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.