Smelt Hill Dam, Falmouth
Excerpts from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Presumpscot River Final Environmental Impact Statement (June, 2002):
"Anadromous Species
In the early 1600s, the Presumpscot River supported populations of Atlantic
salmon, American shad, river herring (alewife and blueback herring), and
rainbow smelt. Native American tribes used these species for food and fertilizer.
European settlers started building mills along the river in the mid 1600s,
and the first documented dam was constructed in the 1730s. Decreasing runs
of anadromous species prompted objections from local Native American tribes,
and in 1741, the court required the installation of fish passage facilities
at all dams on the Presumpscot River. In 1802, a dam was built at the head
of tide without fish passage. By the 1850s, alewife and shad populations
were decimated and Atlantic salmon were almost extirpated from the system.
An 1867 report on the status of anadromous fish in Maine prompted a statewide
program to construct fishways and by 1887, all the dams on the Presumpscot
River had fishways in place. Over the 10-year span following fish passage
completion, the fishways fell into disrepair or were destroyed by flooding.
Attempts to augment salmon populations through fry stocking in 1880 and
1890 were largely unsuccessful. Atlantic salmon were still reported in the
tributaries to Sebago Lake in 1867, 1880 and 1882 but no runs of anadromous
species were reported after 1900.
Although the construction of dams appeared to be the primary cause of the
extirpation of anadromous fish runs from the river, water pollution has
also been well documented as a problem in the lower Presumpscot River and
in some of its tributaries. DeRoche (1967) states that the lower 8 miles
of the river below Westbrook " ... frequently attains nuisance conditions
during low flow and high water temperature," and that "All anadromous
and freshwater fish habitat has been destroyed ..." in that reach.
As noted above, historical accounts indicate that fishways were constructed
at the major dams on the river in the 1880s, but then were allowed to fall
into disrepair and abandoned. It is likely that restoration efforts (fish
passage construction and fry stocking) were negatively affected by poor
water quality, resulting in low fish returns, and may have been a factor
in the abandonment of those efforts.
In addition there is evidence that illegal fish ("poaching") also
occurred in the Presumpscot River. In the 1882 State of Maine Fisheries
and Game Commissioner's Report, illegal poaching of "large salmon"
(believed to be sea-run fish resulting from fry stocking in the 1870s) was
reported in the Crooked River, a tributary to Sebago Lake, over a period
of 2 to 3 years. Such illegal fishing would be another factor that would
adversely affect any salmon restoration efforts at that time.
The size of the historical anadromous fish populations and the precise distribution
within the basin, however, are not known. The falls that occurred on the
river may have restricted the upstream migrations of some of these species
(shad, herring, alewife). However, salmon likely were more successful than
the clupeid species in negotiating these barriers, and probably had a greater
distribution within the basin, reportedly migrating into the tributaries
of Sebago Lake.
Currently, anadromous species such as Atlantic salmon, American shad, alewife
and blueback herring do not occur in the project waters. The lower Presumpscot
River (downstream of Cumberland Mills dam) was open to anadromous fish migrations
(primarily alewife and a few shad) with provision of fish passage facilities
at the Smelt Hill dam from 1990 to 1996. Subsequently, in 1996, the powerhouse
and fish passage facilities were severely damaged by flooding and rendered
inoperable. For the 2 years after the flood (1997 and 1998), alewife were
stocked into Highland Lake by the owners of the Smelt Hill dam. Since 1999,
gates on the dam have been left open to allow for passage of anadromous
fish, which may occur at certain river flows and tidal conditions."
FERC
staff conclusions regarding the need for fish passage on the Presumpscot
River:
"We conclude that fish passage facilities at the Dundee, Gambo, Little
Falls, Mallison Falls and Saccarappa projects would be warranted in the
future, when the fish passage issues at the two lowermost dams on the Presumpscot
River are resolved ..."
"S.D. Warren is correct that it is unclear exactly how far upstream
anadromous species historically migrated in the Presumpscot River. The Commission,
however, may order measures to enhance fishery resources, if it is in the
public interest. Based on staff analysis in the FEIS, there is the potential
for development of sizable runs of shad and river herring if fish passage
facilities are constructed. We agree that it would be premature to require
fish passage at any of the five project dams until fish passage is assured
at Smelt Hill and Cumberland Mills dams, and for that reason, staff has
recommended a phased approach to fish passage development, keyed to clearly
defined events, along with the requirement for S.D. Warren to regularly
report to the Commission on the status or progress of anadromous fish restoration
activities in the Presumpscot River."
FERC staff conclusions on the cost of fishways required to be built by S.D.
Warren:
"S.D. Warren questions the conclusions on page 218 of the DEIS because
the three-fold increase in the cost of producing power from the five projects
(dams) threatens their viability.
Response: The Commission is tasked with giving equal consideration to power
and non-power resources when reviewing projects for relicensing, pursuant
to Sections 4(e) and 10(j) of the Federal Power Act. Nothing in the Federal
Power Act states that the economic viability of the licensed project must
be preserved, nor does it state that non-power benefits should take precedence
over power benefits. Sections 4(e) and 10(j) are intended to ensure that
both power and non-power resources are equally considered.
Staff has performed its 'balancing' of resources, in some cases adopting
the positions and recommendations of resource agencies and others, and in
some cases not adopting these positions and recommendations, or adopting
some aspects of them. Similarly, in some cases, we have adopted S.D. Warren's
proposals, and in some cases we have not adopted those proposals, or have
modified them. Staff acknowledges that the economic benefit of the projects
has been reduced as a result of the relicensing process, but we have maintained
our position in favor of retaining the hydroelectric facilities at Little
Falls, Mallison Falls and Saccarappa with future fish passage facilities
as opposed to adopting a position supporting the removal of the dams and
the retirement of the generating facilities. This is a clear example of
staff's efforts to balance power and non-power resources. We believe that
the fisheries resources can be adequately protected and enhanced by providing
fish passage at the existing dams without retiring the generating facilities,
removing the dams and returning the river to a riverine condition.
If the economic viability of a project is 'threatened' by the requirements
of a new license, then the ultimate decision of whether or not to continue
to operate projects as recommended for licensing lies with the licensee."
Back to shore ...