Meeting at DEP
Augusta
August 23, 1996
9 a.m.
Present:
Dana Murch (Dams & Hydro Supervisor, DEP)
Scott Farwell (DEP Field Services)
Ken Butcher (Canton Selectman)
Ray Fortier (dam owner)
Karen Bauer (Ray's friend)
Bob Doucette (Canton Water District)
Caroll Howes (CLA water level monitor/director)
Tom Hamilton (CLA)
Judy Hamilton (CLS Sec/Treas.)
Dana began by saying the meeting was to establish how to
interpret the 1978 water level order for the lake. There
may be no resolution for the water level issue today but
at least we would establish a direction to go. He first
addressed the issue of dam safety inspections. Dana
reported that the new spillway requirement from an earlier
dam inspection by the Army Corps of Engineers was later
rescinded by DEP because they deemed the expense of a new
spillway as far too expensive for the benefit it was to
bring. Ray said that he planned to take care of this
deficiency by installing a pipe in the current "5th gate"
to pass water. Dana continued with the inspection
requirements being turned over to MEMA (Maine Emergency
Management Agency) and that this agency was to reinspect
the work done previously by the Army Corps. I had correspondence
which said that this was to take pace by 6/1/95. This was to
determine the "hazzard" classification of dams. This
relates only to the hazard to the residents downstream of
the dam and only its ability to hold back water NOT to the
condition of the dam. MEMA did not get the needed funding
in '95 to do these inspections. MEMA did inspect all
Maine dams this summer. The inspection of he Whitney Brook
dam was done in august 1996 and found it not to be
unsatisfactory and no further work was required. It did
mention brush on the embankment, water seepage under the
dam and some concrete erosion. Any questions or requests
for further dam inspections should be directed to Steve
Burgess, MEMA, 72 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333
(207-287-4080). Under current law if MEMA deems an
inspection necessary then it is at state expense but the
owner must pay for repairs.
Dana continued by describing how the dam looks. He
explained why the 5" and 11" from top most board in the
July 1, 1996 management plan. Two of the gates have been
repaired and therefore are higher than the other two
unrepaired gates. Looking at pictures taken at the time
of he 1979 inspection by the Army Corps of Engineers, the
gates were all the same height (gates were at the cut
height). The assumption then was made that at the time
of the '78 water level order the gates were at the cut
height or the same as the two currently unrepaired gates.
The pictures also showed that in September '79 the water
level was considerably lower than 5" below the topmost
boards and the concrete pier was maybe a foot out of the
water. It was not clear whether or not the '78 order was
being enforced at that time.
At that time Brindis Leather owned and the town operated
the dam. In 1981 the buildings burned. In 1984 Donna &
Garry Richards boutht the dam and surrounding property.
Ray Fortier was the dam keeper. In 1990 Ray purchased
50% ownership adn Ray said he was currently more than
half owner but is able to make legal decisions for his
partners but has to consult them. When asked about water
level records, Ray said that he has studied the runoff
from the lake and it is hard to get accurate readings
and the water level in '84 was kept "close to top of cut
gates".
Ray was then asked about any repairs or changes he had
made to the dam since he has been running it. He said
when they purchased the dam in '84 he put new 9" boards
on all four gates because water had worn a half moon
on the underboards allowing a lot of water to flow
through. These new boards have stopped the leakage.
Dana asked Ray if the water level is higher this summer?
Yes a little. He was facing a threatened fine so raised
the level to 5" below the topmost board to be in compliance.
Did he manage for lower level other years? He said he
dropped the level for Canton swimming lessons.
Dana then stated DEP's interpretation of the 1978 water
level order should be modified in light of the information
given. The original order was based on the fact that all
four gates were at the cut level and the June 1 water
level was to be 5" from the top of the gates. With 9"
boards placed in the bottom, this really means 14" below
the topmost board today. Dana will rewrite the 1978 Water
Level Order to establish the water level at 14" and the
spillway to manage the water to meet the 14" below the
topmost board of the cut gates by June 1 and through
natural causes expect the level to lower by the end of the
summer. When the lake is at this level, Ray is to paint
a 1" - 2" band around the concrete pier on the upstream
side of the dam and Dana will notify Bob Doucette at the
same time so that corresponding marks for simplicity sake
call "0" for readings to be referred to as distances
above or below 0) can be made on the water district and
private properties on the lake for public monitoring of
water levels. These marks would be the June 1 target
water level. Ray said that it is about 1" lower than
today's water level.
Question was asked by Ken Butcher as to how exact is the
"14 inches" in the rewritten order? Do we know exactly
how much the gates have been raised by the boards which
have been placed at the bottom to stop leakage. Dana
agreed that they should be measured before the order is
rewritten and he will make an appointment with Ray to do
so. Ray said that it will be hard to do because of plywood
placed over the gates but it could be pealed off to
measure and complained he would have to bear that expense.
Dana went on to say that the only way to change the
rewritten 1978 water level order (the added bottom board
height plus 5") would be through a public hearing. Anyone
has the right to petition DEP for a hearing. DEP has the
right to determine if a hearing and/or action is to be
taken based on the reaons submitted with the petition. All
sides are then heard, all water level suggestions are
given and DEP renders the facts and sets the water level.
Dana then addressed Ray Fortier's plans for the future.
Ray wants to generate power. Ray must secure the proper
permits. This is a lengthy and costly process. Ray said
he is in the process of title searches for the applications.
Without a hydro plant, the '78 level is in effect. If
DEP issues permits for a hydro project, these permits
will set the water levels for the hydro project which
supersedes the '78 water level order. DEP will take into
account all uses of the lake and the environmental impact
of a hydro project before issuing these permits. In fact,
these studies must be made by Ray before permits are issued.
Dana suggested that Ray work with the CLA and the towns
of Canton and Hartford to discuss his plans along the way.
Concern was also voiced about the low water level in the
winter and how it is recently lower than several years
ago. The gates are raised to prevent freezing and for
many years they were left in and the spillway was opened.
We were also concerned about the timing of filling the
lake that it be more gradual in the spring instead of
all of a sudden. Dana said he would try to address this
issue in the management plan.
Meeting was adjourned.
/s/ Judy Hamilton 8/28/96
Back |
Lake Anasagunticook |
Home Page