1

The effects of dams on migratory fish: A North Country Case Study

Alida Gerritsen and Benjamin Young, St Lawrence University Department of Biology, Canton, New York, May 2, 2008

Erika Barthelmess - Conservation Biology Spring 2008

Problem Definition

Humans have constructed dams for a variety of reasons: water storage, flood

prevention, electricity generation, irrigation, navigation, and recreation (Francisco 2004).

Dams have long been thought of as a “green” source of energy because of the way they

produce power from water without the use of fossil fuels. However, there is a huge

downside to dams that many people fail to consider, and that is the negative impacts these

dams can have on local ecosystems. In this case study, we are focusing on the impacts

dams have on local fish populations, mainly migratory fish within St. Lawrence County.

In order to get a good perspective of this problem, we have had to look at the problem in

several different ways: from the views of the power company owners, the local

governments, the hydropower customers, the concerned citizens, and especially the fish,

which tend to be overlooked because they are not human.

Anadromous fish are fish that spawn in fresh water and then leave for the sea,

most likely for the greater amounts of resources, which allow them to reach large sizes

impossible in fresh water (Lewis 1991). These fish will then return from the ocean at

sexual maturity to spawn in the streams in which they themselves were spawned; it is a

long journey, and many die along the way. The fish must swim upstream for miles before

they reach their destination. Once the fish enter the freshwater system, however, new

2

dams that have been put in place may block their access to the spawning grounds and the

fish will not reproduce if they cannot get there. The dams may even interfere with the

fishes navigation systems by blocking many olfactory clues, which many biologists

believe may be one of the factors responsible for the incredible homing system the fish

have (Baxter 1977). Young fish migrating towards the sea may be passed harmlessly

through water releases on the dams, or they may be pulverized in hydroelectric turbines,

as the well-documented case of the American Eel, Anguilla rostrata (Baxter 1977). Some

species may also be exposed to additional predators that they would not normally

encounter in a fast-moving river, and may be in danger of predation especially if they are

young and vulnerable (Francisco 2004).

Potomodromous Fish

Other migratory fish, such as the Lake Sturgeon, Acipenser fulvescens, do not

migrate out to sea but swim upstream for many miles to reach their original spawning

grounds, and run into the same problems with the dams blocking their access (GLLSWS

2008). These fish are potamodromous, meaning they migrate within the river system

(Rodriguez 2006). Movement between habitats is important for the life cycles of these

fish, for larger individuals may not be able to survive in small streams (Neraas and

Spruell 2000). In New York State, the Lake Sturgeon is listed as threatened (NYS DEC

2008). Loss of access to spawning grounds may be fatal for these threatened species.

Because of the staggered male and female reproductive cycles where females spawn once

every 4 to 9 years and males spawn every 2 to 7 years, only 10-20% of the sexually

mature adult population is sexually active and will spawn during any given season (Great

3

Lakes Sturgeon 2008). The DEC is currently running a restoration program for the Lake

Sturgeon using fish hatcheries to stock the rivers in the areas around the St. Lawrence

River, including locations downstream of Massena. There are currently populations of

these fish that appear to be maintaining themselves in the St. Lawrence River, the

Niagara River and the Grasse River, which the DEC uses as target populations to draw

from and add to (NYS DEC website 2008).

Catadromous fish

Other fish migrations can be affected by the dams. Catadromous fish such as the

American Eel, Anguilla rostrata, which spawn in salt water and migrate to freshwater,

are also affected by dams blocking their migratory routes. There is one population that

spawns together in the Sargasso Sea and then disperses throughout the Atlantic coast and

migrate up the rivers where they will mature before heading back out to sea to spawn

(NYFO website 2007). This means that any dams the eels encounter will be in their

juvenile stage. The US Fish and Wildlife Service recently completed a status review of

the American Eel to determine if the species should be placed on the threatened or

endangered species list (NYFO website 2007). The results were inconclusive, but the US

Fish and Wildlife Service is concerned about the apparent declines in populations and

seeks to remedy that: it has been shown that there has been a major decline in the number

of eels migrating upriver from over a million in 1980 to only a few thousand per year in

recent years (NYFO website 2007). Because of the large range of these fish and large

diversity of habitats the US Fish and Wildlife Service was unable to list the species as

either threatened or endangered, but has moved to create eel ladders on known eel

4

migration routes in the Lake Ontatio/ St. Lawrence River Basin: currently there are 15 eel

ladders that have been installed or being designed for placement on dams on the Oswego

and Racquette Rivers (NYFO website 2007).

Dams Interfering with fish migration

Many fish swim large distances up and downstream in search of food, habitat, and

mates, and the presence of dams could interfere with those processes. Another problem

caused by dams is genetic isolation: fish can no longer move freely though different

habitats and may become genetically isolated from other fish populations throughout the

river (Rosenberg et al 2000, Neraas and Spruell 2000). Some migratory fish do not eat

anything during their journeys, and could waste precious energy searching for their

upstream habitat, leaving them without any energy left for reproduction (Lewis 1991,

Baxter 1977). If the fish decide to breed in the location where they cannot go any further

upstream, there are concerns that these breeding fish could introduce genes into the local

population that are not suitable for that habitat because they came from much further

away (Neraas and Spruell 2000). Constructing fish ladders may seem like a viable

solution to the problem, but many studies have shown that, at best, fish ladders are only

partially successful (Baxter 1977, Neraas and Spruell 2000). The American eel does not

have a particularly strong swimming mode against currents, and must navigate ladders at

a small size because of their catadromous lifestyle, where juveniles migrate upriver from

the sea to find fresh water (Schilt 2007). Some biologists are concerned that the presence

of so many dams could favor the selection of fish that can successfully navigate fish

ladders rather than fish that have the endurance to swim upstream for long distances, and

5

juvenile fish must now be able to survive passing though dams on their way downstream

or be able to withstand the physiological effects of being transported around the dam

(Waples 2008).

North Country: Racquette River

The Racquette River is a northward flowing river that empties into the St.

Lawrence River after passing through most of St. Lawrence County. Currently,

Brookfield Power New York owns 27 hydropower dams along the river, and many more

along other rivers in the state. These dams provide physical barriers to fish on their

migration routes, and the other negative effects of the dams will be discussed further on

in the paper. We would like to investigate Brookfield Power and their dams, and how

these dams affect the two threatened species we are focused upon: the Lake Sturgeon and

the American Eel.

North Country: The Grasse River and the Proposed Massena dam

The Grasse River is a northward flowing river that empties into the St. Lawrence

River after flowing through St. Lawrence Country. Recently, there has been a large

amount of interest raised about the new hydropower dam Massena Electric Department is

proposing to build within the next decade on the Grasse. Historically, the river has had

many different power structures and mills built on it, but many have not survived and one

of the last remaining structures breached in 1997 at Massena; there is currently only one

other operational dam on the river (NYFO website 2007). The new dam would be

constructed to replace the breached dam, and would be the first blockage within 30 miles

6

of accessible habitat (NYFO website 2007). The dam is expected to take at least two

years to build and the budget has been set initially at $20 million. The dam is predicted to

meet about 5% of its customers’ needs with the power it generates, and reduce the

company’s dependence on fossil fuels and the unstable free market (MED website 2008).

The project was only recently approved by the DEC, which had previously fought

the company over issues such as erosion of the shoreline, effects on American eel

migration and lake sturgeon spawning, PCB-laden sediments downstream from the dam,

the effects of ice jams on the sediments, and the effects of the 55-acre lake that will be

created by the dam (Watertown Daily Times 12/26/07). Another main bone of contention

having to do with lake sturgeon migration is the fact that sturgeon passage facilities (fish

ladders, fish lifts, fishways, etc.) are still experimental, and even if Massena Electric

agrees to construct these passage facilities there is no guarantee they will be successful

(NYFO website 2007). The DEC also maintains that the dam would destroy one of the

last remaining riffle areas on the Grasse River, which are areas vital for fish spawning

and especially for Lake Sturgeon, which will only spawn in such habitat (NYFO website

2007).

Massena Electric proposed a plan to study the environmental impact of the dam,

which was initially approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) but

became the source of contention between MED and the DEC until recently. One of the

DEC’s remaining concerns is the ability to study PCB contamination in the fish, which is

notoriously difficult to do (WTD 12/26/07). Alcoa, an aluminum manufacturer who also

owns a factory on the river, has been involved in PCB cleanup since it was discovered in

2003 that ice was disturbing the chemicals in the sediment and simple containment would

7

no longer be sufficient (WTD 8/16/2005). After the old dam breached in 1997, ice floes

began disturbing the sediment cap Alcoa had placed at the bottom of the river; the

previous dam had held the ice upriver longer, allowing it to melt before it reached the cap.

Alcoa sees the new dam as an opportunity to help with the PCB cleanup and supports

Massena Electric’s movements to construct the dam (NYFO website 2007,

Wikipedia.org).

Alcoa has agreed to pay for half of all studies needed, and it is estimated that

additional studies will cost $300,000 on top of the $500,000 Massena Electric has already

spent (WTD 12/26/07). The rest of the impact probe is expected to take about two years,

at the end of which the company will re-assess the dam project and try to resolve any

issues. The USFWS has recommended that a full-scale impact probe be undertaken, a

process that normally takes between 4 and 5 years, but Massena Electric is compressing

the schedule to fit more with the Alcoa remediation schedule (NYFO website 2007).

While the impact probe will not be finished by the end of this study, it is still insightful to

be able to watch the interaction between different perspectives on the topic. Our main

focus is to explore some of the problems that could be posed for the Lake Sturgeon and

the American Eel if the Massena dam is built, and what Massena could do about these

problems.

Human Impacts

Humans have been using hydropower for hundreds of years, from simple

medieval mills to the advanced concrete structures seen today. Water is impounded at

periods of high flows to be released during periods of lower flows, and can also be

8

permanently held to create artificial lakes for recreational use (Baxter 1977). Only

recently, however, have the environmental impacts of dams become of more interest,

probably because of the push for “green” sources of energy to reduce our dependence on

foreign fossil fuels. Many developing countries are turning to hydropower as an efficient

energy source, and many industrialized nations such as Switzerland have dammed up to

80% of their free-flowing rivers (Truffer et al 2001). But are dams really “green”? There

are many different perspectives on the issue based on the situation, but one must keep in

mind that what may seem good from one point of view may have hidden environmental

costs that negate any positive effects.

“Ecolabeling”

It is in the best interest of power companies that own dams to push for them as

“green” power and environmentally friendly. It is a renewable source of energy with very

low greenhouse gas emissions, instantaneously available stored energy, high efficiency,

and makes the company appear socially responsible (Truffer et al 2001). Power

companies are exploiting the fact that consumers will pay more for what they value as

important, and if consumers do not know the full-scale negative impacts of the dams they

are easily convinced that buying hydro-power is environmentally conscious. Truffer et al

(2001) point out that consumers will also need an independent third party to tell them

which products are environmentally friendly, which they define as “ecolabeling.” In the

case of upstate New York dams, that is where the Low Impact Hydropower Institute

(LIHI) “Low Impact” certification comes in. Brascan Power, also known as Brookfield

Power New York, is one of the major power suppliers of upstate New York as well as the

9

owner of most of the dams on the Racquette River in St. Lawrence County, and has

certified 16 dams as “Low Impact” since 2004 according to LIHI criteria.

In order to be “Low Impact,” the dams must meet certain certification criteria in

eight areas: river flows, water quality, fish passage and protection, watershed protection,

threatened and endangered species protection, cultural resource protection, recreation,

and cannot have any facilities recommended for removal. LIHI does not certify any dams

that use a pumped-storage system, which use fossil fuels to pump water from a lower

reservoir to an upper reservoir. Pumped-storage dams will pump water upstream when

electricity is cheap, and then use the turbines in the dam to generate power when

electricity becomes more expensive (Schilt 2007).

The LIHI is a non-profit organization designed to help consumers make informed

decisions about their energy supplier; in the words of the website, “Just as an organic

label can help consumers choose the foods and farming practices they want to support,

the LIHI certification program can help energy consumers choose the energy and

hydropower practices they want to support” (LIHI website 2008). The Institute also

makes an important distinction between hydropower and “green” energy, and the fact that

many consumers are misled into thinking that smaller dams are better for then

environment than large. Small dams can still easily block fish migration, but being

classified as “small-hydro” under government standards (capacity under 30 megawatts)

allows the dams to pass themselves off as “green” (LIHI website 2008). The certification

process is entirely voluntary, but some dams will not be able to meet the criteria (the

cutoff date for construction of the dam is 1998, so any dams built after that time will not

be able to certify) and some dams will choose not to certify. In this case, the certification

10

process is not mandatory for all dams built after 1998 and it will only be useful for those

companies looking to cultivate a “clean” image.

Negative effects of dams on local ecology

However, a “clean” image may just be an image. The negative ecosystem impacts

of dams have been well studied and documented, and limiting fish migrations is only one

part of the greater problem. Building a dam is basically a process of building a large

barrier to impede the flow of water, creating a large reservoir behind the dam and limiting

the amount of flow to the downstream areas. Essentially, this is changing the ecosystem

entirely, for what used to be a rapid-flowing stream or river turns into a sedentary lake. If

the dam is large enough, it may have effects on the climate in its vicinity; the presence of

a large standing body of water may lower air temperatures in the spring and raise them in

the fall, as well as contribute to changes in the local precipitation patterns (Baxter 1977).

The formation of the upstream reservoir (an artificial lake) is different than that of natural

lakes because of the way it is shaped. The reservoirs tend to be deepest just upstream of

the dam, where natural lakes tend to be deepest towards the middle; as a consequence,

surface currents passing down the reservoir will not dissipate naturally, but could also

deflect off the dam (Baxter 1977). When initially flooding the reservoir, large numbers of

mammals can be trapped by the rising water and drown; the same goes for water bird

who build their nests in the region as the rising water destroys their nests and drowns

their young (Baxter 1977). Other consequences of creating a large standing body of water

include increasing the breeding grounds for several disease vectors, such as the

11

freshwater snails that are part of the life cycle of the parasite that causes Scistosomiasis,

and mosquitoes, which transmit malaria in lesser-developed countries (Baxter 1977).

Sedimentation is one of the rallying cries of dam opponents. Any sediment carried

by the stream entering the reservoir will be dropped at the entrance as the faster moving

water encounters standing water. This material is not necessarily permanent, as the water

levels and flow rates will change depending on the power draw, and could change the

capacity of the river channel, leading to a possibility of flooding if the sediment rates are

high and the waters are high (Baxter 1977). Sediment in the water also affects turbidity,

especially when it is first entering a reservoir. If water enters a reservoir carrying high

amounts of sediment, it will prevent the incoming water from mixing with the standing

water and can create an overflow or underflow; if the sediment is carried over the water

for a long distance, deposits along the way will depend on how much debris is carried

and how fast the water flows (Baxter 1977).

Creating an artificial lake also may affect the chemistry of the water. In the case

of the proposed Massena Electric Dam, the DEC is concerned about PCBs located

upstream of the dam location. Flooding this upstream area could leach the chemicals

from the soil, exposing the system to toxic accumulation. Bioaccumulation may occur as

lower level producers absorb the toxins, and may build up in the upper trophic levels,

causing fatal amounts in upper level consumers. This could potentially cause harm to

humans who fish in the rivers and eat the fish, therefore ingesting all sorts of toxic

chemicals. With the formation of a new lake over a previously unflooded region, all of

the submerged vegetation will decompose, possibly creating anoxic conditions (Baxter

1977). Lowering the flow rate of the river also decreases the oxygenation of the river,

12

furthering the anoxic conditions. Plankton can multiply faster than before, especially

when the submerged plants first start to decompose and release nutrients into the water

(Baxter 1977); however, the rapid proliferation of plankton will quickly use up available

oxygen and may result in eutrophication as the algae multiply rapidly because of the

excess of available nutrients, and then quickly deplete the supply. Non-migratory fish and

other consumers take full advantage of this sudden increase and it is often found that fish

catches within a reservoir are relatively high compared to previous catches on the

undammed river (Baxter 1977). However, these are non-migratory fish that adapt to life

in lakes, and not the migratory fish we are focusing on.

The creation of a reservoir may create problems for organisms adapted to life in

natural lakes. For example, the organisms that live between the areas of highest and

lowest waterlines typically have long periods of exposure followed by short bursts of

flooding during the rains, and have subsequently adapted their life cycles to this water

cycle. In a dam reservoir, however, the situation is almost completely reversed, where the

release of water resulting in a lower waterline is very sporadic and most of the time the

waterline will be at its highest point (Baxter 1977). If the fluxes are on too short of a

cycle, many organisms will be unable to survive in such conditions and the region will

become barren. The eggs of organisms that spawn in shallow water (fish, aquatic insects)

may be exposed when the water levels drop suddenly and may die as a result (Baxter

1977). In “peaking” dams, the water level responds to energy demand so the water level

may fluctuate daily (Schilt 2007).

After dealing with the upstream effects of the reservoirs and dams, it is important

to remember that the downstream regions can be adversely affected as well. Many of the

13

effects the dams have on the lakes above them will be the opposite in the river below

them; for example, there will be a decrease in the variation of the water level below the

dam (Baxter 1977). When sediment is deposited in the reservoir the water coming

through the dam may pick up more sediment and cause erosion as it passes through the

stream. This lowers the channel bed and affects the flow rate of water passing though

(Pizzuto 2002). Because of the variation of the water release in hydroelectric dams for

power generation during the year, the sudden release of large outflows of water followed

by long dry spells may disrupt the functions of the resident benthic organisms (Baxter

1977). Another danger for the organisms in the stream below is the possibility of gas-

bubble disease, which is an occurrence similar to the bends in divers. When water is

forced through a turbine it can become supersaturated with air, and when the fish ingests

such water the gas may come out of solution as bubbles and lodge somewhere in the

fish’s body, causing serious injury or death (Baxter 1977). The lack of seasonal floods in

certain parts of the world limits the amount of nutrients bought to the floodplains; in the

Nile Valley, agriculture now requires artificial fertilizers to replace what the seasonal

floods had brought naturally to the area (Baxter 1977).

Governmental Issues For a dam to be even begin construction years of legal proceedings must first

occur. If the dam is not on federal land and is not a hydroelectric dam then those

proposing to build, repair, or modify a dam are required to get a Protection of Waters

Permit from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).

A permit is not required if the dam is less than six feet high and impounds less than one

14

million gallons of water or if the maximum height of the dam is between six and fifteen

feet high and impounds less than three million gallons of waters (www.dec.ny.gov/)

If the dam is a hydroelectric dam such as the one being built in Massena by

Massena Electric then the owner must go through the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC). Regarding hydroelectric dams, FERC regulates the interstate

transmission electricity, licenses and inspects hydroelectric projects whether they are

private, municipal, or state owned. The licensing process begins with the applicant filing

a Pre-Application Document (PAD). On August 12, 2005 the Town of Massena Electric

Department (MED) sent their pre-application document to FERC which included the

proposed location of the dam, dimensions, energy capacity, and a description of

preliminary studies done on the various impacts the dam will have on the surrounding

area. FERC accepted MED’s pre-application document and on November 8, 2005 sent a

letter to Massena Electric notifying them of certain agencies they were required to send

the PAD to. This list included the Department of Interior, Office of Environmental

Affairs; the Great Lakes and Ohio Division of the US Army Corps of Engineers, FERC’s

Regional New York Office, and the Director of the Eastern State Office of the Bureau of

Land Management.

After FERC accepts a PAD, any agency, party, or individual can make a motion

to intervene with the proceedings of the project and therefore become a party to the

proceedings. This means that they are made privy to reports made by the applicant every

six months and also can make demands of the applicants on what studies should be made

regarding the impact of the dam being built. FERC essentially acts as a mediator

between these agencies and the applicant (in this case Massena Electric) while upholding

15

regulations regarding transmission of electricity. Three entities motioned to intervene

with Massena Electric’s Project; the NYSDEC (12/13/2005), St. Regis Mohawk Tribe

(SRMT, 1/5/2006), the Department of the Interior (1/6/2006). The United States

Department of the Interior through the fish and wildlife branch were concerned with the

potential effects the dam might have on American Eel, Lake Sturgeon, loss of riffle

habitat in the lower Grasse River which may be key spawning area for American Eel and

Lake Sturgeon, possible contaminants in the fill used, and the loss of important roosting

and foraging habitat for the Bald Eagle (1/4/2006). The SRMT was concerned that the

project would inflict and affect traditional hunting and fishing grounds (Figure 9). They

also required the project to comply with Mohawk Water Quality Standards (1/5/2006).

The NYSDEC was simply concerned with being an intervening party to the proceedings

because their “resources, expertise and familiarity with the locale of the proposed project

and related resources will be of considerable assistance to the Commission,” (NYSDEC

letter to FERC, 12/8/2005).

Under a Preliminary Permit, any entity proposing to build a hydroelectric dam has

a maximum of three years to investigate and produce data that satisfies all involved

parties and essentially develops evidence for a true application that proves the project is

feasible. All stakeholders involved collaborate to come up with a study plan that

addresses all issues that stakeholders are concerned with. MED is currently executing

this study plan in order to satisfy all stakeholders. MED’s study plan includes studies on

lake sturgeon movement and spawning, the structure of the fish community, terrestrial

resources, water quality, benthics, mussels, cultural resources, recreation and project area

access, aesthetics, fish passage, floodplain and ice management, stormwater management,

16

and cost of power (FERC docket 5/10/2007). From this long list it is obvious that

building a lot goes into building a dam and various possible impacts of the dam are

studied before FERC even gives out a license.

Usually the applicant is required to execute the study plan over two seasons

before they are allowed to propose a preliminary license proposal. However, in the case

of MED, they already conducted studies in the years 2006 and 2007, two years before the

study plan was finalized. Because of this MED is motioning to be required only one

study season. The NYSDEC objects to this because they feel that MED’s studies prior to

this year were unsatisfactory. So this is the current dispute that is holding back MED’s

dam.

Once MED fulfills a study plan that is satisfactory to all stakeholders involved

they begin the license application process. This process is just as tedious as the

preliminary license process. The licensing process involves an environmental analysis,

further modifications to terms are made stakeholders, and once everybody is happy with

the final environmental analysis, FERC issues the applicant a license. All together the

process takes about five years. MED is about three years into the process. So there is

still plenty of time for further modifications to be made to the dam in order to

accommodate the surrounding environment.

Stakeholders There are many stakeholders involved in this issue of dams. First, there are those

who own the dam, the property the dam is on, or the company that generates electricity

with the dam. Then there are those people whom use the river that the dam is on for

17

recreational purposes. These stakeholders include fishermen, hunters, boaters, etc. In

addition, people who have riverfront property are important stakeholders to consider.

When the old dam in Massena was breached the water level lowered drastically. People

with docks on the river were incredibly upset because their docks were rendered useless

due to the lower water level. Also, people who used the river for kayaking, canoeing or

any other boating activity were also upset. Massena Electric’s new dam is expected to

create a 55 acre lake. This has the potential to be devastating in causing people to move

from their homes or potentially good if local homeowners wants to use the lake for

recreational purposes.

Fishermen also can go either way when it comes to their views regarding dams.

The lake Massena Electric’s new dam will create will be perfect for popular game fish

such as Bass, Pike, or Muskie. However, dams can be extremely detrimental to cold

water fish. Tim Damon is a local fly fisherman who makes fly rods at a local store in

Potsdam, NY. In an interview with Tim Damon, he explained that dams had a far greater

impact on cold-water river ecosystem than warm-water ecosystems. He explained that

this was due to thermal pollution and sedimentation. Dams decrease the drainage flow of

a river and thus increase the amount of stagnant water which in turn increases the

temperature of the water. This has a greater effect on cold-water rivers because there is a

greater increase in temperature than with a warm-water river. Also, Tim Damon

explained that sediment builds up at the bottom of the dam and is released all at once

causing the section of river downstream to be covered with sediment. Damon said that

this release of sedimentation kills almost everything downstream including aquatic

invertebrates and vegetation, both of which are essential for a river ecosystem.

18

Sedimentation is not a big with warm water rivers because the ecosystem is already

adapted to heavy sedimentation and therefore the impact is not as drastic.

Damon explained that dam owners can implement sediment maintenance

programs in order to deal with the build up of sedimentation and in fact dumping the built

up sediment at once is in fact illegal. However, most dam owners do not regard this law

because it is cheaper to pay the fines for dumping then actually implementing a sediment

maintenance program. Apparently, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

is responsible for enforcing these fines and according to Damon is very lenient with

enforcement of the law. In his experience, people have had to force FERC to punish

power companies for not complying with regulations (the validity of this claim has yet to

be researched). Regarding Massena Electric’s dam in the process of being built, Damon

has no personal problem with it because the dam is being built in a warm-water system

and does not affect the fish that he personally enjoys to fish for, particularly trout. What

Damon does have a problem with is when power companies try to sell hydroelectric

power as “green power”. This trend started with Niagara Mohawk selling its costumers

“green power” at a higher premium because it was generated by renewable resources. In

Damon’s opinion, hydroelectric dams have done more environmental damage than

nuclear power plants. He would much rather see wind farms being built than

hydroelectric dams. He believes that because people have always lived around dams and

therefore do not consider them to be detrimental. People simply need to change their

perception of what is acceptable.

The local community is nearly unanimous in its support of the project. Of all 36

comments sent by various individuals from Massena and local businesses to FERC in

19

regard to the proceedings of MED’s project 34 of the 36 are in full support of the project.

Those in support of the project feel that the building of the dam will be beneficial to the

community in a number of ways. Almost all of those in favor of building feel that the

return of the reservoir will be aesthetically pleasing and provide recreational use that has

been lost since the breach of the previous dam. One letter to FERC from a Michael

Walsh said that “one of the reasons we selected our location on the Grasse River was to

be able to use our boat,” (FERC docket P-12607, 3/27/2007). Michael Walsh owns

Walsh Trucking Services so without the reservoir Massena would never have gotten

Walsh’s companies business. Some of the letters are nostalgic for the way it used to be in

Massena when the town was much more prosperous and there was a pond right in town

that could be used by anybody. It seems that bringing back the pond would simply

remind people of better days in Massena and maybe make the community a bit happier

place to live.

Besides the nostalgia for a pond in town, a lot of the people who wrote in believe

that building a hydroelectric dam would boost the local economy of Massena. They

believe that building a dam could help the local economy in several ways. Cheeta

Lazore-Dietlein believes that waterfront property along the newly created reservoir could

improve the tax base in Massena (FERC docket P-12607, 4/3/2008). A local realtor,

Michael Kassian, explains that property along the river has been dropping in value and a

new reservoir would certainly make the land more valuable (FERC docket P-1206,

3/272007). Others, such as Deborah Long, hope to draw boaters down from the St.

Lawrence River and perhaps from surrounding which could possibly generate local

revenue by boaters spending money in town (FERC 4/9/2007).

20

Some of the supporters mention how the new dam will provide them with cheap,

“green” energy through the use of a renewable resource. Larry Ralston cites the new dam

as a non-polluting, renewable form of energy with low costs compared to that of fossil

fuels (FERC docket #P-12607, 4/6/2008). This is what MED has been telling the local

community from the beginning of local project and most of them believe it.

The sporting clubs and fishing community in general is in full support of the

project. The president of the Massena Rod and Gun club, John Hurd, sent a letter to

FERC stating that since the old dam was breached there “fishing and many recreational

activities have been greatly diminished,” (FERC docket #P-12607, 4/3/2007). Over 900

members of the Massena Rod and Gun club are in support of the project. This is because

they believe that the reservoir created by the dam will stabilize fish populations. They

most likely mean populations of sport fish such as bass, walleye, and northern pike that

were once prominent in the reservoir. Certainly populations of these fish have declined

because they prefer slow moving water that the dam offered but it should be determined

if lake sturgeon and American eel populations have increased or decreased since the old

dam collapsed.

Some of the people that support the project feel the proceedings of the dam should

be moved along and that as little time as possible should be wasted studying the possible

effects the dam will have on the fish community. John P. Dumas wrote, “there was a

dam on this river since the eighteen hundreds and it did not seem to affect fish migration

or wet lands along the river,” (FERC docket #P-12607, 4/4/2007). Of all 34 individuals

and businesses that sent in letters to FERC in support of MED’s dam only two mentioned

anything about the new dam having a fish ladder and none of the letters mentioned

21

anything about how the dam could impede fish migration. Of the two that mentioned fish

ladders both were concerned with how the fish ladder would affect fishing rather than

fish migration.

The two individuals that did not support the MED’s project, Jay Wilkins

(4/12/2007) and Jessica Jock (4/9/2007), had similar reasons for not doing so. They both

felt that MED and the public was attempting to rush the licensing process by rushing

through ecological studies in order to reap the industrial and human benefits possibly

offered by the dam. Indeed Michael Kassian explicitly urged FERC to “hasten the

development of the proposed project,” as did many others (FERC docket #P-12607).

Wilkins believes that all parties involved should support the final plan if the project is to

be successful. Jock encourages FERC to examine the project as a cost benefit analysis.

So instead of approving the project because of what positives may occur in Massena,

such as increase in local revenue through increased tourism, FERC should concentrate

solely on the benefit of the amount energy that will be produced by the new dam. This

type of analysis is what should be done by FERC and hopefully the commission is not

affected by those who wish the dam be built for reasons that may or may not come to

pass.

MED offers a “creation of long-term, renewable, green energy supplies for the

customers of MED and the region serviced by NYISO,” (FERC docket #P-12607 Jessica

Jock 4/9/2007). Jock brings up a good point that the “green energy” will be offset the

increased traffic of combustible engines on the reservoir that will be created by the dam.

The creation of the reservoir will no doubt increase jet ski, motor boat, and snowmobile

use in the town of Massena perhaps creating more carbon emissions than saved by the

22

what little renewable energy is produced by the dam. This will also decrease water

quality. Jock questions if the new dam will be truly “green”.

Regarding the effect of the new dam on fish passage both Jock and Wilkins argue

that the new dam is far different than the old dam which allowed for easy fish passage

when water levels we’re high. Some of those who wrote into FERC that were supporters

of the new dam argued that fish managed to survive with the old dam so what difference

could a new dam do? Thus, features different from the old dam that will be on the new

dam must be taken into consideration when examining its effect on fish passage.

Regarding Lake Sturgeon specifically, Wilkins states that the Grasse River is the only

known water way that the Lake Sturgeon reproduce in naturally which is not entirely true.

However, he does make a valid point that the effect the new dam will have on Lake

Sturgeon spawning habitat should be investigated and is in fact part of the study plan

being executed by MED.

Another important stakeholder in this issue is the NYSDEC. They have a stake in

the project because it is there job to conserve, improve, and protect New York’s natural

resources and environment. In a conversation with an employee of the NYSDEC region

6 named Rodger Klindt, Rodger immediately identified that the primary impact the new

dam will have on the environment has to do with fish passage. Their greatest concern is

that the dam will create genetic bottlenecking of species especially lake sturgeon because

they have difficult using normal fish ladders. Rodger said that there has been significant

genetic work done with lake sturgeon proving that they move up and down the river.

This however contradicts what Massena Electric’s consultant in lake sturgeon studies,

Jim Teitt, told me which was that genetic work done with lake sturgeon suggested that

23

there were two distinct populations of lake sturgeon, one below the old dam and one

above the old dam. This could mean that there are two distinct populations but there is

evidence of some genetic drift between the two species or that the two studies came to

different conclusions. Nonetheless, both came to the conclusion that there is a large and

healthy population of lake sturgeon in the Grasse River.

If there truly are two distinct populations of lake sturgeon in relation to the dam

than this proves that the populations were successful despite the presence of the old or

they simply chose not to migrate past the dam causing two populations to develop. This

is relieving in that the populations were able to sustain themselves without migrating past

the dam but is concerning because if the population is small then genetic variation may

decrease over time which could reduce the population’s evolutionary fitness. If sturgeon

above and below the dam are genetically similar then genetic bottlenecking is a concern.

If there is suddenly a dam built causing the population to be divided in half then genetic

variation may decrease significantly. All of these concerns are dependent on if the lake

sturgeon is large enough to support itself despite being cut in half. If this is true then the

dam limiting fish migration may not be a big concern as some may believe. Despite this,

if the dam eliminates important spawning habitat then it is still a concern regarding the

reproductive success of lake sturgeon. Either way further studies must be done on the

genetic composition of the current lake sturgeon population.

Another important stakeholder in this project is the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe

(SRMT) who uses the area where the dam is going to be built as traditional hunting and

fishing grounds. The SRMT wishes that the dam not damage their traditional hunting

and fishing grounds and that the dam not affect the water quality of the Grasse River.

24

The final stakeholder is the Army Corp of Engineers whose concern is that the

dam will have an effect of navigable waters. They require that MED get a permit from a

Department of the Army (DA) to ensure that the project is accordance with the Rivers

and Harbors Act and the Clean Water Act (FERC docket #P-12607, 10/24/2007).

Developing Solutions

In order to create a solution to the problem of the dams blocking fish migrations

up and down rivers, the solution must fulfill the following requirements:

1. The solution must provide an acceptable route for the fish to reach their historical

spawning/breeding grounds

2. It must not displace any people from their homes or force relocation

3. There must be evidence that the fish populations are reaching their spawning

grounds from follow-up studies (genetics testing)

4. It must not remove a power source from people who already draw power from the

dam, or must replace the power source with another viable alternative

5. It must not significantly affect recreation on the waterway

6. It must not create any other negative environmental effects (such as increased

outflow of toxins or disrupting native species) as a byproduct

It will be difficult to come up with a solution that fulfills all of these requirements, for

there are many competing interests. Our job is to come up with a solution that fulfills as

many of the requirements as fully as possible, and as always with any good compromise,

there are few solutions that succeed in satisfying all of the parties involved. In our case

study, there are two main areas of focus: the existing dams on the Racquette River, and

25

the proposed hydropower dam in Massena. Each solution will focus on one location, for

the solutions for the pre-existing dams are different than the solutions for the proposed

dam, which is still theoretical.

Proposed Solution 1: Removing dams that are in known migratory routes, and developing

alternative energy sources. This will mainly be implemented on the Racquette River,

where there are 27 hydropower dams owned and operated by Brookfield Power.

This solution is based on the idea that removing the obstruction would

automatically give fish access to their spawning grounds and relieve the other negative

ecological pressures on the river. On the positive side, studies have shown that removing

dams does indeed increase the amount of fish in the upstream areas, and once again

releases water to form a faster flowing body than before (Babbit 2002). However,

depending on how long the dam has been in place, removing a dam could have just as

many unforeseen consequences as building a dam. Years and years of accumulated

sediment built up behind the dam would immediately be released to downstream areas,

possibly causing some initial erosion as well as distributing any pollutants that may be in

the sediment (Francisco 2004). In some cases, removal of dams led to the release of tons

of PCBs, and some dam removal projects have been abandoned because of the high

amounts of contaminants contained by the dam (Francisco 2004). In terms of our

parameters for a satisfactory solution, releasing toxic chemicals into the river ecosystem

does not fulfill requirements of keeping environmental stability.

Rapid changes to the river morphology will affect the resident organisms,

especially if the water is contained in an upstream reservoir. The organisms in a lake are

26

very different from the organisms in a river. Because of the complexity of water systems,

it is impossible to predict what would happen if a dam were suddenly removed (Babbit

2002). Therefore, if a dam were to be removed, it would be the responsibility of the

ecologists and dam owners to make an informed, educated decision about whether or not

to remove the dam, especially if no pre-dam studies on the local ecosystem were

conducted (Babbit 2002). Dam removal is too new of a process to know exactly how fish

populations are affected, and it could be that local fish are too adapted to the environment

with the dam to adapt to a sudden change in lifestyle without it (Babbit 2004). There is

seldom only one dam on a river; any positive effects of a dam being removed will most

likely be negated by the presence of another dam a few miles upstream. In order to make

this solution the most effective, all the dams along a stretch of a river must be removed.

The issues of money and responsibility are very important when dealing with dam

removal. If the dam has become decrepit and breaches by itself, there is a good chance

that people were not using it as for a power source. Occasionally, removing the dam may

be cheaper than leaving it there and repairing it; in which case, it would benefit the

taxpayers (Babbit 2002). However, in the case of removing to satisfy dam opponents, the

cost will fall onto the dam owners, and therefore the paying customers. If the dam is

government owned and operated, the cost of dam removal and impact surveys will be

absorbed by the taxpayers (Babbit 2002). Establishing alterative sources of energy to

replace what was produced by the dam may be difficult, especially because dams are

already seen as “green” energy. The challenge lies in educating people about the negative

effects dams can have, and convincing them to develop other sources of energy that are

not petroleum-based or teaching them to reduce overall energy dependency.

27

Removing dams entirely does not fulfill our parameters for a solution in the

following ways: breaching a dam could cause a release of accumulated toxins such as

mercury or PCBs that would cause severe damage to the ecosystem; there is a chance that

local fish populations will not respond well to the dam removal and may decline

regardless; there is a strong chance of opposition by local customers to switch to

alternative sources of energy, especially because many of them still see dams as “green”

power. Brookfield Power has already gone through the certification process to make 16

of its dams “Low Impact,” and there is a very low probability they will concede to

removing the dams after they have gone through the certification process. Even if the

company acknowledges the fact that its dams may be causing ecological harm, it is

unlikely they will consider removing the dam unless there is a huge outcry from the local

citizens. Most citizens will see the “Low Impact” label and decide that the dams are not

doing too much harm, and therefore should remain in place. We do not believe that the

local citizens will be convinced that the dams are harmful, and therefore removing the

dams would just cost them money and do nothing else for them. Because of the failures

of this solution to satisfy the parameters, we must reject it as a possibility.

Proposed Solution 2: Remove dams from selected migration routes and build new ones in

alternative locations to replace the power source, or introduce alternative energies to help

people move away from hydropower.

This solution expands upon the previously proposed solution, but also adds the

option of building new dams to replace the breached ones as well as new, viable

alternative energy sources. This solution would provide access to breeding grounds for

28

any anadromous and catadromous fish, and also does not remove a power source from

people that draw from the dam. However, there are several glaring flaws in this plan that

build upon the failures of the previous solution. In addition to the problems presented by

demolishing established dams, building new dams will compound the problem. In the

previous section detailing the problems of newly established dams, there are well-known

consequences of building new dams such as erosion, sedimentation, loss of diversity, and

loss of migration abilities (Babbib 2002, Francisco 2004, Baxter 1977). Building a new

dam will most likely create a reservoir where there had not been one previously, flooding

new areas and most likely displacing people, especially if the dam is being constructed to

provide power for residents. There will not always be a complementary site to construct a

new dam, and it is more than probable that wherever a new location is chosen it will

block certain migration access routes. Lake sturgeon require large areas of habitat to

complete their life cycles; any new dam will most likely interfere in these migrations up

and down rivers (GLLSWS 2008).

Constructing a new dam is an intensive, exhaustive process, especially if there are

environmental considerations. A license for the structure is relatively easy to obtain, but

the individual states will determine if the dam is environmentally sound (DEC website,

2008). The amount of money that would have to be spent on both breaching an old dam

and constructing a new dam is a process that could take millions of dollars and up to a

decade to implement; longer if there is a lack of funding. The local taxpayers will be

unwilling to pay for such an expensive project, especially when it has so many drawbacks.

Building new alternative energies would help the situation, but many new technologies

are still experimental and have not been developed to be as efficient as hydropower.

29

Local citizens may be unwilling to experiment with such alternatives, especially if they

will end up costing them more money. On the basis that this solution is almost entirely

problematic, we cannot accept such as solution as feasible.

Proposed Solution 3: Institute a fish transportation that physically transports fish from

one side of the dam to the other (barges or trucking). This would be especially applicable

at the new Massena dam, which is currently facing pressure to make its dam passable to

fish.

This solution relies entirely on human power to move the fish from one side of the

dam to the other. Barges could take advantage of the dam passage systems to move fish

up or down rivers without the fatalities usually associated with passage through turbines.

Trucking is a more intensive process requiring the removal of the fish from the river and

placing them in trucks, requiring large human efforts and possibly traumatizing the fish

(Schilt 2007). The active transport is effective in some years, but depends on many

variables such as the timing of the event, age of the fish, and where they are released.

Schilt (2007) points out that the timing of fish arrival to the breeding site will have a

large effect on fish reproduction because it affects the selectivity of the fish; trucking in

the fish gets them to the breeding sites much faster than the fish that still migrate.

At the scale of the proposed Massena dam, we do not think a trucking/barging

system would be the most effective solution. Trucking systems are designed to transport

large amounts of fish upriver, and it is unlikely Massena Electric would be willing to pay

for a large-scale trucking system involving capturing the fish and moving them for a 2.5

MW hydropower dam. Also, MED would only be moving the fish across one dam, which

30

is a smaller scale than other trucking operations that transport fish on large rivers such as

the Columbia miles upstream to bypass multiple dams. Also, Lake Sturgeon do not

migrate at one time of the year; instead, they spend their lives passing over large areas of

their home range. It would be very difficult to get the timing right to capture enough of

the sturgeon at one time to ship them upstream, and may possibly traumatize the fish

enough that they will abandon the Grasse River to avoid the barge system.

We do not believe this solution is a viable one to the problem: despite the fact that

it does not displace any humans or remove a power source, it is generally an ineffective

way for fish to get upstream and requires major human effort to catch the fish and

transport them. However, even with the best intentions and efforts, there are still many

fish that will not make it to the breeding grounds because they cannot be captured, they

reach the dam at the wrong time, or they are traumatized during capture and do not breed

once they reach the site. Breeding selectivity may also be affected as a result when some

groups of fish reach the breeding site days before the rest, and could cause genetic

bottlenecks.

Proposed Solution 4: Construct effective fish ladders or fish lifts in existing dams such as

those on the Racquette River, and mandate that all new dams must have fish ladders

installed, such as the proposed Massena dam.

Fish ladders, despite their many designs and modifications, have not been as

effective as biologists have hoped in providing migrating fish access to upstream areas.

However, as technology and awareness of the problem increases, new advancements

have been made to address some of the major problems of fish ladders. Fish ladders are

31

designed to be gently sloping waterways that have boulders or other structures to provide

artificial pools for the fish to rest in on their way up (Schilt 2007). The ladders must be

designed in a way that attracts fish to their downstream ends, so must have reasonable

outflow of water to provide cues for migrating fish to use them (Schilt 2007). Fish

ladders have been shown to be the most effective with large, strongly swimming species,

which puts smaller, weaker swimmers such as the American eel at a disadvantage (Schilt

2007). Improvements on the existing fish ladders have resulted in the vertical-slot

fishway, in which water flows rapidly down a central pool, but is designed in such a way

so that the edges of the pool contain much slower-flowing water. Using these ladders,

fish only need to swim through high currents for short distances before they reach an area

of low flow (Rodriguez 2006). Currently, there are specific eel ladders that have been

designed to help the eels navigate upriver: they consist of rows of pipes vertically up the

dam face, providing spaces for the eels to brace themselves as they swim against the

current (NYFO website 2007). A total of 15 eel ladders have already been installed or are

being designed for placement on dams on the Oswego and Racquette Rivers, and

increasing projects are under way to put even more ladders on dams (NYFO website

2007).

Even though there are outflows designed to draw fish to the ladder, migrating fish

may be easily confused by the sorts of signals they are receiving and could delay for long

periods at the ladder. This could be disastrous for their breeding cycles as they may

decide to breed where they are or not breed at all (Schilt 2007). These kinds of delays at

ladders are one of the issues scientists hope to address; it is also important to note that

migrating fish will rarely have to pass only one dam, instead, there are likely to be

32

multiple dams in their way, further delaying them (Schilt 2007). On the Racquette River

there are currently 27 dams owned and operated by Brookfield Power that fish would

have to navigate, and all of them do not have fish ladders or other devices to allow fish to

pass through. There is only one major dam on the Grasse River that migrating fish would

have to navigate, but the proposed dam in Massena would create the second major

obstacle in 30 miles of habitat and may negatively affect the fish (NYFO website 2007).

Fish elevators (lifts) follow the same principles as fish ladders by attracting

migrating fish with an outflow of water, and then enclosing them in a sort of elevator,

which then raises the fish to the upstream level of the dam and releases them (Schilt

2007). This can be done either with human operators or done through automatic timers.

These kinds of lifts can prove to be more useful with the smaller, weaker catadromous

eels that cannot readily navigate strong currents. However, a major problem that remains

to be addressed is “fallback” which refers to the successful transfer of fish to the

upstream portion of the dam but then they are immediately drawn back through or over

the dam because of the intake (Schilt 2007). Fish lifts may be more effective than fish

ladders because they rely on a timer system and not the effort of the fish; therefore, it

might be possible to substantially reduce delays to the fish and get them to their breeding

sites at the appropriate times. Fish lifts are also the most effective ways of transporting

Lake Sturgeon across dams. Studies have shown that Lake Sturgeon do not use ladders

because they do not jump, and therefore cannot navigate across dams without outside

interference (Rodger Klindt NYS DEC 2008)

Fish ladders or lifts can be expensive to build in dams, especially if the dam was

designed without one, and requires an intensive process. Some dams cannot have them

33

built for the simple fact that the dams are too large and building a ladder would be a

massive-scale project because of the gradual slope needed to accommodate the migrating

fish (Baxter 1977). For many hydropower dam owners, fish ladders represent lost

revenue for electricity generation because the ladder must always have an outflow of

water (Schilt 2007). However, we feel that with the right persuasion many dam owners

can be convinced to add these ladders or lifts to their dams, especially if they are trying to

pass the dam off as “ecofriendly.” Community support is essential in this part of the

project, because dam owners will do what is necessary to keep their customers satisfied.

Building fish ladders/lifts may be one of the more feasible solutions to the problem, and

the best solution for the American eel and the Lake Sturgeon for the time being.

Proposed Solution 5: Halt all proceedings on the Massena Electric Dam and introduce

alternative energy sources to replace any power lost.

We see this solution being the most ecologically friendly out of all the solutions.

Halting construction on the dam would prevent the important habitat for the Sturgeon

from being blocked and save one of the last remaining riffle areas on the Grasse River,

which is vial for Lake Sturgeon spawning (NYFO website 2007). The dam would not

block any movement up and down the river, and since the Lake Sturgeon is a threatened

species in New York cancelling construction of the dam may be worthwhile to save the

species. Because the dam is only supposed to generate 2.5 MW, roughly 5% of what

Massena Electric Generates, the loss of the dam will not create a large energy deficit. In

fact, the energy deficit can be easily made up by installing alternative sources of energy

34

such as solar or wind power. Migrating fish will not have to deal with disruptions to their

breeding cycles, and this could prevent genetic bottlenecks or inbreeding.

Residents of Massena would miss out on the construction of the 55 acre reservoir,

however, which may impact them negatively when one considers the local revenue it

could bring the town. People coming to use the lake recreationally will tend to buy from

local businesses, which will stimulate the local economy and help the town. However,

having a healthy flowing river also does much to maintain the health of the local fisheries

(Baxter 1979), and an un-dammed river may do more for the fisheries than a new dam.

Proposed Solution 6: Do nothing to impede the construction of the Massena dam, and do

not mandate ladders on the existing dams on the Racquette River, but closely monitor

fish populations to see if they are declining too far.

This solution allows the new dam in Massena to be built, and with the new dam

comes increased local revenue for the town with the increase in recreational activities

with the new reservoir and the source of power. The power will supplement what

Massena Electric Department already produces, giving the citizens a small price break in

the ever-expensive energy market. The new dam may also prevent ice floes from

dredging up sediment in the Grasse River where PCBs are known to be buried beneath

the sediment; this would prevent release of toxic chemicals into the groundwater system

and prevent them from getting into the local wildlife.

Closely monitoring the fish populations may be a good way to see the impact of

the new dam on them, but there is little researchers would be able to do if it were

discovered the fish were declining because of the new dam. In the case of the Racquette

35

River, the dams are already built and there is little scientists can do for the fish

populations except supplement populations with restoration from hatcheries, but even

that supplementation is not extremely effective.

Identification of Best Solutions

We believe that a variety of methods and solutions must be implemented to

provide the best overall long-term solution of the problem with dams. Constructing fish

lifts may be one of the better solutions because it may reduce the delays fish will have

when navigating fish ladders, and can be directly controlled by the dam owners.

Community support will be essential to implement these ladders, but as stated above,

many dam owners will be willing to keep their customers happy and keep passing their

product off as “green” and “ecofriendly.” In the case of the new dam in Massena, the

Massena Electric Company has the opportunity to present itself as forward-thinking if it

takes the initiative to help protect lake sturgeon migratory routes, maybe boosting its

public image and getting more community support for the dam. Adding fish lifts (Figure

8) to a dam will not displace any people and will not dramatically affect the power

production of the dam, even with the constant outflow. Adding an eel ladder for the

migrating juveniles would also help the eel populations, and provide another way for

MED to promote itself as ecofriendly. Massena will have to add the plans for the lift and

ladder into its construction plans and will also have to pay for the additional cost of

building and maintaining the structures, but such an action will happen if there is enough

community demand for it.

36

We believe that the overall solution to the problem is to remove all dams and

begin using alternative energy sources. However, given the large amount of people that

rely on dams for power, irrigation, or just recreation we know this is not yet a feasible

solution. Eventually, many dams will begin to age and companies will have to make a

decision about keeping the dam or letting it breach. Dam technology may eventually be

phased out as people turn more and more to alternative energy sources, and it is important

to keep people educated about the choices they can make to help the ecosystems

impacted by the dams. Introducing ideas about wind power or solar energy may help

some people think about the negative impacts dams have, and maybe convince them to

make the switch. The 27 hydropower facilities on the Racquette River are an example of

community planning: if communities begin to start thinking ahead and making the switch

to more alternative energy sources, they would no longer need the dams and the dams

could eventually be decommissioned. Combining aspects of different solutions may lead

to an overall solution that addresses the problem in the long-term, which is important

when dealing with the environment.

Ease of Implementation

It should be relatively easy to implement this solution for several reasons. First,

the NYSDEC has said explicitly that they will not allow the dam to be built until MED

comes up with a plan to incorporate a fish passage that accommodates all species of fish.

Fish ladders that are usually built are fine for fish that are willing to jump up a ladder

such as salmon. However, the two fish species whose migration will be most affected by

the dam, the American eel and lake sturgeon, are incapable or choose not to jump up fish

37

ladders (Kynard 1998). Therefore, MED must implement some other device other than

the usual fish ladder. There is a fish lift system being used on the Connecticut River that

has been successful in transporting shortnose sturgeon pass the dam (Kynard 1998). The

success of a lift system depends on when it is operated thus studies must be done in order

to determine when lake sturgeon and the American eel are likely to migrate upstream.

What’s interesting about MED’s project is that the public is urging FERC to

speed up the licensing process so that they may be able to reap the benefits of a new dam

as soon as possible. It is unlikely that FERC will be swayed by the public and ignore

other stakeholders such as the NYSDEC and the Fish and Wildlife Bureau so this is not

much of a concern.

What may inhibit the ease of implementing this solution is how much the fish lift

system will cost to build and operate. If the cost of the system increases the cost of

energy produced by the dam to such as degree that people are not willing to pay then the

dam has lost its purpose. This must be considered in FERC’s cost benefit-analysis of the

project.

The overall ease of implementing a fish lift system that provides migrating fish

with an acceptable way to pass the dam depends on the NYSDEC firm stance on making

MED build one, and the community supporting the building of one.

Implementation Plan

In order for this solution to be a success all stakeholders must be satisfied. In this

particular case because so many of the local residents are in support of the project we

believe that implementing this solution must start with educating the public on how the

38

dam will effect the environment, especially fish migration. This may be difficult to do

because the public is behind the project almost unanimously and none of those who wrote

a letter to FERC were concerned at all about fish passage of migrating fish. Every so

often MED is required to hold meetings in order to fulfill the licensing process. At these

meetings, the DEC should have a representative that gives a presentation on how fragile

the aquatic environment of the Grasse River is and how building a large hydroelectric

dam, much different from that which was built over 200 years, may have a negative

impact on the environment. The presentation would also include an explanation on the

importance of American eel and lake sturgeon migration. After all, the lake sturgeon is

New York’s oldest freshwater fish and has been around since the time of the dinosaurs.

Hopefully the presentation will make the citizen’s of Massena realize that a thorough

study of the dam’s effect on the environment is necessary so that we don’t end up

harming a fragile environment.

Once some of the public is in support of further studies being done, MED may be

more willing to conduct the study plan already in place for a second season. Right now

MED is trying to get out of a second season of study because they did two years of

surveys before the final study plan was even approved. The NYSDEC is urging them to

continue with studies while the public feels that a second study season is unnecessary.

Perhaps some public education about how important it is to study the effect the dam will

have on the environment will change citizen’s views.

The first part of this plan is forcing MED to continue with its studies on how the

dam will effect the surrounding environment and especially the migration patterns of the

American eel and lake sturgeon. The second part of the plan is having an effective

39

method of studying the various effects the dam will have on the environment and

effective ways of allowing fish to bypass the dam. And thirdly, once the dam is approved

to be built (which seems inevitable at this point) have the NYSDEC continue studies of

how newly built dam affects fish migration of the American eel and lake sturgeon and

also general effects of the dam on the surrounding environment.

40

References

Images: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Raquette.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grasse_001.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Raquetterivermap.png http://www.fcps.k12.va.us/islandcreekes/ecology/Fish/American%20Eel/Anros_u2.jpg http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://stellwagen.noaa.gov/education/adulted/images/fish_id/American_Eel_lg.jpg&imgrefurl=http://stellwagen.noaa.gov/education/adulted/fishid_eels.html&h=360&w=504&sz=78&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=gbxyEje0F3zSZM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Damerican%2Beel%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official http://www.tnaqua.org/Newsroom/HighRes/LakeSturgeon2.jpg http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/greatlakesfish/Graphics/Shedd_LakeSturgeon.gif http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:JhnDyDam2.jpg http://www.nypa.gov/press/2006/060809a1Photo.jpg http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Denil_fish_ladder.jpg/250px-Denil_fish_ladder.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_ladder&h=188&w=250&sz=25&hl=en&start=7&um=1&tbnid=fuvKf7A4Mn030M:&tbnh=83&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3Deel%2Bladder%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN http://images.google.com/images?q=dams&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=breached+dams&btnG=Search+Images http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/images/NH%20Henniker%20dam%20removal.jpg http://www.unpluggedliving.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/wyoming_big.jpg http://www.e2tac.org/images/Solar%20Panels.JPG http://www.yorkhikingclub.com/mdtshdam6.jpg

41

http://www.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~rd/remote/Dam.jpg http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/image/Liberty%20Dam.jpg http://orovillerelicensing.water.ca.gov/graphics/p_thermalito%20diversion%20dam3.gif http://www.umanitoba.ca/institutes/fisheries/FishTruck06.jpg www.akwesasnehousing.org/ahaaboutus.asp content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=kt3b69n689... Literature Cited Agostinho C.S et al. 2007. Selectivity of fish ladders: a bottleneck in Neotropical fish

movement. Neotropical Icthyology 5: 205-213. Ayer, Fred Executive Director, Low Impact Hydropower Institute 34 Providence Street, Portland, Maine 04103 207-773-8190 206-984-3086 (fax) Babbit B. 2002. What goes up, may come down. Bioscience 52: 656 – 658. Baxter R.M. 1977. Environmental effects of Dams and Impoundments. Annual Review

of Ecology and Systematics 8: 255 – 283. Damon, Tim. Phone Interview. (315) 265-4700. FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). Ferc.gov. eLibrary docket #P-12607. Francisco, E. 2004 Tales of the Undammed. Science News 15: 235-237. Great Lakes Sturgeon Web Site 2008 : Biology of Lake Sturgeon

http://www.fws.gov.midwest/sturgeon. Klindt, Rodger. Phone Interview. NYSDEC Region 6 Employee. (315) 785-2262. Kynard, Boyd. 1998. Twenty-two years of passing shortnose sturgeon in fish lifts on the

Connecticut River: What has been learned? in Fish Migration and Fish Bypasses, editors M. Jungwirth, S. Schmutz, and S. Weiss. Oxford: Fishing New Books, Blackwell Science Ltd.

42

Massena Electric Department website 2008. http://www.med.massena.ny.us/hydro.hydroproject%202.htm

Munson, D. 2005. Water Use by Electric Utilities in the Great Lakes. Northeast-Midwest

Institute. www.nemw.org/GL_Electric_Utilities.pdf. Neraas L.P., Spruell P. 2001. Fragmentation of riverine systems: the genetic effects of

dams on bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Clark Fork River system. Molecular Ecology 10: 1153 – 1164.

New York & Long Island Field Offices website 2007. http://nyfo.fws.gov. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC) website 2008:

Endangered and Threatened Fishes of New York. Newsbank: America’s Newspapers http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb

Watertown Daily Times, August 16, 2005. Plan to dam Grasse River gains unanimous approval. Author: Shane M. Liebler.

Newsbank: America’s Newspapers http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/InfoWeb

Watertown Daily Times, December 26, 2007. MED, DEC near deal on study – Dam issues clarified: impact probe expected to take about 2 years. Author: Robert Cyr.

Pizzuto, J. 2002. Effects of Dam Removal on river form and process. Bioscience 52: 683

– 691. Pompeu P.S., Martinez C.B. 2007. Efficiency and selectivity of a trap and truck fish

passage system in Brazil. Neotropical Ichthyology 5: 160 – 176. Rodriguez T.T., Agudo J.P., Mosquera L.P., Gonzalez E.P. 2006. Evaluating vertical-slot

fishway designs in terms of fish swimming capabilities. Ecological Engineering 27: 37 – 48.

Schilt C.S. 2006. Developing fish passage and protection at hydropower dams. Applied

Animal Behavior Science 104: 295 – 325. Truffer B., Markard J., Bratrich C., Wehrli B. 2001. Green Electricity from alpine

hydropower plants. Mountain research and development 21: 19 – 24. Waples R.S., Zabel R.W., Schuerell M.D., Sanderson B.L. 2007. Evolutionary responses

by native species to major anthropogenic changes to their ecosystems: Pacific salmon in the Columbia River hydropower system. Molecular Ecology 17: 84- 96.

43

Figures and Charts

Figure 1: A schematic drawing of Alcoa’s PCB cleanup and section of the Grasse River that is PCB laden and prone to ice floes that disturb the sediment cap. Focus upstream for the proposed dam would prevent ice from disturbing as much sediment.

Figure 2: An outline of the proposed Massena Electric Department 2.5 MW hydropower dam for the Grasse River. It is a power generating facility that will also generate a 50 to 55 acre reservoir.

44

Figure 3: shows the proposed location of the new Massena Electric hydropower dam in relation to the village of Massena and the Rail America footbridge. The old dam is located about ½ mile upstream from the new location.

Figure 4: shows a hypothetical fish ladder that could be installed in the new Massena dam based on the Hadley Falls Station fishlift.

45

Figure 5. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) Integrated licensing process for applying to build a hydroelectric.

46

Figure 6: shows the catadromous American Eel Anguilla rostrata

Figure 7: shows the potomadromous Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens

47

Figure 8. Diagram of an example fish lift system.

48

Figure 9. Map of St. Regis Mohawk Tribe aboriginal territory.