A Plan for the Future of the PresumpscotRiver

1.Introduction1

2. Existing Fisheries 1

4Habitat Potential and Estimated Potential Runs for Restored Migratory Fisheries9

5.State Agencies’ Draft Plan for Fisheries Management for the PresumpscotRiver11

6.Legal Context12

7.Fisheries Management Opportunities and Options13

1.  Introduction

The Casco Bay Estuary Project (CBEP) is assisting the PresumpscotRiver communities and interested groups in developing a new vision for the future of the PresumpscotRiver.The focus of this planning effort is the PresumpscotRiver corridor, from its origins atSebagoLake, to its outlet in Casco Bay.

Fisheries management is one of the central issues in planning for the PresumpscotRiver.For the first time in over a century, the future of the PresumpscotRiver includes new possibilities for fish restoration.Water pollution on the river has been greatly reduced with the development of water treatment facilities and SAPPI’s elimination of its pulp mill.Further, if the removal of the head-of-tide dam at Presumpscot Falls (the Smelt Hill Dam) occurs as expected in the summer to fall of 2002, 7 miles of the lower Presumpscot River will be restored to its original free-flowing condition (8 other dams will still exist upstream).If the present dam is removed, a number of migratory fish species which are not suited to fish passage facilities, including sturgeon and striped bass, will be able to access the river above PresumpscotFalls for the first time since the late 1800’s.

As part of the CBEP planning process, a Steering Committee composed of representatives of federal, state and local government agencies, conservation organizations and interests, and SAPPI Fine Paper, Inc., has been working cooperatively to develop an information base and proposed management options to discuss at public meetings.This Background Paper presents an overview of the existing and potential resident and migratory fishes of the PresumpscotRiver, and has been prepared to provide a basis for public discussions regarding the future of fisheries of thePresumpscotRiver.It is largely focused on the Presumpscot mainstem, although it includes some information on the major tributaries, including PleasantRiver and the Little River.It provides information that illuminates the potential for enhancing existing fisheries and restoration of sea run fisheries on this river, the general benefits of a restored fishery, and the capital costs of measures identified as necessary for that restoration, which could include dam removal or construction of fishways.

2.Existing Fisheries

Overview of Fish Species Inhabiting the Presumpscot River

The existing fishery of the PresumpscotRiver includes

(1) an intensively managed trout and salmon fishery located primarily in the restored Eel Weir Bypass, the natural river channel below Sebago Lake, and in the tailraces below the downstream dams;

(2) resident species, primarily bass, perch, and bullhead, found in the series of impoundments that characterize nearly 22 miles of the river[1] below the Eel Weir Bypass (from the upper end of the North Gorham impoundment to the Smelt Hill dam); and

(3) migratory species, principally eels, found in all the impoundments, and alewives, found seasonally in the river below the Cumberland Mills dam.

Recreational Sport fisheries are comprised primarily of:

• landlocked salmon 

·brown trout

·smallmouth bass

·largemouth bass

·brown bullhead

·yellow perch

Of these the bass and brown trout are introduced species; a number of other less important species have also been introduced.

Fish Stocking:MDIFW stocking programs maintain recreational fisheries for trout and landlocked salmon.These fisheries occur in the tailrace and bypass reaches associated with Eel Weir Dam, North Gorham Dam, Dundee Dam, Mallison Dam.The Eel Weir bypass (approximately 1.25 miles in length), is located immediately below Sebago Lake, and is intensively managed for brook trout (up to 2,500 fish annually), although, landlocked salmon, and to a lesser extent brown trout are also stocked.The other three bypass reaches that are the focus of MDIFW stocking programs are managed primarily for brown trout and are stocked annually at much lower levels, typically 250 trout per reach.Some tributaries to the PresumpscotRiver are also stocked with brown trout and brook trout.

Migratory Species:Two species of migratory fish presently utilize the PresumpscotRiver during only a portion of their lives:

·American eels, which spawn in the ocean and migrate into the river to mature to adulthood.Because young eels (elvers) can wriggle over or around dams, American eels are able to migrate up the river, ascending the dams to reach all the way to SebagoLake.They are found in all the impoundments and reaches of the river; and

·Alewives, which migrate upriverto spawning grounds in lakes and ponds, and return to sea to mature into adults.This species had access to the lower Presumpscot and HighlandLake via a fish lift at Smelt Hill during the 1980’s, and has been stocked after the fish lift became inoperable in 1996.

Relative Abundance and Condition of the Existing Fishery

The relative abundance and condition of PresumpscotRiver fish populations reflects the habitat suitability of the river.A number of factors that affect the habitat suitability are discussed in Section C below.Overall, because much of the river is impounded by low head dams[2], the river is neither well suited to riverine fishes (those that prefer cold, fast flowing well oxygenated shallow waters, including trout and salmon), nor lake dwelling fish (those that require more placid waters with rooted aquatic vegetation, including bass, perch, pickerel, and bullheads).The result is relatively low numbers fish, comprised primarily of species adapted to the impounded environments, i.e. smallmouth bass, pumpkinseed, and yellow perch; and a small seasonal population of stocked brook trout, landlocked salmon, and brown trout principally in the tailrace areas below the dams where conditions are more riverine.

Assessments of Abundance and Condition:Studies documenting the abundance or condition of the fisheries in the Presumpscot River have been developed as part of the relicensing efforts for hydropower projects, to document the success of fishery restoration efforts in the Eel Weir Bypass after flows were restored, as part of the State’s dioxin sampling program, and to characterize the potential for Environmental Restoration at the Smelt Hill Dam and in the lower Presumpscot.

Based on the above assessments and local knowledge offered by regional fisheries biologist Francis Brautigam, the fisheries in the Presumpscot River can be described as follows:

·The Eel Weir Bypass supports a robust put-and-take trout and salmon fishery, as well as an assemblage of other fishes including lake trout (drop-downs from SebagoLake) bass, perch, pickerel, and sunfish.

·The North Gorham impoundment has a seasonal trout and salmon fishery (winter-spring) supported primarily from drop-downs of fish stocked in the Eel Weir Bypass; and a resident fishery of bass, perch, bullhead, sunfish, pickerel and minnows.

·The Dundee impoundment has well established, self-sustaining smallmouth bass and panfish populations, with some larger bass, yellow perch, and brown bullhead available to support a recreational fishery.It also supports a limited trout and salmon fishery in the winter and spring.

o·The Gambo impoundment supports a more limited fishery for smallmouth bass and yellow perch.

·The three downstream impoundments (Little Falls, Mallison, and Saccarappa) provide lower quality habitat for many species of fish because, as outlined above, they are neither truly riverine nor lake like.

·   Below the Saccarappa dam the same assemblage of fish is likely to exist as above Saccarappa, except that below Cumberland Mills, some migratory fish (alewives, blueback herring, shad, and striped bass) may be present as a result of the removal of the gates at the Smelt Hill dam.There is no information on the abundance or condition of the fish in this portion of the river.

·Eels are common in all of the impoundments.

Fisheries Habitat Conditions in the PresumpscotRiver

Assessments of Fish Habitat on the PresumpscotRiver:There are few assessments of the fish habitat provided by the river.A 1997 baseline fisheries study (Ichthyological Associates, 1998) assessed the suitability of shoreline habitats for bass spawning in the five impoundments undergoing federal relicensing (the Dundee, Gambo, Little Falls, Mallison, and Saccarappa impoundments) and concluded the bass and panfish habitat in most of the impoundments was marginal.

Existing fisheries habitat in the PresumpscotRiver is influenced by a number of factors including dams, bottom sediments, and discharges to the river from point and non point sources.

Habitat Impacts from Dams:Presently, there are 9 dams on the PresumpscotRiver, including, from its source at SebagoLake to its outlet at Casco Bay:

These dams have two effects by limiting access to habitat:

·First, the dams blockthe upstream migration of sea-run fish that return to freshwaters to spawn (including Atlantic salmon, shad, blueback herring, and alewives).Young American eels also migrate into freshwaters to mature prior to returning to the sea to spawn.The American eels are able to ascend over and around the dams, and are found in all of the impoundments; however, the Department of Marine Resources believes the number that are successful in migrating up the Presumpscot are fewer than would occur naturally.

·Secondly, the dams have isolated sections of the river (fragmenting the river habitat) restricting the free movement of fish and reducing the ability of both resident and migratory fishes to reach spawning areas in the river and tributaries, and cold water refuges during hot weather.

Dams have also altered the ecology of the river as follows:

·The dams created a series of impoundments that replaced the natural pools, riffles, runs, and falls originally present in the river.Impoundments now occupy approximately 22 of the 26 miles from head of tide to SebagoLake.In general, a change from riverine to impounded habitat increases water depth, reduces water velocity, reduces re-aeration potential, reduces light penetration, and increases retention of settleable solids.These physical changes coupled with the introduction of nonnative species have altered the original fish community.

	Distance in miles from Casco Bay

Note:Elevations at the top of each dam are shown next to the names of the dams.

Sources: Federal Emergency Management Agency: Flood Insurance Study. Portland (1998), Falmouth (1984),Westbrook (1980), Gorham (1981), Windham (1981); and Portland Water District for elevations at White’s Bridge.

Prepared by:Natalia Kassatova, Graduate Intern, Casco Bay Estuary Project

·The impoundments are unable to function like a natural river, lake or pond, and as a result, the abundance and diversity of the benthic (bottom dwelling) organisms are diminished compared to a river, lake or pond.The Maine DEP has found:

“In effect, the ponded area assumes some of the characteristics of a lake, but typically the ponded water volume has a much shorter retention time, as compared to a natural lake.Thus the riverine biological community is subjected to quasi-lake conditions for which they are not adapted.Lake dwelling organisms generally, also find run-of river impoundment conditions unfavorable.The short retention time precludes the possibility of development of a planktonic community, the typical food base of lakes.High flow volumes in spring and fall, experienced by the river are also reflected in riverine impoundments, frequently causing scouring of accumulated organic matter on the substrate, and partially restoring the riverine, mineral-based substrate.This constitutes a periodic disturbance of benthic habitat for typical lake dwelling organisms, resulting in lower production.Biological assessment of impounded benthic communities reveals that the detrimental effects of these unnatural conditions usually results in severe loss of both community structure and function.” (Maine DEP, Biomonitoring Retrospective, 1999).

Overview of Fish Habitat Characteristics by Reach on the Presumpscot River

Substrate (River Bottom) Conditions Affecting Fish Habitat: Substrate (the characteristics of the river bottom) is an important factor defining habitat conditions for fish.Several species of fish that presently or potentially could inhabit the PresumpscotRiver require or favor sandy, gravelly, or rocky bottom sediments for spawning.These include Atlantic salmon, brook trout, brown trout, and smallmouth bass.The kind of substrate used for spawning varies by species with Atlantic salmon using fist sized gravel, brook trout using pebble sized gravel, and smallmouth bass using a variety of substrates from sandy to small pebbles.Substrates are also important in determining the type and abundance of aquatic vegetation.Nutrient poor substrates such as coarse sands and gravels will have less aquatic vegetation.A number of fish species are adapted to habitats with abundant aquatic vegetation, either for eggs to attach to or as cover for rearing.Pickerel and brown bullhead are among the fish that prefer habitats with robust aquatic vegetation.

Four studies have documented substrate conditions from the Smelt Hill Dam to the Dundee Impoundment.In brief, the findings of these studies, which differed significantly in the methods they used, show that fine sediments predominate in near shore areas and are progressively more common downstream. Mid channel areas (in the vicinity of the original river channel) in the upper part of the river have coarser substrates, including gravel and cobble sized materials.

Water Quality as an Influence on Fish Habitat: Water temperature and oxygen conditions affect the suitability of waters for fish, with certain species such as trout and salmon requiring colder and more oxygenated water than bass and other pan fish. Like many other small coastal rivers in southern Maine, during the summer the Presumpscot River water temperatures are limiting for native trout and salmon species outside of any coldwater refuges that may exist near springs.This is true of both the impounded and unimpounded reaches, including the Eel Weir Bypass. In the summer, native brook trout move to colder water near springs or in the tributaries where waters are naturally cooler due to shade and a higher groundwater component to the flows (base flows).Waters that support trout and salmon during the fall, winter and spring include the Eel Weir Bypass, the North Gorham and Dundee impoundments, and the tailraces and bypasses of most of the downstream dams.

The source water for the PresumpscotRiver is SebagoLake, one of the highest quality waters in Maine and the drinking water supply for the City of Portland.Runoff and discharges within the drainage area of the river below SebagoLake have reduced the quality of the water, and in a few locations, the quality occasionally does not meet state standards.An example is near the confluence of the PleasantRiver in the Gambo impoundment.The PleasantRiver appears to be affected by non-point source pollution from agricultural uses which elevates the sediment load in this river and likely contributes organic matter contributing to depressed oxygen levels.

Below Cumberland Mills the water quality of the river once was severely impacted by industrial and municipal discharges, but has improved since treatment plants were constructed in 1970’s, and recently (since 1999), even more significant improvements have resulted due to the cessation of the pulping operation at the SAPPI (formerly S.D. Warren) mill in Westbrook.Although DEP has not monitored the river since the shutdown of the pulping operation, it is apparent that water quality has improved and there are plans to begin monitoring after the Smelt Hill dam is removed.

3.Historical Conditions for Fisheries in thePresumpscotRiver

Early historical accounts document a long history of controversies related to blockage of fish migrations by dams on the river.The first dam was constructed at the head of tide, PresumpscotFalls, in the 1730’s.Others soon followed.The dams caused public protests and prompted Chief Polin of the Rockomeecook Tribe to walk to Boston to confer with Governor Shirley about restoring fish to the river. Failing to gain an adequate response, Chief Polin made a second trip to Boston and threatened to force the settlers out if the fish were not returned to the river.The first armed conflict between the Indians and the settlers along the PresumpscotRiver ensued, which was ended when Chief Polin was killed by the settlers in 1756.

The controversy continued after Chief Polin’s death, as blockage of the river not only affected the Rockomeecook Tribe, it also eliminated a source of food for the early settlers and impacted Cod fishermen.Hence, on October 30, 1781 the selectmen of the towns of Gorham, and agents from the towns of Windham, Standish and Bridgton (which includes the Crooked River flowing into Sebago Lake), petitioned the Governor and Legislature of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to “appoint a Committee that shall cause goodand sufficient fish courses to be made through the several dams on the river” to restore the fisheries to the river.They stated that the PresumpscotRiver “in times past has been remarkable for being frequented by Shad, Bass, Salmon . . .”They argued that restoring these fish runs was necessary to support the early settlers of the Plantations adjoining the stream,, stating “a Plenty of fish coming even to their own doors would greatly contribute to their support.”They went on to say that restoring the fish would also benefit cod fishermen “For it is well known that the small fish running in shore for fresh water streams draw the Cod after them.” (MaineState Archives)

Other historical accounts related to the original fisheries of the PresumpscotRiver include:

·In the History of Gorham by Hugh McLellan, 1903, there is this account: “Parson Smith in his journal says, November 8, 1734, ‘I rode with my father to see the Colonel’s great dam’ [referring to the first dam at PresumpscotFalls]...It was here, and about this time, that the parson saw the large shoals of salmon (‘an acre of fish, mostly salmon’) and other fish, congregated below and stopped from going up the river . . .” [parentheses added]

·Charles Fobes, in “The Story of the Presumpscot” included in the Collections and Proceedings of the Maine Historical Society, 1894, has this account:“In October 1793 the proprietors of the dam at Great Falls [near the present site of the North Gorham dam] were found guilty of not keeping open a good and sufficient sluiceway for the passage of salmon, shad, and alewives as required by law and were subjected to a fine of six pounds per day for every day the way was closed.”[parentheses added]

·Charles Atkins, in his report “The River Fisheries of Maine” included in a report from the United States Commission of Fish and Fisheries to the 47^th Congress in 1887, says of the PresumpscotRiver:“The Presumpscot is therefore a rapid river.It has remarkably clear water, and abounds naturally in gravelly rapids. It was frequented by salmon, shad, and alewives, but seems to have been best adapted to salmon.All fisheries were practically extinguished early in the present century by a dam at the head of the tide.”

·   Charles Atkins, in the Fish Commissioners Report of 1867, states: “In this vast reservoir [referring to Sebago Lake], the turbid water of the tributary streams deposits its sediment, and issues thence [the Presumpscot River] as a river of uncommon transparency, a character which is maintained for a long distance from the lake.” [parentheses added]

There were historically at least a dozen named falls and rapids on the Presumpscot River. Most were in the upper half of the river, from Mallison Falls to Sebago Lake. It appears that the river’s natural course was fast flowing in the upper reaches from Mallison Falls to Sebago Lake, with a more gradual drop over its course in the lower river except between Saccarappa Falls and Cumberland Falls. Named Falls on the Presumpscot River include: Eel Weir Falls (Wescott Falls), Gambo Falls, Steep Falls, Little Falls, Middle Falls, Mallison (Horse Beef) Falls, Great Falls (present site of N. Gorham Dam), Saccarappa Falls, Whitney Falls, Ammonscongin (Cumberland) Falls, Island Falls, Presumpscot Falls (present site of Smelt Hill Dam), Dundee Falls, and Leavitts Falls.

4.Habitat Suitability and Potential Runs of Migratory Fisheries

Habitat Suitability for Migratory Fishes from Smelt Hill Dam to Cumberland Mills Dam:The PresumpscotRiver below Cumberland Mills dam is improving as habitat for migratory and resident fishes due to the water quality improvements.The potential removal of the Smelt Hill dam (summer/fall, 2002) will return the river below the Cumberland Mills dam to its original gradient.Studies by the Corps of Engineers indicate the river habitat in the two miles above the site of the Smelt Hill dam will consist of rocky riffle runs in the area closer to the dam, and pool riffle combinations further upstream, combined with quieter pool areas.Although no actual habitat assessment has been completed, the Department of Marine Resources and the Atlantic Salmon Commission expect this area will provide habitat for migration, spawning, or growth for American shad, alewives, American eel, blueback herring, striped bass, Atlantic salmon, sea-run brook trout, sea-run brown trout, Atlantic sturgeon, rainbow smelt, and tomcod.

Habitat Suitability for Migratory Fishes above Cumberland Mills Dam:If access is provided to upstream habitats above the Cumberland Mills dam, through fish passage and/or dam removals, the DMR and the Atlantic Salmon Commission expect the Presumpscot River above Cumberland Mills and its tributaries will provide habitat (for migration, spawning, or growth) for American eel, American shad, alewives, blueback herring, Atlantic salmon, sea-run brook trout, sea-run brown trout, and possibly striped bass.

Estimated Maximum Potential Migratory Fish Runs – Shad, Blueback Herring, and Alewives:The Department of Marine Resources has developed “order of magnitude” spreadsheet models for estimating the size of American shad, blueback herring, and alewife runs that could be supported by river and lake impoundment habitats if suitable access is provided for these fish species.The table which follows shows the potential fish populations that could be sustained by habitat in the various reaches of the river up to the North Gorham dam, including three major tributaries, the Piscataqua River, the Little River and the Pleasant River (for shad and blueback herring), as well as Highland Lake (for alewives only) if there were no dams on the river or fish passage were 100% efficient.This represent the maximum expected population that could be sustained assuming 100% of the river habitat is suitable for these species, and given unimpeded access to the various sections of the river.

for American Shad, Blueback Herring, and Alewives

Estimated Maximum Potential Atlantic Salmon Run:The Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission (MASC) has developed estimates ofthe size of a potential Atlantic salmon spawning run assuming passage is provided at all dams, or assuming three dams are removed (Saccarappa, Mallison Falls, and Little Falls) and passage is provided at the remaining dams.Estimates were also developed by the Berger Group, Inc., a consulting firm hired by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.These are shown below.The available habitat, if all dams remain, is located primarily in the tributaries to the river, as the only mainstem area with suitable habitat with all dams remaining is in the Eel Weir Bypass.Tributaries with suitable habitat include thePleasantRiver, Little River, Colley Wright Brook, Mill Brook and PiscataquaRiver.

5.State Agencies’ Draft Plan for Fisheries Management 

for the PresumpscotRiver

A Draft Fishery Management Plan for the Presumpscot River Drainage was prepared by the Maine Department of Marine Resources (MDMR), the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW), and the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission (MASC) in December 2001.The Draft Plan states that it was preparedin response to the following changes within the Presumpscot River watershed: the probable removal of Smelt Hill Dam (located at the head-of-tide); the relicensing of six of the seven existing hydropower projects on the river; and improvements in water quality resulting from the closure of the pulping operation in Westbrook.These changes created a new opportunity for the restoration of diadromous[3] fish runs and the enhancement of warm water and coldwater recreational fishing opportunities.

The management plan goals contemplate restoration of migratory fish runs in phases, allowing the fisheries agencies to assess potential interactions between resident and migratory species and changes in fishing opportunities.During Phase 1, migratory fish would be restored as far as Gambo dam.If the three fisheries agencies agree, restoration would continue up the river in Phase 2.

6.Legal Context

Related Laws and Regulations:A number of state and federal laws and regulations have a bearing on the future of the PresumpscotRiver.Most importantly these include laws and regulations address:General Water Quality Protection, Federal Regulation of Hydropower Projects, State Regulation of Hydropower Projects, State and Federal Authority to Require Fishways, State Authority for Regulating and Managing Fisheries, Atlantic Salmon Restoration, and Ecosystem Restoration by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

Status of Legal Proceedings:With the exception of Cumberland Mills Dam, all the dams are components of hydroelectric power plants, and are licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).

Smelt Hill Dam.Removal of the dam is expected to begin in July and be completed in November of 2002.

Cumberland Mills Dam.Cumberland Mills does not require a FERC license since it is not part of a hydroelectric system.However, the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife may require a fishway to be erected by the owners of any dam within inland waters to conserve, develop or restore anadromous fish resources (12 MRSA§ 7701-A).

Saccarappa Project to Dundee Project FERC License Applications.Currently, SAPPIhas hydropower relicensing applications pending before the FERC for the Saccarappa, MallisonFalls, Little Falls, Gambo, and Dundee Projects, and has submitted applications to the Maine DEP for a Water Quality Certification for compliance with the Clean Water Act.FERC staff reviewed these applications and prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement in which they analyzed the potential environmental impacts of four alternatives: (1) removal of the Little Falls, Mallison Falls, and Saccarappa Project dams; (2) removal of the Saccarappa Project dam only; and (3) removal of the Little Falls and Mallison Falls Project dams with passage at Saccarappa; and (4) retaining Mallison Falls, Little Falls, and Saccarappa dams, but with the installation of efficient fish passage facilities at all three dams when fish passage is provided at Cumberland Mills.FERC will make the final decision on which alternative will be incorporated into the license articles, but must include any conditions attached to the State’s water quality certification.

North Gorham Project FERC License.The North Gorham Project, owned and operated by FPL Energy Maine Hydro LLC, was licensed in 1993 for 30 years.

Eel Weir Project FERC License Application.SAPPI is in the process of relicensing the Eel Weir Project, including the Eel Weir Bypass section of the river.

7.Fisheries Management Opportunities and Options

With the removal of the Smelt Hill dam, migratory fish will have unimpeded access to the lower seven miles of the PresumpscotRiver and its tributaries for the first time in over a century.However, after Smelt Hill Dam is removed, migratory fish will still be blocked from upriver spawning and nursery habitat (as far as the dam at SebagoLake) by seven dams.

The goal of the Steering Committee preparing the Plan for the PresumpscotRiver is to develop recommendations that work for all interests. The problem, and at the same time the opportunity, is finding a solution that allows the restoration of migratory fish to the river, while minimizing adverse effects to the SAPPI mill.Fish passage is costly, (capital costs of several millions of dollars per dam), and removal of the dams, while generally less costly (on the order of one million dollars per dam), will reduce SAPPI’s electrical generation capabilities.According to SAPPI, hydropower is the Westbrook Mill’s lowest cost power source, and loss of any of the hydro-generation facilities will impact the Mill. 

Options:There are several possible courses of action to enhance fish resources in the PresumpscotRiver. Options for restoring the Presumpscot River to its full potential for resident and migrating (sea-run) fisheries must address how the obstructions to passage atthe remaining dams on the river, including the Cumberland Mills dam, are to be overcome. The Cumberland Mills Dam is not covered by the Federal Power Act, and hence fish passage cannot be federally mandated at this dam as it can be for the other dams on the river. The Cumberland Mills Dam is, however, covered by a state statute (12 MRSA§ 7701-A) that authorizes (but does not mandate) the Commissioner of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to require fishways to be erected by the owners of any dam within inland waters to restore anadromous (sea-run) fish resources.

The options outlined below are included as a starting point for discussions on how the river could be managed to enhance or restore fisheries. Only option 3b would fully achieve the current management goals established by State and Federal agencies for fisheries’ restoration on the Presumpscot. 

Option 1 – No further action is taken beyond removing the Smelt Hill Dam

Description:Under this option, sea run fish would be restored to approximately 7 miles of the lower river below the Cumberland Mills dam after the Smelt Hill dam is removed (expected in the summer/fall of 2002).In addition, this would provide access to the PiscataquaRiver and Mill Brook, leading to HighlandLake.

Costs:Estimated costs of $1.1 million are to be paid by State and Federal funds and private donations.

Effects on Migratory Fish:Runs of a number of migratory fishes are expected to develop. In addition to American shad, alewives, blueback herring, American eels and striped bass, additional runs are possible for a number of species, includingsea-run brook troutsea-run brown trout, Atlantic sturgeon,rainbow smelt and tomcod.The estimates below are a compilation of a number of estimates.The Maine Department of Marine Resources has estimated runs of adult shad, alewife and blueback herring spawners resulting from Smelt Hill dam removal.The Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission has estimated potential Atlantic salmon runs on the Presumpscot.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission contracted with Louis Berger Group, Inc. to evaluate the impacts of removing one or more of the following dams: Saccarappa, MallisonFalls, and Little Falls dams, versus fish passage at these dams. Their analysis did not address migrations resulting from the Smelt Hill dam removal.

Effects on Resident Fish: Above Cumberland Mills dam, in the impounded reaches (nearly 15 miles), the fisheries of the river would continue to be composed primarily of bass, perch, bullheads, and sunfish, and the productivity of these fish would continue to be compromised as a result of the nature of shallow river impoundments.A fall to spring fishery of trout and landlocked salmon in the Dundee and North Gorham impoundments would continue.It is assumed that the tailrace areas below the dams (less than ½ mile total), and the Eel Weir Bypass (1.25 miles) would continue to be stocked with trout and salmon.The Eel Weir Bypass has one of the highest levels of angling of any fishery in the State (between 4,000 and 6,000 angler trips per year [Brautigam, 1997]) because of the combination of stocking (approximately 5,000 brook trout, 400 landlocked salmon, and 200 brown trout per year) and its proximity to the State’s major population center.

Consistency with State and Federal Management Goals:This option does not meet the goals and objectives of the State fisheries management agencies (DMR, IF&W, and MASC) as expressed in their December 2001 “Draft Fishery Management Plan for the Presumpscot River Drainage.” (see Section 5 and Appendix C of this report).It also does not address the US Fish and Wildlife Services goals, as reflected in their filings to FERC prescribing fish passage on the dams below the Eel Weir Dam, provided passage is achieved at the Cumberland Mills Dam, and sufficient numbers of migratory fish return to the river.

Option 2 – Smelt Hill Dam is removed and the resident fisheries are enhanced

Description:In addition to the fisheries resulting from the removal of the Smelt Hill dam under Option 1, above, enhanced management would result in increased stocking of trout in the tailrace areas below Dundee dam, Gambo dam and MallisonFalls dam.If fishing demand warranted it, the number of trout stocked could be doubled below Mallison and Dundee, from 500 to 1000; and possibly adding a stocking program at Gambo tailrace of up to 500 stocked trout.Activities could also be undertaken to enhance the resident fisheries for bass and pan fish.Unlike trout fisheries, in Maine bass fisheries are not enhanced by put and take stocking – and hatchery-raised fish are not even available in Maine.However, other enhancement techniques are possible.Such activities, which could be appropriate for the Presumpscot, could include enhancing the cover provided for these species in impoundments, e.g., creating artificial reefs, adding submerged woody debris or large rocky rubble to littoral areas on river bottom areas.

Costs: The additional cost for increased trout stocking would be approximately $3,000 and would be part of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s budget (estimated increases in stocking and costs provided by Francis Brautigam, telephone call 3/21/01).Depending on the options chosen, the costs of measures to enhance the resident bass and pan fish fishery can range from inexpensive (e.g., adding sections of trees to littoral areas) to very expensive (e.g., adding large volumes of rocky rubble to the river bed).Costs could be borne by volunteers, government, industry, or some combination thereof.

Effects on Migratory Fish:Same as Option 1: the lower river, below the Cumberland dam, would become accessible to migratory fish with the expectation that substantial runs of these fish would be established over time.

Effects on Resident Fish:Under this option the Eel Weir Bypass reach would continue to provide exceptional fishing as described in Option 1.Additional stocking of trout would result in an enhanced seasonal fishery for stocked trout.Since the existing habitat is sparse and fragmented, the trout fishery would continue to depend on stocking and would not develop into a robust self-sustaining population.Some of the methods for enhancing bass and pan fish, e.g., adding woody material, are only stable in areas where there is not significant flow, even during floods.Further, these methods can create boating hazards and add to the amount of debris carried down the river.No quantitative estimates are available for how much these actions would improve fish populations; however, the Maine DEP found that narrow riverine impoundments function neither as river or lake environments, and as a result the productivity of these systems is relatively low.Therefore, even if the cover present in the impoundments was enhanced by the activities outline above, there is a risk that the fisheries would be improved only marginally.

Consistency with State and Federal Management Goals:This option does not meet the goals and objectives of the State fisheries management agencies (DMR, IF&W, and MASC) as expressed in their December 2001 “Draft Fishery Management Plan for the Presumpscot River Drainage.” (see Section 5 and Appendix C of this report).It also does not address the US Fish and Wildlife Services goals, as reflected in their filings to FERC prescribing fish passage on the dams below the Eel Weir Dam, provided passage is achieved at the Cumberland Mills Dam, and sufficient numbers of migratory fish return to the river.

Option 3 – Smelt Hill Dam is removed and sea run fisheries are restored

In addition to the removal of the Smelt Hill Dam, and potentially efforts to enhance resident fisheries in some areas, this Option involves active efforts to restore sea run fish.At present, three methods are used to restore access for sea run fish.These methods include:

§dam removal;

§providing fish passage at dams (fish ladders or fish lifts); and

§trap and truck efforts (trapping fish at a dam and transporting them upriver beyond dams without passage). However, this method is not considered by the responsible State and Federal agencies to be a viable long term option for restoring fish access on the Presumpscot.While trap and truck operations may have important short-term value (e.g., to get runs of sea run fish reestablished before permanent access is provided), in general this methods can result in high mortality rates, effectiveness can be limited – particularly for species which are very abundant, operating costs can be high, and they require active and reliable efforts, in some cases over long seasons.

A.What would result from providing fish passage at up to 3 dams?

Description:In addition to the removal of the Smelt Hill dam, fisheries could be further restored by providing up and downstream fish passage for migratory species at up to three dams on the river.Most species will not be able to pass more than three dams in sufficient numbers to warrant passage beyond the third dam.The first three dams above Smelt Hill are the Cumberland Mills Dam, Saccarappa Dam, and Mallison Falls Dam.Fish passage is assumed to include fishways for upstream migrations of shad, blueback herring, and Atlantic salmon, a trap and truck facility at Saccarappa, a separate facility for upstream migration of eels, and downstream fishways serving all species except eels.Downstream eel passage would be provided by shutting down turbines at selected hours.

Costs:If passage was installed at the lowermost three dams- Cumberland Mills, Saccarappa, and Mallison Falls dams, it would likelycost 6 – 8 million dollars according to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (See also Appendix Table B-1).If fish did not ascend in sufficient numbers above the first dam to warrant passage at a second dam (if passage efficiency was75% or less) then the cost of this option would be approximately $1 million.These costs do not include power from diversion of flows to fish passage facilities or increased operating costs. Costs could be borne by industry, government, private donations, or some combination of these sources (industry may be the most likely source).

Effects on Migratory Fish:Estimates of the size of fish spawning runs resulting from installation of fish passage at up to three dams are provided below. The size of the fish runs depends on the success of the fishways in getting fish to spawning areas above the dams, or the efficiency of the fish passage facilities in passing fish over the dams into the upstream reaches.Not all fish that attempt to negotiate a fish ladder or lift succeed.The US Fish and Wildlife Service designs fishways assuming a 90% efficiency rate (90% success rate).There are few studies that document actual efficiency.However, it is known that, for a variety of reasons, not all fishways are equally effective, with some of the older fishways installed during the last twenty years (when federal licenses began including requirements for fish passage) having proved to be particularly ineffective.Learning from these early efforts, the FWS has revised its fishway designs to improve passage success.The Maine DMR’s “best guess” on the range of possible efficiencies is 75% (worst case) to 90% (design goal).The Maine DMR has computed estimates of shad, alewife and blueback herring spawning runs on the PresumpscotRiver based on estimated spawning habitat, using a 75% and 90% efficiency rate for both upstream and downstream passage facilities.These “order of magnitude” estimates are presented below.

Under the scenario assuming a 75% passage efficiency (the worst case scenario), the DMR models indicate that fish passage would not be effective at more than one dam; that is, it is expected that the run may not develop enough to warrant passage to areas above a second dam .At 90% efficiency, it is estimated that fish could be passed in sufficient numbers to warrant passage at three dams, at CumberlandFalls, Saccarappa Dam, and MallisonFalls dam.However, DMR indicates that the model is only indicative, and that a successful run may be established above more dams than indicated by the model.Reflecting this, the fisheries agencies have called for passage at all dams as far as Dundee dam, with passages constructed when the size of the spawning runs that actually develop in response to passage reach a certain threshold level.If the efficiency of the fish passages limits the restoration of migratory fish runs, then additional mitigation measures would be needed, including potentially, as mentioned above, trap and truck operations and dam removals.

The size of the Atlantic salmon run resulting from access to habitat as far as Little Falls dam is estimated below as a range reflecting two different analyses: (1) Analysis based on MASC estimates and assumptions; and(2) Estimates prepared by the Louis Berger Group for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.Neither of the estimates include the increased run that could develop through trap and truck operations from Saccarappa Dam to sites above Little Falls.

Effects on Resident Fish:Resident fisheries would not change appreciably since habitat conditions would remain unchanged above the Cumberland Mills dam.

Consistency with State and Federal Management Goals:This approach does not meet the goals and objectives of the State fisheries management agencies (DMR, IF&W, and MASC) as expressed in their December 2001 “Draft Fishery Management Plan for the Presumpscot River Drainage.” (see Section 5 and Appendix C of this report).It also does not address the US Fish and Wildlife Services goals, as reflected in their filings to FERC prescribing fish passage on all the dams below the Eel Weir Dam, provided passage is achieved at the Cumberland Mills Dam, and sufficient numbers of migratory fish return to the river.
Estimated Migratory Fish Runs with Fish Passages Installed on Up to Three Dams

 

Migratory Species Runs reaching Saccarappa dam with 75% passage efficiency and Little Falls dam with 90% passage efficiency	Estimated # Returning Adult Fish1 Up to Saccarappa DamUp to Little Falls Dam
American shad(including runs on the Piscataqua and the Little River)	7,400 – 29,300	13,000 –56,5002
alewives(below Cumberland Mills, see above)	150,000 – 200,000	150,000 – 200,000
blueback herring(including a run on the Piscataqua and Little River)	96,8003	187,0003
Atlantic salmon(access up to Saccarappa Dam at 75% effic.; to Little Falls Dam at 90%)	23 – 1153(MASC)4; NA 5	93 – 465 (MASC)4 Negligible (Berger) 5
American eel	increased numbers	increased numbers
striped bass	unknown numbers	unknown numbers
1`Assumes that at 75% efficiency,fish passage is warranted at only one dam (Cumberland Mills); at 90% efficiency, it assumes fish passages are warranted at Cumberland Mills dam, Saccarappa Dam, and Mallison Falls Dam. 2Based on figures used by the Maine DMR to estimate shad runs; from data collected between 1983 and 2000 on the Connecticut River showing 46 to 182 returning shad per acre of river habitat (see also Table 6).The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Draft Environmental Assessment for the Presumpscot River Projects, 2001) uses a range of 25 to 142 shad/acre based on outdated data on shad runs on the Connecticut River (as of 1979 based on a report by Louis Berger Group, Inc.). The above estimate is based on the most recent data. 3 Estimate by Maine DMR based on estimates of 600 river herring/acre on the Connecticut River; the Berger Group/FERC used 1,700 river herring/acre based on alewife production on a MaineLake (not included above). 4 Estimated usingthe Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission (MASC) procedures; assumed habitat in tributaries only (Piscataqua River and Mill Brook below Cumberland Mills at 75% efficiency; including also the Little River and Colley Wright Brook at 90%); assumed 10% loss of smolts at each dam during downstream migration (5% at Cumberland Mills); assumed 1 to 5% survival of smolts return as adults,.  5The Berger Group, Inc. estimated salmon restoration potential for FERC (see DEA, [FERC, 2001]).This analysis did not estimate numbers of salmon for reaches of the river below Saccarappa Dam; and concluded that there would be negligible salmon habitat available with the dams in place and fish passage installed.

B. What would result from removing 3 dams and providing fish passage at up to 3 others?

Description:Removing 3 dams and providing fish passage at up to 3 others on the PresumpscotRiver could also restore runs of anadromous fish and improve runs of American eels.The lowermost dam (after three Smelt Hill dam is removed) is the Cumberland Mills dam at the SAPPI Mill.This is used for process water and fire control.A detailed evaluation of this dam would be needed to determine the best option for fish passage, while meeting SAPPI’s needs.In other similar cases passage has been accomplished with a partial removal of the dam; this would be optimal for fish passage.If this were not feasible, a fish passage could be installed.Removing the three smallest dams would make the most sense in terms of minimizing loss of electrical power generation.This would include the Saccarappa Dam, Mallison Falls Dam, and Little Falls Dam, which are the next three above the Cumberland Mills dam.Fish passage could then be provided at Gambo Dam and Dundee Dam (in addition to Cumberland Mills Dam). This would include both upstream and downstream fishways, and a separate eel passage facility at each dam.Passage for Atlantic Salmon into the North Gorham impoundment and Eel Weir bypass would be provided by a trap and truck facility either at Dundee or Gambo dam.A downstream passage facility would also be provided at the North Gorham dam.

Costs:Removal of three dams on the lower river (Saccarappa, Mallison, and Little Falls) could cost on the order of $3 million. Costs for fish passage at Cumberland Mills, Gambo and Dundee, and downstream at N. Gorham are estimated to be in the range of $6 to $10 million, depending on whether upstream passage into the Dundee impoundment is provided through a fish lift or a trap and truck facility.However, if fish did not ascend in sufficient numbers above the first dam to warrant passage at a second dam (if passage efficiency was75% or less) then the cost of passage under this approach would be approximately $1 million. The total cost of removals plus passage for this scenario would be on the order of $4 million with 3 dams removed and passage at only one dam, and $9 million to $13 million with 3 dams removed and the full program of fish passage describedabove (see also Appendix Table B-1). These costs do not include power lost due to dam removals and to diversion of flows to fish passage facilities, or increased operating costs.

Effects on Migratory Fish:This approach would restore riverine habitat in certain sections of the river where impoundments are eliminated by dam removal.This would increase the habitat suitability for species such as American shad and river herring, and would result in larger runs of sea run fish, because substantially more habitat (particularly above Gambo dam) would become available.The following table shows the approximates size of the spawning runs that these measures would be expected to restore, by providing access to spawning habitat in the river and its tributaries as far as the Dundee impoundment and, for Atlantic salmon, the North Gorham impoundment and Eel Weir Bypass.

Effects on Resident Fish:Resident fisheries would adjust to a 7.5 mile increase in the availability of free-flowing riverine stretches as a result of dam removals.Combined with the river restoration resulting from the removal of the Smelt Hill dam, and the previously restored river at the Eel Weir Bypass, 16 miles of the total 26 mile length of river would be restored, providing increased habitat for trout and salmon.Habitat area for bass and other resident species could decrease, though habitat quality could improve as a result of improved conditions for macro invertebrates and primary productivity from increased light penetration, and increased forage base from restoration of migratory fishes (more eggs and juvenile fishes).

Consistency with State and Federal Management Goals:This approach would meet the goals and objectives of the State fisheries management agencies (DMR, IF&W, and MASC) as expressed in their December 2001 “Draft Fishery Management Plan for the Presumpscot River Drainage.” (see Section 5 and Appendix C of this report); and would address the US Fish and Wildlife Services goals, as reflected in their filings to FERC prescribing fish passage on all the dams below the Eel Weir Dam, provided passage is achieved at the Cumberland Mills Dam, and sufficient numbers of migratory fish return to the river.

 

Migratory Species (Runs reaching Gambo dam with 75% efficiency and N. Gorham dam with 90% efficiency; Atlantic salmon reaching the Eel Weir Bypass with trap and truck)	Estimated # Returning Adult Fish1 Runs as far upRuns up to N.Gorham Dam as Gambo DamAtlantic salmon into  Eel Weir Bypass
American shad(including runs on the Piscataqua and the Little River at 75% and additionally the PleasantRiver at 90% efficiency)	15,700 –62,3002	34,500 – 136,5002
alewives(below Cumberland Mills, see above)	150,000 – 200,000	150,000 – 200,000
blueback herring(same distribution as American shad)	205,9003	450,2003
Atlantic salmon	102 - 508 (MASC)4; 34 - 102 (Berger)5	206 – 1,030 (MASC)4 34 - 102 (Berger)5
American eel	increased numbers	increased numbers
stripedbass	unknown numbers	unknown numbers
1`Assumes that at 75% efficiency, fish passage is installed at only one dam (Cumberland Mills) and Saccarappa, Mallison Falls, and Little Falls dams are removed, making habitat accessible up to the Gambo dam; at 90% efficiency, it assumes fish passage is installed at Cumberland Mills dam,Gambo Dam, and Dundee Dam;and Saccarappa Dam, Mallison Falls Dam, andLittle Falls dam are removed. 2Based on figures used by the Maine DMR to estimate shad runs; from data collected between 1983 and 2000 on the Connecticut River showing 46 to 182 returning shad per acre of river habitat (see also Table 6).The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Draft Environmental Assessment for the Presumpscot River Projects, 2001) uses a range of 25 to 142 shad/acre based on outdated data on shad runs on the Connecticut River (as of 1979 based on a report by Louis Berger Group, Inc.). The above estimate is based on the most recent data. 3 Estimate by Maine DMR based on estimates of 600 river herring/acre on the Connecticut River; the Berger Group/FERC used 1,700 river herring/acre based on alewife production on a MaineLake (not included above). 4 Estimated using the Maine Atlantic Salmon Commission (MASC) procedures; assumed habitat in tributaries only (not the mainstem), including (below Cumberland Mills) the Piscataqua River and Mill Brook, and (above Cumberland Mills), Little River, Colley-Wright Brook (for 75% scenario) plus Pleasant River, and Eel Weir Bypass for 90% scenario. Assumed10% loss at each dam during downstream migration (5% at Cumberland); 1% to 5% ofsmolts reaching the seareturn as adults. 5The Berger Group, Inc. estimated salmon restoration potential for FERC (see DEA, [FERC, 2001]) if the Saccarappa Dam, Mallison Falls Dam, and Little Falls Dam were removed and passage were provided at the Cumberland Mills dam (but not at the Gambo dam above Little Falls).This analysis did not estimate numbers of salmon for reaches of the river below Saccarappa Dam; assumed a return rate of 0.5% - 1.5%; assumed 1.76 miles of the mainstem would become suitable habitat, and 25% (10 miles) ofthe Little River, but not Colley-Wright Brook (which MASC considers habitat).