Further study approved to deal with Buckeye Brook blockages
The Warwick City Council approved on Monday night a $127,000 bid from EA Engineering Science & Tech, of Warwick, to conduct further studies of Buckeye Brook, acquire proper permitting and put a plan in action to counter blockages in the waterway that may be contributing to increased water levels in Warwick Pond.
While a bathymetric study, also conducted by EA, that concluded in November of 2017 was able to ascertain that phragmites – an invasive type of aquatic reed that is notorious for clogging up waterways – and a buildup of sediment is causing an obstruction responsible for an approximately 12-18 inch rise in the water levels in Warwick Pond, City Engineer Eric Earls equated that study to going to the dentist and being told that you have a cavity – there is still work to be done before the situation is resolved.
“Specifically this [bid award] allows them [EA] to put together an official plan on how to remediate the blockage; the obstruction that is currently there as evidenced by their former report,” Earls said on Wednesday. “They will use that plan to go to DEM [The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management] and get a permit to do the work. Once they get that permit they will assist the city with hiring a contractor to do the work identified in the plan.”
As Earls stated above, the actual work that will be done in the brook will be preformed by a separate contractor, which will require a separate RFP to be sent out by the city. EA will help the city choose a contractor and then preside over the work to ensure it is being done to the standards of DEM’s permit and to the specifications of their plan.
Earls said that the construction work, like the study that was approved on Monday night, could be paid for – at least in part – by Community Block Development Grant (CDBG) funds, which were awarded to the city as a result of flood damage from the 2011 flooding and can be used for projects related to flood management. However, those funds can only be used if the project proceeds and is approved within this calendar year.
Prior to the council’s unanimous decision to approve the bid, the topic was held during the March 19 meeting and had featured multiple hours of public discourse – including significant and at times heated exchanges between representatives of Friends of Warwick Ponds Facilitator Philip D’Ercole and Buckeye Brook Coalition president and chairman Michael Zarum, the former of which was strongly advocating for the passage of the study due to their concerns over rising waters threatening their properties around the pond.
However Zarum, an engineer with 40 years of experience who holds a degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering as well as an MBA in Environmental Law and Public Policy at MIT, was not satisfied with the approval of the study.
“I just want to get things done quicker and for less money. That's the bottom line,” Zarum said on Wednesday. “This doesn’t pass my sniff test at all.”
He believes that the cost of the study was higher than necessary, pointing out that there is another method of remediation, applying for a stream restoration project, which could open up various other funding avenues from FEMA and other federal environmental offices.
More importantly, Zarum believes that the city is opening themselves up to potentially higher costs down the line if the study reveals dredging of the brook is required. If that is the case, Zarum says the city is potentially on the hook for many millions of dollars, since he argues there is sufficient reason to assume an area of the watershed will contain polluted soil from the former Truk-Away landfill site, which sits on Rhode Island Airport Corporation (RIAC) property and has been known for many years to have been the site of pollutant dumping, which then leeched into the watershed.
That landfill has since been capped by RIAC and release of liquids has been curtailed by recent total daily maximum load restrictions enacted by DEM, as well as the construction by RIAC of a facility that captures excess de-icing fluid from use on planes and runways during the winter months. However to Zarum, the concern remains.
“All I basically said is you need to get together with your legal department and find out what your legal and financial exposure is here,” Zarum said. “I want them to do what's right so they don't run into problems down the road. If you don't, it will turn into a financial nightmare. What happens if they find out there’s more toxic soil, will they be the ones responsible for pulling all that out?”
Ward 9 Councilman Steve Merolla said that he was not concerned with legal ramifications at this stage in the process.
“All this City Council is doing tonight is approving a study for recommendations,” he said. “No shovels are going into the ground unless they come back to the council and they get approval for that, so I'm not concerned about that legal process yet. I'll reserve my opinion on that.”
Earls said that EA will be taking samples of the waterbed as a part of its planning process, so they will be aware of the presence of contaminated soil prior to the city going out to bid for the contractor to do the physical work removing the blockage in the brook – and he did admit, if contaminated soil was found, it would significantly increase the cost of remediation.
Zarum further argues that, not only should RIAC play more of a role in the remediation of the flooding issue considering their historically negative environmental impact on the watershed, but that the Department of Transportation should also pitch in, because they were listed as the liable party for remediation when assessing the damage caused by the aforementioned Truk-Away site under the standards of the Comprehensive Environmental Liability Act.
According to this legislation, Zarum argues that Section 82-1 of the Act clearly defines that, “Every person owning, controlling or in possession of lands in the city through which or through part of which is a stream, ditch, gully, creek, brook or any natural drain runs shall keep the bed of same free from obstructions…”
Earls responded to the request that RIAC help chip into the remediation by saying they have been cooperative in the process thus far, and seem to be cooperative moving forward.
“RIAC has been aware of this ongoing process and they've acknowledged they're willing to cooperate in providing the city access as necessary and as their rules allow,” he said, although he could not say whether or not they would be willing to contribute financially to the process at this time.
Another criticism levied by Zarum is that the city should go ahead with spraying herbicide to remove the phragmites now, as that permitting process is significantly less stringent than the permit EA would be seeking – which is the most stringent application involving the alteration of a protected wetland. He wants that process to get started right away and begin no later than September, and requested the council amend the bid to include a penalty to be levied against EA if they didn’t get a permit for spraying submitted by June 1.
That amendment was not proposed however, and Zarum is concerned that the full permitting process will take anywhere from 10 months to longer, which would render CDBG funds unusable and would delay the possible spraying of phragmites by another year, since spraying should ideally occur in September.
However Earls said that EA might come back with that very recommendation to begin by spraying to kill the phragmites and then continuing with the more robust “Cadillac” of permits to fully and permanently remove the phragmites through excavation of soil in the waterbed.
“If EA comes back and says we should spray first and then go for the full application, then that’s what we’ll do,” he said. Earls also said he is hopeful that EA can develop their plan and begin the permitting process through DEM in about a month.
“Since they did the preliminary study, they can hit the ground running,” he said. “All the players are familiar and aware of the process. That's how we hope to expedite it.”
Water groups not mixing
Throughout the process discussing this bid, it became clear that there was a rift between the Friends of Warwick Ponds facilitator D’Ercole and Zarum, whose Buckeye Brook Coalition is the official state-designated Local Watershed Council for the Buckeye Brook Watershed. D’Ercole used to be on the board of Buckeye Brook Coalition, but said in a recent email that he left due to “the direction they were pursuing,” referring to their attempts to stop the expansion of T.F. Green.
D’Ercole took his unhappiness with Buckeye Brook a step further following the meeting, saying in the same email that, “By requesting a delay [in this bid] BBC [Buckeye Brook Coalition] did not advocate for the Buckeye Brook Watershed, nor for Warwick Pond, not the residents who are experiencing flooding.”
Merolla urged the two organizations to put aside individual differences to continue advocating for the watershed, as they share the same goal.
“There's not one person in this room that doesn't agree that our goal is to stop flooding at Warwick Pond,” he said. “We have different opinions on how to get there which, in my opinion, is not mutually exclusive. It is not helpful for those in the Buckeye Coalition and those in the Warwick Pond Association to be at odds with one another.”
D’Ercole admitted in his email that this is probably true, but that he would be unable to work together with Zarum and the Buckeye Brook Coalition.
“I agree totally with the concept and if it works would be extremely beneficial to the watershed,” he wrote. “Having said that, my almost 10 year history with the BBC leadership will not allow me to do that. So [as] not to negatively impact the goal of clean Warwick waters, I sadly will step away from my role as facilitator for FOWPS [Friends of Warwick Ponds].
