Presumpscot Falls -- Falmouth, Maine. Oct. 23, 2002.
Future plan for Presumpscot River could make it a jewel.
Editorial in Saturday, May 10, 2003 edition of Portland Press-Herald, Portland,
Maine.
Debate over the best way to use the Presumpscot River isn't anything new.
In fact, the first armed conflict between the Indians and settlers in Maine
happened in 1756 over dams that were blocking fish on the river.
Eight dams remain, and the Presumpscot River Management Plan Steering Committee
has recommended removal of three of them - the Little Falls, Mallison Falls
and Saccarappa dams - in its proposed plan for the river's future. All three
are owned by Sappi Fine Paper North America, which participated with the
committee until last fall.
The committee, comprised of more than a dozen organizations and agencies,
worked for three years on a comprehensive plan to improve the health of
the Presumpscot River and minimize the negative impacts to it.
It's a well-researched initiative that deserves a close look by the State
Planning Office, which will receive a copy of the group's final recommendations
later this month. The difficult issue of dam removal, however, must proceed
with a thorough cost-benefit analysis, and that should be the next step
in the process.
THE STEERING COMMITTEE hoped to develop a plan that would benefit everyone
who has an interest in the river, ultimately improving its recreational,
educational and economic benefits.
It tackled three main areas: fisheries, in which the group examined ways
to improve migratory fish populations; open space, in which it looked at
public access, trails and development impacts; and cumulative impacts, in
which it researched how industrialization of the river had affected the
ecosystem.
Some recommendations include protection and conservation of land along the
river, landowner education, development of water and land trails along the
length of the river, nonpoint and point source pollution control, habitat
improvement and flood protection.
This isn't something that the committee expects to happen overnight.
"Ultimately, we envision it as a long-term implementation," said
Karen Young, director of the Casco Bay Estuary Project, which drafted the
plan. "We're really trying to approach the future of the river from
a holistic perspective."
Arguably the most contentious is the recommendation to remove three dams
and provide fish passage for up to three more dams.
From a construction standpoint, it's less expensive to remove dams than
to build systems for fish to pass them. The impact on the businesses that
own the dams, however, could drive the true costs higher.
Environmentally, it's more valuable to remove dams than to provide passage.
After three ladders - the devices that allow fish to jump up a series of
"steps" - the system doesn't work anymore because fish don't make
the jumps. The presence of dams further upstream also can change habitats
and the ladders could simply be providing fish with a way to get someplace
they no longer wish to go.
Removal of the three dams between the Cumberland Mills Dam in Westbrook
and the Gambo Dam in Gorham could help restore runs of shad, blueback herring,
Atlantic salmon and alewives to the river. The migrations of such fish would
attract predators to the Presumpscot River estuary and Casco Bay such as
osprey, herons, bald eagles, striped bass and even seals.
THE SMELT HILL DAM, the one closest to Casco Bay, was removed in the fall
of 2002. Since then, Presumpscot Falls has returned and parcels of the waterfront
property have been preserved. The removal also provided 7 miles of unfettered
fish movement, providing a glimpse of what the future of the river could
be.
Some people along the river who enjoy using the impoundments object to dam
removal, and there are concerns about increased flooding. Some argue, however,
that flooding is more possible when the dam is present. It's not something
that's been thoroughly studied. It should be when the implementation phase
begins.
It's unclear why Sappi pulled out of the committee, though the dams the
committee has flagged for possible removal are owned by the company and
provide the company with a low-cost source of power. A spokesperson for
Sappi couldn't immediately be reached.
Truly, the economic impact of removal must be reviewed thoroughly. That's
not something the committee has a solid handle on right now, and it's difficult
to have one at this point in the long-term, conceptual plan.
It can and should, as it moves to implement components of its plan, conduct
a more thorough fiscal analysis.
ONE OF THE KEY recommendations by the group is the formation of a Presumpscot
River Council, which would develop the specific parameters and find the
resources to make the plan a reality.
Funding for projects likely would come from a variety of sources, including
state, federal and local governments as well as nonprofit organizations.
The state should give serious consideration to the committee's recommendations,
which could benefit the state both ecologically and economically for years
to come.
It's not too late for the public to see a copy of the summary or make comments.
The information is available online at www.cascobay.usm.maine.edu. Comment
by mail can be sent to Casco Bay Estuary Project, 49 Exeter St., P.O. Box
9300, Portland, ME 04104.
The committee will review the comments, produce a final draft of its plan
and send it to the State Planning Office.
Whether or not the state decides to adopt the plan, the committee plans
to proceed, Young said.
If the benefits of the changes envisioned outweigh the costs - and a thorough
analysis should include costs to both industry and environment - it could
turn the Presumpscot into one of Maine's most precious resources.
BACK TO HOME