exhibit 13...exhibit 13. taxa id worksheets: data input methodology 1. i copied the raw data to a...

From: Paul LeeperTo: Maloney, KellySubject: Fwd: Union River bug dataDate: Thursday, April 16, 2020 2:47:03 PMAttachments: pre-EDD Stream_MI_Field Union R 2019.xls

Pre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Union R 2019.xlsx

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on links or open attachments unlessyou recognize content is safe. Please report suspicious emails here ATTENTION: Ce courriel provient d'une source externe, ne cliquez pas sur les liens et n'ouvrez pas les pièces jointes,à moins que vous en reconnaissiez la source. Veuillez nous aviser ici de tout courriel suspect.

-------- Forwarded Message --------Subject:Union River bug data

Date:Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:49:10 -0500From:Paul Leeper

To:Meidel, Susanne K CC:Dunlap,Frank

Susanne,

Here are the files for one site downstream of the Graham Lake Dam.If you have any questions or I screwed something up please contact me.

Thanks as always,

Paul

-- Paul C. LeeperMoody Mountain Env.137 Diamond Str.Searsmont, ME 04973

EXHIBIT 13

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected] Me

Guidance for Completing Biomonitoring Stream Macroinvertebrate Field Data Entry FormLocationPotential Stressor

OptionsNotesAgricultural Runoff

Updated 2/18/2016Above Road CrossingAltered Habitat

General Notes:Below Road CrossingAltered Hydrology

When beginning to enter field data from a new field season, request a new version of this file from the data manager. Prior to entering all field data, load one completed test file to make sure everything works correctly.Above TownAltered Hydrology (Beaver Activity)

A) Let Susanne Meidel or the data manager or know if you need additional options in items with a pull-down list (indicated by an adjacent yellow field 'List') or more/different fields under an item with multiple options.A) Let Susanne Meidel or the data manager or know if you need additional options in items with a pull-down list (indicated by an adjacent yellow field 'List') or more/different fields under an item with multiple options.A) Let Susanne Meidel or the data manager or know if you need additional options in items with a pull-down list (indicated by an adjacent yellow field 'List') or more/different fields under an item with multiple options.Below TownBelow Ski Area

B) Please complete peach-colored fields and do not alter white fields.Above Fish HatcheryBelow Wetland

C) Please do not enter text into empty fields; this will interfere with data processing.Below Fish HatcheryBOD (Low DO)

D) We encourage you to fax us (207/287-7826) original field sheets so we can carry out additional QC.Above WetlandChlorine

E) Please do not change the name of the worksheet 'Stream_MI' as this will interfere with data processing. If you are submitting data for multiple sites, please do so using separate files.Below WetlandGravel Pit

Above POTWImpounded

Note that for all items below only the points that need explanation are annotated.Below POTWInorganic Solids

Above LandfillLake Outlet

1) Site/Sample event info block (first block)Below LandfillLogging

a) Waterbody Name and Town: add the relevant information; exact form or accuracy are not required - these fields are not used for loading data.Below AirportLow DO

b) Station Number: add the 1-3 digit biomonitoring station number without the 'S-' (e.g., 5 or 826); if number is unknown, leave field blank.Below In-Place ContaminationLow Gradient

c) Sampled By and Sample Method: select from drop-down list.Above In-Place ContaminationLow pH

d) Note that Deployment and Retrieval Time come from the Habitat Characteristics section on the paper field sheet.Above Point SourceMetals

e) Deployed Depth Rep 1/2/3: enter the stream depths at the locations where samplers 1-3 were deployed. If an average depth was noted on the field sheet, enter the same value three times. Note that this information also goes in field B48.Below Point SourceNPS Pollution

f) The following info does not get captured in this form:- River Basin, Stream Order - DEP staff will determine these- Directions, Lat/Long coordinates - for new site, enter info in the New Site Information worksheet - Any field sheet comment about 'number of jars' - omitf) The following info does not get captured in this form:- River Basin, Stream Order - DEP staff will determine these- Directions, Lat/Long coordinates - for new site, enter info in the New Site Information worksheet - Any field sheet comment about 'number of jars' - omitAbove Urban NPSNutrients

Below Urban NPSOrganic Solids

2) Physical Characteristics blockAbove Agriculture NPSPesticides

a) Land Use and Location: select as many options from the drop-down list as desired. Do not enter the same option multiple times.Below Agriculture NPSRegulated Flows

b) Location: see columns C and D on this worksheet for a list of options and explanations for some of them.Above Forestry NPSSedimentation

c) Use the Comments fields in Row 62 to make additional notes on Land Use or Location if necessary.Below Forestry NPSSuperfund Site

Above DamOnly used for man-made dams; note info on beaver dam in Comments field, if desired.Thermal

3) Potential Stressor(s) blockBelow DamTidal/Estuary

a) Enter as many options from the drop-down list as desired. Do not enter the same option multiple times.ImpoundmentOnly used for man-made impoundments.Toxic Organics

a) See column F on this worksheet for a list of options.Lake OutletUrban Runoff

c) Use the Comments fields in Row 62 to make additional notes on Potential Stressor(s) if necessary.Main StemOnly used for larger systems.Wetland Headwaters

Above Confluence

4) Physical Characteristics of Bottom blockBelow Confluence

a) Enter percentage values only for the substrate types found; do not enter '0' for types not found.Below Falls

b) Make sure the summed percentage is 100%.Pristine Landscape

Designated Ecoreserve

5) Habitat Characteristics blockNational Park

a) Wetted and Bankfull Width, and Depth: enter a single value, not a range. If a range (or multiple values) was noted on the field sheet, enter the average here and if desired note what the range was in the Comments field in row 62.Minimally Disturbed

b) Make sure the values entered for DO, DO Percent Saturation, Temperature, and SPC match the units supplied. If necessary, convert values e.g. from degrees Fahrenheit to degrees Celsius.

c) Meter # information: the existing set-up assumes that DO and temperature are measured with one meter and SPC/pH with another. If your set-up differs, please make sure to note the meter ID in fields B/F 54 and 56.

d) HETL Folder #: this information is not stored in the database but only entered here as an electronic record.

e) If velocity on the field sheet says "visible" leave velocity value blank. Add a comment in the comment section(s) below: "Visible flow at deployment." or "Visible flow at retrieval." If both deployment and retrieval had only visible flow, put a comment in each comment field.

6) Comments at Deployment and Comments at Retrieval

a) Enter here any relevant comments (i.e. those that could help with data interpretation) that are noted on the field form, including in the Observations block. End comment with a period.

i) If a comment is of a general nature (i.e. is not date-related, e.g. additional information on Location), it can be put in either field A62 or E62.

ii) If a comment relates only to one date, enter it in the relevant Comment field. If the wording of the comment does not include a reference to either deployment or retrieval date (e.g. 'High water on deployment.'), add the date in the comment (e.g. 7/8/11: high water).

&CPage &P of &N

Stream_MI

EDD for Rivers/Streams Macroinvertebrate Field DataLUP values for pull-downs

Waterbody NameUnion RSampled By

TownEllsworthBiomonitoring Unit

Station NumberNumber only (omit ‘S-‘)Acadia National Park

Log NumberHoulton Band of Maliseet Indians

Sampled ByMoody Mountain EnvironmentalListLotic, Inc.

Sample MethodRBG-Rock BagListMoody Mountain Environmental

Deployment Date8/9/19Retrieval Date9/6/19Passamaquoddy Tribe

Deployment Time10:00 AMRetrieval Time12:30 PMPenobscot Indian Nation

Number Deployed3Number Retrieved3Portland Water District

Deployed Depth Rep 179cm-required


Deployed Depth Rep 379cm-requiredSample method

RBG-Rock Bag

Physical CharacteristicsRB-Rock Basket

Land Use 1Upland hardwoodListC-Cones

Land Use 2Swamp hardwoodListKQ-Kick/Qualitative

Land Use 3ListMQM-Maine Qualitative Method

Land Use 4ListEXP-Experimental

TerrainRollingListEK-Eckman

Canopy CoverOpenListSB-Surber

Location 1Below DamListHD-Hester-Dendy

Location 2ListMH-Multihabitat

Location 3ListUNK-Not Designated

Potential Stressor(s)Land Use types

Stressor 1Regulated FlowsListUrban

Stressor 2ListCultivated

Stressor 3ListPasture

Stressor 4ListUpland hardwood

Upland conifer

Physical Characteristics of BottomSwamp hardwood

Bedrock%Swamp conifer

Boulders (>10”)20%Marsh

Rubble/Cobble (2.5” – 10”)69%Rural residential

Gravel (1/8” – 2.5”)10%

Sand (

Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Biological Monitoring Program

Aquatic Life Classification Attainment Report

Station Information

Station Number: S-1051 River Basin: Maine Coastal

Waterbody: Union River - Station 1051 HUC8 Name: Maine Coastal

Town: Ellsworth Latitude: 44 35 22.72 N

Directions: 100 METERS BELOW THE DAM. Longitude: 68 26 28.28 W

Stream Order: 4

Sample Information

Log Number: 2785

Subsample Factor: X1

Type of Sample: ROCK BAG

Replicates: 3

Date Deployed: 8/9/2019

Date Retrieved: 9/6/2019

Classification Attainment

Statutory Class:

Model Result with P>0.6: NA

Date Last Calculated: 1/21/2020

Final Determination: NA

Reason for Determination: Model

Comments:

Date: 1/21/2020

Model Probabilities

First Stage Model C or Better ModelClass A 0.00 Class C 0.66 Class A, B, or C 0.20Class B 0.00 NA 0.33 Non-Attainment 0.80

B or Better Model A ModelClass A or B 0.00 Class A 0.00

Class C or Non-Attainment 1.00 Class B or C or Non-Attainment 1.00

Model Variables

01 Total Mean Abundance 1182.00 18 Relative Abundance Ephemeroptera 0.0102 Generic Richness 21.00 19 EPT Generic Richness 10.0003 Plecoptera Mean Abundance 0.00 21 Sum of Abundances: Dicrotendipes, 0.0004 Ephemeroptera Mean Abundance 12.33 Micropsectra, Parachironomus, Helobdella

05 Shannon-Wiener Generic Diversity 2.42 23 Relative Generic Richness- Plecoptera 0.00

06 Hilsenhoff Biotic Index 5.85 25 Sum of Abundances: Cheumatopsyche, 532.16

07 Relative Abundance - Chironomidae 0.05 Cricotopus, Tanytarsus, Ablabesmyia

08 Relative Generic Richness Diptera 0.29 26 Sum of Abundances: Acroneuria, 4.00

09 Hydropsyche Abundance 0.00 Maccaffertium, Stenonema

11 Cheumatopsyche Abundance 500.83 28 EP Generic Richness/14 0.21

12 EPT Generic Richness/ Diptera 1.67 30 Presence of Class A Indicator Taxa/7 0.00

Generic Richness Five Most Dominant Taxa13 Relative Abundance - Oligochaeta 0.00 Rank Taxon Name Percent15 Perlidae Mean Abundance (Family 0.00 1 Cheumatopsyche 42.37Functional Group) 2 Neureclipsis 28.93

16 Tanypodinae Mean Abundance 4.00 3 Polycentropus 9.95(Family Functional Group) 4 Planariidae 5.75

17 Chironomini Abundance (Family 3.00 5 Oecetis 2.88Functional Group)

Report Printed: 1/21/2020 Contact: [email protected] or (207)287-7688 Page 1

EXHIBIT 13



Aquatic Life Classification Attainment Report

Station Number: S-1051 Town: Ellsworth

Log Number: 2785 Waterbody: Union River - Station 1051

Date Deployed: 8/9/2019

Date Retrieved: 9/6/2019

Sample Collection and Processing Information

Sampling Organization: PAUL LEEPER (MOODY Taxonomist: PAUL LEEPER (MOODY MOUNTAINMOUNTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL) ENVIRONMENTAL)

Waterbody Information - Deployment

Temperature:

Dissolved Oxygen:

Dissolved Oxygen Saturation:

Specific Conductance:

Velocity:

pH:

Wetted Width:

Bankfull Width:

Depth:

23.6 deg C

8.2 mg/1

12 cm/s

Waterbody Information - Retrieval

Water Chemistry

Summary of Habitat Characteristics

Landuse Name Canopy Cover Terrain

Swamp Hardwood Open Rolling

Upland Hardwood

Potential Stressor Location Substrate

Regulated Flows Below Dam Boulder 20 %

Clay 10 %

Gravel 10 %

Rubble/Cobble 69 %

Landcover Summary - 2004 Data

Sample Comments

ATTACHED ALGAE


EXHIBIT 13

•et4rE oFt00

tiff EpV1 Y~ Maine Department of Environmental Protection


Aquatic Life Taxonomic Inventory Report

Station Number: S-1051

Log Number: 2785

Waterbody: Union River - Station 1051

Subsample Factor: X1 Replicates: 3

Town: Ellsworth

Calculated: 1/21/2020

Taxon

MaineTaxonomicCode

Count(Mean of Samplers)

HilsenhoffBioticIndex

FunctionalFeeding

RelativeAbundance %

Actual Adjusted Group Actual Adjusted

Planariidae 03010101 68.00 68.00 5.8 5.8

Hyalella 09010203006 6.67 6.67 8 CG 0.6 0.6

Odonata 090203 0.33 0.33 0.0 0.0

Heptageniidae 09020402 7.67 7.67 0.6 0.6

Stenonema 09020402016 4.00 4.00 4 SC 0.3 0.3

Tricmythodes 09020411038 0.67 0.67 4 CG 0.1 0.1

Chimarra 09020601003 18.33 18.33 2 CF 1.6 1.6

Neureclipsis 09020603008 342.00 342.00 7 CF 28.9 28.9

Polycentropus 09020603010 117.67 117.67 6 PR 10.0 10.0

Hydropsychidae 09020604 79.33 6.7

Cheumatopsyche 09020604015 422.67 500.83 5 CF 35.8 42.4

Macrostemum 09020604018 6.33 7.50 3 CF 0.5 0.6

Agraylea 09020607024 0.33 0.33 8 P 0.0 0.0

Oecetis 09020618078 34.00 34.00 8 PR 2.9 2.9

Thienemannimyia 09021011020 4.00 4.00 3 PR 0.3 0.3

Cricotopus 09021011037 31.33 31.33 7 SH 2.7 2.7

Eukiefferiella 09021011041 6.33 6.33 8 CG 0.5 0.5

Nanocladius 09021011049 3.67 3.67 3 CG 0.3 0.3

Rheotanytarsus 09021011072 16.00 16.00 6 CF 1.4 1.4

Polypedilum 09021011102 3.00 3.00 6 SH 0.3 0.3

Hydrobiidae 10010104 9.33 9.33 0.8 0.8

Gyraulus 10010203029 0.33 0.33 SC 0.0 0.0


EXHIBIT 13

EXHIBIT 13

From: Paul LeeperTo: Maloney, KellySubject: Fwd: Graham Lake bug dataDate: Thursday, April 16, 2020 2:39:57 PMAttachments: pre-EDD Stream_MI_Field Graham L CG-1 8-15-2019.xls

pre-EDD Stream_MI_Field Graham L CG-2 8-15-2019.xlspre-EDD Stream_MI_Field Graham L S-1 8-15-2019.xlspre-EDD Stream_MI_Field Graham L S-2 8-15-2019.xlspre-EDD Stream_MI_Field Graham L W-1 8-15-2019.xlspre-EDD Stream_MI_Field Graham L W-2 8-15-2019.xlsPre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Graham L CG-1 8-15-2019.xlsxPre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Graham L CG-1 9-19-2019.xlsxPre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Graham L CG-2 8-15-2019.xlsxPre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Graham L CG-2 9-19-2019.xlsxPre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Graham L S-1 8-15-2019.xlsxPre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Graham L S-1 9-19-2019.xlsxPre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Graham L S-2 8-15-2019.xlsxPre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Graham L S-2 9-19-2019.xlsxPre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Graham L W-1 8-15-2019.xlsxPre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Graham L W-1 9-19-2019.xlsxPre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Graham L W-2 8-15-2019.xlsxPre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Graham L W-2 9-19-2019.xlsxGraham Lake Macroinvertebrate Sites 2019.pdf


-------- Forwarded Message --------Subject:Graham Lake bug data

Date:Tue, 10 Mar 2020 07:40:13 -0400From:Paul Leeper

To:DiFranco, Jeanne L CC:Dunlap, Frank

Morning Jeanne,

Frank Dunlap asked me to send over the bug data files for Graham Lake (2019) and AtteanPond (Normandeau 2009). Here are the files for Graham Lake as well as a map showing sitelocations. Attean data will be over later today.

If you have any questions please contact me.

Paul

-- Paul C. LeeperMoody Mountain Env.137 Diamond Str.Searsmont, ME 04973

EXHIBIT 13












Above POTWImpounded




















Above Confluence















&CPage &P of &N

Stream_MI


Waterbody NameGraham lakeSampled By

TownWalthamBiomonitoring Unit

Station NumberCG-1Number only (omit ‘S-‘)Acadia National Park


Sampled ByMoody Mountain EnvironmentalListLotic, Inc.

Sample MethodSB-SurberListMoody Mountain Environmental


Deployment Time11:28 AMRetrieval Time11:28 AMPenobscot Indian Nation





RBG-Rock Bag


Land Use 1Upland hardwoodListC-Cones

Land Use 2Upland coniferListKQ-Kick/Qualitative



TerrainFlatListEK-Eckman

Canopy CoverOpenListSB-Surber

Location 1ImpoundmentListHD-Hester-Dendy




Stressor 1ImpoundedListUrban




Upland conifer



Boulders (>10”)5%Marsh


Gravel (1/8” – 2.5”)25%

Sand (10”)%Marsh

Rubble/Cobble (2.5” – 10”)%Rural residential

Gravel (1/8” – 2.5”)%

Sand (

�

� �

EXHIBIT 13

From: Paul LeeperTo: Maloney, KellySubject: Fwd: Attean Pond bug dataDate: Thursday, April 16, 2020 2:41:47 PMAttachments: pre-EDD Stream_MI_Field Attean Pond ATT-1 8-24-08.xls

pre-EDD Stream_MI_Field Attean Pond ATT-2 8-24-08.xlspre-EDD Stream_MI_Field Attean Pond ATT-3 8-24-08.xlspre-EDD Stream_MI_Field Attean Pond ATT-4 8-24-08.xlspre-EDD Stream_MI_Field Attean Pond ATT-5 8-24-08.xlspre-EDD Stream_MI_Field Attean Pond ATT-6 8-24-08.xlsPre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Attean 1-2008.xlsxPre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Attean 2-2008.xlsxPre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Attean 3-2008.xlsxPre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Attean 4-2008.xlsxPre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Attean 5-2008.xlsxPre-EDD_MI_Taxonomist Attean 6-2008.xlsxAtteanMacroinvertebrateSites2008Normandeau.pdf


-------- Forwarded Message --------Subject:Attean Pond bug data

Date:Tue, 10 Mar 2020 09:27:04 -0400From:Paul Leeper

To:DiFranco, Jeanne L CC:Dunlap, Frank

Morning again Jeanne,

Please find enclosed bug data files for 2008 sampling done on Attean Pond by NormandeauAssociates. The data was gleaned from the following report:

Brassua Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2615)Macroinvertebrate SurveyInitial Study ReportPrepared forOwners of Brassua DamPrepared byNormandeau Associates, Inc.February 2008

A few notes regarding the data files.

Biomonitoring Stream Macroinvertebrate Field Data Entry Forms: I didn't have a lot of datato input but did have substrate info. I couldn't find GPS coordinates but have included a mapwith locations noted.

EXHIBIT 13












Above POTWImpounded




















Above Confluence















&CPage &P of &N

Stream_MI


Waterbody NameAttean PondSampled By

TownAtteanBiomonitoring Unit

Station NumberAtt-1Number only (omit ‘S-‘)Acadia National Park


Sampled ByListLotic, Inc.

Sample MethodKQ-Kick/QualitativeListMoody Mountain Environmental


Deployment Time1:20 PMRetrieval Time1:20 PMPenobscot Indian Nation





RBG-Rock Bag


Land Use 1ListC-Cones

Land Use 2ListKQ-Kick/Qualitative



TerrainListEK-Eckman

Canopy CoverListSB-Surber

Location 1ListHD-Hester-Dendy




Stressor 1ListUrban




Upland conifer



Boulders (>10”)%Marsh

Rubble/Cobble (2.5” – 10”)%Rural residential

Gravel (1/8” – 2.5”)%

Sand (10”)90%Marsh


Gravel (1/8” – 2.5”)%

Sand (10”)%Marsh


Gravel (1/8” – 2.5”)%

Sand (

INITIAL STUDY REPORT MACROINVERTEBRATE SURVEY

Brassua Project Owners of Brassua Dam FERC No. 2615 19 February 2009

Figure 4.1-2. Attean Pond macroinvertebrate and mussel sampling stations in 2008.

Taxa ID worksheets: Data Input methodology

1. I copied the raw data to a new sheet

2. I took out extraneous rows and columns to allow data to line up with template and thencopied the data into the template

3. I, conservatively, adjusted the taxa names to conform with the DEP taxa list, mainlyremoving "sp." from the end of genus names and "grp" from chiros.

4. You will notice some taxa do not have codes, I left them as is.


Paul

Paul C. LeeperMoody Mountain Env.137 Diamond Str.Searsmont, ME 04973

On 3/10/2020 7:40 AM, Paul Leeper wrote:

Morning Jeanne,

Frank Dunlap asked me to send over the bug data files for Graham Lake (2019)and Attean Pond (Normandeau 2009). Here are the files for Graham Lake as wellas a map showing site locations. Attean data will be over later today.


Paul

EXHIBIT 13

EXHIBIT 13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have provided a copy via First Class Mail or electronic mail of the

Initial Study Report for the Brassua Hydroelectric Project to each entity designated on the

attached Distribution List.

Dated at Richmond, VA this 5th day of February, 2009. _________________________ Wendy Bley Long View Associates 2416 Mountainbrook Dr. Richmond, Virginia 23233

EXHIBIT 13

Brassua Project (FERC No. 2615) Distribution List Office of Project Review Advisory Council on Historic Pres. The Old Post Office 1100 Pennsylvania Ave NW Ste 809 Washington, DC 20004-2501 Jay Clement US Army Corps of Engineers 675 Western Avenue #3 Manchester, ME 04351 Kevin Mendik US Department of the Interior National Park Service 15 State Street 10th Floor Boston, MA 02109-3572 Michael Bartlett US Fish and Wildlife Service 70 Commercial Street Suite 300 Concord NH 03301-5087 Fred Seavey US Fish and Wildlife Service 1168 Main Street Old Town, ME 04468 Ralph Abele US Environmental Protection Agency 1 Congress St Ste 1100 (CWQ) Boston, MA 02114 Greg Stewart US Geological Survey 196 Whitten Road Augusta, ME 04333

Dana Murch Maine Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Land and Water Quality 17 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0017 Christina Stacey Maine Land Use Regulation Commission Greenville Regional Office – Somerset County 43 Lakeview Street PO Box 1107 Greenville, Maine 04441-1107 Amy Hudnor Maine Department of Conservation Bureau of Parks and Lands 22 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0022 Tim Obrey Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife Greenville Regional Headquarters PO Box 551 Greenville, ME 04441 Douglas Kane Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife Greenville Regional Headquarters PO Box 551 Greenville, ME 04441 Jeff Bagley Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife Greenville Regional Headquarters P.O. Box 551 Grenville, ME 04401

EXHIBIT 13

Dr. Arthur Spiess Maine Historic Preservation Commission 55 Captiol Street 65 State House Station Augusta, ME 04330-0065 Ian Buines Maine State Planning Office 189 State Street 38 State House Station Augusta, ME 04330-0038 Steve Timpano Maine Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife 41 State House Station 284 State Street Augusta, ME 04333-0041 Earle Shettleworth Maine Historic Preservation Commission 55 Capitol Street 65 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333 Marcia Spencer-Famous Maine Department of Conservation Land Use Regulation Commission 22 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0022 William Phillips, Chief Aroostook Band of Micmacs 7 Northern Road Presque Isle, ME 04769 William Nicholas, Governor Passamaquoddy Tribe - Indian Township Box 301 Princeton, ME 04668

David Lombard Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians Natural Resources Department 88 Bell Road Littleton, ME 04730 Bonnie Newsom, THPO Cultural and Historic Preservation Program Natural Resources Department Penobscot Indian Nation 12 Wabanaki Way Indian Island, ME 04468 John Simko Greenville Town Manager P.O. Box 1109 Greenville, ME 04441 Robert Dunphy Somerset County Commissioner District #1 41 Court Street Skowhegan, ME 04976 Sean McCormack Maine Council of Trout Unlimited P.O. Box 3862 Portland, ME 04104 Kevin Colburn American Whitewater National Stewardship Director 1035 Van Buren St. Missoula, MT 59802 Ken Kimball Appalachian Mountain Club PO Box 296 Route 16 Gorham, NH 03581

EXHIBIT 13

John Burrows Atlantic Salmon Federation Fort Andross, suite 308 14 Main Street Brunswick, ME 04011 Chad Clark Merimil Limited Partnership 160 Capital Street Augusta, ME 04330 Frank Dunlap FPL Energy Maine Hydro, LLC 160 Capital Street, Suite 8 Augusta, ME 04330 David Lovley Madison Paper Industries PO Box 129, 3 Main Street Madison, Maine 04950-0129 Laura Wildman Director, Northeast Field Office American Rivers Northeast Field Office 20 Bayberry Road Glastonbury, CT 06033 Natural Resource Consulting Services 167 South St Concord, NH 03391 FERC New York Regional Office 19 W 34th St, Rm 400 New York, NY 10001 Somerset, County of Countyhouse Skowhegan, ME 04976

Maine Office of the Attorney Office State House Station 6 Augusta, ME 04330 Maine Office of the Governor State House, Station 112 Augusta, ME 04330 Leon F. Szeptycki Environmental Counsel Trout Unlimited 1300 17th St N Ste 500 Arlington, VA 22209 Christopher Allen General Manager FPLE Maine Generation 677 Cousins St Yarmouth, ME 04096 F Allen Willey Vice President FPL Energy Maine Hydro LLC 160 Capital St, Suite 8 Augusta, ME 04330 Sarah E. Tomalty Senior Attorney FPL Energy, Inc 801 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 220 Washington, DC 20004

EXHIBIT 13

Brassua Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2615)

Initial Study Report

Volume I of V

Prepared for Owners of Brassua Dam

Prepared by

Long View Associates, Inc.

February 2009

EXHIBIT 13

This page intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT 13

INITIAL STUDY REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume I Section I - Introduction 1 Overview ............................................................................................................................... I-1

1.1. Project Description............................................................................................................I-2

1.2. Project Location and Area ................................................................................................I-2

2 Current Project Operations ................................................................................................ I-5

3 Process and Schedule Overview ......................................................................................... I-8

3.1. FERC Determination and Study Plan Modification .........................................................I-8

3.2. Study Reporting Timeline through Updated Study Report Meeting ................................I-8

4 Summary List of Studies ..................................................................................................... I-9

5 Continuation of Studies ..................................................................................................... I-10

6 References........................................................................................................................... I-10

List of Tables Table 4-1. List of relicensing studies conducted by the Licensees. ..........................................I-9 List of Figures Figure 1.2-1. Project Location. ......................................................................................................I-3 Figure 1.2-2. Brassua Reservoir. ...................................................................................................I-4 Figure 2-1. Brassua Project Reservoir levels..............................................................................I-7 Section II - Initial Study Reports Brassua Reservoir Impoundment Fluctuation Study Littoral Habitat Survey Brassua Reservoir Bathymetric Study Water Quality Monitoring Study Fisheries Survey Brassua Reservoir - Moose River Fish Community Survey Moose River Brook Trout and Landlocked Salmon Radio-Telemetry Study Moose River Smelt Drift Study Moose River Wild Salmon Production Evaluation Moose River Salmonid Redd Survey Upper Moose River Brook Trout Fishery Assessment

Brassua Project Owners of Brassua Dam FERC No. 2615 i February 2009

EXHIBIT 13

INITIAL STUDY REPORT

Fish Entrainment and Impingement Assessment Moose River Instream Flow and Habitat Assessment Moose River Evaluation of Tailwater Fishery Enhancements Brassua Reservoir Tributary Habitat and Access Study Volume II Section II - Initial Study Reports Macroinvertebrate Survey Brassua Reservoir Aquatic Resources Survey Volume III Section II - Initial Study Reports Terrestrial Resources Study

Terrestrial Resources Survey Aquatic Furbearer Study Volume IV Section II - Initial Study Reports Mercury Sampling for Fish and Wildlife Shoreline Ownership and Development Inventory Project Redevelopment Study Project Operations Overview Desktop Review of Moose River Upstream Fish Passage Recreational Resources Inventory Section III - ISR Appendices Appendix A: FERC-Approved Study Plan Appendix B: Study Consultation Record Volume V - Privileged Cultural Resources Survey

Brassua Project Owners of Brassua Dam FERC No. 2615 ii February 2009

EXHIBIT 13

EXHIBIT 13

From: Maloney, KellyTo: Howatt, Kathy; "Livesay, Nick"; Dorman, RandySubject: Ellsworth Final BMI ReportsDate: Friday, January 31, 2020 11:14:00 AMAttachments: Graham Lake Final Macro Report-1-30-20.pdf

Union River_Macroinverts_Final 1-30-20.pdfimage002.png

Hi, Nick and Kathy, Ahead of our meeting next Thursday, please find attached the final BMI reports for Graham Lake and the UnionRiver. We are pleasantly surprised to report that Paul Leeper is of the opinion the Graham Lake meets aquatic lifedesignated use standards. We are disappointed but not at all surprised that his analysis of the river resulted inaffirmation of the previous analysis showing non-attainment. That said, there are many aspects of our currentrelicensing proposal that we think are worth revisiting in terms of potential remediation and we look forward todiscussing those with you. Thank you, Kelly MaloneyManager, Compliance – Northeast Brookfield Renewable150 Main Street, Lewiston, Maine 04240T 207-755-5606 C 207-233-1995 F 207-755-5655Kelly.Maloney@BrookfieldRenewable.comwww.brookfieldrenewable.com

EXHIBIT 13
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.brookfieldrenewable.com/

2019

Graham Lake

Macroinvertebrate Community Study

Ellsworth Maine

FERC No.2727

Submitted by:

Paul C. Leeper

Moody Mountain Environmental

137 Diamond Str

Searsmont Maine 04973

Submitted to:

Frank Dunlap

Brookfield Renewable

150 Main Street

Lewiston, Maine 04240

Date: January 30, 2020

Page-1 -

Moody Mountain Environmental 137 Diamond Str Searsmont ME 04973 ph.207-592-8540 [email protected]

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This is a report on a 2019 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Survey in Graham Lake. This

survey was conducted in Graham Lake in support of the relicensing of the Ellsworth

Hydroelectric Project, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) No. 2727. The Graham

Lake Dam impounds the approximately 10,000-acre Graham Lake at a normal maximum surface

elevation of 104.2 feet msl. Graham Lake is operated as a water storage facility where water is

stored for later use in supplementing downstream generation at the Ellsworth Dam. There are no

generating facilities at the Graham Lake Dam. The current project license requires the water

level in Graham Lake to be maintained between 93.4 and 104.2 feet msl. The Graham Lake

Development generally follows an informal target operating curve where the impoundment is

drawn down during the summer and winter and refilled in the fall and spring. According to the

operating curve, Graham Lake is drawn down from a target elevation of approximately 102 feet

msl on January 1 to a target elevation of 93.4 feet msl on March 31. Graham Lake is then filled

to a target elevation of 104.2 feet msl between April 1 and mid-May, and is gradually drawn

down over the summer to a target elevation of 97.8 feet msl by early October. Graham Lake is

then partially refilled from mid-October to the end of December to a target elevation of

approximately 102 feet msl.

Graham Lake is classified GPA. Under 38 MRSA §464(9), as a hydropower project

impoundment, the aquatic life must, at a minimum, attain Class C aquatic life standards. Class C

waters may cause some changes to aquatic life, provided the receiving waters shall be of

sufficient quality to support all species of fish indigenous to the receiving waters and maintain

the structure and function of the resident biological community. This study concentrated on the

resident biological community, namely aquatic invertebrates.

2.0 GOALS

The goals of this study were to:

1. Survey the aquatic macroinvertebrates in the shallow littoral (nearshore) habitats

in Graham Lake and describe the communities and habitat;

Page-2-


2. Make a determination on whether the aquatic life in Graham Lake, as shown by

the nearshore macroinvertebrate communities, is meeting its Class GPA standard.

3.0 STUDY AREA

The study area consisted of the approximately 10,000 acres of Graham Lake in the towns

of Ellsworth, Fletchers Landing, Waltham, and Mariaville (Figure 1). The tributaries, including

the East and West Branches of the Union River were not included in the study.

4.0 METHODS

This study followed previous Maine lake and impoundment study methodologies (Leeper

1998 and Normandeau 2009). Benthic macroinvertebrates (aquatic insects and non-insects) were

sampled at six locations in Graham Lake (Figure 1). Sampling targeted three (3) general

substrates, coarse substrates (cobble-gravel), fine substrates (sand), and wetlands (aquatic bed,

soft muds and aquatic vegetation). A Surber sampler was used to collect samples from cobble-

gravel and sand substrates. These substrates had little or no aquatic vascular plants and occurred

in areas generally exposed to wind, wave and ice action. Aquatic sweep samples were collected

from soft silt-mud substrates in protected areas which contained aquatic vascular plant growth.

Sampling took place on August 15 and September 19, 2019 under typical reservoir level

conditions.

Macroinvertebrate sampling in cobble-gravel substrates was conducted at two (2)

locations, Cobble Gravel-1 and Cobble Gravel-2 (Figure 1). The two (2) sand substrate locations

are denoted Sand-1 and Sand-2 in Figure 1. Three replicate quadrat samples were collected at

each location using a square foot Surber sampler that was placed on the substrate in water depths

between 0.5 and 2 feet.

Page-3-


Figure 1. Graham Lake and the location of nearshore aquatic macroinvertebrate community sample sites in

2019.

Page-4-


A grain scoop was used to excavate the substrate within the sampler to a depth of about 5

inches. The contents of the scoops were placed in the Surber collection bag. The remaining

substrate was agitated and then the Surber was retrieved. The contents of each replicate Surber

sample was washed in a 595 µm sieve bucket to remove fine grained material, placed in a

labeled sample jar, and preserved with denatured alcohol for laboratory processing.

Two (2) wetland locations, Aq. Bed-1 and Aq. Bed-2 are shown in Figure 1. Three

replicate samples were collected at each wetland location using an aquatic D-frame sweep net.

Each replicate was collected by dragging the sweep net in a straight line for three feet with the

handle held perpendicular to the bottom. The bottom of the net penetrated the substrate by

approximately one-half inch. The contents of each replicate sweep net sample were washed in a

595 µm sieve bucket to remove fine grained material, placed in a labeled sample jar, and

preserved with denatured alcohol for laboratory processing.

All samples were transported to the Moody Mountain Environmental laboratory where

they were sorted, identified, and enumerated. At each station, mean values of three replicate

samples were used to calculate the following metrics:

Total Abundance – Total Abundance is the mean of the total number of specimens

collected from a sampling station and gear type on a given date.

Community Density – Community Density (no./m²) was only calculated from

quantitative samples, therefore density estimates were only calculated from Surber samples in

cobble-gravel and sand substrates.

Taxa Richness – Taxa richness is the number of distinct taxa (types of organisms) in a

sample and provides an estimate of the size of a macroinvertebrate community. A relatively

large number of taxa would indicate less environmental stress.

Shannon-Weiner Diversity Index – This metric compares the distribution of individuals

among all taxa present in a sample. The Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H) is a measure of

diversity that combines species richness (the number of species in a given area) and their relative

abundances. Maximum diversity is obtained when the numbers of individuals are equally

Page-5-


distributed among the taxa. A value near 0 would indicate a large number of individuals

representing one or a few species. High values indicate that the numbers of individuals are

evenly distributed among several species.

EPT Richness – Three groups of benthic insects are considered particularly sensitive to

pollution. EPT Richness is the number of distinct taxa (types of organisms) in a sample that

represents the groups (taxonomic Orders) of Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Plecoptera (stoneflies),

and Trichoptera (caddisflies), which are collectively referred to as the EPT taxa. Low values for

this metric indicate potentially stressful environmental conditions; values for this metric

generally increase with increasing water quality.

Midge Abundance – Midge (Diptera: Chironomidae) taxa are generally more tolerant of

stressful environmental conditions. Values for this metric generally increase with decreasing

water quality.

Percent Dominant Taxa – This metric uses the abundance of the most commonly

collected taxon as a measure of community balance. A community dominated by one or

relatively few taxa suggests environmental stress. If a dominant taxon accounts for a large

percentage of the individuals present, it is an indication of stress because the community is

dominated by one taxon, whereas unstressed communities typically exhibit a more evenly

balanced abundance among several taxa.

In addition to characterizing the Graham Lake macroinvertebrate community, this study

compared that community to the community in Attean Pond. Attean Pond is a 2,745 acre lake

located in the Moose River drainage. It is a natural, unregulated lake with no shoreline

development and excellent water quality. Normandeau (2009) previously studied the shallow,

near shore macroinvertebrate community using similar methods. The data set from August 2008

sampling in cobble-gravel substrates and soft silt-mud substrates in protected areas which

contained aquatic vascular plant growth were compared to the August Graham Lake community.

It should be noted that the Aquatic Life standard for Graham Lake allows for some changes in

aquatic life as long as the structure and function of resident biological community is maintained.

Therefore, the Graham Lake community does not have to be exactly like that of a natural lake,

Page-6-


but the basic structure and function must be maintained. The metrics described above were

compared between the lake communities as well an additional metric:

Community Loss Index – The community loss index measures the loss of benthic taxa

in samples from an experimental station (Graham Lake) compared to those found at the reference

station (Courtemanch and Davies 1987). It also factors in the replacement of missing taxa with

different taxa. The value of this index can range from 0 to infinity, and increases as the test

station becomes increasingly dissimilar to the reference station; therefore, lower values indicate

less stressful conditions.

5.0 RESULTS

Physical habitat characteristics of each sampling station are provided in Table 1.

Photographs of the sites are included in Appendix 1. Aquatic sweep samples were collected

from sites Aq. Bed-1 and -2 (Figure 1). Overall, these sites had a substrate that was

predominately composed of soft muds, clay, and detritus (organic matter). Submerged aquatic

vegetation (SAV) and floating aquatic vegetation was abundant at both sites. Surber samples

were collected from sites Cobble Gravel-1 and -2. As named, the substrates at these sites were

predominantly cobble and gravel, although it was noted at both sites that the cobble was

embedded in clay or mud. Neither site had extensive aquatic vegetation but some attached algae

was present. Surber samples were also used at sites Sand-1 and -2. These sites were

predominantly sands with some gravel and muds. No aquatic vegetation was present at these

sites. Both the Cobble Gravel and Sand sites were located in areas that received more wave

action than the Aquatic Bed sites, which precluded the presence of silt, mud, and extensive

vegetation.

Page-7-


Table 1. Substrate Composition, temperature and dissolved oxygen at littoral macroinvertebrate sampling

sites on Graham Lake, August, September 2019.

Station DateSample

TypeBoulder Cobble Gravel Sand Silt/Mud Clay Muck Detritus Temp (

°C)

Diss Oxy

(mg/l)

G-CG-1 15-Aug-19 Surber 5 60 25 10 24.9 7.8

G-CG-2 15-Aug-19 Surber 10 40 30 10 10 24 7.5

G-Snd-1 15-Aug-19 Surber 30 60 10 27 8.1

G-Snd-2 15-Aug-19 Surber 25 70 5 23.2 8

G-Wtl-1 15-Aug-19 Aq. Sweep 50 20 30 24.7 7.6

G-Wtl-2 15-Aug-19 Aq. Sweep 40 40 20 22.7 7.8

Substrate % Composition Water Quality

A complete list of site data including taxa and the number of individuals per taxon

collected from each sample is provided in Appendix 3. Summarized benthic macroinvertebrate

data are provided in Table 2. Overall a total of 7881 organisms representing 71 taxa were

collected in the study. S-W Diversity values were generally low, ranging from 1.37 to 2.50.

Sensitive mayflies and caddisflies (EPT) taxa made up 30% of the total taxa collected. The

wetland habitats were the most numerous, by an order of magnitude, and rich communities.

Sand and cobble-gravel habitats were much less numerous and had 15% and 35% less taxa

respectively. As mentioned above, overall diversity values for these communities were generally

low. The sand communities had the highest values overall. Sensitive EPT taxa were well

represented in all communities and made up over a third of the taxa at sand and cobble-gravel

sites. Mean total abundance of EPT rose in all habitats from August to September. Midge

larvae, generally more adaptable to stressful environmental conditions, were a minor component

of the communities reaching a high of 15% of the abundance in sand habitat in August.

However, the midges Tanytarsus and Tribelos were dominant taxa in sand habitat in August and

September respectively. The aquatic snail, Amnicola sp. and the amphipod Hyalella azteca were

dominant taxa (>5%) in all habitats in both months. Combined these two (2) taxa represented

between 21% and 72% of the communities across habitats and months. Sensitive mayflies

Stenacron and Eurylophella were major components of the cobble gravel communities and the

wetland communities in September.

Page-8-


Table 2. Summarized metrics from the nearshore aquatic macroinvertebrate communities in Graham Lake,

2019.

Tot. Ab. % Ab Tot. Ab. % Ab

Cob/Gr 33.83 364.18 22 1.39 1.94 11 7.33 21% 1.67 5%

Sand 69.00 742.71 27 1.68 2.04 7 5.33 8% 10.17 15%

Wetl 684.17 44 1.76 2.24 5 34.17 5% 46.00 7%

Cob/Gr 43.67 470.02 21 1.91 2.15 7 9.67 38% 1.67 7%

Sand 41.53 447.02 26 1.97 2.50 8 15.33 37% 4.83 12%

Wetl 529.60 24 1.37 1.58 5 78.00 15% 1.20 0%

Cob/Gr 38.75 417.10 32 1.39 2.15 13

Sand 55.25 594.71 42 1.68 2.50 13

Wetl 603.88 49 1.37 2.15 5

EPT MidgeSample

Site

August Sampling

September Sampling

Totals by Substrate

Mean Tot.

Abund.

Density

Ind./sq.

meter

Taxa

Richness

S-W Div.

Minimum

S-W Div.

Maximum

Mayfly,

Stonefly,

Caddisfly

(EPT)

Richness

Table 2b. Dominant taxa in nearshore aquatic macroinvertebrate communities in Graham Lake, 2019.

Amnicola 39% Hyalella azteca 23% Amnicola 34% Eurylophella 16% Amnicola 38% Hyalella azteca 52%

Oligochaeta 19% Eurylophella 21% Oligochaeta 32% Oligochaeta 14% Hyalella azteca 34% Amnicola 15%

Hyalella azteca 13% Oligochaeta 19% Tanytarsus 7% Hyalella azteca 11% Cladocera 6% Eurylophella 13%

Stenacron 12% Amnicola 12% Hyalella azteca 6% Tribelos 10% Cladocera 7%

Stenacron 6% Amnicola 10% Enallagma 5%

Polycentropus 6% Planariidae 6%

August

Cobble/ Gravel Sand Wetland

August SeptSeptAugustSept

A comparison of communities in Graham Lake to communities in Attean Pond, an

unregulated, natural Great Pond is shown in Table 3. Data from cobble-gravel and wetland

communities were compared from the month of August. This comparison presents a mixed

picture. Overall the Graham Lake community is as abundant, or more so, than the Attean

community and as diverse. However, the Graham Lake community has fewer taxa and the most

dominant taxa represent a greater proportion of the community.

Comparisons of the wetland communities shows total abundance is greater at Graham

Lake, taxa richness is similar, as is diversity, indicating little difference between the

communities. However, the most dominant taxon represents over a third of the community and

sensitive EPT taxa are less represented. The Community Loss Index value (0.81) indicates some

Page-9-


change in the Graham Lake community and some missing taxa are replaced with different taxa.

This is within the range of Community Loss Index values that Courtemanch and Davies (1987)

found indicated water segments essentially unaffected by human use.

Comparisons of the cobble-gravel communities shows total abundance and diversity to be

similar and sensitive EPT taxa are represented similarly. But taxa richness is depressed at

Graham and the most dominant taxon represents over a third of the community. The Community

Loss Index value (1.23) indicates a loss of taxa at Graham Lake and there has been little

replacement of those taxa with different ones. This indicates a greater change to the Graham

Lake community.

Table 3. Comparisons of community metrics between 2019 Graham Lake nearshore aquatic

macroinvertebrates and those of Attean Pond in 2008.

Metric Attean Pond Graham Lake Comments

Total Abundance 290.6 684.2 Graham moderately different

Taxa Richness 54 43 minor depression of richness indicated

Percent Dominant Taxon 27% 38% minor adverse effects indicated

EPT Richness 10 5 some adverse effects indicated

Shannon Diversity 2.00 1.88 no adverse effects indicated

Community Loss Index

some change in Graham community some

missing taxa are replaced

Metric Attean Pond Graham Lake Comments

Total Abundance 26.8 34.17

no adverse effects indicated, moderate

increase at Graham

Density (No./m²) 291.1 367.77

no adverse effects indicated, moderate

increase at Graham

Taxa Richness 35 22 adverse effects indicated at Graham

Percent Dominant Taxon 23% 39% some adverse effects indicated at Graham

EPT Richness 10 11 no adverse effects indicated

Shannon Diversity 2.20 1.97 no adverse effects indicated

Community Loss Index community loss at Graham, less taxa replaced

August Aquatic Sweep Samples- wetland (SAV mud) substrate

August Surber Samples- cobble-gravel substrates

0.81

1.23

6.0 DISCUSSION

The goal of this study is to make a determination on whether the aquatic life in Graham

Lake, as shown by the nearshore macroinvertebrate communities, is meeting its Class GPA

standard. Graham Lake Dam is classified GPA and under 38 MRSA §464(9), as a hydropower

Page-10-


project impoundment, the aquatic life must, at a minimum, attain Class C aquatic life standards.

Class C waters may cause some changes to aquatic life, provided the waters maintain the

structure and function of the resident biological community, in this case, the near shore aquatic

invertebrate community. The data show that the communities in the typical habitats in Graham

Lake are rich in taxa, and organisms sensitive to environmental stress are present, and in some

cases, abundant in the communities. Overall the communities were dominated by common and

ubiquitous lake organisms, namely Amnicola snails and the amphipod Hyalella azteca. Hyalella

azteca is "the most abundant amphipod of lakes [in North America]" (Mason 2002).

Comparisons with communities from a natural unregulated lake, show some changes.

Wetland communities in Graham Lake are similar to communities in Attean Pond but are

different enough that Community Loss values were indicative of stressed conditions. Cobble-

gravel communities in Graham Lake show greater change when compared to Attean

communities. The most notable difference is that taxa richness at Graham is over 30% less than

at Attean. The Community Loss values reflect this and indicate greater change or stress to the

community.

Based on this data, it is my professional opinion that the structure and function of the

resident biological community is maintained in Graham Lake. The community is dominated by

common lake organisms and sensitive organisms are well represented in all typical habitats.

Comparisons of community metrics from Graham Lake to the unregulated Attean Pond show the

communities are different, especially the cobble gravel communities. However, the structure and

function of the community in Graham Lake aquatic communities is still maintained.

7.0 SUMMARY

1. The objectives of this study were to survey the aquatic macroinvertebrates in the

shallow littoral (nearshore) habitats in Graham Lake and describe the communities

and habitat and to;

2. Make a determination on whether the aquatic life in Graham Lake, as shown by the

nearshore macroinvertebrate communities, is meeting its Class GPA standard.

Page-11-


3. Previous Maine lake and impoundment study methodologies were followed in this

study. Sampling targeted three (3) general substrates, coarse substrates (cobble-

gravel), fine substrates (sand), and wetlands (aquatic bed, soft muds and aquatic

vegetation). Surber samplers were used on cobble-gravel and sand substrates, aquatic

sweep samples were collected from wetland (soft silt-mud substrates). Sampling took

place on August 15 and September 19, 2019 under typical reservoir level conditions.

4. The results show that the communities in the typical habitats in Graham Lake are rich

in taxa, and organisms sensitive to environmental stress are present, and in some

cases, abundant in the communities. Overall the communities were dominated by

common and ubiquitous lake organisms, namely Amnicola snails and the amphipod

Hyalella azteca.

5. Comparisons to the communities in Attean pond, a natural, unregulated lake show

differences in the communities. Wetland communities were more similar to Attean

communities and metrics indicated some stressed conditions at Graham Lake.

Cobble-gravel communities were less similar to Attean and metrics indicated more

stressed conditions at Graham Lake.

6. Based on these results it is my professional opinion that the structure and function of

the resident biological community is maintained in Graham Lake. The community is

dominated by common lake organisms and sensitive organisms are well represented

in all typical habitats. Comparisons of community metrics from Graham Lake to the

unregulated Attean Pond show changes to the Graham Lake communities. However,

the structure and function of the community in Graham Lake is still maintained.

Page-12-


Literature Cited

Courtemanch, D.L. and S.P. Davies. 1987. A coefficient of community loss to assess

detrimental change in aquatic communities. Wat. Res. 21(2): 217-222.

Leeper, P.C. 1988. Quantitative comparison study of the nearshore aquatic macroinvertebrate

communities at Flagstaff Lake, Attean Pond, and Second Musquacook Lake. Eco-

Analysts Inc. Report to FPL Energy Maine Hydro LLC.

Mason C. F. 2002. "Acidification". Biology of Freshwater Pollution (4th ed.). Pearson

Education. pp. 175–204.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2009. Brassua hydroelectric project (FERC No. 2615)

macroinvertebrate survey initial study report. Prepared for Owners of Brassua Dam.

Appendix 1- Macroinvertebrate Site Photos

Appendix 1--Page-1-


Photo 1 & 2. Cobble Gravel Site 1

Appendix 1--Page-2-


Photo 3 & 4. Cobble Gravel Site 2

Appendix 1--Page-3-


Photo 5 & 6. Sand Site 1

Appendix 1--Page-4-


Photo 7 & 8. Sand Site 2.

\

Appendix 1--Page-5-


Photo 9 & 10. Aquatic Bed Site 1

Appendix 1--Page-6-


Photo 11 & 12. Aquatic Bed Site 2

Appendix 2- Sample Site data and benthic macroinvertebrates collected in Graham Lake, August

and September, 2019.

Appendix 2--Page-1 -


Waterbody Name Graham lake

Town Waltham

Station Number CG-1 Number only (omit ‘S-‘)

Log Number

Sampled By Moody Mountain Environmental List

Sample Method SB-Surber List

Deployment Date 8/15/2019 Retrieval Date 8/15/2019

Deployment Time 11:28 AM Retrieval Time 11:28 AM

Number Deployed 3 Number Retrieved 3

Deployed Depth Rep 1 46 cm-required



Physical Characteristics

Land Use 1

Upland hardwood List

Land Use 2 Upland conifer List

Land Use 3 List

Land Use 4 List

Terrain Flat List

Canopy Cover Open List

Location 1 Impoundment List

Location 2 List

Location 3 List

Potential Stressor(s)

Stressor 1 Impounded List

Stressor 2 List

Stressor 3 List

Stressor 4

List

Physical Characteristics of Bottom

Bedrock

%

Boulders (>10”) 5 %

Rubble/Cobble (2.5” – 10”) 60 %

Gravel (1/8” – 2.5”) 25 %

Sand (




Logsheet for Benthic Macroinvertebrates Identified

Please see the Read Me worksheet

Taxonomist: Paul Leeper (Moody Mountain Environmental)

Sample Log No.: Chironomidae Subsample (SS) Effort

Station No.: CG-1 Level of SS Effort none none none

Waterbody Name: Graham Lake No. Chir SSed

Town: Waltham No. Chir in SS

Date of Collection: 8/15/2019 Misc. Chir not SSed

Time of Collection: 11:28 AM TChir 0 0 0

Sampled By: PCL

Subsample Factor:

Sampler Type: SB-Surber

Retrieval Depth Unit Depth 1 Depth 2 Depth 3

Taxon No. identified from sample

Maine Code Taxon Name Stage Comment Rep 1 Rep 2 Rep 3

09010203006011 Hyalella azteca 6 9 2

10010104013 Amnicola 20 48 11

0802 Oligochaeta 4 5 3

09020407 Ephemeridae 2 0 1

09020402 Heptageniidae 2 0 0

09020618 Leptoceridae 2 0 0

09021011020 Thienemannimyia 2 0 0

09021011076 Tanytarsus 0 0 1

09020402014 Stenacron 0 1 4

09020603010 Polycentropus 0 1 0

08030201 Hirudinidae 0 0 1

09020412040 Caenis 0 0 1

09020401 Baetidae 0 0 1

Total Benthos 38 64 25













Sampled By: PCL

Subsample Factor:





10010104013 Amnicola 5 2 6

09010203006011 Hyalella azteca 10 12 6


09020618077 Triaenodes 1 0 0


090504 Cladocera 1 0 0

09020410036 Eurylophella 6 12 22

10020201002 Pisidium 0 1 2

09020402014 Stenacron 1 1 0

03010101 Planariidae 1 1 0

09020702004 Sialis 0 1 1

09020607026 Hydroptila 0 2 0

09021011037 Cricotopus 0 0 3

09021011107 Tribelos 1 0 0





Town Mariaville

Station Number CG-2 Number only (omit ‘S-‘)

Log Number




Deployment Time 2:00 PM Retrieval Time 2:00 PM






Land Use 1



Land Use 3 List

Land Use 4 List

Terrain Flat List



Location 2 List

Location 3 List



Stressor 2 List

Stressor 3 List

Stressor 4

List


Bedrock

%

Boulders (>10”) 10 %

Rubble/Cobble (2.5” – 10”) 40 %

Gravel (1/8” – 2.5”) 30 %

Sand (













Sampled By: PCL

Subsample Factor:





09010203006011 Hyalella azteca 1 5 3

10010104013 Amnicola 1 0 0


09020604015 Cheumatopsyche 1 1 0

10020201002 Pisidium 0 1 0

09020412039 Brachycercus 0 1 0

09020401 Baetidae 0 1 0


09020402014 Stenacron 5 5 10


09020607 Hydroptilidae 0 0 1

09020607026 Hydroptila 0 0 1

09021011107 Tribelos 0 1 1

09021011037 Cricotopus 0 1 1

09021011082 Cryptochironomus 1 0 0














Sampled By: PCL

Subsample Factor:





10010104013 Amnicola 11 6 2

09010203006011 Hyalella azteca 28 5 0



09030103 Hydrachnidae 1 0 0

09020402014 Stenacron 4 3 6

09020406 Leptophlebiidae 1 4 2

09020410036 Eurylophella 7 3 4

10020201002 Pisidium 0 0 1

09021012 Simuliidae 0 0 1

09021011037 Cricotopus 0 3 2

09021011102 Polypedilum 1 0 0

09021011 Chironomidae 0 1 0


09021011097 Parachironomus 1 0 0

09021011107 Tribelos 1 0 0





Town Fletcher's Landing

Station Number S-1 Number only (omit ‘S-‘)

Log Number




Deployment Time 1:00 PM Retrieval Time 1:00 PM






Land Use 1



Land Use 3 List

Land Use 4 List

Terrain Flat List



Location 2 List

Location 3 List



Stressor 2 List

Stressor 3 List

Stressor 4

List


Bedrock

%

Boulders (>10”) %

Rubble/Cobble (2.5” – 10”) %

Gravel (1/8” – 2.5”) 30 %

Sand (








Station No.: S-1 Level of SS Effort none none none




Time of Collection: 1:00 PM TChir 0 0 0

Sampled By: PCL

Subsample Factor:





10010104013 Amnicola 20 22 28


09010203006011 Hyalella azteca 3 1 6


09020412040 Caenis 4 0 2

09020607028 Oxyethira 1 0 1


09020618075 Mystacides 5 0 2

09020615069 Molanna 2 0 3


10010102 Viviparidae 0 2 1

09030103 Hydrachnidae 0 0 1

09021011107 Tribelos 3 1 1


09021011082 Cryptochironomus 0 1 1

09021011076 Tanytarsus 18 7 3

09021011001 Ablabesmyia 0 0 2

09021011097 Parachirononmus 1 0 0









Station No.: S-1 Level of SS Effort none none none





Sampled By: PCL

Subsample Factor:





10010104013 Amnicola 8 0 11

09010203006011 Hyalella azteca 7 16 4


09021010043 Bezzia/palpomyia 1 1 1

10010104 Hydrobiidae 1 0 2


09020402014 Stenacron 4 2 4


09020410036 Eurylophella 12 7 17

09020607026 Hydroptila 1 0 1

09020406 Leptophlebiidae 4 5 2

09020618078 Oecetis 8 6 0

10020201002 Pisidium 0 1 0


09020309 Coenagrionidae 0 1 0

09021014052 Chrysops 0 1 0

09021007 Chaoboridae 0 0 1


09020406025 Leptophlebia 0 0 1

09021011107 Tribelos 13 6 7

09021011076 Tanytarsus 0 1 0

09021011057 Rheocricotopus 0 1 009021011037 Cricotopus 1 0 0





Town Fletchers Landing

Station Number S-2 Number only (omit ‘S-‘)

Log Number




Deployment Time 7:50 AM Retrieval Time 7:50 AM






Land Use 1



Land Use 3 List

Land Use 4 List

Terrain Flat List



Location 2 List

Location 3 List



Stressor 2 List

Stressor 3 List

Stressor 4

List


Bedrock

%

Boulders (>10”) %

Rubble/Cobble (2.5” – 10”) %

Gravel (1/8” – 2.5”) 25 %

Sand (




Logsheet for Benthic Macroinvertebrates Iden

exhibit 13...exhibit 13. taxa id worksheets: data input methodology 1. i copied the raw data to a...

Documents