Milford committee backs $100,000 study request for McLean and Goldman dams, with many questions about ownership and cleanup

Milford Budget Advisory Committee members on Jan. 28 reviewed a warrant article that would raise and appropriate up to $100,000 to update an alternatives feasibility study of the McLean and Goldman dams using funds from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).

Nicole Crawford, the town engineer, told the committee the grant/loan request is filed under the CWSRF stormwater-planning category and is intended to support work required by the town’s MS4 stormwater permit. “Last time the study did really look at the feasibility of taking out the dams versus leaving them in,” Crawford said. “They did a lot of research on the sediments and the contamination in the sediments. They did not do any water-quality monitoring last time, but the previous study did mention that there are significant water-quality issues that do warrant action.”

The warrant article language read aloud to the committee asks the town to “raise and appropriate the sum of $100,000 gross budget to conduct an updated dam alternatives feasibility study for the McLean and Goldman Dams” and notes the town “was awarded a low interest loan totaling $100,000 through the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Clean Water State Revolving Fund” with loan forgiveness available up to that amount.

Why it matters: the 2014 feasibility study assessed physical removal versus retention and sampled sediments for contaminants; Crawford said the updated study would add water-quality monitoring, new sediment sampling against that baseline, future storm-event modeling and cost estimates for both removal and long-term maintenance. The work could affect public-safety planning, riverbank stabilization near the Boys & Girls Club, and any future cleanup tied to contamination from legacy sources such as Fletcher Paint Works.

Committee members and residents pressed Crawford and Town Administrator Lincoln Daley for specifics the town does not yet have. A resident who had reviewed the 2014 report said that consultants “did find VOCs, PCBs, things that would, if you start with sediment, would be released,” and asked whether sediments would be retested. Crawford said sediments will be part of the updated scope and that the firm that prepared the prior study provided a quick preliminary cost that exceeded the $100,000 cap: “We did reach out to Gomez and Sullivan who did the original study, and we got a really quick scope of work for a potential update. They came up with a number that was about $150,000. So we said we'll ask for the maximum amount. And then we're going to rework our scope of work to see where we can pare it down.”

Ownership and liability questions were central to the discussion. Committee members said the trust holding the Goldman dam is dissolved and that the apparent private owner—described by residents as an individual with limited resources—likely could not fund major work or cleanup. Daley said the town has been talking with American Rivers, a national nonprofit, and that a private donor working through American Rivers has expressed interest in paying some costs; he said details remain “a very large unknown.” Daley said American Rivers acts as a facilitator between private funders and local projects.

Crawford described the dams as “low hazard” in state inspection reports—meaning a failure is not expected to cause major downstream damage—but cautioned the state inspections (the most recent she cited was October 2021) were limited visual reviews that did not include full structural spillway evaluations. She also said state law requires periodic inspections (inspections occur every six years) and that the town does not have a long-term funding plan to maintain the structures should the town choose to keep them.

The study would also analyze whether the impoundments are increasing bacterial counts compared with the river, and whether removal or in-place remediation would reduce erosion near the Boys & Girls Club. Crawford said previous reporting flagged higher bacterial levels and that the new study would seek to quantify those conditions and whether in-place fixes could be effective. She also noted the prior study included discussion about fish passage and that future permitting could require a fish ladder or other mitigation if the town kept the dams in place.

Next steps and limits: Crawford said the full loan application is due in June. The town must still finalize a scope of work, go out for qualifications-based consultant selection, and reconcile the likely higher consulting estimate with the CWSRF cap of $100,000. Daley and the committee discussed the possibility of using part of the planning grant to clarify ownership and liability, but no binding town decision to accept ownership or funding responsibility for construction has been made.

Committee reaction: members signaled general support for pursuing the study application as written—noting it is intended to fund study work only and, as read aloud in the warrant language, “develop a plan for future actions”—but they repeatedly emphasized unanswered questions about ownership, long-term costs, and what, if any, private funding arrangements would require by contract or conditions. Crawford offered to provide additional records and follow-up; she provided an office email (townengineer@milford.gov) for questions and said the town will publish the final scope once determined.

What the study would not do: Crawford emphasized the CWSRF planning loan is for analysis and monitoring; it does not commit the town to remove the dams, to undertake cleanup, or to accept financial responsibility for construction work. Any future construction, removal or remediation projects would require their own funding decisions and likely additional permits and contracting work.

Ending: Committee members said they would monitor the scope development and consultant selection process and that they view the study as an opportunity to gain data that will inform long-term choices about the dams’ future. The town application timeline places the final loan application before the state in June; the committee noted that additional federal funding opportunities for dam removal or remediation may be available in future rounds.