|
Army Corps of Engineers urges removal of the Mill River Dam.
By Louis Porter
Staff Writer
The Advocate
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is recommending the removal of the historic Mill River dam as part of a plan to restore the river.
A corps' draft report calls for the removal of the dam and the concrete retaining walls along its edges. The project would include restoration of the stream and banks for 2.2 miles of river from downtown to Stamford Harbor.
The corps studied three other options, including only maintenance and dredging of the pond.
Public hearings will be held before the final report and project design.
The dam's removal will allow fish, including alewives and blueback herring, to go more than 4 miles farther upriver to spawn. It will reduce the flooding risk in downtown Stamford by lowering the water level, said Adam Burnett, project manager for the corps.
A fish ladder would not allow as many fish, or as many species, to reach the upper reaches of the river, he said.
"We get a fuller restoration over a much broader array of species by removing the dam," Burnett said.
The dam is in poor shape and the 3.5-acre pond, which extends 1,000 feet behind it, needs dredging, the report says.
About 18,600 cubic feet of sediment will need to be dredged out of the pond before the dam can be removed. Some of that sediment contains semi-volatile petroleum compounds and would be disposed of in a landfill that can take such sediment.
After the dam is removed, sediment will flush through on its own, reducing or eliminating the need for future dredging, Burnett said.
"That would have been an ongoing cost for the city," he said.
The recommended alternative will cost $5.5 million, about $2 million of which will come from the city, Burnett said. The cost may be less, if retesting finds that some sediment can be disposed of locally, Burnett said.
About $250,000 of the city's contribution will come in the form of land already owned by Stamford. The city will continue to own the property but give up some development rights.
The project will not be cheap, but Mayor Dannel Malloy said "it is less expensive to the city because we are going to pursue full participation by the Army Corps of Engineers."
Construction for the project is scheduled to proceed through 2006. Additional monitoring will continue into 2007.
In addition to other benefits, the dam removal will improve the continuity of the proposed Mill River Park project the city is building in the area, Malloy said.
One problem with removing the dam may be the effect on cherry trees lining its bank. At least some trees will probably not survive the removal of the concrete retaining walls, although the city will try to move those than can be moved, Malloy said.
"We will do everything we can to save as many trees as possible," he said. The city's program to replace the ailing trees with cuttings or seedlings will continue, Malloy added.
"Some of those trees are in pretty tough shape, they are not young'uns," he said.
Bill Shadel, former director of research and restoration at Save the Sound, said removing the dam would be better for fish and other wildlife than the fish ladder proposed earlier.
"The more sort of hoops fish have to jump through, the more won't make it through," he said.
The dam's removal would mean the elevation of potential flood waters may fall by 1 to 2 feet, said David Emerson, executive director of the city's Environmental Protection Board.
In an area as flat as some of downtown, "a difference of a foot or two can make a significant difference in the extent of flooding," he said.
Removal of the dam will not allow more areas to be developed but will allow buildings with different designs to be built, Emerson said. For instance, some buildings may be able to have below-ground, instead of first-story, parking.
The project's final design may allow saving most if not all of the cherry trees, as well as allowing the dam to be removed and the banks to be naturally sloped to the water's edge, he said.
"It seems like the geometry of the park can accommodate both," Emerson said.
Mill Pond behind the dam between Main and Broad streets would not get as hot with the dam's removal, Shadel said.
"Overheating is an issue for fish," he said.
Because the water is still, shallow and unshaded, the Mill Pond gets warm, he said.
Not everyone is happy with the idea of removing the dam.
"It is a historic site," said Don Russell, a Stamford resident and columnist for The Advocate. "It was the driving force of the first industry in Stamford."
The dam was first built in 1642 to power the first grist mill in town. The concrete dam that is on the site now was built in 1922.
Russell remembers how steps down to the water's edge allowed skaters to reach the pond.
"It used to be a beautiful sight," he said. "The whole town skated on the pond."
President George Washington saw the dam on a tour of New England and commented on how beautiful it was, Russell said.
City Rep. Ralph Loglisci, R-14, agreed. "As usual in this town, we care very little about history," he said. "It was the beginning of our industrial revolution, and I don't think they should be so cavalier about knocking it down."
Renee Kahn, founder and director of the Historic Neighborhood Preservation Program, said a historical argument could be made both for keeping and removing the dam, since the river was originally free-flowing.
"Historically, either one is valid," she said.
Copyright © 2004, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc. |
