FARMINGTON – Selectmen reviewed a draft proposal of the Walton’s Mill Dam project Tuesday night, presented by the Atlantic Salmon Federation after considering public feedback from several informational meetings. The proposed project is being divided into three categories: removal of the dam, improvements to the surrounding park area and replacements of two culverts at road-stream crossings.
Temple Stream, which was dammed by the 1820 structure to create Walton’s Mill Pond, was designated a critical habitat for the endangered Atlantic salmon by the National Marine Fisheries Service in 2009. Given the designation, the town’s options are to either remove the dam or construct a fish passage. The Atlantic Salmon Federation, which has been meeting with town officials over the past year regarding the issue, prefers removing the structure. If the town goes that route, the ASF would secure funding.
The costs of removing the dam have been estimated at $400,000, while the park’s design and construction would be roughly $455,000. Burrows said that the ASF would also create a $20,000 endowment to assist in maintaining the park in the future. The cost of replacing the culverts would total $330,000, two-thirds of that for the Cummings Hill Road culvert and the remainder for the Clover Mill Road culvert. The total cost of the project, covered by secured funding, would be $1.2 million.
The ASF would try to assist with the fish passage option, ASF representative John Burrows said, should the town decide to proceed in that direction. However, he estimated that the ASF would only be able to raise something in the $25,000 to $30,000 range, as that was not the preferred option for the conservation of the species. The total cost of the fishway construction is estimated between $200,000 to $380,000, with the town carrying most of the cost.
The additional issue is that the dam itself, a 20-foot tall structure, is believed to need significant repair. Fixing the dam, which would be required if it wasn’t being outright removed, has been estimated to cost $350,000. That would increase the fishway option to $550,000 to $720,000 in cost, with Farmington responsible for raising most of the money.
The draft proposal, which includes a potential design of the updated park and plans for the replacement of the culverts, will be reviewed by the town’s lawyer before going to the town for a vote. Town Manager Richard Davis said he expects the proposal to be voted on at the Nov. referendum.
“The basis of the vote would be whether or not to enter into this agreement. It would be timely because we need to do some work on those roads,” Davis said.
Leave the dam alone.
Makes no difference where the free money comes from, this is just a dumb idea. Another organization from away, telling Farmington what they think we need. We have far greater needs.
One of the most stupid things I’ve heard of doing in the last few years. The habitat CHANGED, it was dammed. You can’t undo that fact. Now, other creatures use this area as THEIR habitat. You’re going to kill them (value judgement, anyone?) to POSSIBLY bring back something gone so long…maybe you should rebuild the mill and turn it into a buggy whip factory?
You’re being pushed to create another park you have to maintain. No tax revenue coming in…great.
Option 3: sell the thing, put it back on the tax rolls, and be done with it. Or let it fall in on its own.
Another ‘non profit’ group that begs for donations and then has so much money they don’t know what to do with it after paying a lot of high salaries to its people… Also, Amber…. you told us a couple of times what Burrows said… but after reading the article 3 times I still don’t know who Burrows is……..
Sounds like the Town of Farmington has made up our minds…..Certainly the funds would materialize if the fish ladder was the option that made the most sense to the people most impacted by all this.
Salmon or no salmon it seems like it will cost us more in the long run to keep the dam in place. The thing that concerns me the most would be the day the dam fails and all that sediment runs down stream killing everything in its path. I had a friend who worked out west in the 90’s on the salmon projects and this was something he said removing the sediment was the most critical but the hardest part of removing a dam. If we have the option to do it now then I can let go of the wonderful pond in favor of a long term solution. I plan on living another 30-40 years in Farmington and I don’t want to get stuck paying even more to fix the dam in ten years. I have a lot of good memories in that pond and look forward to canoeing and fishing there each summer but we are lucky enough to live in one of the most water shed covered States in the U.S. There’s always another place to go close by. I wonder how much time and energy it will take to remove all the sediment and sentiment? Dams are not forever.
Well said Sammie
So if ASF can fund 1.2M to remove the dam why can’t they fund 720K to rebuild dam and install the fishway? Everyone gets something for less. But 2cents is right; sounds like town management and the salmon fantasy brigade has made up our mind for us.
First of all, the dam was created BEFORE 1820 – more like 1780. Secondly, the Maine Historic Preservation Com. was never called until my son called to express concern about losing the dam. (over a year after the project was planned) And after the town was assured MHPC would be called.
Based on others’ opinions, the dam will likely be there a whole lot longer than any of us will. And why should a little town be FORCED to do something they don’t want to do.
Salmon? No one mentioned that the salmon found in the pool below the dam were likely some of the same salmon fryes that were put into Temple Stream way out in Temple. These same frye were likely just washed down stream. Where’s the honesty here?
We have people sitting on the Board of Selectmen who seem to be enamored with the idea of spending our money for a stupid project.
Leave the dam alone.
Hey Nancy: Let the ASF pay now…..or you will pay later!!
The dam was rebuilt not long ago. Why wasn’t the proposed changes taken into perspective during the reconstruction?
there we go mainers heads put togather at work even know there wasn’t any salmon running threw there for over sixty years lol
tear it down!!!! Let the salmon return to there home which is a lot older than1780.
All of the west coast is tearing down dams.Here in the ignorant east you are actually fighting to keep them???
Way backwards!
Smokey just becausethe west coast is doing something doesn’t mean we need to. Maybe if they weren’t tearing down damns they wouldn’t have such dry ground the more water you can hold the better the soil. ie what beavers do nature has a way of knowing where we need water. Sometimes it may not be ideal but it is necessary. Also if they had more damned up water it would help in fighting there cronic wildfire problem.
This is a pretty informative article.
https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2014/0803/Setting-rivers-free-As-dams-are-torn-down-nature-is-quickly-recovering
That was a good read billy. They covered both pros and cons pretty well.I grabbed this part. ( And in the West, as drought sucks water levels in reservoirs to record lows, some state lawmakers now are clamoring to build more dams. “It is crucial that we create more storage,” says California State Sen. Cathleen Galgiani, a Democrat who wants four new reservoirs at a cost of $6.2 billion. ) Not that walton mill dam holds a lot of water but it is a easy spot to get water for fire trucks if needed. Yes there are other places to get water. I have a hard time believing that ASF can find full funding for one option and little to none for the one they don’t want. If they can fully fund there proposal than why not a cheaper version with the fish ladder ?
To all concerned about saving the dam and wanting to add a fish ladder. You do realize the dam will not look the same especially when you go and add a 10’ wide fish passage. They said the passage would basically be put in the spot were the board walk runs down to the stream. The only thing the dam will still have in common with the original dam is that it will still be holding back water. The historical looks will be gone.
I thought so too Jesse. Like you said earlier just because it is being done somewhere else doesn’t mean it should be everywhere. I also liked the beaver analogy, we have 5 or 6 beaver dams/ponds on our property and it is amazing what and why they do what they do.
Yes Billy they can see the big picture. Maybe all the beavers in the area that get relocated by animal damage control officers should be dumped in Temple stream.
bjb: Thanks, that was an interesting and multi angled read. The part that stands out to me is that each removal situation seems to turn out different due to the environmental conditions, upstream, of each dam. I found this part to be an accurate description of the mill pond,
“Dams don’t stop just fish. The flow of sediment and nutrients, increasingly understood as important to the health of the river and land downstream, is blocked. Ponds behind dams are sluggish, deep, and warm, inhospitable for species that like clear, fast, and cool. Salmon are replaced by bass. Oxygen levels in the water drop. Sediments pile up and toxins accumulate. Algae and weeds take over. Birds of prey go elsewhere.”
Again, I think if the dam is removed then a lot of attention will need to go into removing the pond sediment or releasing it downstream slowly. Maybe we could scoop it out and sell it to farmers or offer it to composting businesses for the removal. The sediment is incredibly rich in nutrients and tires and old bikes… Lots of tires in the stream. One time my son and I kayaked up stream and counted over two dozen tires. The pond is, if Nancy is accurate, 200 years of farm and mountain watershed sediment all piled up in the pond area. When I fish I can see all the leaves and mud below releasing gas bubbles. The water is usually brown with rotting stuff. All we catch are bass, pickerel, perch, and pond shiners or chubs. These are the tell tale signs of shallow warm low oxygen water. A few hundred yards up temple stream from the pond and the water begins to clear up and we see trout.
This town issue seems like just a matter of 3 options.
1. Do nothing. The dam is cool and we all have some sentimental reasons to not change what we enjoy. We will just figure it out when the dam becomes an immediate issue and we will spend town tax money to fix it… Keep the dam tell ASF, “Thanks but no thanks….”
2. Keep the dam and pond but do something now to bring back salmon and open migration for the future but pay for it mostly out of town taxes and hope it attracts economic byproducts from future anglers and property value…Fish Ladder
3. Do something now to offset the inevitable cost in the future and accept help from an outside organization that will pay for it because we had to compromise a little and accept their idea of what inevitably will need to happen.
After reading the article and knowing what I know about water quality and conservation I think either a fish ladder or full removal would work to restore fish migration but a full removal would be a permanent fix and cost local taxpayers like myself the least.