Chiputneticook Lakes International Conservancy Meeting

Chiputneticook Lakes International Conservancy Meeting Fosterville, New Brunswick, April 1, 2017

Introduction

 I am Paul Bisulca, I live in Oxford in western Maine but originally come from the Penobscot Reservation at Indian Island.  I am an unpaid member of the Passamaquoddy RiverKeepers, a volunteer organization which advises the tribe and helps to implement a 2012 tribal government resolution to restore sea-run fish to the St. Croix Watershed, which we do in partnership with the USFWS, NOAA-Fisheries and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.  The Schoodic RiverKeepers have developed a level of knowledge working with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the International Joint Commission (IJC) that may be of assistance to you in determining the most suitable way forward in this crisis. I certainly hope so.

Know Who You Are Dealing With

 Let’s use as an example Governor LePage’s response to Sam Greenlaw in last week’s Chiputneticook Newsletter. o LePage: The federal government is requiring the dam to be relicensed or removed.  Not true that the dam must be removed. In fact, Woodland Pulp is not proposing to remove the dam. Let me read from a FERC December 18, 2014 letter to Jay Beaudoin. “Woodland Pulp misunderstands the implications of project surrender. As discussed in the Commission’s September 15, 2011, Order Denying Rehearing, project surrender would mean that Woodland Pulp could no longer manipulate flows from the reservoirs, which would then, effectively, be operated in a run-of-river mode. However, it does not mean that the projects’ dams or gates would have to be removed or that the impoundments would be drawn down. Rather, current facilities could remain in place, in whatever configuration is needed to best meet the needs of the local community, so long as those facilities no longer manipulate downstream flows. The dams and impoundments could remain, and the reservoirs could continue to provide environmental and recreational benefits to the region”. o LePage: It [Forest City dam] does not generate electricity and therefore should not require licensing.  The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled on October 28, 2003 that Domtar’s water storage dams are part of a hydroelectric system and require licensing by FERC under the law.  The ruling was appealed to the US Supreme Court, but the court declined to hear the case. o LePage: Unfortunately this occurred under the Obama Administration.  George W. Bush was President during the court case.  Congressman Poliquin’s 2016 HR5464 in support of Woodland’s request to eliminate FERC jurisdiction was rejected by a Republican-led Energy and Commerce Committee. Obama was President, but the Republicans controlled Congress. o LePage: The cost to license is in the millions.  Woodland Pulp has had in hand for over a year, licenses for all of its four water storage dams. They are paid for. The annualized cost to implement all of the FERC conditions for Forest City is $12,400 per year.  West Grand and Sysladopsis - $19,380 but will be reduced with the license surrender for Sysladopsis.  Vanceboro - $159,050, but on March 21 Woodland Pulp agreed to do the voluntary fish passage study on the Canadian side obviating the need to build a fishway on the US side. Annualized FERC costs for Vanceboro will be reduced to be more in line with the other water storage dams.  To put this in more understandable terms, the total cost to implement FERC conditions is like hiring one skilled person for thirty (30) years and paying him/her an average wage. o LePage: In fact, it is simply a play by FERC to get it [dam] removed.  This is ridiculous; FERC is acting within the law and doesn’t care if Woodland keeps the license or surrenders it. o LePage: The state is trying to take over the dam.  I’m not sure where Maine is with this, but I’m pretty sure the state cannot own property in Canada. It can facilitate the establishment of a tax exempt public benefit corporation, which may be what is being considered.  Know the agenda of the person with whom you are dealing including Woodland Pulp.

Contact

 I was informed On December 30th of Woodland Pulp’s December 23rd application to surrender its Forest City FERC license.  It was on February 14th that I had my first contact with David Townsend.

1. I wanted to ensure that those who had homes and camps in the affected area were aware of Woodland’s proposal to dewater East Grand Lake.

2. To avoid possible confusion, I wanted David to be aware of the Passamaquoddy sea-run fish restoration project and understand our interest in protecting fish passage and archaeological sites affected by Woodland’s proposal.

3. Similarly, I wanted to know what CLIC’s concerns were and see where our interests may overlap.

 When did Woodland Pulp notify you of their intent to dewater the lake? Did the mill provide an opportunity for any public comment?

Woodland Pulp Background

 Woodland Pulp was acquired from Domtar by International Grand Investment Corporation in 2010 for $64 million. Bill Trotter BDN March 28, 2017

 In 2013 St Croix Tissue (part of Woodland Pulp) received Pine Tree Development Zone status. The Pine Tree Development Zones (PTDZ) program offers eligible businesses the chance to greatly reduce or virtually eliminate state taxes for up to ten years when they create new, quality jobs in certain business sectors. Over 240 Maine businesses were participating in the PTDZ program in 2016, with reimbursements from thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars for taxes paid on new employees. I do not know how much Woodland Pulp has received.

 International Grand Investment Corporation invested $150 million and hired 80 workers to operate two new tissue machines. Toilet paper.

 In an industry where most grades of paper are facing slack demand, tissues are one of the few specialties where sales are actually climbing,” says John Williams, president of the Maine Pulp and Paper Association. Portland Press Herald, March 12, 2014  Woodland Pulp’s two hydroelectric dams, Woodland and Grand Falls, were built pre- FERC and are not regulated by FERC. Without any FERC conditions or annual administrative charges to FERC, the mill’s savings are larger than what it is paying for FERC conditions on its storage dams. Since Woodland’s water storage dams do not generate electricity the annual administrative charge to FERC, which is based on power generation, does not apply. Again, the annualized cost to implement FERC conditions at Forest City is $12,400.  Governor LePage suggested a union-free zone as a cost savings; workers at Woodland Pulp are not willing to give their union status.  The two Forest City dam FERC conditions of interest to the Passamaquoddy are protection of historic sites and eel passage. We are not willing to give that up.  FERC Conditions beneficial to residents here. o Turned a “gentlemen’s agreement” of a summer (June 1 to September 10) lake level of not less than 431.94 feet mean sea level into a requirement. o Eel passage – Eels are a host species for the propagation of fresh water mussels which clean our lakes o Operation and maintenance of the Forest City boat launch and hand carry launch o Providing handicap access to boat launch facilities o Construction, maintenance and operation of access roads, wharves, launching ramps beaches, picnic and camping areas, sanitary facilities, and utilities. o Providing informational signs giving directions and describing recreation sites and their amenities  Are you willing to surrender these mandatory conditions by eliminating FERC jurisdiction and persuade Woodland Pulp to withdraw its surrender application?  Are you willing to accept larger summer drawdowns permitting more power generation and greater waste water dilution to avoid equipment upgrades of $4.9 million, which may be even greater?  If you are not willing to surrender these FERC conditions, you may not wish to “hang your hat” on the mill’s effort to try for a third time to set national precedence and remove FERC jurisdiction. What are the guarantees to you now?

1. Tell FERC you want it to condition the surrender application to ensure that the lake level is maintained at the summer level of 431.94 feet with a narrow band of fluctuation as you may determine best suits your interests and permits a required IJC discharge flow of 75 cfs. 2. Tell the International Joint Commission (IJC), which retains jurisdiction over the October 15, 1965 Order of Approval for Vanceboro, that it should inform Woodland Pulp to leave all gates in place and operate the dam as previously approved by the IJC including the minimum 75cfs discharge from the lake that may change with gate removal. Further, the impact of gate removal will severely impact the public and the IJC should provide all interested parties with notice and give opportunity to make presentation regarding lake level and stream flow. Matters of water levels and flows are the exclusive authority of the IJC through the 1909 Boundary Water Treaty between the United States and Canada. Forest City is included in the Vanceboro license on pp. 3&4. 3. Offer Woodland Pulp one dollar for possession of the dam, property and flowage rights, and operate it as best serves community interests but within IJC water level constraints of mean sea levels of 427.94 feet minimum and 434.94 feet maximum. The town of Oxford where I live took possession of an abandoned 13-foot concrete dam on Thompson Lake. It is maintained and operated with a $25,000 annual budget. Woodland Pulp reports that the annual cost of operating the Forest City Project is $223,533. If the actual cost is like Oxford’s dam, CLIC ownership may be feasible. If the cost is as Woodland states, you may want to look at another option. 4. Wait for Maine or New Brunswick to come up with a solution. If Maine is allowed to influence dam operations, it may be operated to support mill operations first and community interests second. 5. For assistance contact on the US side your Maine Senator Joyce Maker [email protected] (207)454-2327 and your Maine Representative Beth Peloquin [email protected] (207)732-4625, cell: (207)403-3383.

Lastly, the Passamaquoddy Joint Council has not taken a position on whether to seek dam retention or removal.