Operational Plan for the Restoration of Diadromous Fishes to the ...

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the resource agencies are responsible for
management activities such as trapping/sorting/trucking.
As a separate effort, the Trust will use information from the preliminary design in developing
its plans for long-term operation of the Howland fish bypass, including studies to evaluate
the effectiveness of the system as described in the Settlement Agreement. The Trust will
consult with the Town of Howland, resource agencies and PIN to reach agreement on
responsibilities for day-to-day operation and maintenance of the bypass, including gates and
control structures. (The state will need an agreement to ensure access to the bypass for
carrying out routine fishery management activities, unless the state ultimately becomes
owner of the facility.) The Trust will also consult with the Town of Howland, resource
agencies and PIN to develop an annual schedule for operating the bypass. Information on
annual and daily operations, responsible parties and contacts, and similar matters would be
contained in a Standard Operating Procedure for the bypass that meets the approval of the
resource agencies and PIN.
The Trust will also consult with the Town and others to clarify roles and responsibilities in
maintaining the Howland dam and lands surrounding the bypass. The Trust will involve the
resource agencies and PIN in any discussions concerning recreational use of the bypass
(e.g., fishing and boating) and abutting lands to ensure consistency with overall goals for
fish restoration and management. The Trust plans to include the details on operation and
maintenance of the bypass, dam and surrounding lands, including agreements with the
Town and resource agencies/PIN in its license surrender filings with FERC and the state.
Target Species
Based on current agency/Tribal plans and overall goals of the Penobscot River Restoration
Project, the Howland bypass should be designed to provide safe, timely and effective
upstream and downstream passage for:
Species upstream/downstream (lifestage)
Atlantic salmon upstream (adult), downstream (adult, juv.)
American shad upstream (adult), downstream (adult, juv.)
Alewife upstream (adult), downstream (adult, juv.)
Blueback herring upstream (adult), downstream (adult, juv.)
American eel upstream (juv.), downstream (adult)
Sea lamprey upstream (adult), downstream (juv.)
Additional Design Criteria
1. Slope: Based on the findings in the Milone and MacBroom report, the bypass slope
should not exceed 3 % (they also modeled conditions with a 2.0 and 2.5 % slope).
However, species-specific fish passage criteria (e.g., those contained in the Maine DOT’s
Fish Passage Policy and Design Guide, 2nd ed., 2004) would be the basis for the actual
design slope and placement of boulders and/or structures in the bypass.
2. Operating Flows: The bypass should be designed to operate effectively whenever the
flow in the Piscataquis River is at or below 9,000 cfs at Howland. This range of operable
flows is consistent with what had been prescribed for fish passage during relicensing
proceedings at Howland, and is proportionally equivalent to the 40,000 cfs that is being used
for the design of the new fish lift at Milford on the Penobscot. (As an indication of distribution
of flows between the river and bypass channel, the MMI report calculates that the bypass
PRFP Page 286