Bob: We were supposed to have a meeting this evening with Rick Amirault,
Supt. of Parks. I received the following letter this afternoon, hand
delivered to our in-box.
"Dear Bob,
Due to a conflict in my schedule, I will not be able to attend
the Conservation Commission meeting this evening. Please be assured
that the Parks Dept. has and will continue to adhere to all the conditions
set forth in their order on the 12th fairway. To date construction
has yet to begin within the 100 ft. buffers, but the drainpipes and
structures have been delivered to the site. Before actual construction
begins, we will inspect the siltation areas in order to determine
that they need the specifications outlined in our Notice of Intent
as contained in the Order of Conditions. I will be on vacation for
the second meeting of the commission later this month. If the commission
would like I will send a representative from the Parks Dept. to the
next meeting. Please let me know. Sincerely,
Richard Armirault, Supt. of Parks Dept."
Bob: At this point, what would like to do in this aspect. Mr. Amirault
is not here to discuss the situation at Mt. Hood and he is willing
to send a representative at the next meeting. Do we wait until the
next meeting? The situation to be discussed was concerning the 12th
tee. There have been pumps pumping water from different parts of the
area into the wetland areas and stream areas. 1. Some of the streams
and wetlands have been contaminated with silt. We had pictures at
the last meeting showing that if you push a
stick into the water where you get a sort of silt, grazed cloud that
comes out of it and that was for discussion. 2. Why other methods
weren't used to filter that silted water out before it went into the
wetlands or streams. There is about 5-6 inches of water on the 12
tee now, I believe. When Paul and I were there, there were open areas
of water and you could hear the ice cracking while walking through
the area.
Paul: If you can take Mr. Amirault at his word that all the work
to date has been in accordance with the Order of Conditions and that
they have met all of our specifications, and you take that with the
fact that we know that the wetlands have already been impacted and
they have not yet begun to work within the 100 ft. buffer, then either
his statement that the work is consistent with our Order of Conditions
is false, or the Order of Conditions is inadequate to protect wetlands.
David: And that is true on the 12th fairway, but on the
northerly ILSF, next to the access road, the hay bale area was breached,
which is clearly within the Order of Conditions. Did Mr. Amirault
contact you, call or did he just leave the letter for you?
Bob: It was in my in-box. It was dated February 1, which is today,
and it was delivered. If he called the office, I wasn't there.
David: I am hard pressed to believe that he is the only person in
the City of Melrose that could have come here and spoken with us.
Arrangements could have been made for somebody else to represent the
Parks Dept.
Bob: What would you like done at this time? Do we wait for the 2nd
meeting to get a representative of the Parks Dept.?
Paul: I don't think we can wait for a second meeting, even though
he states that no work has begun within the 100 buffer. First it does
not rule out that work will begin tomorrow within the 100 ft. buffer.
I have little comfort that his inspection of the hay bales and their
siltation fences would be adequate to protect the wetlands, and even
if they are installed properly and working properly, there is still
an open question of whether or not they are protecting the wetlands
adequately. There may need to be additional siltation protection because
clearly the wetlands have been impacted. If they have done everything
right, then they have impacted despite the fact that they have done
everything right.
David: The100 ft. buffer has, in my mind, absolutely no meaning
if the wetlands are impacted.
Paul: And that is clearly within our jurisdiction to require additional
controls beyond the 100 ft. buffer if, in fact, a resource has been
damaged, which it clearly has. So reassurance that work has not been
conducted within the 100 ft. buffer is irrelevant at this point because
there has been an impact.
Bob: Are we considering any type of enforcement action at this point?
Paul: I think it would be prudent not to have any work occur on the
12th fairway until we can be assured that the wetlands
will not be impacted.
Bob: Are you requesting enforcement action on the 12th
fairway only?
David: I would request it anywhere in an area where water drains
into or around the 12th fairway because it could be coming
from the top of the hill. The way everything is shaped right now,
the problem could be coming from the top of the hill where the soccer
field and baseball field are ultimately going to go, coming down that
hill and going into the wetlands regardless of any work that might
be done on the 12th fairway now and in the future.
Bob: That raises an interesting point because the hill is heavily
riddled with 2 to 3 ft. gouges in it, and at the bottom of the hill
you have the hay bale lines which are directing the flow of water
down to a large trench area at the base of the hill which has been
sort of scooped out. which I think is part of the drainage system
anyway. So they have tried to divert the water from going into the
buffer area and into the wetlands area.
David: Which is another reason why we should have a significant issue,
because by doing that they could be depriving water that should be
flowing from the wetland. They are protecting it by not letting the
silt go through, but they are not filtering and letting it flow where
it naturally would have and could cause that to dry out and cause
other problems in the spring.
Bob: But according to presentation, I believe, all that water from
wetland 2, which is the one at the bottom of the hill, is coming from
behind it into this particular wetland and flowing down the corridor
to wetland 3, and that is the way it was presented. So if this water
is coming off the hill at this point, is this extra water, which is
being diverted because of the structure (hill) that is now there?
Nancy: I think our problem is that we don't know a lot of things.
What we do know is that silt has reached the wetlands and possibly
the pond. We know it has reached the wetlands, we have seen this,
so we know there is a problem. We don't know how bad that problem
is, where it came from exactly and how to fix it. So we need to know
if the commission will study the problem through a third party and
try to figure out how bad the problem is, where it came from and how
to fix it, or if we should somehow through an enforcement action or
other means, have the Parks Dept. do that.
Paul: If we have the money, then I think we should have a wetland
biologist review the conditions of the wetlands and give us a determination
of the significance of the existing impact rather than rely on requiring
the Parks Dept. to hire somebody.
Bob: Well, I think the Parks Dept. is getting a good chunk of money
for this project, and I think that should be their cost to cover this
particular individual.
David: I think beyond just looking at the impact, whomever looks
at it should also develop a required corrective action plan.
Nancy: We can issue a Cease and Desist Order with the condition being
that it won't be lifted until these requirements are met.
David: We can issue a cease & Desist Order now, and if they have
no work planned before April because of freezing and the condition
of things up there, then it may be ignored until April.
Nancy: They probably want to get that work done on the 12 fairway
now, don't you think?
David: I don't know, but I just picked April at random. They are
probably not doing work now because the ground is frozen and other
reasons, so it is going to be sometime now between March or April
when they start to do the work, but if they aren't going to do the
work for two months and we issue a Cease & Desist Order, it might
not get a response and the conditions could continue to get worse.
Nancy: How can we condition our enforcement action to require them
to do it and submit a timetable for us?
Bob: We have three options in the order that they will be issued:
"The issuing authority hereby orders the following:
-
The property owner has agent permitties and all others shall
immediately Desist and Cease from the further activity affecting
the buffer zone or wetland resource areas on this property, or
-
Wetland alterations resulting from said activity shall be corrected
and the site returned to its original condition, or
- Complete the attached Notice of Intent, the completed application
and plans for all proposed work as required by the act, and the
regulations shall be filed with the issuing authority on or before
such and such a date. No further work shall be performed until a
public hearing has been held and an Order of Conditions has been
issued to regulate said work. The property owners shall take the
following action to prevent further violations of the act."
David: Do we have a different option outside of this? What I am thinking
of is, referring it to DEP for enforcement because the history that
I see here suggested is someone doesn't think we are all that relevant
or thinks they can ignore us, and I wonder if it needs to go out of
our hands to someone beyond us that can push the issue in a different
way.
Bob: I don't think it has to go out beyond our hands. Once we made
our point very clear, the situation has been corrected a number of
times.
David: We shouldn't have had to do that. We never should have to
issue Cease & Desist orders here, and we shouldn't have had to
go through the things that we have gone through. Every time we make
our point, it is corrected, but it shouldn't happen that we have to
make a point. It is very clear what the regulations are. We have talked
with the people involved numerous times, and we shouldn't have to
be coming back and saying you are not doing what you are supposed
to, which means either someone doesn't get it or they don't care,
and I don't know which, but that is the impression I get from this.
Paul: I think what we want them to do is to Cease & Desist any
work which would or could impact the wetlands, especially any work
on the 12th fairway.
Bill: And they should do no further work until they come to us with
a plan acceptable to us for cleaning up what they have done. It doesn't
order them to do it, we can still select who does it at their expense.
They need to do an evaluation and clean-up proposal and they have
to stop what they are doing so it can't get any worse.
Bob: Right now, we are selecting a property owner whose agent premitties
and all others shall immediately Desist & Cease from the further
activity affecting the buffer zone and/or wetland resource areas in
this property.
Paul: I think the Cease & Desist Order has to be fairly broad,
because I am not sure it is clear what activities have resulted in
impacting the wetlands.
Bob: Well, the second part of this would be the property owner to
take the following action to prevent further violations of the act:
-
Cease & Desist from doing any activity on the site that
would cause further impact to the wetlands, two ILSF near the
quarry on the far side of the area, and wetlands 2 and 3, as well
as wetlands #1 (pond #3), and its associated wetland.
-
They will do no further work until they identify to our satisfaction
what has been the cause of the impact to date.
- They will take no further action or do any work on the site until
they come to us with a remediation plan, identifying what caused
the problem and how they intend to have a 3rd party at
our approval correct it, bring it back to where it was.
Paul: We need to make clear that it is not just work within the buffer
zone, it is work which may effect the buffer zones.
David: We can phrase it something along the lines of any and all
activities that involves filling, regrading or related movement of
soil, or any other work at the site other than that of the remedial
areas. What we want to do is exclude f rom the Cease & Desist
Order any actions that are taken to mitigate further damage of the
affected areas so they can go in and put in more hay bales, etc.
David: The question I have is what if the response we get next is
another letter that says sorry I can't make it.
Nancy: I agree with you, Dave, then we could go back to our original
idea of hiring our own consultant to find out how to fix, and then
say you have to do this. Right now we are telling them to figure out
what you have to do and then do it.
Bill: Why don't we put in the Cease & Desist Order that a responsible
representative show up in the next meeting with preliminary studies
and plans, and give them a due date.
David: Is this a certain conflict by referring it to the city's solicitor
because this is a disagreement between two areas within the same city?
Bill: I don't want to speak as a lawyer. It may be, but if there
is, then we get an authorization to hire a separate council, or they
do. But right now, the Parks Dept. is wearing the hat of the landowner,
so you can't have it both ways.
Nancy: Before we close on this matter, could we table it for a minute
and open it up for public discussion.
Linda Benezra - 340 Porter St.: The language that you gave is all
very broad. I wonder if you need to add something to take into consideration
the brook that runs along Penny Rd. because a couple of months ago
when we were walking over there and the water was being pumped and
the water was flowing pretty fast. It was coming all the way over
to that stream, and there was infiltration, and that was before we
saw as much as infiltration as you are seeing now. This is the brook
that goes towards the car dealer, it runs along that part of the golf
course and out to the Saugus River. Thank you for taking an action.
Ken Foss and I were here a month ago and to let any more time to go
by and to get more filtration would be so wrong.
Ken Foss - 50 Temple St.: Yesterday I went up to the hood and the
water was murky and when the ice melts you are going to have a pond
there that will look brown. I am sure some will settle to the bottom
in time, but it is not a proper way of handling water. We should have
some type of filtering device that is upstream where the fill area
is. Last time I was here I explained there is an underground brook
that runs about the path where the 11th fairway is. It
comes across at an angle and then it comes to a surface.
Paul: You just come out of the trees onto the 11th fairway,
so maybe 20 ft.
Mr. Foss: I notice on the OOC that was wetland designated as #1,
and 100 ft. so called inland pond there is no construction and wetland
2 was down on the 12th fairway and was supposed to drain
into wetland 3 where drainage pipe, It seems to me by allowing this
fill to be dumped, there is a lot of silt in it and when the water
wants to move it doesn't hold. If they have 12th fairway,
they should build a containment, I mean good gravel, along with your
bales of hay to contain this because the gravel will act as a filter.
I look at the bales of hay, good intentions, but the silt and water
passes through them. It looks good, looks like somebody cares. You
could take them out and have the same condition as you have today.
I hope you will address that brook on that fill area on the other
side. I thank you very much for what I heard tonight that you are
going to Cease and Desist. I am surprised Rick Amirault could not
make your meeting. I surely would get him in as soon as I could if
I was on your commission. One other question, do we have any city
engineering department up there with some engineering drawings as
far as drainage? It seems to be lacking engineering work.
David: the plan they had was done by CDM, a large engineering firm.
Camp Dresser & McGee.
Mr. Foss: I realize that. I say engineering with a transit. We are
going to fill to this level, we might have to build a retaining wall.
It is going to be a gyp job - we are going to get out of here, get
our money.
David: Wetland 2 - they are putting a retaining wall there and we
asked to make it steep enough so people would not go down the retaining
wall to get their golf balls.
Ken: Drainage is going to wetland 2 and 3, down to the woods.
David: Is Pond 3 not full enough so that water is coming out of it
and going to pond 2?.
Ken: Yes, it was spilling over the top board. Very interesting when
I look at some of the water spill that comes down. It seems to be
bubbles that would not be ordinarily be there. I was up there once
and it was foamy. I think a little bit of silt has gotten there, but
not to the extent of #3.
Paul: Part of the requirement we would want is to require silt fence
and hay bales on both sides of the culvert gong into the road - that's
the 11th fairway, the culvert is marked on the map here
- looks like a retaining wall with some headwall. It is right in that
area.
Is there a culvert, pipes going under the road presently?
Nancy: Right here is Pond #3, and here are contour lines.
Ken: The fill area is right here. This is the road. This underground
stream comes down this road.
Bob: That map doesn't show a stream. Is there a natural pipe opening?
Ken: No.
Bob: If that is a natural crack in the rocks, there is no way you
will be able to control the flow.
David: They could put a hay bale line across it from where it comes
aboveground.
Peter: Just a point of information, we are talking about the 12th
fairway that is lower in elevation than 3rd pond.
David: Mr. Foss is talking about the area above where they are going
to put the baseball field.
Peter: The 11th green is at a contour that is higher,
so there is a natural divide.
David: Remember the rock well that used to go to the 12th?
Peter: I saw that part, it still seems all the work that is being
done is from down the hill, but water would have to run up hill.
Mr. Foss: I have a picture in my car if you would like to see it.
