FFIM is a non-profit organization devoted to promoting and preserving Maine's fisheries
It is currently November 14th, 2018, 10:36 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Hhmmmm....
PostPosted: May 24th, 2017, 11:22 am 

Joined: February 9th, 2015, 2:08 pm
Posts: 32
Have these kayakers thought about what the increased water demands would do to the fishery above the dam? I drove by the Little Andro after they released water and the stretch above the dam was seriously low. Is this something IF&W and the DEP should be notified about?

Little Androscoggin River Undergoes Flow Study Report
Lewiston-Auburn | Sunday, May 21, 2017 at 9:23 pm

AUBURN — Increased recreational use along the Little Androscoggin River was the driving force for a flow study report Sunday on the Lower Barker Mill Dam in Auburn. A group of five kayakers and two canoers tested two different flow levels, 590 and 300 cubic feet per second, beginning right below the dam and ending at Little Andy Park in New Auburn.

The boaters found that even the higher flow level is too low.

“The release levels are lower than what people would consider ideal,” said Ryan Galway, organizer and president of the Penobscot Paddle and Chowder Society. “The whole purpose of this is to evaluate what actually is here. Now after paddling it, I have a better idea.”

Galway’s vision involves creating a slalom course for a certain stretch of the Little Androscoggin.
Lewiston Economic and Community Development Director Lincoln Jeffers agrees that a slalom course would attract more boaters and spectators.

“It’s a small bit of water, and has limited capacity to hold a large number of boaters at any given time, but I could see it attracting people for an hour or two after work or on a weekend,” Jeffers said in an email.
As the boaters tested the flows down the river, another kayaker traversed the waters while people fished along the banks.

“Fifty years ago, this river was so polluted no one would touch it,” said Dave Wallace, a spectator and member of the Penobscot Paddle and Chowder Society.
Galway and the other boaters, along with much of the Lewiston-Auburn community, have also gotten behind increased recreation along the river. The Grow L+A Working River Group was established to advocate for greater opportunities on the river.

“We support the public flow tests for recreation,” said Peter Rubins, member of Grow L+A's Working River Group. “The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission licensing requires that the licensee must meet recreational and aesthetic needs of the community that surrounds them. Both cities have committed themselves to developing the rivers as their central hub of activity.”

After their second run, the boaters filled out surveys about the flows levels that will be sent to KEI Power Management Inc., the owners of the dam, and submitted as part of their application to the FERC for relicensing. The license for the Lower Barker Dam expires on Jan. 31, 2019.

"Depending on what we find here and our requests on what we want to see as far as flows at certain times of the year, then that might be a modification to what is currently in the license now," Galway said.
Despite all the support, Lewis Loon, Hydroelectric operations manager and asset manager at KEI, believes that the results of this study are “very unlikely to have a significant effect on the application.”

“While the interest in providing whitewater boating opportunities at the project is understandable, the Little Androscoggin River simply does not have the flows of a larger river like the Kennebec or Penobscot," Loon said in an email.

The Little Androscoggin has come a long way since 1972 when Maine Senator Edmund Muskie submitted his Clean Water Act. The Androscoggin and Little Androscoggin have seen the rise and fall of the mills and the establishment of cities around its banks. They have been assets for the community and the boaters who participated in the flow study hope to capitalize on the increasing recreational potential for Lewiston-Auburn.

“A river runs through us and joins us rather than separates,” Rubins said.

 Post subject: Re: Hhmmmm....
PostPosted: May 24th, 2017, 6:39 pm 

Joined: December 5th, 2001, 1:00 am
Posts: 5310
Location: Manchester, ME

Water allocation issues are always complex. Whether these flow releases affect the upstream impoundment would depend on the other conditions in the permits for the project. If you want to get a copy of the existing permits, you could contact Kathy Howatt at Maine DEP. You could also share any concerns you might have about these flows with her.

How much do the the 300 cfs and 600 cfs releases differ from normal generating flows? At many of the Maine project with whitewater releases (West Branch, Magalloway, Kennebec Gorge), the boating flows coincide with normal generating flows. At others (Flagstaff, for example) they are a lot higher.

 Post subject: Re: Hhmmmm....
PostPosted: May 24th, 2017, 8:29 pm 

Joined: July 21st, 2011, 9:30 pm
Posts: 844
Location: Brunswick
I did read that article also, and I agree Red that there just doesn't seem to be enough water in the system above to support extend whitewater sessions.

"A good game fish is too valuable to be caught only once"
Lee Wulff

 Post subject: Re: Hhmmmm....
PostPosted: May 24th, 2017, 9:56 pm 
User avatar

Joined: October 16th, 2006, 12:00 am
Posts: 1406
Location: Harrison
...this is a tough one for me. I really enjoy the Little Andro. It is a decent seasonal stocked trout fishery and close enough that I can visit for a few hours here and there. Fly fishermen share it with spin and bait fishermen, and for a few months after stocking, there are plenty of fish to go around.
Unfortunately for the catch-and-release crowd (*at least the way I read the law), this river isn't even afforded the most basic gear restrictions, meaning that after Aug. 15, you can continue to fish with bait, and can continue to keep 2 trout per day through Sept. 30. So it seems as if the state has concluded that the trout fishery there isn't even worthy of baseline protection. Which begs the question, which is the best recreational use for the river? Is it more profitable for the communities in the watershed to focus on other assets the resource offers?
In light of IF&W's apparent focus on the river as little more than a seasonal put-and-take aquarium (which I believe grossly undervalues it's potential as a quality trout river) I guess I don't really have a problem with other recreational groups looking to expand their opportunities there.
But it's a real bummer they won't try to maximize its trout potential.

"It gets late early out there" - Yogi Berra

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 12 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group