The URL can be used to link to this page

2012 Agendas and Staff Reports Northampton Conservation Commission Agenda 5:00 PM, Thursday January 12, 2012 City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton nd Public Comment Approval of Minutes November 10, 2011 Executive Session December 8, 2011 5:00 PM - Continuation Notice of Intent for dam and dike repair in bank, land under water, bordering land subject to flooding, and riverfront area to the Mill River. Smith College Facilities Management, Paradise Road, Map IDs 31C-15 & 31D-20. DEP File 246-643 The applicant requests a continuation, with no discussion, until January, 26, 2012, at 5:00 PM Review of Memorandum of Understanding with Meadows City Conservation Coalition Request for Certificate of Compliance, Susan Clopton and John Levine. 1157 Florence Road, Map ID 44-86. DEP File Number 246-0640. 5:30 PM Notice of Intent for construction of athletic fields and associated site improvements within buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands, riverfront area (Mill River) and bordering land subject to flooding. Northampton Recreation Department. 157 Spring St, Florence. Map ID 22B-113. 6:00 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether invasive species removal within riverfront area (Beaver Brook), BVW and buffer zone is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Office of Planning and Development, Haydenville Road, Map ID 6-13. Land Acquisition Update Conservation Area Signage Restoration at Conservation Areas Review of Mail Review of Staff-Issued Permits and Sign-offs All other business not foreseen when agenda was published Adjourn To: Conservation Commission From: Sarah LaValley Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF RE: Staff Report, January 12 Commission Meeting Date: January 6, 2012 Request for Certificate of Compliance, Susan Clopton and John Levine. 1157 Florence Road, Map ID 44-86. DEP File Number 246-0640. This project included replacement of a septic system with a municipal sewer connection, regarding to improve drainage, driveway repaving, and plantings; all within the buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands. The Commission issued an Order of Conditions allowing this work in November, 2012. Standard conditions were included, as well as additional conditions to establish a limit of work line, limit pruning within the buffer zone to invasive species, prohibit grass clipping disposal within resource areas and buffer zones, and limit mowing to the existing lawn. Note: An additional rain garden was initially proposed within the Protected Zone, and the project denied under the Ordinance in effect at the time, which allowed very few exceptions to the ‘no encroachment’ standard. The Order was approved under the WPA, since it met the standards applicable under 310 CMR. A revised application was submitted that did not include work within 50 feet of the buffer zone. The Order is an amended Order under the WPA of that denial, and a new Order under the Ordinance. The Certificate will apply to both. Staff Recommendations: The project has been completed substantially as proposed, with minor changes to the entry patio and plantings that do not impact resource areas. The special conditions have been adhered to. A complete certificate can be issued. 5:30 PM Notice of Intent for construction of athletic fields and associated site improvements within buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands, riverfront area (Mill River) and bordering land subject to flooding. Northampton Recreation Department. 157 Spring St, Florence. Map ID 22B-113. DEP File 246-660 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to construct an athletic field complex at the former Bean/Allard farm. Most of the site is within BLSF to the Mill River. Most of the site work will take place only within BLSF, but some of the stormwater work will occur within both riverfront area, buffer zone to BVW, and the Protected Zone established under the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. This work is proposed to include creation of an armored drainage swale and associated clearing and grading, to allow flow to travel to a wetlands area instead of flooding the fields. The project requires a special permit with site plan review from the Planning Board. It is subject to the stormwater standards, and stormwater issues will be addressed during the DPW stormwater permit process. DEP Comments: Note: Please see the January 5 response to staff for detailed applicant responses to questions from staff and DEP [1] The issuing authority shall wait for thirty days from the issuance of this “Notification of Wetlands Protection Act File Number” before it closes the hearing in order to await comments from the Conservation Commission Staff Report 1 January 12, 2011 Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program per 310 CMR 10.59. It shall include in its Order of Conditions any requirements from that agency and shall send them a copy of the Order of Conditions, if so required. If NHESP comments have not been provided by the date of the hearing, staff has requested that the applicant request a continuation. [2] The commission should review Table 4 of the NOI (BLSF calculations) for compliance with the regulations. Additional information has been provided to clarify the method used for calculation of BLSF cuts and fills, to clarify that there is in fact an increase in compensatory flood storage resulting from the proposed work. [3] The NEE report was not correct when it stated that BLSF elevation here is based on engineering calculations. This area is located within a Zone A7, with flood plain elevation found in the Flood Insurance Study (FIS). The elevation found in the study must be used versus the elevation found on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The applicant has clarified that the flood elevation was based on the FIS. [4] The application should provide a written explanation as to how the Mean Annual High Water Line (MAHWL) of the “river” identified in the Notice of Intent, or determined afterwards per 310 CMR 10.58(2)(a)1.a., was established per 310 CMR 10.58(2)(a)2.a. or b. as applicable. Please note that "bankfull field indicators" may place the MAHWL a substantial distance from the apparent bank in rivers in which 310 CMR 10.58(2)(a)2.b applies. On a site with substantial flood plain and BVW extending off the Bank, then 310 CMR 10.58(2)(a)2.b. may apply. The applicant has indicated that the MAHWL was flagged at the first observable break in slope, and that this reach of the Mill River does not include “low gradient, meanders, oxbows, histosols, a low-flow channel, or poorly-defined or nonexistent banks” that would extend bankfull field indicators beyond the break in slope. [5] Alteration of Riverfront Area for the purpose of installing structural stormwater management measures is not exempt from 310 CMR 10.58, and may only be exempt from 310 CMR 10.58(4)(d)1. if the alternatives analysis required at 310 CMR 10.58(4)(c) establishes that the location and amount of disturbance is the only practicable alternative, and that avoidance and minimization of impact have been thoroughly considered. The commission should review the alternatives analysis for compliance with 310 CMR 10.58(4). An alternative to be considered may include reducing the scope of the project so that all stormwater BMP’s are taken out of Riverfront. In the alternative, if degraded area is to be found in the Riverfront, and comply with the definition of degraded as per 310 CMR 10.58(5), (would the farm road qualify?) then the work in the Riverfront could be submitted as a redevelopment project and no alternatives analysis is required. [6] Some of the work appears to be taking place on land that is not owned by the city. Per the regulations, if the applicant and landowner are not the same, an applicant shall obtain written permission from the landowner(s) prior to filing a Notice of Intent for proposed work. Please also review Stormwater Standard 9 regarding ownership and maintenance of the BMP. The commission should note that Stormwater Standard 10 has not yet been met. Written permission from Grow Food Northampton, which owns the other parcel on which work is proposed, has been provided. The stormwater O&M agreement to be approved by the DPW will include provisions for maintenance of the stormwater system. [7] Stormwater BMP’s must be set back from the BVW. A stormwater infiltration basin should not be set in the 10 year flood plain as the BMP’s must be designed to handle the ten year storm. Conservation Commission Staff Report 2 January 12, 2011 [8] Based on test pit data, it is not clear why more infiltration cannot be proposed especially as the site appears to be composed primarily of HSG B soils. The applicant noted that DEP requires a 2-foot separation to groundwater for infiltration, and a two- foot separation does not exist many places on-site. [9] In lieu of an armored swale in the Riverfront, why can’t a grass lined water quality swale that discharges to a rain garden be used? MassDEP will forward to the commission and the consultant guidance for compliance with the stormwater standards. The applicant noted that DEP requires a 2-foot separation to groundwater for raingardens, and a two- foot separation does not exist at this location. [10] The areal extent of work in BLSF needs to be included in the NOI. This was provided: 982,782.37 sf. Consistency with the WPA: The project must comply with the standards for work in BLSF and riverfront area: BLSF: 310CMR 10.57 (4) a requires that Compensatory storage shall be provided for all flood storage volume that will be lost as the result of a proposed project within Bordering Land Subject to Flooding… Compensatory storage shall mean a volume not previously used for flood storage and shall be incrementally equal to the theoretical volume of flood water at each elevation” The project will result in an increase of flood storage capacity of 214,888 cubic feet, including increases at each incremental foot. Riverfront Area: 310 CMR 10.58 (4) requires that “the applicant shall prove by a preponderance of the evidence that there are no practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternatives to the proposed project with less adverse effects on the interests identified in M.G.L. c.131 § 40 and that the work, including proposed mitigation, will have no significant adverse impact on the riverfront area to protect the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131 § 40.” Alternatives: Alternatives are practicable if “it is available and capable of being done after taking into consideration costs, existing technology, proposed use, and logistics, in light of overall project purposes.” The applicant prepared an alternatives analysis that included an overflow into the stormwater system on Meadow Street, and creation of a low spot in the middle of the fields. The stormwater overflow was determined to be infeasible because it would require increasing the capacity of the system on Meadow Street, increasing the pipe size and creating a settling basin within buffer zone. The low spot was determined to be infeasible because the high water table does not permit infiltration, and the water would have to be piped if the fields are to be utilized. The pipe would require a new point- source discharge within the wetlands area. “t 310 CMR 10.58 (4) c 3 notes that he purpose of evaluating project alternatives is to locate activities so that impacts to the riverfront area are avoided to the extent practicable… As much of a project as feasible shall be sited outside the riverfront area. If siting of a project entirely outside the riverfront area is not practicable, the alternatives shall be evaluated to locate the project as far as possible from the river.” The applicant notes that the majority of the project is located outside the RFA. No Significant Adverse Impact: 310 CMR 10.58 (4) d 1 states that the Commission can allow disturbance of up to “10% of the riverfront area within a lot recorded after October 6, 1997, provided that” a)At a minimum, a 100 foot wide area of undisturbed vegetation is provided. b)Stormwater is managed according to standards established by the Department in Conservation Commission Staff Report 3 January 12, 2011 its Stormwater Policy. c)Proposed work does not impair the capacity of the riverfront area to provide important wildlife habitat functions d)Proposed work shall not impair groundwater or surface water quality by incorporating erosion and sedimentation controls and other measures to attenuate nonpoint source pollution. These standards have been met. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The applicant provided additional information regarding compliance with the Wetlands Ordinance performance standards in a January 5 letter to staff. Work is proposed in both the 50-100 foot buffer to wetlands, and the 1-50 foot buffer. The Ordinance, § 337-10 E (1) allows work within the 50-100 foot buffer “when the applicant can demonstrate to the Commission's satisfaction that the proposed work, activity or use will not affect wetland values singularly or cumulatively and, by means of a written and plan view assessment, that reasonable alternatives to the proposed work or activity do not exist.” The applicant indicates that the work will not affect wetland values, as it will create vegetation in an area that has been altered from agricultural use, and will restore natural drainage patterns on the site . The alternatives assessment performed as part of riverfront area documentation indicated that alternatives to move the drainage outside of buffer zones are not feasible. The Ordinance also limits alteration within the 50-100 foot buffer zone to 20% of the area on a lot. The Grow Food Northampton parcel includes additional buffer zone to BVW and bank, so the 20% threshold is not exceeded. The Ordinance, § 337-10 E (2) does not permit work within the Protected Zone, subject to some exceptions. The applicant indicates that creation of the reinforced drainage slope falls under exception (d), as a project that “will improve the natural capacity of a resource area(s) to protect the interests identified in MGL c. 131, § 40” The area where work is proposed, as well as the edge of much of the field, has been used for many years as the dumping area for rocks unearthed during tilling. Rocks were not made into walls, but were piled along the field edge. These piles have had the effect over many years of changing the drainage pattern of the area. Flows currently cannot enter the river, and create flooding that overflows to Meadow Street, entering storm drains there. The Ordinance also requires that “no such project may be permitted which will have any adverse effect on specified wildlife habitat sites of rare vertebrate or invertebrate species as identified by procedures established under 310 CMR 10.59). Comments from NHESP must be incorporated into the Order of Conditions to ensure compliance with this section of the Ordinance. Staff Recommendations: Florence Fields is an extensive project. Much of the development will take place within BLSF, but only a small portion of the stormwater system will occur within the riverfront area; all other development will occur outside additional resource areas or buffers. The project will not reduce flood storage capacity within BLSF. Work to the stormwater system will take place within the Protected Zone, and the applicant indicates that this work should improve both habitat functions and drainage patterns. As a result of past agricultural practices, the area where work is proposed likely contains less habitat value and contributes less to buffer zone functions than would be expected for a RFA buffer zone. While not meeting the criteria for degraded according to the Wetlands Ordinance, the area has been altered from past uses, and drainage to the entire farm field area has been affected as a result. The armored drainage swale will be vegetated when complete. The applicant noted that an option to create a steeper side slope to the overflow area is possible, which would reduce the amount of work within the riverfront area/protected zone. This was not included in the alternatives analysis, and the public hearing should include a discussion with the applicant about this option. Conservation Commission Staff Report 4 January 12, 2011 As proposed, the swale will be constructed up to the edge of the BVW. A possible condition could require shifting the structure ten feet from the edge of the BVW, to reduce the potential for further encroachment and disturbance. The Commission should discuss this with the applicant. Any comments from NHESP should also be incorporated. Additional conditions should include: 34. The edge of the overflow swale shall be shifted to be at least ten feet from the edge of the BVW. 35. Each tree measuring 12 inches dbh removed within the riverfront area as part of the project shall be replaced with a native tree planting elsewhere within the riverfront area on one of the parcels associated with the project. 36. The BVW shall be inspected annually for any evidence of alteration or damage resulting from the overflow swale. 37. The erosion control shown on project plans shall serve as the limit of work line. 38. The BVW near the drainage swale shall be clearly marked to prevent encroachment. Permanent marking shall be established at the time the erosion control is installed. 39. The stormwater O&M agreement shall include provisions for re-planting of the overflow swale as needed. 40. For the first three growing seasons following construction, the area surrounding the overflow swale shall be inspected annually prior to November 1 to ensure that the seed mix is becoming established. All invasive species within this area shall be removed annually during this period. The Commission shall be sent a memo detailing these activities. 6:00 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether invasive species removal within riverfront area (Beaver Brook), BVW and buffer zone is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Office of Planning and Development, Haydenville Road, Map ID 6-13. Staff application, no recommendation. Conservation Commission Staff Report 5 January 12, 2011 Northampton Conservation Commission Agenda 5:00 PM, Thursday January 26, 2012 City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton nd Public Comment Approval of Minutes November 10, 2011 Executive Session December 8, 2011 January 12, 2012 5:00 PM - Continuation Notice of Intent for dam and dike repair in bank, land under water, bordering land subject to flooding, and riverfront area to the Mill River. Smith College Facilities Management, Paradise Road, Map IDs 31C-15 & 31D-20. DEP File 246-643 5:30 PM Notice of Intent for dredging of Lyman Pond, Smith College Facilities Management, Paradise Road, Map ID 31D-08. DEP File 246-661 5:50 - Broad Brook Coalition, Fitzgerald Lake Conservation Area management, vegetation and beavers 6:20 PM - Continuation - Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether invasive species removal within riverfront area (Beaver Brook), BVW and buffer zone is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Office of Planning and Development, Haydenville Road, Map ID 6-13. 6:30 - Continued Discussion – Montview Conservation Area Other Items: Land Acquisition Update Conservation Area Signage Restoration at Conservation Areas Appointment to Community Preservation Committee Review of Mail Review of Staff-Issued Permits and Sign-offs All other business not foreseen when agenda was published Adjourn To: Conservation Commission From: Sarah LaValley Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF RE: Staff Report, January 26 Commission Meeting Date: January 20, 2012 5:00 PM - Continuation Notice of Intent for dam and dike repair in bank, land under water, bordering land subject to flooding, and riverfront area to the Mill River. Smith College Facilities Management, Paradise Road, Map IDs 31C-15 & 31D-20. DEP File 246-643 Application Overview: The project consists of work needed to repair the Paradise Pond Dam. Under the state's dam safety program, the structure is classified as a high-hazard, poor condition dam, and the repairs are required to remain in compliance with that program. As the Commission knows from past Smith projects, the structure includes not just the dam, but also an 800-foot dike along the athletic field side of the Pond. Work includes removing all vegetation along the dike, densification of the embankment, regrading, installing riprap and reinforced turf for erosion protection, repairing scour at the spillway, grouting the soil near the spillway to prevent leaking, repairs to the spillway wall and replacement of the flashboard pins. It will impact bank, land under water, riverfront, and bordering land subject to flooding. In addition to an OOC, the project also required review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, NHESP (conditions required, these must to be added to the Order), a Dam Safety Permit from DCR, a NPDES permit from the EPA, an Army Corps of Engineers Category II permit, and a Water Quality Certification from DEP. DEP Comments: [1] MassDEP recommends that the Northampton Conservation Commission keep the NOI hearing open until the final Certificate of the Secretary has been issued as well as any other state or federal permits have been issued. A certificate was issued on August 20, 2010, that the project complies with MEPA and does not require an Environmental Impact Report. [2] The commission should note that NHESP has required that additional information be submitted to that agency in order to continue their review. The commission cannot issue an order of conditions on the project until the proposed work is in compliance with 310 CMR 10.59. NHESP subsequently issued a determination that the project will not result in a 'take' of endangered species habitat if conditioned. Conditions are included below. [3] If there are any existing still valid Order of Conditions in this area, the boundaries for those resource areas approved by that Order(s) must be used during this NOI review. The commission also needs to ensure that there is no conflict between any existing Order of Conditions for this area and any Order it issues for this project. The resource areas shown match resource areas from other permits. [4] The applicant should consider biostabilization techniques to be used at the site versus rip-rap if possible. In a response letter, the applicant explained that biostabilization would encourage the development of vegetation and animal burrows, and is not consistent with dam safety practces. Instead, a combination Conservation Commission Staff Report 1 January 26, 2012 of riprap and reinforced turf is proposed. [5] The applicant should demonstrate that compensatory flood storage is adequately provided. As originally proposed, the repairs to the dike would have raised the structure above the 100-year floodplain elevation, removing the athletic field from the floodplain. The applicant is in the process of seeking a flood map revision from FEMA in order to pursue the original design. This process is also the reason for the delay between the Notice filing and the Commission's review. An alternate design has been provided that retains the floodplain connection north of the athletic fields. Additionally, the project will now create a net gain in flood storage through a reduction of the amount of fill added to the dike. Consistency with the WPA: Under 310 CMR 10.53(3), “maintenance, repair and improvement (but not substantial enlargement) of dams, reservoirs, and related structures that existed before April 1, 1983” are limited projects. In reviewing limited projects, the Commission must consider “the availability of reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity, the extent to which adverse impacts are minimized, and the extent to which mitigation measures, including replication or restoration, are provided to contribute to the protection of the interests identified” in the Wetlands Protection Act.” The Paradise Pond Dam and its dike are in poor condition, and must either be repaired or removed. While the project creates a significant amount of disturbance within resource areas, they have also been revised significantly from original designs to reduce the levels of disturbance as much as possible, and provide no maintenance areas to compensate for impacts associated with the need to move the boat ramp. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The Ordinance, Section 337-10E, allows alteration within resource areas or their associated protected zones for limited projects. Staff Recommendations: Additional conditions should include: 34. The final plan must specify which individual, by name or position from both the Contractor and College, is responsible for the monitoring and response to any turbidity in the downstream channel. The names of each individual(s) shall be provided to the NHESP in writing prior to the start of work. 35. An Environmental Monitor must be assigned to the project. Site work shall be supervised regularly by an independent Environmental Monitor who shall have significant experience in resource protection and the monitoring and maintenance of erosion and sedimentation controls. The Environmental Monitor will verify the proper locations, installation, and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures and will be responsible for inspecting erosion and sediment control measures regularly during construction. The Environmental Monitor shall have the authority to halt construction if siltation impacts to the river are imminent. All exposed areas shall be adequately stabilized and protected from erosion at the close of each working day. The Environmental Monitor will be responsible for monitoring the turbidity and flow in the downstream channel, maintain a written log of daily values collected prior to and after work, and recording any corrective actions required as a result. A copy of this log shall be provided to the NHESP upon the completion of the project. 36. Monitoring of the downstream turbidity shall be consistent with the “Paradise Pond Management Plan” dated February 2007. Specifically, the “Protocol for Monitoring of Potential Sediment Releases During Sluice Gate Opening Paradise Pond Dam Sluice Gate Opening & Closing” steps 2 and 6 only. 37. Pond drawdown must begin no earlier than October 1. Complete refill of the Pond must be complete by January 31. 38. Pond refill must be consistent with the Eutrophication & Aquatic Plant Management guidance document 39. Prior to any work on the project, the applicant must provide a revised stamped planset. Conservation Commission Staff Report 2 January 26, 2012 40. Fencing or another appropriate barrier must be provided surrounding the ‘no maintenance’ areas until vegetation is established. Commission approval must be provided prior to removal. 41. The hydraulic connection between the athletic fields and the Pond must be permanently maintained at 143 feet or below. 5:30 PM Notice of Intent for dredging of Lyman Pond, Smith College Facilities Management, Paradise Road, Map ID 31D-08. DEP File 246-661 Application Overview: The project includes mechanical dredging of Lyman Pond of approximately 160 cubic yards of sediment, replacement of a concrete walkway, creation of a viewing platform, and re-routing of roof drains into the Pond. Lyman Pond is a man-made, lined pond that is connected to Paradise Pond by a pipe. The work will impact land under water, bank, BVW, and buffer zone. DEP Comments: [1] LUWW is also being impacted. Though not a pond, based on the definition, it still has LUWW per 310 CMR 10.56(2)(c). The application noted that the Pond is too small to contain land under water. It is not, and the Commission can include this resource in its Order. [2] The commission should review the use of the wooden box cover. It is that standpipe that provides the jurisdiction under the Wetlands Protection Act. [3] Please review the section of the NOI called Increased Water Contribution. The NOI calls the additional water “stormwater” and a new point source discharge to the impoundment is proposed therefore it appears to be subject to the Stormwater Standards. The proposed 4 inch pipe cannot be placed in the water or in a resource area but must be set back. Please see 310 CMR 10.05(6)(k). Treatment should be provided and a stormwater report submitted. The commission should also review if there are any other point sources or non-point sources that may contribute to sediment buildup. The stormwater standards do not allow most resource areas to be altered or filled for the detention of stormwater, and requires that runoff from all projects subject to the WPA include BMP measures to protect resource areas. The project does not create any new development. It proposes to re-route existing sources, which already drain to Paradise Pond, to Lyman Pond, which also receives stormwater, and is also connected to Paradise Pond by a pipe. Re-routing stormwater is not proposed as any sort of treatment measure. The addition of the roof drain system is not seem to qualify as a new discharge, since it will connect to a pipe that already discharges to the Pond, instead of flowing overland into a catchbasin. The addition of the new pipe to re-route already piped water into Lyman Pond will create a new point source into the Pond, but will not change overall drainage, and will allow additional utilization of water that would otherwise flow directly into Paradise Pond and the Mill River. The applicant is preparing additional information regarding stormwater applicability and compliance that can be incorporated into the Order. [4] The Commission should review the Aquatic Plant Management in Lakes and Ponds as it relates to the WPA guidance document. The Commission should review Section IV of that document where it discusses the information required for all projects. Several of the items in the document apply to larger ponds and lakes that have overland connections to additional resources. Other items can be addressed in the suggested conditions. Consistency with the WPA: BVW: BVW will be impacted by invasive species removal and pond drawdown. This work is temporary, and the BVW will be reestablished in accordance with 310 CMR 10.55(4). Bank: Conservation Commission Staff Report 3 January 26, 2012 The project will temporarily impact 219 lf of bank from both the dredging operation and, as proposed, 10 lf from addition of the Goshen stone viewing platform. The temporary impacts will comply with 310 CMR 10.54(a), as described on page 14 of the NOI. This will be offset by addition of native plantings and creation of new bank. Land Under Water The dredging should not impair the functions highlighted in 310 CMR 10.56 (4), and dredging to address eutrophication should be an improvement. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The Ordinance, Section 337-10E(2), notes that “The Commission shall not permit alteration within resource areas or their associated protected zones, subject to the following exceptions.” The exceptions dealing with land under water, projects in infill areas (10 feet in the URC zone when mitigation is provided), projects that improve the natural capacity of a resource area, and walking and multiuse trails designed for nonmotorized use. All appear applicable to various portions of the project If the Commission does not agree that the project will improve the resource area, a condition can be included to move the viewing platform 10 feet from the bank. The replacement of the concrete walk will occur entirely within the footprint of the existing walk, and falls under exception (h), for protected zones already degraded or developed. Staff Recommendations: Additional conditions should include: 34. Prior to any work on the project, the applicant must provide a copy of the 401 WQC to the Commission. 36. Dredging must take place between September and February. 37. Goshen stones must be placed at least six inches apart to allow infiltration 6:20 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether invasive species removal within riverfront area (Beaver Brook), BVW and buffer zone is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Office of Planning and Development, Haydenville Road, Map ID 6-13. Staff application, no recommendation. 6:30 PM – Continued discussion, Montview Conservation Area Background: The Montview Conservation Area is a 3.2 acre parcel that was acquired by the Commission in 2000. It includes a wetlands area to the west, a soccer field adjacent to Montview Avenue, and an open field to the rear Initially planned to have a CR held by a third party, the CR did not move forward at the time of acquisition since a holder could not be found. In 2005, the Commission licensed the field area to be utilized as an organic farm. At that time, the Commission required that the farmers enter into a neighborhood agreement regarding land uses and handling of disputes. This license expired in 2008, but continued to be used by the previous licesees. The neighborhood became concerned about future land use in 2011, when it became clear that a new license was needed. Staff suggested that the neighborhood, instead of providing the Commission input regarding possible farmers, enter into an agreement with the Commission to select a farmer themselves, utilizing an open RFP process to provide additional responsibility and oversight for those living near the area. Concerns have been expressed that this process is not the best solution for future land uses. Currently, the license is expired, and a new license or agreement is needed for any use of the land. Conservation Commission Staff Report 4 January 26, 2012 TO: Northampton Conservation Commission FROM: Wayne Feiden, FAICP, Director of Planning and Development RE: Montview section, Meadows Conservation Area DATE: January 24, 2012 Staff has been exploring options for managing the Montview section, Meadows Conservation Area. We have identified what we think is a better and more permanent direction. Preservation History The land was donated to the City as part of a property owner/neighborhood/city agreement to permanently preserve this land to serve neighborhood needs, preserve wetlands, and allow farming. It was our intention, with neighborhood support, to grant a Conservation Restriction (CR) on the land to provide 1) an extra preservation guarantee and 2) create a mechanism for ongoing neighborhood participation. We structured the deal so that we could do that and obtained the necessary legal permissions and structures to allow us to donate this CR. Unfortunately, we could not find a non-profit at the time that was willing to hold the Conservation Restriction, and so we were forced to pass the property to the Conservation Commission without a Conservation Restriction. Based on a 1973 ruling of the Attorney General, it was our understanding the Article 97 to the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution would prohibit transferring any Conservation Restriction, which is an interest in property, after we purchased the land:. all all {Article 97} “applies to land, easements, and interests.. Article 97 applies to transfers of land, easements, or interests…Article 97 applies whether or not the new use is the same or different and whether the purpose is consistent or inconsistent…’disposition’ includes any change of legal or physical control, including but not limited to …granting … of easements.” (1973 Opinion of the Attorney General as summarized in “Public Land Law”, Nancy Kaplan, IN Massachusetts Environmental Law, 1993.) As a result of the Community Preservation Act, which requires Conservation Restrictions on all land purchased with CPA funds, this issue has come up many times around the state, especially in the last two years. In reviewing the issue recently, the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs has advised that when land is purchased with a clear intention to reserve the rights to transfer out interests or easements or restrictions in the future, Article 97 does not prohibit the transfer of a Conservation Restriction after the fact. This creates an opportunity that did not exist as little as two years ago. Recommendations 1.Grant a Conservation Restriction at this time Given that it was the clear intention of the City (as documented in the City Council Resolution recorded with our initial purchase of the land), staff recommends granting a Conservation Restriction at this time on the property. 2.Grant the CR to a non-profit who will not require city stewardship funding The Conservation Restriction can be granted to any non-profit with a clear authority to accept the CR and the ability to monitor it. Most non-profits, however, charge a hefty stewardship to cover their costs of monitoring a CR in the future. We don’t have the resources for this. Staff recommends granting the CR to a non-profit who will not charge the City a stewardship fee. 3.Grant the CR to a non-profit that shows sufficient capacity to monitor the CR To ensure that the non-profit actually has the ability to monitor the CR in the future, the granting organization should be one who has the financial resources (e.g. stewardship fund made up of non-city contributions) or evidence of community and neighborhood support that will allow them to monitor the CR even with limited resources. 4.Include maintenance obligations in the CR A CR can be passive, that is it only gives the holder the right to enforce restrictions against the city. A CR can also include some active grants, that is it gives the holder the right to maintain the property to ensure that the restrictions are followed. Most of our CRs are in that passive category (e.g., CRs we hold in Westhampton, on Coles Meadow Road and elsewhere), but we do have two that have more active management. At the Northampton State Hospital, we hold a CR that gives us certain management rights along the Mill River and on the drumlin. Likewise, we have granted a CR to MassAudubon that gives them some responsibilities for the section of the Meadows Conservation Area that abuts Arcadia Wildlife Sanctuary. In the case of Montview, the land is so small that it would be useful to have a CR holder who is actually responsible for maintaining the property and enforcing provisions of the CR. For example, the last license holder and Montview made some permanent improvements in a possible license violation that they are now obligated to use their escrow deposit to fix. It is in the city’s interests to have a CR holder who has these obligations. 5.Include on-going neighborhood consultation with the CR Neighborhood empowerment was one of the objectives of the originally planned CR and is the best mechanism to empower neighborhoods, a model that the Conservation Commission has used with Broad Brook Coalition, the Leeds Civic Association, and other management partners at other conservation areas. 6.Grant the CR to the Meadows City Conservation Coalition The MCCC is the only non-profit who has expressed a willingness to accept a CR and these attendant responsibilities and neighborhood empowerment and to not charge a stewardship fee. Staff recommends granting the CR to them. 7.Move forward on a farm license only after granting the CR The farmland can go fallow for one year (with volunteers doing maintenance). As we work out CR language, we can determine if the responsibility for licensing farmland should remain in the City or, as we do with MassAudubon, be transferred to the CR holder. Northampton Conservation Commission Agenda 5:00 PM, Thursday March 8, 2012 City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton nd Public Comment Approval of Minutes January 12, 2012 January 26, 2012 5:00 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether installation of a scoreboard is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Smith College Facilities Management, 137 West Street (Smith Athletic Fields), Parcel 31D-020 The applicant has requested that this Request be continued until April 12, 2012, at 5:00 PM 5:05P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether installation of a water main is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. MassDOT District 2 Headquarters, 811 North King Street, Parcel 008-011 Request for Certificate of Compliance, Hampshire Hospitality Group. Atwood Drive, Parcel ID 39- 060. DEP File 246-468 Request for Certificate of Compliance, Bruce Shallcross/Hampshire Hampden Franklin Agricultural Society. Fair Street, Parcel IDs 25C-251, 25C-264, 32-001, 32A-249, 32A-251. DEP File 246-635 Executive Session to consider the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property Enforcement Order – Ellington Road Land Acquisition Update CPA Application Update Conservation Area Signage Restoration at Conservation Areas Appointment to Community Preservation Committee 6:15 P.M. – Discussion of Montview Conservation Restriction Review of Mail Review of Staff-Issued Permits and Sign-offs All other business not foreseen when agenda was published Adjourn To: Conservation Commission From: Sarah LaValley Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF RE: Staff Report, March 8 Commission Meeting Date: February 17, 2012 5:00 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether installation of a scoreboard is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Smith College Facilities Management, 137 West Street (Smith Athletic Fields), Parcel 31D-020 Application Overview: The Commission issued an Order of Conditions in 2010 for construction of synthetic turf athletic fields within the riverfront area and buffer zone. Proposed plans involve installation of a scoreboard within a TRG pathway at the fields, within the RFA, and approximately 90 feet from the Mill River bank. Work will include excavation of a 6’ by 5’ trench, and installation of the scoreboard post in a concrete footing. Consistency with the WPA: The work will take place within both the RFA, and buffer zone to bank. Any activity that will ‘remove dredge fill or alter’ the riverfront requires a Notice of Intent. The scoreboard is proposed to be installed in an area that is currently gravel, and does not appear to constitute an alteration. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The Ordinance does not allow work within the 50-foot protected zone to wetlands. This work is nearly outside the buffer zone. The work proposed should also not increase the amount of disturbed area on the parcel, since it will occur within a TRG area. The concrete base area should not change existing characteristics; packed soil from use as an active athletic field. Staff Recommendations: The project as proposed does not seem to constitute an alteration, as defined in either the WPA or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. If the Commission agrees, a negative determination can be issued by checking box 2, that the work is within an area subject to protection, but will not remove dredge, fill or alter that area. Standard conditions should be added, but staff suggests that no erosion control be required due to the topography of the site. Two additional conditions are suggested: Before any work on the scoreboard project, the site must be in compliance with the existing Order of Conditions. (The restoration area was disturbed during clean-up of the October snowstorm.) All excavated material must be deposited outside of all resource areas. Conservation Commission Staff Report 1 February 23, 2012 5:20 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether installation of water main is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. MassDOT District 2 Headquarters, 811 North King Street, Parcel 008-011 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to install a 6” water main along the MassDOT entrance driveway, within riverfront area and buffer zone. The project is part of a city-wide effort to reduce energy use, and will allow conversion from oil and propane to natural gas. The pipe will be installed in a 6” wide, 4-5’ deep trench, with excavated material temporarily placed alongside the trench, also within the driveway. Material will be placed back in the trench when work is complete. If groundwater is found it will be pumped to an upland sediment basin. Consistency with the WPA: The applicant indicated that the work is exempt as any maintenance to a driveway existing within the RFA existing prior to the rivers protection act. The work does not seem to qualify for this exemption, since the water line installation is distinct from work to the driveway, but as proposed it also should not create any alteration to the RFA or other resource areas. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: MassDOT is not subject to the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Staff Recommendations: The project as proposed does not seem to constitute an alteration, as the pipeline is being installed in areas that are degraded from existing pavement and structures.. If the Commission agrees, a negative determination can be issued by checking box 2, that the work is within an area subject to protection, but will not remove dredge, fill or alter that area. Staff suggests that work occur when groundwater tables are typically lower. Standard conditions should be added, with an additional condition to require for catchbasin protection as described in the application. Non-Permit Items: Montview Conservation Restriction Following the discussion at the January 26 meeting, staff prepared a draft CR. The details of the CR still need to be reviewed and adjusted, but the draft document. The Commission should review the overall intent and language contained in the draft, and if comfortable with the CR as the next step, approve the CR, with the understanding that staff will work with MCCC on the final details. Conservation Commission Staff Report 2 February 23, 2012 Northampton Conservation Commission Agenda 5:00 PM, Thursday March 22, 2012 City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton nd Public Comment Approval of Minutes March 8, 2012 Land Acquisition Discussion 5:20 P.M. – Continued Discussion of Montview Conservation Area Agriculture Review of Mail Review of Staff-Issued Permits All other business not foreseen when agenda was published Adjourn To: Conservation Commission From: Sarah LaValley Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF RE: Staff Report, March 22 Commission Meeting Date: March 21, 2012 Continued Discussion of Montview Conservation Area Agriculture Summary of ConsCom Action/Discussion to date: Staff began working with the neighborhood, in the form of the Meadows City Conservation Coalition (MCCC) in fall 2011, on the future of the agricultural portion of the Montview area, following the expiration of the current group’s license to farm. As originally proposed, the Commission and MCCC would enter into an MOU, which would assign the responsibility of selecting and working with a farmer to the MCCC. Following a meeting where concerns were discussed about the MOU process, the Commission agreed to pursue the placement of a Conservation Restriction (CR) on the property, to be held by MCCC. A CR would provide an extra preservation guarantee and also create a permanent mechanism for ongoing neighborhood participation. A CR was always part of the vision for Montview, but the City could not find a non-profit at the time that was willing to hold the Conservation Restriction, and so the land was passed to the Conservation Commission without a Conservation Restriction. At the March 7 meeting, MCCC told the Commission that the group is not yet ready to accept the CR. At the March 7 meeting, MCCC the Commission voted to:  Obtain a draft RFP for agricultural use of the property from MCCC  Review the RFP at the March 22 meeting and release for responses  Issue the RFP following the meeting, receive responses, select a farmer, and enter into a license  Continue to work on the CR with MCCC during the license period MCCC provided a draft RFP that included guidelines for use of the property, and also included MCCC in a monitoring role. Staff Recommendation: The RFP as written includes detailed guidelines for both farming of the property and working with the neighborhood. It would provide a solid foundation for a future license, if MCCC and the Commission entered into an MOU or other arrangement to Without a formal agreement with MCCC through either an affirmative CR or other formal agreement, the Commission would need to assume the responsibilities provided to MCCC in the RFP document. This could again place the Commission in a mediation role between the neighborhood and a farmer, could require a great deal of time an effort, and would steer away from the neighborhood involvement envisioned when the land was acquired. With the growing season approaching, staff recommends that the Commission take several steps: 1)Authorize staff to enter into a license, reduced in scope from the full MCCC vision, with a farmer to plant a cover crop and mow for the 2012-2014 seasons. This will ensure that woody vegetation does not become established, keeping future options for the area open, prevent erosion, and prevent invasive species from taking hold. A shorter term than three years will likely not be possible without significant time and expense to the Commission. Conservation Commission Staff Report 1 March 22, 2012 2)During the three-year cover cropping period, continue to work with MCCC towards the ultimate goal of a CR. This process should include a discussion of the continued role of agriculture on the Montview parcel. 3)Only AFTER a CR is exectuted, reopen the discussion of how best to craft a Memorandum of Understanding to empower the neighborhood to manage the conservation area on a day-to- day basis. Conservation Commission Staff Report 2 March 22, 2012 Northampton Conservation Commission Agenda 5:00 PM, Thursday April 12, 2012 City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton nd Public Comment Approval of Minutes March 8, 2012 March 22, 2012 5:00 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether installation of a scoreboard is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Smith College Facilities Management, 137 West Street (Smith Athletic Fields), Parcel 31D-020 5:15 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether installation of a pond leveler pipe in a beaver dam, and removal of cattails are subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Broad Brook Coalition, North Farms Road (Fitzgerald Lake), Parcel 7-35 5:40 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether construction of a sidewalk within floodplain is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Northampton Office of Planning and Development, Bridge Street (Sheldon Field), Parcel 25C-84 Request for Certificate of Compliance, Bruce Shallcross/Hampshire Hampden Franklin Agricultural Society. Fair Street, Parcel IDs 25C-251, 25C-264, 32-001, 32A-249, 32A-251. DEP File 246-635 Ellington Road Enforcement Order Update Montview Conservation Area Update Review of Mail Review of Staff-Issued Permits All other business not foreseen when agenda was published Adjourn To: Conservation Commission From: Sarah LaValley Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF RE: Staff Report, April 12 Commission Meeting Date: April 6, 2012 5:00 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether installation of a scoreboard is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Smith College Facilities Management, 137 West Street (Smith Athletic Fields), Parcel 31D-020 Application Overview: The Commission issued an Order of Conditions in 2010 for construction of synthetic turf athletic fields within the riverfront area and buffer zone. Proposed plans involve installation of a scoreboard within a TRG pathway at the fields, within the RFA, and approximately 90 feet from the Mill River bank. Work will include excavation of a 6’ by 5’ trench, and installation of the scoreboard post in a concrete footing. Consistency with the WPA: The work will take place within both the RFA, and buffer zone to bank. Any activity that will ‘remove dredge fill or alter’ the riverfront requires a Notice of Intent. The scoreboard is proposed to be installed in an area that is currently gravel, and does not appear to constitute an alteration. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The Ordinance does not allow work within the 50-foot protected zone to wetlands. This work is nearly outside the buffer zone. The work proposed should also not increase the amount of disturbed area on the parcel, since it will occur within a TRG area. The concrete base area should not change existing characteristics; packed soil from use as an active athletic field. Staff Recommendations: The project as proposed does not seem to constitute an alteration, as defined in either the WPA or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. If the Commission agrees, a negative determination can be issued by checking box 2, that the work is within an area subject to protection, but will not remove dredge, fill or alter that area. Standard conditions should be added, but staff suggests that no erosion control be required due to the topography of the site. Two additional conditions are suggested: Before any work on the scoreboard project, the site must be in compliance with the existing Order of Conditions. (The restoration area was disturbed during clean-up of the October snowstorm.) All excavated material must be deposited outside of all resource areas. Conservation Commission Staff Report 1 April 12, 2012 5:15 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether installation of a pond leveler pipe in a beaver dam, and removal of cattails are subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Broad Brook Coalition, North Farms Road (Fitzgerald Lake), Parcel 7-35 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to install a pond leveler pipe within a beaver dam near the North Farms Road entrance to Fitzgerald Lake, as well as clear cattails by hand from the end of the dock leading into the Lake. The leveler pipe is proposed to reduce the water level in that area of the Lake, where it is fed by Broad Brook, by 12-18” to reduce deterioration to the boardwalk by a feeder stream that has been re-routed. The beaver activity does not appear at this point to meet the criteria required for a declaration of a threat to public health or safety, so an emergency certification was not requested. Staff Recommendations: Staff-assisted application, no specific recommendations. If the Commission c0ncludes that the work will not alter a resource area, a negative determination should be issued by checking box 2 to indicate that the work is within an area subject to protection, but will not remove dredge, fill or alter that area. If the Commission decides that one or both of the activities proposed will alter a wetlands resource area, a positive determination should be issued by checking box 3, that the work proposed is an alteration, and a Notice of Intent is required. 5:40 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether construction of a sidewalk within floodplain is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Northampton Office of Planning and Development, Bridge Street (Sheldon Field), Parcel 25C-84 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to construct an at-grade sidewalk at Sheldon Field. The walk is proposed within Sheldon Field instead of the right of way to allow room for future stormwater improvements along Old Ferry Road. The area is within the 100-year floodplain to the Connecticut River, but no other resource areas. Staff Recommendations: Staff-assisted application, no specific recommendations. If the Commission c0ncludes that the work will not alter a resource area, a negative determination should be issued by checking box 2 to indicate that the work is within an area subject to protection, but will not remove dredge, fill or alter that area. If the Commission decides that the sidewalk is an alteration to BLSF, a positive determination should be issued by checking box 3, that the work proposed is an alteration, and a Notice of Intent is required. Request for Certificate of Compliance, Bruce Shallcross/Hampshire Hampden Franklin Agricultural Society. Fair Street, Parcel IDs 25C-251, 25C-264, 32-001, 32A-249, 32A-251. DEP File 246-635 The Commission issued an Order of Conditions in 2010 for construction of three barns and associated stormwater improvements. The Order included additional work to be done following this phase of development, but work beyond phase 1 was not completed. Special Conditions included requirements for flood elevation certificates, compensatory flood storage, stormwater pollution prevention, grading a portion of the site to prevent water from the site from pooling on neighboring properties directing roof runoff from the barns directly into underground structures to prevent contamination, and specifics for O&M to keep the stormwater system functioning properly. While the work appears to have been completed primarily as designed, ConsCom and DPW staff are working through some final questions with the applicant’s engineer, including details on plan changes, O&M details, and final grading and surfacing. If these issues have been addressed by April 12, a complete certificate with ongoing conditions as required in the Order can be issued. Conservation Commission Staff Report 2 April 12, 2012 Northampton Conservation Commission Agenda 5:00 PM, Thursday May 24, 2012 City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton nd Public Comment Welcome New Commissioner Approval of Minutes April 12, 2012 5:05 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether driveway paving is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. William Yenner, 119 Turkey Hill Road, Parcel 34-024 Montview Conservation Area Update APR Application, Fair Street Extension Open Space Acquisition Update Review of Mail Review of Staff-Issued Permits All other business not foreseen when agenda was published Adjourn To: Conservation Commission From: Sarah LaValley Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF RE: Staff Report, May 24 Commission Meeting Date: May 18, 2012 5:05 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether driveway paving is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. William Yenner, 119 Turkey Hill Road, Parcel 34-024 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to pave an existing gravel driveway. The driveway is located within the 200’ riverfront area to Parsons Brook, as well as buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetland. The driveway is separated from resource areas by a common driveway. It was constructed in 1993. Paving will be limited to existing gravel areas. Consistency with the WPA and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: Gravel has an infiltration rate so low that it is considered to be an impervious surface. Paving this area does not appear to ‘remove, dredge, fill or alter’ resource areas, or change existing conditions. Staff Recommendations: A negative determination can be issued by checking box 2 to indicate that the area is subject to the WPA, but will not alter an area subject to protection. APR Application, Fair Street Extension APR is “ a voluntary program which is intended to offer a non-development alternative to farmers and other owners of "prime" and "state important" agricultural land who are faced with a decision regarding future use and disposition of their farms. Towards this end, the program offers to pay farmland owners the difference between the "fair market value" and the "agricultural value" of their farmland in exchange for a permanent deed restriction which precludes any use of the property that will have a negative impact on its agricultural viability.” Conservation Commissions, as the primary local group responsible for open space planning, are asked to provide input on APR applications. The Commission received an application for an Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR) for an 8-acre parcel at 141 Fair Street Extension. This parcel, just east of 91, is within Northampton’s Meadows. Protection of farmland and open space in the Meadows is identified as a priority in the Open Space, Recreation and Multi Use-Trail Plan. Staff suggests that the Commission support the APR application, committing to a 20% contribution (the minimum allowed), allowing the City to be a co-holder, As this parcel is located within the Special Conservancy district, the total cost is anticipated to be quite low. Conservation Commission Staff Report 1 May 24, 2011 Northampton Conservation Commission Agenda 5:00 PM, Thursday June 14, 2012 City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton nd Public Comment Approval of Minutes May 24, 2012 5:05 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether installation of ground mounted solar panels is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Ronald Grise, 88 Austin Circle, Parcel 29-345 5:20 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether resource area boundaries are accurately delineated in accordance with MDAR Pesticide Board Regulations for use of herbicides in right of way maintenance. Pan Am Railway Rights of Way in Northampton 5:40 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether construction of screened porch and deck is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Rena Johnston, 87 Rick Drive, Parcel 12C-112 6:00 P.M Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether invasive species removal, debris removal, and filling foundation holes is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Northampton Office of Planning & Development, Main Street, Leeds, Parcel 10D-048 Meadows Conservation Area - Montview Section conclusion (5 minutes each) Conservation Restriction Memorandum of understanding Management of property over next year Review of Mail Review of Staff-Issued Permits All other business not foreseen when agenda was published Adjourn To: Conservation Commission From: Sarah LaValley Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF RE: Staff Report, June 12 Commission Meeting Date: June 8, 2012 5:05 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether installation of ground mounted solar panels is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Ronald Grise, 88 Austin Circle, Parcel 29-345 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to install a 40’ by 19’ ground-mounted solar array on 8 posts, approximately 20 feet from the bank of an intermittent stream, in an area that is currently mown lawn Consistency with the WPA and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The panels will be placed on posts driven into the ground, and will sit several feet above groundlevel, still allowing vegetation growth. Installation of the array as proposed does not appear to ‘remove, dredge, fill or alter’ resource areas, or change existing conditions. Staff Recommendations: If the Commission agrees that the work will not alter the resource area, a negative determination can be issued by checking box 2 to indicate that the area is subject to the WPA, but will not alter an area subject to protection. A condition can be added to require that the area underneath the panels remain vegetated. 5:20 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether resource area boundaries are accurately delineated in accordance with MDAR Pesticide Board Regulations for use of herbicides in right of way maintenance. Pan Am Railway Rights of Way in Northampton Application Overview: The request is submitted in accordance with 333 CMR 11, which concerns applications of pesticides within right of way. The Commission is asked to confirm the boundaries of the no-spray zones. Herbicide application itself is done under a Yearly Operational Plan, which is currently under a public comment period. The spray zones indicated are the same as those previously approved by the Commission. ‘No spray zones’ are defined in the regulations as areas within the right of way (ROW) and: (a) any Zone I; (b) 100 feet of any Class A Surface Water Source; (c) 100 feet of any tributary or associated surface water body where the tributary or associated surface water body runs within 400 feet of a Class A surface water source; (d) ten feet of any tributary or associated surface water body where the tributary or associated surface water body is at a distance greater than 400 feet from a Class A surface water source; (e) a lateral distance of 100 feet for 400 feet upstream, on both sides of the river, of a Class B Drinking Water Intake; (f) 50 feet of any identified Private Well; Conservation Commission Staff Report 1 June 14, 2012 (g) ten feet of any Wetlands or Water Over Wetlands; (h) ten feet of the mean annual high-water line of any river; and (i) ten feet of any Certified Vernal Pool. Staff Recommendations: Commission staff and Commissioner Steve Sauter confirmed that markings are painted as described, and also visited the Oxbow area to inves With the addition of the no-spray zone shown on the revised sheet, the areas appear to comply with the regulations. There are additional areas where the right of way boundary is within 10 feet of a resource area, but these boundaries are well beyond the area of the tracks and no spraying will occur here. A determination to confirm resource area boundaries under 333CMR11 only can be issued. If possible, staff would recommend a YOP to include pre-emergent spraying that would subsequently eliminate the use of heavy-metal based, non-discriminatory foliar sprays that are currently used, but that is not within the Commission’s jurisdiction. 5:40 P.M. Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether construction of screened porch and deck is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Rena Johnston, 87 Rick Drive, Parcel 12C-112 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to construct a 12’x15’ screened porch with roof, and 9’x12’ deck without roof to the rear of an existing house. Both are proposed to be above-grade, constructed on sonotubes. The deck area is currently a wooden at-grade patio, and the porch area is lawn. The house is located approximately 50 feet from A BVW associated with a stream feeding Fitzgerald Lake. Consistency with the WPA The WPA, 310 CMR 10.02(2)b, considers conversion of lawn to ‘accessory residential’ a minor activity for which an NOI is required if it is “50 feet from the mean annual high-water line within the riverfront area or from bordering vegetated wetland, whichever is farther.” That exception would not apply here, so an NOI will be required on any portion of the proposed work that the Commission determines is an alteration. (Alteration includes, but is not limited to, changing of pre-existing drainage characteristics, and flood patterns, lowering of water level, and destruction of vegetation.) Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The Ordinance does not contain any exemptions for residential work, so the only way this work can be allowed with an RDA is if the Commission finds that it will not alter the BVW. The Ordinance’s definition in 337-3 includes “Removal, excavation or dredging of soil, sand, gravel, clay, minerals, or aggregate ‐ materials of any kind, changing of preexisting drainage characteristics, flushing characteristics, sedimentation patterns, flow patterns, or floodretention characteristics, drainage or other disturbance of water level or water table, placing of fill, or removal of material, which would alter elevation, driving of piles, erection or repair of buildings, or structures of any kind, and others’ Staff Recommendations: Converting the railroad tie patio to an above grade deck does not seem to constitute an alteration under either the WPA or local Ordinance. While not a reduction in impervious surface, removing these will allow for potential infiltration under the deck, possible vegetation growth, and should be an improvement. Construction of the roofed porch seems more likely to create an alteration by potentially changing flow patterns, changing water temperature, and addition of impervious surface. The Commission should issue a negative determination for any portion of the work that it finds is not an alteration, by checking box 2 to indicate that the area is subject to the WPA, but will not alter an area subject to protection. Standard conditions can be added. Any remaining portion of the work should be issued a positive determination by checking box 3. A description of the alteration and the work should be included. Conservation Commission Staff Report 2 June 14, 2011 6:00 P.M Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether invasive species removal, debris removal, and filling foundation holes is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Northampton Office of Planning & Development, Main Street, Leeds, Parcel 10D-048 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to remove invasives species, remove pipes, a vehicle, and other large debris, and fill in a large concrete vault associated with a former silk mill complex. All activities will be conducted in Mill River RFA, as well as buffer zone to bank and BVW. Staff Recommendations: Staff-assisted application, no specific recommendations. If the Commission c0ncludes that the work will not alter a resource area, a negative determination should be issued by checking box 2 to indicate that the work is within an area subject to protection, but will not remove dredge, fill or alter that area. If the Commission decides that any of the activities proposed will alter a wetlands resource area, a positive determination should be issued by checking box 3, that the work proposed is an alteration, and a Notice of Intent is required. Meadows Conservation Area - Montview Section conclusion Summary/Recommendations moving forward Conservation Restriction The parcel was intended to have a Conservation Restriction held by a third party, to create an extra level of preservation, as well as neighborhood participation. A third party could not be found, and a CR was not able to be placed on the land. MCCC indicated at the March 8 meeting that the group wanted to hold off on a CR at that time. Land owned by the Conservation Commission is already protected open space, but the Commission should move forward with a CR when possible, in accordance with that original intent. A draft document was created, with BBC as the intended holder. It established prohibited and allowed acts, including ‘standard’ items, as well as specific provisions. These included maintenance of existing storm sewers, and a consideration requiring approval of neighbors within 200 feet for ‘public recreational uses such as tot lots and playgrounds.’ Recommendation – Continue to pursue a CR, to include the same general language. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) In late 2011, the Commission was prepared to enter into an MOU with MCCC that would have allowed MCCC to select a farmer for the property, to then be issued a license. Following discussions about several meetings where strong opposition to this method were expressed, the Commission decided first not to pursue this method. The Commission later recommended a ‘narrow’ MOU with MCCC that would create a working relationship, and more clearly define activities allowed by MCCC. This potential scope has become so narrow that an MOU may no longer be an appropriate document to reflect the items on which the Commission seeks to agree. The Commission’s MOU with Broad Brook Coalition is based on a master/management plan developed by BBC, and approved by the Commission. Creation of a long-term plan would allow the Commission to identify activities, taken from the Plan, allowed with no prior approval, not allowed, and allowed with notification. Recommendation – MCCC should create a master/management plan on which to base an MOU to include maintenance and management tasks. Much of the work for such a plan seems to have already been done. While this creates additional work for MCCC, it seems like the best dialog to achieve a fresh start and build consensus. Management of property over next year Following several visits to the property, Downey Meyer developed a management plan (attached) that identified different areas of the property and suggestions for management of each. The Commission has Conservation Commission Staff Report 3 June 14, 2011 already agreed that these are good options, for at least the interim while more formal plans are being created. Recommendation - The Commission should elaborate on these items, amend as needed, and vote to use this document as the plan going forward, until an MOU is executed. Staff will use the document to allow volunteer work on the parcel as requested, referring any unclear items to the Commission or a designated member. Conservation Commission Staff Report 4 June 14, 2011 Northampton Conservation Area Montview Conservation Area - Management Survey May 24,2012 Soccer Field (A)  Current conditions - mown  Management - continuing mowing Wet Meadow (B)  Current conditions - mown area, wet part of year  Management - assess vegetation during summer, mow based on vegetation Abandoned Annual Beds (C)  Current conditions - previously annual beds, some wood chip paths  Management - seed with cover crop, remove wood chips where necessary, mow to control woody vegetation Forest Garden (D)  Current conditions - forest garden, mix of perennial species  Management A - remove perennials, manage with mowing to control woody vegetation  Management B - identify perennials to retain, mulch around retained perennials, weed and prune as necessary Wetland and Protected Zone (E)  Current conditions - wetland, some areas of alteration (mown paths, foot bridge, debris), sorve young and mature trees, sumac spreading across portions of site, limited areas of invasive species growth (Celastrus orbiculatus, Rosa multiflora)  Management - remove existing bridge, other management consistent with WPA and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance (including foot paths around resource area) Outer Buffer (F)  Current conditions - woody debris, scattered shrubs, some young and mature trees, limited areas of invasive species growth  Management - Invasives removal, native plantings possible Northampton Conservation Commission Agenda 5:00 PM, Thursday June 28, 2012 City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton nd Public Comment Approval of Minutes May 24, 2012 June 14, 2012 5:05 P.M Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether installation of fiber- optic cable in conduit is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. MassBroadband Institute, City rights-of-way along Hatfield Road and Old Damon Road. 5:20 P.M Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether activities associated with decommissioning of a leachate treatment system is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Northampton DPW, 170 Glendale Road (City Landfill), Parcel 42-089 Conservation Area Sign Standards Generic Permit for Conservation Area Work Review of Mail Review of Staff-Issued Permits All other business not foreseen when agenda was published Adjourn To: Conservation Commission From: Sarah LaValley Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF RE: Staff Report, June 28 Commission Meeting Date: June 22, 2012 5:05 P.M Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether installation of fiber-optic cable in conduit is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. MassBroadband Institute, City rights-of-way along Hatfield Road and Old Damon Road. Application Overview: The applicant proposes to install fiberoptic cable within conduit trenches. At Hatfield Road, the trench will be within the paved roadway. The applicant has indicated that this work will take place within buffer zone, approximately 40 feet from BVW. At the Coolidge Bridge, a trench will be dug alongside the roadway, just outside paved areas. This location is within riverfront area, and buffer zone to bank. Project length is estimated at two days. Consistency with the WPA and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The work proposed should not alter the BVW, per the definition of alter contained in the WPA and Ordinance, as all work will take place within roadway and disturbed areas. Staff Recommendations: If the Commission agrees that the work will not alter the resource area, a negative determination can be issued by checking box 2 to indicate that the area is subject to the WPA, but the work will not alter an area subject to protection. Silt fence is not recommended due to existing grades and distances from resources. A condition can be added that the Commission must be notified at least 48-hours prior to work, as well as when work has been completed. The applicant must note that Old Damon Road is not a Northampton right-of-way, and is a state park owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Appropriate permissions and easements must be secured before work is conducted, and the Department of Conservation and Recreation will be sent a copy of the Commission’s Determination. 5:20 P.M Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether activities associated with decommissioning of a leachate treatment system is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Northampton DPW, 170 Glendale Road (City Landfill), Parcel 42-089 Application Overview: Water passing through a landfill (leachate) has potential to be exposed to waste products that could result in contamination and changes in pH. Leachate is often collected in lined collection lagoons, where it settles, is tested for contaminants, and treated as needed. Northampton’s leachate facility was constructed in 1990, at the same time as the lined portion of the landfill. The facility has not been used for the past decade; leachate from the lined part of the landfill does not meet thresholds requiring this type of treatment. The applicant proposes to remove the lagoon and liner, associated outlets, pumps, fuel storage and electrical infrastructure, and abandonment of a well. The work area includes RFA to Hannum Brook, and buffer zone to BVW. The area will be graded to promote infiltration. The leachate building, and gravel Conservation Commission Staff Report 1 June 28, 2012 access road will remain. Silt fence is proposed along the top of the slope along an existing chain link fence. Consistency with the WPA . The application states that the work should be exempt under 310CMR 10.02(2)(b)(1) as a ‘conversion of impervious to vegetated surfaces.’ Additionally, the work proposed does not seem to constitute an ‘alteration’ as defined in the wetlands regulations. ‐ Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: ‐‐ Section 337-4 (F) of the Wetlands Ordinance states that “Those jurisdiction (§ 3372), performance standards (§ 33710) and definition (§ 3373) requirements that are over and above state law shall not apply to City of Northampton municipal landfills.” Staff Recommendations: Work is proposed to take place entirely within disturbed areas, and will restore some of the site to a less degraded condition. The Commission should issue a negative determination checking box 2 to indicate that the area is subject to the WPA, but the work proposed will not alter an area subject to protection. Standard conditions can be added. Conservation Commission Staff Report 2 June 28, 2012 Northampton Conservation Commission Agenda 5:00 PM, Thursday July 12, 2012 City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton nd Public Comment 5:05 P.M Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether asphalt paving of an grass-paved parking area is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. GE Healthcare, 22 Industrial Drive East, Parcel 19-12 5:20 P.M Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether parking area enlargement and construction of a dropoff lane and arrival plaza are subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Northampton Montessori Society, 51 Bates Street, Parcel 25A-046 Management Plan for Meadows Conservation Area, Montview Section, Meadows City Conservation Coalition Fairgrounds Order Clarification – Request from Abutter Review of Mail Review of Staff-Issued Permits All other business not foreseen when agenda was published Adjourn To: Conservation Commission From: Sarah LaValley Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF RE: Staff Report, July 12 Commission Meeting Date: July 6, 2012 5:05 P.M Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether asphalt paving of an grass-paved parking area is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. GE Healthcare, 22 Industrial Drive East, Parcel 19-12 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to pave an area that is currently used for parking. Nineteen parking spaces were added as part of an expansion of the facility in 2007. An Order of Conditions was issued for this work, followed by a Certificate of Compliance in 2010. The project included several low-impact development (LID) stormwater features, including pervious grass pavers. The grass pavers have not held up well, and this area is proposed to be paved. The parking area is separated from BVW by a concrete retaining wall and turf drainage swale. Consistency with the WPA: The area where the paving is proposed was a permitted wetlands/BVW alteration. The area was proposed to be grass-paved as a supplemental LID measure, but this was not required to meet the stormwater standards, and was not included in area calculations for mitigation. In stormwater calculations, the area was represented as impervious, and paving this area will not represent a change. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The paving proposed will take place within just a few feet of wetlands. However, the initial alteration was allowed under an Order of Conditions issued by the Commission. It was not included in calculations for any required mitigation. Paving this area will not represent a change in existing conditions if runoff is directed through the wetlands armor turf swale. Staff Recommendations: If the Commission agrees that the work will not alter the resource area, a negative determination can be issued by checking box 3 to indicate that the area is within the buffer zone and subject to the WPA, but the work will not alter an area subject to protection. A condition should be added that the area to be paved is limited to the ‘porous parking area’ shown on project plans. While the grass-paved area was also plowed, the paved surface will make plowing easier. Dumping of snow over the retaining wall could create potential for alteration. A condition requiring winter signage designating snow storage areas is recommended. Conditions requiring that the Commission be notified 48-hours prior to work and when work is complete are also suggested. Silt fencing and other standard conditions are not recommended due to the size and layout of the site. 5:20 P.M Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether parking area enlargement and construction of a dropoff lane and arrival plaza are subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Northampton Montessori Society, 51 Bates Street, Parcel 25A-046 Conservation Commission Staff Report 1 July 12, 2012 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to expand a parking area, remove a driveway, and create a new arrival plaza. The exact details of the work were not provided, but work is confined to the 50-100 buffer zone. Consistency with the WPA The wetland is isolated, and is not jurisdictional under the WPA. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: 337-10 B waives ‘all of the Section 337-10 performance standards that are over and above state law with the exception of the setback requirements in the Protected Zone Table.’ In the GI zone, the protected zone is established as wetlands and an area extending 10 feet, when ‘development includes mitigation measures that will improve the existing conditions of the wetlands or adjacent upland.’ Mitigation is not proposed, but work is proposed 60+ feet from the wetlands. Staff Recommendations: Work is proposed to take place entirely within a generally disturbed area. There are some grassed areas where work is proposed within the buffer zone, but these are separated from the wetland by a parking lot. While exact project details were not provided, the work should not constitute an alteration if the amount of pervious area within the buffer zone does not increase. The Commission should check box 6 to indicate that the work is not subject to the WPA, and issue a negative determination by checking box 3 to indicate that the area is within the buffer zone to IVW, but the work proposed will not alter an area subject to protection. A condition requiring that the Commission be provided with a final project plans demonstrating that the pervious area within the buffer zone will not decrease from existing conditions is recommended. Conservation Commission Staff Report 2 July 12, 2012 Northampton Conservation Commission Agenda 5:00 PM, Thursday August 9, 2012 City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton nd General Public Comment Approval of Minutes June 28, 2012 July 12, 2012 5:05 P.M. Continuation: Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether asphalt paving of an grass-paved parking area is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. GE Healthcare, 22 Industrial Drive East, Parcel 19-12 5:15 P.M Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether garage demolition, construction of a deck and shed, and driveway paving are subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Mary Glazewski, 503 Mount Tom Road, Parcel 46-58 5:30 P.M Notice of Intent for construction of a multi-use trail within riverfront area (Mill River) and bordering land subject to flooding. Northampton Recreation Department. Meadow Street Right- of-Way 5:50 P.M Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether installation of pedestrian boardwalks is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Friends of Mineral Hills, Turkey Hill/Sylvester Roads (Mineral Hills Conservation Area), Parcel 34-002 6:05 P.M Request for Determination of Applicability by MassDOT District 2 to determine whether work associated with resurfacing of I-91 NB and SB is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. Overview of Norwottuck Trail Project – MassDOT Proposed Septic Work, 502 Haydenville Road Executive Session under MGL C 30A §21(6) to 'Consider the Purchase, Exchange, Lease or Value of Real Property' for interests in conservation lands Review of Mail Review of Staff-Issued Permits All other business not foreseen when agenda was published Adjourn To: Conservation Commission From: Sarah LaValley Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF RE: Staff Report, August 9 Commission Meeting Date: August 3, 2012 5:05 P.M Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether asphalt paving of an grass-paved parking area is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. GE Healthcare, 22 Industrial Drive East, Parcel 19-12 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to pave an area that is currently used for parking. Nineteen parking spaces were added as part of an expansion of the facility in 2007. An Order of Conditions was issued for this work, followed by a Certificate of Compliance in 2010. The project included several low-impact development (LID) stormwater features, including pervious grass pavers. These were not specifically required in the Order, but were part of overall project plans. The grass pavers have not held up well, and this area is proposed to be paved. The parking area is separated from BVW by a concrete retaining wall and turf drainage swale. Consistency with the WPA: The area where the paving is proposed was a permitted wetlands/BVW alteration. The area was proposed to be grass-paved as a supplemental LID measure, but this was not required to meet the stormwater standards, and was not included in area calculations for mitigation. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The paving proposed will take place within just a few feet of wetlands. However, the initial alteration was allowed under an Order of Conditions issued by the Commission. It was not included in calculations for any required mitigation. Paving this area will not represent a change in existing conditions if runoff is directed through the wetlands armor turf swale. Staff Recommendations: At the July meeting, the Commission requested additional information demonstrating that the paver area was note required. Maps included in the original stormwater report provided by the applicant represent the area as pavement. If the Commission agrees that the work will not alter the resource area, a negative determination can be issued by checking box 3 to indicate that the area is within the buffer zone and subject to the WPA, but the work will not alter an area subject to protection. A condition should be added that the area to be paved is limited to the ‘porous parking area’ shown on project plans. While the grass-paved area was also plowed, the paved surface will make plowing easier. Dumping of snow over the retaining wall could create potential for alteration. A condition requiring winter signage designating snow storage areas is recommended. Conditions requiring that the Commission be notified 48-hours prior to work and when work is complete are also suggested. Silt fencing and other standard conditions are not recommended due to the size and layout of the site. 5:15 P.M Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether garage demolition, construction of a deck and shed, and driveway paving are subject to the Conservation Commission Staff Report 1 August 9, 2012 Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Mary Glazewski, 503 Mount Tom Road, Parcel 46-58 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to construct a 12x16’ shed on a gravel bed approximately 190’ from mean annual high water of the Oxbow. Additional activities proposed in the application were already permitted in 2008, extended through 8/11/13 by the Permit Extension Act of 2009, which staff and the applicant did not realize at the time of filing. That Order also allowed raising of the house and subsequent filling of the basement, and confirmed boundaries of the riverfront area. Consistency with the WPA Bordering Land Subject to Flooding 310 CMR 10.57 (4) requires that: Compensatory storage shall be provided for all flood storage volume that will be lost as the result of a proposed project within Bordering Land Subject to Flooding, when in the judgment of the issuing authority said loss will cause an increase or will contribute incrementally to an increase in the horizontal extent and level of flood waters during peak flows. The Commission can determine that a small structure designed to be flow-through as required by building code will not increase flood waters. Riverfront Area Under 310 CMR 10.02 (2)b, ‘The conversion of lawn to uses accessory to residential structures such as decks, sheds, patios, and pools,’ is exempt as a minor activity, ‘provided the activity is located more than 50 feet from the mean annual high-water line within the riverfront area or from bordering vegetated wetland, whichever is farther, and erosion and sedimentation controls are implemented during construction.’ Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The Ordinance does not contain additional standards applicable to this project, work is proposed outside buffer zone to bank. Staff Recommendations: A negative determination should be issued by checking box 2 to indicate that the work is within an area subject to protection, but will not remove dredge, fill or alter that area. The exemption noted above can be listed. 5:30 P.M Notice of Intent for construction of a multi-use trail within riverfront area (Mill River) and bordering land subject to flooding. Northampton Recreation Department. Meadow Street Right-of-Way The project involves construction of a multi-use path/sidewalk on the southern side of Meadow Street from the crossing at the edge of Florence Fields, east to Corticelli Street. The project is proposed to alter 2079 sf in the 100 foot RFA, and 3635 sf in the 100-200 foot RFA. It will also alter 5408 sf of BLSF, and work will come within 25 feet of bank. It also takes place within priority habitat; NHESP has issued a ‘no- take’ decision. All work will take place within the City right-of-way. Consistency with the WPA: Bordering Land Subject to Flooding 310 CMR 10.57 (4) requires that: Compensatory storage shall be provided for all flood storage volume that will be lost as the result of a proposed project within Bordering Land Subject to Flooding, when in the judgment of the issuing authority said loss will cause an increase or will contribute incrementally to an increase in the horizontal extent and level of flood waters during peak flows. Compensatory storage shall mean a volume not previously used for flood storage and shall be incrementally equal to the theoretical volume of flood water at each elevation, up to and including the 100-year flood elevation Conservation Commission Staff Report 2 August 9, 2012 A table is provided within the NOI that provides a detailed assessment of foot-for-foot flood storage calculations, using some of the excess capacity from the field construction, and the work as proposed meets the requirements. Riverfront 3310 CMR 10.53 allows the Commission to issue an Order for ‘construction… of footpaths and bikepaths… along riverfront areas provided that adverse impacts from the work are minimized and that the design specifications are commensurate with the projected use and are compatible with the character of the riverfront area.’ The project as proposed meets this standard by limiting disturbance to the ROW, being designed for the anticipated level of use, and limiting disturbance within the inner riparian area by getting closer to the paved street. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The Ordinance does not allow alteration within resource areas or their protected zones, subject to exceptions. This qualifies for an exception under 337-10 E(2) c, ‘walking and multi-use trails designed for nonmotorized use.’ The limitation on cumulative alteration within a parcel does not apply as this project takes places within ROW. Staff Recommendations: Staff visited the site and did not have concerns with accuracy of resource area boundaries as shown. The NOI states that the detention basin near the River ‘supports wetland vegetation, but was not delineated as a BVW. It is man-made, stone-lined, and subject to periodic maintenance.’ Staff recommends that the Order of Conditions include a finding that the absence of a BVW is not confirmed in this area. Case law exists that indicates stormwater structures in certain circumstances can be jurisdictional resource areas, and determining whether this area is jurisdictional under either the WPA or local Ordinance would require a great deal more information that is not relevant to this project. No alteration of the area is proposed, and the trail work in proximity should not create an alteration as proposed. An Order of Conditions can be issued to include standard conditions 1-33. Additional conditions are suggested to protect resource areas and enhance project benefits: 34. Snow shall not be placed in resource areas, their buffer zones, or the detention basin as shown on project plans. 35. Knotweed plants and roots must be removed and properly disposed of off-site prior to installation of the path. 36. The project area shall be inspected annually in early spring for knotweed re-occurrence. If knotweed is evident, the area shall be treated by mowing twice monthly, covering, or another method approved by the Commission. A request for certificate of compliance shall include documentation that knotweed has been eradicated, or that the site has been treated for three growing seasons. 37. A revised flood storage table for the entire Florence Fields project shall be submitted as soon as construction is complete. 5:50 P.M Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether installation of pedestrian boardwalks is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Friends of Mineral Hills, Turkey Hill/Sylvester Roads (Mineral Hills Conservation Area), Parcel 34-002 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to install pedestrian boardwalks in wet trail areas within the Mineral Hills Conservation Area trail network, to prevent the creation of side trails and increase accessibility. Staff-assisted application, no specific recommendations. If the Commission c0ncludes that the work will not alter a resource area, a negative determination should be issued by checking box 2 to indicate that the work is within an area subject to protection, but will not remove dredge, fill or alter that area. Any conditions necessary to ensure an alteration will not take place can be added. If the Commission decides that any of the activities proposed will alter a wetlands resource Conservation Commission Staff Report 3 August 9, 2012 area, a positive determination should be issued by checking box 3, that the work proposed is an alteration, and a Notice of Intent is required. 6:05 P.M Request for Determination of Applicability by MassDOT District 2 to determine whether work associated with resurfacing of I-91 NB and SB is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. Application Overview: The applicant proposes to resurface I-91 northbound and southbound; milling pavement and resurfacing, installing catchbasin grates and pavement markers. Consistency with the WPA The work appears exempt under 310 CMR 10.58(6)(a) as a road maintenance project as noted in the application, and should also not constitute an alteration as proposed, as work is limited to the existing highway. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: MassDOT projects are exempt from local wetlands ordinances. Staff Recommendations: A negative determination can be issued by checking box 2 to indicate that the work is within an area subject to protection, but will not remove dredge, fill or alter that area. Proposed Septic Work, 502 Haydenville Road An Order of Conditions was issued in 2008 (extended by the Permit Extension Act to 10/27/2013) for rebuilding of a barn within the buffer zone to a pond. Septic work within the buffer zone and connection to the barn/addition is now proposed, that was not shown on original plans. The Commission could allow the work as a modification under the existing permit, or require additional permitting. Conservation Commission Staff Report 4 August 9, 2012 Northampton Conservation Commission Agenda 5:00 PM, Thursday September 13, 2012 City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton nd General Public Comment Approval of Minutes August 9, 2012 5:05 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether construction of a garage and addition is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Evan & Kristen Benjamin, 113 Vernon Street, Parcel 31A-312 5:20 PM Notice of Intent for construction of an addition within bordering land subject to flooding. Jain Lattes & Douglas Thayer, 45 Spring Street, Parcel 22B-058. DEP File #: 246-0664 5:40 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether construction of a shed and chicken coop is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Peter Sohriakoff, 51 Woodmont Road, Parcel 24D-096 Welcome New Commissioner Elect Vice-Chair Review of Northampton Standard Wetlands Permit Conditions Discussion of Possible Compensatory Flood Storage Minimum Threshold Develop Training and Workshop Needs List Review of Mail Review of Staff-Issued Permits All other business not foreseen when agenda was published Adjourn To: Conservation Commission From: Sarah LaValley Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF RE: Staff Report, September 13 Commission Meeting Date: September 10, 2012 5:05 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether construction of a garage and addition is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Evan & Kristen Benjamin, 113 Vernon Street, Parcel 31A-312 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to construct an addition, garage, sidewalk, stone wall, and other site improvements. The parcel abuts the State Hospital Agricultural land, which slopes down steeply at the property line. The ag land includes the Mill River, BVW and floodplain, but the property does not contain any resource areas. The project also requires a finding from the Zoning Board as an expansion of a pre- existing non-conforming structure. Consistency with the WPA: The work area is just outside riverfront area, but within the outer limits of buffer zone to a BVW on the adjacent property. The project should not alter the BVW as proposed. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The project is outside the Protected Zone established in the Ordinance, and should not constitute an alteration as proposed. Staff Recommendations: If the Commission agrees that the work will not alter the resource area, a negative determination can be issued by checking box 3 to indicate that the area is within the buffer zone and subject to the WPA, but the work will not alter an area subject to protection. Standard conditions can be added, with a notation that silt fence shall be installed five feet from the rear property boundary. 5:20 PM Notice of Intent for construction of an addition within bordering land subject to flooding. Jain Lattes & Douglas Thayer, 45 Spring Street, Parcel 22B-058. DEP File #: 246- 0664 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to construct an addition on piers to meet building code for work in floodplain areas. A special permit from the Planning Board is also required. The only resource area involved in BLSF. Consistency with the WPA Bordering Land Subject to Flooding 310 CMR 10.57 (4) requires that: Compensatory storage shall be provided for all flood storage volume that will be lost as the result of a proposed project within Bordering Land Subject to Flooding, when in the judgment of the issuing authority said loss will cause an increase or will contribute incrementally to an increase in the horizontal extent and level of flood waters during peak flows. Conservation Commission Staff Report 1 September 13, 2012 While compensatory flood storage could be required, the Commission can determine that the small decrease in flood storage will not increase floodwaters. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The only other specific Ordinance requirement is the prohibition of storage of materials within 40 feet of BLSF, which is addressed in standard conditions. Staff Recommendations: Issue an Order of Conditions with standard conditions, an additional ongoing condition that any addition of fill to the property will require review by the Conservation Commission, and no requirement for an as- built plan. The Order should include a finding that the decrease in flood storage capacity proposed will not cause an increase or contribute incrementally to an increase in the horizontal extent and level of flood waters during peak flows. 5:40 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether construction of a shed and chicken coop is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Peter Sohriakoff, 51 Woodmont Road, Parcel 24D-096 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to construct a 10x10’ shed, with attached 5x5’ chicken coop, in an area that is currently maintained lawn. Wetland boundaries as shown on project plans are approximate, as they were obtained from a wetlands permit that has expired, but were confirmed by the Commission at that time. Work is proposed within riverfront area to a perennial stream, and buffer zone to BVW. Consistency with the WPA: Under 310 CMR 10.02(2)b e, addition of a shed is a minor activity, and does not require the filing of an NOI: The conversion of lawn to uses accessory to residential structures such as decks, sheds, patios, and pools, provided the activity is located more than 50 feet from the mean annual high-water line within the riverfront area or from bordering vegetated wetland, whichever is farther, and erosion and sedimentation controls are implemented during construction. The shed is proposed to be constructed approximately 60 feet from any resource areas. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The shed is proposed in an area that is currently maintained lawn, outside the Protected Zone. While it will represent an increase in impervious surface, the current conditions do not contribute to the resources on site. Staff Recommendations: A negative determination can be issued by checking box 2 to indicate that the area is subject to the WPA, but will not alter an area subject to protection. Conditions should state that the Commission must be notified at least 48 hours prior to the start of work, and again when work is completed. Erosion control does not seem necessary due to the limited amount of disturbance proposed and flat site topography. Review of Northampton Standard Wetlands Permit Conditions In addition to The Commission has standard conditions that are issued (as appropriate and applicable) for Determinations and Orders of Conditions. These have not been reviewed in several years. Please review the standard conditions for Determinations (attachment) and think about whether any amendments or updates are needed. Discussion of Possible Compensatory Flood Storage Minimum Threshold The Wetlands Protection Act requires that ‘Compensatory storage shall be provided for all flood storage volume that will be lost as the result of a proposed project within Bordering Land Subject to Flooding, when in the judgment of the issuing authority said loss will cause an increase or will contribute incrementally to an increase in the horizontal extent and level of flood waters during peak flows.’ Conservation Commission Staff Report 2 September 13, 2012 Currently, all projects proposing a decrease in flood storage must be reviewed by the Conservation Commission, regardless of the size of the alteration. Staff suggests that the Commission determine a small de minimis amount of flood storage loss that in the Commission’s judgment will not contribute to an increase in the extent or level of flooding. If work is proposed that is below this threshold, and is not within any other resource areas or buffers, Commission review will not be required. Develop Training and Workshop Needs List Please think about any trainings or presentations topics that would be useful. Topics can be related to permitting, land protection, general government, long-term planning, or any other topic that might be helpful for Commissioners. Conservation Commission Staff Report 3 September 13, 2012 “ATTACHMENT A” 1.Prior to the initiation of any work, the applicant/owner shall submit a letter of understanding to the Commission stating that he/she has received, read, understands and shall comply with these conditions. The applicant, and, his or her contractor, foreman and/or construction manager shall sign the letter of understanding. 2.Prior to the initiation of any work, the applicant shall submit to the Commission a sequencing plan for construction, and erosion and sedimentation control installation. 3.Prior to the start of any site work, excavation or construction, a pre-construction conference shall be held on the site, between the contractor conducting the work, the site/project engineer, the applicant, and a member or agent of the Conservation Commission, in order to ensure that the requirements of this Determination are understood by all parties. Prior to the pre-construction meeting, all erosion control devices must be installed. 4.All required permits must be obtained from applicable federal, state and local agencies and departments prior to the start of any project. 5.A copy of these conditions and associated plans shall remain on site during all construction and/or building activities. The project manager and all equipment operators shall be This familiar with the approved plans, and shall be informed of their location on the site. location shall be accessible to all contractors whenever work is occurring on site. 6.All revised plans shall be approved by the Conservation Commission and incorporated into the permit by reference and shall be followed during the course of construction. 7.The areas of construction shall remain in a stable condition at the close of each construction day. Erosion control measures shall be inspected at this time, and maintained or reinforced as necessary. All such devices shall be inspected, cleaned or replaced during construction and shall remain in place until such time as stabilization of all areas that may impact resource areas is permanent. These devices shall also be inspected to assure that the maximum control has been provided. Any entrapped silt shall be removed to an area outside the buffer zone and resource areas, and maintained or reinforced as necessary. Erosion controls shall be inspected after every rainfall to assure that maximum control has been provided. 8.An adequate stockpile of erosion control materials shall be on site at all times for emergency or routine replacement and shall include materials to repair or replace silt fences, straw bales, erosion control blankets, riprap, filter berms or other devices planned for use during construction. 9.Soils exposed for periods greater than two months shall be stabilized with erosion control blankets and netting, a covering of straw mulch, or a temporary cover of rye or other grass to prevent erosion and sedimentation. Drainage ditches shall be stabilized and seeded with a native perennial grass mixture. Any stabilization materials such as jute netting shall be firmly anchored to prevent them from being washed from slopes by rain or flooding. Preference should be given to biodegradable materials. 10.All disturbed areas shall be graded, loamed and seeded, or stabilized with erosion control blankets or netting, and a covering of straw mulch prior to November 30, of each year. No disturbed areas or stockpiled materials will be left unprotected or without erosion control after this date. 11.No disposal of soils or other materials shall be allowed within: a 100-year floodplain; 40 feet of the 100-year floodplain elevation; any wetland; or any area within 100-feet of a wetland, unless such areas are specifically approved by the Commission, in accordance with 310 CMR 10.00, and City of Northampton Ordinances - Chapter 337. Northampton Conservation Commission Agenda 5:00 PM, Thursday October 11, 2012 City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton nd General Public Comment Approval of Minutes August 9, 2012 September 13, 2012 5:05 PM Notice of Intent under the Wetlands Protection Act and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance for reconstruction of the Norwottuck Rail Trail Parking Lot within riverfront area (CT River) and buffer zone to BVW. MassDOT, Damon Road, Parcel 25A-014. DEP File #: 246-0665 Request for Certificate of Compliance, Christine and Michael Cahillane. 337 Bridge Street, Parcel ID 25A-109, DEP File 246-539 Elect Vice-Chair Review of Northampton Standard Wetlands Permit Conditions for Orders of Conditions Discussion of Agricultural License Procedure for Conservation Parcels Designated as Working Landscapes Discussion of Enforcement Order, Edgewood Terrace Review of Mail Review of Staff-Issued Permits All other business not foreseen when agenda was published Adjourn To: Conservation Commission From: Sarah LaValley Reviewed and Approved by OPD: RE: Staff Report, October 11 Commission Meeting Date: October 5, 2012 5:05 PM Notice of Intent under the Wetlands Protection Act and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance for reconstruction of the Norwottuck Rail Trail Parking Lot within riverfront area (CT River) and buffer zone to BVW. MassDOT, Damon Road, Parcel 25A-014. DEP File #: 246-0665 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to reconstruct the Norwottuck Rail Trail parking lot on Damon Road, as part of the rehabilitation of the bike path. Portions of the work will occur within buffer zone to BVW, and both the inner and outer riverfront area to the Connecticut River. The area is designated as priority/estimated habitat for rare and endangered species, and NHESP has issued a ‘no take’ determination for the project. The project involves reconfiguring the parking lot to create more spaces, excavation and paving, and site improvements including picnic areas, visitor entrance, signage, and seeding. The project also involves connecting the lot’s drainage to an existing outfall. The project is not subject to stormwater standards since the outfall is not being modified, but a stormwater permit from the Northampton DPW is required as it is over an acre in size. Consistency with the WPA: The parking lot already exists, so the project is a previously developed riverfront area as defined in 310 CMR 10.58(5). Previously developed RFA have the following performance standards: (a) At a minimum, proposed work shall result in an improvement over existing conditions of the capacity of the riverfront area to protect the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131 § 40. The (b) Stormwater management is provided according to standards established by the Department. The outfall is not being modified, so the current project is not subject to stormwater standards. MassDOT has indicated that all of the catchbasins will be upgraded to include deep sumps to increase pretreatment. The applicant should note that the planned future project to will modify the outfall will be subject to the stormwater standards, so it may be advisable to incorporate additional BMP into this project if possible. (c) Within 200 foot riverfront areas, proposed work shall not be located closer to the river than existing conditions or 100 feet, whichever is less, or not closer than existing conditions within 25 foot riverfront areas, except in accordance with 310 CMR 10.58(5)(f) or (g). The project does not encroach closer to the river than existing conditions, which are located well inside the 100’ RFA. (d) Proposed work, including expansion of existing structures, shall be located outside the riverfront area or toward the riverfront area boundary and away from the river, except in accordance with 310 CMR 10.58(5)(f) or (g). Work will occur within the RFA, but the edge of the parking lot will be pulled away from the River by approximately twenty feet. (e) The area of proposed work shall not exceed the amount of degraded area, provided that the proposed work may alter up to 10% if the degraded area is less than 10% of the riverfront area, except in accordance with 310 CMR 10.58(5)(f) or (g). Conservation Commission Staff Report 1 October 11, 2012 The project involves redeveloping the existing parking lot and trail entrance area. The application emphasizes that the amount of impervious area within the RFA will decrease from existing conditions. DEP had no comments on the filing. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The project is outside the Protected Zone established in the Ordinance. It meets the Ordinance’s performance standard for buffer zone (337-10 E(1)) as the amount of disturbance within the buffer zone is being reduced. This could be reduced further if the proposed loam and seed area were replaced with plantings. Staff Recommendations: The project as proposed provides a slight reduction in impervious surface, and pulls pavement away from the river. An Order of Conditions, with standard conditions 1-33 can be issued. The Commission should consider requiring that a portion of the proposed grass area within RFA or buffer be planted with native plants. Additionally, due to the proximity of the Conneticut River, alternatives to salt de-icing could be required. Request for Certificate of Compliance, Christine and Michael Cahillane. 337 Bridge Street, Parcel ID 25A-109, DEP File 246-539 Application Overview: The Commission issued an Order of Conditions in 2004 for construction of a house within the floodplain (bordering land subject to flooding) to the Connecticut River. As proposed and subsequently revised, the project was to result in a net gain of 41.5 cubic feet of flood storage between elevations 123 and 125. Staff Recommendations: The submitted as-built plan and request indicate that the project as constructed resulted in a net gain of 31.7 cubic feet, and the house was constructed substantially as designed. Conditions were met, and a complete certificate of compliance can be issued. Review of Northampton Standard Wetlands Permit Conditions for Orders of Conditions In addition to standard DEP conditions, The Commission has standard conditions that are issued (as appropriate and applicable) for Determinations and Orders of Conditions. The Commission reviewed determination conditions at the last meeting, and updated language regarding vernal pools. Please review the standard conditions for Orders (attachment) and think about whether any amendments or updates are needed. Discussion of Agricultural License Procedure for Conservation Parcels Designated as Working Landscapes The Commission currently issues three licenses for farming at conservation areas. These are: Elwell/Connecticut River Greenway, Meadows Conservation area/Bleiman section, and a section of Mineral Hills Conservation Area on Sylvester Road on which there is an APR. (An Agricultural Preservation Restriction is a restriction that not only prohibits non-agricultural uses, but also carried an affirmative requirement to maintain the land in farming uses.) Staff asks the Commission for authorization to update and issue these three licenses on its behalf as needed. Additionally, the Commission should consider including all conservation areas designated as ‘working’ lands in this authorization. (Map attached) Conservation Commission review and approval would still be required for licenses of any kind on conservation areas designated local (neighborhood uses), or ecological, as well as any new or revised MOU with partner organizations. Conservation Commission Staff Report 2 October 11, 2012 “ATTACHMENT A” 20.Prior to the initiation of any work, the applicant/owner shall submit a letter of understanding to the Commission stating that he/she has received, read, understands and shall comply with these Orders. The applicant, and, his or her contractor, foreman and/or construction manager shall sign the letter of understanding. 21.Prior to the initiation of any work, the applicant shall submit to the Commission a sequencing plan for construction, and erosion and sedimentation control installation. 22.Prior to the start of any site work, excavation or construction, a pre-construction conference shall be held on the site, between the contractor conducting the work, the site/project engineer, the applicant, and a member or agent of the Conservation Commission, in order to ensure that the requirements of this Order are understood by all parties. Prior to the pre-construction meeting, all erosion control devices must be installed. 23. All required permits must be obtained from federal, state and municipal agencies and departments prior to the start of any project. 24. A copy of this Order and associated plans shall remain on site during all construction and/or building activities. The project manager and all equipment operators shall be familiar with the approved plans, and shall be informed of their location on the site. This location shall be accessible to all contractors whenever work is occurring on site. 25. All revised plans, referenced within this Order of Conditions, shall be approved by the Conservation Commission and incorporated into the permit by reference and shall be followed during the course of construction. 26. The areas of construction shall remain in a stable condition at the close of each construction day. Erosion control measures shall be inspected at this time, and maintained or reinforced as necessary. All such devices shall be inspected, cleaned or replaced during construction and shall remain in place until such time as stabilization of all areas that may impact resource areas is permanent. These devices shall also be inspected to assure that the maximum control has been provided. Any entrapped silt shall be removed to an area outside the buffer zone and resource areas, and maintained or reinforced as necessary. Erosion controls shall be inspected after every rainfall to assure that maximum control has been provided. 27. An adequate stockpile of erosion control materials shall be on site at all times for emergency or routine replacement and shall include materials to repair or replace silt fences, straw bales, erosion control blankets, riprap, filter berms or other devices planned for use during construction. 28. Soils exposed for periods greater than two months shall be stabilized with erosion control blankets and netting, a covering of straw mulch, or a temporary cover of rye or other grass to prevent erosion and sedimentation. Drainage ditches shall be stabilized and seeded with a native perennial grass mixture. Any stabilization materials such as jute netting shall be firmly anchored to prevent them from being washed from slopes by rain or flooding. Preference should be given to biodegradable materials. 29.All disturbed areas shall be graded, loamed and seeded, or stabilized with erosion control blankets or netting, and a covering of straw mulch prior to November 30, of each year. No disturbed areas or stockpiled materials will be left unprotected or without erosion control after this date. 30. No disposal of soils or other materials shall be allowed within: a 100-year floodplain; 40 feet of the 100-year floodplain elevation; any wetland; any area within 100-feet of a wetland, a vernal pool, or any area within 200 feet of a vernal pool unless such areas are specifically approved by the Commission, in accordance with 310 CMR 10.00, and City of Northampton Ordinances - Chapter 337 31. Ongoing conditions that shall not expire with the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance are as follows: N/A 32. Upon completion of the work covered by this Order, the applicant shall submit an as-built plan, signed and stamped by a registered professional engineer or land surveyor, together with a written request for a Certificate of Compliance. The plan and written request shall specify any ways that the completed project differs from the plans referenced in the Order. The as-built plan shall include, at a minimum, and as applicable to the project: elevations of all pipe inverts and outlets, pipe sizes, materials, and slopes; all other drainage structures; limits of clearing, grading, and fill; all structures, pavement, and contours within 100 feet of wetland boundaries; all alterations within the wetland resource areas; and all dates of fieldwork. 33. The owner of the property described in this Order must advise any potential buyer of the property that any construction or alteration to said property, including brush cutting or clearance, may require approval by the Northampton Conservation Commission. Any instrument conveying any or all of the owners' interest in said property or any portion thereof, shall contain language similar to the following: "This property is subject to the Northampton Wetlands Protection Ordinance and/or Wetlands Protection Act. Any construction or maintenance work performed on this property requires an Order of Conditions, and/or a Determination of Applicability from the Northampton Conservation Commission. R19GE.RD .12 NCE:SI s a w 0 IS {N V PD WNEES:�:HA U LL vcc* K P L y rlr c� w JT a Legend openspace_m aster_tem p purpose ecological local IM park working L bF F�� 3973 acres 17.4% 211 acres 0.9% 356 acres 1.6% 718 acres 3.1% Northampton Conservation Commission Agenda 5:00 PM, Thursday October 25, 2012 City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton nd General Public Comment Approval of Minutes August 9, 2012 Executive Session October 11, 2012 5:00 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine electric pole installation is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Massachusuetts Electric Company, Chesterfield Road Right of Way. 5:15 PM Notice of Intent by MassDOT under the Wetlands Protection Act and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance for construction of a park and ride facility within buffer zone to BVW and riverfront area. 421 North Main Street (VAMC) Leeds, Parcel 11-001. Discussion of generic applications for conservation area improvements and small/beneficial projects Discussion of site visit procedures Review of Mail Review of Staff-Issued Permits All other business not foreseen when agenda was published Adjourn To: Conservation Commission From: Sarah LaValley Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF RE: Staff Report, October 25 Commission Meeting Date: October 19, 2012 5:00 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether electric pole installation is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Massachusuetts Electric Company, Chesterfield Road Right of Way. Application Overview: The applicant proposes to install a new utility pole within RFA to an unnamed stream. An existing support cable is attached to a tree which has died and is no longer adequate for this purpose. Pole installation will be done using a truck-mounted auger to bore to eight feet and set the pole. Work will occur within the vegetated portion of the Chesterfield Road ROW, and wood chip mulch bags are proposed as erosion control. Consistency with the WPA and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: Work that does not ‘substantially change or enlarge an existing and lawfully located structure or facility used in the service of the public and used to provide electric, gas, water, telephone, telegraph and other communication services’ is exempt from the Wetlands Protection Act. DEP advised that since the project involves installation of a pole closer to the river than previously located, Commission review is required. Staff Recommendations: If the Commission agrees that the work will not alter the resource area, a negative determination can be issued by checking box 2 to indicate that the area is within resource areas, but the work will not alter an area subject to protection. Due to the limited scope of the project, a requirement that the Commission be notified at least 48 hours prior to the start of work, and again when work is complete, could be added to replace standard conditions. The Commission may also want to ask about the types of treatments applied to utility poles, to determine if options for poles in sensitive areas exist. 5:15 PM Notice of Intent by MassDOT under the Wetlands Protection Act and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance for construction of a park and ride facility within buffer zone to BVW and riverfront area. 421 North Main Street (VAMC) Leeds, Parcel 11-001. Application Overview: MassDOT proposes to construct a park-and-ride facility at the VAMC property. Work is proposed to include expansion and upgrades to an existing parking lot, installation of a stormwater system, and Consistency with the WPA: DEP had no comments on the filing. Performance standards for applicable resource areas are: Endangered Species Habitat NHESP has indicated that the project is exempt from MESA review. BVW The project proposes no direct impacts to BVW. Work will occur in buffer zone, at its nearest, 45 feet from series C. The WPA has no standards for buffer zone projects Conservation Commission Staff Report 1 October 25, 2012 Stormwater The project is subject to the stormwater standards. The applicant has indicated that they will submit an application to DPW under the stormwater ordinance. Total suspended solids are proposed to be removed to 75%. While this is acceptable as a redevelopment, it is not the 80% standard required of new projects. Bank The application includes bank as an affected resource area. While bank exists on the property, no bank impacts are proposed. Riverfront Area The applicant provided a supplemental narrative regarding RFA compliance: Proposed project activities within the 200-foot Riverfront Area (RFA) is limited to approximately 3,540 square feet, specifically associated with the installation of underground utility conduit at the existing site entrance (2,595 s.f.) and a paved cross walk (945 s.f.) intended to connect the existing bike/walking paths situated on the northern and southern sides of North Main Street (Route 9). Project activities associated with underground conduit installation are temporary, while the paving of the cross walk will result in a permanent increase of impervious surface within the RFA. The project is considered a redevelopment project and has therefore been designed in accordance with the general performance standards as outlined within 310 CMR 10.58 (5). The proposed work shall result in an improvement over existing conditions (310 CMR 10.58(5)(a)) by situating paving activities within previously disturbed areas associated with the roadway shoulder, replacing portions of the previously disturbed area with clean topsoil, and the mitigation planting of 10 native shrub species (Northern Arrowood (Viburnum dentatum) and Flowering Dogwood (Cornus florida) within proximity of the disturbed RFA. This area will also be loamed and seeded in accordance with submitted project plans. The project has been designed in accordance with DEP Stormwater Management Standards (310 CMR 10.58(5)(b)) with the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to the maximum extent practicable for redevelopment projects. Please refer to the complete Stormwater Management report for additional detail. As previously described, portions of the project will result in the construction of a paved walkway connecting the existing bike/walking paths on each side of Route 9. As such, proposed paving activities will not result in work located closer to the river than existing conditions (310 CMR 10.58(5)(c)) as the existing bike path is already situated closer to the river than proposed conditions. Additionally, the project will not result in any activities situated closer to the river, with no expansion of structures or additional alteration of RFA proposed (310 CMR 10.58(5)(d), while proposed work within the RFA have been kept to the outer 100-feet of RFA. Lastly, the area of permanent impact within the RFA, specifically the additional 945 square feet of additional impervious surface associated bicycle path connection to the crosswalk is well below the amount of degraded RFA adjacent to the project area associated with Route 9, the bike/walking paths, and entrance driveways to the subject property. 310 CMR 10.58(f)(g) and (h) are not applicable to the project. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: Case law has established that MassDOT is subject to local regulations ‘only in the rare instances where such regulations do not interfere with its ability to fulfill its essential governmental purposes,’ and is not subject to the Wetlands Ordinance. Wetland series P includes a certified vernal pool, and this area and a 200 foot surrounding area, would be classified as a vernal pool resource area under 337-10F. However, the project would likely meet the ‘work to linear’ systems requirements in any case. Staff Recommendations: Issue an Order of Conditions with standard conditions. The Commission should discuss the possibility of including an additional stormwater BMP to achieve 80% TSS removal or greater, such as a raingarden or street-sweeping. Additional conditions to protect resource areas are suggested: 34. Use of coal-tar containing sealcoating is prohibited 35. The stormwater O&M must designate snow storage area Conservation Commission Staff Report 2 October 25, 2012 Northampton Conservation Commission Agenda 5:00 PM, Thursday November 8, 2012 City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton nd General Public Comment Approval of Minutes August 9, 2012 Executive Session October 11, 2012 October 25, 2012 5:00 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether installation of fiber-optic cable new in conduit is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. MassBroadband Institute, right-of-way along Easthampton. 5:10 PM Notice of Intent for construction of an addition and related improvements within buffer zone to BVW. Norice McGrath, 49 Murphy Terrace, Parcel 24A-202. DEP File #: 246-0667 5:25 PM Notice of Intent for installation of a stormwater overflow pipe related to expansion of Linda Manor facility. Pipe proposed within riverfront area (Mill River) and buffer zone. John Chakalos, Haydenville Road, Parcel 006-050. DEP File #: 246-0661 5:50 PM Notice of Intent for removal of asphalt plant and associated equipment and materials, and construction of new commercial buildings, boathouse, boat ramp, dock, and associated utilities and improvements for Lane Riverfront Park/CT River Greenway. Work proposed within bordering and isolated vegetated wetland and buffers, bank, land under water, riverfront area and bordering land subject to flooding (CT River). City of Northampton. Damon Road, Parcels 18-009, 010, and 012. Follow-Up to Emergency Certification, Parcel 24B-079, Hathaway Farms erosion Review of Mail Review of Staff-Issued Permits All other business not foreseen when agenda was published Adjourn To: Conservation Commission From: Sarah LaValley Reviewed and Approved by OPD: WF RE: Staff Report, November 8 Commission Meeting Date: November 2, 2012 5:00 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether installation of fiber-optic cable new in conduit is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. MassBroadband Institute, right-of-way along Easthampton Road. Application Overview: The applicant proposes to install fiberoptic cable within a conduit trench on the shoulder of Easthampton Road under the bike path bridge, within buffer zone, approximately 40 feet from wetlands. Consistency with the WPA and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The work proposed should not alter the BVW, per the definition of alter contained in the WPA and Ordinance, as all work will take place within roadway and disturbed areas. Staff Recommendations: If the Commission agrees that the work will not alter the resource area, a negative determination can be issued by checking box 3 to indicate that the area is within the buffer zone, but the work will not alter an area subject to protection. Silt fence is not recommended due to existing grades and distances from resources. A condition can be added that the Commission must be notified at least 48-hours prior to work, as well as when work has been completed. 5:10 PM Notice of Intent for construction of an addition and related improvements within buffer zone to BVW. Norice McGrath, 49 Murphy Terrace, Parcel 24A-202. DEP File #: 246-0667 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing carport, build a new garage, and construct an addition, deck, and screened porch behind the house and towards the resource area. Some of the footing drain work proposed has already been completed. Consistency with the WPA: Buffer zone only project, but activity not exempt. DEP had no comments. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The project is located in the URB zone, so all “performance standards that are over and above state law ‐ with the exception of the setback requirements in the Protected Zone Table (1), and the requirements in § 33710E(2)(b).” are waived. The Ordinance allows for a reduced Protected Zone of 35 feet, “where development includes mitigation measures that will improve the existing condition of the wetlands or adjacent upland.” The addition is proposed 34 feet from wetlands, as shown on project plans. (Delineation forms were provided to supplement the application) While mitigation was not provided in the application, the applicant indicated that “A proposed "no mow" zone will be in effect for the entire back yard area, adjacent to the wetland area, to allow for the re-establishment of native species and control storm water run off into the wetland.” Conservation Commission Staff Report 1 November 8, 2012 Staff Recommendations: The proposed project is located on an area that is currently lawn, and the addition should not , as long as additional wetlands encroachment does not occur. The mitigation proposed by the applicant, though it would contribute to the wetland area, is very limiting, and would likely be difficult to enforce with subsequent property owners. If the Commission agrees that a ‘no-disturb’ zone is appropriate mitigation, an appropriate buffer distance from the resource should be established. The Order should include a condition that large boulders or other permanent markings be installed at this limit prior to a request for certificate of compliance, and a permanent condition prohibiting alteration within the area of no disturbance. Staff recommends issuing an Order of Conditions, with standard conditions 1-33, with no requirement for an as-built plan, a requirement that silt fencing to delineate the limit of work be installed at the 15-foot buffer, and the additional conditions noted above. 5:25 PM Notice of Intent for installation of a stormwater overflow pipe related to expansion of Linda Manor facility. Pipe proposed within riverfront area (Beaver Brook) and buffer zone. John Chakalos, Haydenville Road, Parcel 006-050. DEP File #: 246-0661 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to construct a stormwater overflow pipe to handle stormwater discharges that exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater infrastructure on the Linda Manor property, which is being impacted by the proposed expansion to the facility outside jurisdictional areas. The pipe is proposed in an adjacent parcel through which the application indicates the applicant has an easement. An existing pipe from the Linda Manor facility is already located in this area. Consistency with the WPA: DEP Comments: When this NOI was first submitted, MassDEP guidance for compliance with the Stormwater Standards was sent to the applicant’s representative as well as to the conservation commission. In the additional information submitted to MassDEP and the conservation commission on 7/20/12, the information submitted did not appear to address that guidance. In addition, the stated assumption that by placing the discharge closer to the bank, that it will reduce potential erosion risk versus placing it over 200 feet away, may not be correct. Please respond to these comments to this reviewer and to the conservation commission. The applicant’s correspondence with DEP and the Commission is included in the application. Performance Standards: Stormwater The project is subject to the stormwater standards, and has been issued a stormwater permit from the Northampton DPW. While DPW required that overflow be addressed to prevent road flooding, it did not mandate a method by which this must be done. Endangered Species Habitat A portion of the project is within endangered species habitat, and NHESP has issued a ‘no-take’ decision. Riverfront Area The application proposes installation of a pipe, new discharge, and rip-rap plunge pool, within the RFA to Beaver Brook. The October 1 letter to the Commission provides additional information regarding compliance with RFA standards. Standard C, which requires that ‘there must be no practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternative to the proposed project with less adverse impacts’ does not appear to be met. 310 CMR 10.58(4)2 requires that “the scope of alternatives under consideration shall be commensurate with the type and size of the project,” which in this case is the full expansion of the facility, and alternatives are limited to piped options, and do not address reconfiguration of the existing stormwater management on the site, or removal of the existing pipe to create a single outfall. Additionally, staff disagrees that removing the outfall from the RFA would increase erosion as indicated. Conservation Commission Staff Report 2 November 8, 2012 Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The Ordinance, Section 337-10E(2), notes that “The Commission shall not permit alteration within resource areas or their associated protected zones, subject to” a number of exceptions. Work is proposed within approximately twenty-five feet of a wetland (boundary not delineated), and the applicant’s October 1 response to staff comments states that the work is proposed as a ‘project in or affecting Protected Zones or Resource areas containing areas already degraded or developed.’ Based on materials provided, the existing buried stormwater pipe does not appear to meet the Ordinance’s ‘degraded area’ definition of “areas of existing structures, buildings, fill, pavement, impervious surface, lack of topsoil, dump sites or releases of hazardous materials.” Staff Recommendations: The project as proposed in the application does not, in the opinion of staff, comply with the performance standards for applicable resource areas established in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and its Regulations, and in the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. The Commission should deny the Order of Conditions and prohibit the work, with a decision that includes a finding that the information provided was not sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the applicable sections of the WPA and Ordinance. Alternatively, the Commission could continue the hearing at the applicant’s request, to allow the applicant to address outstanding concerns. 5:50 PM Notice of Intent for removal of asphalt plant and associated equipment and materials, and construction of new commercial buildings, boathouse, boat ramp, dock, and associated utilities and improvements for Lane Riverfront Park/CT River Greenway. Work proposed within bordering and isolated vegetated wetland and buffers, bank, land under water, riverfront area and bordering land subject to flooding (CT River). City of Northampton. Damon Road, Parcels 18-009, 010, and 012. Application Overview: The application proposes demolition and removal of the Lane Asphalt Batching Plant, including the plant, outbuildings, operational equipment, and a stockpile yard. New construction proposed includes 3 new commercial buildings, a boathouse, boat ramp and dock, parking, and stormwater and service utilities. Consistency with the WPA: DEP comments: 1.This project exceeds the threshold specified at 310 CMR 10.57(4)(a)3., and therefore requires the submittal of a wildlife habitat evaluation per 310 CMR 10.60. If the “Lower Floodplain” (the 10-year flood elevation or any portion of BLSF also within Buffer Zone) proposed to be altered is naturally vegetated and/or composed of a natural substrate, the applicant will be required to meet the General Performance Standard at 310 CMR 10.60(3). The project as proposed will alter 8,400 square feet of 10-year floodplain, which is greater than the 5,000 square foot threshold at which ‘work is deemed not to impair wildlife habitat.’ The applicant has submitted an ‘Appendix A’ simplified wildlife habitat evaluation for the lower floodplain indicating that habitat characteristics are not present. A waiver of this requirement could also have been requested, as the work within the 10-year floodplain is classified a limited project (310 CMR 10.53 (3)l: The construction, reconstruction, operation or maintenance of water dependent uses) 2.Per 310 CMR 10.58(5), a previously developed Riverfront Area contains areas degraded prior to August 7, 1996 by impervious surfaces from existing structures or pavement, absence of topsoil, junkyards, or abandoned dumping grounds. The applicant must demonstrate through submittal of credible evidence that any claims concerning degraded Riverfront Area comply with the definition AND existed prior to August 7, 1996. Without this credible evidence, the proposed work must fully comply with 310 CMR 10.58(4). Conservation Commission Staff Report 3 November 8, 2012 The applicant has provided aerial images from 1985 that show the proposed ‘disturbed riverfront area’ represented on plans as an existing driveway. A 2003 Notice of Intent for decommissioning of a settling basin on the southeastern portion of the property also delineate ‘degraded riverfront area’ adjacent to the unnamed perennial stream, but these plans do not extend to the Connecticut River portion of the site. Staff also confirmed at a site visit the presence of degraded asphalt, stockpiled gravel, and lack of topsoil within the proposed location, and these factors indicate a disturbed RFA that meets the definition of 310CMR 10.58(5). 3. For any Riverfront Area Redevelopment project, the applicant must comply with 310 CMR 10.58(5)(a), which requires that proposed work shall result in an improvement over existing conditions of the capacity of the Riverfront Area to protect the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131 § 40. Acceptable improvements include, but are not limited to: a significant net reduction of impervious surfaces; planting of indigenous plant species; providing stormwater management demonstrably in excess of what is required per the Department’s Stormwater Management Standards; and removal and proper disposal of noxious materials. The Project Narrative should include a written description of what specific activity(ies) comprises the improvement of the Riverfront Area’s capacity to protect the interests of the Wetlands Protection Act. Any locations on the site where the “improvement” activity is to take place should be shown and labeled on the Proposed Conditions site plan. The applicant has provided additional plansheets. 4. See handouts further describing Riverfront Area Redevelopment and Stormwater Regulations for additional information. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS: Chapter 91 license may be required. Application and transmittal form are available on the MassDEP website (http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/approvals/wwforms.htm#c91). If necessary, contact MassDEP Waterways Program at 617-292-5929 for direct mailing or provide information why license is not required. The applicant indicated that a Chapter 91 license (this ensures that public rights to fish, fowl and navigate are not unreasonably restricted, required of all new docks) will be applied for. Before the activity described in the Notice of Intent can commence, you must obtain a Water Quality Certification. Please complete a 401 Water Quality Certification application form (http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/approvals/wwforms.htm#wqcert) and file it with this Regional Office for review. The applicant has indicated that a WQC (required for discharges of dredged material) will be applied for. Review under Section 404 may be required. Applicant is advised to forward a copy of the Water Quality Certification Application to the Army Corps of Engineers for review. (Call 1- 800-362-4367 for information). The applicant has indicated that discussions are being held with Army Corps. Performance Standards: Endangered Species Habitat A portion of the project is within endangered species habitat, and NHESP has issued a ‘no-take’ decision. BVW The project proposes to directly impact 3,125 square feet of BVW, which the application notes are degraded, with absence of topsoil and some asphalt debris. (This includes the 3,010 of disturbance noted in the application, and an additional 115 sf of disturbance shown on plans but not noted in the narrative, Conservation Commission Staff Report 4 November 8, 2012 to wetland series C, resulting from recommendations made in the DPW stormwater permit. The 4,855 sf noted in several places in the application includes the total for alteration of isolated vegetated wetland as well as BVW.) 310 CMR 10.55(4) allows the Commission to permit work that results in the loss of up to 5,000 sf of BVW when the area is replaced in accordance with the general conditions provided in the regulations, and any other conditions necessary to “ensure that the replacement area will function in a manner similar to the area that will be lost.” The replication plan provided in the NOI addresses each general condition. Staff recommends specific conditions to maintain the integrity of the created wetlands. Construction activities are proposed in close proximity to, and sometimes within, wetlands areas, so staff also recommends that the applicant develop a plan to prevent alteration during construction. Stormwater The project is subject to the stormwater standards, and has been issued a stormwater permit from the Northampton DPW. The project exceeds the requirements for redevelopment. Bank The project proposes to impact 42 linear feet of bank. 310 CMR 10.54 (4) provides four applicable performance standards. Projects affecting bank must not impair physical stability, water carrying capacity, water quality, and capacity to provide habitat and food for fisheries. While the project seems to meet these, construction of a dock is a ‘limited project,’ and alteration can be allowed notwithstanding these standards if the Commission considers availability of alternatives, the extent to which adverse impacts are minimized, and the extent to which mitigation measures are provided. Land Under Water The NOI includes a dock, but does not provide construction details, or information regarding any possible impacts to Land Under Water. Performance standards for LUW require that projects not impair water carrying capacity, water quality, or capacity of the land to provide habitat functions. The applicant has indicated that the dock will have minimal impacts and will meet these standards. Again, limited project status would allow the Commission to permit work in LUW notwithstanding these standards, but staff suggests a condition requiring review and approval of construction plans for the dock. Riverfront Area The applicant provides a narrative regarding previously developed RFA standards in the NOI, and has provided two additional plansheets to demonstrate compliance. Bordering Land Subject to Flooding 310 CMR 10.57 (4) requires that: Compensatory storage shall be provided for all flood storage volume that will be lost as the result of a proposed project within Bordering Land Subject to Flooding, when in the judgment of the issuing authority said loss will cause an increase or will contribute incrementally to an increase in the horizontal extent and level of flood waters during peak flows. Compensatory flood storage at each elevation has been proposed, to exceed the 135,986 cubic feet being altered. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: As the project is within an Industrial Zone, provisions of the Ordinance that are ‘over and above state law ‐ are waived, ‘with the exception of the setback requirements in the Protected Zone Table (1), and the requirements in § 33710E(2)(b).’ 337-10E(2) of the Wetlands Ordinance does not permit alteration within resource areas (BVW, IVW, LUW and bank, in this case) or their associated protected zones, subject to a number of exceptions, several of which are applicable to this project, and in combination can allow alteration within Protected Zones and resource areas: ‐ (b) Projects in certain infill areas, in accordance with Protected Zone Table (1) in § 33710, where development includes mitigation measures that will improve the existing condition of the wetlands or adjacent upland. Conservation Commission Staff Report 5 November 8, 2012 The Protected Zone within the Industrial Zone is 10 feet from wetlands, so disturbance up to 10 feet from the resource can be permitted with mitigation. Mitigation proposed includes creation of replacement wetlands, as well as permanent protection of approximately five acres of riverine corridor, to be deeded to the Conservation Commission. (c) Limited projects, as defined in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act regulations, and walking and multiuse trails designed for nonmotorized use. Construction of the boathouse, dock, and river access is a limited project. Alteration of Bank can be permitted under this section. Alteration of other Protected Zones could also be permitted under this section, but the applicant is proposing to meet performance standards for all other altered Protected Zones. It should also be noted that construction of the industrial office park does not qualify as a limited project. (g) Work involving land under water shall conform to the performance standards set forth in 310 CMR 10.56. See ‘Consistency with WPA’ section (h) Projects in or affecting protected zones or resource areas containing areas already degraded or developed, subject to the following criteria: [1] At a minimum, proposed work shall result in an improvement over existing conditions of the capacity of the resource area to protect the interests identified in MGL c. 131, § 40. When a lot is previously developed but no portion of the resource area or its protected zone is degraded, this section shall not apply. This section applies as the site contains degraded Protected Zone. The applicant proposes to replicate the BVW, IVW and 0-10 foot Protected Zone buffer that will altered with 12,312 sf of BVW replication. The replication is a combination of creating new wetlands where none currently exist, and restoration of existing wetland areas to functional conditions. The replication plan notes that the wetlands to be altered are fragmented, and contain fill and lack of topsoil. Creation of additional functional wetlands, the integrity of which staff recommends addressing with conditions, will in this case ‘result in an improvement,’ as many of the existing wetlands onsite have been degraded by excavation. Since the improvement proposed is a replication, the applicant must also comply with 337-10D, see below. The replication plan for IVW is also proposed to meet the standards of the WPA. Section 337-10D of the Ordinance addresses replacement wetlands: D. Artificial or replacement wetlands. If the applicant demonstrates to the Commission that the replacement wetland is a restoration and will provide wetland values equal or greater than the wetland values being lost, the Commission may allow replacement wetlands to be the same size as the disturbed area. If the applicant is attempting to replace a wetland through replication, the area of replication must be up to twice as large as the area of the original wetland that will be destroyed. In those instances where replication is approved by the Commission the following conditions must be met: The application provides a wetlands replication plan that provides more than 2:1 replacement for wetlands lost. (1) At minimum, the replicated wetland must reproduce the values and functions of the original wetland as determined by the Conservation Commission. Site conditions permitting, the Commission may require that additional values and functions be incorporated into the replication design. In particular, in circumstances where replacement of specific functions and values would require substantial amounts of time before being completely replicated (for example, those provided by large mature trees), the Commission may require additional compensation of area, functions, values, etc. beyond those required in other sections of this chapter. Conservation Commission Staff Report 6 November 8, 2012 (2) In most instances, the replication of wetlands will result in the destruction of adjacent buffer zone areas. In such instances, replication or additional permanent preservation of new buffer zone areas may be required. (3) The top 12 inches of soil from the original wetland must be transplanted with soil structure, especially lamination and density profile, intact to the replication area. This is intended to preserve plant, invertebrate, and planktonic communities of the wetland and inhibit the blossoming of invasive species. The replication plan indicates that the wetlands to be disturbed contain both fill and lack of A series/topsoil due to past excavation, so offsite material is proposed. Staff agrees with this assessment, but suggests conditions to ensure that the donor soil is appropriate. (5) Standards for the replication shall be specified and verified in terms of functions, values, and actual performance. Technical and engineering specifications used for design and construction shall be considered approximate. Criteria for acceptance and approval shall be based solely on function and performance as specified in the order of conditions. In other words, replications will be evaluated on what they are expected to do, not how closely actual construction matched the plan. For example, although elevations may be used for design and planning of a pond, the standards shall be set in terms of volume and depth of water over the course of a year. In vernal pool replication, the pool must be capable of sustaining full development of vernal pool species, regardless of design elevations or siting. (6) Replications that do not properly perform the approved functions and values as specified in the order of conditions will not be deemed acceptable no matter how closely they adhere to approved engineered plans. ‐‐ (7) The Commission may set other conditions on a project/sitespecific basis. (8) For limited development projects, as defined in the Wetlands Protection Act regulations, where it is not be practical to lay out an element of the project without a wetlands replication, the Commission may waive some or all of the requirements of this section. Portions of the project are classified as limited development, but the application proposes to meet the performance standards of the Ordinance. Staff Recommendations: The proposed project includes alterations to resource areas, but also includes mitigation to address these impacts and meet the WPA and Ordinance. Staff recommends issuing an Order of Conditions, with standard conditions 1-33. The following additional conditions are suggested, with 34. The Stormwater O&M must specify an appropriate snow-storage location. 35. The applicant and contractor shall develop a specific plan to prevent alteration to wetlands areas during construction. This plan shall include specific provisions for each wetlands area, and must be included in the sequencing plan. 36. The 115 sf of buffer zone disturbance designated as ‘riprap for slope stabilization’ shall be replaced with a feature that will provide erosion control while maintaining wetland characteristics. Prior to construction of this feature, a plan must be provided to the Commission for review and approval. 37. An annual report, in accordance with the Massachusetts Inland Wetland Replication Guidelines, shall be provided to the Commission by November 30 of each year, for the first three growing seasons. The report shall contain all elements required in monitoring the wetland replacement area, and shall detail how and to what extend the replacement area meets the General Performance Standards and the Wetland Conservation Commission Staff Report 7 November 8, 2012 Replication Plan in the NOI. If non-compliance with any Performance Standards or the Replication Plan is documented, the report shall include a draft “corrective plan of action.” 38. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of compliance, the applicant shall demonstrate that at least 75% of the surface of each replacement areas has been re-established with indigenous wetlands plants. 39. The Commission shall be given 48 hours notice prior to the beginning of construction of each wetlands replication areas, to allow for discussion of requirements and to ensure compliance with all special conditions. 40. Future alterations areas shown on NOI plans as Wetland Replication Area and Riverfront Mitigation Areas, except as may be required to maintain them in restored or mitigated condition, are prohibited. Allowable activities include removal of species listed on the Massachusetts Prohibited Plant list and planting of native species. 41. Vista pruning for safety adjacent to the ramp and access road is allowed without further Conservation Commission review. Cutting within other resource areas or buffers 42. Prior to work on the dock, the applicant must provide the Commission with construction drawings for review and approval. 43. The O&M agreement shall include provisions for maintenance and reporting of maintenance of the raingarden in accordance with “Volume 2, Chapter 2:, Structural BMP Specifications for the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook.” The Commission may also want to discuss the possibility of measures to prevent future encroachment to wetlands or riverfront restoration areas that are close to buildings or parking areas. This could potentially be done with plantings, landscaping, or permanent markings. Conservation Commission Staff Report 8 November 8, 2012 Northampton Conservation Commission Agenda 5:00 PM, Thursday December 13, 2012 City Hall Hearing Room 2 floor, 210 Main Street, Northampton nd General Public Comment Approval of Minutes August 9, 2012 Executive Session November 8, 2012 5:00 PM Continuation: Notice of Intent for installation of a stormwater overflow pipe related to expansion of Linda Manor facility. Pipe proposed within riverfront area (Mill River) and buffer zone. John Chakalos, Haydenville Road, Parcel 006-050. DEP File #: 246-0661 Review of Mitigation Plan to satisfy permit condition, 49 Murphy Terrace 5:30 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether construction of a sewer line is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. 421 North Main Street (VAMC) Leeds, Parcel 11-001. Review of Mail Review of Staff-Issued Permits All other business not foreseen when agenda was published Adjourn To: Conservation Commission From: Sarah LaValley Reviewed and Approved by OPD: CM RE: Staff Report, December 13 Commission Meeting Date: December 9, 2012 5:00 PM Continuation: Notice of Intent for installation of a stormwater overflow pipe related to expansion of Linda Manor facility. Pipe proposed within riverfront area (Mill River) and buffer zone. John Chakalos, Haydenville Road, Parcel 006-050. DEP File #: 246-0661 Application Overview: The applicant proposes to construct a stormwater overflow pipe to handle stormwater discharges that exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater infrastructure on the Linda Manor property, which is being impacted by the proposed expansion to the facility outside jurisdictional areas. The pipe is proposed in an adjacent parcel through which the application indicates the applicant has an easement. An existing pipe from the Linda Manor facility is already located in this area. The pipe was originally proposed within buffer zone and riverfront area, but revised plans propose to remove the outfall work. Some work related to pipe installation within buffer is proposed in lawn area along the entrance driveway; a similar project that was not started was issued a negative determination in 2011. Consistency with the WPA: If the applicant demonstrates that flow from the outfall will not cause erosion or other disturbance within the riverfront area, the work proposed should not constitute an ‘alteration’ to a resource area, as defined in the WPA. Consistency with the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: The proposed changes to the design have removed work from the Protected Zone. Staff Recommendations: The changes to the plans remove nearly all work from resource areas and buffer zones. If the applicant can demonstrate that flow from the outfall will not include any secondary alterations, a negative determination can be issued by checking box 3 to indicate that work is within the buffer zone, but will not alter an area subject to protection. Although an NOI was originally filed, Orders of Conditions should only be issued for projects that will ‘remove, dredge, fill or alter.’ Standard conditions can be added, with a requirement for a final planset. 5:30 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine whether construction of a sewer line is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. 421 North Main Street (VAMC) Leeds, Parcel 11-001. Application Overview: The application proposes construction of a sewer line on the VAMC campus, to replace the facility’s existing sewer. All work will occur within previously disturbed areas, and is limited to the 50-100 foot buffer. Consistency with the WPA and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance: With the proposed erosion control, and location within previously disturbed areas, the project should not constitute an alteration to any jurisdictional resource areas. Sewer construction is also established as a Conservation Commission Staff Report 1 December 13, 2012 limited project that may be permitted notwithstanding the provisions of the WPA, but is not required in this case. Staff Recommendations: The project as proposed should not alter any resource areas - a negative determination can be issued by checking box 3 to indicate that work is within the buffer zone, but will not alter an area subject to protection. Standard conditions can be added. Conservation Commission Staff Report 2 December 13, 2012