by Heather McCarron | June 27, 2022 | Wicked Local

Ever since Charles Osgood sought to put the Concord River to work by constructing a stone crib to control its flow and operate a corn mill 300 years ago, the dam site at Talbot Mills in North Billerica has been a point of on-again, off-again human drama.

It has also been the scene of drama for diadromous fish—which migrate between the salty waters of the sea and fresh waters inland—cutting them off from important breeding habitat upstream.

Now there is a proposal to remove the dam, freeing the Concord River from its centuries of confinement and setting the stage for restoration of the suffering fish populations, from blueback herring to alewife, American shad, American eel, and sea lamprey.

The plan—supported by a slew of environmental organizations, from the state Division of Ecological Restoration to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, OARS, NOAA, the state Division of Marine Fisheries, the Lowell Parks & Conservation Trust and the Merrimack River Watershed Council—is the topic of a public meeting set for Wednesday, June 29, 6:30-8:30 PM.

The project status meeting will be held in Buck Auditorium, in the Billerica town hall, 365 Boston Road, Billerica. There will also be an option to attend remotely via Zoom.

“What has prompted the proposal to take the dam out? It is up to the owner of a dam whether to remove it or not. The owner of the Talbot Mills Dam in North Billerica is opting to remove the dam for liability and cost reasons,” said Alison Field-Juma, executive director of OARS, a non-profit organization dedicated to preservation and protection of the Sudbury, Assabet and Concord rivers, also known as the SuAsCo.

The dam and water rights are owned by CRT Development, the original owners of Cambridge Tool and Manufacturing Company, Inc., which purchased the dam, water rights, and Victorian-era Talbot Mills properties in 1975.

Previous to that, the original 1711 dam was replaced in 1798 for the Middlesex Canal project, and again in 1828. In 1851, the dam, land and water rights were sold to the Talbot brothers, whose mills processed woolens.

The 1828 construction is what is there to this day, but the purposes for which the dam was built—to power mills—no longer apply, and it is too costly to undertake the level of repairs needed to make the dam compliant with current 100-year spillway flow standards.

It is hoped that permitting for removal of the dam can begin as soon as this fall. Between now and then, there will be opportunities for public review and input, Field-Juma said in an email. The process is subject to extensive review by the Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency, as well as historic and conservation permitting.

For fish’s sake, and other reasons: Restoring the river to its natural state

Long before Charles Osgood embarked on his corn mill enterprise in 1711—a condition of his water power rights grant—the Concord River coursed through the landscape free of impediments.

The area was a favored fishing ground for Native Americans. That’s because the waters in the SuAsCo watershed—created by the confluence of the Sudbury, Assabet and Concord rivers—were teeming with a riot of diadromous fish species, which migrate between the salty waters of the sea and the fresh waters inland.

Over the centuries, as people squabbled over the dam and water rights, and the dam itself steadily evolved from a stone crib in the river to a higher construction, the migratory fish suffered.

According to a feasibility study into restoration of the SuAsCo diadromous fish population undertaken by the Division of Marine Fisheries, “the primary impediment to fish passage in the Concord River is the Talbot Mills Dam.”

“Prior to reaching the dam, fish must first navigate potential obstacles at the Essex Dam (an active hydro dam with a fish elevator and an eel ladder) on the Merrimack River in Lawrence, Middlesex Falls—a natural bedrock falls and remnants of a breached dam—on the Concord River in Lowell, and Centennial Falls Dam (a hydropower dam with a fish ladder), also on the Concord River in Lowell.”

When the dam was rebuilt in 1828, it included a fishway, but it was filled in with concrete in the 1960s.

“The main benefits of removing this dam, apart from the owners’ considerations, is that it will allow fish that historically migrated between the ocean and this river system to become re-established,” Field-Juma said. 

She noted this not only affects the ecosystem upstream, but also affects the it out at sea.

“Migratory fish were once extremely plentiful, and can support recreational fishing, commercial fishing, other wildlife, and ecosystem health,” she said.

The Merrimack River Watershed Council on its website notes that removing the dam “would open up 135 miles of rivers and tributaries and 260 acres of lakes and ponds to migratory fish species as essential habitat, and effectively reconnect this area with the ocean.”

Other benefits, she said, include decreased flooding upstream and, in the event of a dam failure, downstream of the dam, plus improved recreation—both fishing and boating—reduced invasive aquatic plants at the dam, and opportunities for archaeological/historical interpretation.

“OARS generally supports dam removal because a free-flowing river will be a healthier ecosystem,” Field-Juma said. “This is especially important in light of climate changes such as more frequent droughts and heatwaves. However, each dam is its own case and deserves case-by-case review and consideration of all stakeholder concerns. That is why there is this public meeting, to ensure that everyone who is interested has an opportunity to learn about the project and ask questions early in the process. Based on our examination of all the information available, OARS strongly supports the removal of the Talbot Mills dam.”

The Merrimack River Watershed Council also says allowing the river to return to its natural state would “improve water quality, aquatic habitat, and natural riverine processes; reduce upstream flood hazards; and eliminate risks to human safety and infrastructure associated with the over 300-year-old structure.”

Marlies Henderson, a lead river ambassador on the SuAsCo Wild & Scenic River Stewardship Council said removal of the dam has been thoroughly studied and will have no influence on the intake of water from the towns along the river. 

She joins Field-Juma in encouraging people to attend the June 29 meeting to learn more.

“I think that’s going to give all the answers from the people that know,” she said. “This thing is a historic thing because this dam has been here for more than 300 years.I think it’s important that people know, get involved, let their opinions be known, and be open to change.”

Published in

Wicked Local: Link to published story