Minutes
Town of Newmarket, NH
Macallen Dam Removal Feasibility Study Committee
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Members Present: Diane Hardy, Rick Malasky, Michael Rury, Stephanie Coster
Members Absent: Chris Hawkins, John Ramsay, Stephanie Dreher
Called to order: 7:05 p.m.
For the members of the public that were present, the meeting began with introductions of the committee members and a reminder of the charge of the committee. Diane Hardy gave an update on the revisions for the request for proposals (RFP) and suggested this was the 5th draft and we were still waiting for comments from Deb Loiselle of the NH Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) and Eric Hutchins of the National Marine Fisheries Services of NOAA (NOAA). Rick Malasky informed the committee that there was going to be an inspection of the dam in July for breach analysis by Chuck Corliss, the dam bureau engineer for safety and compliance from the NHDES.
Rudolf Hock, of 3G Bass St., asked how many times the river flooded in the last 100 years. Rick Malasky suggested he knew of floods in 1938, 1996, 1998, 2006 and 2007 but that was not a complete list.
Rudolf Hock asked if the concerns of residents would be heard during this process. The committee assured Mr. Hock of the intent to include the public in any decision-making, and outlined the process of the feasibility study.
At this point a discussion of the charge of the committee ensued and the contents of the RFP was reviewed in detail for the members of the public. The discussion then turned to the financial situation and explained that 4 grant applications (and 1 Letter of Intent) were submitted with responses from two organizations. A grant was awarded from the NOAA Community-based Restoration Program associated with the Conservation Law Foundation, and the grant was declined from the American Rivers Program. The committee suggested a goal of $130,000-140,000 would be available for the feasibility study.
Johanna Hock, of 3G Bass St., shared the observation that with the most recent floods there were no flooding problems when the gates have been opened on the dam and asked if the Town needed permission to open the gates. Rick Malasky clarified, saying the Town did not need permission to open the gates, it only needed permission to do drawdowns as the river needs to be maintained at a certain water level. He also suggested there haven’t been any weather events as large as the last major floods, and so while it may appear that the open gates ameliorated flooding, this was not strictly true. He mentioned there were also problems associated with opening the gates, namely there was some opposition to lowering water levels with regards to the health of wildlife that depend on the water. He mentioned there was historically a canal that allowed for passing water in high water events, but these options are now gone.
Jon Wraith, of 274 Newmarket Road in Durham, asked if other citizens from other towns may have input into the options of dam removal. He asked for information to be posted on the website with regards to public meetings. Diane Hardy suggested a good resource may be to utilize the Regional Planning Commission to keep communication lines open. There was a discussion of the impacts to upstream towns.
Rick Malasky suggested his personal opinion was that the town would not be able to afford to remove the dam and he thinks the cost for dam removal will be the deciding factor. Diane Hardy mentioned that on the other hand there seem to be grant opportunities for environmental concerns and restoration but limited funds for dam maintenance and repair.
There was a discussion of the potential for hydroelectric power, and mention of the comments made at the last meeting with regards to this topic; it was noted that the current electric rates are so low that using the dam for hydroelectric power is not economically feasible for the Town to pursue.
Rudolf Hock discussed the positive aesthetics of the river and emphasized this was the reason he lives there.
Anita Klein, of 5B Bass St, asked if the feasibility study could look into flood mitigation measures. Rick Malasky suggested there was prior mention of an option to install a bladder that may help to increase the capacity of water over the falls in flood events. There was a discussion of the deficiencies of the dam, and that the Wright-Pierce study did not include a cost estimate to increase the dam’s capacity. Rick Malasky suggested the problem areas where the structural integrity of the dam was poor are the retaining walls and the gates, but the actual spillway is in good shape.
At 8:00 p.m. most of the public left the meeting.
The committee went over the minutes from the last meeting and reviewed where we were in the RFP writing process.
We have:
- Revised the RFP
- Reviewed the revisions
- Requested comments from Deb Loiselle and Eric Hutchins
To do:
- Solicit comments from the public
We discussed the logistics of soliciting public comments on the RFP and decided to post a copy of the RFP on the town website with a request for comments to be due within 2 weeks of the posting date.
Adjournment: 8:20 p.m.