Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dredging Disposal Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Concord dredging work group backs bathymetry survey, asks EA for conceptual plan after consultant's 49,500-yard capacity estimate
Summary
At a public meeting, the Town of Concord dredging work group reviewed EA's analysis that estimated roughly 49,500 cubic yards of disposal capacity, discussed topsoil and material-reuse constraints, agreed to seek a professional bathymetry survey and a conceptual plan to support cost estimates, and accepted the Sept. 3 minutes as amended.
The Town of Concord dredging work group on a Zoom call discussed next steps after an EA analysis that "the resulting volumetric capacity of the Northfield is approximately 49,500 cubic yards," reading that finding into the record.
Members spent much of the meeting clarifying the assumptions behind that figure: Delia and others noted EA's graphic assumes an initial 16-inch topsoil removal baseline and does not account for a separate 6-inch topsoil cap some members said would be required for future cropping. Jeff Quick said the project would "need to put a minimum of at least 6 inches of topsoil back on that field because they still do use it," language participants agreed should be reflected in plans and outreach.
The group also discussed whether excavated material from major nearby projects could be reused. Speakers referenced 65,000—5,000 cubic yards of material expected to be removed at the Starmet site and noted both contamination risk and material characteristics could make reuse impractical without further characterization. Paul Bohm and others recommended contacting Bruce Thompson of Demaximus to see whether his team might accept or characterize material for reuse; members agreed outreach to Demaximus is worthwhile but emphasized timing constraints for any transfer.
Members pressed EA and staff for clearer mapping and elevation data. The group asked for contours or a stamped hydrographic/bathymetry survey so that the town and contractors would not be working from inconsistent elevations; Delia said an on-the-water sounding survey with a professional land-surveyor stamp could be done in a few days and likely would be inexpensive relative to construction costs. Several participants said they would prefer to commission that survey before asking contractors for detailed cost estimates, while others suggested issuing an RFI-type cost request based on a conceptual plan similar to the town's dam-removal and cost-estimate process.
Attendees also discussed maintenance and invasive-plant control after dredging. Speakers noted hand-pulling and mechanical approaches are limited for species such as milfoil and water chestnut, and that longer-term management—10 years or more in some cases—would likely be necessary to control seed banks and regrowth.
On administrative items, Paul Bohm moved to accept the Sept. 3 minutes with amendments; the motion was seconded and the minutes were recorded as accepted. The group set a follow-up meeting and agreed to attempt to invite Demaximus and possibly an Army Corps or Milford representative to discuss case studies and long-term outcomes; a date of Oct. 9 at 5:30 p.m. was proposed during the meeting. The chair closed the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Next steps identified by the group include requesting a stamped bathymetry/hydrographic survey, asking EA to prepare a concise conceptual dredge plan (roughly 20—30% level) to support contractor cost estimates or a targeted RFI, and reaching out to Demaximus and Army Corps/Milford contacts for technical Q&A.
