground, representing approximately percent of the ground surface. Several relatively narrow emergent marshes, as classified according to the Cowardin et al. (1979), with dominant vegetation occurring as macrophytes, including emergent, submergent and floating plants, are located in the northern and central portions of the Veazie impoundment. In the north, these communities occur as transitional wetland communities dominated by emergent plants and subdominant floating plants. Near the center of the impoundment, the emergent marsh communities occur as backwater areas, which are setback from the river, but hydrologically connected through narrow seasonal drainages. Exotic/invasive plant species, including reed canarygrass and purple loosestrife, are present in each example of these communities; in some cases as a co-dominant and/or forming small homogeneous stands (Figure 2 Map Sheet 1). The emergent marsh in the northeastern portion of the impoundment is a narrow transitional community dominated by various graminoids (i.e., sedges, grasses, and rushes) where occasional shrubs are also present (Figure 2 Map Sheet 2). Based on natural community classifications by Gawler and Cutko (2003), the community is a variation of a Tussock Sedge Meadow, which are ranked as S3 and considered rare in Maine ( occurrences in the state). Plant species are absent in the tree and pole stratum. Meadowsweet (Spiraea alba var. latifolia) and sweet gale (Myrica gale) are present as patchy sporadic shrubs. Overall the community is dominated by herbaceous species including: tussock sedge (Carex stricta), bluejoint (Calamagrostis canadensis), spotted joe-pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum), wool-grass (Scirpus cyperinus), 11

17 reed canarygrass, and marsh fern (Thelypteris palustris). Small and/or narrow patches of macrophytes are present and dominated by common arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia) and pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata). Macrophytes are present, but infrequent in the marshes located in the northeast Veazie impoundment area, unlike the marshes in the northwest where they are dominant. Marshes in the northwest of the impoundment include higher densities of floating and emergent plants; dominants include broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), pickerelweed, and yellow water-lily (Nuphar variegata) (Figure 2 Map 2) and is classified as an example of a Cattail Marsh. Additional macrophytes occurring at lower aerial coverages, near 10 percent or less, include three-way sedge (Dulichium arundinaceum), common arrowhead, softstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus tabernaemontanii), scouringrush horsetail (Equisetum hyemale), bluejoint, wool grass, purple loosestrife, and reed canarygrass. A small stand of reed canarygrass is present in the community. A second wetland complex occurring along the western shoreline, located east of the Penobscot Valley Country Club and railroad (Figure 2 Map Sheet 2), is a mosaic of three interconnected emergent marshes that occur west of a steep upland slope, except for a seasonal drainage, surficially connected to the river during times of high water. The marshes may have been hydrologically influenced by historic railroad construction as indicated by the special modifier in the NWI habitat classification (i.e., PUBx). Based on field observations, the community is human influenced, but considered to be a variation of a Cattail Marsh (Gawler and Cutko 2003). Each of the marshes lack tree and pole species and include relatively large areas of open water where macrophytes occur in shallow areas, usually occurring along the periphery of the wetland. Dominant macrophytes include narrowleaf cattail and broadleaf cattail. Subdominant macrophytes include pickerelweed, purple loosestrife, common arrowhead, softstem bulrush, and watershield (Brasenia schreberi); each species has less than 15 percent aerial coverage throughout each example of this community. A small inclusion of scrub-shrub wetland is located in the second largest wetland, approximately 100 feet from the river. Dominant shrubs include steeple-bush (Spiraea tomentosa) and meadowsweet in the interior, and speckled alder (Alnus incana) occurring along the wetland margin. Also found in this complex is a homogenous stand of exotic/invasive species, dominated by Japanese knotweed with honeysuckle species (Lonicera spp.) as a subdominant, which is located adjacent to the seasonal drainage near the wetland boundary. 12

18 The third emergent marsh complex occurs along an electric powerline right-of-way (ROW) down slope of a very steep upland hillside (Figure 3 Map Sheet 1). The hillside also includes the largest stand of Japanese knotweed observed throughout all of the impoundment areas the size is estimated as 200 feet in length and 100 feet in width. The emergent marsh also includes the densest area of purple loosestrife observed in all impoundments, occurring as a dominant species within the community and as monoculture in some locales. Broad-leaved cat-tail occurs as a co-dominant in small areas, while sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis) and honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.) occur at densities less than 10 percent. Other wetlands (Figure 3) that are farther from the river were investigated during field surveys, but based on field observations were not determined to be hydrologically connected to the river during typical annual water regime Great Works Impoundment The Great Works impoundment, beginning at the Great Works Dam and extending approximately to the tailrace of the Milford hydroelectric project (FERC No. 2534) near French Island, is approximately 1.7 miles long (Figure 3). The east shoreline of the river is largely undeveloped continuing to the east until reaching residential frontage lots occurring along Maine State Route 178. The areas within 500 feet of the western shoreline have been largely disturbed as a result of residential development, the construction of U.S. Route 2, the construction of a railroad line, and the construction of a paper mill. Shoreline topography in the southern portion of the impoundment is largely flat and gradually slopes down at the shore, whereas near French Island in the northern portion of the impoundment the slope is steep. Slopes near French Island occur as exposed vertical ledge in several locations (Report Cover Photo). The dominant wetland community at the Great Works impoundment occurs along the eastern shoreline as seasonally flooded deciduous forested wetland (Figure 3). Based on field observations and natural community classification in The Landscapes of Maine (Gawler and Cutko 2003), this community is representative of a Silver Maple Floodplain Forest. This community is ranked S3 and considered rare in Maine ( occurrences statewide). The forest canopy along the shore is completely closed in several locations and almost completely closed throughout the remainder of the community. Silver maple dominates the tree layer and 13

19 represents approximately 70 percent dominance in the canopy. Additional subdominant trees present include green ash and red maple. Species in the pole strata are rare to infrequent, but include the tree species listed above and hop-hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana). The shrub layer is not well developed, but includes species such as meadowsweet, green ash, and red maple. Exotic/invasive species such as honeysuckles (Lonicera spp.) and glossy buckthorn (Frangula alnus) were not common and are present at low densities, typically less than 10 percent aerial cover; however, one primarily homogenous stand of honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.) exists near the center of the impoundment shoreline (Figure 3). Purple loosestrife occurred in very low densities, usually as single stems near the shoreline where soil is present. The spatial distribution and density of the herbaceous layer ranges from sparse to well-developed pockets of vegetation in the community. Dominant species include ostrich fern (Matteuccia struthiopteris), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), bluejoint, sensitive fern, and infrequent sedges (Carex spp). Two additional areas of this community occur in the northern extent of the impoundment along each shoreline (Figure 2). Plant species composition and relative densities are similar throughout each example of Silver Maple Floodplain Forest in the project area. A dense scrub-shrub community (PSS1E) abutting the river occurs near the center of the Silver Maple Floodplain Forest along the eastern shoreline and is representative of an Alder Shrub Thicket (Gawler and Cutko 2003). In Maine these communities are common and are ranked S5 due to a well distributed and demonstrably secure status. In the example at the Great Works impoundment, tree and pole species are largely absent from the community, but infrequent white birch (Betula papyrifera) and green ash occur in the pole strata. The shrub community is dense and dominated by speckled alder with an aerial coverage greater than 50 percent. Additional shrubs occurring at lower densities include white birch, steeple-bush, meadowsweet, and small infestations of honeysuckle (Lonicera spp.) with a total aerial coverage of approximately 10 percent in the community. The dominant herbaceous species are sensitive fern, bluejoint, timothy (Phleum pratense), tall meadow-rue (Thalictrum pubescens), and royal fern (Osmunda regalis). Other wetlands (Figure 2) that are farther from the river were investigated during field surveys, but based on field observations were not determined to be hydrologically connected to the river during typical annual conditions. 14

20 According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Penobscot County, Maine (USDA 1963), four soils are mapped along the shores of the impoundment. These include Buxton silt loam, a moderately well-drained glacio-lacustrine/glacio-marine deposit; Made Land, an anthropogenic feature; Colton loamy fine sand, a very deep, excessively drained soil formed in glacio-fluvial deposits found on terraces, kames, eskers, and outwash plains; Suffield silt loam, a very deep, well-drained soil formed in lacustrine or marine sediments; and Mixed Alluvial Land, a coarse silt loam deposit found on floodplains Howland Impoundment The Howland impoundment begins approximately 500 feet upstream of the confluence of the Piscataquis and Penobscot Rivers and continues up river for approximately 4.7 miles near Doe Island (Figure 4 Map Sheets 1, 2, and 3). Development occurs along River Road on the western shore and Maine Route 116 along the eastern shore; however, the majority of the impoundment shore is not developed. Along the western shore, boulder riprap has hardened the bank, but the majority of the shoreline is forested and banks are generally several feet in height. Many of the wetlands present along the shores occur above steep wooded slopes and are not surficially connected to the river. One exception to this general observation is the presence of narrow floodplain forests and emergent marshes in shallow waters and embayments. Many of the emergent marshes were also not demarcated during the NWI habitat classification in this reach of the river, but were added following initial field surveys (i.e., PEM wetlands outlined in red on Figure 4 Map Sheet 1). Unlike the Veazie and Great Works impoundments, several tributaries flow into the Howland impoundment, two on either side of Interstate 95. A Silver Maple Floodplain Forest, as characterized by Gawler and Cutko (2003), is the dominant forested wetland community within the Howland impoundment. Examples occur as narrow communities in relatively flat portions of the shoreline, near Doe Island and Big Island (Figure 4 Map Sheets 2 and 3). Similar to other examples of this community throughout the state, silver maple is the dominant tree species, occurring at densities generally higher than 60 percent throughout. Red maple is subdominant in the tree canopy and usually less than 20 percent aerial coverage. Pole species include maples and, infrequently, green ash and American elm (Ulmus americana). The shrub stratum is not well developed and includes patches of speckled alder, steeplebush, northern wild-raisin (Viburnum nudum), and arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum). The herbaceous layer, in contrast, is well developed in small areas dispersed throughout the community, occurring in depressions and areas closer to the river. The common dominant 15

21 species is ostrich fern with false nettle and wood nettle occasionally occurring as a subdominant(s). Additional species occurring at lower densities in the herbaceous layer include spotted joe-pye weed, sensitive fern, jewelweed and cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea). Purple loosestrife and reed canarygrass grow only in small patches along the bank margins, but each are absent underneath the majority of the wetland community canopy. Emergent marshes occur in several embayments and island peripheries in the Howland impoundment. Examples of the Pickerelweed-Macrophyte Aquatic Bed are located in shallow waters where the Penobscot Stream and Merrill Brook connect to the river and in additional fringes along the shoreline (Figure 4 Map Sheets 1, 2, and 3). Most of the emergent marsh that was observed at the mouth of Merrill Brook was not included on the existing NWI maps for the area and was added as a result of the field survey. The Pickerelweed-Macrophyte Aquatic Bed community is ranked S5 by MNAP because it is demonstrably secure within Maine (Gawler and Cutko 2003). The dominant macrophyte encountered during the field survey is pickerelweed, occupying over 80 percent aerial coverage in the community. Additionally, softstem bulrush, wool grass, and yellow water-lily comprise the remaining 20 percent aerial coverage. Reed canarygrass and purple loosestrife occur infrequently at low densities along the shoreline margin. Large forested and scrub-shrub wetlands (i.e., PFO and PSS) located on opposite sides of Interstate 95 (Figure 4 Map Sheet 2) drain into the river from upslope positions on the shoreline. Drainages are labeled as D-1 and D-2. A portion of the forested wetland, located east of Interstate 295, includes a forest canopy dominated by coniferous needle leaved species with pit and mound microtopography (i.e., PFO4E). Following the classification prepared by Gawler and Cutko (2003), the community in this location is consistent with the Spruce-Fir-Cinnamon Fern Forest that occurs on mineral soils often found along riparian areas. The dominant tree species is balsam fir (Abies balsamea), while red maple is a sub-dominant representing approximately 25 percent aerial cover in the community. Pole species include the previously observed tree species, but the strata is not well developed. The shrub community is well developed in some areas of the community and includes speckled alder, steeplebush, and winterberry (Ilex verticillata). Sphagnum mosses (Sphagnum spp.) are dominant bryoids (i.e., mosses, lichens, liverworts and hornworts), occurring throughout the pit and mound microtopography. 16

22 According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Penobscot County, Maine, six soils are mapped along the majority of the shoreline of the Howland impoundment. These include Madawaska fine sandy loam, a very deep, moderately well-drained and somewhat poorly drained soil that formed in glacio-fluvial deposits on outwash plains and stream terraces; Colton loamy fine sand and cobbly sandy loam, a very deep, excessively drained soil formed in glaciofluvial deposits found on terraces, kames, eskers, and outwash plains; Limerick silt loam, a very deep, poorly drained soil found on flood plains and formed in loamy alluvium; Podunk fine sandy loam, a very deep, moderately well-drained soil formed in recent alluvium on floodplains; Stetson fine sandy loam, a very deep, well-drained and somewhat excessively drained soil found on outwash plains, terraces, kames, and eskers; and Ondawa fine sandy loam, a very deep, welldrained soil formed in recent alluvium on floodplains. 4.2 RTE Species State and federal agencies have documented RTE wildlife and plant species in the vicinity of one or more of the project areas. According to correspondence in 2006, state and federal agencies had documented 3 RTE wildlife species and 1 RTE plant species in the vicinity of the project area. These species included extra-striped snaketail, bald eagle, wood turtle, and Orono sedge (Appendix A). In addition, the PRRT and KA noted that Barrow s goldeneye is thought to be present in the project area; however, correspondence from the state and federal agencies did not address this species. According to correspondence with state and federal agencies in 2007, the MNAP reports that 5 additional RTE plant species occur near the Veazie Dam (Appendix A). These species include Nantucket shadbush (Amelanchier nantucketensis), purple clematis (Clematis occidentalis), New England violet (Viola nova angeliae), hyssop-leaved fleabane (Erigeron hyssopifolius), and longleaved bluet (Housatonia longifolia). The RTE aquatic species such as fish and freshwater mussels that are documented in the Penobscot River basin are discussed in a separate analysis prepared by another member of the project team. Table 1 lists the status and general location of the RTE wildlife and plant species documented near the impoundment areas. In the summer of 2007, the MDIFW added the Barrow s goldeneye to the Maine Endangered and Threatened Species List (List) with the enactment of Public Law 2003 c.166 H.P. 296 L.D

23 (Maine State Legislature 2007). The extra-striped snaketail, not presently listed in Maine, was recommended to be added to the list of species of Special Concern maintained by the MDIFW (Brunelle and demaynadier 2005) following completion of the Maine Dragonfly and Damselfly Survey (MDDS) Documented RTE Species Locations In the following section, Stantec summarizes the locations of RTE wildlife and plant species documented by the MDIFW, USFWS, and MNAP to occur in the vicinity of the project area. According to MDIFW, one bald eagle nest is on the western shore of the Veazie impoundment. Most notably, two bald eagle nests are located more than 1 mile south of the Veazie Dam on the eastern shoreline of the Penobscot River (Appendix A). Several bald eagle nests occur near the other impoundment areas. One wood turtle occurrence is reported in the Stillwater River, more than 1 mile north of the tail of the Veazie impoundment. One extra-striped snaketail occurrence is reported more than 2 miles south of the Howland Dam in the Penobscot River. Barrow s goldeneye may occur within the area mapped by MDIFW as Significant Wildlife Habitat (Inland Waterfowl and Wading Bird Habitat [IWWBH]) near Ayers Island at the tail of the Veazie impoundment. It is also possible that Barrow s goldeneye over-winters in other areas of the river, outside of the three impoundment areas, where flow is continuous (i.e., where flow prevents freezing during the winter). The MNAP notes that Nantucket shadbush has been documented to occur at two locations on the western shoreline of the Veazie impoundment, south of the Penobscot Valley Country Club, and at nearby one location on the eastern shoreline. Purple clematis, New England violet, hyssopleaved fleabane, and long-leaved bluet have been documented to occur approximately 0.3 miles south of the Veazie Dam, along the western shore. MNAP also notes that Orono sedge has been documented to occur in 6 locations west of the Penobscot River; however, only one documented occurrence is near or within the western shoreline of the Veazie impoundment. The others occur along and west of U.S. Route 2 in Veazie. The documented occurrence of Orono sedge near the shoreline is ranked as fair to poor and was last observed in 2006 (Appendix A) RTE Species Observed During Field Surveys Stantec field scientists did not observe extra-striped snaketail, wood turtle, or Barrow s goldeneye during the shoreline assessment and survey. Adult bald eagles were observed in the 18

24 Veazie and Howland impoundments and a juvenile eagle was observed in the Veazie impoundment near a bald eagle nest (Figures 2 Map Sheet 2, Figure 4 Map Sheet 2). Stantec field scientists did not observe Nantucket shadbush, purple clematis, New England violet, hyssop-leaved fleabane, long-leaved bluet, or Orono sedge near the impoundment areas during the field survey and directed searches Mapped Habitat Designations State and federal agencies have mapped many habitat designations for species of concern throughout the Penobscot River Valley (Appendix A). The MDIFW has mapped six IWWBHs in the immediate vicinity of the project area, which are located adjacent to the Veazie and Howland impoundments. One of these occurs north of Ayers Island at the upstream portion of the Veazie Impoundment. Significant Wildlife Habitat mapped near/within the project area includes: IWWBH o North of Ayers Island (within Veazie Impoundment) o Wetland complex along the western shoreline and east of the Penobscot Valley Country Club (Veazie Impoundment) o Meadows Brook and adjacent wetland complexes along the eastern shoreline (Veazie Impoundment) o Along the Penobscot River in the vicinity of the confluence of the Piscataquis River (Howland Impoundment) o Adjacent to Doe Island on the Piscataquis River (Howland Impoundment) Deer Wintering Area o West of Merrill Brook (Howland Impoundment) o West of US I95 and north of State Route 116 along Seboeis Stream (Howland Impoundment) Description of Existing RTE Habitat Based on Stantec s field surveys, the wetlands adjacent to the impoundments do not appear to contain measurable habitat to support populations of the RTE species investigated as part of this assessment. However, portions of the Penobscot River, Piscataquis River, and areas setback from the impoundment shorelines provide suitable habitat for the RTE species addressed in this 19

25 report. Table 2 provides a general summary of the habitat requirements for each of the RTE wildlife and plant species documented to occur in or near the three impoundments. The shoreline area and the three project impoundments haves the greatest potential to support bald eagles. The Howland impoundment has the greatest potential to support Barrow s goldeneye and extra-striped snaketail. Portions of the Veazie impoundment may also provide habitat for the Barrow s goldeneye and less likely the wood turtle. Areas upstream and downstream of the Howland impoundment have the greatest potential to provide habitat for the wood turtle. All three impoundment shorelines have a limited potential to support localized populations of Nantucket shadbush, purple clematis, New England violet, hyssop-leaved fleabane, long-leaved bluet, and Orono sedge Regulatory Background The bald eagle was removed from the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) threatened list on August 9, 2007 (United States Department of the Interior, Federal Register July 9, 2007) and is now protected from a take under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C d) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C d). The MDIFW continues to list the bald eagle as Threatened under the Maine Endangered Species Act (MESA, 12 M.R.S.A., Chapter 925). Species that are listed as threatened and endangered are subject to protection under the MESA; however, many species do not have specified standards by which this protection must occur. The RTE species evaluated during the field survey are not protected under the federal ESA (as amended (16 U.S.C ); however, the USFWS lists Orono sedge and the extra-striped snaketail as species of special concern. Significant Wildlife Habitats, as mapped by MDIFW, in Maine are regulated under NRPA (Title 38, Chapter 3, 480-A to 480-Z), which is administered by the MDEP. Currently, the NRPA defines Significant Wildlife Habitats as: Habitats for State and Federally listed endangered and threatened species; Deer wintering areas and travel corridors; IWWBH ranked as high or moderate; Shorebird nesting, feeding, and staging areas; and 20

26 Seabird nesting islands 4.3 Erosion While similar features were observed in each of the three project impoundments (e.g., eroded banks, riprapped slopes, gullys, discharge conduits), there was substantial variation in the number of specific types of these features in the evaluated impoundment Veazie Impoundment Dominant features observed along the Veazie impoundment included culverts and gullies. The observed culverts were largely associated with 1) the railroad embankment along the right (west) side of the lower half of the impoundment, and 2) stormwater discharge culverts adjacent to Ayers Island and developed areas of Orono at the upstream limit of the impoundment. The Orono wastewater treatment facility discharges to the river at the approximate upstream limit of this impoundment. While some bank erosion was observed along this impoundment, it was generally limited. Large-scale riprap shoreline stabilization along this impoundment was limited to a training wall adjacent to the Orono wastewater treatment facility. Some relatively smallscale installation of riprap was observed adjacent to the residential area along the right (west) side of the impoundment upstream from the dam in Veazie. Substantial deposits of alluvial material were observed in the impoundment where gullies and streams discharge to this impoundment Great Works Impoundment Dominant features observed along the Great Works impoundment included culverts and gullies. Numerous culverts were observed along the river in Milford and Old Town and on French Island towards the upstream limit of the impoundment. Observed gullies were limited to the left (east) side of the channel between Milford and French Island at the upstream limit of the impoundment. The Old Town wastewater treatment facility discharges to the right (west) river at the approximate middle of this impoundment. High water levels during the field survey work precluded observation of this feature as part of this work. Observed bank erosion was limited along this impoundment, potentially as a result of 1) the generally developed nature of areas adjacent to the upper limit of the impoundment, and 2) the relatively shallow slope of the banks along the lower reach of the impoundment. Large-scale riprap shoreline stabilization along this impoundment was limited to the banks between the Milford Dam and the Route 2 Bridge between Old Town and Milford. The bank in Old Town along this upper reach is substantially comprised of unvegetated riprap. While the Milford bank in this upper reach is substantially 21

27 vegetated and riprap was not observed, the characteristic steep slope of the bank suggests that this bank may have previously been stabilized with rock or other materials. Riprap along the railroad embankment in Old Town downstream from French Island is presented in the Infrastructure Review and Identification report, and is not discussed further here. Limited smallscale installation of riprap was observed along the Great Works impoundment, but observed shoreline stabilization along this reach was generally comprised of masonry and concrete retaining walls Howland Impoundment Dominant features observed along the Howland impoundment included culverts and gullies, the riprapped bank along the right (south) side of the river in Howland, and shoreline erosion along the upper reach of the impoundment. The riprapped bank along the right (south) side of the river is approximately 3,500 feet long and is located adjacent to a developed residential area. Observed culverts were most prominent along the riprapped bank the right (south) side of the river in Howland. With a few exceptions, other culverts were limited to locations where tributary streams flow under roadways adjacent to the impoundment. The observed shoreline erosion along the upper reach of this impoundment is a dominant characteristic of this reach and appears to result from natural, riverine processes. 5.0 DISCUSSION In the following sections, Stantec provides an analysis of the Restoration Project effects at each impoundment, including the no action alternative. The analysis of the project effects is based on dam removal at Veazie and Great Works and a partial breach at Howland. Under the no action alternative, the existing conditions along and within the impoundments will remain similar to their current condition. The current impoundment conditions will persist subject to natural changes and the current hydroelectric power production at each dam. The second alternative, the proposed Restoration Project action, would be initiated by the decommissioning of the Projects. Following the decommissioning, Veazie and Great Works Dams will be removed. Removing the dams will change the existing water levels within the impoundments and cause indirect effects to the resources and conditions of concern within and adjacent to the impoundments of interest. At the Howland Dam, the flashboards will be 22

28 permanently removed, a bypass channel will be constructed around the dam, and water levels will be maintained at the level of the spillway. This will result in a lowering of water levels during periods when the boards would normally have been installed and no change in water levels during periods when the boards would have been down (i.e., existing conditions). In general, the largest decrease in water level will occur in the portion of the impoundment closest to the dam. By lowering the impoundment water levels, new areas of previously submerged riverine substrate will become exposed, particularly the shoreline closest to dam. As a result, wetland plant communities may change and/or colonize the areas where sediments become exposed following restoration. The greatest change to the existing shoreline conditions is expected to occur at the Veazie and Great Works impoundments, where each of these respective dams will be removed during restoration. The partial dam removal at the Howland project will largely mimic seasonal conditions as they change after the seasonal removal of the flashboards. The existing shoreline condition at the Howland impoundment is not expected to dramatically change following restoration. The removal of the Howland Dam flashboards will cause a small change, much less noticeable than the changes at the Veazie and Great Works impoundments. Additionally, the future change in shoreline conditions have the potential to affect plant community compositions and spatial distributions, wildlife species habitats and behaviors, shoreline stability, and public uses of the river. Collectively, the general response is anticipated to be positive for most of the identified resources in the project areas. Individual resource effects are described in detail in the following sections. 5.1 Wetlands and Botanical Species Presently, wetland and upland communities extend to the edge of the shoreline and create a largely vegetated bank that limits new undesired plant colonization. Also, the tree canopies in these communities are partially to fully closed where forested. This creates conditions that are not conducive for species that require partial/full sun and further limits exotic/invasive plant colonization of the shoreline. Areas of the shoreline that are not forested are exposed ledge or rock and cobble with shallow or no soil, which limits root establishment of exotic/invasive plant species. 23

29 Silver Maple Floodplain Forest, Pickerelweed Macrophyte Bed, and Cattail Marsh are the dominant natural communities occurring along the impoundment shorelines. Exotic/invasive plant species such as purple loosestrife, Japanese knotweed, reed canarygrass, and honeysuckles inhabit many of the wetland communities, but occurrences are generally at low densities except for a small number of measurable stands that have been mapped by Stantec (Figures 2 Maps 1 and 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 Map 1) Effects of the No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, the wetland communities and exotic/invasive plant species will likely remain at their current species composition and spatial shoreline distribution Effects of the Proposed Restoration Action Under the proposed restoration action, wetland communities and exotic/invasive plant species are expected to change somewhat as a result of the lowering of water levels in the impoundments. As KA and the PRRT discussed with Stantec, impoundment water levels are predicted to be lowered approximately 11 feet and 20 feet following the removal of the Great Works and Veazie Dams respectively during the August median near the dam. The location and time of the August median near the dam represents the worst case scenario, which will also experience the greatest change. This effect would be greatest lower in the impoundments closest to the existing dams. The water levels at the Howland impoundment are not anticipated to change dramatically after the partial dam removal (i.e., removal of flashboards) as described earlier. It should be noted that final hydrologic modeling at each impoundment was not available during the preparation of this report. The project team s previous experience with other dam removals and a discussion considering the current shoreline conditions provide the basis for the analysis. Following dewatering, the new shoreline will initially be devoid of vegetation. The exposed shoreline will be a combination of fine sands, riverine sediment deposits, gravel, cobble, and rock ledges. Plant colonization is anticipated during the first growing season immediately following restoration, particularly for plant species that respond favorably to disturbance. Where exotic/invasive plants are present along the shoreline, they will compete with native vegetation to colonize the exposed shoreline. In some cases, exotic/invasive plants may dominate over native species along the shoreline. 24

30 5.2 RTE Species The no action alternative and the analysis of the effects of the Restoration Project relative to the 10 RTE species that are documented or likely to occur (i.e., Barrow s goldeneye) in the project area are discussed below. For the purpose of the discussion, Purple clematis, Hyssop-leaved dogbane, Long-leaved bluet, and New England violet were grouped based on the similarities between each of these species habitat requirements and shared/common documented location, south of the project area. An individual analysis is provided for each of the other species Effects of the No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, the RTE wildlife and plant species will likely remain at their current species composition and distribution Effects of the Proposed Restoration Action Wetlands adjacent to the impoundments do not appear to contain measurable habitat to support populations of the RTE species investigated as part of this assessment. Therefore, the RTE wildlife species investigated are anticipated to experience a benefit or no change, and the RTE plant species investigated are anticipated to experience a small benefit or no change. Overall, the restoration will benefit the RTE species evaluated during the shoreline assessment Bald Eagle Of the species evaluated, the bald eagle is anticipated to benefit the most from the Restoration Project. The anticipated benefits will be indirect results of the restoration. Anticipated benefits include improved food resources and increased habitat suitability. Removal of the Veazie and Great Works Dams will restore fish migrations in these reaches of the river. At the Howland impoundment, the proposed fish passage structure will also improve fish migration. The restored fish passage is expected to strengthen fish populations in the Penobscot River. Potentially healthier and larger fish populations will provide food resources for bald eagles. Improved food resources will indirectly improve habitat suitability for eagles in the project areas. As bald eagles require open water during the winter to forage, increased flow rates at the Veazie and Great Works impoundments will increase habitat suitability Barrow s Goldeneye The Barrow s goldeneye requires open water during the winter. The lowering of water levels at the Veazie and Great Works impoundments may increase flow rates and prevent freezing in 25

31 these reaches of the river. If restored areas of the river do not freeze, then new suitable habitat may occur for the Barrows goldeneye. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated for this species as a result of restoration. If the Barrow s goldeneye occurs in the project area, then the effects of restoration are anticipated to be of benefit Wood Turtle Slower moving and medium sized streams are the primary aquatic habitat for wood turtles; therefore, the three impoundments do not provide measurable amounts of suitable habitat for this species. The documented wood turtle occurrence is from the Stillwater River, but wood turtle movements are greatly impeded by the existing dam located on the Stillwater River upstream of the confluence with the Penobscot River. The lack of suitable habitat for this species within the project area, limits the potential for impact as a result of restoration. Streams that flow into the Howland impoundment offer suitable habitat for this species; however, restoration is not anticipated to impact habitat of the wood turtle where this limited amount of suitable conditions occur near the shoreline. One potential benefit for wood turtles may be the creation of new habitats following restoration. Examples include new foraging habitat along the exposed shorelines of the Veazie and Great Works impoundments, which will revegetate and may provide food resources for turtles. Nesting habitat such as open sandy areas lacking vegetation, may provide nesting habitat once areas of the shoreline are exposed. No impacts are anticipated for the wood turtle as a result of restoration, while overall habitat conditions for this species are not expected to change or may improve slightly Extra-striped snaketail The extra-striped snaketail occurs in forested watersheds in fast-flowing and clean medium-sized rivers that have gravel bottoms. Suitable habitat for this species is limited in the project area, but is present at the tail of the Howland impoundment. The effects of restoration at the Howland impoundment are not anticipated to affect habitat suitability of the extra-striped snaketail, thus no impact is anticipated to this species Orono Sedge 26

32 Orono sedge occurs in fields, along roadsides, and in clearings. Regular management or a natural disturbance regime is required to maintain suitable habitat conditions for this species (MNAP 2004a). Suitable habitat occurs in areas greater than 500 feet from the river, where active management maintains habitat for this species. Suitable habitat for this species is limited along most of the shoreline as confirmed during the late summer survey. The Restoration Project is not anticipated to impact Orono sedge. If conditions of existing submerged areas are suitable, exposed shorelines following restoration at the Veazie and Great Works impoundments may provide new suitable habitat for Orono sedge Nantucket Shadbush Nantucket Shadbush occurs in fields, along roadsides, in clearings, pine barrens, thickets, and along river shorelines (MNAP 2004b). Small areas of suitable habitat for Nantucket shadbush occur along edges in the project area (e.g., thickets, house lots, and fields). However, the assessment focused on wetland communities, which do not encapsulate the range of suitable habitats of this species. Restoration is not anticipated to impact Nantucket Shadbush habitat. As a result, no impact to Nantucket shadbush is expected. Following restoration, exposed shorelines at the Veazie and Great Works impoundments may provide new suitable habitat for Nantucket Shadbush Purple Clematis, Hyssop-leaved Fleabane, Long-leaved Bluet, and New England Violet The habitat requirements of purple clematis, hyssop-leaved Fleabane, long-leaved bluet, and New England violet are similar. Each of these species is capable of inhabiting seasonally wet river shorelines (MNAP 2004c, MNAP 2004d, MNAP 2004e, MNAP 2004f). In the project area, habitats for these species are limited to non-forested shorelines, usually calcareous rock or gravel. Purple clematis also inhabits hardwood and mixed forests. If conditions of existing submerged areas are suitable, then exposed shorelines following restoration at the Veazie and Great Works impoundments may provide new habitat for these species. 27

33 Waterfowl and Wading Bird Habitat The MDIFW has mapped IWWBH in the general vicinity of the Veazie, Great Works, and Howland Projects; however only one IWWBH is mapped in the project area. The location of this IWWBH occurs near the upstream limit of the Veazie impoundment and is partially protected as a backwater area. As a result, no impacts will occur here or to other nearby IWWBH. New areas of open water may be present following restoration. Areas that do not freeze would provide habitat for non-migratory waterfowl during the winter, but these areas would need to meet the requirements of the MDIFW before being mapped as IWWBH. 5.3 Erosion This section presents a discussion of potential concerns and impacts related to erosion based on observations of existing conditions and general information relevant to the proposed action Veazie Impoundment Limited shoreline erosion was observed along the Veazie reach of the Penobscot River. Observed factors that apparently limit erosion include the presence of relatively dense vegetation along the edge of the impoundment, low flow speeds, and relatively minimal anthropogenic disturbance. The observed steep banks and soil conditions in the lower reach of the impoundment suggest that the loss of the impoundment could potentially result in some shoreline erosion prior to the establishment of vegetation following project implementation. Substantial factors relevant to potential post-action erosion include water surface elevations and associated flow speeds during periods of high flow. A relatively large number gullies and culverts were observed in the lower reach of the impoundment. Post-action runoff at these points could potentially result in headcutting and incising of the upstream channels. While observed natural armoring and/or bedrock would likely limit upstream headcutting, post-action monitoring of potential headcutting and incision may be appropriate. Observed deposits of alluvial materials in the impoundment adjacent to some of the culverts and gullies may be susceptible to erosion following project implementation. Factors associated with the potential movement of this material include the grade and composition of the adjacent, 28

34 dewatered slope, stream discharge, and the condition (e.g., consolidation) of the alluvial material. It may be assumed that some of the alluvial material would be eroded and subsequently deposited on the dewatered slope and/or into the new river channel. The Orono wastewater treatment facility outfall discharges to the Penobscot River at the apparent upstream limit of the impoundment. Potential impacts to the outfall include dewatering of the area at the point of discharge under low-flow conditions and/or erosion of adjacent areas and undermining of this feature. More detailed study and/or monitoring of the outfall may therefore be appropriate Great Works Impoundment Observed erosion features were limited along the Great Works reach, and the proposed action (i.e., removal of Great Works Dam) would therefore not appear to have a substantial affect on erosion adjacent to the impoundment. The majority of the gullies and culverts observed as part of this study were at the approximate upstream limit of the impoundment, and therefore are likely to experience minimal changes associated with implementation of the proposed action. Some of the gullies observed along the Milford side of the river may be susceptible to incising, however, and post-implementation monitoring may therefore be appropriate. The Old Town wastewater treatment facility outfall discharges to the impoundment downstream from French Island. Potential impacts to the outfall include dewatering of the area at the point of discharge under low-flow conditions and/or erosion of adjacent areas and undermining of this feature. More detailed study and/or monitoring of the outfall may therefore be appropriate Howland Impoundment The proposed removal of the flashboards from the Howland Dam will apparently have a minimal effect on erosion upstream from the dam, as the flashboards currently fail on a regular basis (i.e., at least once per year [J. Reardon, Trout Unlimited, personal communication]). This condition therefore suggests that the proposed action will not adversely affect erosion and fluvial process in the currently impounded reach of the river. As previously noted, eroded and/or failed banks are a characteristic feature of the river in the upper reach of the impoundment, and were observed at numerous locations upstream from the confluence of Merrill Brook and the Piscataquis River. Observed failures included undercut and 29

35 sloughed banks. While the full extent of the eroded banks was not documented, the observed conditions suggest that all of the banks in this area are susceptible to similar failure mechanisms, and that the observed failures are the result of natural, riverine processes. Observations of similar features upstream of the backwatered reach appear to confirm this determination. While potential anthropogenic disturbances such as fluctuating impoundment water levels and/or boatinduced waves may exacerbate erosion along this reach, observations suggest that they are not the cause of the observed conditions. Observations suggest that bioengineering are not appropriate along this reach of the Piscataquis River. This determination is based on factors indicating that the observed erosion is the result of natural riverine processes and that implementation of bioengineering measures would require removal of existing woody vegetation at the top of the slope. Removal of existing vegetation may not be appropriate. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Dam removal is proposed at the Great Works and Veazie impoundments, while flashboard removal and construction of a new fish passage structure is proposed at the Howland impoundment. In support, Stantec has prepared this assessment of the no action and restoration action alternatives for the existing shorelines of the project area for the NEPA analysis. The assessment and analysis of the restoration effects suggest that the shoreline natural resources and erosion at the Veazie and Great Works impoundments will be affected more than those at the Howland impoundment. Overall the analysis of the project effects discussed herein appear to be relatively minor as compared to the project goals of restoring the Penobscot River. 6.1 Wetland and Botanical Species Based the results of the shoreline assessment, wetland communities occupy a relatively small to moderate amount of the existing shoreline of the Veazie and Great Works impoundments. In general, the Veazie and Great Works wetland communities are not anticipated to experience a measurable effect following restoration, while the future conditions at the Howland impoundment will be comparable to the current seasonal shoreline conditions. However, new wetland communities will naturally develop along the Veazie and Great Works shorelines where exposed substrates are favorable for the colonization of hydric plants during the first growing season. The extent of new conditions will also be dependent on the bathymetry and new water 30

36 level of the river after restoration. It should be noted that the shoreline communities will continue to be influenced by seasonal flows in the Penobscot River. The early detection and management of exotic/invasive plant species may improve the natural restoration of the wetland communities along the restored shorelines at the Veazie and Great Works impoundments. However, at the Howland impoundment where no measurable change in current conditions is anticipated, monitoring is not recommended unless the PRRT proposes to treat exotic/invasive plant species. 6.2 RTE Species The proposed Restoration Project will primarily benefit wildlife and plant RTE species at the Veazie and Great Works impoundments, which are anticipated to change the most during dewatering. The existing conditions near or at the Veazie, Great Works, and Howland impoundments currently provide suitable habitat for RTE species. However, it appears that restoration will improve existing habitat suitability and/or increase available habitat for most, if not all, of the RTE wildlife and plant species evaluated during the shoreline assessment. The species expected to benefit the most are the bald eagle and Barrow s goldeneye. In addition, if the conditions of dewatered shoreline are suitable for life history requirements of other RTE species reported to occur farther from the project area (i.e., wood turtle, Nantucket shadbush, and extra-striped snaketail, etc.), then no change or a small positive effect will result for each of these species. 6.3 Erosion Shoreline erosion and bank stability were documented along the three impoundments comprising the project area. While the observed erosion was limited and localized in the Veazie and Great Works impoundments, the proposed action at these impoundments (i.e., dam removal) will likely result in a substantial change in the hydraulic regime and could therefore affect shoreline erosion. Shoreline erosion is a characteristic feature of banks along the Howland impoundment, but appears to be the result of natural, riverine processes. Because the proposed action at the Howland Dam (i.e., permanent removal of the flashboards) will not apparently have a substantial affect on the upstream hydraulic regime during periods of high flow, the proposed action is not likely to result in increased erosion. Similarly, the proposed action at Howland Dam would not 31

37 appear to have a substantial, adverse affect on the existing riprapped bank along the right (south) side of the lower reach of this impoundment. Headcutting of gullies and streams may result from lower water surface elevations in the Veazie and Howland impoundments. Post-action monitoring may therefore be appropriate as a potential action to address potential headcutting and incision. Potential impacts to culvert discharge points should be monitored in a similar fashion to gullies and streams, except that monitoring should be performed at the point of discharge. The location of the Orono wastewater treatment facility outfall at the upstream limit of the Veazie impoundment suggests that potential impacts to this outfall would be minimal. The location of the Old Town wastewater treatment facility outfall within the existing impoundment suggests that the proposed action may affect outfall performance. 32

38 7.0 REFERENCES Brunelle, P. and P. demaynadier Maine Damselfly and Dragonfly Survey: A Final Report. Edition 2 (Revised). Prepared for: Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. Bangor, Maine. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Gawler, S. and A. Cutko Natural Landscapes of Maine: A Classification of Vegetated Natural Communities and Ecosystems. University of Maine, Orono. Haberstock, A. Kleinschmidt Associates, Inc. Personal Communication. January 2, HydroTerra Environmental Services, LLC Penobscot River Bathymetry: Veazie, Great Works and Howland Dams Draft Report. Prepared for: Penobscot River Restoration PRRT. Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) High and Moderate Value Waterfowl and Wading Bird Habitat Maps. Available online at < dep/blwq/docstand/nrpa/birdhabitat/maps/index.htm>. Accessed September 20, Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife (MDIFW) Maine s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Bangor, Maine. Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP). 2004a. Rare Plant Fact Sheet - Orono Sedge. Maine Department of Conservation. Available online at < docs/rare_plants/links/factsheets/carexoronensis.pdf>. Accessed August 13,

39 Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP). 2004b. Rare Plant Fact Sheet Nantucket shadbush (Amelanchier nantucketensis ). Maine Department of Conservation. Available online at < Amelanchiernantucketensis.pdf>. Accessed September 12, Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP). 2004c. Rare Plant Fact Sheet Purple clematis (Clematis occidentalis). Maine Department of Conservation. Available online at < Accessed September 12, Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP). 2004d. Rare Plant Fact Sheet Hyssop-leaved fleabane (Erigeron hyssopifolius). Maine Department of Conservation. Available online at < Accessed September 12, Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP). 2004e. Rare Plant Fact Sheet Long-leaved bluet (Housatonia longifolia). Maine Department of Conservation. Available online at < Accessed September 12, Maine Natural Areas Program (MNAP). 2004f. Rare Plant Fact Sheet New England violet (Viola novae-angliae). Maine Department of Conservation. Available online at < Accessed September 12, Maine State Legislature Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Available online at < Accessed September 20, McMahon, J The biophysical regions of Maine: Patterns in the landscape and vegetation. M.S Thesis. University of Maine. Orono, Maine. Milone and MacBroom, Inc. 2004a. Feasibility and Preliminary Environmental Assessment: Veazie Dam. Prepared for: Natural Resources Council of Maine. August

40 Milone and MacBroom, Inc. 2004b. Feasibility and Preliminary Environmental Assessment: Great Works Dam Final Draft. Prepared for: Natural Resources Council of Maine. August Milone and MacBroom, Inc. 2004c. Feasibility and Preliminary Environmental Assessment: Howland Dam Final Draft. Prepared for: Natural Resources Council of Maine. December Stantec Consulting Services Inc Penobscot River Shoreline Assessment Infrastructure Review and Identification. Prepared for Kleinschmidt Associates. December Reardon, J. Trout Unlimited. Personal Communication. November 12, United States Department of Interior Federal Register July 9, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Volume 72, Number Washington, District of Columbia. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey of Penobscot County, Maine. Soil Conservation Service in Cooperation with the University of Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Washington, D.C. Woodlot Alternatives, Inc (Woodlot) Infrastructure and Natural Resource Identification: Veazie, Great Works, and Howland Dam Impoundments. Prepared for: HydroTerra Environmental Services. January

41 TABLES

42 Veazie, Great Works, and Howland Dam Impoundments Table 1. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Wildlife and Plant Species documented near the Veazie, Great Works, and Howland Impoundments Species Common Name Rarity Listing Status Reported Location (by impoundment) Wildlife Species State of Maine Federal Bald eagle Threatened N/A 1 Veazie, Great Works, and Howland Barrow's goldeneye Threatened 2 N/A Veazie and Howland 3 Wood turtle N/A N/A Howland Extra-striped snaketail N/A 4 Special Concern Howland Plant Species Orono sedge Threatened Special Concern Veazie Nantucket shadbush Threatened N/A Veazie Purple clematis Special Concern N/A Veazie Hyssop-leaved fleabane Special Concern N/A Veazie New England violet Special Concern N/A Veazie Long-leaved bluet Special Concern N/A Veazie Notes 1. The bald eagle was delisted from the federal threatened list on August 9, The species is protected from a "take" under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Protect Act. 2. The state listing status of Barrow's goldeneye was confirmed through the Office of the Revisor of Statutes (Maine State Legislature 2007). 3. The agency correspondence did not document locations for Barrow's goldeneye; therefore their location was derived from reviewing IWWBH mapped by the MDIFW for inland waterfowl and wading birds. 4. Brunelle and demaynadier (2005) recommend to the MDIFW that this species be listed as Special Concern; however, it is currently not listed in Maine.

43 Table 2. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species General Habitat Descriptions Wildlife Species Plant Species Species Common Name General Habitat Description Bald eagle Large open coastal and inland waters lakes, rivers, and reservoirs Barrow's goldeneye Coastal and inland open waters Wood turtle Moderate gradient rivers and streams with adjacent wetland complexes Extra-striped snaketail Flowing waters of moderate gradient rivers and streams; adjacent shoreline areas during emergence Orono sedge Fields, meadows, and clearing also including roadsides and cemeteries Nantucket shadbush Pine barrens, fields, edges, thickets and permanent wetland margins, also including roadside Purple clematis Rocky and open woods, river shores, and hardwood to mixed forests Hyssop-leaved fleabane Calcareous rock, talus, rocky summits/outcrops, and river shorelines New England violet Gravelly areas, wet rocks, shorelines, and meadows Long-leaved bluet Slate ledges and gravelly ledges along river shorelines

44 FIGURES

45 Prepared By: Sheet Title: General Project Locus Map Date: Scale: 11/28/2007 1" = 4 Miles Proj. No.: Project: Penobscot River Restoration Project Figure: F01-WetlandIndex.mxd

46 Prepared By: Project: Sheet Title: Date: 11/28/ F02-Veazie1.mxd Penobscot River Restoration Project Veazie Impoundment Natural Resources Map 1 of 2 Scale: 1" = 600' Proj. No.: Figure: 2

47 Prepared By: Project: Sheet Title: Date: 11/28/2007 Scale: 1" = 600' Penobscot River Restoration Project Veazie Impoundment Natural Resources Map 2 of 2 Proj. No.: Figure: F02-VeazieWet2.mxd

48 A Prepared By: Project: Sheet Title: Date: 11/28/2007 Scale: 1" = 600' F03-GWWet1.mxd Penobscot River Restoration Project Great Works Impoundment Natural Resources Proj. No.: Figure: 3

49 (!%%$"!"#$"!"#$"! '$"!"#$ !"#(!%%!"#$!"#$! ' "!"#! '$! '$!"#! '$! '$" ! '$" - 3% 2 5 # 4 # # 4 ) % $ )!%%$"! * % $!"#$". / 0$ 1 / 0$! " # $! $ % & ' # ( " ) $ % $ * ( ( (!" Prepared By: Project: Sheet Title: Penobscot River Restoration Project F04-Howland1.mxd Howland Impoundment Natural Resources Map 1 of 3 +, Date: 11/27/2007 Scale: 1" = 600' Proj. No.: Figure: 4

50 Prepared By: Project: Sheet Title: Penobscot River Restoration Project Howland Impoundment Natural Resources Map 2 of F04-Howland2.mxd Date: 11/27/2007 Scale: 1" = 600' Proj. No.: Figure: 4

51 Prepared By: Project: Sheet Title: Penobscot River Restoration Project Howland Impoundment Natural Resources Map 3 of F00-Howland3.mxd 116 Date: 11/27/2007 Scale: 1" = 600' Proj. No.: Figure: 4

52 Penobscot River Shoreline Survey and Assessment Howland, Veazie, and Great Works Dam Impoundments November 2007 Veazie Soil Identifers The first letter in each symbol is the initial one of the soil name. If the third letter is capital, it shows the range of slope from A, less than 2 percent, to F 15 to 45 percent. The number after the letter denotes the class of erosion as given in the soil name. Symbol AaB AaE AaC AgA AgB AgC BaD BaB BaC BmB BmC BnB BnD BnC BoA BuA BuB BuC BxB CnD CnB CnE CnC CsA CsB DxA DxB DyB DyC EwB HoB HvB Lk MaB Md MeB MeC Mn MsC MrB MoB On Pa PgB PgC Soils Name Adams loamy sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes Adams loamy sand, 15 to 45 percent slopes Adams loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes Allagash fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Allagash fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Allagash fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Bangor silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Bangor silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Bangor silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Bangor silt loam, moderately deep, 2 to 8 percent slope s Bangor silt loam, moderately deep, 8 to 15 percent slop es Bangor very stony silt loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Bangor very stony silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Bangor very stony silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Biddeford silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Buxton silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Buxton silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Buxton silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Buxton, Scantic, and Biddeford stony silt loams, 0 to 8 percent slopes Colton gravelly sandy loam, dark materials 15 to 25 per cent slopes Colton gravelly sandy loam, dark materials, 2 to 8 perc ent slopes Colton gravelly sandy loam, dark materials, 25 to 45 pe rcent slopes Colton gravelly sandy loam, dark materials, 8 to 15 per cent slopes Colton loamy fine sand, dark materials, 0 to 2 percent slopes Colton loamy fine sand, dark materials, 2 to 8 percent slopes Dixmont silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Dixmont silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Dixmont very stony silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Dixmont very stony silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Elmwood fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Howland gravelly loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Howland very stony loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Limerick silt loam Machias fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Made land Melrose fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Melrose fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Mixed alluvial land Monarda and Burnham extremely stony silt loams, 0 to 15 percent slopes Monarda and Burnham very stony silt loams, 0 to 8 perce nt slopes Monarda silt loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Ondawa fine sandy loam Peat and Muck Plaisted gravelly loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Plaisted gravelly loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes

53 Penobscot River Shoreline Survey and Assessment Howland, Veazie, and Great Works Dam Impoundments November 2007 Veazie Soil Identifers The first letter in each symbol is the initial one of the soil name. If the third letter is capital, it shows the range of slope from A, less than 2 percent, to F 15 to 45 percent. The number after the letter denotes the class of erosion as given in the soil name. Symbol PrC Py RaB Ro RmC RmD Sa ScB SeB SeC SfC SfE SuA SuD SuD2 SuB SuE SuC SuC2 SvD SvB SvC ThC TkB TkC TvD TvB TvC Wn Soils Name Plaisted very stony loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes Podunk fine sandy loam Red Hook and Atherton silt loams, 0 to 8 percent slopes Rock outcrop Rockland, thorndike material, sloping Rockland, thorndike material, strongly sloping Saco silt loam Scantic silt loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Stetson fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Stetson fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Stetson-Suffield complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes Stetson-Suffield complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes Suffield silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Suffield silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Suffield silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, eroded Suffield silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Suffield silt loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Suffield silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Suffield silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded Suffield very fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Suffield very fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Suffield very fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Thorndike shaly silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Thorndike very rocky silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Thorndike very rocky silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Thorndike very stony silt loam, 15 to 35 percent slopes Thorndike very stony silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Thorndike very stony silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Winooski silt loam

54 Date: Scale: Proj. No.: Figure: Project: Sheet Title: Penobscot River Restoration Project Veazie Impoundment Soils Map 1 of F05-VeazieSoils1.mxd Prepared By: 11/27/2007 1" = 600'

55 Date: Scale: Proj. No.: Figure: Project: Sheet Title: Penobscot River Restoration Project Veazie Impoundment Soils Map 2 of F05-VeazieSoils2.mxd Prepared By: 11/28/2007 1" = 600'

56 Penobscot River Shoreline Survey and Assessment Howland, Veazie, and Great Works Dam Impoundments November 2007 Great Works Soil Identifers The first letter in each symbol is the initial one of the soil name. If the third letter is capital, it shows the range of slope from A, less than 2 percent, to F 15 to 45 percent. The number after the letter denotes the class of erosion as given in the soil name. Symbol AaB AaC BmB BmC BoA BuA BuB BuC BxB CnA CnB CnC CsA CsB EwB HoB HoC HvB HvD HvC Lk MaB MbB Md MeB Mn MrB MoB Pa PgB PgC PrE PrC RdB RaB Ro RmD Sa ScB SeB SeC SuB SuE SuC SvD SvB Soils Name Adams loamy sand, 0 to 8 percent slopes Adams loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes Bangor silt loam, moderately deep, 2 to 8 percent slope s Bangor silt loam, moderately deep, 8 to 15 percent slop es Biddeford silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Buxton silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Buxton silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Buxton silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Buxton, Scantic, and Biddeford stony silt loams, 0 to 8 percent slopes Colton gravelly sandy loam, dark materials, 0 to 2 perc ent slopes Colton gravelly sandy loam, dark materials, 2 to 8 perc ent slopes Colton gravelly sandy loam, dark materials, 8 to 15 per cent slopes Colton loamy fine sand, dark materials, 0 to 2 percent slopes Colton loamy fine sand, dark materials, 2 to 8 percent slopes Elmwood fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Howland gravelly loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Howland gravelly loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Howland very stony loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Howland very stony loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Howland very stony loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Limerick silt loam Machias fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Madawaska very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Made land Melrose fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Mixed alluvial land Monarda and Burnham very stony silt loams, 0 to 8 perce nt slopes Monarda silt loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Peat and Muck Plaisted gravelly loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Plaisted gravelly loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Plaisted very stony loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes Plaisted very stony loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes Red Hook and Atherton fine sandy loams, 0 to 8 percent slopes Red Hook and Atherton silt loams, 0 to 8 percent slopes Rock outcrop Rockland, thorndike material, strongly sloping Saco silt loam Scantic silt loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Stetson fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Stetson fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Suffield silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Suffield silt loam, 25 to 45 percent slopes Suffield silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Suffield very fine sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Suffield very fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

57 Penobscot River Shoreline Survey and Assessment Howland, Veazie, and Great Works Dam Impoundments November 2007 Great Works Soil Identifers The first letter in each symbol is the initial one of the soil name. If the third letter is capital, it shows the range of slope from A, less than 2 percent, to F 15 to 45 percent. The number after the letter denotes the class of erosion as given in the soil name. Symbol SvC TkB TkC TvC Wn Soils Name Suffield very fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Thorndike very rocky silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Thorndike very rocky silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Thorndike very stony silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Winooski silt loam

58 Project: Sheet Title: Date: Scale: Proj. No.: Figure: Penobscot River Restoration Project Great Works Impoundment Soils 11/28/2007 1" = 600' F06-GWSoils1.mxd Prepared By:

59 Penobscot River Shoreline Survey and Assessment Howland, Veazie, and Great Works Dam Impoundments November 2007 Howland Soil Identifers The first letter in each symbol is the initial one of the soil name. If the third letter is capital, it shows the range of slope from A, less than 2 percent, to F 15 to 45 percent. The number after the letter denotes the class of erosion as given in the soil name. Symbol AgB BnB BoA BuB BxB CcC CnB CnC CsA CsB CsC CsD EwB Lk MaB MbB Md MeB MeC Mn MrB Mu On PgB PrC Py RaB RdB Sa ScB SeB SeC SfC SfE SuB SuC ThB Soils Name Allagash fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Bangor very stony silt loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Biddeford silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Buxton silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Buxton, Scantic, and Biddeford stony silt loams, 0 to 8 percent slopes Colton cobbly sandy loam, dark materials, 8 to 15 perce nt slopes Colton gravelly sandy loam, dark materials, 2 to 8 perc ent slopes Colton gravelly sandy loam, dark materials, 8 to 15 per cent slopes Colton loamy fine sand, dark materials, 0 to 2 percent slopes Colton loamy fine sand, dark materials, 2 to 8 percent slopes Colton loamy fine sand, dark materials, 8 to 15 percent slopes Colton loamy fine sand, dark materials, 15 to 25 percen t slopes Elmwood fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Limerick silt loam Machias fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Madawaska very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Made land Melrose fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Melrose fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Mixed alluvial land Monarda and Burnham very stony silt loams, 0 to 8 perce nt slopes Muck Ondawa fine sandy loam Plaisted gravelly loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Plaisted very stony loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes Podunk fine sandy loam Red Hook and Atherton silt loams, 0 to 8 percent slopes Red Hook and Atherton fine sandy loams, 0 to 8 percent slopes Saco silt loam Scantic silt loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes Stetson fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Stetson fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Stetson-Suffield complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes Stetson-Suffield complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes Suffield silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes Suffield silt loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Thorndike shaly silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes

60 ( ) #5!0 4 #5 4!0 #5 ) #!0 ) % 4 ) 3! ) % #5 3 # ) 2 & 2 %1 #5 #5 ) +! ) ) ) % ) 2.* 2 )!!0 )! ) ' 3 #5 ) - %14495:7 4 8 < 6F% 4. / 0$ 1 / 0$ % # % $ 9"4" 8 % ) $ $ ' $ 5 $ # 4 # ' 4 4$ #! : ( 4495:7 4 4$ #! ; $!' '. +" 3 4 ) Prepared By: Project: Sheet Title: Penobscot River Restoration Project Howland Impoundment Soils Map 1 of 3 +, Date: 11/27/2007 Scale: 1" = 600' Proj. No.: Figure: F07-HowlandSoils1.mxd

61 Date: Scale: Proj. No.: Figure: Prepared By: Project: Sheet Title: Penobscot River Restoration Project Howland Impoundment Soils Map 2 of F07-HowlandSoils2.mxd 11/27/2007 1" = 600'

62 Date: Scale: Proj. No.: Figure: Prepared By: Project: Sheet Title: Penobscot River Restoration Project Howland Impoundment Soils Map 3 of F07-HowlandSoils3.mxd 11/27/2007 1" = 600'