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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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,
Ebasco Services. 1988. Draft Final Remedial Investigation, Charles George
Landfill Reclamation Trust Site, Tyngsborough, Massachusetts. December,
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
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.
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
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.
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.
Protocol for Assessing Juvenile Herring Production on the Concord River
of Juvenile Alewife Production on the Concord River
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.
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.
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.
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
At least 10 nettings during the survey will occur for positive
identification and to collect samples for future enumeration.
River Juvenile Herring Assessment
Sample Reach Description and Proposed Sampling Criteria
Speed should be approximately 2.0 mph● whatever
the true boat speed, it should be held constant for each sample
should occur about ever 53 feet● samples
should be for a 5 sec duration
positive sample (x) is a sample in which 5 or more juveniles
alewife are observed during the 5 minute pulse ( a negative sample
4 or less juvenile alewife are observed)
of Sampling Reach
river miles from Billerica Dam)
Dam to Colson St. Bridge (0.00-0.56)
St. Bridge to Billerica Filtration Plant (0.56-1.18)
Filtration Plant to Rt. 3A Bridge (1.18-1.48)
3A Bridge to River St Bridge (1.48-2.73)
Street Bridge to upstream end of Rt 3 Bridge (2.73-3.50)
3 Bridge to Rt 4 Bridge (3.50-4.66)
Comments on the Draft Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment