Concord subcommittee maps three dam‑removal options, schedules in‑person workshop to prioritize costs and impacts

The Town of Concord Dam Removal Subcommittee met Sept. 19 to review public input and feedback from a Sept. 10 presentation and to set next steps for evaluating three dam‑removal scenarios.

At the meeting a resident, Diana Feldweg of 343 Commonwealth Avenue, told the panel that summer water levels on nearby Neshoba Brook and Fort Pond Brook have been very low and that she did not believe an earlier environmental-assessment claim that removing the dam alone would increase recreation. "I just don't think that that is accurate," Feldweg said during public comment.

Subcommittee members then recapped the three scenarios shown at the earlier presentation: 1) removing the dam with no additional work; 2) removing the dam and adding amenities such as trails, boardwalks and boat access; and 3) removing the dam plus dredging and channel realignment to ensure the channel reaches a deep pool. Several members said the task force asked the subcommittee to prioritize options 2 and 3 while listing the adverse impacts of option 1.

Speakers raised multiple practical concerns the subcommittee wants addressed before recommending a preferred scheme. Those include robust boat and scout access at Commonwealth Avenue (to allow turning and trailers), the location and depth of the deep pool, timing of seasonal low flows that can limit fish passage in June–August, trail routing to minimize wetland impact, and how to treat invasive plants after a removal. One member urged that the subcommittee "list the adverse impacts" of the dam‑removal‑only approach so the task force can weigh tradeoffs.

Committee members also debated whether to pursue a phased approach — allowing the group to learn and adapt as work proceeds — or to develop a single, more comprehensive scheme. Some warned that phasing could complicate permitting and increase overall cost, while others said phasing helps manage unknowns. Several members recommended producing a prioritized list of criteria and then testing which elements could be funded or scaled back.

Cost information emerged as a central next step. Members agreed that estimating the full, "Cadillac" scheme would produce unit costs for each element (for example, docks, boardwalks, channel work) that could then be removed or scaled to fit a budget. One participant noted that prior town action had approved ARPA funding for boat access and that state dam‑removal funding may cover a large portion of dam removal itself, but secondary amenities and heavy channel work could require additional local or external funding.

The subcommittee confirmed it has not yet received the consultant's basis‑of‑design report and expects that document to answer technical questions about channel location, edge conditions, invasives and fish passage; members did not expect detailed bid‑level cost estimates in that report. The group also expressed interest in contacting Acton officials (River Street dam removal) to learn from their implementation experience and to consider a site visit to see post‑removal conditions.

To move from discussion to decision, the subcommittee set preparatory work and a schedule: members will submit written notes on adverse impacts and chart comments by Sept. 29 so materials can be printed and circulated, and the group agreed to hold an extended, in‑person workshop on Oct. 2 (start time to be earlier than usual) — tentatively at Harvey Wheeler or the main library — to run a prioritization exercise, compile cost ballparks, and finalize which scenarios to estimate further. The committee approved the previous meeting minutes at the start of the session by unanimous voice vote.

The subcommittee adjourned at 8:01 p.m.; its next meeting will follow the Oct. 2 workshop and focus on the prioritized, costed options the group develops.