https://archive.is/vSqII

After years of opposition to the proposed demolition of the Wiley-Russell Dam, the Historical Commission approved a letter to the Connecticut River Conservancy noting that it may be willing to support the project — contingent upon the results of a public hearing.


The letter also notes the commission might support partial demolition of the Mill Street Dam, which would also be contingent on the results of a public hearing.


Mayor Ginny Desorgher signed a memorandum of understanding with the Connecticut River Conservancy in November, calling for the full demolition of the Wiley-Russell Dam and partial demolition of the Mill Street Dam. The two dams are located less than half a mile apart.


Although proponents of removing the Wiley-Russell Dam argue that it will protect species of fish and other aquatic wildlife while also reducing the risk of flooding, the Historical Commission has been outspoken in its opposition for more than a decade.


The commission’s letter, which was sent to the Connecticut River Conservancy and its partner, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, on Monday, notes that because of the structures’ local and state designations as a historic structure, the proposed demolition must be discussed during a public hearing and put to a subsequent vote.


“The Wiley-Russell Dam is listed as a historical structure in the Greenfield inventory of historic properties, and is also listed in MACRIS, the database of historic properties maintained by Massachusetts Historical Commission,” Commission Chair Margo Jones wrote. “On the basis of testimony at that hearing and further consideration of the merits, details and ramifications of preservation or demolition, the commission will decide whether or not to invoke the demolition delay for the dam. It may be that the public hearing triggered by an application for a permit to remove the dam can be moved forward at the will of the city, to clarify the position of our board.”


The letter states that the original wood crib dam dates back to 1836, and is of “primary importance in the development of the tool industry in Greenfield.” In accordance with state law, the public hearing must be held within 45 days of the Connecticut River Conservancy’s application for a demolition permit.


The dams’ removal had been brought before the Historical Commission and former Mayor William Martin’s administration, when the Connecticut River Watershed Council — the precursor to the Connecticut River Conservancy — rallied behind its removal under the argument that it negatively impacted migratory fish populations. Martin ultimately decided against the removal in January 2015 amid pushback from the commission, which advocated for its repair and preservation.


Fish biologist Alex Haro of the Connecticut River Conservancy spoke about the letter at a Historical Commission meeting, noting that the organization was still seeking grant funding for the proposed demolition from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He noted that the commission’s acknowledgment of the project, even if it falls short of wholehearted approval, is still “helpful” to the conservancy.


“We went around this 10 or 12 years ago and one of the complaints of the Historical Commission was that they weren’t engaged at an early point in the process,” Haro said. “This basically puts it down on paper that you guys are aware and are engaged in [the process]. 
This letter is fine — it will go a long way toward communication between yourselves and the mayor, who wants to push this forward.”


Haro added that he expects to hear whether NOAA will agree to fund the demolitions by June, and if the Connecticut River Conservancy is ultimately denied funding, it will seek funds from other programs. He explained it is possible NOAA might choose to fund the demolition of one dam and not the other.


At last Thursday’s Historical Commission meeting, Vice Chair Tim Blagg, who had previously questioned the Connecticut River Conservancy’s claims that there were anadromous fish species going up the Green River, told Haro that historian Peter Thomas convinced him of their presence in the river.


“I have been harassing you for a number of years about evidence of fish in the river, and have not been impressed by the material that I’ve seen, but having talked to Peter Thomas, I am now OK,” Blagg said to Haro. “He’s got the facts and the figures and the stories and the citations on what fish were in the river and when.”





Greenfield Historical Commission calls for public hearing on Wiley-Russell Dam project