The Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is a hidden gem. Hugging the north side of Chesterfield Road, a couple of miles uphill and upstream from the popular Musante Beach swimming area in Leeds, the six-acre pond supports a variety of wildlife, including blue heron, kingfisher, wood turtles, river otter, fish, and migrating birds. It is fed by two coldwater streams which are alive with brook trout.
The reservoir has been in place since 1883, when a 35-foot-high stone and earth dam was built across the Roberts Brook, which joins the Mill River in Leeds. The reservoir provided Northampton with its primary source of drinking water until 1905, when the Mountain Street reservoir in Haydenville was built. The reservoir is still categorized as a backup water supply for the city, even though there is no working distribution system. There is a series of dams downstream from the structure—the Roberts Brook is not a salmon spawning ground.
More than a year ago, the city's Board of Public Works voted to remove the dam and drain the reservoir. The state's Office of Dam Safety, which operates under the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), was pressuring the city to either fix the dam or take it down.
In 2005, after a near-disaster in the city of Taunton involving an historic dam, the state had ordered a round of inspections, and also transferred dam safety responsibility from the Commonwealth to dam owners—in this case, to the city of Northampton. The city's public works department hired engineering consultants GZA to perform an inspection and issue a set of recommendations. GZA concluded that removing the dam would be the most cost-effective solution.
Neighbors found out about the dam removal project by accident. "There were guys in hard hats down by the dam about a year ago," said Dee Boyle-Clapp, who lives with her husband John Clapp in a farmstead bed-and-breakfast near the scenic reservoir. "Our neighbor Wayne Thibault went across the street and asked them what they were doing, and they said that the dam was going to be taken down. None of the abutters or neighbors had been informed."
Friends of the Dam
Boyle-Clapp, a professional fundraiser, determined that she and her neighbors would find a way to preserve the dam and the natural habitat associated with it. "I know that we could raise the difference between preservation and demolition, and create a maintenance fund as well," she said. "The city wouldn't have to spend any extra money on this."
On May 20th, the Department of Public Works (DPW) sponsored an "informational meeting" at the JFK Middle School where GZA presented their conclusions. Their figures showed that the difference between a $1.2 million dam removal and repair would amount to about $400,000. Fifty years of maintenance would add another $150,000 to the preservation cost.
Boyle-Clapp and her husband John Clapp spoke with engineers Jim Laurila and Ned Huntley from the city's public works department. "Our sense was that no one wanted to see that dam removed. We asked if we could fundraise on behalf of the city," she explained. "We were instructed to set up a meeting with the DPW's governing board to present our case."
In late June, the group presented their request to the Board of Public Works (BPW). They asked that dam removal plans be temporarily put on hold so that they could raise some money. The BPW promised to provide an answer within two weeks. That meeting was cancelled due to vacation scheduling, so the next BPW meeting actually took place on Wednesday, July 29th.
In preparation, the group gathered information on wildlife habitat. Some worked on the dam's history and some on finding grants. Dee and her husband John met with Community Preservation Committee chair Fran Volkmann and submitted an initial application for funding. They retained an engineering consultant to evaluate the possibility of developing small-scale hydropower at the site. "Our consultant estimated that small-scale hydro at that site could power 30 to 60 homes," said Boyle-Clapp. "The city could sell the power to the grid."
On July 29th, Friends of the Upper Reservoir and Chesterfield Road Dam crammed into the conference room on Elm Street where the BPW holds its meetings. A 30-minute discussion ensued between the board members, covering issues of permitting, scheduling and finance. Finally, BPW chair Terry Culhane turned to Boyle-Clapp and asked if she would be able to raise $500,000 quickly.
"We're all feeling a little bit stuck here," said Culhane. "It's hard to imagine that we could give you more than 60 days. The longer we go, the more it costs. The gap is going to grow. Staff time will be incurred."
"I was stunned," Boyle-Clapp told the Advocate. "Of course I couldn't assure anyone that this was possible. The first round for CPA grants is due in August, and round two is in September. The Community Foundation grant is due in August. The dam has been listed in "poor condition" since the 1960s. My understanding is that the Office of Dam Safety just wants to see progress and is not invested in any particular solution."
"It was odd," she continued. "City Engineer Jim Laurila kept referring to 'fish people' who had repeatedly been to see him, stating their desire to see the reservoir removed—Jim said that these fish people would contribute money toward the dam removal. We had no idea what he was talking about."
The Reservoir Friends left disappointed: the Board had declined to entertain their proposal.
Fish People
The Advocate learned that one of the "fish people" who's been lobbying Laurila for the removal of the dam is Brian Graber, a program director with American Rivers, a national nonprofit with a northeast branch office on Phillips Street in Northampton.
"Yes, we support the removal of the dam for the purposes of river restoration," Graber told the Advocate. "American Rivers advocates for the removal of dams whose impacts outweigh their benefits. It does not make sense to maintain a structure that does not bring some economic benefit to the people of Northampton. There's a potential hazard for people downstream. The city did a study showing that small-scale hydro is not feasible. It makes the most economic sense to take it down."
The Advocate asked if American Rivers were only concerned with local taxpayer issues. "No, there are environmental benefits to the dam removal as well," continued Graber. "Taking down the dam will result in two more miles of cold-water fish habitat. It doesn't matter that there are dams below the site, because brook trout are non-migratory. We'd be increasing habitat for this species. The water in the reservoir is too warm to support brook trout."
Is there any value in preserving the existing, mature reservoir habitat?
"We call that a temporary habitat, because it depends upon human interaction," Graber explained. "It's not self-sustaining. If you remove the dam and allow a trout stream to re-establish, it would maintain itself. It would only take a couple of years for the cold water brook trout habitat to stabilize after dam removal."
The Advocate asked if American Rivers has any type of financial relationship with the city. "No, we don't," said Graber. "But we do identify potential projects for the federal Fish and Wildlife department. We invited Fish and Wildlife to meet with Jim Laurila at the DPW. Fish and Wildlife are in a position to contribute money for dam removal projects that lead to habitat restoration. Our next step is to support the efforts of the city to move forward with the project."
Straight to the Top
The Friends of the Dam, after their rejection by the BPW, decided to go straight to the top. Last week, the Clapps and Dave Herships from the Nonotuck Land Fund met with Northampton Mayor Mary Clare Higgins.
"We had a positive meeting with the mayor," John Clapp reported. "She explained that the BPW has a fiduciary responsibility to water ratepayers, and are obliged to run operations as economically as possible. We accept that. But we're looking for creative solutions, and she seemed open."
"We spoke with Senator Stan Rosenberg, who was very encouraging, and gave us information about potential sources of funding," said Boyle-Clapp. "And we just made it through the first round of consideration for a CPA grant. We're on the agenda for the joint BPW-City Council meeting in September. We just need a little time."
The Advocate spoke with Mayor Higgins to get her perspective on the issue. "The group wanted to look at a couple of issues—fundraising and hydro potential," Higgins explained. "I advised them that the permitting process will be moving ahead, and that they should stay involved. Often a permitting process will reveal new information that leads to the re-evaluation of a project. We're under pressure from the state to come into compliance; we can't do nothing. The dam is rated as a high-hazard structure, and the Office of Dam Safety wants to see some progress.
"Water ratepayers will be paying for the project because the dam is an asset of the Water Department, and yes, the BPW does have a fiduciary responsibility to its ratepayers. As for hydro potential, the city has looked at this issue before, and concluded that it is not feasible. But I am willing to keep an open mind."
To get her own take on the urgency of action on the dam, Boyle-Clapp called the Office of Dam Safety in Boston. "They told me that a 'high hazard' designation is not about dam condition, but about what's downstream," she told the Advocate. "The criteria is, if the dam fell apart, would there be a potential loss of life or damage to property? The head of that office told me that even if a new dam was installed, it would be called 'high hazard.' His office grants six-month extensions, which he says are not hard to obtain. They don't care whether the city fixes the dam or takes it down; they just want to know that progress is being made toward bringing the structure into compliance."
Nature and Culture
Laurie Sanders is a consulting biologist who lives not far from the reservoir (Sanders is known for her Field Notes feature on public radio station WFCR). "I have to say that from a habitat perspective, I'm neutral on the project," she told the Advocate. "It's a small, shallow, silt-filled pond. I think that keeping the dam or removing it might yield essentially the same result. If the dam is retained, we'll eventually see a swampy wetland there, because it's filling with silt. If the dam is removed, it's very likely that beavers will establish, also creating a swampy wetland. But I'm not persuaded that simply removing the dam will result in two miles of restored cold fish habitat. There will be significant problems with silt, number one. Two, the stream bed below the reservoir is channelized and man-made, not at all a natural stream meander."
The Clapps, meanwhile, are not just eleventh-hour activists where the dam in concerned. Their interest in the future of the reservoir is part of a longstanding relationship to the watershed that surrounds it.
"We're a little upset that we weren't brought into the project planning earlier," John Clapp told the Advocate. "My sisters and I relinquished the development rights to about 300 acres of land within this watershed. We've been cooperating with the planning department and the Nonotuck Land Fund in preserving contiguous parcels for a wildlife corridor.
"We assumed all along that we would be protecting the reservoir. The Marble Brook, a major cold-water tributary, runs through my sister's land. It was part of my family's original 700-acre farm. It would be hard not to be able to see the reservoir every day."
