Thoughts about the Lamprey, or another Coastal River

[s2ary]

I just had some thoughts on the Lamprey.

1) The proposed fish bypass at Wiswall is designed at a 1% slope with the idea that it will pass resident and migratory fish. I’m not 100% sure, but I think a 1% slope will allow the passage of both Lgmouth bass and panfish. As this proposal gets closer to implementation we should look into this and suggest the sate incorporates a modification to include a steep segment that will prevent the passage of nontraditional sportfish.
2) Another thought is boat access. A lot of ORGs are on the hook for match money on the fish bypass project at Wiswall. Often times this match can be supplied by what is called matching services or in kind match. So in the interest of improving the fishery this a potential opportunity to develop a floatable fishery in S. NH. This would allow float stocking to spread the fish and spread the anglers. The passage at Wiswall will open up the river from Lee(?) all the way to Packers Falls.
3) How would the state respond to fashioning a stocking program that is based on how the great lakes manage their fishery? From what I understand they have wild spawning in the river and a certain amount of fingerling (2 year olds) that they stock early season at the mouths of the rivers. The fingerlings should be stocked very early before stripers and cormorants show up. That way the fish get acclimated before the predators show up. Spend a few seasons in great bay, and return to the rivers. For us right now there is little or no spawning habitat and nursery conditions so the fishery will be dependant on the fingerling stockings. So if Atlantics ever come back the steelhead and monster program ends and the fishery disappears in the lifetime of a fish.

[OTTER]

s2ary,
The latest news is that the design seems to be to go back to a fish ladder. And apparently not so much because of cost difference but because of the difficulty in either obtaining or using so much land in the original design.

As far as bass are concerned, they exist throughout the Lamprey at least a dozen miles upstream of Wiswall. Even worse huge pickerel exist in the Lamprey. I caught one 27 years ago ( my daughter with me was 13) upstream of Lee Hook Road that was 22 inches long.

Also back when young Coho ( Silver)Salmon were stocked in the Lamprey and a few other Rivers, I caught a 12 inch pickerel that had five 5 inch salmon already crammed in its gut. Recent studies have shown that the main problem with the Atlantic Salmon program is that no young salmon survive the gauntlet of predation to ever reach the salt water.

So I do not hold much hope for the Lamprey. At best the stocking of fish large enough not to be eaten by bass and pickerel might be turned into some kind of holdover fishery.

[s2ary]

I had heard recently from the state that they had reached a compromise with the town about the channel. If the project is back to a fish ladder we should find a way to get involved. Ladders suck and do not work well, and from what I understand, a portion of the design criteria for the bypass channel was based on reliving hydrologic burden on a marginal dam structure. If this information is true we may be able to leverage either the dams future removal or a revamp of the dam which includes a bottom discharge to cool the downstream sections of the river.

One of the things that stopped me from throwing my hands up and saying ”Oh well what can you do?” Is a change in my concept of time and the recent changes in our landscape. When you stop and remember that the world as we know it evolved in less than 150 years ago, and it is a world that grew up around our resources with no regard for our resources, you start to think “Well what if it did care for them.”

When you compare this to geological time, with the exception of pollution, the siltation, warming, passage impediments, etc have happened a half a zillion times in the past. Yet the fisheries survived all of the past events. This was mainly because the rivers were allowed to flow freely and clean themselves out.

If we restore the resource the other parts fall together.

[s2ary]

Neither bass nor pickerel are riparian species, although they are both very common in our sluggish impounded systems. Both species prefer conditions that are not compatible with trout species of any kind, especially the cooler water temperatures preferred by trout.

The act of restoring the condition of the Lamprey will naturally upset the balance of the fish biomass structure. For example by simply removing the large VW sized rocks at the head of packer’s falls the section from wiswall to the falls will become bass and pickerel free, or nearly so.

Timely draw downs during spawning periods will also remove non riparian species from a system. Remember all of the hydro electric issues down south because they were fluctuating the water levels during bass spawning. No species of fish can maintain its population without successful spawning over a period of 10 years. The population simply peters out to next to nothing. Compound that with a shortage of nursery/non riparian habitat and the adults begin to consume the offspring as fast as they reproduce.

Remember, eventually all dams fail, so over time it is possible that the existing dams on the river will either disappear or be revamped with modifications that favor riparian species.

[BugChucka]

Is there a detailed summary of the Lamprey project available?

[s2ary]

Bug,
There should be but I haven’t come across it yet. That is another example of how an information hub like FFinNH would provide information at our finger tips.


To get back to dams; Eventually all dams fail, at which time the owner is in a position to either repair the dam or remove it. In the past, repairing a dam was a slam dunk, and virtually every dam was granted the right to be repaired based on its historical value. The climate of riparian restoration is now changing. Fish passage is now a forefront issue and I’m pretty sure it is mandatory on every dam but poorly enforced. We should also be pushing for thermal abatement to be required on every rehab, this would provide connectivity from river segment to segment.

Hydro dams are subject to NPDES permits that are required to be renewed every 5 years. Each time a dams permit is up for renewal it is an opportunity to encourage the dam owner to provide habitat improvements throughout the watershed. What is commonly misunderstood is that many of these dams are maintained and operated because the abutters require it, and the dam operators would just as soon rip out liabilities as is the case with many dams owned and operated by FLP in Maine. One of the ideas we should float with multidam owners is the idea of taking out poor producing dams for the ability to modernize and maximize the potential at another location. I think we would be surprised at some of the responses.