FARMINGTON – A group of 20 concerned farmers, landowners, and conservationists gathered for a meeting hosted by the Sandy River Watershed Association (SRWA) at the Farmington Municipal Building on Tuesday night.
Conducting the meeting, SRWA president, Tom Eastler addressed the concerns over growing gravel beds and radical erosion along the banks of the Sandy River. Since 1999, farmers’ permits to harvest gravel beds and potentially save disappearing land from erosion have been denied by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The state’s reservations about mining gravel from the river include disturbing a potential salmon population that could be using the Sandy River for spawning in the coming years.
State Senator Tom Saviello (R – Wilton) was in attendance to discuss LD 240, An Act To Allow the Removal of Gravel Bars in the Sandy River, SRWA’s proposed legislation for gravel removal along the Sandy River. Also present was salmon researcher Ron Joseph, who spoke on the logistics of repopulating salmon in the area. SRWA’s main concern was to develop counter arguments to past DEP and EPA objections to gravel harvesting.
SRWA believes gravel bed removal would have slowed the disappearance of precious farmland due to the Sandy’s notorious meanders.
“We’ve lost 25-30 feet of farmland every year,” said Angel Allen. Land at the Voter Vale Farm, in Avon, is being washed into the river.
DEP strategies in the past have focused on preventing human intervention, but SRWA’s members argue that removal of the river’s gravel will have little adverse effect on the environment. After years of studying the Sandy River, Eastler, a professor of geology at the University of Maine at Farmington, argues that if silt and sod aren’t being carved away from farmland then it won’t be muddying up the river after storms, providing clearer waters downstream.
Other members stated that gravel removal would be purely a preventative measure and not for monetary gain.While the gravel itself wouldn’t be worth much, but the cost of removing it would be much less than the $250,000 of riprap that the DEP suggested farmers like the Allens use as an alternative.
The SRWA’s legislation is taking shape, with Saviello assisting the farmers in developing concerns and findings into a positive argument. The salmon population, which Joseph predicts will be traveling upstream in 2014, is a particularly sensitive subject that the legislation must confront as the river is an important part of their habitat. With Joseph’s help, the SRWA hopes to prove that removal of gravel will not effect the federally-protected fish so long as they have means to get over the many dams on their route upstream.
If the SRWA achieves a positive outcome in the Legislature, the farmers could begin gravel removal in September. As for the potential salmon population, all of those in attendance were optimistic that the species would eventually be fished in the Sandy again.
I hope Sen.Savielleo’s bill goes somewhere. The re-introduction of salmon will probably kill the bill. If people had been allowed to remove gravel bars from the Sandy River there would be alot fewer problems all the way from Darren Allen’s to New Sharon. We can go right down the river and see examples everywhere. A delicate area to be able to reach a compromise but something needs to be done before roads wash out and the cost of doing nothing increases.
Our story is but one of MANY stories of erosion on the Sandy River. Common sense, science and facts need to be used, not a political ideology in determining gravel bar removal.
I’ll trade farms and dams that produce sensible energy over salmon any day! There is hope with the government we have in place. Time to look out for our own survival, the granolas have had the stage long enough in this state and what do we have to show for it? Time to give working people that actually produce something a chance.
Isn’t erosion mitigated by trees and bushes lining the river banks?
This salmon thing is geting old. We took a dam out in Augusta for the salmon. The plan is working pretty good too, as the three salmon in the river now have plenty of room.
Well it sounds like that the State of Maine is not willing to help out the local farmer again! It was allowed to change the course of that river a few years ago, up in Phillips. So I say Salmon move on to a better place for a few years and let these local farmers save their land.
Just so everyone is clear, the material being eroded by the river is NOT good for the salmon thus we are working with the salmon organizations. The salmon will not thrive in the river when the river erodes as much as it does. We want the salmon, by all means we want them but they will not thrive until we fix the erosion issue.