Aroostook River Salmon Restoration and Fisheries Management

Salmon Restoration

and Fisheries Management

By KENDALL WARNER Regional Fishery Biologist

Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game Roland H. Cobb, Commissioner and Atlantic Salmon Commission Horace P. Bond, Chairman

Augusta, Maine

1 9 5 6 FOREWORD

A State-wide biological study of lakes, rivers, and streams is in progress. Its purpose is to obtain facts that will help your Fish and Game Department and Atlantic Salmon Commission maintain and restore the fisheries of our waters. As these studies are completed, they are presented to the citizens of our State.

Every effort has been made to consider all interests before the management of any water area is published in final form. Part of this effort is the public meeting at which representatives of industry and sportsmen's groups are invited to take part in the program by discussing plans and recommendations. This report is a condensation of the study presented at the public meeting held in Presque Isle on March 15, 1956.

KENDALL WARNER Regional Fishery Biologist

Augusta, May, 1956 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page FOREWORD ...... 3 INTRODUCTION ...... 5 DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAINAGE ...... 5 AROOSTOOK RIVER FISHERIES ...... 6 Resident Species ...... 6 Anadromous Species ...... 9 Atlantic Salmon Runs ...... 9 History of Past Runs ...... 9 Recent Runs ...... 11 OBSTRUCTIONS ...... 12 The Aroostook Falls Obstruction ...... 13 The Tinker Fishway ...... 14 The Aroostook Falls Fish Passage Problem ...... 14 Evaluation of Proposed Fish Passage Facilities ...... 17 Protection for Downstream Migrants ...... 18 The Tinker Weir ...... 18 Beechwood Dam ...... 19 Caribou Dam ...... 19 Sheridan Dam ...... 20 Tributary Obstructions ...... 20 ATLANTIC SALMON POTENTIAL ...... 30 The Main River ...... 30 Tributary Streams ...... 31 Water Control in Tributary Streams ...... 37 Atlantic Salmon Stocking ...... 37 EFFECTS OF LOGGING PRACTICES ON THE FISHERIES OF THE AROOSTOOK DRAINAGE ...... 39 Bulldozing of Streams ...... 39 History ...... 39 Effects on Trout Stream Habitat ...... 40 Bulldozing Versus Manual Clearing of Streams ...... 42 Effects of Cutting Practices ...... 42 Fluctuation of Water Levels ...... 43 Fluctuation of Stream Flow ...... 43 Lake Flowages ...... 44 Lowering Lake Levels ...... 44 POLLUTION ...... 45 PROPOSED POWER DEVELOPMENTS ...... 51 The Castle Hill Project ...... 51 The Masardis Project ...... 51 The Twelve-mile Project ...... 51 SUMMARY ...... 52 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 55 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 56 LITERATURE CITED ...... 57 APPENDIX I ...... 58 APPENDIX II ...... 64 AROOSTOOK RIVER

SALMON RESTORATION AND FISH MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION The Aroostook River is potentially one of the best Atlantic salmon rivers in Maine. A substantial salmon run once existed in the river, but in recent years the run has declined almost to extinction. The brook trout sport fishery of the Aroostook drainage is still of considerable size and value, even though Man's serious alteration of natural habitat conditions has reduced the potential of the fishery. Realization of the full productive potential of the river and its tributaries is presently pre- vented by several major obstacles. These are: 1. Obstructions to fish migration 2. Detrimental logging practices 3. Fluctuation of stream flow 4. Pollution An obstruction and biological study of the entire Aroostook drainage has been in progress for several years. This study was designed primarily to: 1. Evaluate the potential of the drainage for supporting a run of anadromous salmon, catalog limiting factors, and recommend steps necessary to re-establish the run. 2. Evaluate major factors limiting brook trout production in the river and its tributaries, and recommend steps to improve existing conditions and prevent future decline in the fishery. A summary of the study and the resulting recommendations are included in this report. A map of the Aroostook River drainage is presented for reference on pages 34 and 35.

DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAINAGE The Aroostook River, a major sub-drainage of the St. John River system, arises in Millinocket Lake and Munsungan Lake in Northern Piscataquis County, and flows in a northeasterly direction through Aroostook and Northern Penobscot Counties. Many small brooks and a number of larger tributaries enter along its course. The river flows into Canada at Fort Fairfield and joins the St. John River four miles beyond the international boundary.

5 The Aroostook River drains approximately 2,440 square miles. The largest part of the drainage is forested land, but much of the eastern portion is open farm land. Moderate erosion is common in the eastern part of the basin. The annual rainfall at Presque Isle averages about 34 inches. According to the Gold Book (1955), the Aroostook basin is under- lain mostly by folded and faulted Ordovician, Silurian, and Devonian slates, shales, sandstones, argillites, and limestones. Much of the in- tensively farmed land in the eastern section of the basin contains cal- careous shale in varying amounts. The main Aroostook River measures 105 miles in length from the forks of Munsungan and Milfinocket Streams to its mouth. Approxi- mately 1,632 miles of tributary stream enter along its course. The river falls about 250 feet at a fairly uniform slope in its length above Fort Fairfield. There are 156 lakes and ponds draining into the Aroostook River. The largest lake in the drainage is Squapan with an area of 5,120 acres. Other large lakes include Millinocket Lake (2,701 acres), Munsungan Lake (1,415 acres), and Milfimagassett Lake (1,410 acres).

AROOSTOOK RIVER FISHERIES The Aroostook River drainage is capable of supporting fisheries for both resident stream and lake fishes, and for anadromous fishes that must ascend the river from the sea to spawn and complete their life histories. The two groups are considered separately below.

Resident Species The Aroostook River drainage is noted for its coldwater sport fisheries for brook trout, lake trout, and landlocked salmon. Brook trout are found in nearly every brook, stream, and pond in the drainage. The brook trout fishery is holding up exceptionally well in some areas, but habitat conditions have been so drastically altered in some streams by pollution, erosion, or logging practices that the species has nearly disappeared. The main river and almost every tributary of significant size contain brook trout at some season of the year. The early spring fishery of the headwater section of the main river and its tributaries is particularly attractive to anglers. At this time, trout are widely dispersed and ac- tively feeding in the cool water. As the main-stream temperatures

6 become warmer during late spring and summer, trout congregate in spring holes, at mouths of brooks, and in the cold tributary brooks themselves. Thus, the trout-producing capacity of the main-stream sections of the drainage may well depend in part on the carrying capacity of these areas of spring influence during the critical period of hot weather. Reduced overwintering capacity, caused by low water, pollution, or ice conditions may be a limiting factor in some instances. Limited sport fisheries for other game fish also exist in the river and its tributaries, even though the major fishery is for brook trout. The river supports a small resident population of landlocked salmon of small average size. Growth analysis has shown that the growth rate of older individuals of this species in the river is far below the average for Maine waters, probably because of lack of optimum habitat and feeding conditions. A problem of competition with brook trout also exists. For these reasons, it is doubtful that the resident river population of landlocked salmon will ever support a sizable fishery.

Rainbow trout were introduced in the Aroostook River and some of its tributaries several years ago. Fishing was provided for several years after stocking, and some fish taken were of considerable size. Natural reproduction is now supporting a limited fishery in the section of the main river below Caribou, and in the lower reaches of Little Madawaska River and Otter Brook. The rainbow trout is certainly a competitor, at least to some degree, with existing native coldwater species. The exact role of the rainbow can only be determined by future investigation.

The Aroostook River fortunately lacks competing warmwater species such as the pickerel, bass, and white perch abundant in many other Maine rivers. However, there are several species present that are considered serious competitors, and thus reduce coldwater game fish production. Among the most important are the fallfish, yellow perch, and sucker. The eel is probably the most serious predator. These species are widely dispersed in all sections of the river, although the yellow perch is confined chiefly to large flowages and deadwaters.

The pond fishery of the Aroostook drainage is chiefly for brook trout. Nearly every pond contains some brook trout or has supported them in the past. Lake inventories have been completed for most of the major lakes and some of the smaller ponds (Everhart et al. 1955), but many of the waters in the drainage have yet to be studied. Many of the ponds in the drainage support a good trout fishery, but a large number contain populations of yellow perch, fallfish, eels, and suckers that

7 reduce game fish production through competition and predation. Many of the ponds not yet studied appear to be of the shallow, borderline type that depend on springholes for carrying trout through the summer. Most of the small ponds in the drainage are inaccessible by road.

Landlocked salmon fisheries are supported by several of the larger waters, including Munsungan, Millinocket, Millimagassett, and Mada- waska Lakes. Salmon, introduced in many other lakes and ponds, have produced only sporadic fishing because of marginal habitat and poor facilities for natural reproduction.

Lake trout, or togue, fishing in the drainage is confined almost entirely to the deep cold waters of Munsungan Lake. A list of resident and anadromous fish found in the Aroostook drainage follows: Common Name Scientific Name Landlocked salmon' Salmo salar Atlantic salmon Brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis Blueback trout Salvelinus oquassa Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush .Rainbow trout Salmo gairdneri Yellow perch Perca flavescens Hornpout Ameiurus nebulosus Smelt Osmerus mordax Lake whitefish Core gonus clupeaformis Eel Anguilla rostrata White sucker Catostomus commersoni Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus Cusk Lota Iota Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Ninespine stickleback Pun gitius pungitius Pumpkinseed sunfish Lepomis gibbosus Yellowbelly sunfish Lepomis auritus Freshwater sculpin Cottus cognatus Blacknose dace Rhinichthys atratulus Redbelly dace Chrosomus eos Lake chub Couesius plumbeus Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus Fallfish Semotilus corporalis

8 Common Name Scientific Name Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas Common shiner Notropis cornutus Blacknose shiner Notropis heterolepis Found only below Aroostook Falls Shad Alosa sapidissima Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus White perch Morone americana Chain pickerel Esox niger Striped bass Roccus saxatilus Anadromous Species The Atlantic salmon is the major anadromous species that has ascended the Aroostook River in any numbers in the past. Salmon restoration will be considered separately. Considerable numbers of shad are taken by dip netting at the tailrace of the power dam at Aroostook Falls in the spring months, indi- cating a run as far as this barrier. A spring alewife run occurs at about the time of the shad run. Little is known of the size or history of the run. A limited sport fishery for an anadromous run of striped bass exists in the river below Aroostook Falls. These fish migrate as far as the tailrace of the power plant, and were taken in some numbers by seining operations in 1955. The striped bass run commences in about July. It is doubtful that shad, alewives, or striped bass ever ascended the Aroostook River in any numbers because of the natural obstruction present before construction of the power dam. Shad and alewives are of considerable commercial value when runs are of significant size, but the potential for the Aroostook River will depend in large measure on installation of adequate fish passage facilities at Aroostook Falls. Atlantic Salmon Runs History of Past Runs The history of the Aroostook River salmon runs in past years is not well chronicled. Few written reports regarding the run are available. The earliest report on record regarding the Aroostook run was made by Atkins ( 1874 ) , who wrote, "There are no artificial obstructions on the main river, and salmon can run quite to its headwaters. They have been caught a hundred

9 miles above its mouth. Their favorite stream in old times was the Big Machias. A dam built near its mouth about thirty years ago shut the salmon out almost completely, but occasionally one leaps the dam. From the tributaries below this point, they are likewise shut out by dams. In Presque Isle Stream and Salmon Brook they were formerly abundant." Regarding the size and time of the former run Atkins (1874) wrote, "The data at my command do not furnish a sufficient basis for an estimate of the number of salmon caught on the Aroostook. One correspondent estimates that in 1873, which was the best year for a long time, 125 were caught within two miles of Caribou. Another says that in the vicinity of Salmon Brook and Machias 200 were speared the same season, and that one net just above Fort Fairfield took eleven in one night. Three years ago fishing is thought to have been at its lowest ebb. The average weight of salmon caught in the Aroostook is estimated by one correspondent to be 10 pounds; by another 12 pounds. Grilse are occasionally seen but not often. They are caught in August. The first run of adult salmon reaches Caribou and Castle Hill about the first of July; their appearance at Aroostook Falls is said to be from June to the first of July. The main run reaches Caribou about July 20, and the last run the last of August."

The history of the Aroostook salmon run appears to be quite well correlated with the appearance of obstructions to migration on the main river. Atkins (1874) reported that Aroostook Falls presented a 15- foot partial barrier to fish migration even before construction of dams on the main river. The first dam on the main river was built at Caribou in about 1890 according to an early report (Anonymous, 1895), who wrote "The salmon fishing at Caribou is a sport which has been introduced since the building of the dam 5 years ago. It is already becoming known to sportsmen from other states." The same report mentioned a fishway in the dam, but also noted re- luctance of salmon to use the structure and the presence of large numbers of salmon attempting to scale the dam. The potentialities and the value of the salmon run were realized by some when construction of the Caribou dam in 1890 emphasized the number of salmon ascending the river. Anonymous (1894) wrote, "It is the opinion of the fish commissioners, both of Canada and the United States, that the Aroostook waters are for the propagation of

10 salmon, equal to any waters on the continent. Up to the present time only a few, even of the local sportsmen have tested its capabilities or enjoyed its advantages. Thousands of salmon ascend the river every year to their spawning grounds at the head of the river." Clifford (1903) wrote the following concerning the Aroostook salmon run, "On the latter river is the famous Caribou pool where hundreds of the great silver-backed fish can be seen in the late spring clearing the dam on their way to the spawning beds above. - - - The annual catch at this pool is small in comparison with the great numbers of fish which frequent the locality." It is apparent from the above reports that a substantial salmon run existed in the Aroostook prior to the construction of Tinker Dam in 1906. Spearing of salmon on the Aroostook was formerly common along the length of the river from Aroostook Falls to Oxbow. Anonymous (1902) wrote, "The editor of The Sportsman has seen when living in Fort Fairfield, salmon carried through the streets by Tobique Indians, who were commonly reported to have secured them by spearing at the pool below Aroostook Falls." Atkins (1874) also reported that salmon were taken in great numbers at Aroostook Falls by spear and torch- light. A description of the spearing method used in the river above Aroostook Falls is given as follows by Anonymous (1895), "In the night it is possible to paddle quietly along the stream with a light burn- ing in the bow of the boat. Then the sharp eyes of the men in the boat detect a salmon in the bottom of the stream. A quick thrust with a spear and the salmon is in the boat." Phair (1937) wrote of the days prior to construction of the Aroos- took Falls dam, "The Aroostook River in northern Maine had quite a salmon run in, but there was practically no fly fishing done for them. If a man wanted a fish, he went out in a boat at night with a flambeau in the bow and speared himself one." Recent Runs The dam at Aroostook Falls was first built in 1906, but was not provided with a fishway until 1936. During this period of 30 years, the salmon run in the Aroostook was blocked almost completely. Since the construction of the Tinker fishway in 1936, limited numbers of salmon have passed the obstruction. Because of the nature of the fishway, to be discussed later, ascent was doubtless limited to certain ideal water levels.

11 Since 1936, some salmon have been caught by anglers and a number have been seen jumping at the tailrace at Caribou dam. Mason (1954) reports that a number were definitely seen jumping at the Caribou dam on June 30, 1950. One nine pound salmon was caught near Caribou in 1951, and two others were hooked in the same area in August of the same year. In 1955, a 14 pound salmon was caught by a fisherman in the Little Madawaska River. A salmon, reportedly over 15 pounds in weight, was hooked by an angler in Umcolcus Stream in the same year.

OBSTRUCTIONS Dams on Aroostook River tributaries have been in evidence since the beginning of log-driving days in the early 1800's. Most of the old log- driving dams have disappeared, but remnants of some are still in evidence on stream banks and at lake outlets. A few have fallen into streams, creating obstructions to fish migration. There has been a constant increase in the number of dams built in the drainage for various purposes since the log-driving days. The majority of the dams built have not been provided with facilities for fish passage. The few fishways built were poorly designed. Coincident with the expansion of the pulpwood industry, there has been a great increase in the number of pulp-driving dams built. Dams have been constructed at lake outlets and in brooks of all sizes throughout the upper part of the drainage, especially in the Mooseleuk and Big Machias watersheds. Storage dams have been built at Squapan Lake and Millinocket Lake to supply water to the hydroelectric dams at Caribou and Aroostook Falls. The Aroostook Falls installation is the major obstruction in the drainage, and is located near the river mouth in Canada. The majority of the other dams in the drainage are located in the lower section, and have been built to store water for such purposes as starch manufacture, public water supply, sawmill operation, farm usage, and recreational purposes. A survey of obstructions to fish migration and their effect on the fisheries was carried out between 1950 and 1955. During the course of the survey, 70 man-made obstructions and 2 natural falls were catalogued. Only eight fishways were provided in the 70 man-made obstructions studied, and only three of these work satisfactorily at most water levels. The remaining five fishways should be altered or rebuilt.

12 Recommendations for the remaining 62 dams without fishways are summarized below: Fishway recommended — 11 Removal — 11 Removal at end of usage — 6 Now passable — 15 Minimum flow only — 5 No recommendations — 12 Further investigation — 2 The Aroostook Falls Obstruction (1) The Tinker hydroelectric dam located at Aroostook Falls, New Brunswick, is the major barrier to re-establishment of an Atlantic salmon run in the Aroostook River. The dam was originally built in 1906 and was rebuilt in 1923 (Dixon, 1954). Prior to 1906, a 15-foot natural falls at the same location was an obstacle to salmon migration, but was not impassable according to Atkins (1874). The power installation at Aroostook Falls operates on an 85-foot head, and is owned and operated by the Maine Public Service Company. A 30-foot diversion dam is located at the head of a 3,000-foot rocky gorge, and is operated with flashboards that raise its height an additional three feet. Water is diverted by the dam into a canal about 2,000

FIGURE 1. Power plant and tailrace, Aroostook Falls, New Brunswick, show- ing gorge mouth in background.

13 feet long leading to the power house and turbines. Water passes through the turbines and flows about 300 feet in the tailrace before rejoining the main river channel. A sketch of the Aroostook Falls area prepared by Mason (1954) is included below: TINKER GORGE FISH WAY

MOUTH OF GORGE CANAL TI NKER DAM

.' POWER HOUSE TAILRACE The Tinker Fishway Tinker Dam was not provided with a fishway until 1936, when a 13- pool structure was built. Flow in the fishway varies from 5 to 12 cubic feet per second, depending on the forebay level. The drop between pools is usually about 18 inches, except for two drops of three feet or more. The fishway entrance at the base of the dam is a considerable obstacle to fish passage. Fish must negotiate a rocky ledge over which there is a shallow flow of water, and a steep, narrow concrete sluice to reach the elevation of the first pool about five feet above tailwater. A serious obstacle is also present between the third and fourth fishway pools, where fish must negotiate a three-foot jump while turning at right angles into the direction of flow. Limited numbers of salmon do negotiate the obstruction at Tinker at high water levels by some means. Mason (1954) questioned that fish could successfully pass through the fishway during low water periods because of the serious obstacles mentioned. The Aroostook Falls Fish Passage Problem Any plan to provide adequate fish passage facilities for a run of anadromous fishes should consider the nature, duration, and character- istics of the run. Detailed information is lacking on the duration and peak of the Aroostook River Atlantic salmon run. Atkins (1874) reported that the salmon run arrived at Aroostook Falls from the middle of June to the first of July. According to Churchwood (1898), salmon were usually seen jumping at the Caribou dam by the first of June.

14 Clifford (1903) cited the month of June as the time of salmon concen- tration in the Caribou pool. Salmon are observed in considerable numbers below the tailrace at Tinker Power Plant from July to September, the time of best observation.

FIGURE 2. The Tinker fishway located at the head of the gorge at Aroostook Falls, New Brunswick. Mason (1954) used data from the comparable Tobique River run in Canada, and, assuming similar conditions in the two rivers, predicted that the first salmon could be expected at Aroostook Falls in the month of May. The migration peak was predicted for the last 10 days in June, with decreasing numbers arriving in the summer and fall months until the run ends in November. Considering this information, passage facilities for salmon at Aroos- took Falls would be needed from the early spring months of high water conditions until late fall. Facilities should be so designed that delays and resultant injuries, common in many -fishways of faulty design, would be held to a minimum. Mason (1954) considered the possibility of using the existing Tinker fishway throughout the season. It was found that during periods of low flow in the summer, the entire flow of the river is directed through the hydro plant, with the exception of the small flow through the Tinker fishway. A survey by Mason showed that the gorge leading to the fishway became virtually impassable during this period, as the small flow

15 of water trickling over the jagged and precipitous course created many serious obstacles to migration. This situation limits the value of the existing fishway during low water periods.

Mason made further studies evaluating the relative flow at the gorge and tailrace to determine the location of maximum attraction during various periods, and feasibility of fishway construction at the two points.

FIGURE 3. Tinker Gorge during the low water period of mid-summer.

Analysis of discharge data showed that during those periods when the river flow is 1750 c. f. s. or less, the tailrace would be the only attraction, since the only flow through the gorge would be that of the fishway. At river discharges of 3500 c. f. s. and greater, the gorge has the superior attraction. At discharges between 1750 and 3500 c. f. s., migrating fish might be attracted to either place.

16 Analysis of flow duration data indicated that the attraction of the tailrace would be superior much of the time in the months of July, August, September, and October. The gorge has the superior attraction in most instances during the month of May and at least the first part of June. There would follow a brief period of about five days in length when intermediate discharges of 1750 to 3500 c. f. s. would prevail. After June 20, discharges of 1750 c. f. s. or less would usually prevail and the tailrace would be the only attraction. Evaluation of Proposed Fish Passage Facilities The studies of flow variation made by Mason have shown quite clear- ly that there is no single solution to the fish passage problem at Aroos- took Falls. Improvement of the present Tinker fishway alone would be of value only during May and before mid-June when the gorge is the major attraction. Increasing the attraction of the gorge by augmenting the natural flow coupled with gorge improvement has been suggested, but it is doubtful that even this could compete with the superior attraction of the tailrace in low water. It is unlikely that screening of the tailrace to divert salmon into the gorge would be either successful or prac- tical. A fishway for the Aroostook Falls area was designed by Mr. H. A. Lynch in 1953. The estimated cost of construction was tentatively set at 125,000 dollars. The course of the proposed fishway would conflict with plans for future expansion of the power plant. This difficulty could doubtless be overcome, but would almost certainly increase the estimated installation cost. Plans for the Aroostook Falls fishway are comparable to those for the successful Tobique fishway, with several major exceptions. 1. The pools for the Aroostook installation are two feet shorter. A tendency for turbulence at the foot of the pools in the Tobique fishway is apparent. Turbulence would certainly be greater in pools two feet shorter. 2. The proposed 84 pool fishway at Aroostook Falls would have a total linear length of 840 feet, compared to the 900 foot length of the 75 pool Tobique installation. 3. The proposed fishway pools at Aroostook Falls are about 18 per- cent less in surface area and volume than the Tobique pools. Increased turbulence would indicate more difficult fish passage in the proposed Aroostook fishway than in the existing Tobique installation. The dual nature of the fish passage problem created by the Aroostook Falls obstruction is emphasized in the above discussion. It is obvious

17 that reconstruction of the existing Tinker fishway alone would only partially solve the problem. Likewise, construction of only the tailrace fishway, ignoring the gorge problem, would be an incomplete answer to the fish passage problem. The permanent solution to the entire problem appears to be: 1. Reconstruction of the existing Tinker fishway to provide protection for the early segment of the run in May and June. 2. Construction of a pool-type fishway at the tailrace of the power plant to protect the major part of the run. Fishway plans should be revised to reduce pool turbulence and allow for power plant expansion. The increased costs for this plan over and above the original estimate for the tailrace fishway only will be considerable, and a difficult financ- ing problem might result. Therefore, the immediate problem at Tinker might be best solved by: 1. Reconstruction of the existing Tinker fishway to provide protection for the early run. 2. Provision of permanent trapping and transporting facilities at the tailrace, that would also serve as the base section of a permanent pool-type fishway to be completed at a later date. Mason (1954) proposed a "blind fishway" type trap as a possible solution to the Aroostook Falls problem. This type of installation would be essentially the lower several pools of a fishway terminating in a trap from which salmon could be removed and carried by tank truck or cable car to a point above the dam. A comparable installation has been operated successfully for shad at Mount Holyoke Dam on the Connecticut River. Mason's suggestion could be further modified to have the blind fishway constructed to serve as the initial pools of the permanent fishway to be completed at a later time. Protection for Downstream Migrants Plans for protection of downstream migrating salmon at Aroostook Falls have not been provided. If downstream smolt migration takes place during the spring and fall at high water levels, a substantial part of the run would be down the gorge and not through the power house turbines. This problem can only be solved by future study. The Tinker Weir During the summer of 1955, the Atlantic Salmon Commission with the cooperation of the Aroostook Federation of Fish and Game Clubs and the Maine Public Service Company, attempted to trap the tailrace

18 of the Tinker power plant with a temporary weir. The weir was operated at various times from July to September, but considerable difficulty was encountered with repeated washouts caused by the strong force of the water released from the turbines and clogging of the fence with debris. The weir was ineffective because of these fluctuations in water releases. Salmon often entered the trap upon release of flow from the turbines, but escaped when the flow was stopped. Four salmon rang- ing from 9 to 18 pounds in weight were taken in the trap and released above the dam. The tailrace was seined on August 30 and September 9, and ten grilse were taken and released above the dam. Seining was very ineffective because of the ledgy nature and uneven contour of the bottom. Neither of the methods used was effective, and the numbers of salmon taken were not necessarily an indication of the number of salmon attempting to migrate upstream. Considerable numbers of salmon were observed on many occasions below the tailrace by plant employees. Beechwood Dam The Beechwood hydroelectric dam, currently under construction, is not located in the Aroostook drainage, but its strategic position on the St. John River below the mouth of the Aroostook and Tobique Rivers presents a threat to anadromous salmon runs in both rivers. Construction of the Beechwood power dam, located about 100 miles north of Fredericton, New Brunswick, was begun on June 11, 1955, and is scheduled for completion late in 1957. The completed dam will be some 1,600 feet in length and about 100 feet high, and will utilize a 60-foot head, according to the New Brunswick Electric Power Com- mission (1955). Plans for the Beechwood Dam include an allowance for an elevator to carry upstream migrant fish over the dam. A pool-type fishway is apparently not contemplated. Needless to say, the future of both the Aroostook and Tobique River salmon runs depends on the success of the fish passing device installed in the Beechwood Dam. Caribou Dam (16) The Caribou Dam is located on the main Aroostook River about 15 miles above Aroostook Falls. The structure is reinforced concrete about 12 feet high with an operating head of about 15 feet possible by addi- tion of flashboards during low water periods.

19 The dam was built in about 1890 according to Anonymous (1895). A fishway was provided in the original dam, but its value was questionable, judging from the large number of salmon reported attempting to scale the dam. The 13-pool fishway present prior to 1952 was im- proved in that year, and an entirely new concrete fishway was built adjacent to the power house in 1955 by the Maine Public Service Company. The new fishway is of the pool type with two entrances, one on the side near the power house for low water and one facing downstream for high water periods. The entrance and exit are considered satisfactory with minor reservations. The Caribou fishway was trapped from August 30 to November 3 by Sportsmen Incorporated and the Atlantic Salmon Commission. Sixteen brook trout and two salmon parr were taken as well as large numbers of suckers, chubs, and minnows. During late summer, large numbers of fish of all sizes and species were observed ascending the fishway with little difficulty. With the construction of the new fishway, the problem of fish passage at Caribou appears to be largely solved, provided that the fishway is kept clean and in workable order.

Sheridan Dam (35) The Sheridan Dam is located on the main Aroostook River below Ashland. The dam is a log crib and timber structure built by the Great Northern Paper Company for water storage to load pulpwood. A head of about 61/2 feet is maintained by the dam. The dam is an obstacle to fish migration during low water periods, although it is probable that salmon could negotiate the structure at high water levels in early spring. Since the majority of any salmon run could be expected to reach Sheridan after mid-June, the dam would be an obstacle to upstream migration. Sheridan Dam should be provided with a fishway to ensure free upstream migration of Atlantic salmon at all water levels to the valuable spawning grounds above. The fishway would also provide free migration for brook trout, where a serious obstruction now exists.

Tributary Obstructions The majority of the dams and obstructions in the Aroostook drainage are located on its many tributary streams. The majority of the obstructions are man-made, although several natural falls also exist. A considerable number of the dams are still being operated for some useful

20 purpose, but many are unused and have fallen into disrepair creating an obstacle to fish migration. These dams are summarized separately in the text and pertinent data together with recommendations are presented in tabular form in Appendices I and II.

LIMESTONE STREAM Four Falls (2). The mouth of Limestone Stream in Canada is blocked by a series of four natural falls that are impassable to upstream fish migration. The cost of construction of adequate fish passage facilities would be prohibitive and of questionable value at the present time. Limestone Dam (3). This 15-foot structure is a complete barrier to upstream fish migration. Numerous brook trout have been observed below the dam during migration periods, and a fishway should be constructed to provide free passage to spawning and feeding grounds above. Colony Brook Dam (4). A low three-foot dam has been constructed in the stream to provide water storage for starch manufacture. It is impassable to upstream migration at low water periods and should be provided with fish passage facilities. Butterfield Brook Dam (5). This small rock dam has been built in the position of an old beaver dam, and has an insignificant effect on the fishery. Willard Brook Dam (6). This abandoned foundry dam is a complete obstruction to upstream fish migration and should be removed.

PATTEE BROOK Lower Dam (7). This old log crib structure has fallen into disrepair and is a complete barrier to upstream migration. Removal is recommended. Monson Pond Dam (8). A 16-foot dam was constructed to provide an artificial pond for recreational purposes. No fishway is necessary because of the marginal nature of the pond for trout.

LIBBY BROOK Bryant Pond Dam (9). A 13-foot dam has created an artificial pond on Libby Brook, and has created a barrier to fish migration. A fishway is not recommended at the present time because of the high cost in relation to the benefits derived. The landowner should guarantee a minimum flow through the dam to sustain fish life in the areas of the stream below the dam.

21 HOCKENHULL BROOK Old Dam (10). This dam was a complete obstruction at the time of original survey, but has recently been removed and is no longer a barrier. Starch Factory Dam (11). This dam was built to store water for starch manufacture, and should be provided with a simple fishway to allow fish passage upstream from the polluted area. LITTLE MADAWASKA RIVER Stockholm Dam (12). This abandoned logging dam is an obstacle to fish migration at low water levels and should be removed. Madawaska Lake Dam (13). This 8-foot abandoned logging dam is now passable to fish migration through the removed sluicebed. Blackstone Dam (14). Another abandoned logging dam at this point obstructs fish migration at low water levels and should be removed. OTTER BROOK Hatchery Dam (15). This dam was originally used to store water for the old Caribou fish hatchery. It was a complete obstruction to upstream migration at the time of original survey, but was washed out by the 1954 floods and is now passable. CARIBOU STREAM Sawmill Dam (17). This 16-foot structure, built on a natural ledge falls, is used to store water for sawmill operation. It is impassable to upstream or downstream migrants during low water periods. A fishway is not recommended at the present time because of the limited potential for anadromous fishes above the dam. Swimming Pool Dam (18). This structure was built to impound water for a community swimming pool, but is no longer in use and is completely passable with the flashboards removed. Haynes Dam (19). A small dam built on the headwaters of the West Branch of Deadwater Brook currently has little effect on the stream fishery. Peterson Dam (20). This small headwater impoundment has no effect on the stream fishery. HARDWOOD BROOK Hardwood Brook Dam (21). This small headwater impoundment has no effect on the brook fishery.

22 PRESQUE ISLE STREAM Presque Isle Dam (22). This 7-foot structure is owned by the City of Presque Isle and is maintained for water storage. It is an obstruction to upstream fish migration at all water levels, and should be provided with a workable fishway to provide free migration for salmon and brook trout to spawning grounds above. Spring Brook Dam (23). This headwater dam has little effect on migration, but a minimum flow of water should be maintained in the stream below. Mapleton Dam (24). This 11-foot dam on the North Branch is a complete obstruction to upstream fish migration, and should be equipped with a fishway to provide free migration for the brook trout population of the stream. Dudley Brook Dam (25). A 6-foot dam has been built near the mouth of Dudley Brook and is impassable to upstream migration. Fluctuations in water level in the past have dried up the stream below. The dam should either be removed or equipped with a fishway and minimum flow provided. Mantle Lake Dam (26). A 12-foot concrete structure was built to impound a fishpond, but was washed out by the 1954 floods. Old Dam (27). This structure was apparently the original water- control dam, but planned reconstruction of the Mantle Lake Dam would inundate this structure. Echo Lake Dam (28). This dam on Arnold Brook was built at the outlet of Echo Lake to create an impoundment for recreational purposes. It does not require a fishway because of the marginal nature of the pond above. KENNARD BROOK Kennard Brook Dam (29). This low dam built for water storage purposes should be provided with a simple fishway for trout. SALMON BROOK Lower Dam (30). This 3-foot dam is passable during high water, but is at least a partial obstruction during low water periods. A six- inch gutter in the left sluice is apparently intended as a fishway. Washburn Dam (31). This 16-foot dam is a complete obstruction to upstream migration. No fishway is recommended at the present time because of the high cost in relation to the limited potential for anadromous fishes above the dam.

23 First Perham Dam (32). This low dam on the East Branch has been built for water storage purposes, and is passable at most water levels. Second Perham Dam (33). Originally an obstruction, this dam on the East Branch has washed out around the left wing, making it passable at all times. CLAYTON BROOK L. S. Chandler's Dam (34). This 3-foot dam has been built for diversion of water into a farmpond, and is not affecting the brook fishery in this headwater section. BIG MACHIAS RIVER GREENLAW STREAM First Greenlaw Dam (36). This abandoned 8-foot logging dam is a partial obstruction, even though the sluice gate is left open. The constant danger of clogging with dri-ki makes this a potentially serious obstruction. Removal is recommended. Second Greenlaw Dam (37). This abandoned 6-foot logging dam is a definite obstacle to fish migration and should be removed. Greenlaw Pond Dam (38). This 4-foot dam was formerly an obstruction to migration, but has been made passable by removal of the sluice gate. MCCONNELL BROOK North Branch Dam (39). The right wing of this abandoned logging dam has been partially washed out, making free fish migration possible. South Branch Dam (40). This dam was observed from the air to be holding some water, and a further investigation shows it to be a serious obstruction, it should be removed. WEEKS BROOK Weeks Brook Dam (42). An abandoned logging dam located on Weeks Brook is now passable to fish migration around the left wing. THE MAIN MACHIAS RIVER Twelve-mile Dam (41). Twelve-mile Dam is a 10-foot log crib structure used in driving pulpwood. It is provided with a fishway that is designed for operation only at high water levels. Operation of the fishway, even during early spring, is unsatisfactory because

24 of its poor repair. The fishway becomes dry and inoperable when the reservoir level drops three feet below maximum. The only solution to the fishway problem at Twelve-mile is construction of a completely new fishway, workable at all water levels. A minimum flow should be provided in the stream below. Big Machias Lake Dam (43). The 10-foot dam at the outlet of Big Machias Lake has recently been rebuilt. The existing 20-pool fishway is of generally suitable design, but because of several faults, does not pass fish satisfactorily into the lake. Alterations should be made to convert the present fishway to a complete sub- merged orifice system. The two exits have become blocked by washed gravel, and should be bulldozed out two feet below the sill level. A minimum flow of water should be provided in the stream below.

TWENTY-MILE BROOK The Fork Dam (44). A 6-foot dam has recently been constructed to drive pulp on this small tributary. This dam is a complete barrier to fish migration, and should be removed at termination of the current operation. Right Fork Dam (45). An 8-foot dam has been built to drive pulp on this tributary, and is a complete obstruction to upstream fish movement. Removal of the dam at the termination of the current operation is recommended. Left Fork Dam (46). This 7-foot dam was built for driving pulp and is a serious barrier to upstream migration. Removal at the end of the current operation is recommended. Pangborne's Dam (47). This low dam has been built for water storage for a sawmill, and should be removed when the sawmill closes.

PRATT LAKE STREAM AND ROCKY BROOK Twenty-five Mile Dam (48). This dam was under construction in 1955, and will present about a 6-foot barrier to fish migration. It should be removed at the end of the operation. McGowan Pond Dam (49). This 9-foot abandoned dam is an obstruction to upstream migration and should be removed. Rowe Lake Dam (50). This 6-foot abandoned logging dam is not operable. The sluice gate remains open and is passable to upstream and downstream migrants at high water levels. The sluice

25 bed should be removed to ensure free migration at all water levels. Lovejoy Brook Dam (51). A 7½-foot dam at the headwaters of the inlet to Rowe Lake is a block to fish migration and is no longer in use. Removal is recommended. Lower Twenty-five Mile Brook Dam (52). This 9-foot abandoned logging dam remains an obstruction to fish migration and should be removed. An attempt was made to make this dam passable by removing a 3-foot wide section of planks in the sluice. Debris and dri-ki have again clogged the dam, causing an impassable condition. Upper Twenty- five Mile Brook Dam (53). This old 9-foot dam is now passable by a stream run-around. Farrar Pond Dam (54). A 4-foot dam has been built at the pond outlet for sawmill storage. Removal at the end of the operation is recommended. Lower McNally Dam (55). This 50-foot dam, formerly the largest wooden dam in the world, was a complete obstruction to fish migration until it washed out in 1954. It is now passable at all water levels. Upper McNally Dam (56). A dam is currently under construction at the outlet of Upper McNally Pond. A fishway is recommended because of the necessity of free migration of trout from the outlet into the pond. SQUAPAN STREAM Squapan Dam (57). The dam at the outlet of Squapan Lake is 281/2 feet high, and is a complete obstruction to fish migration at all water levels. A fishway is not recommended at this time because of the very high cost and the limited value to the lake fishery involved. A minimum stream flow should be provided. Inlet Dam (58). A 41/2-foot dam is located on the headwaters of the inlet stream and is of no significance to the fishery. ST. CROIX STREAM Tracey Brook Dam (59). This old logging dam is inoperable and is passable to fish migration at the present time. Cut Pond Dam (60). This abandoned logging dam is now passable to fish migration. Smith Pond Dam (61). This abandoned logging dam is now passable to fish migration.

26 POMKEAG STREAM Pomkeag Lake Dam (62). This dam, built for logging purposes, is now passable to fish migration.

MOOSELEUK STREAM Mooseleuk Dam (63). This 12-foot dam is located at the outlet of Mooseleuk Lake. The fishway provided in the dam is of the pool type with center notches. It works satisfactorily at the full dam head, but when the reservoir is drawn down, the fishway is left dry with the exit three feet above the water level of the lake. The only possible solution to the Mooseleuk fishway problem is construction of a completely new fishway to provide free trout migration from the stream below into the lake. Minimum stream flow provisions are recommended.

FIGURE 4. Dry fishway pools at Mooseleuk l ake darn. T10 R9, Piscataquis County.

Mink Marsh Pond Dam (64). A 41/2-foot dam was built at the outlet to Mink Marsh Pond on Blind Brook to provide storage for a sawmill. The dam is no longer in use and should be removed. McPHERSON BROOK McPherson Falls (65). Two impassable natural falls, 7 feet and 8 feet in height, are complete obstructions to upstream migration on McPherson Brook.

27 McPherson Pond Dam (66). The outlet of McPherson Pond is blocked by a logging dam that is impassable to upstream migration. A fishway is not justified in this dam because of an impassable natural falls below and the limited value of the stream habitat as a result of bulldozing and water level manipulation. Minimum stream flow provisions are recommended.

Hudson Pond Dam (67). A dam located at the outlet of Lower Hudson Pond, on Hudson Brook, holds a 6-foot head of water and is impassable to upstream migration of trout from the stream below. The dam should be equipped with a workable fishway and minimum flow provided in the stream below.

Middle Elbow Pond Dam (68). This 10-foot dam on Mule Brook is a complete obstacle to trout migration. Free migration from the outlet to the two ponds above is necessary to the trout fishery involved. It is recommended that a fishway be installed in the dam, and a minimum stream flow provided in the stream below.

FIGURE 5. A logging dam in poor repair obstructing fish migration in the Aroostook drainage.

MUNSUNGAN STREAM Munsungan Dam (69). This 8-foot dam is located at the outlet of Munsungan Lake. The pool-type, straight-run fishway provided in

28 the dam is working very well, and should be kept clean and in workable order. Minimum stream flow provisions are recommended.

FIGURE 6. Dam and fishway of suitable design at the outlet of Munsungan Lake, T8 R9, Piscataquis County. Low water below dam is the result of recent construction.

Bluffer Pond Dam (70). A low water-control dam on the pond outlet is provided with suitable fish passage facilities. Sewall Deadwater Dam (71). This dam is located on one of the main inlets of Munsungan Lake. Further investigation is necessary before definite recommendations can be made.

MILLINOCKET STREAM Millinocket Dam (72). This 10-foot dam at the outlet to Millinocket Lake is provided with an 8-pool fishway that is in poor repair, and in need of major adjustments or complete reconstruction. Consider- ing the condition of the fishway, construction of a completely new fishway is recommended. The fishway is necessary to allow free migration of salmon and trout upstream into Millinocket Lake, and should be designed to operate at all water levels. Minimum stream flow provisions are recommended.

29 ATLANTIC SALMON POTENTIAL The production of salmon and trout in any river drainage depends on the many physical and biological factors that determine the ability of the waters to produce and maintain fish populations. The purpose of a river management study is to evaluate these factors upon which fish production may depend. Of particular importance in considering a run of anadromous salmon are the amount of spawning area available to adult salmon and the amount of suitable nursery area in the river and its tributaries that would support young salmon parr during their stream life. The magnitude of this potential is often the deciding factor in construction of fishways in dams that are limiting an anadromous run. The benefits to be derived by construction of expensive fish passage facilities are largely dependent on the productive potential of the water area. A considerable amount of study and research has been done on the Aroostook River problem in the past few years. In 1949, a preliminary survey of the main river was made by Dr. W. Harry Everhart, Dr. George A. Rounsefell, and Lyndon H. Bond. Studies on fish passage facilities were conducted and summarized in an interim report by Scott H. Bair, Harry A. Lynch, and George A. Rounsefell (1951). A survey of the salmon potential of the main river was conducted in 1951 by James S. Fletcher, Richard E. Cutting, Roger P. AuClair, and Lewis Hurxthal. A detailed study of the fish passage problem on the Aroos- took was made by Mason (1954). The biological and obstruction study was completed in 1955, when the main river and its major tributaries were classified in regard to spawning, resting, and nursery areas for salmon. Limiting factors that are reducing salmon and brook trout production were also evaluated, and consideration was given to formulating recommendations to improve existing conditions. The Main River The main Aroostook River, measuring some 105 miles in length, contains an abundance of spawning and nursery area suitable for Atlantic salmon. Nearly one-half of the entire length of the river was classified as suitable nursery area, while about one-third was considered adequate spawning area. The suitability of the various sections of the river is summarized in Table 1. The lower 31 miles of river below Presque Isle contain very little spawning and nursery area for salmon, while suitable riffle areas are

30 widespread in the upper section. Some of the most ideal riffle areas are found between Presque Isle and Washburn, below Ashland, near Ma- sardis, and in the headwater section above the confluence of the main river with Mooseleuk Stream. These data emphasize the importance of the newly-constructed Cari- bou fishway in passing fish that are heading upstream to the major spawning areas. The fishway also enables fish to migrate upstream away from the area of most serious pollution below Caribou. The presence of valuable spawning areas above Ashland also points up the necessity of a suitable fishway in the Sheridan Dam.

Tributary Streams Limestone Stream Limestone Stream enters the Aroostook River a short distance below Aroostook Falls. Although the stream contains several miles of potential spawning and nursery area, it cannot be expected to support a salmon run in the near future because of four impassable falls located near its mouth, and a critical pollution problem.

TABLE 1. Summary of habitat suitability for Atlantic salmon in the Aroostook River drainage.

Length Miles of Miles of Resting Location of spawning nursery section area area areas

Main Aroostook River Tinker Falls to Caribou 19 1 1 Fair to good Caribou to Presque Isle 14 1/2 1/2 Fair Presque Isle to Washburn 10 51/2 51/2 Good Washburn to Ashland 20 61/2 121/2 Good Ashland to Oxbow 25 103/4 143/4 Fair to good Oxbow to Mooseleuk Stream 11 4 8 Good Mooseleuk to The Forks 6 4 6 Good Summary Main River 105 321/4 481/4 .

31 Length Miles of Miles of Resting of spawning nursery areas Location section area area Main Tributary Streams Little Madawaska River 29 131/4 231/2 Good to excellent Presque Isle Stream 191/2 7 101/2 Fair to good Big Machias River 29 91/2 171/2 Fair to good— upper Fair to poor— lower Squapan Stream 31/4 1 3 Fair St. Croix Stream 18 21/2 5 Fair to poor Mooseleuk Stream 12 314 8 Fair to good Munsungan Stream 9 21/4 61/2 Fair Millinocket Stream 6 0 31/2 Fair to poor Summary Tributaries 1253/4 383/4 771/2 Little Madawaska River Little Madawaska River is the main tributary of the Aroostook below Presque Isle. It has excellent water quality for both trout and salmon and possesses a very good tributary system that provides extensive brook trout habitat. This tributary is one of the most promising in the system for supporting a substantial run of Atlantic salmon. Spawning area, nursery area, and resting pools in the stretch below Stockholm are excellent. Pollution is negligible and the river is unobstructed in the lower portion. Removal of two old dams that may hinder migration in the headwater section at certain water levels has been recommended. Most of the 29 miles of the main stem of the river contain suitable nursery areas for salmon, and more than 13 miles of spawning area are available (Table 1). Caribou Stream Caribou Stream has been blocked to upstream migration for many years by a sawmill dam built on a natural ledge falls a short distance above its confluence with the Aroostook River. Construction of a fishway in the dam is not justified at the present time because the construction costs would be too high considering the limited spawning and nursery area above the dam. The critical pollution problem in the stream should be alleviated because of its detrimental effect on the stream itself and the river habitat below. Presque Isle Stream Presque Isle Stream empties into the Aroostook River near the city of Presque Isle. The stream is obstructed to upstream fish migration by an impassable dam about two miles above its mouth. According to

32 Atkins (1874), this was one of the tributaries that supported an abundant run of salmon prior to construction of the dam many years ago. The stream contains potentially good spawning and nursery areas for Atlantic salmon. Approximately 101/2 miles of the 191/2 miles of the main stream is considered suitable nursery area, while 7 miles of adequate spawning area is available. Limited additional areas are available in the East, West, and North Branches. The Presque Isle Dam should be provided with a workable fishway to pass salmon and brook trout to valuable spawning areas above. The serious starch pollution in the stream must be alleviated before the stream can support a run of salmon or produce its full potential of trout. Management of the North Branch should include elimination of the serious starch pollution and provision for a workable fishway in the Mapleton Dam to provide free fish passage. Salmon Brook Atlantic salmon were once abundant in Salmon Brook according to a report by Atkins (1874). There are presently two dams blocking fish migration near its mouth, and serious pollution from a food-processing plant is being introduced into the brook. The small amount of nursery area available above the dams would not justify the considerable ex- pense of installing two fishways at the present time. Beaver Brook Beaver Brook is considered excellent brook trout habitat. There is a considerable amount of potential salmon nursery area available, but brook trout potential would be reduced by salmon introductions. There are no man-made obstructions that hinder fish migration in the Beaver Brook drainage at the present time. Little Machias Stream This stream contains only a limited amount of salmon nursery area that is reduced in value by low water conditions and extreme warming during the summer months. Periodic sawdust pollution occurs near its mouth. Big Machias River The Big Machias is one of the major Aroostook River tributaries. Referring to past Atlantic salmon runs in the Aroostook River, Atkins (1874) wrote, "Their favorite stream in old times was the Big Ma- chias. A dam built near its mouth about 30 years ago (about 1843)

33 AROOSTOOK RIVER DRAINAGE

AROOSTOOK, PISCATAQUIS AND

PEN OBSCOT COUNTIES, MAINE

AND NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA /

47 46

38 54 44 37 43 36 35

6 5 5

SQ L 4 1 41 -1- 0 67 66 A/ \ 68 65

MILLINOCKET 3T REAM

34 8

NEW

BRUNSW ICK ZI >- 01 Ir < 0< CANADA z,zI CC WI 0 Z I CD

NUMBERS INDICATE OBSTRUCTIONS TO FISH MIGRATION

SCALE I; 500.000 35 shut the salmon out almost completely, but occasionally one leaps the dam." The old dam referred to by Atkins has long since disappeared, and the lower 12 miles of the river are not unobstructed. There are two major dams on the main stream, one at Twelve-mile and one at Big Machias Lake. Both dams are provided with fishways, but both require the alterations as described in the section on tributary obstructions. The 29-mile main stream contains about 171/2 miles of potential nursery area and about 91/2 miles of spawning area (Table 1). The majority of the good spawning area is located above Twelve-mile Dam, pointing out the necessity of an adequate fishway in this structure. Complete closure of the gates of the two dams on the main river often "dries up" the stream below and endangers game fish survival. A guaranteed minimum flow of water through these two dams will be necessary before the stream can produce its full potential of salmon and brook trout. This provision is essential if the stream is to be considered as a valuable salmon nursery area.

Squapan Stream Squapan Stream is about 31/4 miles in length and runs from the dam at the outlet of Squapan Lake to the Aroostook River. The original stream length has been shortened considerably by bulldozing a cutoff to the main river and eliminating a low, meandering section. The stream is nearly all potential salmon nursery area, but is often left nearly dry by closing the dam gates completely. Such drastic fluctuations in water level limit its value as a nursery area. Minimum flow provisions are recommended. St. Croix Stream The main St. Croix Stream from the outlet of St. Croix Lake is 18 miles in length. The upper section above Griswold is very wide and becomes low, shallow, and warm during the summer. The lower section contains about 5 miles of potential salmon nursery area, and about 21/2 miles of adequate spawning area. The main stream is unobstructed. Umcolcus Stream The lower section of Umcokus Stream is moderately steep in gradient, wide and boulder-strewn, and becomes low, shallow, and warm during the summer months. The East Branch contains some spawning and nursery area that should be considered brook trout habitat. The lower one-half mile below the Oxbow bridge contains limited spawning and nursery areas suitable for salmon.

36 Mooseleuk Stream Mooseleuk Stream, from the outlet of Mooseleuk Lake to its junction with the main river, is about 12 miles in length. Much of the stream is boulder riffle suitable as salmon nursery area, but good spawning areas are confined to the lower three miles. The stream can be considered valuable salmon spawning and nursery area only if provisions are made to maintain an adequate flow. The common practice of complete closure of the Mooseleuk Dam gates, resulting in draining of the stream should be discontinued. Munsungan Stream Munsungan Stream is about nine miles in length from Munsungan Lake to its junction with Millinocket Stream. The lower 21/2 miles of stream contain good spawning area, while 61/2 miles are considered suitable nursery area for salmon. A minimum flow of water should be guaranteed from the Munsungan Dam to increase the value of the nursery area to brook trout and salmon.

Millinocket Stream Millinocket Stream is not considered especially good salmon spawning area, but about 31/2 miles are potentially good nursery area. A minimum flow of water should be maintained through the Millinocket Dam to support game fish in the stream below.

Water Control in Tributary Streams The value of the several major tributary streams as salmon spawning and nursery areas will depend in large measure on successful establishment of minimum flow provisions to maintain sufficient flow to support spawning runs of mature fish and stream populations of young fish. If the Aroostook River tributaries are to produce their full quota of salmon in the future, provisions should be made to maintain a minimum flow of water in such waters as Millinocket Stream, Munsungan Stream, Mooseleuk Stream, Squapan Stream, and Big Machias River. Flow in the main river would of course be sustained by a guaranteed minimum flow in the major tributary streams.

Atlantic Salmon Stocking Atlantic salmon stocking is being carried out in drainages where there is hope of restoring a sizable run, principally as an aid in building up the natural spawning run. Stocking of hatchery-reared Atlantic salmon in the Aroostook River and its tributaries was resumed in 1951,

37 after surveys by the Atlantic Salmon Commission had shown that there was a chance of restoring the salmon run. Plantings made from 1951 to 1955 have been summarized from the Biennial Report of the Atlantic Salmon Commission (1954) and from data furnished by James Fletcher, Salmon Commission Fishery Bi- ologist, as follows: Fish Year of Year Total Number Mark 1 per majority stocked stocked marked used pound return 1951 20,064 20,064 N & R 62.4 1955 1952 20,100 — — 238.1 1956 1954 19,871 19,871 N & L 38.6 1957 1954 28,730 28,730 D & N 136.4 1958 1955 70,094 70,094 D & L 315.6 1959

1 N & R—Anal and right ventral fin N & L—Anal and left ventral fin D & N—Dorsal and anal fin D & L—Dorsal and left ventral fin

Plantings were made in suitable nursery areas as determined by survey teams of the Atlantic Salmon Commission. During the summer of 1955, the Salmon Commission carried out an electro-fishing and seining inventory of the waters stocked the previous fall. Checks made in various sections of the Little Madawaska River indicated that the overwintering survival had been good, and that the parr had dispersed widely throughout the river and its tributaries. No fish of the 1951 plant, expected to return chiefly in 1955, were reported taken by anglers or caught in the tailrace weir at Aroostook Falls. Further stocking of fingerling salmon is contemplated with periodic survival checks planned for the areas stocked.

38 EFFECTS OF LOGGING PRACTICES ON THE FISHERIES OF THE AROOSTOOK DRAINAGE Since early days, the Aroostook River drainage has been a center of activity for the lumbering industry. Pine logs were once cut in substantial quantities and driven down many of the tributaries with the aid of stored water from a network of large log-driving dams. More dams were built on many of the small tributaries with the increase in the practice of pulp-cutting to aid in driving pulp to the loading stations. Mechanized equipment has become an important part of the pulpwood industry, and the extent and manner in which it is used has created several important problems in relation to watershed and fishery management. The current problem can be divided into four detrimental practices that are often responsible for alteration of natural fish habitat, and subsequent decline of the fisheries. These are: 1. Obstructions 2. Bulldozing of streams 3. Detrimental cutting practices 4. Fluctuation of water levels Obstructions and their effects have been discussed previously. The remaining practices will be considered. Bulldozing of Streams History Since World War II, the use of bulldozers in pulp-cutting operations has become increasingly widespread. In many instances, considerable time and labor have been saved by use of this tool, but in far too many cases, operations have gotten "out of hand" with the result that permanent damage has been inflicted on the streams and watershed. This tendency for overuse of the bulldozer in some operations led to the passing of a bulldozing law by the Maine legislature in 1952, limiting bulldozing of streams in unorganized townships to 1000 feet in any one mile. The statute was revised in 1954, reducing the legal limit of bulldozing to 500 feet per mile. Extensive bulldozing in the Aroostook drainage was begun around 1950, when virtually the entire lengths of two brooks in the Mooseleuk watershed were bulldozed to aid in pulp-driving. During these operations Big Hudson Brook was extensively bulldozed from the outlet of Lower Hudson Pond to Mooseleuk Lake, a distance of approximately seven miles. Mule Brook was also extensively bulldozed from the Elbow

39 Ponds to its confluence with Big Hudson Brook, a distance of about three miles. Following these instances, sections of McPherson Brook, Twenty-mile Brook, Mountain Pond Outlet, and Twenty-five Mile Brook

FIGURE 7. Bulldozed section of Twenty-mile Brook, T12, R9, Aroostook County. have been bulldozed. No attempt has ever been made to restore brooks following bulldozing, but such action might help considerably in some instances.

Effects on Trout Stream Habitat Some of the effects of bulldozing on Maine streams were first noted by Bond and DeRoche (1950) in a statewide survey of obstructions and logging practices. The effects on fish habitat and fish populations in the Aroostook drainage are substantially those noted by these workers, and are discussed in some detail below. Temperature Bulldozing commonly destroys not only the large shade trees along the brook banks, but also the small plants and bushes serving as bank cover, and very often the banks themselves. The result is direct exposure to warming by the sun, often raising the water temperature above the tolerance level for brook trout. Small springs entering along

40 the course of a brook are often diverted, and rendered ineffective as a cooling influence on brook temperature. Pools and cover Bulldozing is notorious for destroying natural habitat conditions for trout. One of the principal effects is the virtual elimination of protective cover in the stream bed. Large boulders, logs, and debris are cleared completely from the stream bed, commonly transforming the stream into a smooth, flat channel with little irregularity. The natural width is often increased considerably, resulting in the flow of a thin sheet of water over a very wide, flat area. Often the stream becomes too shallow for fish survival during critical summer and winter periods. Overhang- ing banks are usually pushed back by bulldozing, destroying one of the chief sources of protective cover for brook trout. Pools in the stream bed are necessary for survival and maximum well-being of brook trout. Bulldozing consistently eliminates nearly all pools in the area worked by filling depressions and leveling the stream bed. Thus, areas necessary for feeding, for resting, and especially for the overwintering of trout are destroyed. A common practice is to alter the natural stream course by cutting off sharp turns with deep pools. Certainly very little trout survival can be expected as a result of the conditions created in most bulldozed streams. Food and feeding Disturbance of the bottom material by bulldozing destroys aquatic insect populations, the most important trout food in streams. Bank destruction eliminates overhanging bushes and plants that often produce considerable numbers of terrestrial insects that fall into the stream and furnish trout food. Spawning areas Clean gravelly riffles with an adequate flow of water are necessary for trout to spawn successfully. Bulldozing of the stream and banks commonly results in heavy silting of gravel spawning areas, resulting in low survival of naturally spawned eggs. The spreading of stream flow also would result in shallow water spawning where losses from freezing might be considerable. Runoff Bulldozing often entails straightening and shortening the existing stream channel by plugging natural loops and turns, most of which con-

41 tamn good pools. This practice contributes to faster runoff and lower stream levels during critical summer periods.

Bulldozing Versus Manual Clearing of Streams The question of the necessity of bulldozing to such extremes to drive pulp from small streams has often arisen. In past years, long logs were driven in many streams of the same size or smaller than those currently being driven with pulp, with only manual clearing of the stream.

The branch of Twenty-mile Brook known as The Fork was cleared for driving chiefly by manual labor, with the bulldozer used only spar- ingly to remove large boulders or serious obstructions. While many of the damages common with bulldozing and driving resulted, manual clearing helped to maintain natural stream conditions in at least two respects: 1. Bank alteration and destruction was not nearly as serious. Un- dermining and washing was considerable, but banks were largely left intact to serve as a place of attachment for trees and bushes that would eventually grow back and furnish shade and cover. 2. Alteration of the stream bottom was not as severe. Logs and large boulders were removed, but most of the sizable bottom rocks were left intact, and some pools remained. This practice would leave at least a few current deflectors that might eventually create new pools by washing.

Effects of Cutting Practices Heavy cutting in a watershed, especially along lake shores or on brook banks, has a serious reducing effect on the water-holding capacity of the ground, and hence a detrimental effect on stream and lake levels. Clearcutting, bulldozing of haul roads, and destruction of ground cover all favor quick runoff of precipitation and ground water, resulting in general lowering of water levels in the drainage. Destruction of ground cover and widespread exposure of mineral soil results in siltation and high turbidity of stream water. The principal reason for complete clearing and exposure of the immediate stream banks in most cases is the necessity of preparing "land- ings" from which to launch piles of pulp on the spring drive. It would be of great advantage to leave an uncut strip along stream banks where possible, to maintain normal shade and bank cover.

42 Fluctuation of Water Levels The dams in the Aroostook drainage with water-control facilities are owned and operated primarily by industrial interests, and little thought has been given to multiple use of the water resource. Many problems in use of the water supply will have to be solved if the Aroostook drainage is to realize the full potential of the salmon and trout fisheries.

Fluctuation of Stream Flow Management of the water resource in the past has been confined to gross adjustment of gates by dam owners concerned with securing water for pulp drives or storage for electric power. This has often resulted in drastic fluctuations in the flow of the main river and its tributary streams. Complete closure of control gates in various dams commonly occurs, resulting in extremely low water conditions in the stream below. This often presents serious hazards to stream fishes that can be summarized as follows: 1. Fish migration necessary to secure food for growth and survival is often sharply curtailed because of insufficient water to negotiate the stream. Fish may become stranded in small pools or pockets with insufficient water for existence. 2. Adverse temperature conditions for game fish in the stream are sometimes created. Lowering of the water level during hot weather with exposure of numerous rocks and boulders causes abnormal warming in many cases. 3. Production of aquatic insects, the chief food of trout and young salmon, can be reduced considerably by repeated exposure and desiccation of productive riffle and shoal areas. 4. Existing fish populations are crowded into reduced pool area. Increased competition reduces chances for game fish survival. The dams on the major tributary streams could in reality be of great value to the river and tributary fisheries for stream flow regulation. The amount of water required to keep a minimum flow in the streams would actually be a very small part of the total water used in the course of a season. Integration of the needs of industry and fisheries would require some planning, but a satisfactory solution certainly could and should be worked out.

A list of dams and affected streams in which minimum flow provisions should be made is given in Appendix I.

43 Lake Flowages A considerable number of lakes and ponds in the drainage have been flowed by construction of a dam at the outlet. Prior to passage of a restrictive law, the water levels of many lakes were raised and the sur- rounding land was flooded without cutting the trees and brush in the flooded area. The aesthetic value of the lakes in question was ruined. In several cases, it is probable that the water quality of the lake involved was adversely affected by creation of large, warm shallow areas :3401 '1!

FIGURE 8. A typical uncut lake flowage in the Aroostook River drainage. conducive to thriving populations of coarse fishes. Additional organic material contributed to oxygen deficiencies. Flowed lakes in the Aroostook drainage include Rowe, Big Machias, Mooseleuk, Millinocket, Squapan, and many others. Lowering Lake Levels The practice of bulldozing lake outlets to obtain water for pulp drives has become common. The outlet of Upper Hudson Pond was bulldozed several years ago, lowering the water level over three feet. The lake remains low and much of the productive shoal area remains dry. The bulldozing of the outlet of Upper Elbow Pond lowered the lake level about two feet, and no attempt has been made to restore the original lake level.

44 Lowering of lake levels without restoration may effect shore spawning and feeding areas of brook trout, and reduce productive water volume of the pond. In cases where water is secured by this method the original lake level could be restored with little effort.

FIGURE 9. Bulldozed outlet of Upper Elbow Pond, TIO, R10, Piscataquis County.

POLLUTION Pollution of various types and its effect must be considered in any evaluation of the fish-producing capacity of a river drainage. Industrial and domestic pollution is being introduced in significant amounts into some sections of the Aroostook River drainage. Detailed studies on the effects of pollution on the fisheries have not been carried out, although preliminary classification of conditions and their effects have been made by the New England-New York Inter-Agency Committee (Gold Book 1955). The effects of pollution on present water conditions in the Aroostook drainage, as reported in the Gold Book, are presented in Table 2. Table 3 lists sources of pollution in the Aroostook drainage. Pollution in the Aroostook drainage is currently affecting the fisheries principally by reducing the amount of game fish habitat by adversely affecting water quality, and by rendering certain waters unsuitable for fish populations. Severe pollution in several areas prevents game fish from utilizing valu-

45 able resident nursery, feeding, and spawning areas. These areas are actually lost from the standpoint of fish production and sport fishing.

Organic pollutants may reduce dissolved oxygen to levels too low to support game fish during critical periods. Coating of stream bottoms with thick layers of waste material limits aquatic insect production. These organisms are the chief food of trout and young salmon in streams. Visibility is reduced markedly by dense mats of suspended material, and a noxious condition is often caused by the strong odor of decaying organic matter. TABLE 2. Approximate* effects of pollution on present water conditions, Aroos- took River Basin. (From "The Gold Book," 1955) Approximate* effect and extent in miles , Watercourse Source of pollution I II III IV V Aroostook River Untreated domestic sewage from 32 24 40 0 0 3,700 persons in Masardis, Caribou and Fort Fairfield. Untreated wash water from 1 frozen food plant in Caribou; starch wastes from 1 plant in Fort Fairfield. ' Machias River Untreated industrial wastes from a 26 0 0 1 0 starch factory in the town of Ash- land. Salmon Brook Unsatisfactory primary effluent from 12 0 0 1 0 a treatment plant in the town of Washburn serving 600 persons; waste water from a frozen food plant in Washburn. Presque Isle Unsatisfactory primary effluent from 22 0 0 6 (1 Stream a treatment plant in the city of Presque Isle serving 5,000 persons and significant industries. Satis- factory primary effluent from the Presque Isle Air Force Base treatment plant serving an undetermined number of persons. Untreated industrial wastes from 2 starch factories in Presque Isle. North Branch Untreated domestic sewage from 75 8 0 0 4 0 Presque Isle persons in Mapleton and untreated Stream starch wastes from 1 plant. Caribou Stream Untreated industrial wastes from a 8 0 0 5 0 starch factory in Woodland and a woolen mill in Caribou. Greenlaw Brook Satisfactory primary effluent from 0 4 0 0 0 the treatment plant at the Limestone Air Force Base. Gray Brook Untreated industrial waste from a 0 0 0 1 0 starch factory at Fort Fairfield.

Approximate* effect 1 Source of pollution Watercourse and extent in miles I II III IV V Hockenhull Untreated industrial wastes from a 0 3 0 1 0 Brook starch factory at Fort Fairfield. Libby Brook Untreated domestic sewage from 0 4 1 0 0 300 persons in Fort Fairfield. Pattee Brook Untreated industrial wastes from a 6 0 0 4 0 starch factory in Fort Fairfield. Limestone Untreated domestic sewage from 4 0 0 0 2 Stream 600 persons and untreated industrial wastes from 3 starch factories in the town of Limestone. Colony Brook Untreated industrial wastes from a 2 0 0 0 2 starch factory in Limestone. Totals 254 58 66 87 4

I Not a precise evaluation—tentative pending classification studies. *Key to symbols.

Condition Description Suitable for any water use. Character uniformly excellent. II Suitable for bathing and recreation, irrigation and agricultural uses; good fish habitat; good aesthetic value. Acceptable for public water supply with filtration and disinfection. III Suitable for recreational boating, irrigation of crops not used for consumption without cooking; habitat for wildlife and common food and game fishes indigenous to the region. Suit- able for public water supply if shown by technical studies. IV Suitable for transportation of sewage and industrial wastes without nuisance, and for power, navigation, and other industrial uses for which it is acceptable. V Unsatisfactory. Waters falling below the above descriptions.

47 TABLE 3. Basic data on sources of municipal and industrial pollution, Aroostook River Basin. (From "The Gold Book," 1955) Source of pollution Number Adequacy P. E.3 and sewered or Type of wastes Treatment of to water- receiving watercourse employees produced 2 provided treatment course Aroostook River Masardis (T) 200 Domestic None 200 Caribou (T) 2,800 Domestic None Unsatisfactory 2,800 4 Frozen Food Plant N Potato peelings; Screens 10,000 wash water Fort Fairfield (T) 700 Domestic None 700 Starch factory N Potato starch None 19,300 Machias River Ashland (T) N Potato starch None 23,760 Starch factory - ooP' Salmon Brook Washburn (T) 600 Domestic Primary Unsatisfactory 400 Frozen food plant N Potato peelings; Screens Undetermined 20,000 wash water Presque Isle Stream Presque Isle (C) 5,000 Municipal Primary Unsatisfactory 4,000 Starch factory 10 Potato starch None 53,460 Army air base N Sanitary Primary Satisfactory N Starch factory N Potato starch None 47,500 North Branch Presque Isle Stream Mapleton (T) 75 Domestic None 75 Starch factory N Potato starch None 31,130 Caribou Stream Woodland (T) Starch factory N Potato starch None 35,640 Caribou (T) Woolen mill 20 Textile None 500 TABLE 3. Basic data on sources of municipal and industrial pollution, Aroostook River Basin — Continued. (From "The Gold Book," 1955) Source of pollution Number Adequacy P. E. and sewered or Type of wastes Treatment of to water- , 2 receiving watercourse employees produced provided treatment course Greenlaw Brook Limestone (T) Limestone Air Base N Sanitary Primary Satisfactory N Gray Brook Fort Fairfield (T) N Potato starch None 19,250 Starch factory Hockenhull Brook Fort Fairfield (T) N Potato starch None 20,800 Starch factory Libby Brook 4=. VD Fort Fairfield (T) 300 Domestic None 300 Pattee Brook Fort Fairfield (T) N Potato starch None 8,900 Starch factory Limestone Stream Limestone (T) Starch factory 600 Domestic None 600 Starch factory N Potato starch None 23,760 Starch factory N Potato starch None 17,800 Colony Brook Limestone (T) Starch factory N Potato starch None 23,760 1 T—Town; C—City. 2 Municipal indicates significant industrial wastes intercepted; Domestic indicates no industrial wastes intercepted; Sanitary indicates sanitary wastes only. 3 P. E.—Population equivalent in terms of biochemical oxygen demand; E—Population equivalent estimated from plant capacities. 4 N—undetermined. Pollution in the lower main river and some of its tributaries is a definite limiting factor to the fisheries. Aggravated conditions exist in the main river below Caribou, lower Presque Isle Stream, and lower Big Machias River, and may have some effect on Atlantic salmon migration, and the utilization of resting and nursery facilities.

Limestone Stream and Caribou Stream are potentially good trout waters and have produced excellent fishing in past years. Pollution has eliminated the affected sections of these waters as trout habitat and fishing area. Pollution adversely affects most of the brooks listed in Table 3, including such waters as Pattee Brook, Libby Brook, Hockenhull Brook, and Salmon Brook.

It should be noted that pollution by industrial wastes is by far the most serious, and that it is caused almost entirely by plants engaged in processing foods and related products, largely potato starch. Sig- nificant quantities of domestic sewage are introduced at Washburn, Presque Isle, Caribou, and Fort Fairfield, but the over-all effect on water quality is far less than the industrial pollution caused by starch wastes (Table 3).

Sawdust pollution in varying degrees exists in different parts of the drainage. Sawdust pollution that may affect the fisheries has been noted in Caribou Stream, Farrar Pond, Right Fork of Farrar Brook, and Lit- tle Machias River. Pollution from pea vineries has affected small tributaries in several instances by reducing the dissolved oxygen as decomposition of the organic pollutant takes place. In several instances, fish kills have resulted from introduction of chemical insecticides into streams. Filling of potato sprayers and mixing of spray solutions at local streams is very common. Careless handling of the poisonous sprays seems to be the chief factor at fault. Farmers should use extreme care with these poisons near trout streams. Further investigation will be necessary before the exact role of this type of pollution can be determined. The only solution to the existing pollution problem in relation to the fisheries in the drainage is reduction of pollution and improvement of stream conditions so that critical areas can once again support game fish populations and a sport fishery.

50 PROPOSED POWER DEVELOPMENTS The International Joint Commission and the New England-New York Inter-Agency Committee have conducted extensive surveys for potential power developments in the St. John River system. Three projects that have been judged economically feasible are located in the Aroostook River Basin (Gold Book, 1955). These projects and their possible effects on the fishery potential are summarized below. The Castle Hill Project Proposals have been made for the construction of a power dam in the town of Castle Hill. The proposed dam would be 72 feet high, utilize a gross head of 60 feet, and flood about 5,000 acres of land. Provisions for adequate fish passage facilities have been included in plans for the dam. The Castle Hill dam would flood the Aroostook River back beyond the mouth of Squapan Stream, and would inundate much of the lower portion of Beaver Brook. Construction of the proposed Castle Hill Dam would be considered a serious threat to Atlantic salmon restoration. Salmon would have to negotiate an additional high obstacle to reach spawning areas in the headwater sections, and spawning and nursery area in the main river would be reduced about one-third by inundation of about 10 miles of river suitable for these purposes. The Masardis Project The proposed storage dam at Masardis would be 110 feet high and impound a 17,800 acre reservoir. About 24 miles of the Aroostook River and two miles of Mooseleuk Stream would be inundated. Four- teen miles of Atlantic salmon spawning and nursery area in the main river and two tributaries would be flooded, leaving only about seven miles of suitable spawning area above the reservoir. The value of this section of the river to Atlantic salmon would be sharply reduced, even though provisions for fish passage facilities are included in plans for the dam. The Twelve-mile Project An alternate plan to the Masardis project is the Twelve-mile storage dam site on the Big Machias River, about 101/2 miles upstream from its confluence with the Aroostook River at Ashland. The proposed Twelve-mile dam would be a 100-foot structure with an ungated concrete spillway, and would flood about 5,800 acres of land. This structure would flood and destroy about 91/2 miles of Atlantic salmon spawning and nursery area, or virtually all the area of value above the proposed dam.

51 SUMMARY 1. Atlantic salmon ascended the Aroostook River in large numbers prior to construction of the Aroostook Falls Dam in 1906. From 1906 to 1936, the run was blocked almost completely and dimin- ished sharply. Since 1936, limited numbers have ascended the faulty Tinker fishway, but the run has never approached its former abundance. 2. The potential of the Aroostook River and its tributaries as spawning and nursery area for salmon is superior. This potential is being reduced in some areas by obstructions, pollution, and stream flow fluctuation. During the course of a study of obstructions to fish migration carried out from 1950 to 1955, 70 man-made obstructions and 2 natural falls were catalogued. 3. Only eight fishways were provided in the total number of obstructions studied, and only three of these work satisfactorily at most water levels. The remaining five fishways should be altered or rebuilt. Sixty-two dams in the drainage contain no fishways, but 15 of these are now passable or have been made passable since the survey. Eleven dams that are no longer in use should be removed, and six others should be removed at the end of usage. No recommendations have been made for 12 dams because of their insignificant effects on the fisheries. 4. The Beechwood Dam on the St. John River in New Brunswick is nearing completion and will present another obstacle to re-establishment of the Aroostook salmon run. The future of the Aroostook and Tobique runs will depend on the success of the fish passing device to be installed in this dam. 5. Studies made at the Aroostook Falls obstruction have shown that the solution to the fish passage problem is a dual one. The existing Tinker fishway is of poor design with several substantial obstacles; although a few salmon do negotiate the structure. Reconstruction of the Tinker fishway would only partially solve the fish passage problem, because the flow in the gorge leading to the fishway is too small after mid-June to permit salmon to negotiate its treacher- ous course. After mid-June, the attraction of the tailrace of the power plant is greater than the gorge. Complete protection of the entire run will not be secured until passage is provided at the power house and the existing structure at the head of the gorge is reconstructed into an efficient fishway to

52 pass salmon migrating before mid-June when the gorge attraction is superior. An immediate solution would be provided by reconstruction of the gorge fishway, and construction of the several initial pools of the tailrace fishway to serve as a "blind fishway" trap for collection of migrant salmon. These salmon would then be transported above the dam. When the salmon run has built up to significant numbers, the tailrace fishway should be completed. 6. The Caribou Dam has recently been provided with a satisfactory concrete fishway that should solve the fish passage problem at that obstruction. This efficient fishway should ensure free salmon migration to the major spawning grounds above. 7. The dam at Sheridan is an obstacle to salmon migration, particularly at low water levels. Construction of a suitable fishway is recommended to ensure free migration of salmon to the valuable spawning areas above. 8. Bulldozing of streams in the Aroostook drainage has become widespread. Overuse of this tool in some areas has resulted in permanent damage to the watershed and streams. Fish habitat is destroyed by increased water temperatures, destruction of pools and cover, and destruction of trout food and spawning area. 9. Manual clearing of brooks prior to driving is less destructive than bulldozing because less bottom disturbance occurs and banks are left in better condition for future growth of shade and cover. 10. Cutting practices are detrimental where clearcutting and bulldozing of haul roads result in exposure, reduction of water-holding capacity of the ground, quick runoff, and warming and silting of streams. 11. Fluctuation of stream flow by manipulation of dam gates is a common practice that results in severely lowering the water level of streams, limiting the fishery potential by warming of the water, cur- tailing migration, and reducing production of aquatic insects, the chief food of trout and young salmon. 12. Industrial pollution, largely effluents of potato starch manufacture, has a marked detrimental effect on the fishery potential of some sections of the drainage. Severe conditions in the main river below Caribou, lower Presque Isle Stream, and lower Big Machias River may affect salmon migration and utilization of these areas. The brook trout fishery has been virtually destroyed by severe starch

53 pollution in Limestone Stream, Caribou Stream, and in the lower section of the North Branch of Presque Isle Stream. Sections of Pattee Brook, Libby Brook, Hockenhull Brook, and Salmon Brook have also been seriously affected. 13. Proposed power and storage dams at Castle Hill, Masardis, and Twelve-mile would create further obstacles to salmon migration, and inundate significant amounts of spawning and nursery area.

54 RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are offered after careful evaluation of data presented in this report: 1. The Aroostook Falls obstruction should be provided with a pool- type fishway beginning at the tailrace to provide protection to the bulk of the salmon run after mid-June. The Tinker fishway at the head of the gorge should be rebuilt to provide for efficient passage of migrating fish at all water levels. The immediate problem might be solved by reconstruction of the Tinker fishway and construction of the first several pools of the tailrace fishway to serve as a "blind fishway" trap for collection of upstream migrants. The tailrace fishway should be completed when a substantial run has been restored. 2. The Sheridan Dam should be provided with a workable fishway to ensure free salmon migration to the valuable spawning grounds above. 3. Fishways in Mooseleuk, Twelve-mile, Millinocket, and Big Machias Dams should be altered or rebuilt to pass fish at all water levels. New fishways are recommended in Limestone, Presque Isle, Maple- ton, Upper McNally, Lower Hudson, and Dudley Brook Dams. Simple, inexpensive fishways should be provided in the low dams on Kennard Brook, Colony Brook, and Hockenhull Brook. Eleven unused dams should be removed. 4. The full productive potential of the drainage for salmon and trout can only be fulfilled if provisions are made for adequate flow in the river and its tributaries. Minimum flow provisions should be in- stituted in Mooseleuk, Squapan, Munsungan, Machias, Millinocket, and several other streams. 5. Destructive bulldozing of streams should be held to a minimum, and provisions should be made for preservation of as much of the original stream condition as possible. Steps should be taken to restore bulldozed streams following the operation. An uncut strip of trees and bushes left along the stream bank would do much to pre- serve cover and shade. 6. Potato starch pollution in critical areas should be alleviated to re- habilitate areas made unsuitable as game fish habitat. 7. Construction of the proposed Castle Hill, Masardis, and Twelve- mile Dams should be opposed on the basis of their destruction of Atlantic salmon spawning and nursery area and brook trout habitat.

55 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express his appreciation to the many individuals and groups who contributed to various phases of the study. Thanks are due to the following: Wilfred L. Atkins, William Atkins, Roger P. Au- Clair, Scott H. Bair, Lyndon H. Bond, Lawrence Caron, Henry S. Car- son, Stuart E. DeRoche, Reginald Durrell, Lester Ewing, Virgil Grant, Lewis Hurxthall, Earl Kelley, Harry A. Lynch, Malcolm Maheu, James E. Mason, James Piper, Ivan Porter, Dr. George A. Rounsefell, Vincent Shaw, Newcomb Sutherland, and Joseph A. Yovino.

Mr. Lawrence Alline and Mr. Milton Blackwell of the Maine Public Service Company were especially cooperative in all phases of the study. The Aroostook Federation of Fish and Game Clubs, under the leader- ship of Arthur Bennett and E. James Briggs, was especially helpful in all phases of weir construction and trapping operations. The writer wishes to thank Dr. W. Harry Everhart, Chief of the Fishery Research and Management Division, and Fishery Biologists James S. Fletcher, Keith A. Havey, and Richard E. Cutting for reading the manuscript and offer- ing many helpful suggestions.

56 LITERATURE CITED ANONYMOUS 1894. Aroostook for sportsmen. Maine Sportsman, Vol. 1, No. 9 (May, 1894), P. 4. 1895. At the Caribou pool. Maine Sportsman, Vol. 2, No. 24 (Aug. 1895), p. 10. 1902. Sea salmon in Maine. Maine Sportsman, Vol. 9, No. 103 (March, 1902), p. 128. ATKINS, CHARLES G. 1874. On the salmon of eastern North America and its artificial culture. Rep't. Comm. Fish. & Fisheries for 1872-1873, pp. 226-337. BAIR, SCOTT H., HARRY A. LYNCH, and GEORGE A. ROUNSEFELL 1951. Interim report on salmon restoration on the St. Croix, Aroostook, and St. John Rivers. Typewritten report, Atlantic Salmon Investigations, 24 pp., 5 figs. BOND, LYNDON H. and STUART E. DEROCHE 1950. A preliminary survey of man-made obstructions and logging practices in relation to certain salmonid fishes of northern Maine. Maine Dept. Inland Fish. and Game, Augusta, Maine, 47 pp. CHURCHWOOD, JAMES 1898. A big game and fishing guide to northeastern Maine. Pub. Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Co., Bangor, Maine, p. 57. CLIFFORD, FRED H. 1903. Haunts of the hunted. Pub. Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Co., Charles H. Glass & Co., Bangor, 184 pp. DIXON, WALTER A. 1954. Electrifying New Brunswick. Can. Geog. Jour., May, 1954, 14 pp. EVERHART, W. H. et al. 1955. Maine Lakes. A Sportsman's Inventory. Maine Dept. Inland Fish. and Game, Augusta, Maine. MASON, JAMES E. 1954. Aroostook Falls and other obstructions to Atlantic salmon rehabilita- tion on the Aroostook River. Typewritten Report, Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission, Augusta, Maine, 21 pp. and VII App. NEW BRUNSWICK ELECTRIC POWER COMMISSION 1955. New Brunswick's Beechwood. Publ. New Brunswick Electric Power Comm. 24 pp. NEW ENGLAND - NEW YORK INTER-AGENCY COMMITTEE 1955. The Gold Book. The Resources of the New England-New York Region. Pt. 2, Chapt. III, Saint John River Basin, Maine. XIV Sect.

PHAIR, CHARLES 1937. Atlantic salmon fishing. The Derrydale Press, New York, 192 pp. STATE OF MAINE 1954. Biennial Report of Atlantic Sea Run Salmon Commission, for period July 1, 1952, to June 30, 1954, 14 pp.

57 Appendix I. Obstructions surveyed in the Aroostook drainage, 1950-1955 Obstruc- Land owner tion Stream Township Location Use or number operator

1 Aroostook River Aroostook Falls Near mouth Power Maine Public Service New Brunswick Company 2 Four Falls Four Falls Near mouth Natural falls New Brunswick 3 Limestone Stream Limestone In town of Lime- Water storage Town of Limestone stone community pond 4 Colony Brook Fort Fairfield Limestone road Water storage Frontier Starch Co. starch factory 5 Butterfield Brook Limestone Small tributary Water storage Walter Bennett Limestone 6 Willard Brook Caswell North of road Water storage Loring Air Force Base old foundry 7 Pattee Brook Fort Fairfield Main Street Water storage G. A. Stone & Son starch factory Fort Fairfield 8 Pattee Brook Fort Fairfield Monson Pond outlet Water storage Fort Fairfield Fish and artificial pond Game Club 9 Libby Brook Fort Fairfield Bryant Pond outlet Farm pond R. Haines

10 Hockenhull Brook Fort Fairfield Presque Isle road Water storage S. Nightengale Co. Fort Fairfield 11 Hockenhull Brook Fort Fairfield Presque Isle road Water storage New England Starch starch factory Co. 12 Little Madawaska River Stockholm In Stockholm Logging International Paper Co. Appendix I. Obstructions surveyed in the Aroostook drainage, 1950-1955—Continued Obstruc- Land owner tion Stream Township Location Use or number operator

13 Little Madawaska River Westmanland Madawaska Lake Logging International Paper Co. outlet 14 Little Madawaska River Westmanland 1/2 mile above Logging Milligan Lumber Co. Blackstone road 15 Otter Brook Caribou Above Limestone Water storage State of Maine road Fish Hatchery Fish and Game 16 Aroostook River Caribou In Caribou Power Maine Public Service Co. 17 Caribou Stream Caribou In Caribou Water storage Collins Lumber Co. sawmill Caribou 18 Caribou Stream Caribou Small tributary Water storage Town of Caribou swimming pool 19 West Branch Woodland Near crossroad from Farm pond Charles Haynes Deadwater Brook Route 128 Woodland 20 East Branch Woodland On Peterson farm Farm pond George Peterson Factory Brook Woodland 21 Hardwood Brook Caribou At headwaters Farm pond Cecil Burgess Caribou 22 Presque Isle Stream Presque Isle In Presque Isle Water storage City of Presque Isle

23 Spring Brook Mapleton Near state road Farm pond Forrest Chandler Mapleton 24 North Branch Mapleton In Mapleton Water storage Higgins & Lenfest Presque Isle Stream Mapleton 25 Dudley Brook Chapman Chapman Road Farm pond H. Kilcollins Mapleton Appendix I. Obstructions surveyed in the Aroostook drainage, 1950-1955--Continued

Obstruc- Land owner tion Stream Township Location Use or number operator

26 Mantle P rook Presque Isle Mantle Lake outlet Water storage City of Presque Isle fish pond 27 Mantle Brook Presque Isle Mantle Lake Old water control City of Presque Isle dam 28 Arnold Brook Presque Isle Echo Lake outlet Water storage State of Maine recreation Park Commission 29 Kennard Brook Washburn Above Route 164 Water storage L. F. Woodman Washburn 30 Salmon Brook Washburn 14 mile above Water storage Taterstate Frozen mouth Foods, Washburn 31 Salmon Brook Washburn In Washburn Water storage Town of Washburn community pond 32 East Branch Perham Above Perham Water storage Town of Perham Salmon Brook bridge 33 East Branch Perham Above Perham Water storage Town of Perham Salmon Brook bridge 34 South Branch Castle Hill Above Mapleton Farm pond L. S. Chandler Clayton Brook road Castle Hill 35 Aroostook River Ashland In Sheridan Water storage Great Northern Paper pulp loading Company 36 Greenlaw Stream T12 R7 3 miles above Logging Dunn Timberlands Realty Road 37 Greenlaw Stream T12 R7 4 miles above Logging Dunn Timberlands Realty Road Appendix I. Obstructions surveyed in the Aroostook drainage, 1950-1955—Continued Obstruc- Land owner tion Stream Township Location Use or number operator 38 Greenlaw Stream T12 R7 Greenlaw Pond Logging Dunn Timberlands outlet 39 North Branch T11 R7 Near headwaters Logging Great Northern Paper McConnell Brook Company 40 South Branch T11 R7 Near headwaters Logging Great Northern Paper McConnell Brook Company 41 Big Machias River T11 R7 12 miles from Logging Great Northern Paper mouth Company 42 Weeks Brook Ti! R8 2 miles from Logging Great Northern Paper mouth Company 43 Big Machias River T12 R8 Big Machias Lake Logging Great Northern Paper outlet Company 44 The Fork of T12 R9 1 mile above mouth Logging Great Northern Paper Twenty-mile Brook Company 45 Right Fork T12 R9 1 mile above mouth Logging Great Northern Paper Twenty-mile Brook Company 46 Left Fork T12 R9 13/4 miles above Logging Great Northern Paper Twenty-mile Brook bridge Company 47 Left Fork T12 R10 21/2 miles above Water storage Charles Pangborne Twenty-mile Brook bridge sawmill Caribou 48 Twenty-five mile Brook T12 RIO 2 miles above Logging Great Northern Paper Storm camp Company 49 Pratt Lake Stream T11 R8 McGowan Pond Logging Great Northern Paper Outlet Company 50 Dead Brook TI 1 R8 Rowe Lake outlet Logging Great Northern Paper Company Appendix I. Obstructions surveyed in the Aroostook drainage, 1950-1955—Continued Obstruc- Land owner tion Stream Township Location Use or number operator

51 Lovejoy Brook T11 R8 21/2 miles above Logging Great Northern Paper Rowe Lake Company 52 Twenty-five Mile Brook T11 R9 11/2 miles north of Logging Great Northern Paper Realty Road Company 53 Twenty-five Mile Brook T11 R9 Headwaters Logging Great Northern Paper Company 54 Farrar Brook T11 R10 Farrar Pond outlet Water storage Capitol Lumber Co. sawmill Yarmouth 55 Rocky Brook TI1 RIO Lower McNally Logging Allagash Land Co. Pond outlet 56 Rocky Brook T11 RIO Upper McNally Logging Great Northern Paper Pond outlet Company 57 Squapan Stream Masardis Squapan Lake Water storage Maine Public Service outlet and power Company 58 Squapan Stream T11 R4 Near Route 163 Water storage Towns of Mapleton and recreation Castle Hill 59 Tracey Brook T7 R4 4 miles above St. Logging C. J. Webber Croix Lake 60 Little Smith Brook T7 R3 Cut Pond outlet Logging Penobscot Development Company 61 Smith Brook T7 R3 Smith Pond outlet Logging Penobscot Development Company 62 Pomkeag Stream T8 R7 Pc mk eag Lake Logging Dunn Timberlands outlet Appendix I. Obstructions surveyed in the Aroostook drainage, 1950-1955—Concluded Obstruc- Land owner tion Stream Township Location Use ' or number operator

63 Mooseleuk Stream T10 R9 Mooseleuk Lake Logging Great Northern Paper outlet Company

64 Blind Brook T11 R10 Mink Marsh Pond Water storage Rodney DeLong outlet sawmill Mapleton

65 McPherson Brook T10 R10 1/4 mile above Natural Falls Realty Road

66 McPherson Brook TIO R10 McPherson Pond Logging Great Northern Paper outlet Company

67 Big Hudson Brook TIO R10 Lower Hudson Logging Great Northern Paper Pond outlet Company

68 Mule Brook T10 R10 Middle Elbow Logging Great Northern Paper Pond outlet Company

69 Munsungan Stream T8 R9 Munsungan Lake Logging Great Northern Paper outlet Company

70 Bluffer Brook T8 R11 Bluffer Pond outlet Water control Milton Hall

71 Munsungan Brook T9 R10 Sewall Deadwater Logging Allagash Land Co.

72 Millinocket Stream T7 R9 Millinocket Lake Water storage Maine Public Service for power Company Appendix II. Recommendations for obstructions studied in the Aroostook drainage, 1950-1955 Passable to fish Fish jump distance in feet Upstream Downstream Obstruc- tion Oper- Fish- High Low High Low number able Vertical Horizontal way water water water water Recommendation

1 Yes - - - - Yes No No Yes No Two fishways (see text) 2 - - - 30-10-10-10 - - No No No Yes Yes None 3 Yes 14 22 No No No Yes No Fishway 4 Yes 21/2 2 No Yes No Yes No Fishway 5 No 3 3 No No No No No None 6 No 5 10 No No No Yes No Removal 7 No 8 12 No No No Yes No Removal 8 Yes 11 45 No No No Yes Yes None 9 Yes 111/2 6 No No No Yes Yes Minimum flow 10 No 0 0 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Passable 11 Yes 4 2 No Yes No Yes Yes Fishway 12 No 1 27 No Yes No Yes Yes Removal 13 No 0 0 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Passable 14 No 2 25 No Yes No Yes Yes Removal 15 No 0 0 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Passable 16 Yes - - - - Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fishway passable 17 Yes 16 8 No No No Yes No None 18 No 0 0 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Passable 19 Yes 21/2 15 No Yes No Yes No None 20 Yes 7 20 No No No Yes No None 21 Yes 4 15 No No No Yes Yes None 22 Yes 4 7 No No No Yes Yes Fishway 23 Yes 15 10 No No No Yes Yes Minimum flow Appendix II. Recommendations for obstructions studied in the Aroostook drainage, 1950-1955—Continued Passable to fish Fish jump distance in feet Upstream Downstream Obstruc- tion Oper- Fish- High Low High Low number able Vertical Horizontal way water water water water Recommendation 24 Yes 41/2 10 No No No Yes No Fishway 25 Yes 6 3 No No No Yes No Fishway and minimum flow 26 No 0 0 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Passable 27 No 3 1 No Yes? No Yes Yes None 28 Yes 71/2 101/2 No No No Yes No None 29 Yes 2 1./2 No Yes No Yes No Fishway 30 Yes 3 2 No Yes No Yes Yes None 31 Yes 11 55 No No No Yes No None 32 No 2 0 No Yes No Yes No None 33 No 0 0 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Passable 34 Yes 3 2/2 No No No Yes No Minimum flow 35 Yes 61/2 12 No Yes? No Yes Yes Fishway 36 No 4 22 No Yes No Yes No Removal . 37 No 6 6 No No No No No Removal 38 No 0 0 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Passable 39 No 0 0 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Passable 40 No ? ? No ? No ? No Further investigation 41 Yes 10 25 Yes Yes NQ Yes No Rebuild fishway, minimum flow 42 No 0 0 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Passable 43 Yes 11 20 Yes No No Yes No Improve fishway, minimum flow 44 Yes 6 25 No No No Yes No Remove at end of usage 45 Yes 8 20 No No No Yes No Remove at end of usage 46 Yes 7 24 No No No Yes No Remove at end of usage 47 Yes 2 2/2 No Yes No Yes No Remove at end of usage Appendix II. Recommendations for obstructions studied in the Aroostook drainage, 1950-1955—Concluded Passable to fish Fish jump distance in feet Upstream Downstream Obstruc- tion Oper- Fish- High Low High Low number able Vertical Horizontal way water water water water Recommendation 48 Yes 6 25 No No No Yes No Remove at end of usage 49 No 2 4 No Yes No Yes No Removal 50 No 2 30 No Yes? No Yes No Removal (of sluicebed) . 51 No 71/2 12 No No No No No Removal 52 No 111/2 33 No No No Yes No Removal 53 No 0 0 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Passable 54 Yes 4 11 No No No Yes No Removal at end of usage 55 No 3 0 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Passable 56 Yes Under construction No Unknown Fishway 57 Yes 281/2 3 No No No Yes No Minimum flow 58 Yes 41/2 29 No No No No No None 59 No 2 0 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Passable 60 No 0 0 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Passable 61 No 0 0 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Passable 62 No 0 0 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Passable 63 Yes 12 28 Yes Yes No Yes No Rebuild fishway, minimum flow 64 Yes 3 141/2 No No No Yes No Removal 65 - - - 7 and 8 2 and 2 No No No Yes Yes None 66 Yes 41/2 25 No No No Yes No Minimum flow 67 Yes 41/2 29 No No No Yes No Fishway, minimum flow 68 Yes 10 46 No No No Yes No Fishway, minimum flow 69 Yes - - - - Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fishway passable, minimum flow 70 Yes 11/2 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fishway passable 71 No ? ? No ? ? ? ? Further investigation 72 Yes 10 20 Yes Yes? No Yes No Rebuild fishway, minimum flow