Grant received for dam removal January 21, 2004

By Edith Tucker
WHITEFIELD — Jonathan Bergin of the John’s River Conservation Group told the selectmen and the dozen or so citizens who turned out for Monday night’s public hearing that the 15-Mile Falls Mitigation and Enhancement Fund has just granted up to $98,000 for the removal of the John’s River Dam if the March 9 Town Meeting votes to take down the breached structure.

The native son, now a resident of Nashua, was speaking in favor of a petitioned article that would allow some $470,0000 in unspent bond proceeds to be used to remove the historic dam instead of repairing and rehabilitating it, as authorized by voters at the 2002 Town Meeting.

Removing the dam would cost an estimated $434,000. Repairing the dam would cost an estimated $445,000, as well as periodic maintenance costs in the future.

If two-thirds of the voters say “yes” to the warrant article, the dam would be removed — likely in the summer or fall — at a savings of at least $119,000 over rebuilding it — and possibly up to $150,000 more if applied-for grants come through, said Mr. Bergin.

Grant monies represent the difference in cost to taxpayers in removing the dam rather than rebuilding it, since no federal, state, or foundation monies are available for dam rehabbing or repair.

If for some reason the cost of the dam’s removal came in at considerably less than expected, the 15-Mile Falls Mitigation and Enhancement Fund, would pay half the cost, but no more than $98,000, said Mr. Bergin.

If more than a third of the voters say “no” to the article, however, the dam would be repaired as previously planned, likely over the summer.

Mr. Bergin’s father, Bob Bergin, and another Whitefield residents,Thom Richardson, were on hand to back up the trout enthusiast who raised money to hire Elise Lawson and John Severance, partners in Watershed to Wildlife of Whitefield, to collect information on the ecology of the John’s River. Fisheries biologist Dianne Emerson of the state Fish and Game Department was also on hand to discuss data she had collected by netting “electro-shocked” fish and from 14 in-water temperature gauges placed in this tributary of the Connecticut River.

The overall thrust of their reports are that the John’s River, including its embankments and riverside buffers, would be better for fish, turtles, deer, bear, insects, reptiles, and invertebrates if there were no dam ever again in place. A wood turtle and dwarf wedge mussels, representing rare or endangered species, as well as evidence of black bear and white-tailed deer were seen by Watershed to Wildlife experts.

Residents Jeffrey and Kristin Green, who live on the river along with their 16 domesticated rabbits, said that they have recently seen mountain lion tracks on their property, likely attracted by the presence of the rabbits and the general wildness of the area. (They were urged to photographs the tracks to verify their finds.)

“Looking at the eco-system as a whole, there would be ‘connectivity’ if there were no dam; a dam makes two ‘islands,’ with no way for many species to get between them,” Ms. Lawson explained.

Ms. Emerson said that the water in the 13-acre impoundment that would be created once again if the dam were to be repaired would be too warm (over 70 degrees over a period of time) to support brook trout and other salmonid species. It’s important, she said, for these coldwater fish to be able to move back and forth freely up and down the river to get to cool, shaded waters and to where cooler tributaries enter the mainstream. “Fish seek thermal stability,” she said, pointing out that examination of fish scales under a microscope show that the river now supports “natural fish” that are born in the river and survive at least one or more winters.

Selectman Ken Jordan asked about the dam as providing for impounded water for fire protection. Mr. Bergin said that Fire Chief Ron Sheltry was in the process of getting permits for the installation of two dry hydrants.

Structural engineer Marcus Hann of SFC Engineering Partnership of Manchester said he would play “devil’s advocate” in outlining the pros and cons of repairing the dam versus removing it. His firm has worked up plans to repair it.

Both he and Mr. Bergin agreed that there were certain “common costs” that must be done no matter which course of action were to be taken, such as moving the water main that crosses the river and runs under a building not owned by town as well as shoring up and repairing the stonework and retaining walls on four private properties.

Ray Gradual, who owns the Old Mill building with his wife, Sue, said that the uncertainty about the dam’s future had made the last three years very disconcerting.

Ms. Emerson said that federal authorities could require a fish ladder or fish passage to be built at great cost at a future date, since an androgynous salmon was netted in the river.

During the hour-and forty-minute hearing, the selectmen — chairman Jordan, Roy Birard, and relative newcomer Wendy Hersom — took no position on whether or not they support the article.

Mr. Jordan predicted, however, that townspeople would vote their pocketbooks, since most did not care that much about whether natural trout were being born atop the cobbles on the clean bed of the John’s River.

Last year the John’s River Conservation Group received funding from the Upper Connecticut River (15-Mile Falls) Mitigation and Enhancement Fund and the Connecticut River Watershed Council to conduct baseline costs and environmental data. Mr. Bergin said that the state Fish and Game Department’s Dam Division, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and other grantors were likely sources of further funding.