Flood channel project sparks environ. concerns

When Jackie Langlois took one look at the dead beaver lying in the road just a few houses down from hers on Neponset Street late Friday night, she felt a mix of anger and sadness, but most of all she felt defeated.

Having spent the past several weeks attending meetings, writing letters, speaking out and imploring the town of Canton to reconsider its planned maintenance of the “diversion channel” that runs behind her property on the former Plymouth Rubber site, Langlois couldn’t help but feel in that moment that her efforts, and those of fellow neighbor Ann MacAdam, had all been in vain.

A sign touting the future home of the Paul Revere Heritage Site stands in front of the diversion channel on Neponset St.

As she noted in an email to the Citizen earlier this week, “We are two women who care; we tried to get public awareness and support from the town. Unfortunately, the interest is not there. I am afraid it is not much of a story now, and a little too late to make any difference.”

For Langlois and MacAdam, this is the harsh reality now that the Canton DPW has been given the green light to go ahead with its proposed maintenance plan for the diversion channel — a plan that has been mandated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and includes the removal of all trees and vegetation on both sides of the waterway, restoration of the existing riprap (rocky) embankments, and potential dredging of the channel to remove areas of shoaling.

The channel itself, which redirects water from the East Branch of the Neponset River around the southern edge of the Plymouth Rubber property, was originally constructed by the Army Corps in the early 1960s to reduce flooding in Canton Center. However, it was never properly maintained, and Langlois said her fear is that the town, in doing this work, will disrupt and potentially destroy a vibrant yet delicate ecosystem that has developed in the area over the past several decades.

“Snapping and painted turtles, fish, frogs, herons, ducks, and other birds will be negatively affected,” Langlois said. “The turtles use the riverbanks and abutters’ yards to lay their eggs. The exfoliation plan proposed has not done enough to conserve trees, which are necessary to reduce ozone layer [depletion] and will negatively alter the habitat of the animals who live there.”

Yet in seeking permission from the town’s Conservation Commission to perform the requested maintenance, DPW Superintendent Mike Trotta made it clear that this was a “safety project” and one that was largely beyond the town’s control.

“This is what the regulation is, this is what they’re requiring, and that’s what we’re going to do,” he told the ConCom members at a hearing last month.

Trotta said the Army Corps initially issued its order to the town in 2007, and since that time, the corps has decertified the diversion channel from its flood reduction program. “As far as I know, there’s only two in New England that they have decertified — one is in Canton and the other is in Holyoke,” he said.

Jim Turner of Stephens Associates, a consulting engineer hired by the town, explained that the certification is important “so the town has support from the Corps of Engineers in terms of funding” should something happen to the system in the future.

Regarding the removal of vegetation, Trotta said it is essential so that they can “see what [they] actually have to fix.”

“Nobody really knows what we have to fix yet because of the trees and the shrubs and the brush that is there,” he said.

He assured the ConCom and the audience members that the work would be done responsibly and that any wildlife found during the course of maintenance efforts would be safely relocated.

At the same time, Trotta stressed that the Army Corps does not want animals inhabiting the flood reduction system. “Part of the requirements of the Army Corps is that if there’s animal burrows, you have to fill those in. You have to get rid of those animals … and they have to reestablish the riprap. So they don’t want any animals on those banks and on the levee.”

Not everyone felt the issue was quite that black and white, however.

Ian Cooke, executive director of the Neponset River Watershed Association, pointed out how the channel was designed and constructed more than 50 years ago and was done “without any regard whatsoever for modern environmental implications.”

Cooke said there should be a “rethinking about what is the right way to route flow through the site” and believed that it was possible to do a modified version of the maintenance plan that would “accomplish the same goal with less environmental impact.”

“I don’t dispute the goal here of restoring the flood discharge capacity of this channel,” he said. “I guess it’s just not obvious to me that rebuilding it exactly the way it was designed under very different circumstances in the 1960s is either necessary, required, or wise.”

ConCom Chairman Deb Sundin also felt it was important to find some middle ground with the proposed maintenance plan. “I think it is incredibly important that we maintain it and that we make sure that it has as much [flood] capacity as possible,” she said. “However, I also believe that it can be done in a way that at least provides some habitat, certainly not full habitat that it has now, but I have to believe that there’s some in between.”

Ultimately the ConCom voted to issue the necessary permits, but they also imposed conditions on the applicant that were designed to mitigate some of the environmental concerns. Among the list of conditions is a requirement that the channel be inspected for wildlife prior to construction. The conditions also stipulate that the applicant utilize a “New England Conservation/Wildlife” seed mix rather than grass seed in the areas where vegetation is to be removed.

Additionally, the applicant has agreed to seek permission from the Army Corps not to do any dredging, and if the request is denied, then vegetation removal within the channel will consist of clearing only, and “no grubbing of roots will be permitted.”

The ConCom issued its order of conditions on April 14 and work on the project began in earnest on Friday, April 22.

For Langlois, there was a sad irony in the timing of the work as it started on Earth Day — the same day that the beaver was struck and killed on Neponset Street.

Langlois relayed the news in an email to the Citizen on Saturday and also attached photographs of the beaver. “Last night in front of 221 Neponset Street, a large beaver was hit and killed,” she wrote. “This location is close to where this work was being done. I have never seen a beaver in Canton, but here it is. I am so upset with this loss. I am afraid this is just the beginning. We are supposed to be in concert with nature. Earth Day 2016.”

Short URL: https://www.thecantoncitizen.com/?p=33167

Posted by Jay Turner on Apr 28 2016. Filed under News, Town Government. Both comments and pings are currently closed.