Hollis Select Board Transparency Archive

003901dd2b1f787c37506974a5f0

Comments to BWPH's surrender application

From

• Mark Woodruff <[email protected]>

To

• Andy Fisk (American Rivers) <[email protected]>
• Cindy Fanning <[email protected]>
• Dan Yarumian <[email protected]>
• David Field <[email protected]>
• Heath Knight <[email protected]>
• Jamie Marshall <[email protected]>
• jim boutin <[email protected]>
• Mark Blier <[email protected]>
• Paul Mattor <[email protected]>
• Renee Lewis <[email protected]>
• Terry Walters <[email protected]>

Date

Thu, Aug 13, 2026 · 8:30 a.m. ET

• draft_Comments_Surrender_App_v1.3.docxOpen original

  Read from the file

  Powerhouse The draft Application for License Surrender (Application) is not complete without resolving the major concerns related to the powerhouse and the powerhouse spillway: longevity, environmental, public safety, and structural. These concerns have been repeatedly raised by the Decommissioning Committee and in correspondence from the Select Boards (FERC Accession #s 20230707-5075, 20240711-5034, 20251204-5103). The following solutions are offered to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. This reflects the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (Commission or FERC) stated preference: interested parties should generally be able to reach a resolution among themselves, and the Commission will impose terms only when negotiation is not possible – an outcome it does not favor (Policy Statement Federal Register Docket No. RM93–23–000 p. 345). Longevity Reach a mutually agreeable solution with the Town of Hollis about the longevity of the powerhouse and the powerhouse spillway that considers the following options. In weighing these options, the Commission has identified the relevant factors as the costs of removal, the burdens of continued supervision on the State or municipality, the available alternative approaches, and the environmental consequences of removal (Policy Statement p. 345). Full removal of the powerhouse. Full removal of the powerhouse spillway. Partial removal and regrading of the powerhouse. A form of financial assurance that the remaining structures can be removed if there is a poorly funded owner in the future. In the Application, please name BWPH’s parent company that is described as a real estate investment entity (p. 60 §3.5) so that the Towns of Buxton and Hollis have full transparency about who will be accountable for the site going forward. In the Application, justify the nonpower functions for retaining the powerhouse and powerhouse spillway including the turbine generator equipment and other mechanical and electric equipment mentioned on p.148 §4.14.2. Without the justification, the Commission will be unable to determine whether “another regulatory authority should be prepared to step in” (Policy Statement p. 344) or what project features, beyond the turbines and generators, should be removed, if the project is decommissioned” (Policy Statement p. 339). The Policy Statement’s own example of a significant nonpower function – property owners who have built homes around a project’s reservoir – illustrates the kind of public benefit the Commission expects; the Application should explain how retaining the powerhouse structures and equipment meets a comparable standard of benefit to the Towns of Buxton and Hollis (Policy Statement p. 344). Environmental Conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the powerhouse property to provide certainty for the Town of Hollis and the Commission whether environmental concerns are present on the site and avoid unforeseen obligations for future generations. Provide a complete aesthetic evaluation by including photographs in the Application clearly showing the powerhouse and its spillway from publicly accessible vantage points on the Saco River, Salmon Falls Road in Buxton, Canal Road in Hollis, and below the powerhouse spillway from Usher Island. BWPH’s statement that “The majority of the powerhouse is located below grade level and is not readily visible from the access road” (p. 55 §3.2) does not consider that the canal will be dry because most flows will be diverted by the proposed weir at the upstream end of the canal. The powerhouse and powerhouse spillway will be completely exposed leaving the public with views of the deteriorating remains of the concrete structures that will be aesthetically unappealing for decades. Addressing this now, before the canal is dewatered, will help BWPH avoid costly remediation later and preserve the river views that Buxton and Hollis residents value. Public Safety The Select Boards recommend that BWPH clarify in the Application whether the remaining powerhouse structure and proposed weir will require inspection by the Maine Dam Safety Program within the State of Maine Emergency Management Agency and, if so, identify the inspection frequency and the party responsible for scheduling and funding it, so that residents of Buxton and Hollis can be confident the structures are being safely maintained. Structural In the Application, include the results of a structural inspection of the powerhouse and the powerhouse spillway that will provide the Town of Hollis and the Commission with information about the concerns that are present on the site and avoid unforeseen obligations for future generations. Review the dam safety inspection reports filed with FERC to identify the structural issues that will potentially worsen over time. BWPH’s parent company, a real estate investment entity, “considers the powerhouse and surrounding land a valued asset that can potentially be repurposed for other future uses” (p.60 §3.5). The Select Boards seek a resolution that keeps liability and regulatory supervision with a well-capitalized, accountable party – rather than the Towns of Buxton and Hollis – given the likelihood that the parent company will create a single-asset entity with limited financial reserves to address environmental, safety, or structural issues in the future. From the perspective of the Select Boards, these unresolved concerns reinforce the preference of the Towns of Buxton and Hollis for full removal, which would eliminate the financial risks to the towns, the regulatory authority passed from FERC, and the need for BWPH to install, monitor, and maintain security cameras and fencing. This position is consistent with the Commission’s own guidance that, where a municipality makes a persuasive case that it ought not bear the burden of future regulation, the Commission will consider requiring the affected project works to be removed, thereby eliminating the need for future oversight (Policy Statement p. 345). Canal Invasive Botanical Species The Draft Study Report and the Application are consistent in documenting that “Downstream of the Bar Mills Dam, invasive species were found at moderate to high densities along the shore and on the island” (p. 120 §4.9.1). The Select Boards suggest carrying forward Kleinschmidt Associates’ recommendation from their 2025 WETLAND, BOTANICAL, AND SHORELINE EROSION STUDY (p. 3-2) that “Following the dam breach, the shoreline should be monitored for invasive botanical infestations while they are still relatively easy to treat and manage.” Revisions are necessary in the Application (p. 123 §4.9.3, p. 171 §1.8). Remains of Rogers Fibre Mill The 2022 Scoping Document and Decommissioning Proposal had intended to only remove the western half of the Bar Mills Dam. The Select Boards recognize BWPH’s consideration of public comments and data contained in the draft Study Report that support full removal of the Dam. FERC Authority – Rogers Fibre Mill Foundation There is a direct nexus between removal of the Bar Mills Dam and demolition of the Rogers Fibre Mill foundation. Article 205 of the FERC license for the Bar Mills Hydroelectric Project required the licensee (FPL Energy Maine Hydro LLC) to file revised Exhibit G drawings enclosing within the project boundary all project works necessary for operation and maintenance of the project, including the concrete foundation of the demolished Roger Fiber Mill Building which is a water retaining structure built adjacent to the east end of Bar Mills dam (Accession # 20080826-3019). FERC approved the revised drawings in its order dated March 10, 2009 (Accession # 20090310-3014). The Select Boards recommend deleting the statement in the Application (p. 160 §1.0) that “BWPH is also voluntarily proposing to demolish the former Rogers Fibre Mill foundation, even though this action appears unlikely to be required by FERC due to the lack of direct nexus to the proposed action.” Sampling and Analysis Plan The Select Boards recommend that the Application carry forward the sampling and analysis plan recommended by TRC. Their January 8, 2025 memorandum with the subject line "Preliminary Limited Sediment/Soil Characterization and Response to Town of Buxton July 11, 2024 Request, Brookfield White Pine Hydro Bar Mills Dam – Saco River, Buxton and Hollis, Maine” states: [T]he foregoing assessment was intended to provide preliminary data that can be utilized to develop a detailed sampling and analysis plan in coordination with these regulatory agencies. Therefore, prior to additional sampling, TRC has proposed a conference call with MEDEP and USACE (either separately or concurrently) to discuss both the proposed sampling and analytical program and the potential reuse options so that the concept can be modified, if necessary, prior to initiation of plan preparation. BWPH needs to implement the sampling and analysis plan as part of its “protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures” (p. 169 §1.8) and Anticipated Post Removal Monitoring (p.187 §3.1.2). Recommended sampling locations include the area immediately upstream of the former Rogers Fibre Mill foundation visible in Photo 2-2 (p. 181 §2.2), along the riverbank parallel to the foundation downstream of the Dam, and the drainage channel created by the U.S. EPA during the 1999-2000 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act site clean-up (p 70 §4.7.1.2). Shoreline Stabilization The Select Boards concur with BWPH’s proposal to demolish the foundation of the former Rogers Fibre Mill and re-grade the area. However, the proposal to loam and seed the area (p. 170 §1.8, pp.178 &amp; 180 §2.2, p. 185 §3.0) needs to account for high river flows to determine whether this is the best method of shoreline stabilization that will not be eroded. Recreation Facilities Impoundment Boat Launch, Bar Mills Road, Hollis The impoundment boat launch at the Bar Mills Dam must continue to serve as the upstream end of the portage shown in Figure 4-17 to the Tailrace Access and Canoe Portage Put-in (p. 141). This recommendation needs to be reflected in the Application (p. 32 §3.1.10, p. 60 §3.5, p. 143 §4.13.2 &amp; §14.3.3, p. 171 §1.9, p.181 §2.2). Although the Select Boards agree with BWPH’s proposal to remove the concrete planks and stabilize the riverbank, the channel bathymetry depicted and described in the Application (p.102 §4.8.1.2 &amp; p. 115 §4.8.3, respectively) creates questions whether whitewater hazards for canoeists, kayakers, and tubers will form under certain flow rates. The Select Boards preferred outcome is that the Application be revised to include the Canoe Portage Take-out as a remaining project feature (p. 32 §3.1.10, p. 60 §3.5, p. 143 §4.13.2, p. 172 §1.9). The project feature will need to be maintained as an obvious hand-carry take-out with shoreline stabilization by BWPH rather than allowing the impoundment boat launch to “revert to a natural state.” The Decommissioning Committee made a similar recommendation to BWPH in its April 2026 “Restoration, Public Access, and Recreation Improvements Plan for the Bar Mills Project Area.” BWPH may realize savings by using some of the granite blocks from the canal headworks, if they are suitable construction material. Town of Hollis Recreation Site The Selectboards appreciate BWPH’s collaboration with the Town of Hollis to develop a hand-carry boat launch and recreational access behind the Hollis Town Office. The new launch will enable residents and visitors to access the flatwater section of the Saco River once the Dam is removed and upstream paddling from the impoundment boat launch becomes difficult or impossible. Long-term Maintenance The Project Removal Description explains that BWPH intends to maintain the remaining structures, including periodic safety inspections” (p. 170 §1.8). The Select Boards recommend that in the Application BWPH commit to providing a proposal with: An inclusive list of all remaining structures and features by name and tax map and lot number that BWPH will be responsible for. Details of the current safety concerns for the remaining structures and the regulatory entity that will review the periodic safety inspections. The maintenance plans for the remaining structures (e.g. powerhouse, powerhouse spillway, canal drain gate) and features (e.g. canoe portages, launches, trails) will be made available to the Towns of Buxton and Hollis. An explanation of how the funding and supervision of the features will be structured. Because the Commission's jurisdiction ends when a project is no longer licensed, a clear, workable plan for who assumes regulatory supervision enables the Towns of Buxton and Hollis to consider their regulatory role in advance. The Select Boards recognize BWPH’s financial commitment to maintaining the remaining structures and features. A good-faith estimate of long-term maintenance costs identifying the funding mechanism that will cover these costs after license surrender should be included under Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs (p. 35 §5.0). Water Supply Wells and Dry Hydrants FERC Authority – Water Supply Wells and Dry Hydrants To protect water supply wells near the Project and the two dry hydrants from the adverse effects of decommissioning, the Select Boards recommend revising the Application (p. 61 §3.5, pp. 92–93 §4.7.2.2, p. 95 §4.7.3.1, p. 175 §2.1.2.3) to require the Commission's approval rather than treating them as "off license" matters. Because lower groundwater levels and dry hydrant water loss are direct, foreseeable consequences of lowering the impoundment through removal of the Bar Mills Dam, the revised Application should identify monitoring and mitigation measures. Commission oversight is further supported by the location of both dry hydrant intakes within the FERC Project Boundary and by the Policy Statement's recognition that protecting the public interest may require coordinating with other government bodies that assume regulatory responsibility over formerly licensed project aspects (p. 340). Water supply well monitoring The Select Boards concur with BWPH that a “a limited number of local private wells may be affected by permanently lowered water levels upstream of the Bar Mills dam” (p. 174 §2.1.2.2). We appreciate BWPH’s effort to gather water supply well information through the voluntary survey of property owners abutting the Saco River and their commitment to “monitor and mitigate private groundwater wells … that are adversely affected by [the] license surrender and dam decommissioning.” However, statements in the Application (p. 93 §4.7.2.2, p. 95 §4.7.3.1, p. 174 §2.1.2.2) that the “extent of effects will not be known until after the spillway is removed” will leave supply well impacts open to interpretation. The Select Boards recommend that the Application includes the water supply well monitoring plan for review by the Commission and other appropriate agencies. Baseline data of ground water table depths and potability parameters should be collected before the impoundment level is lowered by the removal of the Bar Mills Dam. Comparing the baseline data with subsequent monitoring after the impoundment drawdown will determine the extent of effects and inform the need for mitigation measures. Pre- and post-removal monitoring of water quantity and quality benefits the property owners and BWPH to identify whether a well has been adversely affected by changes in the ground water that are the result of lowering the impoundment. Please inform the Selectboards when the monitoring plan will be available so that the Towns of Buxton and Hollis can share it with affected well owners in a timely manner. Dry Hydrant Mitigation The Select Boards appreciate the proactive steps BWPH has taken to mitigate the loss of the dry hydrants on Canal Street in Hollis and Depot Street in Buxton. Please inform the fire chiefs of Buxton and Hollis and their respective Select Boards of the alternative (e.g. water storage tank) your consultant is recommending and include this information in the final Application. General Comments Proposed Removal The description of what is proposed for removal needs to be consistent throughout the Application. For example, there are different lists of what will be removed when comparing the sections Project Description and Operations (p. 31 §3.1.10) and Saco River Settlement Agreement (p. 52 §1.2). The Select Boards recommend that BWPH adopt a consistent general list to use in the Application and revise the Project Removal Description (p. 170 §1.8) specifying the feature names found in the Overview of Project Features (p. 160 §1.2). The following Project Features are proposed for removal and should be listed in. Dam-related: the spillway in its entirety (steel trestle operating bridge, hinged steel flashboards, low flow gate), east and west spillway abutments, the log sluice, the remnant submerged timber crib dam, the canal headworks structure, and the remnants of the former Rogers Fibre Mill foundation. Intake Canal-related: the canal spillway. Powerhouse-related: the derrick crane and crane house (with its operating building), and the trashracks. Appurtenant Facilities-related: the old steel transmission tower west of the powerhouse, and the transformer on the powerhouse roof.

  Design Drawings The Select Boards recommend that design drawings currently considered Critical Energy Infrastructure Information be available for pre-construction permitting by the municipal planning boards.

  Future Unknown Costs The Project Description and Operations p. 36 (§5.3) suggests that BWPH alone “will carefully measure and evaluate all requests and prioritize those that have the greatest value to the public.” Rephrase the sentence to read, “BWPH will carefully measure and evaluate all requests and, in partnership with the Towns of Hollis and Buxton, prioritize those that have the greatest value to the public.” This approach is underscored in the September 24, 2025, Memorandum to the Bar Mills Dam Decommissioning Committee stating the Committee’s purpose: “… establish a partnership with the Town of Hollis and the Town of Buxton that promotes mutual understanding and cooperation for the decommissioning for the Bar Mills dam on the Saco River.” Furthermore, one of the Committee’s goals is to “Share perspectives, concerns and ideas regarding decommissioning.” Land Ownership Please add the York County Registry’s book and page numbers for the deeded access mentioned in the sentence “BWPH will access the removal area from property owned by BWPH and from an area owned by the Town of Buxton, which includes deeded access for dam related activities” (p. 31 §3.1.9, p. 167 §1.4). Geology, Soils, and Sediments In the Sediment Quantity section (p.67 §4.6.1), descriptions of the locations of sand/gravel and silt/clay need to align with the Subbottom Profiling Survey, Saco River, Bar Mills, Maine conducted by Ocean Surveys, Inc. (2024). OSI surveyed approximately 2,200 feet of the Saco River immediately upstream of Bar Mills Dam. This segment of the impoundment flows from west to east. OSI interpreted sand and gravel on the north (Buxton) side of the Saco River. While silt/clay was interpreted on the south (Hollis) side of the Saco River. The silt/clay was visually confirmed during the Decommissioning Committee’s site visit on September 8, 2025. A thick layer of silt/clay was observed upstream and downstream of the existing concrete boat ramp on the Hollis side of the Saco River.