`P.O. Box 233, Richmond, ME 04357 www.fomb.org
`
`Comments on Kennebec Dam DEIS
`
`
`6/4/24
`
`VIA E-FILING
`
`Debbie-Ann A. Reese, Acting Secretary
`Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
`888 First Street, N.E., Room 1A
`Washington, DC 20426
`
`Re: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR AMENDMENT OF
`LICENSES TO INCORPORATE AN INTERIM SPECIES PROTECTION PLAN FOR
`THE SHAWMUT PROJECT AND A FINAL SPECIES PROTECTION PLAN FOR THE
`WESTON, LOCKWOOD, AND HYDRO KENNEBEC PROJECTS; AND THE
`RELICENSING OF THE SHAWMUT PROJECT:
`
`SHAWMUT, WESTON, LOCKWOOD, AND HYDRO KENNEBEC HYDROELECTRIC
`PROJECTS
`FERC Nos. 2322-069, -071; 2325-100; 2574-092; and 2611-091
`
`Dear Acting Secretary Reese,
`
`Friends of Merrymeeting Bay (FOMB) submit the following Comment in the titled proceeding.
`
`Comments:
`On January 31, 2011, Friends of Merrymeeting Bay (FOMB) and Environment Maine filed
`lawsuits in US District Court (Maine) against owners of all dams on the lower Kennebec and
`Androscoggin Rivers for violating take provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and in
`some cases for violating the Clean Water Act given non-compliance with their Water Quality
`Certifications (WQC) for salmon and shad passage. At the time NextEra owned Weston,
`Shawmut and with Merimil, Lockwood while Brookfield owned HydroKennebec.
`
`At the time, dam removal was not on the table for Shawmut given its term of licensure so our
`claims (Appendices 3 and 4) and expert opinions (Appendices 5, 6 [Bailey and Hutchings-
`biological impacts of dams on the GOM DPS] and 7 [Chang-economic impacts of hydropower
`and seasonal closures for passage]) focused on improvements that could be made with the dams
`in place.
`
`Thirteen years later, fish passage conditions remain much the same despite a certain amount of
`studies. Any artificial fish passage requires a good deal of human intervention and management,
`hence dam removal is always the better option to maximize river restoration and one FOMB
`
`

`

`recommends particularly since alternative and cleaner forms of power, particularly solar, are now
`more readily available.
`
`As FERC is well aware, subject Kennebec River dams harass, harm, and kill –and thus “take” –
`Atlantic salmon in a number of ways. Among these are the following:
`
`a. The dams’ turbines kill and injure out-migrating salmon (and other diadromous species) when
`the salmon and others attempt to pass through them. (See Shawmut eel photos Appendix 1)
`
`b. The dams severely limit upstream passage of salmon and other diadromous species,
`preventing access to significant amounts of spawning and rearing habitat.
`
`c. Facilities meant to allow the salmon and other diadromous species to pass around or through
`the dams cause delays in passage, resulting in incremental losses of salmon smolts, pre-spawn
`adults, and adults.
`
`d. The dams are barriers to the migration of other fish species whose presence is optimally
`necessary for the salmon to complete their life cycle.
`
`e. Turbine mortality of out-migrating eels at dams releases large amounts of organochlorines and
`other contaminants that would otherwise be carried out of our rivers. (See Appendix 2-Chart
`showing PCB levels in silver eels out-migrating through Benton Falls dam on the Sebasticook
`River)
`
`f. The dams adversely alter predator-prey assemblages, such as the ability of the salmon to detect
`and avoid predators.
`
`g. The dams create slow-moving impoundments in formerly free-flowing reaches. These altered
`habitats are less suitable for spawning and rearing of salmon and contribute to the dams’
`significant impairment of essential behavior patterns of the salmon. In addition, these conditions
`may favor non-native competitors at the expense of the native salmon.
`
`h. The dams result in adverse hydrological changes, adverse changes to stream and river beds,
`interruption of natural sediment and debris transport, and changes in water temperature, all of
`which contribute to the dams’ significant impairment of essential behavior pattern for salmon
`and other diadromous species.
`
`In their decision to include the Kennebec and Androscoggin River populations of Atlantic
`salmon on the Endangered Species List, the Services (NMFS and USFWS) found dams on those
`rivers play a major role in imperiling the salmon. The Services stated: “The National Research
`Council stated in 2004 that the greatest impediment to self-sustaining Atlantic salmon
`populations in Maine is obstructed fish passage and degraded habitat caused by dams … Dams
`are known to typically kill or injure between 10 and 30 percent of all fish entrained at turbines
`[cite omitted]. With rivers containing multiple hydropower dams, these cumulative losses could
`compromise entire year classes of Atlantic salmon … Thus, cumulative losses at passage
`facilities can be significant … Dams remain a direct and significant threat to Atlantic salmon.”
`74 Fed. Reg. at 29362.
`
`

`

`
`Similarly, the Services stated: “Dams are among the leading causes of both historical declines
`and contemporary low abundance of the GOM DPS of Atlantic salmon [cite omitted].” The
`Services also stated that the “effects [of dams] have led to a situation where salmon abundance
`and distribution has been greatly reduced, and thus the species is more vulnerable to extinction
`… Therefore, dams represent a significant threat to the survival and recovery of the GOM DPS.”
`74 Fed. Reg. at 29366-29367.
`
`In the DEIS Summary section at 416 the Commission states: “Overall, while dam removal would
`result in greater improvement of upstream and downstream passage survival for Atlantic
`salmon, alosines, American eel, and sea lamprey than relicensing the project, the upstream and
`downstream fish passage measures included in the Staff Alternative with mandatory conditions
`would nevertheless sufficiently enhance fish passage over existing conditions without the need to
`remove the dam.”
`
`And yet, the Commission DEIS recommends neither dam removal or the Staff Alternative with
`Mandatory Conditions, instead opting for a straightforward Staff Alternative. The implication
`
`from these contradictory conclusions and recommendations is that FERC is not only rejecting
`Shawmut dam removal as recommended by various conservation groups, MDMR and NMFS but
`is also opting for less than sufficient improvements in fish passage by recommending the Staff
`Alternative rather than the Staff Alternative with Mandatory Conditions which would in theory
`“sufficiently enhance fish passage over existing conditions…” Could the existing conditions bar
`be set any lower?
`
`Sincerely,
`
`
`
`
`Ed Friedman, Chair
`207-666-3372
`
`Enclosure:
`
`Founded in 1975, Friends of Merrymeeting Bay (FOMB) utilizes research, education, advocacy, and land
`conservation to preserve, protect, and improve the unique ecosystems of Merrymeeting Bay. Diadromous
`fish restoration in the Bay and Gulf of Maine is an important focus of the group.
`
`