Licensee seeks West Branch and Sysladobsis Dam amendment

A Maine dam owner has applied to federal regulators seeking to exclude from its hydropower license one of two dam-based developments which comprise the project.

At issue is the January 31, 2017 application of Woodland Pulp LLC to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for an amendment to the license for the West Branch Storage Dam Project.  The West Branch project was first licensed in 1980, and currently operates under a license issued by the Commission in 2016.  It includes two developments -- Sysladobsis and West Grand -- each of which operates as a water storage facility to provide flood storage and flow releases for downstream hydroelectric generation. 

As described in the license amendment application, the Sysladobsis development includes Sysladobsis Dam.  This dam is about 250 feet long and 9 feet high, consisting of three earth embankment sections, a small timber gate structure, and a fish passage facility.  The dam impounds the 5,400-acre Sysladobsis Lake; water released from the dam flows Sysladobsis Lake into the downstream West Grand impoundment, then into either Grand Lake Stream or Grand Lake Brook.  The project does not include any electricity generating facilities, but rather operates as part of a 112-year-old system of headwater storage dams in the St. Croix River watershed including Woodland Pulp LLC’s Forest City Project No. 2660 which the licensee has applied and the recently relicensed Vanceboro Project No. 2492. Generation associated with these projects occurs at the Grand Falls and Woodland hydroelectric projects downstream on the St. Croix River.

The licensee has requested FERC approval to remove the Sysladobsis development from the West Branch Project as a legal matter, and proposes "to remove the two wooden gates at the Sysladobsis Dam," but says it "does not propose to remove the Sysladobsis Dam as part of the amendment, and such removal is not necessary or appropriate."  Rather, the applicant asserts, "There will be no structural alteration of the dam, and there will be no discharge into the water. Once the gates are removed, the dam will no longer act as a water control structure for Sysladobsis Lake. Instead, impoundment levels and outflow will be determined by the natural precipitation cycle."

According to the licensee's application, "This change is necessary since operation of the Project as-is will no longer be economic under the new license issued March 15, 2016."  The licensee cited license terms and conditions including specific water level requirements and operating plans, reporting, and consultation requirements, "some with unreasonable time constraints."  The application notes, "As such Woodland cannot continue to fund and support the Sysladobsis development and incur increased losses on non-economically viable facility components."

In a separate docket, the Commission is considering an application by the same licensee to surrender its Forest City project license.

Fate of U.S.-Canada dam license in question

The holder of the U.S. federal hydropower license for a dam spanning the international border with Canada border has petitioned for approval to surrender that license, citing economic considerations.

At issue is the Forest City Project, located on the East Branch of the St. Croix River which forms the international boundary between the United States and Canada.  The Project operates under conditions set by the International Joint Commission (IJC) in accordance with the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, as well as a license issued by the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  The project currently operates under a license issued on November 23, 2015.  That 30-year license expires on October 31, 2045.

Licensed by the Commission as Project No. 2660, the project includes the U.S. portions of a 540-foot-long, 12-foot-high earth dam, an impoundment spanning several lakes, and appurtenant facilities. There are no generating facilities located at the project; rather, the Forest City Project operates as part of a headwater storage system along with two other projects licensed to Woodland Pulp -- West Branch Project No. 2618 and Vanceboro Project No. 2492.  Two hydroelectric generation projects are located downstream on the St. Croix River from these storage facilities, the unlicensed Grand Falls and Woodland hydroelectric projects.

On December 23, 2016, Forest City Project licensee Woodland Pulp LLC applied to the Commission to surrender its license.  A cover letter attached to that application states, "Woodland Pulp has determined that the high cost of operating the Project pursuant to the new FERC license renders the Project uneconomical." In the surrender application itself, the company cited license provisions including new operating restrictions on reservoir pool elevation, a reservation of the Commission’s authority to require additional fishways if so prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, and a requirement to develop a Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP), as adding risk or cost.  As noted in the surrender application, "After a comprehensive review of the conditions in the License, the minimal contribution to downstream power generation, and the significant added cost and increased complexity of the License, coupled with the loss of flexibility required to comply with the License, Woodland Pulp has concluded that it is not economic for the company to continue to operate the project.

As described by the Commission in an April 6, 2017 public notice of the surrender application, the licensee proposes to remove the gates on the west side of the spillway.  According to the licensee, removing these gates will return water flow to natural flow conditions, and the Forest City Dam will no longer act as the water control structure for East Grand Lake, nor will it use, obstruct, or divert international boundary waters.

The Commission has docketed the surrender application as P-2660-028, and set deadlines for comments, protests, and interventions in the case.

New Jersey FERC license surrender and dam removal

U.S. energy regulators have accepted an application to surrender the licensee for a New Jersey hydropower project.  Earlier this month, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission accepted Great Bear Hydropower Inc.'s application to surrender its license for the Columbia Dam Project, located on the Paulins Kill.  While the Commission decision to accept license surrender does not necessarily mean the dam will be removed, it represents a significant step toward letting the dam owner pursue dam removal if it wishes.  The case also illustrates tensions between hydropower development and dam removal, which remain active in U.S. policy discussions, and the consequences of state jurisdiction following FERC license surrender.

On January 15, 1986, the Commission issued a 40-year license for the construction, operation, and maintenance of hydroelectric facilities at the existing Columbia Dam.  The project includes a 20-foot-high, 330-foot-long concrete dam, originally built by a utility in 1909.  The site was sold to the state in 1955, after which the original electric generation was discontinued.  Following the project's 1986 licensing by FERC, the licensee added a powerhouse containing two generating units with a total installed generating capacity of 530 kilowatts.

The dam remains owned by the state of New Jersey as part of the Columbia Wildlife Management Area, and the licensee has been operating the project under a long-term lease with the state. But significant efforts are under way to improve water quality in the Delaware River basin.  The Nature Conservancy has described a strategy for watershed restoration that features the Columbia Dam's removal as a key component.  After the state and The Nature Conservancy entered into an agreement to remove the dam, the licensee ultimately agreed to surrender its license and remove only its hydroelectric facilities originally added to the dam, leaving the state to perform any future dam removal.

Because the Columbia Dam Project is subject to Part 1 of the Federal Power Act, its license could not be surrendered without approval of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  The licensee applied for surrender in October 2015.  The Commission granted that approval on August 10, 2016.

The FERC license surrender does not necessarily mean that the dam itself will be removed, although it does provide for decommissioning of the hydropower equipment.  The Commission accepted the licensee's proposal to remove the generating equipment, transformers from the powerhouse, and disconnect the electric connection to the local utility.  The license surrender will not be effective until the Commission agrees that the project’s facilities have been decommissioned in accordance with this surrender order.

As for the dam, the Commission noted, "It will be up to the state of New Jersey, the dam owner, to decide whether to remove the Columbia Dam, once the hydroelectric facilities have been decommissioned.  Dam removal would have some ecological, social, and economic benefits for the Paulins Kill watershed."  Following the effectiveness of license surrender, safety matters would primarily be state jurisdictional, and any dam removal would proceed primarily under state law.

While hydropower continues to play a significant role in the overall U.S. energy mix, with new and ongoing federal initiatives to increase hydropower generation, in some cases economics and environmental considerations may lead to the surrender of some project licenses.  This may be particularly true for some relatively small dams with fish passage issues facing relicensing in coming years.

West Branch storage project relicensed

Earlier this month U.S. hydropower regulators issued a new license for the West Branch Project, which includes water storage facilities on the West Branch of the St. Croix River in Maine.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission first issued an original license for the West Branch Project on September 4, 1980.  The project includes two developments, Sysladobsis and West Grand, that operate as water storage facilities to provide flood storage and flow releases for downstream hydroelectric generation.  The Sysladobsis Development uses Sysladobsis Lake as its impoundment.  The license describes the West Grand Development as composed of several natural lakes including Scraggly Lake, Keg Lake, Bottle Lake, Junior Lake, Junior Bay, Norway Lake, Pug Lake, Pocumcus Lake, Horseshoe Lake, and West Grand Lake. 

Dikes and dams are used to control and release water, first from Sysladobsis Lake into the downstream West Grand impoundment, then into either Grand Lake Stream or Grand Lake Brook.  Many of the dams and dikes at these sites are old -- the Sysladobsis dam, West Grand dam, and Farm Cove dike were constructed in 1861, 1836, and 1879, respectively, although all three have since been rebuilt.

Each of these developments operates in a seasonal store-and-release mode whereby water is stored to reduce downstream flooding during periods of high flow and released during periods of low flow to augment generation at the downstream hydroelectric projects.

The West Branch Project also operates as part of the larger St. Croix River headwater storage system.  This network of dams includes Woodland Pulp LLC’s Forest City Project No. 2660 and the recently relicensed Vanceboro Project No. 2492. Generation associated with these projects occurs at the Grand Falls and Woodland hydroelectric projects downstream on the St. Croix River.

The West Branch Project's original 1980 license was amended in 1987 to include the existing Farm Cove dike, but the original license expired on September 30, 2000.  Since then, the licensee has operated the project under an annual license pending the disposition of a new license application.

On March 19, 2009, the licensee filed, pursuant to sections 4(e) and 15 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), an application for a new license to continue operating and maintaining the West Branch Project. The licensee proposed to continue store-and-release operation with some changes, continue operating fishways and take other measures to promote fish populations, enhance a land use plan, and develop a historic properties management plan.

Fishery issues have been contentious in the St. Croix River system.  After opportunity for public comment, agency consultation, and preparation of an Environmental Assessment, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife asked the Commission to delay its licensing decision until fishery management talks concluded.  After being notified by the Department that those talks had concluded, on March 15, 2016 the Commission issued Woodland Pulp a new license to continue operating and maintaining the West Branch Project. 

The new license requires a number of measures to protect and enhance water quality, aquatic habitat, fisheries resources, terrestrial resources, and recreation opportunities at the project. These include a requirement to operate the developments in store-and-release mode between defined pond elevations, to provide certain minimum flows of water, to develop an Operation Compliance Monitoring Plan, and to provide and enhance fish passage.

A list maintained by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shows over 1,000 active hydropower licenses.  Many of these licenses will expire in the near future, so relicensing activity for FERC-licensed hydroelectric projects is expected to increase. 

Vanceboro Dam Storage Project relicensed

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has issued a new license to Woodland Pulp LLC to continue operating and maintaining the Vanceboro Dam Storage Project.  Located on the East Branch of the St. Croix River along the Canadian border in Washington County, Maine, the FERC-licensed project operates as a water storage facility that provides flood storage and flow releases for downstream hydroelectric generation.

The 469-foot-long, 16-foot-high Vanceboro Dam and 178,000 acre-foot project impoundment span the U.S.-Canada border.  The project is subject to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 which established the International Joint Commission (IJC), a bi-national agency with the mission of preventing and resolving disputes between the United States and Canada over boundary waters.

The Vanceboro project is part of the larger St. Croix River headwater storage system.  This system also includes the Forest City Project, located about 24 miles upstream on the East Branch of the St. Croix, as well as the West Branch Project.  Water flows into the Vanceboro project’s impoundment from the Forest City Project. The project operates in a store-and-release mode whereby water is stored during periods of high flow to reduce downstream flooding, and then released during periods of lower flow to increase generation at the downstream hydroelectric projects.   Generation associated with these projects occurs at the unlicensed Grand Falls and Woodland hydroelectric projects located downstream on the St. Croix River.  Collectively, these storage projects provide flood storage and helps to regulate and augment flows, resulting in increased generation at Woodland Pulp’s downstream hydroelectric projects.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an original license for the United States portion of the Vanceboro project on April 4, 1966.  The project is docketed as No. 2492.  That original license expired February 29, 2016, so two years earlier the licensee filed an application to the Commission for a new license to continue operating and maintaining the project.  In the interim, Woodland Pulp operated the project under an annual license pending resolution of its FERC relicensing process. 

On March 22, 2016, the FERC released an order issuing a new license for the Vanceboro Project. The new license authorizes no new capacity, and requires what the Commission characterized as "a moderate amount of new environmental mitigation measures."  These include a mandatory prescription issued under section 18 of the Federal Power Act, relating to new upstream fish passage facilities for American eel, river herring, and landlocked Atlantic salmon.

Given the fact that the Vanceboro Project is operated in coordination with the recently-relicensed West Branch Project No. 2618 and Forest City Project No. 2660 which each received 30-year license terms within the past 5 months, the Commission similarly relicensed the Vanceboro project for a 30-year license term to allow coordination of all three projects during any future relicensing.

Based on the large number of FERC-licensed hydropower projects whose licenses will expire in the near future, regulators expect to see an uptick in relicensing activity for hydroelectric projects and dams.

FERC revokes hydro license over fish passage

What happens when the owner of a federally licensed hydroelectric project fails to build the fish passage facilities required by its license?  In the recent case of the East Juliette Hydroelectric Project in Georgia, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission revoked the project's license, ending the owner's right to operate its generating equipment.

The East Juliette Hydroelectric Project is (or was) based around the East Juliette Dam on the Ocmulgee River, a tributary to the Altamaha River.  Built in 1921, the dam is hundreds of miles inland from tidewater -- but nevertheless represents the first passage barrier that anadromous fish, including American shad, encounter on their migrations upstream from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ocmulgee River.  State and federal fisheries agencies have identified restoring access to historical spawning habitat for American shad as one of their highest priorities for the region.

Since 1995, the East Juliette Hydroelectric Project has been owned by Eastern Hydroelectric Corporation.  The project facilities include a 20-foot-high, 1,230-foot-long concrete gravity dam that creates a 78-acre reservoir with a storage capacity of 418 acre-feet, and two powerhouses with a total installed capacity of 687 kW.

In 2002, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission amended the project's license to authorize the construction of a new powerhouse and 1,200 kW generating unit.  As part of that amendment, the FERC added language to the project's license requiring the licensee to install new fish passage facilities at the East Juliette Dam.  Similar conditions were imposed by the Georgia Department of Natural Resources as part of its water quality certification for the amendment.

According to the recent FERC order, while the licensee proposed a plan to construct fish lift at the dam, it ultimately did not follow through with its plan.  At several points over the past 5 years, FERC staff licensee directed the licensee to comply or else face civil penalties, an order to cease operation of the project, or revocation of the license pursuant to section 31 of the Federal Power Act.

Under section 31(b) of the Federal Power Act, after notice and an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing, the FERC may issue an order revoking a license, where the licensee is found have knowingly violated a final order after having been given reasonable time to comply fully with that order.  In Eastern Hydro's case, FERC found that despite 12 years of intensive efforts by its own staff and other agencies, "these efforts have met with steady resistance from the licensee."

Ultimately, the FERC found that Eastern Hydro knowingly violated its compliance order and that it was given a reasonable time to comply with the order before FERC commenced the license revocation proceeding. As a result, FERC revoked Eastern Hydro’s license for the East Juliette Project.

While environmental conservation groups asked FERC to require the licensee to remove all project facilities that it owns, FERC declined to do so.  Instead, the FERC order requires that Eastern Hydro disable all of the project’s generating equipment to prevent operation of the project in violation of section 23(b)(1) of the Federal Power Act.  Following revocation of the license, the FERC's jurisdiction will end, and authority over the site will pass to the State of Georgia’s dam regulatory authorities.

The East Juliette case illustrates some of the most severe consequences of failure to comply with FERC hydropower licenses.  Without a license, the project cannot generate electricity, thus depriving the project of much of its value.

Penobscot River dam removal starts

Demolition of the Great Works dam on Maine's Penobscot River began this morning.  The dam removal marks the first major physical change to the Penobscot riverscape following the 2004 Lower Penobscot Basin Comprehensive Settlement Accord.  This landmark agreement led the Penobscot River Restoration Trust to acquire two dams on the river for $24 million - the Great Works and Veazie dams - and ultimately to the dams' removal.

The Great Works dam was originally built in the late 1800s to provide water and waterpower to a series of lumber and paper mills.  Over time, hydroelectric facilities were added to the dam.  By its end, the facility included a powerhouse containing 11 turbine-generator units totaling about 8 MW of installed capacity.

Although the dam included several fish passage facilities, environmentalists and fishery agencies considered the river's overall fish passage structures and accessible habitat inadequate.  After years of advocacy and negotiations, in 2004 seven conservation groups, the Penobscot Indian Nation, state and federal agencies and then-dam owner PPL agreed to a comprehensive settlement that would remove the Great Works and Veazie dams but allow six other dams that will remain on the Penobscot and its tributaries to produce more electricity.

After the Great Works dam removal is complete, the Veazie dam 7 miles downstream will be next to be removed, the Howland Dam on the upstream tributary Piscataquis River will be decommissioned and bypassed, and a fish lift will be installed at the Milford Dam.  Overall, the project is estimated to cost $62 million.

Fish passage for hydrokinetic projects?

Fishways are often found at dams to allow fish to pass upstream or downstream - but what does fish passage mean for dam-less hydrokinetic projects?

Hydrokinetic energy projects are an innovative way to produce electricity from moving water without building dams.  Companies are developing a variety of technologies, many of which use water flowing in a river, ocean or tidal current to spin turbine-generator sets.  Most grid-connected hydrokinetic projects are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under its authority over hydropower.  This authority comes largely from the Federal Power Act, which requires the Commission to include certain terms in the hydropower project licenses it issues and gives it discretion to impose other conditions.  For example, Section 18 of the Federal Power Act provides that the Commission shall require the construction, maintenance, and operation by a licensee of such fishways as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce.

Hydrokinetic technologies are still fairly new, so only a handful of projects have received FERC licenses so far.  Given that hydrokinetic projects do not include the construction of a new dam, one might not expect fish passage to be an issue, particularly at tidal or ocean sites.  Indeed, it appears that for at least some hydrokinetic projects, fish passage may not be an issue.  For example, when FERC issued a pilot project license to Verdant Power, LLC for its Roosevelt Island Tidal Energy Project in New York City's East River, the Commission did not include a reservation of the right to require a fishway in the license.

The Commission did include such a fishway reservation in the pilot license it granted to Ocean Renewable Power Company's Cobscook Bay Tidal project in Maine waters.  In that case, the Secretary of the Interior cited important and highly valued populations of resident and migratory fish, including endangered Atlantic salmon.  Although the Secretary did not prescribe a fishway at the time, Interior requested that the Commission reserve its authority to prescribe fishways under Section 18.  When FERC granted ORPC's license, it included an article reserving the authority to require the licensee to construct, operate, and maintain, or to provide for the construction, operation, and maintenance of such fishways as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior.

Although the project licensee later requested an exemption from this article because its project is not a dam and will not create any impoundment, the Commission declined to amend the license.  Explaining its reasoning, the Commission pointed to the policy it developed from its traditional hydropower licensing: if the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce so requests, the Commission will include an article reserving the Commission’s authority to require the construction and operation of fishways to preserve the requesting Secretary's future right to to prescribe fishways under Section 18.

What a possible fishway system for a tidal hydrokinetic project remains to be seen, as does whether FERC will impose such a requirement on any operating projects.  If the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce prescribes a fishway, FERC can assert its jurisdiction under Section 18 to require fishway installation.  Factors that could lead to such a decision may include the particular fish species and resources at each project's site, and a project's actual impacts on those fish.

Sunken history behind Penobscot dams

As two dams come out of Maine's Penobscot River, the conservation organization leading the dam removal effort has discovered what historians might view as sunken treasure: submerged mill dam structures from centuries past.  At the same time, these sunken dam remnants may continue to impede fish passage once the modern dams are removed, potentially frustrating the dam owner's intent in removing them.

The Penobscot River Restoration Trust is undertaking the removal of the Veazie and Great Works Dams on the Penobscot River.  Following a 2004 settlement agreement among previous dam owners, environmental and conservation groups, and governmental agencies, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved their removal, along with the installation of fish passage equipment at the upstream Howland dam on the Piscataquis River.

Dam removal is expected to help fish and other aquatic wildlife, but FERC required the Trust to develop a plan to mitigate any adverse impacts of dam removal on infrastructure and archaeologic resources.  For example, the Trust knew that the historic remnants of previous dams and lumber mills lay submerged in the impoundment behind the Veazie Dam.  The remnants are associated with a series of lumber mills successively known as the Penobscot Mill Dam Company Mills, the City Mills, the Corporation Mills, and the Veazie Lumber Company Mill, which consisted of two sets of saw mills connected along water-control structures that ran parallel to the Penobscot River, and which were constructed in the mid-nineteenth century. Moreover, the site was purchased in 1889 for use as one of Maine’s first
hydroelectric facilities.

The Trust, along with the state historical preservation office, entered into a memorandum of agreement requiring the Trust to document the Veazie remnant structures after the modern dam is removed.  Because the historic mill dam is expected to impair natural river flow after the modern dam is gone, the Trust also plans to remove the historic structure after it is documented.

As it turns out, the historic Veazie dam is not the only historic or archaeological resource submerged beneath the Penobscot River's waters. While finalizing plans for removal of the Great Works dam, the Trust discovered that a similar, inundated, remnant structures exist in the Great Works impoundment.  The structural remains within the impoundment of the Great Works Dam were constructed as two structures in the early 19th century to provide water for two early sawmill complexes on the Penobscot River at Great Works: for the mills of Rufus Dwinel on the west bank, and for the mills of the Great Works Milling and Manufacturing Company on the east bank. These original dams, on each side of the river, were built as wing dams that extended upriver and out from the river bank, and likely were built independently of each other. The two dams were then consolidated under a single ownership in the early 1880s by the Penobscot Chemical Fibre Company, who built an early mill for producing wood pulp for paper on the Penobscot River.

Both of these sites may be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places as historic archaeological sites.

As a result of the re-discovery of these additional historic remnants, the Trust sought and obtained FERC's approval to document and remove part of the historic Great Works structures.  The Trust anticipates removing the modern Great Works dam as early as this summer.

Adding hydro to Army Corps dams

As an energy resource, hydroelectricity has great potential, but siting and environmental concerns make building a new dam in the U.S. difficult.  A new trend of adding renewable electric generation to existing non-hydroelectric dams may help the U.S. grow its hydropower production without building new dams.

Last month the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued a license for a new hydroelectric project in Vermont, the Townshend Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 13368.  The project, first proposed in 2010 by Blue Heron Hydro, LLC, involves the installation of hydroelectric turbine-generator arrays at the existing Townshend Dam on the West River near the town of Townshend, VT.  The Townshend Dam project is particularly interesting in that it represents a new model: upgrading existing dams without hydroelectric generation to be able to produce renewable electricity.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers owns and maintains the rock-and-earth-fill Townshend Dam, a structure 133 feet high and 1,700 feet long.  The Townshend Dam is part of a system of 14 dams that are operated to provide flood protection for the numerous communities along the Connecticut River.  In addition to flood control, the Corps operates Townshend Dam and Lake for fish and wildlife enhancement and recreation.

Blue Heron Hydro proposes to install twelve turbines and 77-kW submersible generators at the dam site, for a total of 924 kW.  As proposed, the turbines would not change the dam's current run-of-river operation but would rather divert water that currently spills over the dam to flow through the turbines, producing power.  A seasonal downstream fish passage facility would also be installed, primarily for Atlantic salmon.

FERC has now issued an original license for the project.  The license contains a variety of conditions and requirements, but grants Blue Heron Hydro the right to construct, operate, and maintain the project.

The Army Corps manages a portfolio of 693 dams, many of which do not currently have hydroelectric or hydrokinetic generation facilities installed.  Developers are exploring the opportunity to produce hydropower at many of these Army Corps sites, as well as at the thousands of other unpowered but existing dams across the country.  Will the near future bring more interest in adding hydroelectric generation to existing Army Corps dams?

Royal River dam history

The town of Yarmouth, Maine is considering what to do with two dams on the Royal River.  The town owns the dams near Bridge Street and East Elm Street; these dams, or their predecessors, were built as early as the mid-1700s to provide mechanical hydropower to the industrial mills that played a large part in the local and regional economy.  Since 1674, settlers used the Royal River's waters to power mills; as early as 1759, a dam at East Elm Street was used to impound water to power an iron mill.  The debate over whether to repair or remove the dams is grounded in the history of human use of the Royal River's hydropower resources.

One of the best historical texts on Maine's hydropower potential and resources is The Water-Power of Maine, a compilation of reports by the commissioners of the Hydrographic Survey of 1867 and its secretary, Walter Wells.  The report broadly identifies 1,955 "water-powers" based on a survey asking municipalities about the resources within their boundaries.

For Yarmouth, the report provides the following description along with a note that the information was "digested from Selectment's Returns":

SIX POWERS.

They are called, - one, "Gooch's"; four, "Baker's"; one, the "Factory Fall".  All are situated on Royal's River; combined height, sixty-six feet in one mile.

Power estimated sufficient to grind seventy-five bushels of grain per hour each. Power is not all improved; mills work all the year; machinery not the best.

Stream connected with three small ponds. Range from lowest to highest water, eight feet. Effect of the improvement of the power upon the wealth of the town, excellent.

This snapshot gives us a good look at the water-power of Yarmouth in 1867. (Compare the elegant sign prepared by the Yarmouth Village Improvement Society in 2011, showing a map and images from industrial activities at four of the natural water-power sites in Yarmouth.) A twenty-first century visitor to Yarmouth might be surprised at the industrial history of the waterway, including a large pulp mill owned by the Forest Paper Company, textile mills, and other manufacturing concerns that employed the people of Yarmouth over the years.

140 years later, the Royal River's waters do not grind much grain, but at least two of the dams remain in the river. In 1984, the Sparhawk Mill near to the Bridge Street dam installed hydroelectric generation, although it is reportedly worse for the wear and produces little to no useful power. (Perhaps "machinery not the best" could have been said about the present-day site as well as it was in 1867.)

Dam removal advocates have labeled the dams "relics of an industrial age". Environmental advocates suggest that Yarmouth remove the dams, given the cost of maintaining them, their impacts to fish in the river, and the fact that they are not fully being used to produce renewable power.  Yet Yarmouth has a strong culture of interest in both sustainable energy (e.g. Yarmouth Energy Savers Committee) and historical preservation (e.g. Yarmouth Historical Society); the town's consultants found that the dams could generate some renewable electricity, and could be eligible for inclusion in national historic preservation districts.  Given the history and present risks and opportunities, will the people of Yarmouth choose to remove the Royal River dams?

July 14, 2011 - Maine tidal power navigates the regulatory process

Can tidal power produce electricity for a Maine island?

Sunset over skiffs tied up at Five Islands in Georgetown, Maine.

Developer TideWorks LLC apparently thinks so.  In January 2010, Tideworks filed an application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for a 5 kilowatt project to be sited in the Sasanoa River, off the east side of the island town of Georgetown near Bath.  This small project was proposed to provide power to a single-family dwelling on 15-acre Bareneck Island.  Tideworks initially applied to FERC for an exemption from licensing.  In its application, Tideworks described the project as including a single vertical shaft turbine-style generator housed on a 10' x 20' steel pontoon float held parallel to the east side of Bareneck Island using 40' steel struts.  The Bareneck Island house is currently tied to the mainland grid by a 7,200 volt submarine cable, stepped down to 220 volts by a transformer on the island.  While Tideworks proposed to keep this underwater cable connection "unless or until the applicant feels the proposed turbine unit will sustain the power needs of the dwelling", its application noted that the power generated by the turbine will be utilized to power the existing residence.

Beyond the technical challenges of building the project, this Maine tidal project must now navigate the regulatory process. Throughout 2010, agencies like NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Department of Commerce filed cautious comments with federal regulator FERC.  After requesting more information from the developer, FERC accepted Tideworks' exemption application for processing and solicited comments.  By September, FERC deemed the application ready for environmental analysis.

As agencies reviewed the project, the U.S. Department of the Interior and Maine Department of Marine Resources used their authority under Section 30(c) of the Federal Power Act to require Tideworks to screen the turbine to prevent fish from being killed.  Specifically, the agencies requested a screen with openings of 1 inch or less, and an approach velocity of two feet per second or less at the screen to allow fish to swim away from the intake.  These measures are used to protect fishery resources at conventional riverine hydropower projects, and the agencies urged the use of this standard given the unknown effects of the proposed hydrokinetic turbine unit on fishery resources.  However, this slow approach velocity was below the minimum operating velocity of the turbine, significantly challenging the project's design.   As Tideworks later described the standoff in a filing to FERC,  "the  project will not be able to generate/operate as a result of these two agency 30(c) conditions (screening/approach velocity)".

Additionally, the developer was encouraged to choose a different regulatory path.  Rather than FERC's traditional licensing process, the project appeared to qualify for a more streamlined licensing process for hydrokinetic pilot projects. By March 2011, Tideworks filed an amendment to its application, dropping the request for an exemption from licensing and instead seeking a hydrokinetic pilot license.  FERC noted that the same environmental protections, including the problematic screening, would likely apply to a hydrokinetic pilot license as well, and asked the developer to work with key agencies to identify any other project restrictions.

Last week, FERC again asked the developer for more information.  In a letter, FERC reminded Tideworks of the commission's hydrokinetic pilot project licensing procedures, including the need to file specific documents including a draft license application and notice of intent.

The hydrokinetic project licensing process is new enough that it is hard to call any one project "typical", but the Tideworks project on the Sasanoa River in Maine illustrates the process of developing an island tidal power resource.

June 7, 2011 - Washington dam removal in process

While state and federal governments pursue policies supporting the development of new renewable energy resources, existing hydroelectric dams are being removed.  Last year, I noted the plan to remove the Elwha and Glines Canyon Dams on the Elwha River on Washington's Olympic Peninsula.  That plan is moving forward; last week, after 99 years of producing renewable power, the dams' electricity-generating turbines have now been turned off.

The Elwha River restoration project will be the largest dam removal in U.S. history.  All told, the dam removal project is projected to cost $324.7 million.

The Elwha project is made more interesting by its factual context, including land conservation, fish impacts, and sedimentation.  Much of the river's 45-mile course runs through Olympic National Park, making power generation a use some feel is incongruous with the watershed's protected status.

The Elwha River was formerly home to impressive runs of anadromous fish, including salmon, which have been an important part of local native Americans' culture.  In 1910, the river produced approximately 390,000 wild salmon and sea-run trout, but that number dropped more than 99% to only about 3,000 wild native salmonids in 2005.  The dams are believed to have played a part in this decimation of that fish stock.

Thanks to the glacier-fed nature of the watershed, massive amounts of sediment have built up behind the dams -- perhaps as much as 24 million cubic yards, or enough sediment to cover almost 15,000 acres one foot deep.

Dam demolition and removal itself is scheduled to begin September 17, 2011. 

February 28, 2011 - dam removal costs and values

Dam removal can bring environmental benefits, but comes with costs.  These costs can include not only the expense of physically breaching the dam and removing its remains, but also costs associated with sampling and remediating contaminated sediments trapped behind the dam.  Here's a quick look at two case studies, providing updates on stories I've noted before.

Last November, I looked at what's trapped behind dams on South Carolina's Twelve Mile Creek near Clemson.  Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other chemical contaminants from electronics manufacturing operations have become trapped in sediments behind several dams slated for removal.  Removal of the dams is expected to allow cleaner sediments to flow down into Lake Hartwell where they are hoped to be able to cap the PCB-contaminated lake bottom.  Work on a sediment storage area is now ongoing along Twelve Mile Creek, funded through the $9 million settlement in the enforcement lawsuit against the manufacturer.

Just over a year ago, I noted that a settlement agreement would lead to the removal of four hydro-electric dams on the Klamath River in California and Oregon.  There, utility PacifiCorp has agreed to undertake the dam removal, which is projected to commence in 2020.  Overall, the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement and Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement contemplate a dam removal cost of $450 million, with another $1 billion in environmental restoration activities.  How will dam removal be paid for?  At least part of the funds (albeit a relatively small share) will likely come from PacifiCorp's ratepayers.  A California administrative law judge has recommended that the California Public Utilities Commission approve a nine-year 2 percent rate increase to raise $13.8 million for dam removal.   Where the rest of the money will come from, as well as whether U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar decides to support dam removal, remains to be seen.

November 2, 2010 - Veazie dam removal

Yesterday, I looked at the Great Works Dam on the Penobscot River, and the plans to remove it.  Today, let's consider the history and fate of its sister the Veazie Dam - another dam linked by the Penobscot River Restoration Project to ultimate removal.

Photo: fall foliage near the mouth of the Kennebec River, Maine.


The Veazie Project is the lowermost project on the entire Penobscot River system.  It consists of a 902-foot-long, 25-foot-high, concrete gravity dam with inflatable rubber flashboards, a reservoir with a surface area of about 390 acres and a storage capacity of 4,800 acrefeet at a surface elevation of 34.8 feet mean-sea-level (msl), and two powerhouses on the Veazie (west) side of the river (Plant A with an installed capacity of 5.4 MW and Plant B with an installed capacity of 3 MW). A forebay located on the right side of the river feeds both powerhouses. The tailrace of Plant A is located under the concrete floor of the forebay and Plant B releases water into the river downstream of the dam. The project also includes two fish ladders: an abandoned fishway on the left bank of the river, and an operable ladder between the spillway and forebay.

As part of the comprehensive basin-wide settlement agreement between environmental advocacy organizations, state and federal agencies, and the dam owners on the Penobscot River system, the Veazie Dam is slated for removal. The Penobscot River Restoration Trust has won approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to initiate the demolition of the Veazie dam by drawing down the impoundment through the project’s gates and by deflating the flashboards.  Next, access roads would be constructed on the east bank of the Penobscot, both upstream and downstream of the dam to facilitate the demolition of the abandoned fish ladder and the east half of the spillway. Once these easterly roads are removed, the remaining portion of the spillway, powerhouse B, the operational fish ladder, the forebay, and tailrace would be removed by a west bank access road.

As the impoundments behind newly constructed dams fill with water, they often cover rivers' previous history.  Approximately 1,900 feet upstream of the Veazie Project are the submerged remnants of the historic Veazie Lumber Company Mill dam.  Because this structure is expected to significantly impair natural river flow once the Veazie dam is removed, this historic remnant is also slated for removal once the Veazie Dam is gone.

All this arises through the Lower Penobscot River Basin Comprehensive Settlement Accord.  As FERC describes it, the Settlement Accord will open a large amount of habitat to anadromous fish in the Penobscot Basin by removing the Veazie and Great Works dams and constructing a bypass around the Howland dam while retaining up to 90% of the then existing hydroelectric generating capacity within the Penobscot River area.

November 1, 2010 - Great Works dam removal?

Brilliant fall colors in the Basin, Phippsburg, Maine.

Continuing my look at dams targeted for removal: today, the Great Works dam on the Penobscot River in Maine.  This is an interesting tale of mills, dams, changes in ownership, and changes in use.  Like the Briggsville Dam in Clarksburg, Massachusetts, the Great Works dam was built to support a mill -- but like the Boston Felt dam, the Great Works dam produced renewable power.

The Great Works Hydroelectric Project (FERC project no. 2312) is located adjacent to the Old Town mill (which has changed hands over the years, and is now owned by Old Town Fuel and Fiber).  Originally built in the late 1800s, the Great Works project's FERC license was issued in 1963, with an original expiration date of March 31, 2002.

In its most recent incarnation, Great Works consisted of a powerhouse containing 11 turbine-generator units totaling about 8 MW of installed capacity; a non-overflow section with two operating fishways and three gated outlet pipes (one 6 foot square, two 9 foot diameter); and a spillway equipped with flashboards extending from the non-overflow section across the river to the east river bank in the Town of Bradley. The total length of the Project is approximately 1,353 feet. The dam forms a 128-acre impoundment at a normal impoundment elevation of 81.73 feet. The tailrace is separated from the main river by an earthen dike and the powerhouse discharges to the tailrace. The presence of the earthen dike creates a bypass reach of approximately 1,200 feet in length, and approximately 1,000 feet of which is a backwater. The project also includes two operating Denil-type fish ladders, one located in the tailrace, the other at the west end of the spillway. An older abandoned fish ladder is located near the center of the spillway.

In March 1997, James River Paper Company owned both the mill and the dam.  James River filed a notice of intent to file an application for a new license.  Shortly thereafter, the dam changed hands to PPL Great Works, LLC.  In 2003, Commission staff suspended the processing of the project's relicense application to allow negotiation of a multi-project, "basin-wide settlement agreement" - a comprehensive agreement covering water flows and dams throughout the Penobscot River watershed.

That agreement - the Lower Penobscot Basin Comprehensive Settlement Accord - ensued on June 25, 2004.  Seven conservation groups, hydroelectric company PPL Corp., the Penobscot Indian Nation and state and federal agencies, agreed to the removal of both the Great Works and Milford dams as well as the removal of flashboards and the installation of a fish bypass at the Howland Dam. 


Pursuant to the settlement agreement, on November 7, 2008, PPL Great Works and the Penobscot River Restoration Trust (Trust) filed an application to transfer the license to the Trust, and the Trust filed an application to surrender the license for the Great Works Project and remove the project’s dam.

On June 16, 2010, FERC issued its order approving the surrender of the project license (29 page PDF of the order).  In its order, FERC described the process to be used in removing the Great Works dam:

The Great Works Project impoundment would be drawn down through the opening of gates and removal of the flashboards. Then, an upstream access road would be constructed from the east bank along the entire length of the spillway. Another road would be constructed downstream out to mid-channel to allow removal of the abandoned fish ladder. The spillway would be removed in sections from west to east with concurrent removal of the access road. Following this, another road would be constructed from the west bank across the upstream side of the powerhouse. From this road, the remaining portion of the spillway immediately adjacent to the powerhouse would be removed along with the two operational fish ladders. The forebay area would be filled and graded and the access road removed. The project’s powerhouse is proposed to remain because it houses equipment for an adjacent pulp mill.

Removal of the Great Works dam may occur in 2012, bringing a close (or at least a new chapter) to this tale of a mill and its dam.  In this case, the greater Lower Penobscot Basin Comprehensive Settlement Accord and the actions of the Penobscot River Restoration Trust played a major role.  In a coming edition, I'll look at the policy considerations that went into that settlement agreement, including the promises of both improved sea-run fish passage and continued hydroelectric generation elsewhere on the Penobscot River.

October 29, 2010 - removing the Briggsville Dam

Photo: down by the West Point dock, Phippsburg.

In Clarksburg, Massachusetts, the Briggsville Dam on the North Branch of the Hoosic River is slated for removal next week.  Preliminary site work has already begun.  At 15 feet in height and 200 feet in length, the Briggsville Dam once provided cooling water to the adjacent Strong-Hewatt Mill.

Here is an interesting article on the pros and cons of removing the Briggsville dam. It's a story whose general contours will resonate with a lot of people in historic mill towns. We have a dam built in the early to mid-1900s to support a manufacturing facility. The factory changes hands several times, until a new mill owner finds it also owns the aging dam. For safety reasons (and in many places, to facilitate fish passage), the dam needs expensive upgrades -- or faces removal.

This is the story of many small dams and hydroelectric facilities across the country.  In Clarksburg, the mill was the Strong-Hewatt woolen mill.  The current owner is Cascade School Supplies Co.,who was apparently surprised to find that the building it acquired came with an aging dam.  Although fish passage will be improved by the removal of the Briggsville Dam, the primary driver of its removal are the safety issues caused by its poor condition.  Dam safety is an important issue, and without the proper capital investments in maintenance and repairs, maintaining an older dam can become an expensive liability.  (For example, see what's going on in Canton, Maine, with the Whitney Brook dam and Lake Anasagunticook.  Or what happened when the Colcord Pond dam failed this past spring.)

In this case, the Briggsville Dam appears to have been used to provide cooling water to the mill, not to generate electricity, so any policy reasons to leave it in are more clearly outweighed by the safety issues. Moreover, it will help the mill property owner avoid the costs of repairing the dam, letting Cascade stay in business at that location.

Certainly an interesting issue.  If you're near Clarksburg, swing by and take a last look at the Briggsville Dam.

August 31, 2010 - dam removal; biodiesel

Seen on the road: this soda distribution truck is "powered by BIODIESEL".

I'm following the dam removal projects on the Elwha River on the Olympics Peninsula in Washington.  One component of the $351 million river restoration project is the removal of two dams for about $40 million to $60 million: Elwha Dam (108' tall) and Glines Canyon Dam (210' tall).  Glines Canyon Dam is located within the boundaries of Olympic National Park.  This will be the nation's largest dam removal project to date.

Here's the National Park Service's website about the Elwha River Restoration project.


Dam removal is a hot topic.  Arguments in favor of dam removal typically include safety, fish passage, and water quality problems caused by some dams.  On the other side, arguments for keeping dams in place include mandates to generate local renewable power and flood control.

July 22, 2010 - Senate energy bill uncertain; FERC moves forward with smart grid standards; Maine dam removal

The U.S. Senate's summer session is almost over, and we don't have an energy bill yet. With just 13 business days left before a month-long recess, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is reported to be considering an energy bill that doesn't address emissions from electric utilities. (Utility issues may be split off into a separate bill to be introduced this week -- though time is short and consensus is lacking.) Critics of this proposal worry that the utility issues are the most important, and thus should not be glossed over. Still, passing something could help improve energy markets, and could certainly show Congressional confidence in, for example, renewable energy (or, for that matter, in coal).

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission recently received a staff update on the process of selecting smart grid standards (PDF). Laws including the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 have given FERC the duty of developing and adopting interoperability standards and protocols necessary to ensure smart-grid functionality and interoperability with the nation's electric grids.

In plain language, FERC wants to ensure that your utility's infrastructure can have two-way communication both upstream (with the regional grid) and downstream (with your home/business/appliances). Ultimately smart grid adoption may overturn even this "upstream/downstream" paradigm, as end-use consumers take on more characteristics of distributed generation or demand response.

To that end, FERC's staff has been working with the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop proposed standards. FERC anticipates a proceeding to review the standards later this summer.

Do you want to play in the smart grid market? Have a technology that you want to make sure is interoperable with what the other players are developing? Now is your chance to weigh in. Keep an eye on FERC Docket No. AD10-15-000...




The Maine Department of Environmental Protection has approved the final round of state permits required for a major Penobscot River dam removal project. A coalition led by the Penobscot River Restoration Trust will now implement the $50 million project. Three dams will be removed -- Howland, Veazie, and Great Works -- restoring access for sea-run fish to almost 1,000 river miles. All FERC and state approvals have been secured; the next step is finalizing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits, which are expected to be issued later this summer. Interestingly, fish passage at Howland was not universally supported, due to concerns that invasive northern pike could swim upstream and destroy Maine's blue-ribbon brook trout and salmon fisheries upstream.

July 19, 2010 - life on a Maine island

I've just returned from a visit to one of Maine's offshore islands. Life on a small island can seem fundamentally different: the pace of life is driven by the tides and boat schedules, and fog can often replace the mainland's heat. It was a good place to think about energy policy, and history, and where we can go from here.

More updates to follow regularly.

Brief news recap:

Friends of Merrymeeting Bay (FOMB) have provided 60-day notice of intent to sue the owners of four Maine dams under the Clean Water Act over issues relating to Atlantic salmon. FOMB have a history of legal activism over fish (including eel) passage at dams in Maine, particularly in the Merrymeeting Bay watershed. If you've read my earlier posts about kayaking in Merrymeeting Bay, you might know that Merrymeeting Bay is where the Androscoggin River flows into the Kennebec. FOMB has identified four dams in its threat: the Lockwood Dam in Waterville, "Hydro Kennebec" in Winslow, Shawmut Dam in Fairfield and Weston Dam in Skowhegan.