Bacl to the Past

MH: “That would require fossil fuel.”

“Wouldn’t that be better than disrupting a salmon stream?”

MH: “I don’t believe we’re destroying salmon habitat. One person said to run a mill like this with anything more than water power would be like a dead fish up on the wall, not seeing that fish swimming in the river and the joy and excitement of it.”

Not seeing fish swimming in the river will be an opportunity that authentic restoration of the mill’s historical function will provide, at least according to IF&W. An agency position paper recently released to the public and written by regional fisheries biologist Francis Brautigam reads, in part:

“Fish passage problems will likely develop soon after construction…. Proposed dam construction will inundate 1.1 miles of riverine habitat (under mean annual flow conditions), which currently provides important salmon spawning and nursery functions…. Higher water levels…will enhance species of fish (smallmouth bass, chain pickerel, brown bullheads, largemouth bass, northern pike, etc.) that are significant predators on and competitors with salmon and brook trout, particularly juvenile life stages…. The applicant proposes no mitigation for the loss of salmon spawning and nursery habitat that will be inundated by the dam…. The proposed location of the dam so low in the Crooked River drainage (65 percent of the river’s production is above Scribner’s) increases the opportunity for predation, particularly on downstream migrating smolts…. Proposed construction…raises considerable concerns regarding potential generation of silt and sedimentation… Depending on the time of year, this proposed diversion will remove between 5 percent (April) and 60 percent (August) of the mean monthly flow from a 600 foot section of the Crooked River, in an area that provides juvenile salmon habitat and serves as a migration pathway for migrating adult salmon…. The applicant proposes the use of a rock ramp fish passage structure, which is highly experimental for such a high value resource. The applicant has not demonstrated where such an experimental structure has worked effectively…. In this day and age, the proposed rebuilding of the Scribner’s Mill dam on a Class AA river that supports such a genetically, economically, and recreationally important fishery resource is very disconcerting.”

Not, respond the dam proponents, most of whom nurse a special dislike for Brautigam. “The facts are so easily distorted,” Roy Clark told me. “And that’s the problem we have with Mr. Brautigam. I want to give you a great example of some of the facts we know are not being read correctly.” I waited and waited, but he was unable to come up with even one.

“We feel Brautigam has been putting out some pretty rotten stuff,” declared John Hatch before quickly passing me off to his wife, the standard and more loquacious spokesperson. Marilyn said this: “Francis Brautigam has been against our project right from the get-go…. He says this dam is going to put Sebago Lake out of business. He reads what he wants to read. He has tried to circumvent this whole application process by having the Crooked River at Scribner’s Mill reclassified as AA to stop our project.”

The entire river—save existing impoundments such as the one at Bolster’s Mill and the area previously impounded at Scribner’s Mill—has been designated AA by DEP, Maine’s highest river classification and one that precludes new dams. The exemption for the Bolster’s Mill dam (which was breached in 1988) was at least understandable in that the communities of Harrison, Otisfield and Bolster’s Mill wanted a small impoundment for fire protection.

The exemption at Scribner’s Mill, on the other hand, reeks of politics. As Brautigam observes: “The justification responsible for waiving the Class AA designation and associated attainment criteria at the Scribner’s site is a bit bewildering, since dam reconstruction could adversely impact the very resources the Class AA designation was intended to protect.” What’s more, unless the legislature steps in, that exemption is grandfathered.

DEP could and probably should have reviewed the project under the state’s Natural Resources Protection Act, in which case environmental impacts would have received careful scrutiny. Instead, DEP chose to review it as part of its hydro-licensing program, which requires no detailed alternatives analysis and attempts to “balance” environmental impacts with public benefits.