Hydropower, Salmon and the Penobscot River (Maine, USA): Pursuing Improved Environmental and Energy Outcomes Through Participatory Decision-Making and Basin-Scale Decision Context

  • Jeffrey J. OppermanEmail author
  • Colin Apse
  • Fred Ayer
  • John Banks
  • Laura Rose Day
  • Joshua Royte
  • John Seebach


The Penobscot River is the largest river within Maine and historically one of the most important rivers in New England for Atlantic salmon and other migratory fish. For more than a century, the economically and culturally important fish populations have been depressed dramatically due to hydropower dams on the mainstem river that prevented access to spawning habitat. In 2004, a broad coalition of stakeholders – including a hydropower company, the Penobscot Indian Nation, state and Federal agencies, and several conservation organizations – signed the Lower Penobscot River Comprehensive Settlement Accord. The Accord features two primary projected outcomes: a dramatic, ecologically significant increase in the proportion of the basin accessible to migratory fish combined with maintenance of, or potentially an increase in, energy generation. Increased access to migratory fish habitat will be accomplished through removal of two dams and construction of a naturalistic fish bypass around a third, while the energy generation lost due to dam removal will be recouped through structural and operational changes to remaining dams. Here we emphasize two essential conditions that made possible an agreement on the Penobscot that will benefit both energy generation and environmental and social interests. The first condition was the degree and type of stakeholder participation within the Penobscot’s decision-making context and the second is the spatial scale of the decision making – the entire system of dams on the lower river. The Penobscot Accord reflects the evolving role of stakeholders in hydropower decision making. Emulating the spatial scale of the Accord, which allowed the stakeholders to select from a broader range of alternatives to benefit both energy and the environment, will require further evolution of stakeholder involvement.


Migratory Fish Hydropower Project Fish Passage American Shad Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adams WM, Hughes FMR (1986) The environmental effects of dam construction in tropical Africa: impacts and planning procedures. Geoforum 17:403–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ames EP, (2004). Atlantic cod stock structure in the Gulf of Maine. Fisheries 29(1):10–28Google Scholar
  3. Bosshard P (2010) The dam industry, the World Commission on Dams and the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Forum (HSAF) process. Water Alt 3(2):58–70Google Scholar
  4. Bunn SE, Arthington AH (2002) Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environ Manage 30:492–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crane J (2009) Setting the river free: the removal of the Edwards Dam and the restoration of the Kennebec River. Water History 1:131–148Google Scholar
  6. Department of Energy (DOE), Department of the Interior (DOI), and Department of the Army (DOA) (2010) Memorandum of Understanding for Hydropower. March, 2010Google Scholar
  7. Dudgeon D (2000) Large-scale hydrological changes in tropical Asia: prospects for riverine biodiversity. Bioscience 50:793–806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Echeverria JD, Barrow P, Roos-Collins R (1989) Rivers at Risk: a concerned citizen’s guide to hydropower. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (1997) Final Environmental Impact Statement Licensing Three Hydroelectric Projects in the Lower Penobscot River Basin, FERC Project Nos. 2403-056, 2312-019 and 2721-020, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2004) Submittal of the Lower Penobscot River Basin Comprehensive Settlement Accord with Explanatory Statement. Project Nos. 2403, 2534, 2666, 2710, 2712, 2721, and 10981. Federal Register, Docket No. DI97–10Google Scholar
  11. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) (2010) Final Environmental Assessment, Application for Surrender of License, Veazie, Great Works and Howland Projects Nos. 2403-056, 2312-019, and 2721-020Google Scholar
  12. Foster NW, Atkins CG (1869) Report of Commission of Fisheries. Commissioners of Fisheries, AugustaGoogle Scholar
  13. Gillilan DM, Brown TC (1997) Instream Flow Protection: seeking a balance in Western water use. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Gunkel G (2009) Hydropower – a green energy? Tropical reservoirs and greenhouse gas emissions. Clean – Soil, Air, Water 37:726–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hydropower Reform Coalition (HRC) (2005) Citizen toolkit for effective participation in hydropower relicensing, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  16. Kosnik L (2010) Balancing environmental protection and energy production in the Federal hydropower licensing process. Land Econ 86:444–466Google Scholar
  17. Ligon FK, Dietrich WE, Trush WJ (1995) Downstream ecological effects of dams. Bioscience 45:183–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maine Department of Marine Resources (2009) Operational plan for the restoration of diadromous fishes to the Penobscot River, AugustaGoogle Scholar
  19. Mekong River Commission (2005) Fisheries Annual Report. Phnom PenhGoogle Scholar
  20. Montgomery DR (2003) King of Fish: the thousand-year run of salmon. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  21. National Research Council (NRC) (2004) Atlantic Salmon in Maine. The National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. Opperman JJ, Apse C, et al (in press) The Penobscot River (Maine, USA): a basin-scale approach to balancing power generation and ecosystem restoration. Ecology and SocietyGoogle Scholar
  23. Pollak D (2007) S.D. Warren and the erosion of federal preeminence in hydropower regulation. Ecol Law Q 34:763–800Google Scholar
  24. Portland General Electric (PGE) (2006) Pelton Butte Fact SheetGoogle Scholar
  25. Richter BD, Braun DP et al (1997) Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna. Conserv Biol 11:1081–1093CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Richter BD, Thomas GA (2007) Restoring environmental flows by modifying dam operations. Ecol Soc 12(1):article 12Google Scholar
  27. Richter B, Postel S et al (2010) Lost in development’s shadow: the downstream human consequences of dams. Water Alt 3(2):14–42Google Scholar
  28. Sanger D, Belcher WR, Kellog DC (1992) Early Holocene occupation at the Blackman Stream Site, central Maine. In: Robinson BS, Petersen BJ, Robinson AK (editors) Early Holocene Occupation in Northern New England. Maine Historic Preservation Commission, AugustaGoogle Scholar
  29. Saunders R, Hachey MA, Fay CW (2006) Maine’s diadromous fish community: past, present, and implications for Atlantic salmon recovery. Fish 31(11):537–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shabecoff P (1993) A Fierce Green Fire. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. United States Geological Survey (USGS) (2010) Hydroelectric power water use. Accessed 1 Sept 2010

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey J. Opperman
    • 1
    Email author
  • Colin Apse
    • 2
  • Fred Ayer
    • 3
  • John Banks
    • 4
  • Laura Rose Day
    • 5
  • Joshua Royte
    • 6
  • John Seebach
    • 7
  1. 1.Global Freshwater Program, The Nature ConservancyChagrin FallsUSA
  2. 2.The Nature Conservancy, North America and Africa RegionsBrunswickUSA
  3. 3.The Low Impact Hydropower InstitutePortlandUSA
  4. 4.Indian IslandUSA
  5. 5.Penobscot River Restoration TrustAugustaUSA
  6. 6.The Nature Conservancy, Maine ChapterBrunswickUSA
  7. 7.American RiversWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations