May 22, 1974
Page 16012
THE DICKEY-LINCOLN SCHOOL HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, no greater challenge faces the Congress and the American people than that of devising new sources of energy which will lessen our dependence upon foreign petroleum products while recognizing both the finite limitations of our own supplies of fossil fuel and the dangers to our environment posed by the development of these resources. The Proposed Dickey-Lincoln School hydro-electric project in northern Maine is a perfect illustration of the dilemma created by these three, often competing, considerations.
New Englanders, in part because of their traditional respect for the economic and recreational value of their natural surrounding – the sea, the mountains, the forests – and in part because of the growing pressures on their environment, have in recent years demonstrated a deep concern for protecting the environment through strong local and State legislation.
At the same time, however, the impact of skyrocketing prices of oil in the region has been severe, particularly for industry and electric utilities who depend on imports for virtually 100 percent of their residual fuel requirements. In one typical instance, the cost of residual oil rose from $2.77 per barrel in January 1973 to $11.70 per barrel in March 1974.
These cost increases – perhaps most noticeable to the average consumer in the form of fuel adjustment allowances in his monthly electric bill – are placing an added burden on consumers already suffering from the effects of severe inflation. Moreover, the extra cost to industry is placing our region at a competitive disadvantage with other sections of the country, which may very well have a dampening effect on future economic development.
But the impact of the energy crisis is by no means a short term problem. The six New England States contain more than 12 million people who are expected to consume 72 billion kilowatt hours of electricity this year. This present level of consumption is expected to double by 1983, and triple by the early 1990's.
Even with the most stringent energy conservation measures, therefore, our region's electric generating capacity will have to be greatly expanded. These facts are simply unavoidable and we have a responsibility to plan now as to how best to meet this need.
The question, therefore, is not whether New England's population and economy will continue to grow – for, clearly, they will – or whether our natural environment should be protected from unplanned and unthinking development – for, clearly, it should.
Rather, the question which we in New England must seek to answer is how we can accommodate the demands of our anticipated growth with our concern for our environment; how we can meet our future energy requirements with the least impact on our environment and without an unacceptable degradation of the quality of our air, our water and our limited natural resources.
This is the question, in my opinion, which should be used as the basis for evaluating the issues which have been raised by the Dickey-Lincoln School project.
WHAT IS DICKEY-LINCOLN?
Dickey-Lincoln would be constructed in extreme northern Maine and would encompass a 91,100 acre area. The completed project would have a total capacity of 830 megawatts and would provide 740 million kilowatt hours of peaking power for Maine and New England with 460 million kilowatt hours of base load power for Maine. It would be constructed and operated by the Federal Government and the proceeds from the sale of its power would be paid back to the Federal Treasury. The project also would provide much needed flood control for the St. John River Valley and recreational benefits to the region.
There is no question that the construction of the project will alter the present state of the river and surrounding terrain. And it is this fact, in addition to questions concerning the value of the power the project will produce, which has given rise to most of the recent criticism of the project.
Mr. President, the planning of Dickey-Lincoln has been started but not completed. This year, I am hopeful the Senate Appropriations Committee will recommend funds to continue that planning as well as to begin the task of preparing a detailed environmental impact statement on the project as required under the National Environmental Policy Act.
However, a preliminary environmental analysis is available and I would ask unanimous consent to include in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks a copy of this report. It was prepared
by the Army Corps of Engineers and attempts to answer the questions most often raised concerning the project. This information speaks for itself and is a useful reference for those who wish to learn more of the project. It attempts to put to rest some of the greatest misconceptions of the nature and impact of the project. Moreover, it provides a preliminary analysis of some of the environmental considerations involved in the project.
I would also ask unanimous consent to print in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks a letter from my colleague, Senator WILLIAM HATHAWAY, to the Maine Sunday Telegram which provides further useful commentary on the project.
THE ISSUES RAISED BY DICKEY-LINCOLN
There will be other opportunities for me to comment at greater length on Dickey-Lincoln, so I would limit my observations today to a few of the issues which I find most troublesome:
First. Peaking power and base load power. In opposition to the project, it has been stated that large nuclear powerplants or oil-fired plants could produce far greater power than Dickey- Lincoln at less cost.
Such statements are misleading. Thermal and nuclear units are intended for base load power, while Dickey would be a peak load facility. Comparing a base load power facility with a peaking power facility is akin to comparing apples and oranges. During peak demand periods of the day, our total electrical generating system must have the capacity to expand by as much as 15-20 percent. A nuclear plant which is most economically and efficiently run for 24 hours per day at close to capacity is a totally inappropriate vehicle for peaking power.
For peak power demands, our generating system must depend upon thermal units, pump storage facilities, or hydroelectric power. Hydroelectric power, with its low operating cost, is by far the most economical means of meeting this demand.
Second. Dickey-Lincoln's share of total power demand. It has also been argued that the power generated by Dickey would provide only a small percentage – given variously as one-half percent, 1 percent and 1½ percent – of New England's total power needs. This, too, is an elusive statistical comparison, since it attempts to relate a peaking power facility with total consumption from all sources. Even the large nuclear plants which have been proposed would only provide 4 to 5 percent of our region's total demand.
More to the point, the Federal Power Commission has estimated that New England's total peaking capacity needs in 1980-90 will be 4,422 megawatts. Dickey-Lincoln's 830-megawatt capacity would provide 18.7 percent of this estimated requirement.
Third. Loss of recreational opportunities. As one who thoroughly enjoys the Maine outdoors, I am perhaps most sensitive to those who express their concern to me that Dickey would destroy a wilderness river.
It was precisely this concern which led me to ask President Kennedy in 1962, to evaluate not only the power potential of the original proposal, but also the recreational and environmental values of the proposed site. And it was this concern which convinced Federal officials that the original site of the project should be shifted to a site at the town of Dickey in order to preserve another river, the Allagash, in its natural wilderness state. The Allagash was thus protected for the enjoyment of all.
Yet Dickey-Lincoln, too, will offer recreational opportunities and I am not convinced that the recreational benefits of its manmade lakes would be inferior to those now offered by the St. John River in its present state. To the contrary, the lakes would provide greater and more varied opportunities for more people.
Fourth. Environmental impact statement. I am acutely aware of the fact that the environment of the upper St. John River valley would be altered by an undertaking of this magnitude. But this far in the long history of the project I have seen no indication that these changes would be unacceptable.
However, one of the purposes of continued planning funds for the project is to provide all interested parties with the data and information necessary to make a more accurate assessment of the environmental impact of the project. Until we have such information, I find it difficult to understand the assurance and finality with which many statements concerning the allegedly adverse environmental impact of Dickey are made.
Fifth. Flood control benefits. This year, as in many years past, the communities of Fort Kent, Allagash, St. Francis and others located along the St. John River are experiencing the disastrous effects of severe flooding. One of the most important benefits of the Dickey-Lincoln project, therefore, would be its ability to regulate the flow of the St. John so that the danger of such flooding can be eliminated in the future.
There are those who say that Dickey is not needed for this purpose; that a system of dikes would be sufficient to provide protection from flooding. I support the necessity of constructing dikes and other impoundments along the lowlying flood plains of the St. John Valley and have urged that work on such a system be commenced without delay.
But dikes are simply not an effective alternative to the regulatory mechanism which Dickey would provide. Anyone who has visited flood-ravaged sections of the Mississippi and seen the ineffectiveness of the elaborate network of dikes in the face of major flooding should recognize this. Dikes will not supplant the need for a dam on the upper St. John.
Sixth. Changes in the water level of Dickey's reservoir. Another of the persistent concerns expressed with Dickey is based on the claim that there would be a 40-foot drawdown on the reservoir which would leave an unsightly and unusable "bathtub ring" in the form of mudflats.
This claim, too, is based ton erroneous information. First, the 40-foot drawdown represents the maximum possible drawdown and would occur, if at all, under the most adverse circumstances – for example, during prolonged operation of Dickey's generators in the event of a major power blackout along the east coast.
On the other hand, the typical drawdown during the period of greatest recreation use – June 15 to October 15 – would be only 4 feet. While termination of planning funds prevented completion of precise figures for the winter months, it is estimated that the average drawdown during this period, when the reservoir and its banks would be generally frozen and snow-covered, would be 6 to 8 feet.
Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the area uncovered by the changes in water level would be "mudflats", as is often asserted, due to the generally steep terrain in the area. In comparison to Dickey's fluctuations, the St. John River in its present state registers a normal high level of 16 feet at the town of Dickey and a normal low level of 3.1 feet – a variation of 12.3 feet, more than that of the proposed reservoir.
I should also take note of the fact that on May 1 of this year, the river reached a flood crest of 28 feet in Fort Kent, inundating the community. In the dry periods of the summer, the river at the same point will be as low as 4 to 6 feet. This means that the extreme fluctuations of the St. John River, without the dams, have been more than 24 feet.
Despite this wide variation, I have never heard of any complaints concerning either mudflats or unsightly river banks – except, of course, the normal frustration which canoeists experience with low water and rocks during the dry periods.
Seventh. Loss of timberland. Construction of Dickey-Lincoln will result in the loss of timberland and this fact is cited also by critics. To place this in perspective, however, it should be recognized that the State of Maine has more timberland per capita than any State in the Nation, with over 87 percent of our land area forested.
The timberland which would be acquired for Dickey represents less than six-tenths of 1 percent of the forested land in the State of Maine. The amount of timber is not insignificant, to be sure, but ought to be considered in relation to the total impact on Maine's forest resources.
Eighth. Hydroelectric power as a renewable resource. The oil shortages we experienced this winter have brought home the great social and economic price we Americans pay for our heavy dependence upon fossil fuels. As we develop an increasing appreciation of the fact that petroleum is a limited, finite resource, I believe that we should encourage the development of alternative, renewable energy sources such as hydroelectric power.
Certainly; hydroelectric power is not the sole solution to the energy crisis, nor should strenuous conservation measures be ignored. But, hydro-power is, in my opinion, a significant step in the right direction which could bring important benefits to Maine and New England.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
PROJECT: DICKEY-LINCOLN SCHOOL LAKES, MAINE
Summarized financial data
[Table Omitted]
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
Dickey Lake is located on the Upper Saint John River near the Town of Dickey, Aroostook County, Maine immediately above its confluence with the Allagash River. The project provides for an earth-fill dam and supplemental dikes impounding reservoirs with gross storage capacity of 7,700,000 acre-feet for power, flood control and recreation. The Lincoln School Lake is located on the Saint John River 11 miles downstream from Dickey Lake and provides for an earth-fill dam impounding a reservoir with usable storage capacity of 24,000 acre-feet for purposes of regulating discharges from Dickey Lake and power generation.
PROPOSED OPERATIONS
The amount of $800,000 would be used to resume preconstruction planning.
JUSTIFICATION
The Dickey-Lincoln School Project is an integral unit of the comprehensive development and conservation of the water and power resources of the Saint John River Basin. Electric power will constitute the major benefits from the project and, due to power revenues, is fully reimbursable including interest. On-site annual power generation of about 1.2 billion kilowatt-hours resulting from an installed capacity of 830 MW will provide needed power to the New England area. Additional power benefits will be realized at downstream Canadian power plants. Flood control storage provided by the project will eliminate flood damages below the site. The advent of low-cost power and flood protection would contribute significantly to the advancement of the economic climate of the State of Maine and the New England area. The Dickey-Lincoln School Project is located in the part of Aroostook County, Maine which is classified as a Title IV (1) Economic Development Area. The benefit-cost ratio is 2.6 to 1. Average annual benefits are estimated as follows:
Power 44,365,000
Flood control 60,000
Area redevelopment 817,000
Recreation 1,250,000
Total $46,492,000
STATUS
Of the approximate $2.2 million spent to date, $1.5 million or 68 percent was allocated to surveys and foundation and soils exploration. Remaining funds were expended on real estate investigations and general design effort. No detailed engineering for actual bid plans and specifications has been started. No planning has been accomplished since November 1967 because of lack of funds. Preconstruction planning is approximately 60 percent complete, but some lost effort will be realized in resuming design.
Previous allocation of funds
Fiscal Year Allocations
1966 ....................................... $780,000
1967 ....................................... 1,034,000
1968 ....................................... 340,000
1969-1974 .............................. 0
Total ....................................... $2,153,300
POSSIBLE PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULES
Subject to funding, preconstruction planning would require 18 months to complete, and construction would require seven and one half additional years.
COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,
Washington, D.C.,
May 3, 1974.
EDITOR,
MAINE SUNDAY TELEGRAM,
Congress Street,
Portland, Maine
DEAR SIR: Your editorial "The Bad Side to Dickey-Lincoln Dam" (MST 4/14) which was based on Bob Cummings' carefully written article, "Dickey: Boon or Boondoggle?" (MST 4/7) raises a number of important issues which need to be clarified and questions which need to be answered.
Let me begin by explaining the significance of the fact that the Dickey-Lincoln Hydroelectric plant will be a "peaking power" plant. As Bob Cummings accurately stated, it would run for two or three hours every day, probably during the late afternoons when there is a sudden upsurge in demand for electrical power. Now the value of a peaking plant is not in terms of its output, but in terms of its capacity as a source of quick electric power. To compare Dickey-Lincoln to base- load plants like Maine Yankee at Wiscasset and CMP on Cousins Island (which operate operate 24 hours a day) in terms of output is misleading.
In terms of capacity, if Dickey-Lincoln power were to come "on line" right now, it would constitute a 60% addition to the electric capacity of the state.
The Dickey-Lincoln Project is to be one of a network of peaking plants to be built in New England before the end of this century. These quick starting, economical plants are essential to meeting daily peak demands because the demand for electricity is growing very fast in Maine.
Electricity demand for household use is expected to grow 331% (1n kilowatt hours) between now and the year 2000.
The "base-load" plants, like Maine Yankee at Wiscasset and CMP on Cousins Island, are not suitable for peaking use because of economic and operating considerations. They have their greatest vale in operating as base-load plants and constitute desirable partners of peaking plants such as Dickey-Lincoln.
The initial cost of any power installation is not a full measure of the cost of producing power. Hydroelectric sites normally have high initial construction costs in relation to other alternatives. However, the annual operation and maintenance expenses are significantly lower. For instance, a project such as Dickey-Lincoln is not dependent on costly fuels, like oil, for its operation.
Water is a continuous and free source of power.
The interest rate of 3¼%, which has been used to determine the project's net worth in terms of its benefit to cost ratio, is consistent with governing policies enacted by the Congress and the Water Resources Council. While the Water Resources Council did introduce a revised procedure for determining interest rates in 1968, it provided for an exception for those projects, like Dickey, which had been authorized previously, and thus the 3¼ interest rate was retained. Just as a point of interest, even if the higher interest rate of 6⅞ %, as proposed by the council in 1973 – but precluded by enactment of the 1974 Water Resources Development Act – should be applied to Dickey-Lincoln, the benefit-to-cost ratio would be 1.3 to 1 indicating that the project remains justified.
Perhaps of more significance is the rate at which power must be marketed to repay all costs, including the first cost, interest during construction, and annual operation and maintenance expenses. This figure is based on a 5⅞ % interest rate and a 50-year repayment period. Power from Dickey-Lincoln could be marketed at 25.05 mills per kilowatt hour as compared to 34.43 mills per kilowatt hour for the privately financed equivalent alternatives. This represents an $11.7 million savings on an annual basis.
Both the editorial and the Cummings article state that 65 million cubic yards of fill required for the dam might be taken from the Debouillie Mountain range. I have been advised by the Corps of Engineers that the earth fill material required for the Dickey Dam will be taken from sources within the reservoir area and not from the Debouillie Mountain range.
Another point raised in the editorial was the fact that Maine would be cut off from 200,000 acres of timberland by Dickey lake. The authorizing document for the Dickey Hydroelectric Project included provisions for a ferry with landings on the north and south sides of the reservoir to avoid isolation of the timberlands on the north side of the St. John River. The feasibility of providing a bridge crossing in lieu of a ferry system was being explored at the time design studies ended. Preliminary estimates developed at that time indicated a bridge could be constructed for approximately $3 million.
Let me close with a comment regarding the potential threat that construction of the Dickey- Lincoln dam might pose to the environment of northern Maine. All aspects of Dickey's environmental impact will be examined very closely both at the, federal and state levels. A good portion of the $800,000 which I have asked for to complete pre-construction planning for Dickey will be used to make an environmental impact study as now required by law. Our own state environmental protection laws are among the strictest in the nation and I feel certain that the Board of Environmental Protection will look at Dickey very closely. Before any approval would be granted by the Board, there would be public hearings so that the people could make their concerns known.
I would be less than candid if I did not admit that we have to make some sort of tradeoff if we want to construct the Dickey-Lincoln Dam. There will be certain hunting, wilderness and canoeing areas that will be flooded by the Dickey Lakes, and I can understand the concern of those who oppose this project because they do not want to see these lost. In view, however, of the vast expanse in our state which will remain untouched by this project and thus capable of providing timber and recreation, coupled with the growing demand for electric power between now and the year 2000, I believe it is in the interest of the people of Maine and New England to construct another source of clean, economical electric power.
There are approximately 1600 streams and 2000 lakes in the State of Maine. A total of five streams will be affected by the Dickey-Lincoln Project. Maine is 90% forested; ½ of 1 % of this forested area will be flooded. That construction of Dickey will cause monumental damage to Maine's environment is in view of these facts, questionable; I believe that any damage will certainly be slight.
My public statements as well as my voting record during more than a decade in Congress show that I have been a staunch supporter of environmental safety legislation. I do not believe that my support for Dickey is inconsistent with this record.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY,
U.S. Senator.
DICKEY-LINCOLN SCHOOL LAKES, MAINE
Pertinent data pertaining to:
1. Economic analyses.
2. Repayment rates.
3. Environmental aspects; and
4. Role of preference customers.
1. ECONOMIC ANALYSES
The justification for authorization of all Corps of Engineers' projects is measured in terms of the benefit-to-cost ratio. The economic analysis used to develop this yardstick is based on standards prescribed by Senate Document No. 97, 87th Congress, entitled Policies, Standards and Procedures in the Formulation, Evaluation and Review of Plans for Use and Development of Water and Related Land Resources. Total project benefits for Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes are comprised of at-market power, total downstream energy, flood control, recreation and area redevelopment type benefits. The power benefits for Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes are equated to the cost of privately-financed equivalent alternative sources of power. The unit power values, furnished by the Federal Power Commission, are based on gas turbines for that portion of project power expected to be marketed in the Boston area for peaking purposes and a base load fossil fuel steam plant as an alternative for that portion to be marketed in Maine.
The project cost is evaluated on an annual basis reflecting amortization of the investment and annual operation and maintenance expenses. The cost has been increased to provide for the transmission of power by adding 50 percent of the annual cost of a line between the project and Boston. It has been assumed that the remaining one-half of the annual cost will be derived from the wheeling by others of off-peak power. The interest rate used in the economic evaluation is 3¼% and the period of analysis is 100 years.
The 3¼ percent interest rate used in the economic analysis has been the subject of considerable discussion in the past. Accordingly, an explanation of the derivation of this rate is appropriate.
The interest rate is in accordance with a Water Resources Council (WRC) regulation implemented in December 1968. This regulation revised the method of computing the interest rate as previously outlined in SD 97.
The regulation permitted an exception, however, for already authorized projects such as Dickey- Lincoln School Lakes which was authorized in 1965. The exception noted that if an appropriate non-Federal agency provided – prior to 31 December 1969 – satisfactory assurances that requirements of local cooperation associated with the project would be met, then the previous interest rate would be retained.
At Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes, local cooperation would be required for the cost sharing of recreational facilities. Assurances were received from the Governor of Maine by letter, dated 24 February 1969, that the non-Federal requirements would be fulfilled at the appropriate time. As a result, the interest rate was retained at 3¼ %.
The WRC subsequently established new principles and standards for water resource planning effective in October 1973. A section of these new standards includes the provision for increasing the interest rate of 6⅞ %.
However, the Water Resources Development Act of 1974, enacted on 7 March 1974, includes a section which requires that interest rates used for water resource projects be consistent with the implementation of the December 1968 WRC regulation. Accordingly the 3¼% interest rate remains firm for Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes. As a point of interest if the project were evaluated on a 6 ⅞ % interest rate, it remains justified with a 1.3 to 1 ratio.
The Corps of Engineers also uses a procedure referred to as an "economic efficiency test" to comprehensively evaluate proper resource development. The objective of an ideal system operation is to meet area power demands at least cost to consumers. Therefore the least costly addition to a region's capacity could be considered as a yardstick for purposes of making a decision regarding such additions.
The "economic efficiency test" provides for such a determination. Basically the test provides for a comparison of the costs of providing equivalent benefits from the most economical alternative likely to develop in the absence of the project evaluated on a basis comparable with the determination of the project costs (with respect to interest rates, taxes and insurance).
The Corps "economic efficiency test" indicates that the annual at-market charge for Dickey- Lincoln School Lakes power amounts to $17,742,000 while alternative equivalent power charges amount to $37,014,000. This results in a ratio of 2.1 to 1 in favor of Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes. This means that even if the private utilities could obtain financing equivalent to the Federal rate, i.e., 3¼ %, water resource benefits could be provided by Dickey-Lincoln School at less than half the cost by the private utility alternatives.
2. REPAYMENT ANALYSIS
The above analyses are used to define the economic worth of the project. The financial value of power, however, is determined through the repayment analysis. Marketing of electric power from Federal projects is the basic responsibility of the Secretary of Interior as authorized by Section 5 of the 1944 Flood Control Act. Repayment rates must be sufficient to recover costs of power production and transmission including annual operation and maintenance expenses. The total investment allocated to power must be repaid over a reasonable period of years.
As a matter of administration policy, this period has been specified as 50 years. On 29 January 1970 the Secretary of Interior, under his administration discretion to establish power rates, instituted new criteria for determining interest rates for repayment purposes for projects not yet under construction. The current interest rate used for Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes repayment under this revised criteria is 5 ⅞ %. The analysis notes that power from Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes could be marketed at 25.05 mills/Kwh as compared to 34.43 mills/Kwh for the private alternatives. On an annual basis this represents a savings of about $11.7 million.
The difference between the economic analyses previously described and the repayment analysis warrants further clarification. This has caused a considerable amount of misunderstanding and misinterpretation. The economic analyses – both for the benefit-to-cost ratio determination and the "economic efficiency test" – are economic parameters measuring a project's net worth. These analyses are not unique to Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes. The benefit-to-cost ratio is employed universally by the Corps in measuring a project's economic justification.
The "economic efficiency test" is also universally used by the Corps in conjunction with projects having generation of electric power as a project purpose. The economic analyses utilized a 3¼ % interest rate and 100-year period of evaluation. On the other hand, the repayment analysis – which will ultimately be computed by the Department of Interior – is a financial analysis which determines the appropriate charge at which power costs must be marketed to return the total annual investment allocated to power. For this analysis an interest rate of 5⅞ % and a 50-year repayment period have been used.
3. ENVIRONMENT ASPECTS
The following information will address some of the environmental aspects related to the project.
The discussion must be prefaced by acknowledging that detailed data essential to a comprehensive environmental evaluation consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) have not been developed for Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes. Preconstruction planning was terminated in the fall of 1967 prior to passage of NEPA. No work has subsequently been accomplished because of the lack of funds. Environmental studies and preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement would receive priority attention should design activity resume.
A final Environmental Impact Statement must be on file with the Council on Environmental Quality prior to initiating any construction.
Members of this Division had a series of meetings with the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Maine Division of Inland Fisheries and Game, and the Maine State Park and Recreation Commission during 1967 prior to termination of design. The objective of the meetings was to determine the impact of the project on recreation and conservation as well as determining what input would be provided by each group. All parties realized the need for detailed studies before final determinations could be made. Should future appropriations become available, coordination would again be established with these agencies to evaluate the project's environmental impact.
The following are some of the environmental concerns that have been noted, as well as comments relating to each. It is reemphasized, however, that these comments are offered in the light of information developed during the relatively short design period. Some of the concerns can only be fully answered through future environmental studies.
Loss of the Allagash. There has been a general misconception that the project will adversely affect the Allagash waterway. The Dickey dam site was relocated to a point immediately above the confluence of the Allagash River with the St. John River for the specific purpose of preventing any interference with the free flow of the Allagash waterway. In fact, future analyses may reveal that the project could further preserve the Allagash's environmental assets. There is a growing concern that heavy use of the Allagash will detract from its unique experience. The Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes project would provide an adjacent large wilderness lake which would serve to alleviate these growing pressures on the Allagash River.
Loss of Deeryards.-A draft report prepared by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife estimated that approximately 2,200 deer would be displaced by the project but that an estimated 1,800 of these could be replaced through mitigation measures. All possible measures will be taken to minimize the adverse effects of the project. Mitigation measures would be explored including acquisition of suitable land and proper management to replace the lost deeryards.
Loss of Stream. Fishing. – Some stream fishing will be lost, however the magnitude is certainly subject to further investigation. There are two problems allied with current utilization of stream fishing capability of the St. John River, namely, 1) difficulties of access, and 2) varying stream conditions. The St. John River Basin is a wilderness resource. The area is generally inaccessible except by foot or by water. The latter access is particularly undependable during midsummer because of the low water conditions thus necessitating frequent portages. In addition, a major part of the basin is owned by paper companies. Undoubtedly, access to the basin by a large number of fishermen would be restricted because of the significantly increased risk of fire.
The dominant fish species within the project area is the native brook trout. These trout reportedly can be found in the lakes and smaller tributary streams during the entire year. However, this even distribution of trout is not true of the main stem of the St. John River and its larger tributary streams during the late summer and early fall months. This is a period of low stream flows and increased stream temperatures which force the fish to seek other cooler tributaries.
The 86,000 acre lake impounded by Dickey dam will provide access to wilderness areas never before accessible. The lake itself will provide a multiple warm and cold water fishery. Access to the wilderness lake will provide areas for hunting, camping, pack trips and enjoyment of the wilderness experience. The project in essence will provide a trade-off between stream fishing and lake fishing. However, due to the increased accessibility the project would undoubtedly support more users.
Loss of Forested Land. – The State of Maine, with over 87 percent of its land area in timberlands, has more forested acres per capita than any state in the nation. Construction of the project would result in the loss of approximately 90,000 acres of forested land. This represents less than six-tenths of one percent of the forested acres in the State of Maine.
Loss of Canoeing on St. John River.– The Allagash River is a far greater canoe stream than the St. John River. For example, a reconnaissance trip was made of the St. John River in the early summer of 1967 by an engineer and a fishery biologist of this Division. They canoed the river from the southwest branch approximately 110 miles to the Dickey dam site in four days. Both were experienced avid canoeists. Although the trip was very enjoyable and exciting to both, they found the river to be very shallow in many areas requiring them to often push and pull the canoe while walking alongside of it. The river has considerably reduced flows in midsummer making canoeing even more difficult. They also learned that 30 parties made a similar trip in 1966 as compared to 3,000 on the Allagash. The Dickey dam was located above the mouth of the Allagash expressly to preserve the wilderness canoe trip region of the Allagash, although a dam located farther downstream in the vicinity of Rankin Rapids would be more advantageous from the viewpoint of power production.
Loss of Streams.– The project would create an 88,000 acre lake at Dickey and a 2,150 acre lake at Lincoln School, at maximum pool elevations. These reservoirs would inundate 64 miles of the St. John River of which 53 miles would be upstream of Dickey dam. The St. John River is about 420 miles long, of which 100 miles are above Dickey dam and 320 miles below the dam. In total (including all tributaries to the St. John), the project will flood 219 miles of streams. This is less than two percent of the estimated 14,000 miles of rivers, streams and branches in the St. John River Basin.
Effect of Reservoir Drawdown.– The maximum drawdown of the project would be 40 feet between Elevations 910 and 870. However, this would not happen in any one year. The average annual drawdown between 15 June and 15 October would be four feet. The heaviest drawdown period would be in the winter months because of the large power demands in that season. Due to the generally precipitive nature of the Dickey reservoir area, it is not considered that the shoreline areas, when exposed, would have the graphic features of mud flats. Winter months are also periods of heavy snowfall which would tend to cover drawdown areas. The reservoir will be cleared of all standing timber within the drawdown area to eliminate any unsightly tree kill.
Siltation in the Reservoir.– The St. John River currently has three downstream power reservoirs in the Canadian reaches of the river. Silting has not been a problem at these sites due basically to the natural ability of the forested watershed – comprised principally of a coniferous forest dominated by a northern spruce-fir cover– to retain its soil. According to information obtained from the New Brunswick power interests, sedimentation has been no problem at their Grand Falls hydroelectric project located 90 miles downstream of the proposed project. Also, observation of similar nearby watersheds revealed no sediment problems at impoundments there.
Aquatic Weed Growth.– Studies to date indicate that there should be no problem with aquatic weeds. In general, the incoming water to the Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes project does not have an overabundance of nutrients and the water will be deep and rather cold minimizing the amount of weed growth.
Effects on the St. John River Flow Regimen.– The project will effectively augment St. John River flows during normally low flow periods, resulting in improved fishery conditions and enhanced water quality. Based on over 20 years of flow records in the area, minimum monthly flows on the St. John River downstream of the Dickey-Lincoln School site have been less than 1,000 cfs in 8 out of 12 months of the year with minimum flows during some months being 500 cfs or less. However, the proposed treaty with Canada stipulates that a minimum monthly average flow of 2,500 cfs will be maintained downstream of the project. This resulting flow augmentation will provide considerable enhancement of the downstream flow regimen during normally low flow periods.
At the other extreme, the project will eliminate flood flows that have plagued downstream areas. The Town of Fort Kent, located about 30 miles below Dickey dam, has experienced nine floods during the past 46 years of record. The most recent floods have occurred in May 1961, May 1969, April 1973, and April 1974. The April 1973 flood stages exceeded the record flood of May 1961 and caused damages estimated at $1 million. These losses would be prevented by the project.
Effects on the St. John River Estuary.– It can be reasonably stated that there will be no impact on the lower river area. Flows will be regulated for power purposes but these regulations will not be detected at the estuary due to the Canadian storage reservoirs downstream of Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes plus flows from intervening drainage areas.
Environmental Effects During Construction.– Much of the construction activity, including the stripping of borrow areas, will be located in the reservoir area so that once the reservoir fills, most traces of construction activity will be obliterated. During construction, measures defined by Federal standards and specifications will be taken to reduce adverse effects on the environment. Controls will be exercised over the contractor to minimize air, noise and water pollution. Such items as burning of waste, soil erosion, dust control, revegetation of borrow areas, batch plant spills, waste concrete, oil and fuel spillage, operation of motorized equipment, and personnel sanitation facilities will be evaluated and controlled to minimize temporary environmental impacts.
Costs Not Included for Value of Standing Timber Which Will Be Lost Due to Project.– The environmental impact due to loss of timber cannot be quantified. However, the economic loss has been included in the project cost estimate. The estimate for land acquisition includes the estimated stumpage value of standing merchantable timber and also the value of the cut-over land based on its residual highest and best use.
Social Disruption.– A prime environmental consideration in conjunction with any large reservoir project is the disruption of man's social environment due to relocation. At Dickey-Lincoln School, developed areas are minor in contrast to the size of the project, as most of the upper reservoir areas are timberlands. A real estate survey conducted in 1967 revealed that 238 improved properties in the vicinity of the damsites in St. Francis and Allagash would be acquired for the project. These consist principally of residences and camps, with some commercial properties, small lumber mills and marginal farm units.
There is no question that a project of the magnitude of Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes has considerable environmental impacts. There will be environmental losses as well as environmental gains – these losses and gains often being interpreted and measured through the exercise of personal preference. The integration of the Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes project and the Allagash should ultimately provide the optimum resolution to the divergent desires and needs of many. It will also result in a valuable resource balance to the upper region of Maine.
4. ROLE OF PREFERENCE CUSTOMERS
As stated earlier, the Department of Interior is vested with the responsibility of marketing the electric power from Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes per authority of Section 5 of the 1944 Flood Control Act. This Section states that power will be sold in such a manner as to encourage the most widespread use thereof at the lowest possible rates consistent with sound business practices.
Section 5 further states that preference in the sale of power and energy is to be given to public and cooperative power interests. A list of preference customers that had requested project power from the Department of Interior in 1966 and 1967 is noted on Page 428 of the FY 1968 Hearings before the House Public Works Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee.
It will not be known how much power – if any – will be available to private utilities until Interior finalizes its marketing plans. Historically, the Department of Interior has not proceeded with definitive marketing and transmission plans until construction of the project is underway and the power-on-line date is capable of being met with some degree of certainty. Prior to that time, their studies are of sufficient depth to determine marketability and evaluate the financial feasibility of the power installation.
The largest reduction will be realized by preference customers. However, in the spirit of the objectives of the New England NEPOOL system – namely, to achieve maximum economy consistent with standards of reliability in generation and transmission of bulk power through joint coordinated efforts – the Dickey-Lincoln School Lakes project represents the most economical addition to the system when compared to equivalent alternatives.