For years, Yarmouth residents have been told, “Remove the dams, restore the fish.” While this causal relationship may hold true in other areas, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has declared that removing the dams in Yarmouth will not meaningfully restore fish passage to the Royal River (Appendix G, 6.1.2.4).

Why? Because Middle Falls serves as a natural obstruction, and these granite ledges have impeded fish passage since the last Ice Age. Fortunately, there is an alternative pathway for the fish: Mother Nature provided a small side channel around Factory Island for them to swim upstream.

After a rigorous cost-benefit analysis, the USACE recommends proceeding with their Tentatively Selected Plan. The TSP involves the full removal of the Bridge Street dam, a partial removal of the Elm Street dam, and a natural in-stream diversion at Middle Falls. By directing more water into the side channel around Middle Falls, the USACE theorizes that this will improve fish passage. As the report states, “in order to reestablish fish passage throughout the study area, the diversion at Middle Falls must be paired with other measures at the dams” (DPREA, 3.3.1.7).

Not surprisingly, environmental groups rushed to support this plan. Now, once again, the inaccurate mantra “Remove the dams, restore the fish” is being heard all around Yarmouth.

The final draft of the TSP has just been released, and the initial blueprint for the “natural in-stream diversion” can now be analyzed. After demolishing a portion of the Elm Street dam, the USACE plans to salvage these stone blocks and grout them together into a structure that rises above the surface of the river (Appendix G, 10.3). At a minimum, this structure needs to be at least 40 feet long, 4 feet high and 4 feet wide to divert enough water through the side channel (Appendix G, 15.0). Does this sound like a “natural in-stream diversion”? This proposed structure resembles a new mini-dam (Appendix C, Part 3, pages 221-222). If this new dam cannot divert water flow sufficiently to facilitate fish passage, then additional interventions, such as rock chipping, may be executed as part of an adaptive management plan (Appendix A, 1.6.3).

I commend the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for their hard work and commitment to being good stewards of taxpayer dollars. By framing the issue of dam removal and fish passage as a cost-benefit analysis, this study provides Yarmouth residents with the critical data needed to make informed decisions. However, the reality is far more complex than the simplistic slogan, “Remove the dams, restore the fish.”

The Tentatively Selected Plan proposes adding a new manmade obstruction, artificially altering the flow of the Royal River, and chiseling away granite ledges that have stood for thousands of years. In my view, true conservation must honor and protect the very essence of nature itself. If the goal of dam removal is to restore the Royal River to its natural state, let’s pursue that with integrity – but we must stop using fish passage as the primary justification, as this oversimplifies a nuanced ecological issue.

I strongly urge local conservation groups to reconsider their support for the TSP and encourage the residents of Yarmouth to voice their opinions to the Town Council. Mother Nature thrives when we allow her to be.

Please read the full USACE draft report, Royal River Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration Study, found under “Missions” and “Projects/Topics” at nae.usace.army.mil.

Mike Ting is a resident of Yarmouth.