Highland Lake Environmental Assessment EA

USDA NRCS Maine Environmental Assessment Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program Highland Lake Fish Passage Project June 2006 Introduction This environmental assessment (EA) is being prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and implementing regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. The EA will assist NRCS in determining whether the proposed action will have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment and therefore requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Purpose and Need: The purpose of the Highland Lake Stream Channel Renovation and Fish Passage Project is to restore the ecological function of the Presumpscot River watershed by restoring sea-run fish populations, such as Atlantic salmon, American shad, alewives, blueback herring, American eel, striped bass and rainbow smelt. This project will restore Mill Brook stream habitat and provide fish passage at the Highland Lake dam to improve the quality of the aquatic habitat and to provide access for native sea-run fish to historic habitat in the watershed. This project will benefit 14 miles of riverine habitat in the lower Presumpscot and entire Mill Brook, as well as 640 acres of Highland Lake habitat found upstream of the dam where passage will be provided. The Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) is administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The program offers technical and financial assistance through long-term agreements to create, restore, and enhance wildlife habitat. The following deficiencies define the need for fish passage: 1. Mill Brook stream channel below the dam is scoured, overwidened and a large gravel bar deposited in the center of the stream channel due to the 1996 flood, which created the existing degraded habitat conditions for native fish. The gravel bar prevents access to an existing fishway because it obstructs the fishway entrance. A backwater USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA area and second stream channel below the dam spillway also prevents migrating fish from finding the entrance. The degraded stream channel conditions restrict or prevent the downstream passage of fish that come over the dam spillway and through the fishway during their downstream migration. This project proposes to restore the degraded stream channel to a self maintaining natural stream channel that is more directly linked to the fishway entrance and dam spillway to provide the necessary attraction flows to the fishway and provide an improved upstream and downstream migratory route for fish under various flow conditions that could occur at the site. In summer 2003, the USFWS-Gulf of Maine Office collected survey elevation data of the Mill Brook stream channel below the dam to assist in understanding the current fluvial geomorphologic considerations at the site for incorporating into a design for a natural, self-maintaining stream channel. A final design has been completed by Kleinschmidt Associates (Kleinschmidt), see details in Appendix B. 2. The upper section of the fishway where the fish enter the Highland Lake dam impoundment has excessively high water velocities that restrict or prevent fish from continuing their upstream migration. The proposed correction is to install one additional baffle at the fishway exit to control the flow, and allow for more efficient operation of the fishway. This will provide a clear column of water over a surface weir or baffles to allow adult fish to successfully access Highland Lake spawning and nursery habitat. Background The Presumpscot River watershed, including the Mill Brook tributary and sub-watershed, is the largest freshwater source flowing directly into the Casco Bay estuary (see attached map in Appendix B). It contains spawning and nursery habitat that historically supported fish species such as Atlantic salmon, American shad, alewives and blueback herring, American eel, striped bass and rainbow smelt. These sea-run fish species play an important role in the food web and in maintaining healthy ecosystems, and were historically abundant in the Presumpscot River watershed, however dam construction caused populations to decline or disappear for many years. In the inland freshwater and coastal marine environments sea-run fish provide forage for salmonoids, bass, brown trout, ospreys, eagles, kingfishers, blue heron, and aquatic furbearing mammals. Alewives and blueback herring heading upriver give cover to outmigrating Atlantic salmon smolts in the spring. They are also host to native freshwater mussels, which they carry up- and down rivers in their gills. In the marine environment, many of these sea-run species are eaten by a variety of predators, such as bluefish, weakfish, striped bass, cod, pollock and silver hake, as well as sea birds and marine mammals. 2 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA Historically, Atlantic salmon were abundant in the watershed. In the late 1970’s Atlantic salmon were seen in portions of the lower river below the dams. In 2002, the first dam on the Presumpscot River was removed (Smelt Hill Dam) and sea-run fish species gained unimpeded access to Presumpscot River habitat up to Cumberland Mills, including access to Highland Lake via Mill Brook and Piscataqua River (A Plan for the Future of the Presumpscot River, Presumpscot River Plan Steering Committee, 2002). The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has designated Essential Fish Habitat for several species including Atlantic salmon (Smelt Hill Environmental Restoration Study, Army Corps of Engineers, 2000). The NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Draft Recovery Plan for the Gulf of Maine Distinct Population Segment of Atlantic Salmon (June, 2004) identifies “predation” as a high priority threat to Atlantic salmon populations. It also lists nine major actions that are needed for salmon recovery, including: “protect and restore freshwater and estuarine habitat” and “reduce predation and competition on all life stages of Atlantic salmon”. This project works to restore habitat and forage fish, such as alewife and blueback herring, to the lower Presumpscot and Mill Brook. State agency fishery restoration goals for these species described in A Summary of Fisheries Conditions, Issues and Options for the Presumpscot River watershed (prepared by the Presumpscot River Plan Steering Committee, 2002), estimates runs of 23 to 115 Atlantic salmon and approximately 250,000 alewives and blueback herring with the removal of the Smelt Hill dam. The total potential for restored runs throughout the watershed is approximately 600 Atlantic salmon and approximately 670,000 American shad, alewife, and blueback herring. Since the removal of the Smelt Hill head of tide dam in 2002, there is significant local interest in restoring spawning and nursery habitat accessibility for these sea-run fish species. For example, there are several ongoing restoration projects in Mill Brook that are complimentary to this project, such as the provision of fish passage in a large road culvert; a fluvial geomorphic assessment of the entire brook; and an inventory of restoration needs in the lower Presumpscot, including Mill Brook. Highland Lake is currently the largest spawning and nursery habitat area available to alewife in the entire Presumpscot River watershed. With an already active sea-run alewife population located downstream of the dam, the improvement of the Highland lake fishway would allow the restoration of significant native fish species such as alewives. For example, the 640 acre Highland Lake has a production potential of approximately 150,000 adult alewives annually. The objective of this project is to restore biological vitality and river connectivity of the Presumpscot River watershed, Casco Bay and Gulf of Maine watershed. This project provides a significant step toward this by restoring the sea-run fish stream habitat in Mill Brook and improving upstream and downstream fish passage at the Highland Lake dam. The resulting increase in habitat quality and quantity will boost the productivity of the Presumpscot River watershed for sea-run fish species such as Atlantic salmon, American shad, alewives, blueback herring, American eel, striped bass, sea lamprey and rainbow smelt, which will in turn provide benefits to the entire Gulf of Maine ecosystem. 3 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA Description: The Highland Lake dam is located on Mill Brook at the outlet of Highland Lake. The municipalities of Windham, Westbrook and Falmouth border Highland Lake, and the dam structure itself is located in Westbrook. The dam was built in 1936, and a concrete denil fishway was constructed at the dam in 1988. In 1996, a major storm and flooding led to a partial breach of the Highland Lake dam and significant downstream erosion and stream channel degradation in Mill Brook. Following several repairs to the old dam and subsequent failures, a new dam was constructed in 2000 by the City of Westbrook with Federal Emergency Management Agency ( FEMA) funding. Monitoring at this site conducted by the MDMR indicates that the dam, fishway, and degraded stream channel configuration is restrictive to fish passage. Alternatives: Several draft design concepts were proposed that included direct modification of the Highland Lake dam by raising the weir elevation across an 80 foot section of the 102 foot dam opening. Correspondence from USFWS dated 12/15/2005 indicated that addition of a weir will provide an average 0.42 days (based on 2001 – 2005 data) which is not significant enough to include in the project as a viable alternative. After full technical team study of the dam modification alternatives that would result in significant human resource concerns on the natural environment within the project area a more cost effective viable alternative was engineered and chosen by the Project Sponsor with majority Partner support. The chosen final fish passage alternative (Alternative 2) predicts full project success with an environmental assessment leading to a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). See Appendix A: Communications and Technical Documents for additional project details. Alternative 1: “No Action” Alternative 2: “ Proposed Action” – This project proposes to restore the degraded stream channel to a self maintaining natural stream channel that is more directly linked to the fishway entrance and dam spillway to provide the necessary attraction flows to the fishway and provide an improved upstream and downstream migratory route for fish under various flow conditions that could occur at the site. In summer 2003, the USFWS-Gulf of Maine Office collected survey elevation data of the Mill Brook stream channel below the dam to assist in understanding the current fluvial geomorphologic considerations at the site for incorporating into a design for a natural, selfmaintaining stream channel. 4 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA The proposed fishway correction is to re-design the existing baffles, with one additional baffle and trap installed at the fishway exit to control the flow, and allow for more efficient operation of the fishway. This will provide a clear column of water over a surface weir or baffles to allow adult fish to successfully access Highland Lake. This alternative was chosen by MDMR as the most cost effective solution to meet the fish passage goals for the project with proper consideration of not creating any negative adverse environmental conditions within the project area. The final design was prepared by Kleinschmidt engineers and coordinated with NRCS, USFWS and Westbrook’s City Engineer, as well as Maine Department of Marine Resources, Highland Lake Association, EPA-Casco Bay Estuary Project, and other Partners. This final design was also coordinated with the state and federal permitting agencies – MDEP and ACOE—prior to the issuance or renewal of the permits to MDMR. 5 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA Environmental Impacts – Highland Lake Project Environmental Resource Coastal Zone Management Area Cultural Resources Endangered & Threatened Species Existing Conditions None currently affected. None currently affected. Barriers to fish passage exist. Atlantic salmon are present in project area; however project area not within a designated population segment protected by the Endangered Species Act. Spotted pondweed populations exist in Highland Lake. None currently affected. Proposed Action No new impacts. No new impacts. Not likely to adversely affect salmon. No additional Atlantic salmon spawning and nursery habitat is provided. Not likely to adversely affect Spotted Pondweed. habitat in Highland Lake. No Action No changes. No changes. No changes. Environmental Justice Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act No new impacts. Action is being planned with assistance from USFWS and NOAA. No new impacts. No new impacts. No new impacts. No new impacts. Streambanks stabilized, sediment barriers removed No new impacts. Aquatic habitat improvement. No new impacts. Barriers removed. No changes. Floodplain Management Invasive Species Natural Areas Prime and Unique Farmlands Riparian Areas None currently affected. None currently affected. None currently affected. None currently affected. Sediment barriers and eroded streambanks None currently affected. None currently affected. None currently affected. Barriers to diadromous fish exist No changes. No changes. No changes. No changes. Plantings to benefit stream habitat and fisheries No changes. No changes. No changes. Alewives are prevented the use of upstream habitat for spawning and nursery habitat Scenic Beauty Waters of US/ Clean Water Act Wild and Scenic Rivers Essential Fish Habitat 6 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA Persons and Agencies Consulted: Partners: Maine Department of Marine Resources, municipalities of Westbrook, Falmouth and Windham; Highland Lake Association; local landowners; Friends of Presumpscot River; Coastal Conservation Association; Natural Resources Conservation Service; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Casco Bay Estuary Project, and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation are partnering to improve stream habitat and fish passage at the site. Agencies Consulted: Maine's State Historic Preservation Officer (Maine Historic Preservation Commission, 55 Capitol St., 65 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333). National Marine Fisheries Service, 1 Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930 Maine Department of Environmental Protection Portland (Southern Maine Regional Office SMRO), 312 Canco Road • Portland, Maine 04103 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Maine Project Office, 675 Western Avenue #3, Manchester, Maine 04351 Points of Contact: Thomas S. Squiers, SED Director Maine Dept. of Marine Resources 21 State House Station Hallowell, ME 04333-0021 Phone: 207-624-6348; Fax:207-624-602 Email: Tom.Squiers@maine.gov Sandra J. Lary, Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4R Fundy Road Falmouth, ME 04105 Phone:207-781-8364;Fax:207-781-8369 Email: sandra_lary@fws.gov 7 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA Appendices APPENDIX A – COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS APPENDIX B – DESIGN DOCUMENTS APPENDIX C - OTHER 8 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA APPENDIX A – COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS 9 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 10 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 11 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 12 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 13 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA Natural Areas Program Checklist for NRCS Projects Date Received: 5/8/2006 NRCS Program: EQIP/WHIP Landowner Name: ME DMR NRCS Contact: David Chiappetta NRCS Office: Scarborough Tract: Town: Westbrook Phone: Project Description/Planned Practice(s): Fish passage- Improve fish passage at Dam on Highland Lakeno change in spillway elevations or lake water levels are planned. EQIP/WHIP Criteria Have Rare, Threatened or Endangered Plants been documented to occur at the site? No No plants = 0 Federal listed = 100 Globally Rare = 100 State Rare = 50 Yes Plant points: 0 Have Rare or Exemplary Natural Communities been documented to occur at the site? Yes No No communities = 0 Rare (S1, S2, S3) = 100 Exemplary (S4, S5 w/A or B rank) = 50 Community points: 0 Have Rare, Threatened or Endangered Animals been documented to occur at the site? No No animals = 0 Federal listed = 100 Globally Rare = 100 State Rare = 50 Yes Animal points: 0 Have Significant Habitats been documented to occur at the site? Deer Wintering Area Inland Wading Bird/Waterfowl Habitat Coastal Wading Bird/Waterfowl Habitat Seabird Nesting Islands Shorebird Roosting Area Wading Bird Colony Vernal Pool Don’t know No significant habitats = 0 One or more significant habitats = 50 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No Significant Habitat points: 0 Summary List of At-Risk Plants, Communities and Animals, and Significant Habitats Feature Name Common Name State Global State Planned practices are Rank Rank Status beneficial, adverse, or have no effect. Potamogeton Spotted Pondweed S1 G5 EBeneficial No Effect pulcher Extant Adverse (include recommendations) Practice Code Tract/Field # 396 Have At-Risk Habitats been documented to occur at the site? 14 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA Grasslands of state-wide significance Yes No Don’t know Early successional habitats of state-wide significance Yes No Don’t know Datasets are not available for at-risk habitats at this time. No points are awarded. At-Risk Habitat points: 0 Does the parcel intersect with a designated Focus Area? Not within Focus Areas = 0 Within Focus Area = 20 Yes No Focus Area points: 0 Total Score: 0 Initial review completed by: RR Date: 5/20/06 Time spent: 20 min. Additional review completed by: DC Date: 6/1/06 Time spent: 10 min. 15 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 7/13/05 East Windham Fire Station Highland Lake Public Meeting Record Participants: Wayne Munroe David Chiappetta Joe & Avis Gallant Bob Brackett Dick Duperre John and Eunice Wilcox Julie Motherwell Izadore and Jean Fox Cyndy Schadler R. Johnston Tom Bannen John Mackinnon Greg Scott Gerard Ouellette Frank and Nancy Mead David Nadeau Chris Gray/Dan Anderson Erlon Varney Mark Lefebvre Peter Bastien Thomas Squiers Sandra Lary 306 US Route 1, Suite A1 306 US Route 1, Suite A1 Haven Road 415 Rock-a-way Road 36 Brentwood Road 49 Sunset Road 50 Lowell Farm Road 38 Brentwood Road 50 Brentwood Road Cottage Road 12 Hideaway 143 Haven Road 108 Rock-A-Way Road 11 Lorn Drive Lorn Drive 89 Johnson Road 36 Lowell Farm Road Pride Farm Road 1 Leighton Road Kleinschmidt Associates MDMR USFWS Scarborough Scarborough Windham Windham Windham Falmouth Windham Windham Windham Windham Falmouth Windham Windham Windham Windham Windham Windham Windham Windham Pittsfield Augusta Falmouth ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME 04074-9774 04074-9774 04062 04062 20 in audience and 5 up at front tables Introduction made by Wayne 6:10 pm: -Partners and landowners involvement are important to the project -Goal is to present the project, and the three proposed components of the project. - Environmental assessment is being conducted and this meeting is part of that process. - Surface area of Highland lake is 640 acres, big storm event 0ct 20-22 1996. - Potential of 150,000 alewives could be supported by Highland Lake. John Wilcox, HLA: provided some history on the project, which started 4-5 years ago. Lake landowners noticed lowered wells, poor water quality and reduced access to the lake because of the water level drop after the new dam was constructed in 1999. So, the HLA started with trying to get higher lake levels – at least 3 inches higher. Alewives will hopefully feed on zooplankton, improve water quality – clarity Following John’s HLA overview, a participant asked “ How long will it take for the alewife runs to increase?” Tom answered that over the next 3-4 years the run should increase, but if the lake 16 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA got to its full production potential, it could take upwards of 10 years. Damariscotta Lake has an alewife run of 40-50 alewives per acre. Thomas Squiers, MDMR gave a presentation outlining the three components of the project which include the restoration of the degraded stream channel, repair of the fishway, and construction of a fish weir on the dam spillway: - The stream channel is over-widened and sediment bars block the fishway entrance. Tom discussed the problem of fish not being able to find the fishway now, since the stream channel is split and it is too wide to provide sufficient flow. The proposal is to re-create the original stream channel. - When the new dam was constructed, the fishway exit channel was extended to connect to the new dam, but it requires one additional baffle to be installed to reduce water velocities so the fish can swim upstream. - The proposal for the dam is to construct a weir across the spillway except for a 22’ section where the old dam was. This opening will be at the same elevation and same width as the old dam. The purpose of this is to attract upstre4am migrating fish to the fishway entrance, and to direct water flow over the dam toward the restored stream channel. Peter Bastien, Kleinschmidt Assoc., Design Engineer reviewed the various weir options with flood flow efficiency, safety, maintenance requirements, cost, and aesthetics factored into all of the options. Five options were presented and discussed at this meeting. - Option one is a square concrete weir that would be stable, but may not last as long as the other options since it is more prone to cracking. - Option two is a speed bump with smoother lip but the lip forms an air pocket (negative pressure) which can lead to the weir cracking over time and may make some noise during high flows. - Option three has an even more aerodynamic lip (called an ogee weir) ,so no air pocket (negative pressure) and therefore cracking or noise issues. It is the most efficient since the shape most closely matches the existing dam, but it is also the most expensive to construct. - Option four is piece of pressure treated wood with a life expectancy of 25-50 years. It would be connected to the dam via a metal joint that may last 5-15 years. This option is less expensive, would not have the air pocket (negative pressure) issue, but would be more likely to catch debris. - Option five are steel plates that would be connected to the dam via a metal joint that may last 515 years. This option is less expensive, would not have the air pocket (negative pressure) issue, but would be more likely to catch debris. Flood flow efficiency, safety, maintenance requirements, cost, and aesthetics were all factored into all of these options by Kleinschmidt. Based on these factors, Peter Bastien, KA recommended Option Three. 17 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA Peter noted that during a hundred year storm the lake level will be eight tenths of a foot higher during storm peak. Additional questions/issues raised at Highland Lake Dam and Mill Brook Fish passage and channel restoration project informational meeting: Dick Duperre Had question about his lake level going up 10 inches – 12 inches during a 100 year storm event, how will rise of one foot affect Macintosh brook running into lake. Macintosh floods and how will change in dam height affect Macintosh brook flooding? Prior to the new dam, there was too much water at times, causing flooding at the foot of the Lower Beach Road (below culvert). Several properties in that area may be affected by lake levels. Question was, are we going back to what we used to have with flooding if dam has weir attached to top? Izadore Fox (neighbor to Dick DuPerre) Asked when the project construction is planned? Wayne answered that the schedule is fluid since we are looking for feedback and input from partners that will be incorporated into the process. Wayne Munroe said he is making a note of issue raised, we need to take a fresh look at the outlet elevation of Macintosh Brook in relations to modeled Lake stormwater elevations and stage storage of proposed alternatives. David Nadeau Model doesn’t address early May frozen ground conditions, models don’t reflect infiltration rate, can we include these conditions in our calculations on water levels? Peter Bastien, KA responded that the model does in fact consider and incorporate runoff rate. Frank Reed (This comment was directed toward Dick Duperre’s earlier comment above): If this project is done, how would the situation be any different than it was thirty years ago when Dick purchased his property? The main portion of the dam was 22 foot wide and six feet high. What is proposed now is to have the opening 22 foot wide and the same height of six feet, with over 110 or so feet of additional spillway available during flooding. Frank mentioned that he and others no longer have any access to their boathouses form the water because of the drop in water levels since the new dam, and he can only park his boat in his boathouse intermittently through the summer. John Wilcox, HLA and dam committee 18 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA Stated that the proposed dam spillway will have more capacity than the old dam of 22 foot wide and six foot high since the new dams spillway is over 100 feet and in combination with the new flood gates, is capable of passing more water and preventing extreme upstream flooding, unlike the old dam. However, the way the new dam is now, it isn’t as good as the old dam, because the water levels dropped and are too low. Joe Gallant - Repeated Frank Reed’s comment directed toward Dick Duperre’s earlier comment above): If this project is done, how would the situation be any different than it was thirty years ago when Dick purchased his property? The main portion of the dam was 22 foot wide and six feet high. What is proposed now is to have the opening 22 foot wide and the same height of six feet, with over 110 or so feet of additional spillway available during flooding. He and others no longer have any access to their boathouses from the water because of the drop in water levels since the new dam. -Asked if anything will be done to the end of the canal (specifically replacing old beaver dam that had influenced much of the pre-dam breach water levels)? -Wayne and Tom answered that installing a structure upstream of the dam to further raise water levels is outside the scope of this project. -Joe asked about ice pressure along weir and ice catching on the weir: -Peter Bastien answered that all five weir options were tested and are well below the threshold safety margin of 5000 lbs linear foot design pressure. Options 4 and 5 would be more prone to catch ice than the other three options. Greg Scott, President of Highland Lake Assoc. Questioned if it may be possible as a potential solution to the lake’s north end (flooding) vs. south end issues (low water) that during higher lake level-rain event periods, for the City to operate the gates to release some water and prevent flooding at the north end (Macintosh Brook) of the lake? Peter Bastien, KA engineer said that the gates would still be operational after the weir is installed. Sandra commented that it may be part of Kleinschmidt Assoc. contract to prepare a revised “City of Westbrook Operations and Maintenance Manual”, based on the new configuration of the dam, updating the 2001 version which was developed for the new dam. Additional comments were that the operation of the gate is under the control of the City of Westbrook and coordination would need to occur between the partners and Eric Dudley, the Chief City Engineer, to examine the potential solutions and in revising the Manual. John Mackinnon 19 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA Northern end of lake has a flat slope along the shoreline, and doesn’t take much to effect lake level, that is a few inches rise in water level inundates a lot of land there on the northern end of the lake. Have we analyzed that? Detailed information on that specific area of the lake was not analyzed. Sandra Lary asked how many might be affected with Macintosh brook situation Dick Duperre said about ten property owners. Gentleman next to John Wilcox commented that the 111 foot dam with a 22 foot opening is better than the old dam during high water in spring, as this is a passive flood-control system now. John Wilcox said we are ten inches ahead on rain this year and the water is right at spillway. If we had normal rainfall this spring, the water level would be six inches or so below the spillway. Gerard Ouelette – this is being done for alewives, does anybody know how many alewives this lake will support, he notices other fish are in decline. Gerard doesn’t see yellow perch, sunfish, suggested that maybe the increased number of loons are eating all the perch and sunfish? Tom Squires responds that there have been studies done in several Maine lakes to look at fishery interactions and have not seen negative effects on other fish species in those studies. David Nadeau - Fishing for large bass from shore has gone downhill, because the bass follow the alewives and eat the alewives offshore. Need to look for the big bass offshore from a boat because they stay out in deeper water to feed on alewives all summer until the alewives leave . Then the bass feed on the perch and sunfish in the winter, and get skinny as a result of it too. He predicts fishery will crash. Tom Bannen Lives on Falmouth side of lake and has seen the water quality declining. Said warmwater fishery changes may also be due to things, like new developments, runoff, pesticides. Concerned about these impacts on the fish habitat and water quality. John MacKinnon Asked about more details on the alewife studies, such as growth rates of bass. Tom answered that there is an increase in growth rate or no effect on the bass where alewives occur. Wayne suggests Frances Braughtigam, MDIFW Regional Fisheries Biologist, look into studies about fisheries, sunfish and yellow perch along with alewife being present. David Nadeau, 20 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA He would like IFW to do a study to see about crayfish populations because the state only looks at salmonids, and asked if IFW has done any studies looking at crayfish and all other fish species? He wants IFW to do a shocking study on the fish in Highland Lake. Sandra mentioned that IFW has done some surveys of Highland Lake and Mill Brook fisheries. She said she spoke with Frances Brautigam early on in the planning process and he did not oppose addressing the issues identified at the dam, but we can ask him some specific questions about the sunfish and yellow perch populations. Tom also mentioned that the alewife run is low and with the new trap at the fishway, the alewife numbers can be monitored. John Wilcox mentions that representation tonight by those affected by lower lake levels is not great. Julie Motherwell, landowner at the south end of lake and former HLA President -She has a dug well and while the lower lake levels gave her a little beach, it has caused her to be more conservative with water usage, and since she has no septic the lower water levels causes her leach field to freeze. -Julie has another comment that while she needs higher water levels, she remembers that when they were higher, there was more boating and waterskiing which causes erosion when skiers turn, and the boat wake. Erlon Varney Pride Farms neighborhood wants higher lake levels. Their boats hit rocks. The beaver dam upstream of the old dam kept the lake levels even higher up than the dam itself did. Gentleman says it is low water now and he hasn’t had his boat in water in three years. They could use an additional 6-8 inches in the lake. Frank Mead Before the old dam blew out his boat was parked in boathouse Many boat houses are not being used now as a result of the new dam and low water levels. Higher water elevations will benefit boathouses, so they could park it in boathouse from time to time. Izzie & Jean Fox, Recently purchased a property located about 15 feet from the lake near Macintosh Brook in the floodplain. He has concerns about raised water elevation impacts on his property and wants to know how things will change with this project. This was his first meeting.. David Nadeau This is a resource protection question. FEMA floodplain properties are already going to get wet. A lot of people not represented at this meeting support the project. North area was mapped/zoned RP in the past, these properties are in the flood zone. We are going back to what was historical in terms of elevations. Dam is not being rebuilt properly to restore to the proper level. The present dam is a lower condition benefiting properties in the RP Zone. 21 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA Commented on boat and skier wakes, people are using a resource. He says there is nothing you can do to control boater habits. Johnson Road low water problem, boating accessibility. John commented that if Westbrook prefers Option Three, John asks what is consequence of the less efficient weir type, in terms of water level? Peter said it would be the same for all options, or a 0.1-0.3 foot increase (1-3 inch) Gerard Oulette Asked what is the process, is it a done deal? Wayne Munroe reassured that this is a federal environmental assessment process, and we are here to get input from public, and all comments and concerns will be evaluated. David Nadeau Suggested using units, such as reporting rise in water elevations, in units that the public will understand, not 0.1 or 0.3 feet, and to show us the new water level change on the shore of the lake, set flags where necessary. Wayne thanked people for coming at about 7:51 pm. John Wilcox - Highland Lake Association ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Copy of email sent to Wayne Munroe on July 18, 2005: From: JWILCOX754@aol.com [mailto:JWILCOX754@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 4:25 PM To: Munroe, Wayne - Scarborough, ME Cc: gscott@cianbro.com; Jhgscuba@aol.com; keithw944@msn.com; RalphJohnston@peoplePC.com; tibs@adpengineering.com; highland@maine.rr.com; watershed3@earthlink.net Subject: Re: Highland Lake Agenda for June 30, 2005 Hello Wayne. Eunice & I will not be able to attend the August 2 meeting. These are my comments which hopefully, can be shared at the meeting: 1. The fisheries habitat will not be any different if we add a lip to the spillway. So this should not affect the plans to add the weir to the dam. 2. The dam operation and maintenance plan will have to be revised to accommodate the addition of the weir. The old plan never had instructions as to how to operate the flood gates in the event of a flood or high lake levels of water. I would recommend having a table produced recommending different opening amounts for the two flood gates for various levels of the water over the new weir spillway (191.6 feet.) 22 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA The only change would be the new maintenance instructions for the new weir. 3. The additional flood hydrology maps should have been part of the original dam design. 4. Why would Macintosh Brook be a concern for the adding of a weir to the dam? The revised structure will allow LESS flooding than the previous dam that was destroyed in 1996. I agree it would be nice to have a study of the flooding, but it shouldn't affect the construction of the new weir. 5. Again, the RP zone properties will be better off than before the new dam was constructed. The purpose of the new weir is to bring the lake level back to the level before the new dam was constructed. The incorrect design did not take into account that the 100 foot wide spillway would empty the lake after each rain event five times faster than the old 22 wide spillway. This new design has caused lake levels to be 4 inches lower during wet times and 8-10 inches lower during dry times. The water table has fallen around the lake because of the lower average reservoir level that the higher lake maintained. The lower lake levels are a problem for most of the shoreside residents of the lake because of more hidden obstructions to destroy outboards, not enough water at piers and boat houses that were once accessible, and dug wells running dry. It has been a problem since the fishway was constructed in 1987 that too much water is removed from the lake during the summer to maintain the 2.8 CFS required by MDIF to maintain the health of Mill Brook. This addition of a weir to the top of the spillway is only a partial fix to correct problems started in 1987 with the spillway and made worse in 2000 with the construction of the new dam. The slots in the 22 foot section of the proposed new spillway would have allowed us to raise the spillway level an additional 4 inches with a 2x4 board during drought years such as we had in 2001, 2002, & 2003. I had requested this from MDMR and MDIF, but they did not think it important enough to incorporate into the design. It would not be any additional cost to the contract. I hope the new cap or weir will not be delayed because of the few questions that have arisen from the hearing. Perhaps we can obtain more feedback from waterfront residents at the annual meeting of the Highland Lake Association this Thursday. Thank you for all the work on this project and for keeping HLA informed, John Wilcox 23 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA Highland Lake Dam Fishway & Stream Channel Renovation – Meeting Minutes Teleconference Date: 11 August, 2005 / 09:00 A.M. Participants: (W) Wayne Munroe, NRCS (S) Sandra Lary, USFWS (P) Peter Bastien, Kleinschmidt Assoc. (M) Matt Bernier, Kleinschmidt Assoc. (T) Tom Squiers, MDMR (D) Dan Baumert, NRCS (J) Jim Johnson, NRCS Carl Perry, NRCS Introduction made by Wayne at 09:06 Summary: W: 9 issues were mentioned at the last public meeting. • Would like to separate the resource concerns identified at the public meeting of July 13th, 2005 that are not associated with the fish passage project proposed action. Asked participants if it was a good idea…all agreed. Decision made to move forward on discussing the nine resource concerns and separating resource concerns not a direct result of proposed project. • 1. Fisheries Habitat and Species Mgt W: Some issues can be addressed by the study data. Comments or questions directed to Sandra S: Stated that she had enough info on what DMR and state agencies have assessed. Expressed desire to provide additional educational info on what is happening in water shed so that people are more aware of the whole picture T: Made statement that the water shed issues were in a dynamic state of change and thought it best to keep it out of the primary impact 2. Dam Operation and Maintenance plan review 24 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA W: Questioned if everyone read the O&M Plan assessment provided by Eric Dudley, Westbrook City Engineer: Please pass this along to the appropriate people as you see fit. The “City of Westbrook is not interested in opening up for discussion the dam's O&M Plan. I have stated in the past that this project will need to be "sold" to our Council and that they are cautious of any potential changes. As it stands, the Highland Lake Dam has been approved and accepted. The City was approached regarding a project to enhance the passage of migrating alewives from Mill Brook to Highland Lake for spawning. As staff, we have reviewed the proposal and agree with it in theory and are willing to help support it to the City Council. We also understand the Council's position on the dam and feel that the Council will not support this extensive of an approach. I believe that the City would be willing to allow a modification to the dam to mimic historic flows and to help the passage of alewives to Highland Lake even though this does have an effect on the longevity of the bridge and it's maintenance, but they are quite hesitant to make any changes to the operations and maintenance requirements for the dam”. S: Stated that the assessment was consistent with what they have been telling everyone all along. Reference made to e-mail about dam and erosion problems and the negative effect on longevity of bridge. Clear that there will be no change in O&M plan…task about adjusting O&M Plan W: Question if O&M task would end now? Read bullet about O&M plan needing to be edited due to change in configuration of the dam and baffle P: If a weir is installed then need to put lift on gate which means changing the O&M plan W: If so, then need to assure communication with City of Westbrook regarding O&M plan depending on which alternative is chosen. General discussion broke out about dam flow and location about the fishway now S: Made statement about the need to factor in additional maintenance or operational requirements for the City of Westbrook. P: Discussed flow issues 3. Additional Flood Hydrology Map Correlation… 25 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA W: Alternatives involved raising weir 1 foot which would change the water level 1-3 inches. 100 year event causing a 10 inch change in the level led to a lot of discussion with property owners and their concerns about flooding. If the decision is made to go with any alternatives then changes in the lake elevation will be more apparent on the north end of lake where the grade of the land is not as steep as other regions of the lake. Residents were concerned about the elevation of the lake near Macintosh Brook. If lake elevation is raised they will need to look at a quick assessment of what to do. T: Question to Peter…is hydrology info outdated? P: Not for overall Highland Lake water shed but possibly for Macintosh Brook S: Stated that there was a comment from a couple of people about more frequent flooding with the old dam vs. new dam. Some residents like the new dam because levels are lower and they like the new conditions. W: Commented that some properties that are in flood zones have a better situation now however, boat owners were really frustrated with the lack of historic higher water levels. Also there was concern from some people about septic systems not working properly with both high and low lake levels. Discussion broke out about a notched weir solution. Questions arose concerning what are possible solutions? P: Discussed water flow during various seasons and impact on alewife migration S: Commented that 1-3 inches in raised lake level does not effect too much of a change but not all residents will be in 100% agreement…also need to factor cost, time, analysis, funding, etc. for studying raised water levels and impact W: Stated that the bottom line is that any alternative that will produce a significant resource concern impact will require additional planning and study and suggested to go with an alternative that doesn’t change the lake elevation if fish passage goals can be effectively achieved. 4. Macintosh Brook Flood Elevation Note: Topic not discussed other than previous statements mentioned above in Part 3. 5. Set flags showing highest potential rise in mean water elevation… P: Questioned if doing this would be of any significant benefit? Was concerned about residents panicking when they actually see how levels would impact their property and is the task really worth the time and effort. 26 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA S: Stated that there about 10 landowners that live in an area that would be flooded and the focus would be on showing the impact in that area W: Need to make a decision on alternative solutions first before doing a task in order to save time and money…expressed a concern about the cost of such a survey noting that more than 500 property owners have an interest in the shore frontage, additional survey needs may be requested beyond the cost and resources available. P: Raised issue about alleviating concerns if it proved favorable for the cause vs. showing real negative impact W: After the public meeting, he got phone calls from residents about septic system problems due to water levels (one call in particular had a concern about high water impact to septic system). S: Discussed stream channel modifications for attracting fish to the fishway to improve passage. Wanted to know if they could keep the existing flow over the dam and modify channel to accommodate a better flow near the fishway. M: Discussed widening of the channel below dam due to flow and proposals to secondary passage. Also discussed weir options and improving the flow to go to where the fish ladder is to encourage fish passage. Commented that the channel below fish ladder needs to be widened. S: Wondered about the barrier adjacent to spillway. Questioned modifications of entrance to fishway M: Emphasized that flow still needs to go to fish ladder to encourage passage W: Expressed concern that they need to engineer a back up plan if numbers don’t produce results. S: Suggested not to stick to existing design if it isn’t working. Consider modifying the pool as well. M: Stated that the biggest problem is in front of spillway…there is a high energy flow when water is high. J: Raised questions about not putting weirs on top of dam…if the channel would still accommodate passage T: Suggested installing a fish counter and tunnel as well to monitor numbers W: Suggested upgrading design to achieve maximum fish passage potential as much as possible without going over existing budget of overall plan S: Commented that the key thing is to monitor the project as it progresses to ensure that things are working as well as planned and to keep tabs on progression and whether or not they are meeting goals. 27 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA J: Stated that we’re moving in the right direction and also that the City Council is sensitive about changes to the dam. Wanted to know what other options are available. S: Wanted to know how long would it take to get a modified design? And if it was possible to stay on schedule for this year? P: Stated that they were putting together a bid package to move ahead S: Thought it was best to just present one alternative solution versus multiple J: Commented that one solution solves most of the resource concerns on the list W: If the final alternative for fish passage does not change the hydrology and results in no negative conditions on the human environment with an overall finding of no significant impact and concerns then may not have to formally file the environmental assessment. Also raised concern about permits from Army Corps of Eng for final approval. Stated that they may need to take a really strong look at rock structures in order to not create another stream bank erosion problem. P: Commented that the design already accounts for erosion considerations W: Stated that they need a staging area to mobilize construction and that they will need to deal with one landowner and potential costs involved T: Commented that it seemed the best alternative to pursue at this time and would need to go on September Westbrook City Council agenda P: Stated that they will revise the plan to go with channel improvements and achieve maximum fish passage goal. M: Discussed weir outlet options and plunge pools. Need flow differential over spillway and into plunge pool to encourage passage at the fish ladder W: Inquired about best construction schedule, group agreed earliest date achievable October, 2005. P: Need to find out if planning board approval is required W: Stated that another conference should be set up for the second week of September and that we need to address costs and budgets for the proposal P: Said he can provide some estimates W: Advised Peter that Southern ME projects run high so estimate high in order to prevent undercutting themselves on projected costs. Felt meeting was productive. All in agreement. 28 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 6. Septic sys impacts 7. Water Supply impacts 8. Erosion Impacts 9. Boating Impacts 10. Other: Note: Line Items 6-10 were discussed out of order in Parts 1-5. Meeting adjourned at 10:22 Copy of email sent to Tom Squires on August 20, 2005: From: JWILCOX754@aol.com [mailto:JWILCOX754@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 11:56 AM To: Tom.Squiers@maine.gov; Sandra_Lary@fws.gov; Munroe, Wayne - Scarborough, ME Cc: crhjr4@netzero.com; dean.layton@envirologix.com; fred.c.gallant@maine.gov; gerrymbrown@worldnet.att.net; gscott@cianbro.com; jem@maine.rr.com; Jhgscuba@aol.com; JWILCOX754@aol.com; keithw944@msn.com; rjohn5@verizon.net; TALSHL@aol.com; tibs@adpengineering.com; watershed3@earthlink.net; wlydon@maine.rr.com; nafread@ime.net Subject: Highland Lake Dam Hello Tom, August 20, 2005 I called and left a message asking you to call me last week. I have not heard from you. I am leaving for two weeks this Sunday so I wanted to express the disappointment that the majority of the residents on Highland Lake have regarding the choice by MDMR to abandon the Highland Lake spillway modifications. As you know, the lake residents have had low water issues since the fishway construction in 1987. When the new dam was constructed in 1999, the water levels have been lower because the lake has not been able to build up a reservoir of water to maintain an adequate supply of water to supply the fishway and Mill Brook's required 2.8 cfs. This has been a wet year. The lake level is 3 inches below the spillway today. It would be 8 to 10 inches below the spillway in a dry year. I thought we had been all through these issues before. That is why we decided to raise the spillway level. I agree, you can take care of the alewife migration by diverting the water below the dam to flow in front of the fishway, BUT, this does not take into consideration the lakefront owners who have been suffering with lower water levels 29 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA since 1987. This has resulted in dry wells, low water levels at docks, empty boat houses, more exposed rocks in the lake resulting in damaged outboards and outdrives, and higher lake temperatures because of shallower water. This has given us higher levels of algae in the lake. The hearing that took place at the Windham Fire Station on July 13 was not attended by the vast numbers of residents that want the lake level restored to its former levels prior to 1987 because they thought it was a 'done deal.' The dam was going to be modified this summer. They thought it was just for anyone whom may have an issue with the level being restored to the 1987- 1997 level. As you may recall, only a few residents had an issue (in the MacIntosh Brook flood plain) which probably wouldn't be affected at all by the higher lake level anyway. I responded to the issues presented at the July 13 hearing (see copy below). I am disappointed, as most of the lake residents are, that consideration is not given to most of Highland Lake residents who have been suffering with these lower water levels since the fishway was constructed in 1987. The U.S. Government U.S. Fish and Wildlife report dated Nov. 1, 2000 after the construction of the new dam, addressed to you, Tom Squiers, addresses the issue of too wide a spillway. I hope you will reconsider your decision to abandon modifying and increasing the dam spillway height. We, the residents of Highland Lake and the Highland Lake Association, have been working on this problem since 2001. The extra reservoir of water created by the return to the 1987 design would give you more water to feed your fishway and partially satisfy the residents of the lake by restoring our lake level to the 1987 -1997 levels. A 4 inch flashboard would have to be installed in the 22 foot wide portion to return lake levels to the pre 1987 levels. Tom, would it be advantageous to present a petition in favor of the modification, signed by the waterfront residents? 30 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 31 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 32 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 33 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 34 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 35 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 36 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 38 of 84 39 of 84 40 of 84 41 of 84 42 of 84 43 of 84 44 of 84 45 of 84 46 of 84 47 of 84 48 of 84 49 of 84 Nov.30,2005 Mr. Wayne Munroe District Conservationist USDA Dear Sir, The purpose of this note is to reitterate my concerns pertaining to the proposed addition of a weir to the Highland Lake dam. At the public meeting held on Wednesday, July 13th at the East Windham fire station. The significant change in the level at the North end of the lake near Macintosh brook that results from any significant rainfall in a short period was discussed. The rainfall amounts which occured this Fall ,although not severe, caused the level of the lake to rise a minimum of 16 inches at the Lower Beach road right of way. In my conversation with Ralph Johnson, past president ofthe Highland Lake Association, He observed that the water level at the dam rose from six inches below the top to six inches above the top. This 12 inch increase in water level though significant may not be the maximum that occured. In my opinion, had the flow over the entire length of the dam been reduced to the proposed weir opening ,the backup at the North end of the lake would have caused the water to rise well over the 16 inches that I measured. Since the present dam with the extended spillway was constructed, there has not been any flooding in the Macintosh brook area of the lake.Adding height to the dam and restricting flow to a 22 foot opening would recreate the potential flooding problem the the new dam corrected. Since over a million dollars of public funds were expended and solved a flood problem it doesn't appear to make much sense to spend additional tax money to recreate the problem. Please keep me and my neighbors informed of any proposed meetings or action on this project.My current e-mail address is cduperre@msn.com and my phone number is 8926994. From Jan. to May my phone number is (941) 423-6796. Sincerely, Richard Duperre 36 Brentwood Road Windham, ME. 04062 50 of 84 51 of 84 52 of 84 53 of 84 54 of 84 55 of 84 56 of 84 57 of 84 58 of 84 59 of 84 60 of 84 61 of 84 62 of 84 63 of 84 64 of 84 65 of 84 66 of 84 67 of 84 68 of 84 69 of 84 From: Baumert, Dan - Bangor, ME [mailto:dan.baumert@me.usda.gov] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 6:47 PM To: Tom.Squiers@maine.gov Cc: Munroe, Wayne - Scarborough, ME Subject: RE: Highland Lake Dam Modification Tom, A lot of different information on water heights from the effects of spillways, fishway flows, etc. Kind of confusing. It seems that the only effect the operation of the fishway (during May and June) would have on the total amount of water available in the lake is when the fishway is operating at more than 2.8 cfs (minimum IF&W requirement) and the water level is below the spillway crest. When water is flowing over the spillway the fishway flow is not causing any more available water to leave the lake. If it were not going through the fishway it would be going over the weir. So are there any estimates as to how much of the time the fishway is flowing at higher operating levels (higher than 2.8 cfs) and flow is not going over the weir? This would then give an indication of how the operation of the fishway in May and June could potentially effect the lake level later in the summer. Also if a rainfall event occurred any time in May or June that brought the lake level back up to or above the weir level would not any extra drawdown of the Lake caused by the operation of the fishway up to that point be negated? The lake can only be filled to the spillway level. "Reserves" cannot be stored above the the spillway crest very long since it will spill over. Hope that makes sense. Dan From: JWILCOX754@aol.com [mailto:JWILCOX754@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 2:07 PM To: Tom.Squiers@maine.gov Cc: gscott@cpmconstructors.com; tibs@adpengineering.com; keithw944@msn.com; Gail.Wippelhauser@maine.gov; Jason.Bartlett@maine.gov; Munroe, Wayne - Scarborough, ME; Sandra_Lary@fws.gov; Baumert, Dan - Bangor, ME; Johnson, Jim - Bangor, ME; Peter.Bastien@KleinschmidtUSA.com; EDudle@westbrook.me.us; BMore@westbrook.me.us; Curtis_Orvis@fws.gov; Ken_Brownell@fws.gov; jem@maine.rr.com Subject: Re: Highland Lake Dam Modification Dear Tom, Thank you for your response to my email of Feb 4. I would like to address some of the information in your response. I realize that the MDMR is the lead agency on the Highland Lake Fish Passage Project. Your funding partner, the USFWS, has been involved with this since the 70 of 84 dam was built in 1999. Their recommendation in a letter dated November 1, 2000, was to add flash boards to the spillway to direct dam flow toward the fishway entrance. The Highland Lake Association (HLA) thought that this would be an excellent solution because it would return the dam configuration (22 ' wide spillway) to its original water holding capabilities. The new dam with its 103' wide spillway flushes the water out of the lake from rain events at a rate five times faster so that the lake cannot maintain the higher historic levels prior to its construction in 1999. The fishway when added in 1986 started drawing a minimum of 2.8 CFS. I agree that this is an MDIF&W requirement, but the MDMR requires a flow of 46 CFS between May 1 and June 30. This equates to a loss of about 6 million gallons per month or about 6 inches per month in lake level. This volume is being drawn from the lake when we are trying to build our reservoir level. This total additional 12 inches of lake level during the 2 months formerly was drawn from the higher lake level caused by the narrower 22' wide spillway. We do not have this capacity any more. I have done the calculations using groundwater and rainfall inflow, and evaporation and fishway flow losses. We end up with a net loss of about 2 inches per summer month in average precipitation years. This equates to a loss during the summer months of about 4-6 inches. In the past with the old dam 22' spillway, the dam was able to retain more water from various rain events to maintain a reasonable lake level. My flashboard proposal would restore Highland Lake to its original historic level during the summer months. Almost all Highland Lake waterfront property owners support any proposal which would return the lake level to its historic level. I agree with the engineers at the USFWS that once the lake level is at the spillway height, the flashboards would have no effect. The benefit of the higher flashboards and narrower (22' wide) spillway is that the lake would not be at the spillway height as proven by the historic levels of the lake and as indicated above. One of the reasons you abandoned the modifications to the spillway was because of the environmental assessment studies required. We would be returning the lake level to its pre 1999 historic level. I can't see what the objection would be. We (HLA) will provide a survey of lake property owners and address any concerns a very few might have. I realize MDMR is able to satisfy its goal to restore the alewife migration to Highland Lake without the flashboard modification, but considering the effect the fishway and the wider spillway has on lake level, would you please consider making this modification part of your proposal to the City of Westbrook? As you well know, we at the HLA have been working on this proposal since 2001 with many roadblocks. We received all of the permits from the various agencies in 71 of 84 2003, but the City of Westbrook wouldn't approve the installation of a temporary structure without a prohibitive amount of liability insurance. We at HLA will provide an engineering drawing of our proposal, an operation and maintenance plan, and will install the temporary flash board structure on the dam after city approval. We hope you and your partners realize that this would be beneficial to all of us and support us by including this proposal in your presentation to Westbrook and allowing the HLA to do the installation on the dam under your insurance policy which was our roadblock in 2003. Would it be possible for you to reactivate your permits which were obtained from various agencies in order for us to go ahead with this project? The flashboard proposal is a temporary structure that would be installed for the permitted seven months of the year The flashboards would be removed at the end of the summer. The flashboards would be designed to release in the event of a flood. I know this has been a lengthy email, Tom, but I think you realize how important this project is to the HLA and the property owners on HL. Please help us with this project. I have attached a copy of last winter's HLA Newsletter where the subject of dam modification was the front page article. Our mail distribution was 1200. John Wilcox Highland Lake Association 72 of 84 Update on Highland Lake Dam Modification February 2006 The plans for raising the spillway on the dam have been scrapped. At a public hearing on July 13, 2005, issues were raised by a few property owners on the north end of the lake. This caused the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries (MDIF)and Maine Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) to abandon their plans to modify the dam. We received this information in August. In place of the proposal which was presented at the July 13 public hearing and our July 21 annual meeting, the agencies now plan to only modify the streambed below the dam to assist alewife migration. This was very disappointing news for most of the lakefront residents. It will mean that we will continue on with lower lake levels that we have been experiencing since the construction of the fish ladder in 1987 and made worse by the construction of the new dam in 1999. On October 26, 2005, Highland Lake Association held a meeting with the MDIF and the MDMR to discuss reasons why the spillway modifications had been abandoned. We restated our hope that they would reconsider and go forward with their initial proposal. We were not successful. On October 27, 2005, I sent a request to the MDMR asking them to include in their proposal to the City of Westbrook, permission to add a flashboard system on the spillway to raise the lake level 4 to 6 inches to its historic level prior to 1987. Flashboard systems exist on other dams in Maine. The Highland Lake Association could possibly pay for this addition or even install it and maintain it with volunteers. No action has been taken on our request yet. John Wilcox HLA Dam Committee Chairman In a message dated 2/8/2006 2:50:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, Tom.Squiers@maine.gov writes: Dear John, I have several comments regarding the article that you have drafted for the HLA newsletter. The Maine Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) is the lead agency in the Mill Brook and Highland Lake Stream Habitat Improvement and Fish Passage Project. The Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife has not been directly involved in the project. Our funding partners include the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) , the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Casco Bay Estuary Project, Maine Corporate Wetlands Partnership, and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Our major source of funds is from the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) through NRCS. The public hearing that was held on July 13, 2005 was part of the environmental assessment process for the WHIP funds. It was MDMR that made the decision to seek an alternative approach to improving fish passage at the Highland Lake Dam because of the concerns raised at the July 13th meeting. NRCS was considering whether it would be necessary to do a much more intensive environmental assessment including expensive and time consuming studies to address the concerns about higher water levels which would result from spillway modifications. MDMR asked its engineering firm, Kleinschmidt Associates (KA), to determine if the 73 of 84 stream habitat restoration segment of the project could be completed prior to spillway modifications. KA came up with an alternative stream restoration proposal which not only improved stream habitat but also met the goal of improving fish passage. This solution not only accomplishes the goals of stream habitat and fish passage improvement but also was much less costly and did not require additional expensive and time consuming studies. I think your statements that plans to modify the dam have been “scrapped” or “abandoned” by MDMR does not give your membership a complete picture of the process which has led MDMR to choosing an alternative solution which meets the objectives of improved fish passage and stream habitat improvement. MDMR has chosen an alternative which accomplishes our objectives at a lower cost. Nothing precludes the Highland Lake Association from pursuing the installation of temporary flashboards to retard the flow of water over the dam in the Spring. Some members of HLA have maintained that lower water levels began in 1987 with the installation of the fishway and were aggravated by the substantial increase in spillway width with the construction of the new dam in 1999. MDMR does not have any data to determine if the summer lake levels were significantly lower after the installation of the fishway in 1987. MDMR has kept records on lake levels and fishway flows since 2001. I asked hydraulic engineers at the USFWS office in Hadley, Massachusetts to review the data and to address the following two questions: 1) how does the operation of fishway during May and early June affect the rate at which and lake level drops? 2) how does the operation of the fishway affect the lake level for the remainder of the fishway operational season? It was assumed that the minimum flow requirement of 2.8 cfs was a legal requirement and thus the question was did the fishway lower the lake level more than a minimum flow release of 2.8 cfs. The USFWS has reviewed and analyzed data for 2001 through 2005 and reached the following conclusions. For the years 2001 through 2005, the operation of the fishway (during the alewife run) decreased on average the time for the lake elevation to fall to the spillway crest elevation of 190.6 feet by approximately half a day. During the summer, as a result of the fishway operating at less than the minimum flow requirement, the lake level remained a few inches higher. Thus the operation of the fishway has had a minimal impact on lake levels. The installation of flashboards would increase the number of days that the lake level remained above the spillway height of 190.6 feet. After the lake level reached spillway height, the minimum flow release would impact the lake level and the flashboards would have no effect. At the present time, the final designs for the stream channel restoration are being sent out for review. Once the final designs are approved, MDMR, NRCS, and the USFWS will meet with the City of Westbrook to discuss the stream restoration project. We will let you know when we plan to meet and can share the final design plans with you once they are approved. I will also send you the USFWS hydraulic study once I get an electronic version of it. Tom 74 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine Highland Lake Fish Passage EA STATE OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF M ARINE R ESOURCES 21 STATE HOUSE STATION AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0021 JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI GOVERNOR GEORGE D. LAPOINTE COMMISSIONER May 23, 2006 Wayne Munroe District Conservationist United States Department of Agriculture 306 U.S. Route 1, Suite A1 Scarborough, ME 04074-9774 Dear Wayne, The Department of Marine Resources has approved the final design drawings for the Highland Lake Fish Passage Project. The project has been revised and no modifications will be made to the dam spillway. A cutoff rock weir will be placed below the spillway to divert the spillway flows toward the fishway instead of installing a partial weir on the concrete spillway. The final design includes the widening and realignment of about 140’ of the main channel below the Highland Lake. Two rock weirs consisting of about 20 cubic yards of material will be added to the main channel. A fish barrier net sill beam will be installed near the exit of the fishway in order that a temporary fish barrier net can be installed to guide alewives to the fishway. The wide overflow channel will be reconfigured by adding an upstream rock weir and a downstream rock cutoff weir. The rock weirs will utilize about 220 cubic yards of clean rock. Boulder clusters will be placed between the rock weirs. In addition, containerized plantings of shrubs and other appropriate vegetation will be part of the project. All disturbed soils will be treated with loam, seed, and mulch. Detailed drawings for the revised project can be found in drawing sheets 1 through 8 (Kleinschmidt, 08-18-05). Sincerely, Thomas S. Squiers Jr. Director, Stock Enhancement Division Maine Department of Marine Resources 21 State House Station Augusta, Maine 04333 (207)624-6348 USDA NRCS Maine APPENDIX B – DESIGN DOCUMENTS Highland Lake Fish Passage EA USDA NRCS Maine APPENDIX B – DESIGN DOCUMENTS Highland Lake Fish Passage EA USDA NRCS Maine APPENDIX B- DESIGN DOCUMENTS Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 78 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine APPENDIX B- DESIGN DOCUMENTS Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 79 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine APPENDIX B- DESIGN DOCUMENTS Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 80 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine APPENDIX B- DESIGN DOCUMENTS Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 81 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine APPENDIX B- DESIGN DOCUMENTS Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 82 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine APPENDIX B- DESIGN DOCUMENTS Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 83 of 84 USDA NRCS Maine APPENDIX B- DESIGN DOCUMENTS Highland Lake Fish Passage EA 84 of 84