Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Water Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and commission weigh options to ease Greeno Pond flooding as beaver dam changes flows
Summary
Residents upstream of Greeno Pond told the Conservation Commission that a high upper pond and low lower pond — exacerbated by a large beaver dam — are producing localized flooding and complicating invasive‑plant removal. The commission authorized staff to work with volunteers, consult the Board of Health and explore low‑impact fixes such as a bypass siphon or pond‑leveler.
Residents near Greeno Pond urged the Carlisle Conservation Commission to pursue practical, low‑cost fixes after volunteers and staff reported divergent water levels in the upper and lower ponds and a large beaver dam near the old mill site.
Commission volunteer Jonathan described on‑site measurements and a diagram showing a beaver dam more than two feet high at the mill site that is preventing flow into the lower pond. "The lower pond is so low that that you can't get out the water chestnut," he said, explaining that the beaver dam both blocks inflow to the lower pond and contributes to unusually high levels upstream near Maple Street.
Upstream homeowners described standing water in backyards and concerns about water surrounding private wells when the upper pond rises. "We're concerned about the height of that water at Maple Street; when it gets to 3'2" we begin to see standing water in yards," a resident said.
Commissioners and residents discussed possible interventions short of removing the beaver dam (which would require permits and raise habitat concerns). Volunteers and engineers suggested installing a pond‑leveler or buried bypass pipe (a 'beaver deceiver') or a siphon to allow controlled flow, while preserving the beaver structure. Staff noted the site is ecologically sensitive — Blandings turtle habitat was mentioned — and that Board of Health and state permitting would influence the options and timeline.
The commission voted to authorize conservation staff to work with volunteer stewards (Jonathan and Chris), consult with the Board of Health and investigate practical solutions (including permitting requirements) and return recommendations for a future meeting.
Next steps: staff to coordinate site‑work options with volunteers, check regulatory constraints and solicit a professional assessment or design options for a low‑impact bypass/siphon or pond‑leveler; the commission will revisit the issue after the H&H study concludes later in the summer.
