A new tack in the ongoing dispute over the operation of the Forest City dam is being tried by Woodland Pulp, as it tries to get out from under Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing for the dam, which the company believes makes the project uneconomical.
     Late last year Woodland Pulp applied to FERC to surrender its new 30-year license to own and operate the U.S. portion of the dam and to decommission the dam structure by permanently removing the two gates on the U.S. side. That action could drop the water level in the 25-square-mile East Grand Lake, the eighth largest in Maine, by over six feet. The proposal met with stiff resistance by camp owners on the lake, area towns, the Canadian government and organizations such as the St. Croix International Waterway Commission, the Schoodic Riverkeepers and the Chiputneticook Lakes International Conservancy.
     Then at the end of this year's legislative session, Maine Governor Paul LePage submitted a resolve, which was approved and signed into law on July 24, that would authorize the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (DIFW) to assume ownership of the U.S. portion of the Forest City dam, if FERC issues a determination that the dam will not require a FERC license and if DIFW enters an agreement with Woodland Pulp for the company to operate and maintain the dam, at the direction of the state and at no cost to the state, for 15 years.
     Woodland Pulp argues that under this arrangement the dam will not be "operated in a concerted fashion" with Woodland Pulp's other water storage dams to provide power benefits to the company's downstream generating projects. Rather, it will be operated at the direction of DIFW to ensure that the state's interests are satisfied and any minor "generation benefits downstream will be merely incidental." The company believes that arrangement means that the dam would be exempt from FERC jurisdiction.
     Not all are pleased with this proposal, though. In a filing with FERC, Paul Bisulca of the Schoodic Riverkeepers opposes the plan, noting that Maine "will receive the facility free of charge and will have no obligation to pay any costs related to the dam and associated facilities while the agreement is in effect and in turn Woodland, if its petition is granted, will be freed of the public interest requirements in the license." He adds, "It should be apparent that the Woodland agreement to convey title to the U.S. portion of the Forest City project to the state is a maneuver designed to avoid the public interest obligations of the prescriptions in the license issued by FERC."
     Bisulca also argues that "while Forest City is not a generating dam, it has been and will continue to be operated 'for the purpose of developing electric power'" downstream, just like the other storage dams owned by Woodland.
     In Woodland Pulp's July 27 petition to FERC, which asks the commission to issue an order declaring that if the company transfers ownership to DIFW then the state agency will not need a FERC license to operate the dam, attorney Matthew Manahan of the law firm of Pierce Atwood in Portland writes that the cost to operate the Forest City dam is at least $6 million more than the generation benefits the storage dam provides over the term of the 30-year license. He also argues that the FERC license issued in 2015 includes significant new restrictions on operations and its economic analysis fails to account for several potential costs, including additional fishways and requirements to monitor implement mitigation measures for six archaeological sites.
     Manahan writes, "Woodland Pulp cannot continue to operate the Forest City dam if it is subject to the FERC license. Although FERC has suggested that Woodland Pulp could avoid FERC jurisdiction by simply locking the gates in place, such a solution would be irresponsible because of flood, stream flow safety and dam stability reasons." The company views its options, to avoid FERC jurisdiction, would be either to remove the dam gates so that the dam is not operated to produce downstream power generation or to transfer the dam to another owner that will not operate the dam as a part of a consolidated hydropower generation system. The company had considered removing the dam gates but prefers to avoid that option.
     FERC spokesperson Celeste Miller notes that there is no statutory timeline for the commission to make a decision on Woodland Pulp's request, but she does point out that, with three of the five seats now filled, the commission has a quorum and can take action on petitions.

Groups weigh in
     Numerous state and federal agencies, area citizens and groups have weighed in on the issue with filings to FERC. The St. Croix International Waterway Commission is among the groups opposing abandonment of the dam. In her filing, Heather Almeda, the commission's executive director, outlined the importance of the dam for wildlife habitat, lake dwellers and their properties, recreational pursuits, fisheries and their food webs, navigation and the outdoor sporting and tourism economies. The waterway commission urged FERC that "it would be in the best interest of stakeholders if the International Joint Commission (IJC) were to assume active monitoring and regulation of the Forest City dam." The IJC regulates the uses of waters shared by the U.S. and Canada and investigates transboundary issues and recommends solutions.
     David Alward, consul general of Canada in New England, also wrote to FERC, outlining the Canadian government's concerns, since the St. Croix River is a boundary water and the Forest City dam spans the border. He states that "Canada should be informed and engaged on all projects that may have impacts on our shared waters" and that any changes to the operation of the dam should comply with the IJC's order of 1965, which provides the dam be operated "to ensure that water supply conditions do not fall below specific minimum levels for discharges from the East Grand Lake or result in the lake's elevation being outside specific maximum and minimum levels."