[R]UTLAND — The city is moving forward with plans to modify or remove two impoundments on a local waterway amid some neighbors’ opposition to any significant changes.
The Board of Aldermen approved the selection of a Waterbury-based engineering and consulting firm to draft a proposal for changes to Combination Pond and Piedmont Pond.
The city has identified the two impoundments as the leading cause of elevated temperatures in Moon Brook, which winds its way through Rutland before emptying into Otter Creek.
The Agency of Natural Resources has long considered the brook an impaired waterway that does not meet the state’s water quality standards for aquatic biota and fish populations.
The selected firm, Milone & MacBroom, was one of three bidders. The estimated cost for the outreach and research involved in drafting the proposal is $75,010, the middle price of the three proposals considered.
Jeff Wennberg, commissioner of public works, said it will take about a year to complete the process, which includes securing regulatory approvals for the proposed changes. Construction probably would start in 2018.
But two neighbors of Combination Pond have sought to intervene in an agreement between the city and regulators that would give the city more time to address the causes of elevated temperatures in the brook.
“We have not yet had a seat at the table,” said one of those neighbors, Michel Messier, who lives on a steep embankment overlooking the pond.
For years the state and city have disagreed over the causes of Moon Brook’s poor health. The state has charged that the primary factor is stormwater runoff, while the city contends that elevated temperatures are responsible. A third-party report by Kleinschmidt Associates in 2015 found that both contributed to the river’s impaired status. The firm also cited habitat degradation as a factor.
Since then the city and ANR have been working together to resolve the issue.
The Environmental Protection Agency, however, has tried to enforce limits on stormwater runoff that the city argues would require prohibitively expensive infrastructure upgrades. Rutland sued the EPA in 2015, asserting that the agency does not have the authority to regulate stormwater runoff because it is not classified as a pollutant under the Clean Water Act.
Last month the EPA and the city filed a joint motion in U.S. District Court in Burlington seeking a five-year stay in the case to allow the city and ANR to come up with a plan to reduce temperatures in the stream. A hearing on the motion set for Tuesday was postponed due to a scheduling conflict.
The re-engineering of Combination and Piedmont ponds would reduce overall temperatures in Moon Brook, the city argues. However, a group of property owners around Combination Pond is largely opposed to any substantial modifications and says it has been kept in the dark by officials.
Messier said the group, Save Combination Pond, has 40 members.
Messier and his neighbor Erik Bergendahl have filed a motion to intervene in the federal lawsuit and argue that as deeded property owners they should be party to the case.
On Tuesday the city filed a countermotion asserting that Messier and Bergendahl “have no legal basis to intervene.” The lawsuit against the EPA deals only with its authority to regulate stormwater runoff and has nothing to do with the modification of Combination Pond, the city argues. According to the countermotion, the neighbors have “no interest whatsoever” relating to stormwater regulation and “their request to intervene in this case is misguided.”
According to Messier, about 70 deeded property owners have privileged access to the man-made pond.
Messier moved to the neighborhood more than 10 years ago because of the pond and said this year’s annual fishing derby there drew at least 300 people.
The state stocks the pond with rainbow, brook and brown trout for the event. Messier cites the pond’s recreational uses, natural beauty and wildlife habitat — deer, bobcat, bear and moose have been seen near the pond — as reasons it shouldn’t be drained.
Messier and Bergendahl said they were willing to work with the city but hope to see only modest changes. They suggested dredging, riparian modification and planting trees as possible measures to lower water temperatures without substantially altering the pond.
“I would rather not see anything happen to Combination Pond,” said Bergendahl.
Wennberg said one primary reason for selecting Milone & MacBroom is its track record of working with interested parties on similarly controversial projects.
One such project was the removal of a dam on the Batten Kill in Manchester that ultimately led to the drainage of Dufresne Pond. Wennberg said it was determined that the dam was hurting water quality and fish habitat. “Milone & MacBroom was widely recognized as having done a really excellent job of managing and incorporating public input,” Wennberg said.
Last year Milone & MacBroom consulted on a project in Willsboro, New York, that led to the removal of a more than 100-year-old dam on the Boquet River in the center of town. According to Willsboro Town Supervisor Shaun Gillilland, it was a very emotional issue for residents, many of whom wanted to preserve the dam and impoundment above it. “People didn’t want it to go,” he said.
The dam was in bad shape, however, and removing it was seen as having ecological benefits. When Milone & MacBroom began its engineering study, Gillilland said, it was unclear what the outcome would be. “They got some definite salvos right in the face from people not happy with the proposal,” he said.
The firm used simulated photos to show what the flow would look like after the dam was removed.
“I think that really changed the debate,” said Roy Schiff, a water resource scientist and engineer at Milone & MacBroom who will oversee the Rutland project. “People realized the river’s not going to disappear.”
Indeed Gillilland said that despite very low flows this spring and summer due to lack of rain, people have told him they are happy with the outcome.
Schiff said listening to landowners and incorporating their ideas will be key to the project’s success. “People who have lived on the land for a long time have great knowledge of what happens there and can guide design properly,” he said.
However, the firm acknowledged that neighbors may not be satisfied with the outcome and could sue.
Wennberg said communication with residents at Combination and Piedmont ponds has primarily been one way: The city and state have been providing the public with information about what they intend to do with the impoundments.
“There hasn’t been any real credible effort to solicit feedback from the interested parties including neighbors, the Recreation Department, schools and others that are involved and have an interest in these natural systems,” said Wennberg. “That’s the piece that’s been missing.”
Milone & MacBroom will be tasked with engaging the public as it develops a plan to re-engineer the ponds.
Wennberg said a series of public meetings will be held with the engineering firm, the city and a representative of the ANR. There will also be meetings with individual landowners and the Board of Aldermen.
Wennberg said he hopes they’ll come up with a solution that allows for the preservation of Combination Pond. Acknowledging that he’s not an engineer, Wennberg said he thinks there’s “plenty of room for a pond.”
