CAMDEN — Voting 4 to 1 on Feb. 18, with Select Board member Ken Gross dissenting, the Camden Select Board accepted a Megunticook River Citizens Advisory Committee's (MRCAC) Feb. 15 report and directed town staff to draft a warrant article based on the report's recommendation to remove the Montgomery Dam.

That decision moves the future of the dam before Camden voters, who will ultimately decide whether the dam is to remain standing or be destroyed.

The MRCAC report is available here.

The committee substantiated its Montgomery Dam removal recommendation by saying its continued existence at the head of Camden Harbor, where the 3.5 mile-long Megunticook River empties into the ocean, blocks fish, traps sediment, degrades water quality and disrupts watershed continuity.

"A river impounded by the dam lacks aquatic habitat quality and diversity," the report said. "Its removal would restore sea-run fish habitat for alewives, Atlantic salmon, and brook trout, and provide the greatest potential for recovery of ecological health in the Megunticook Watershed. Removal also aligns with Maine's current broader commitment to ecosystem recovery and supports the cultural and economic significance of sustainable fisheries in the Gulf of Maine."

At its  Feb. 18 meeting, Select Board Chair Susan Dorr thanked the nine-member committee, which had voted 8 to 1 to send the recommendation along to the Select Board, and said the report was, "impressive and comprehensive."

"And I thank you for your service and commitment over such a long period," said Dorr. "You have given the town something substantial on which to base our opinions."

The process now includes drafting a possible June Town Meeting warrant article, which the Board agreed should include language that the dam would be removed contingent on funding. A public hearing on the article will held before the Board takes a vote on whether to place the article before voters June 10.

Cynthia Stancioff, representing the Camden Conservation Commission, said the CCC supported the recommendation for the full removal of the Montgomery Dam.

The CCC considers that the, "dam removal represents a critical investment in ecological health, climate resilient and economic sustainability," she said.

Camden resident Jennifer Healy, however, disagreed. She said many Camden residents considered the original MRCAC initiative to study the Megunticook River misnamed, misguided, under-researched, and "full of unknown and potentially negative consequences."

She said the reliance on potential additional funding to remove the dam and address issues with additional dams up the river toward Megunticook Lake would be risky and unlikely to shield taxpayers from having to supplement the project without large property taxes.

"Any grant money will come in a piecemeal fashion, if it comes at all," she said. "If there is a gap stopping progress for months or years, will we wait for funding or carry on work with local tax dollars? Or will we will be left with a gutted river bed and a horribly unsightly head of the harbor?"

"The Olmsted brothers and Mrs. Bok would be devastated," she said, referencing the 20th Century landscape designers and benefactor of the Camden Harbor Park, which is adjacent to the Montgomery Dam property.

"In times of uncertainty, we do not need more uncertainty," said Healey.

Camden resident Geoff Scott said he was overwhelmed with the amount of work completed by MRCAC.

"It is clear that you made an effort to be centric, and not one way or another, in data gathering," said Scott. "The summary is excellent."

Camden resident Tony Grassi continued praise of the committee, saying, "I don't know of any town committee that has worked as hard as they have for 29 months, kept level heads, were thorough, and entirely objective. I commend them for doing a first class service to the town."

He sough to clarify Healey's comments, separating the removal of the Montgomery Dam from work upriver with other existing high-risk dams.

"The work upstream needs to be done whether you do anything with Montgomery Dam or not," said Grassi. "Just to say that removing Montgomery Dam unleashes expenses up the stream is just not the case."

Committee members Richard Thackeray, Courtney Cease, Susan Todd and Chair Deb Chapman attended the Feb. 18 meeting commented on the report, as well.

Thackeray directed attention to community engagement over the past two years.

"There has been a suggestion that our process has not accounted for, or respected, community input," he said. "Personally, I am going to push back on that. It is entirely disingenuous."

Courtney Cease said her interest in climate change increased with her time on the committee, and cited the increased potential for heavy rainfalls that could result in increased volumes of water pushing down the river, affecting dams. 

"The system is not made for more water," she said. "We need to respect nature and know that floods are coming."

Select Board member Ken Gross disputed the comments regarding the MRCAC recommendation, and the separation of one dam's removal from the rest of the river.

Removal of the Montgomery Dam, "does indeed trigger and demand a $20 million project up and down the river," he said. "It does not make any sense to destroy one dam."

He argued that the mouth of the river is unique and integral to the downtown.

"The aesthetic quality of any project is paramount," he said.

Gross produced a checklist of topics he said was missing from the MRCAC report: Assessment of town values, including economic; respect for aesthetics; environmental issues; and affection for the feel of Camden.

He added that the cost, plans and funding details were crucial to any discussion of alternatives. He countered the assertion that alewives would ever make it back up over the granite bedrock to the river's water, and swim upstream.

"I recommend we return the report to MRCAC so that they can fill in the missing information, fill in the costs, [include] the plans for the whole river, the funding for the whole river, a cost-benefit discussion, and an acknowledgment of losses and gains, financial accounts, and a technical assessment of losses and successes," said Gross.

"Given the uncertainty in cost, plans and funding, we are faced with the likelihood of a worst possible outcome, the destruction of the treasured Montgomery Dam and no further work being done on the river," he said. "That is my fear."

Gross suggested a motion be made to return the report to the committee, but with the rest of the Select Board remaining silent, the motion failed.

MRCAC Committee Chair Chapman said the estimated cost of removing the dam and completing landscape work is, "under $4 million."

Board member Tom Hedstrom made a motion to accept the report and direct municipal staff to draft the warrant article.

Board member Chris Nolan said, "the report does provide a lot of information that the people in town can read and judge, and use to make their decision."

Gross countered that the, "guts of the report are missing."

The Board then took its vote of 4 to 1, sending the matter on a path toward a June Town Meeting vote for citizens to ultimately decide the fate of the Montgomery Dam.

Reach Editorial Director Lynda Clancy at lyndaclancy@penbaypilot.com; 207-706-6657