Meeting Minutes of Thursday, June 20, 2002

Present:  Sean Kealey, Paul Locke, Susan Murphy and Nancy Naslas.

The meeting came to order at 7:40 p.m.

 

Mt. Hood Restoration Project--Parks Commission

Charles Fuller and Mike Interbartolo with the Parks Commission were present at this meeting.  Charles Fuller passed out a monthly progress report, and then proceeded to give the commission an update. 

Charles:  The schedule calls for the seeding and sodding to be accomplished in September and October and to basically have the course rapped up by late November.  There will be a two-week period the following April to take care of any things that may have been affected by winter weather.  So, basically, it should be rapped up but not ready to play on in November but, hopefully, in April it will be ready to play on.  Mr. Fuller mentioned that they have been getting a lot of positive feedback from the golfers, and that the golfers come by and take a look at what has been done and check out what is going on. 

Mr. Fuller told the commission that the contractors are ahead of schedule and gave the commission some statistics.  The removal of the peat from below the fairway (Mr. Fuller passed out photos) as of June 5th, they were 80-90% complete with the peat removal.  They had to suspend it for a short time because of wet weather conditions on the lower part of the field because once it gets wet, it stays wet.  Hopefully, it will stay dry tonight which I think it is supposed to and will go back and resume peat removal tomorrow, the 21^st, and the schedule calls for the peat to be removed between the 10^th and the 20^th of June and it is now the 20^th.  Basically, I think we are ahead of schedule on that. 

The cut on the 12^th fairway is more than 50% complete and that was scheduled to of taken place between June 26^th and July 22^nd.  So, we haven’t even reached the start date on that and they are more than half-done in my opinion.  The fairway slope that is the upper field, which will not be used for golfing, is going to be finished.  I call this the plateau, but it is up higher than the 12th fairway into the east of it and that is about 60-70% complete.  This was scheduled to be done during the period of June 3^rd - 28^th.  So, you could say that is probably just about on schedule. 

The two wetlands that work will be done in on the north and south are going to be done during the late summer/early fall and these are not major parts of the project.  The major ones are the ones that they jumped in on.  The peat removal is probably the most difficult part of the job because in places they have to dig down 18 to 20 feet below the other fairway grade to get the peat out, and you couldn’t dig an area much bigger than half of the size of this room at any given time because of failure.

If you look at the pictures, you can see the cracks and the big dig fill that was put in as they were digging down to take the peat out.  This material would crack and open up, and in one case, on one day it actually moved four feet out while working with the equipment.  Taking the peat out is a two-stage operation.  It takes a small backhoe to actually dig down, pick it up, put it on the plateau and then the backhoe would pick it up from there and turn it around and load the truck with three bucket fulls.  Then if the truck were lucky, it could make it up the very steep grass to the top to take it up.   The peat is being dried in what would have been the baseball/soccer field area up closer to the top.

Yesterday, the first sample mix of peat and sand that have been run by the people that were going to make the topsoil was submitted.  The sample went to the lab, and we will be hearing back from them early next week on the combination.  Early indications show that it is going to be peat and sand, and the big dig fill does not work well with this mix.  It is just too clayey.  Instead of trying to mix it with the top soil, we would be better off putting down four inches of big dig fill as an underlayer, and I would only do it in places other than the golf course and that is just my opinion.

The plan calls for removal of rock next to the 12^th green, to the left of the 12^th green, and this is a spot that can take up quite some time because it shows that ledge got buried in big dig fill.  When I saw it, I thought we might be lucky and be able to dig down and work around it and not have to remove the ledge. 

Nancy:  Are you planning on relocating the drainage pipe over to account for that a little?

Charles:  No, this is near the green.  This is where we have the plateau of fairway slope pitching down and delivering water down towards the green, and by taking the ledge out, allows the cart path to be turned away from the green.  The golf course architect wanted 30 feet minimum from the ledge of the green to the cart path, and on the present course, there is about 20 feet.  Basically, it looks to me like we can get 25 feet without taking the ledge out.  We will know tomorrow if it is going to be 25 or 30 feet, but this golf course architect did agree that whatever we could give him, he would go along with it. So, I would say in the range of 25 feet plus from the edge of the cart path and the other side of the green.  I think that most of the leading situation here is that we prevail the ledge.  It is actually going to convey the waterfall on down and it will spill over the ledge and come down into a trench just before you get to the green and it will be rather picturesque when formed. 

Nancy:  Will you have the water cascading over that area?

Charles:  Yes, it will come and wash over the rock, and the rock would be visible to anybody going by.

Nancy:  Now, that area you’re talking about is adjacent to the new replication area?

Charles:  It is on the other side of the fairway, left side on the green.  The replication area is on the right.

Nancy:  I thought we changed the replication area?

Plans were than taken out and put on the table for everyone’s review.

Charles Fuller explained the plans.  This is the tee and this is the grade.  This is stone wall facing number two.  This is a rather flat plateau where we are looking.  Water will come down here and then actually tumble out back here because this is significant ledge. 

Nancy:  The first thing I mentioned was this the location of this pipe. 

Charles:  Right.

Nancy:  You were going to move it over this way a little. 

Charles:  We talked about this yesterday.  We may relocate it, but we don’t know yet.  There will be a manhole rather than putting into this basin which is how it is shown here.  I was trying to avoid putting a manhole in the cart path, but I will work out the details on that. 

Nancy:  On this wetlands replication area, is that the one you said was already a wetland?

Charles:  Yes, and we are considering another area, and I must admit the elevation wise.

Nancy:  I thought the area that you were suggesting was over here next to this.

Charles:  This is the proposed replication area.  I was proposing something in here. 

Nancy:  Okay.

Charles:  I have measurements of the concrete wall.  I established that the contour of the wall was just about at 134 here.  However, when I went over here a couple of days later and looked, this was dry and even down less than 133.  Now granted, there have been some dry days in between, but I think what has happened is there has been sediment into this area.  I think what has happened now is more flow goes into the wetlands here and makes it way down than might have originally gone through here and that is why I suggested that this be an area that be worthy of consideration for replication because there is much less material in here. 

Nancy:  This is the way you submitted it to us two weeks ago at our meeting with a memo and this is what we, the commission, voted on approving.  We do appreciate the fact that you brought it to our attention that the original wetlands delineation was, if not incorrect, it wouldn’t change since it wasn’t specific originally delineated.  So, it did make more sense to move it, and we concurred and it is in our minutes.  So, you have the go ahead on that change and at the time our understanding was that this was going to be the replacement replication area.  I think that this is going to be part of the work that you were already going to be performing oversight on.  We didn’t require any submittals or amendment to our NOI’s.  That was our official response.

Nancy:  I will send Mike and Charles our minutes just so you have the official record that it has been changed and been approved.  That was the only change that we have officially approved so far.  The other question is what about the concrete blocks?  Are those gone now? 

Charles:  I was just going to talk about.  We came up with the result of the grade and this has been taken place along the lower parts of the fairway.  A couple of people are concerned about the treatment of the slope.  It seems very steep for a golfer or anybody else.  It is a long stretch down.  It is going to be tough.    I think it was Rick who came up with the suggestion about the concrete blocks.  He asked me what was going to happen to the concrete blocks out there, and he told me that they were to be removed.

Paul:  Is that what the contract calls for?

Charles:  When Rick was talking about picking the grade up off of the bottom of the slope, and thought that if we had some boulders or something that they would help.  Then Rick thought of these blocks and mentioned to add the concrete blocks there.  I counted and there are 40 blocks that are protecting this area on top of another 40.  This would give you 240 feet, and if you were to move just the top course off here and put it into two courses over here, you would each would have about 120 feet of block that would allow us to flatten up the hill.  

Mike:  I think the concern on those walls is that there is really no footing under those concrete walls and that is why they are tilting.

Charles:  Yes, they would have to supported.  There is no footing under the concrete blocks.  This is not a wetlands area. 

Mike:  Do you remember the first time you were out with Colin?  The contractor was proposing that we use the wall as the starting point of the slope back.

Nancy:  Right.

Mike:  They were concerned about that.  What they suggested was that we could remove the top course on the high part and then filing over the wall.  Leaving the wall in place because the wall is not in the wetlands area.  It is just holding back the water and the fill line is actually at times anywhere four to eight to ten feet beyond the wall.  So, that is what the suggestion was.  Why take them out if we can fill in both sides.  I told him we would have to check with the Conservation Commission.

Nancy:  But as of now, none of your final grades as submitted in your NOI have been changed.

Mike:  That is correct.

Nancy:  Okay.  As far as leaving some of those concrete blocks underground -

Mike:  It won’t change the grade.

Nancy:  They would just be underground. 

Mike:  Charlie is talking about building the wall up.  Would that change the grade? 

Charlie:  It would be up the hill more.  It is more between 160 and 180.

Mike:  We ask that the commission consider us leaving the blocks in place and filling in and around them without changing the proposed grades of the wetlands.

Nancy:  However many you leave in the resulting final grade will still be the same as submitted in the Notice of Intent?

Mike:  Right.

Nancy:   There would just be concrete blocks underground.

Mike:  Instead of it being fill, it would be concrete blocks.  As we study it, if it would decide to raise the elevation away from the wetlands, than we will come back and talk to you.

Nancy:  So, it is cheaper to leave them in there than to try to move them.

Mike:  Right.   Because what it calls for by removing them would require stockpiling them back up by the tower and then you would have to transport them up.

Nancy:  Well, any opinions from the commissioners for leaving very large concrete blocks in place underground?

Mike:  They are about two feet by two feet by six feet long.

Nancy:  They were used as a temporary measure to stop the till of the slope from slumping farther into the wetlands.  They built a big long wall. 

Mike:  To keep the water from penetrating.

Sean:  Are there any reasons for water flow why it would be better off not there?

Nancy:  The water doesn’t go that way.

Nancy:  Is that a motion to make it official? 

Paul:  I move to request that the concrete blocks remain in place as long as it doesn’t effect the final grades on the slopes.

Susan:  Second

Nancy:  I move and seconded it, all in favor, aye.  So, that is fine that will be a part of our minutes.

Mike:  Colin Duncan will be at the next job meeting on Monday.   I will be telling him the construction schedule and will ask him to mark up where and how the testing should take place.

Nancy:  I am sorry I haven’t returned the schedule.  It looks like such a daunting task.  Our concerns are more like any changes and to know about them in advance.

Mike:  That is why I asked him to do it so we would have a heads up rather than get ahead of it and find out we should have done it.

Nancy:  It is not until you get the whole area stabilized before you could even start cleaning up the wetlands.  I think we can just have a monthly visit like this.

Mike:  That is part of Charlie’s contract that he has to attend a monthly meeting of the Parks Commission and Conservation Commission.

Nancy:  Good.  I am also going to give you the list of our commissioners.

Mike:  Has the commission gone out and reviewed the wetlands protection?

Nancy:  I don’t think so.  I think just for the fact that we were just notified. 

Mike:  It is really shaping up very well, and they are pleased. 

Nancy:   A list of commissioners was passed out to Mike.  Just to let you know, if you can’t reach me, Paul usually fills in for co-chair.  I don’t know if you have anything else Mr. Fuller that you would like to through formally?

Charlie:  I think that was basically it.  Just to give you an idea where the schedules are and to give you an update.

Nancy:  Then there is the environmental scientist from Allan & Major.  What are her qualifications?  Now, what is the difference between what she is doing verses what Colin Duncan is doing? 

Mike:  Colin Duncan will only review their findings.  Colin Duncan is not going to do any testing. 

Nancy:  Okay.

Mike:  That is the contractor’s wetlands scientist, and by contract, he is required to do any and all testing required.

Nancy:  So, Ms. Granisa is going to be in charge of oversight or managing the wetlands replication work as well as the wetlands remediation work, and Colin Duncan will be in charge of oversight and review.  Okay.  Do the commissioners have any other questions?  Nancy asked Mr. Fuller for a phone number in case someone comes up.  Mike stated that there is a trailer with power.  The clubhouse number is 781-662-5888.  Mr. Fuller gave his cell phone number.  It is 781-389-6085.  It was also mentioned that the heavy equipment is out of there by 3:30 p.m. 

Nancy:  Any more questions?   Thanks for coming.  Charles Fuller and Mike Interbartolo left at 8 p.m.

 

Meeting Minutes

It was stated that there were two sets of minutes outstanding, May 16th and June 6^th.  A motion was made to approve those minutes as finalized by e-mail.  Paul moved to accept those minutes, and Susan approved them too.  Nancy stated that she reviewed them closely and edited them.   Moved and seconded, all in favor, aye.  The minutes of May 16^th and June 6^th are approved.

 

Budget

Nancy went to the budget meeting on June 19th with the Board of Alderman and the Appropriations Committee.  The original budget, which was in excess of  $42,000 possibly more, and the mayor’s budget, which is our edited budget, was sent to the alderman at $24,095.  Basically, what he did was knock our maintenance line items back down to what is was this year.  So, the guardrails and the tree removal and things like that probably got knocked off, but he didn’t specify what got knocked off in maintenance.  We have a $15,000 worth of maintenance money to spend in fiscal year 2003, 7% less than last year but it was approved by the Board of Alderman.  Also, regarding this fiscal year, at least what is left of this month, fiscal year 2002 budget, we still have about $14,000 to spend of this year’s budget.  Keeping in mind that our ponds work on a growing season’s calendar and not a fiscal calendar, and that work has been started this month and that we have encumbered the money to be carried over.  I did that with the auditor.  So, the work on Ell Pond, Towners Pond and Swains Pond will be started this month and will be continued into the summer.

 

Mail

Nancy handed out personal mail to each commissioner.  It was a dedication notice for the new park on Crystal Street prior to the Ell Pond festival.  Please try to attend this Saturday, June 22nd at 5 p.m. for the dedication and the Ell Pond festival at 5:30 p.m. 

 

Invoices

Invoices from our former secretary, Nancy Pritchard.  The month of May 2002 in the amount of $366.92 and the month of June 2002 in the amount of $135.00.  Motion to approve these -- Paul approved, Susan seconded, all in favor, aye.

We have also received a bill, which I received back from Mike Hughes.  It is the bill for the total control hydrocarbon analyses that we ran on the soil near Conant Park.  They decided that we have enough money in our professional services budget to pay it.  After I kindly volunteered to take the samples for him for free if he would pay for them, he sent the bill back.  I decided that we do have the money in our fiscal year 2002 budget to pay for them so I think I will just pay for them if it is all right with the rest of you.  I propose that we pay it.  Do I have a motion?  Sean motioned to pay them, Susan seconded.  It is $240.  They were taken from adjacent to some abandoned 55-gallon drums that are either in a wetland or just immediately adjacent to a wetland of Spot Pond Brook down stream from Conant Park. 

Paul:  Have they done any further work on it? 

Nancy:  I don’t know.  I haven’t heard of any, and I do know the neighbor so he will tell me if anything happens. 

Sean:   When is their 120 days?

Nancy:  May 15^th is when it is stamped received.   I will speak to Mr. Hughes again. 

Nancy:  The chemist interpreted the results for unknown hydrocarbon.  They called it naturally occurring paraffin.  But, nevertheless, it is a TPH test with a TPH RESULT.  It does need to continue on down the DEP requirement.  Okay.  Do we have a motion to pay this bill for $240?  Paul approved, Susan seconded, all, aye.

 

Hickory Street

Nancy:   We have received a Request for Determination of Applicability for Hickory Street in Melrose. They are on the agenda for a public hearing on Thursday, July 18^{th at} 7:30 p.m.  I suggest that before July 18^th, we go take a look up there and decide if we need to have a wetlands scientist check out the property because the applicant has not or if we think that a wetlands scientist should review the property.  It was asked if Hickory Street was currently a paper street?  Nancy responded that she thought so and believed that it was very steep and hilly.   Nancy asked Paul to coordinate a site meeting and that Nancy would put the ad in the paper.  Nancy has the original signed RDA, and she will start a file.  That is all I have.  Does anyone else have any other matters?  Should we open our meeting for any public comment?  No further comments.

Voted:  Meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 

Meredith L. Beauchesne, Conservation Secretary