The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration held public meetings this summer to discuss ways owners of dams can comply with new federal laws aimed at recovering endangered Atlantic Salmon.
Two possible solutions are the removal of dams or the installation of fishways.
Some think groups like NOAA are only concerned with reintroducing fish to the rivers of Maine and not with any other impact that may arise..
But, those in charge of these projects say they take into account a number of factors, including the environment, and the dam owners, those who live on and use those waterways.
"Maintenance costs can be a big factor, fish communities obviously a factor that we're very concerned with, water levels for camp owners and things" said Rory Saunders a fishery biologist with the National Marine Fish Resource. "There are a variety of issues that have to be taken into account, not just the fish."
There are many groups and organizations interested in making it easier for fish to return to rivers and streams that are blocked by dams, and sometimes they support the removal of dams. Other times a fish passage way is put in, but their goal is always the same.
"The Penobscot River Restoration Trust's goal is to restore fisheries not to remove dams" said Laura Rose Day a member of the Penobscot River Restoration Trust. "Dam removal is a tool to do that, so dam removal of this dam and Veazie were deemed by biologists to be necessary to achieve that goal and up in Howland, we're proposing to build a fish bypass because dam removal isn't necessary there to achieve the goal."
They know not every dam can or should be removed. Their priority is to get the main tributaries to the ocean, like the Penobscot, open once again to sea run fish so they can return to centuries old spawning grounds, said Saunders. "What we're trying to do is take a pretty targeted approach and look at what different habitat types are impeded by which fish passage problems, which dams and which culverts and try to be strategic to target those that open the most habitat because there's a tremendous number of problems from the fish passage perspective across the landscape. Not enough money to fix em all, so we're trying to be really targeted with the resources we do have."
"We've done eleven of these projects in the last seven or eight years. Half of them have been dam removals and half of them have been building fishways, and right now we're looking at a couple of ponds above here to put fishways in as well, and in this drainage, it seems that building fishways is the appropriate way to go."
Before any work is actually done, a feasibility study is completed, and people, like camp owners up or down stream from the site, are contacted and questions are answered. It's a process that can take years.
"It really depends," said Andrew Goode VP of US Programs for the Atlantic Salmon Federation. "Does the dam have any functional use, does it have any economic use or social use? You know, if not then, dam removal is an option because over time these dams can be a liability to the land owner."
In some cases, like the removal of the Veazie dam and the Great Works Dam in Old Town, power production is going to be lost and many are concerned with the restoration of fish versus the generation of power for us. That does get considered when determining if a dam can be removed or has to be kept in place and a fish passage installed.
"Had this dam been part of the future of hydro production, that would have had to have happened," said Day. "Instead, what's happening is hydro power will be produced at other locations within the river system, particularly on the Stillwater River, so the main stem will be opened up entirely up to Milford and the energy generation will be basically reconfigured so when the project is over, we'll not only restore fisheries but we'll also have the same amount and potentially a bit more energy production on the system."
Coming up in our next hour, we'll take a look at three dams in this area. One was removed, one is scheduled to be removed, and the third was kept in place, but a fishway was installed.
It's not just the Atlantic Salmon these projects are hoping to help there are other of species of fish being helped.
Whether fishing groups in Connecticut, marine biologists at Orono, or a recently closed fishing tackle shop on the shores of the Kennebec in Bath; there are serious doubts being expressed. Sure some come back; but not enough to justify taking down the dam.
Then there is the downside of dam removal
Shoreline lost is valuable waterfront lost; valuable waterfront lost is property tax revenue lost; and that hurts social services, schools, and other public programs valued by the poor.
Behind every dam is a recreational and fishing habitat. The large volume of water supports many other edible fish species; taking away species that can be food and replacing them with native salmon that can't be caught or eaten is not wise public policy. Many question whether making salmon a 'sacred' fish is a wise goal; especially when we did the same to eagles and ospreys who now feast on the fish in many waterways.
Recent catastrophic events have wreaked havoc throughout the North East this fall. Once forested valleys have been stripped and partially paved over. An 18 hole golf course is designed to shed water, not store it. Likewise for the extensive roads and powerline R.O.W.'s needed for wind farms.
So the water rages down waterways and destroys major highways, bridges and culverts; and removes vegetation that protects banks that stablize the water way.
Systems of dams, like those on the Androscoggin, were designed to moderate once raging rivers. Despite what climate engineers say; I don't think that our warming wetter weather is going away as soon as those CO2 emissions are eliminated.
Loss of hydro power is perturbing and a violation of public policy. EFFICIENCY MAINE has made it a priority to fund projects that displace fossil power; not rely on it.
Removing hydro power from the grid means more reliance on fossil fueled power generation like natural gas and coal; and it means less stability when it comes to the inconsistencies of wind farms and their upward spiraling maintenance costs.
Yarmouth is finding out the hard way, i.e. law suits, that dam removal is not just a local issue but affects every town up the Royal river. It also affects marina operators downstream who want assurances their basins will be routinely dredged --$$$, of the silt and debris washed downstream.
Toxic wastes stored under the sedimentation behind the dam are an unknown factor; and a costly one to mitigate.
And when all the costs added up, and the dam is removed; there no assurance the sacred salmon or alewifes, which they feed upon will return.
Add your Comments