Loading...
1999-11-11City of Beverly, M assach usetts Public Meeting Minutes BOARD: S U BCOM M 1 TTEE: DATE: PLACE: BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: ABSENT: OTHERS PRESENT: RECORDER: Norwood Pond Commission November I1, 1999 Beverly Public Library Chairperson Don Martin, Vice Chairman Neiland Douglas, Tina Cassidy, William Frost, David Lang, J. Michael Lawler, Virginia MeGlynn, Todd Lampert, Kevin Burke Joyce McMahon, Bruce Nardella Paul Davis and Tom Jenkins from Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc., City Engineer Frank Killilea Jeannine Dion Chairperson Don Martin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Discussion with Paul Davis of Bavstate Environmental Consultants, Inc. rel!ardinll Norwood Pond study Martin introduced Paul Davis and Tom Jenkins from Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc. Davis stated the study was completed at the beginning of the year. The scope of the project was to look at the pond's problems. The pond is a weed-choked pond that has a large watershed which includes the land fill, music theater and the industrial park area. Davis stated there are some problems with past and current storm water discharges that lead into the pond but fixing that alone would not solve the problem of the pond for the long term. Davis stated one of the recommendations of the report was to fix the dam. Another recommendation was to fix the storm water culvert leading into the pond (in the cove near the Music Theater). Davis stated there is a flooded stream valley with extremely deep muck sediments that used to be soils associated with that wetland. The area was flooded years back when the dam was built and that was fine for a while. except the sediments are very much like a fertile garden, which is exacerbated by nutrients coming in from the watershed. Everything feeds on itself until it gets to a critical point and then you have a big problem. Davis stated the solution to that is to get rid ofsoum of the organic material. Davis stated tile pond needs to be deepened so Illat light doesn't penelratc to tile boltore · to limit the plant Norwood Pond Commission Minutes November 10, 1999 Page 2 Davis introduced Tom Jenkins, Senior Engineer to discuss options to improve the pond. Jenkins stated one of the recommendations is to dredge the pond. ]'he estimate is $2- million (based on 200.000 cubic yards at $10 per yard). Baystate Environmental has done design engineering and permitting for several pond-dredging projects and they usually do one of two methods. Jenkins stated that the first method is to drain the water off and use conventional equipment to push the material up into piles. After the water is offof it, the materials are loaded into dump trucks and hauled to a disposal area. The materials can he used for topsoil substitutes and potting soil. Jenkins stated that the second method is hydraulic dredging. Hydraulic dredging is done by a large grounded hydraulic pump with a cutter head at the end of a long suction tube. The cutter head is used to dislodge the sediments and cut up some vegetation. It sucks the material up with a mixture of water (approximately 80% water and 20% solids) and carries it out of the lake by pipeline into a containment basin. At the containment basin the sediments can settle out by gravity and the water is then decanted off the top and returned to the lake or pond. Jenkins stated this method is generally more expensive for smaller jobs. Jenkins presented slides of two projects. Welles Pond, Newton, Massachusetts Welles Pond in Newton is a 15-acre pond, which suffered from severe eutmphication and algae growth. Jenkins states the depth of water in the pond went from six to eight feel deep to knee high. The pond had an historical use as a skating rink in the wintertime but with the sediments and all the biological activities, it didn't freeze anymore. Baystate removed approximately 30,000 cubic yards in a conventional manner during the wintertime. Jenkins stated that when you do a draw down excavation project, odors are always a concem. The odors are an issue for two to three xveeks. The materials were taken to the local landfill. The project was completed in October of 1993 and they were happy with the resuks. Silver Lake, Berlin, Connecticut Silver Lake in Berlin, Connecticut is a 150-acre lake owned by the State of Connecticut's Departn~ent of Environmental Protection. The major problems were water lilies. cat tails, float vegetation, etc. The lake receives 50% of its inflow ffom groundwater. Silver Lake is similar to Norwood Pond in that historically it xvas a swampy peat area that had water about it,,, surlilce. In 1936 a six lbot high dam was buih al the downslream end of~he swamp and flooded six it:el deep. ]['his worked well lbr a while but after 15 to 20 years tlnc xxccd .DFO)~]CIBS slaIlcd and they have gotion worse over lhc ~,cal's. 'l ilC Df'oiecl'hi!q Norwood Pond Commission Minutes November I0, 1999 Page 3 been ongoing tbr about fifteen years. The state had to acquire .some property adjacent to the lake and set up a containment site (23 acres). When the project is complete, the area will be turned into a state park. Containment basins can be turned into other uses (ball fields, picnic area, etc.) Baystate is removing 730,000 cubic yards. The dredge operates 22 hours a day. The dredge nmkes some noise but no one has complained a[x~ut it yet. Phase 2 is complete and the project is approximately halfway complete. Davis stated conventional dredging is not a practical application for Norwood Pond. Jenkins stated a limited dredging around the edges with a draw down could be done assuming the organic sediments are fairly thin around the edges but you could not get out into the middle. Douglas asked how much land would be need for containment basins. Jenkins responded approximately 10 to 12 acres. Davis stated the area of the pond is considered land under water, which is regulated by the Conservation Commissions throughout the state. Land under water is protected but with different performance standards, which are the standards you have to meet in order to do any work in them. This prejeet would be considered an envirom'nental improvement project. The project would restore a water body to its preconditions. There is regulatory language in the wetlands protection act that allows you to do just that son of thing. Even though there would be some temporary impact, the long-term benefits from it will outweigh the temporary impacts. In terms of the containment basins, an area which is not a wetland must be selected - you need an upland area. Douglas asked Lang's opinion regarding description of "land under water". Lang agreed with Davis' comments and believed that a project like this would likely be approved by the Conservation Commission at the local level. Lang asked about the size of the containment basins. Jenkins stated that in Connecticut they could not fred a parcel of land large enough to accommodate the 730,000 cubic yards therefore the project is being done in phases. Frost asked for a definition of clean material and the ability to sell clean material. Jenkins responded that sediments in the pond are not subject to soil remediation standards because they are not soils, they are sediments. As soon as you take them out of tire pond, they are soils and the3' are subject to soil remediation standards. DEP makes a ruling regarding what the materials can be used for and where they can be disposed of depending on what the>' contain. Jenkins stated he does not think there will be any restrictions on what you could use the materials for, based on what they know at the moment. Jenkins slated tire only thing that Ire can imagine in this setting is it might have lead or mercury. in w!:ich case the material mighl have to go to a landtill, not as hazardous waste but as special wasle. He believes that scenario xvould be rare. Nonvood Pond Commission Minutes November 10, 1999 Page 4 Douglas stated Baystate made recommendations regarding how to proceed with the preservation of the pond. one of which had to do with the dam. xvhich appears to be a manageable project. Douglas stated dredging is a costly and challenging undertaking and asks if Baystate perceives dredging to be an absolute necessity. Jenkins responded that as an engineer, he perceives this as a necessity. Davis responded that it depends on what kind ofresource the City wants the pond to be. Davis stated the pond is not dying, it has too much light. It has prolific weed growth, which would prohibit people from utilizing the pond. Davis stated the pond probably will get worse, not better and will not stay stable. If there is a desire to return the pond to passive recreational use, its current state is not acceptable. Davis stated it depends on what the goals of the conununity are. Lawler asked how long the effects of dredging can be expected to last before the city will have to think about it again. Davis responded that the answers are on the thin side because dredging projects haven't bad a long history. Douglas asked for an explanation of protective measures recommended in the study. Davis responded that fundamentally it is whatever you can do to take road sand, winter saM, and nutrient containing run-offand treat that before it gets to the water body. Typical techniques range from street sweeping to catch basins with deep sumps that are routinely maintained, detention basins, retention basins, wetland treatment basins, infiltration basins, etc. Cassidy asked about the proposed feasibility study and preliminary plan. Jenkins responded that would entail obtaining additional data on the pond (physical and chemical characteristics of the sediments), studying disposal options for materials, studying technical options for doing the dredging, determining the goals of the restoration committee, determining the necessary budget, searching available land possibilities, reviewing the dam and repairing it, preparing conceptual designs of containment site(s), recommending options regarding controls to preserve the pond and permitting requirements would be investigated and recommending potential funding sources. Cassidy asked what the estimated cost of the feasibility study phase would be. Jenkins responded $25,000 to $35,000. Lang asked if trout could be introduced to the pond. Davis responded that you could not introduce trout. However you could improve the current fish population. A fishery study can be done. Lang asked if the material would be suitable to cap the landfill. Jenkins responded 'more than Iikel\. yes'. Norwood Pond Commission Minutes November 10, 1999 Page 5 Jim Dawson asked if it is unlikely that you would have a halfmillion-dollar influx from the sale of sediment. Davis responded that is 'true'. Dawson asked if the city chose not to dredge the pond, would it still remain a pond and not get to a point of being detrimental to wildlife. Davis responded that it will change in terms of its habitat value. Davis stated that it will be more favorable to certain types of wildlife and unfavorable to other types ofwildlife. There will be less functional use. Approximately 50% of the lake is not usable now and it will get worse and look more like a wetland than it would a water body. Lampert asked for cost of the project in Connecticut. Jenkins responded that the project cost $5 million and the containment basins cost $600,000. The preliminary cost of dredging Norwood Pond is estimated to be $2 million. Lampert asked approximately how long it would take to complete the project. Jenkins responded it would take two to five years. Martin asked for an explanation of the funding sources. Jenkins responded that the Department of Environmental Management has funded up to 25% of some projects. Davis stated that another good funding source is the Division of Conservation Services which is accesses Open Space Bond Bill money. Davis added that you need to have an updated Open Space Plan, which identifies this project as a high priority item. Most public grant programs look for projects which have a public use function development type of goal. A member of the audience asked about the effect of dredging on wildlife. Jenkins responded t.hat-ifyou are concerned about fishcries, if you start your draw down in later spring, after all the spawning activities and complete the draw down by the end of summer and refill before the next spring, generally the downstream fishcries are okay. Whatever wildlife and fishcries are in the pond don't stand a chance unless they get out when the pond is drained. Dan DeAngelis asked if the Commission is envisioning boat access. Davis responded the Commission can limit it to non-motorized cra~ or no boat access at all or passive use trails around the pond. Douglas asked what Baystate would recommend regarding the dam. Davis responded that he would need to review the report. Pare Kampersal stated the estimated cost to repair the dam is $18,600. Jenkins responded that the estimate is usually low. Martin stated he has been advised by City Solicitor Marshall Handly Illat the City owns tile dam but tile City has no obligation to fix it. Martin stated he will get clarilication from Handly. Killilea stated the downstream hazard is very low. Donglas Norwood Pond Commission Minutes November 10, 1999 Page 6 stated he believed if the city moved forward on the pond dredging, the dam needs to be repaired. Approval of Minutes Martin asks if any members have changes to the draft minutes that have been distributed. There are none. Douglas: motion to accept the minutes of the September 8, 1999 and October 20, 1999 meetings, seconded by Lawler. All members in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. Recommendations Martin stated that during its life, the Commission has looked at the former landfill, potential transportation improvements and the Norwood Pond site and proposed drafting land use recommendations for the Norwood Pond area. Martin stated he believes the Commission has gone as far as it can in terms of the scope of investigation, and should now turn to formulating specific recommendations. Lang asked if Manin is considering winding this process up shortly. Manin reslionded he would look at ending it by February. Manin stated the Commission appears to have enough information to make recommendations. Douglas stated the commission should address the pros and cons of access and egress and the contributions that it would make to the preservation and economic development of the area. Douglas stated it also must address Norwood Pond. Lang stated he has no apprehension about that. Lang stated he does not know if the commission will have another chance to view any sort of design or redesign of the overpass project before formulating those recommendations. Martin asked Cassidy how soon before the commission xvould know about some of the concerns raised last month. Cassidy responded she would like to get an answer to that before the December meeting. Cassidy stated she would like to get a gauge on xvhen HTSD will respond to the issues raised. Killilea stated he believed the time period is too short. HTSD is going to have a citywide public hearing so that all the citizens of Beverly can comment on the proposal. Kiltilea stated he thinks it is three to four months from the definitive concept. Marlin recommended meeting on ust the topic of Norwood Pond and then addrcssino the ~opic of land use in January. " ~ Norwood Pond Commission Minutes November 10, 1999 Page 7 The next meeting was scheduled to take place on Wednesday December 1, 1999 at 7:00 p.lll. Douglas: Motion to ad. journ, seconded by Lang. All members in favor, no one opposed. Motion carries. The meeting is adjourned at 8:55 p.m.