Questions to ponder on Mayo Mill Dam

To the Editor;

After several public meetings and articles in local newspapers (including one full page obviously very biased toward dam removal), the Town of Dover-Foxcroft voted to keep the Mayo Mill Dam. This article contained five bullets that were not totally statements of fact.

Being as concise as possible, the first bullet reads, What is wrong with the dam? The article claims there are many safety, stability and federal compliance issues with structure, the powerhouse and the fishway.

According to FERC’s last safety report dated Aug. 3, 2023, “Hazard Potential: Low. Other dam features graded by FERC were as fair to satisfactory, except the powerhouse — that was classed as poor. And the fish ladder does need to be brought up to standards. Engineers from NOAA and Maine Fisheries biologists agree the fishway can be repaired to pass salmon.” 

Bullet two: What would happen to the river? This refers to dam removal. The article paints a beautiful image of a free-flowing natural stream cascading over rocks and ledge meandering through the town with Atlantic Salmon headed up to the spawning grounds their ancestors used hundreds of years ago while dodging fisherman, children swimming, stand-up paddle boards and canoes. I am doubtful new exposed stream banks and bottoms will allow that. The 30-acre impoundment will be gone. I suspect we might even see debris that originated in Guilford buried in the river bottom. A very large blue drum shaped container, estimated 5 feet in diameter, made it all the way down to be embedded in private property a short distance below the Browns Mill dam. Actual photos of very low water taken several years ago show a stream bed containing thousands of refrigerator-size rocks and other debris prohibiting many expected uses. 

Bullet three: What is the cost to keep the dam? It was agreed the dam committee would develop a plan to keep the dam at “least cost” to the taxpayer. However, what is now apparent is that the committee has developed a worst-case scenario with respect to cost.When this estimated cost was tossed to the audience it was described to be “scary.” To buffer this statement later the words “not to exceed” were injected. It should be noted that an independent contractor has given the committee some impressive lower fixed costs to work with FERC and design/build, thus reducing the uncertainty of the costs of financing, inflation, contingencies etc. 

Bullet four: What would it cost to remove the dam? The town purports the dam can be removed with no cost to taxpayers. The Atlantic Salmon Federation and the Nature Conservancy have given the town some assurances that they will find funding to cover everything. The ASF is a private non-profit organization, but my research does show that their primary funding comes from NOAA and other government agencies. NOAA is a government agency that gets most of its funding from the federal budget. Private donations of course are counted on too. However, with the current uncertainties going on with the feds, guarantees cannot honestly be made.

The ASF states this is a nonbinding proposal and clearly states it does support the project, but a proposal does not create any responsibility or obligation. My question is will the ASF be so anxious to throw millions of dollars for the removal of the dam and the grandiose riverside parks when it becomes known that there has been no fish count anyplace on the Piscataquis River to indicate that salmon reared in its headwaters have tried to come back.

Bullet five: How would removal impact flooding? It states, “Dam removal is the only option that drastically reduces flooding risk.” This statement is in direct contradiction to my water resources engineering classes in hydrology by Merritt, Loftin and Ricketts, authors of “The Standard Handbook for Civil Engineers” 4th ed. which elaborates on water storage, controlled release, flood peak deduction and reservoir management. Our reservoir impoundment represents 200 ac. ft. of water, approximately 30 acres.  I have heard the spill gates were never opened in the flood of 1987 and the flood of 2023.  

There is better cost data coming. Hopefully it will be readily available to the voters. But I‘m asking that the committees not be biased in their presentations and refrain from colorful adjectives like “scary”, “massive”, “life threatening”, etc. Let the reader determine the gravity of the subject matter.

Questions to ponder …

There are other dam removal projects currently in the works for other Maine rivers. Does every dam in Maine have to be removed? Does every square foot of Atlantic Salmon habitat have to be accessed? Is there any guarantee spending millions and millions of dollars removing our Mayo Mill Dam will have benefits approaching its total cost? Is there any hard data salmon will get past the Browns Mill dam? Are there any salmon fish counts showing Atlantic Salmon even get to Browns Mill dam?

Earl Robinson

Dover-Foxcroft