MONTAGUE — A public comment period is opening on a draft document outlining the cleanup of the 1.9-acre former Strathmore mill complex following its demolition.
Starting Thursday, April 30, and continuing through May 30, members of the public are asked to share their thoughts on a document prepared by project engineers Tighe & Bond that provides three recommendations for how the Strathmore at 20 Canal St. will be abated, demolished and cleaned up for future reuse.
This public comment period is established by a Community Involvement Plan that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires as part of its grant program for brownfield projects, through which Montague was awarded $4.92 million, Assistant Town Administrator Chris Nolan-Zeller told the Selectboard on Monday.
Additionally, a tentative date for a public meeting to discuss the draft document is set for Monday, May 11, at 6:30 p.m. over Zoom. A final document will later be made available for further comments between May 26 and June 3.
Montague Town Hall at 1 Avenue A will serve as the “information repository” for public comments, with Nolan-Zeller acting as the main contact. Nolan-Zeller can be reached at chrisn@montague-ma.gov or 413-863-3200, ext. 109.
According to the draft document, the goal of the project is to “remove blight, protect human health and prevent an ecological disaster” due to the condition of the Strathmore, which is described as being in an “advanced state of disrepair.”
The demolition and cleanup of the site is described as beneficial in a number of ways, as the project will eliminate potential human exposure to harmful contaminants, and remove a threat of pollution for the Connecticut River that could be pose a risk for “residents and sensitive populations in Montague, Greenfield and every community downstream to the Long Island Sound.”
Included in the draft document are three options, referred to as alternatives, for cleanup: a no-action alternative, which means no changes would be made at the Strathmore; Alternative 2 that includes building demolition, abatement and bringing clean fill from outside of the project site for site restoration; or Alternative 3, which is the same as Alternative 2, but uses some of the building material for fill.
This draft recommends the third alternative for cleanup based on its cost of $4.2 million, compared to the second alternative, which would cost $6.2 million. In Alternative 3, painted or coated brick and concrete that contains few contaminants can be used as backfill, and would be separated from hazardous materials that would be disposed of. This backfill option is available upon authorization from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
“This cleanup approach will significantly limit the amount of materials to be disposed at off-site receiving facilities and the volume of ‘new’ clean backfill needed, and correspondingly it will reduce the number of trucks to and from the site during this project,” the draft Community Involvement Plan explains.
The budget for the project is $10 million, which includes the $4.92 million from the EPA and a $5 million earmark from the state Department of Conservation and Recreation.
With the Community Involvement Plan now in motion, Selectboard Chair Matt Lord wished to clarify that, while this public comment period spans 30 days, public involvement will still be ongoing as the project continues.
“I imagine as the project moves forward, there will be new rounds of community involvement that are part of the process as well,” Lord said. “It’s not like we’re one and done with what happens over the next 30 or so days, right?”
Nolan-Zeller confirmed that this is the case, and the need for at least one in-person meeting as part of this involvement plan does not preclude the town from having additional public information sessions on the Strathmore project in the future.
In terms of which buildings are slated to be demolished, Tighe & Bond wrote in its draft document that it is helping the town take a “tiered approach” to demolition, with a base bid and three additional options if funding is available. However, in each scenario, Building 9 is retained, as it houses a hydroelectric turbine owned by Eagle Creek Renewable Energy. As more buildings abut Building 9, more work to stabilize the surrounding walls is required.
A base bid for demolition of Buildings 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 would cost $6.6 million, according to a probable cost estimate by Tighe & Bond. On the high end of costs, Alternative Design 3, which includes the base bid for demolishing Buildings 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 as well as additional fees to tear down Buildings 1, 2 and 11, would cost $13 million. This price tag includes demolition, costs for building retaining walls around Building 9, site work, code upgrades, construction and engineering.
As for the timeline of the demolition plan, the goal is to begin demolition and site cleanup between the fall of 2026 and the fall of 2027.
