FINAL RESTORATION PLAN AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

CHARLES GEORGE LAND RECLAMATION TRUST
LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE

Table of Contents

Previous Section

4.0 Monitoring Plan

4.1 Wetlands

Since the proposed preferred alternative involves land protection, an on-going monitoring plan to document the success of the project is not warranted. However, legal covenants assuring perpetual protection of the properties would be entered and enforced. In addition, efforts will be made to develop a species list and a management plan for each property.


4.2 Migratory FishMonitoring of migratory fish restoration would have three segments: 1) monitoring the success of the stocking efforts; 2) monitoring the returns of adults; and 3) monitoring the effectiveness of fish passage at the Talbot Mills Dam. The protocol for monitoring the success of the stocking effort is provided in Appendix B.

Adult returns will be monitored by capturing fish in the denil ladder at the Centennial Island Dam. Fish will then be transported up river to stocking locations above the Talbot Mills Dam. A plan for monitoring the effectiveness of fish passage at the Talbot Mills Dam has not been developed yet, however, it is commonly done at hydrodam facilities. Methods depend on the fish species targeted and the design of the passage facility.


Top

5.0 Public Comments on the Draft Restoration Plan and Responses from the Trustee Council

A public meeting was held at the Tyngsborough Junior-Senior High School on November 29, 2001. Nine members of the public, seven members of the Trustee Council, and one representative from the MDF&W were in attendance. The Trustee Council gave a brief overview of the proposed restorations and then opened the floor to comments and questions. One attendee also submitted a letter repeating the questions asked at the meeting. A copy of this letter is provided in Appendix D. The questions or issues raised at the meeting or in the letter are stated below with a response:

Issue 1. There was one general objection to spending money for restoration on the Concord River since it is not in Tyngsborough.

Response: The Trustee Council has always said that it might need to conduct migratory fish restoration outside of Tyngsborough if it could not find meaningful restoration within Tyngsborough. The Trustee Council believes that restoration of migratory fish on the Concord River is a good project in that it has a high likelihood of success and will open many miles of spawning habitat that should benefit the entire watershed. The Trustee Council committed to limiting money spent outside Tyngsborough to the amount of NOAA’s settlement and we have continued to meet that commitment.

Issue 2. There was a concern that since Kathy Regonini decided not to participate in the land protection effort that the majority of properties protected would be in Dunstable rather than Tyngsborough and it was recommended that the Trustee Council consider the Bell Property on Locust Avenue in Tyngsborough.

Response: We contacted the landowner of the Bell Property and got permission to consider it and walk the land. However, as discussed in the text, we did not find it to offer the habitat qualities we were looking for, primarily in that it is not hydrologically connected to any of the areas that were injured, it is disjunct from other protected properties, and it is bordered by a lot of development, and it does not offer habitat for migratory birds that use wetlands. We did, however, notice a large wetland complex upstream of this site which turned out to have protected land along its north side. There were two properties, the Woodward Property and the O’Coin Property, that would contribute nicely to the habitat already protected around the wetland complex. We contacted both landowners and neither were interested in selling their land to the Trustee Council. We are unaware of any other properties available for purchase in the Town of Tyngsborough.

Issue 3. There was a concern that restoration money was not proposed to be spent to fix the Upper Flint Pond Dam.

Response: The Trustee Council has revisited this issue and the dam will be addressed if it can be done with what the Trustee Council has determined to be a reasonable proportion of the settlement funds; ie, approximately $200,000.

Issue 4: There was a suggestion that we use restoration money to address bank erosion on the Merrimack River.

Response: This issue was addressed in the text. There are many areas of erosion on the Merrimack River, some of which is natural and some of which is due to development on the banks. Armoring the banks with stone is expensive and armoring just a few areas is unlikely to improve the habitat of the river. Further, armoring a bank can actually exacerbate erosion downstream, so in the end it can do more harm than good.

Issue 5: The issue of weed control in Flint Pond was raised arguing that the lilypads in the pond have become so thick that they are an impediment to recreation. Further, it was argued that NRD settlement monies are encouraged to be used to restore public recreation opportunities.

Response: The Trustee Council is familiar with this issue and believes the dense lilypads are present because Flint Pond is filling in. Much of the pond is less than five feet deep which allows light to penetrate to the bottom promoting vegetative growth. Lilypads are a native plant common to shallow ponds. Such pond vegetation provides habitat for aquatic animals. The Trustee Council does not feel that lilypad control in Flint Pond is an appropriate use of NRDAR funds. Further, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts settlement did not mention impacts to public recreation. The Trustee Council believes that the restoration should be driven by the settlements.

Issue 6: It was requested that the Trustee Council reconsider purchase of the Brox Property on Flint Pond.

Response: The Trustee Council has contacted the landowner on two occasions and was told on both occasions that Brox Industries was not interested in selling the property. The Trustee Council feels that asking twice is sufficient.

Issue 7: Funds could be used to compensate the Town of Tyngsborough for the purchase of the Greene Property or the Sherburne Property. The Sherburne Property is expected to have an environmental education center. Monies could be used to assist with trail construction, signage, butterfly gardens, etc.

Response: The Trustee Council believes that the priority is to protect habitat as close to the area of impact as possible. The first priority for acquisition is the lkareh Property on Flint Pond, which provides a buffer to Flint Pond. The second and third priorities are the Larter Property and Elkareh Property on Dunstable Road. Both of these properties are partially in Tyngsborough and both were directly impacted by leachate from the landfill. We believe it is unlikely that there will be enough money to purchase more than these three properties.


Top

6.0 List of Preparers

The Final RP/EA was prepared by the Charles George Natural Resources Trustee Council. The primary author was Laura Eaton-Poole with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and coordinator for the Council. Document review was provided by members of the Trustee Council. Ideas for restoration were provided by numerous interested persons. Members of the Trustee Council are listed below:

Dale Young, Trustee Representative for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs

Kenneth Carr, Trustee Representative for the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

Kenneth Finkelstein, Trustee Representative for the U.S. Department of Commerce,  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Arthur Jackson, ex-officio member, Citizen of the Town of Tyngsborough

Mark Whitehead, ex-officio member, Town of Tyngsborough Director of Planning and Community Development

Ralph Goodno, ex-officio member, Merrimack River Watershed Council

David Buckley, technical advisor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Protection

Andrew Cohen, legal advisor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of  Environmental Protection

Thomas LaRosa, legal advisor, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of  Environmental Affairs

Mark Barash, legal advisor, U.S. Department of the Interior

Anthony Giedt, legal advisor, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration


Top

7.0 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Parties Consulted for Information

Martha Abair, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

William Archambault, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Charles Bell, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife

Dani Carville, Town of Dunstable Conservation Commission

William Dunn, Shawsheen River Watershed Team Leader

William Easte, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife

Michael Fleming, Sudbury/Assabet/Concord Watershed Team Leader

Carl Gustafson, Natural Resources Conservation Service

Charles Katuska, Massachusetts Wetland Restoration and Banking Program

David Killoy, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Joseph McKeon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Everett McLaughlin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Sarah MacLennan, Town of Tyngsborough Conservation Commission

Dennis McNamara, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife

William Minor, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife

Christine Mizioch, Massachusetts Department of Highways

Susan Oliveira, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Richard Quinn, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Christy Foote-Smith, Massachusetts Wetland Restoration and Banking Program

Douglas Smithwood, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Elaine Stanley, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Thomas Squires, Maine Department of Marine Resources

Mark Tisa, Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife

Town of Dunstable Conservation Commission

Town of Tyngsborough Conservation Commission


Top

Literature Cited

Chan, E. T. Bursztynshky, N. Hantzche, and Y.T. Litwin. 1982. The use of wetlands for water pollution control. U.S. Env. Protection Agency, Municipal Env. Res. Lab., Cincinnati,OH. EPA-600/S2-82-086. 4 pp.

DeGraaf, R.M. and D.D. Rudis. 1983. New England wildlife: habitat, natural history, and distribution. Northeast. For. Exp. Sta., U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-108. 491 pp.

Ebasco Services. 1987. Draft Remedial Investigation, Charles George Landfill Reclamation Trust Site, Tyngsborough, Massachusetts. December, 1987.

Ebasco Services. 1988. Draft Final Remedial Investigation, Charles George Landfill Reclamation Trust Site, Tyngsborough, Massachusetts. December, 1988.

EPA, 1988. Charles George Landfill Reclamation Trust Site Record of Decision.Dated September 29, 1988.

EPA, 1999. Explanation of Significant Difference: Charles George Reclamation Trust Landfill Superfund Site, Tyngsborough, Massachusetts. Dated September 29, 1999.

ERM-New England, Inc. 1994. Draft Burgess Brothers Superfund Site Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis. Prepared on behalf of: Burgess Brothers SteeringCommittee. Dated September 26, 1994.

Holcomb, B.P. 1990. Wetland damages assessment: Charles George Landfill. Prepared for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 5039-3/ENV-4313.

Ingersoll, C.G., P.S. Haverland, E.L. Brunson, T.J. Canfield, F.J. Dwyer, C.E. Henke, N.E. Kemble, D.R. Mount, and R.G. Fox. 1996. Calculation and evaluation of sediment effect concentrations for the amphipod Hyalella azteca and the midge Chironomus riparius. J. Great Lakes Res. 22(3): 602-623.

King, D. and C. Bohlen. 1994. Estimating the costs of restoration. National Wetlands Newsletter. May/June, 1994:3-8.

Long, E.R., L.J. Field, and D.D. MacDonald. 1998. Predicting toxicity in marine sediments with numerical sediment quality guidelines. Environ. Tox. and Chem. 17(4):714-727.

Malecki, R.A., B. Blossey, S.D. Hight, D. Schroeder, L.T. Lok, and J.R. Coulson. 1993.  Biological control of purple loosestrife. BioScience 43(10): 680-686.

Metcalf and Eddy. 1995. Final Report: Five Year Review for Charles George Reclamation Landfill, Tyngsborough, Massachusetts. Prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency.

Tiner, R. 1998. Managing common reed (Phragmites australis) in Massachusetts: An introduction to the species and control techniques. USFWS for the Massachusetts Wetlands Restoration and Banking Program. 49 pp.

Tyning, T. 1990. A guide to amphibians and reptiles. Little, Brown and Co., Boston, MA.400 pp.

USFWS, 1992. Proposed covenant not to sue for Charles George Superfund Site in Tyngsboro, Massachusetts. Dated December 2, 1992.

Veit, R.R. and W.R. Petersen. 1993. Birds of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Audubon Society. 514 pp.


Top

 

Appendix C:
Protocol for Assessing Juvenile Herring Production on the Concord River

Assessment of Juvenile Alewife Production on the Concord River
September, 2000

Overview: In order to determine the success of the transfer operation of adult alewife from the Nemasket River to the Concord River in April of 2000 as semi quantitative assessment of juvenile production will be performed during the middle of September, 2000. During the time period of this study and under the flow conditions experienced this summer, it is likely that many/most juveniles have already successfully migrated from the Concord River watershed. However, mid September is a likely time to encounter school of congregating juveniles in the area above the Billerica Dam. It is thought that this section of the river potentially represents a staging area where juveniles will congregate prior to the higher flows and lower water temperature that will drive them to the ocean later in the month.


Scope: Within the limitations of time, juvenile alewife production will be assessed on the Concord River from the Billerica Dam upstream to the Rt. 4 Bridge.


Sampling Protocol: Sampling will occur using a electrofishing boat along the right (upstream) bank of the river with the right anode of the boat within 10 feet of the river bank. A sample will be defined as a 5 second pulse during which time the observation of 5 or more juveniles will be considered as a positive sample. Approximately, 100 samples will be taken per river mile and the number of positive and negative samples recorded. Overall, approximately 500 samples will be taken in the 4.7 river mile section between the Billerica Dam and the Rt 4. Bridge. Known landmarks, such as bridges, will be used to determine relative positions. X’s and O’s will be used to mark the approximate positions on an enlarged topographic map in which positive (X) and negative (O) samples were recorded. At least 10 nettings during the survey will occur for positive identification and to collect samples for future enumeration.

Concord River Juvenile Herring Assessment
Sample Reach Description and Proposed Sampling Criteria


Sampling Criteria● Boat Speed should be approximately 2.0 mph● whatever the true boat speed, it should be held constant for each sample reach● sampling should occur about ever 53 feet● samples should be for a 5 sec duration

● a positive sample (x) is a sample in which 5 or more juveniles alewife are observed during the 5 minute pulse ( a negative sample is when 4 or less juvenile alewife are observed)



Description of Sampling Reach

(running river miles from Billerica Dam)

Distance

 (River Miles)

# of samples

Elapsed Time (min:sec)

Billerica Dam to Colson St. Bridge (0.00-0.56)

0.56

56

16:48

Colson St. Bridge to Billerica Filtration Plant (0.56-1.18)

0.62

62

18:36

Billerica Filtration Plant to Rt. 3A Bridge (1.18-1.48)

0.30

30

09:00

Rt 3A Bridge to River St Bridge (1.48-2.73)

1.25

125

37:30

River Street Bridge to upstream end of Rt 3 Bridge (2.73-3.50)

0.77

77

23:06

Rt 3 Bridge to Rt 4 Bridge (3.50-4.66)

1.16

116

34.48

Totals

4.66

466

2:19:48

Appendix D:

Written Comments on the Draft Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment

Return to Table of Contents

Previous Section

Prepared by: The Charles George Natural Resources Trustee Council
Issued: September 2002

Contact:
Laura Eaton
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
c/o Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Weir Hill Road
Sudbury, MA 01776
(978) 443-4661 x 17
Last updated: February 13, 2013