MassAudubon Manhan Meadows NOI - Response to DEP Comments
April 23, 2020
Sarah I. LaValley
Conservation, Preservation and Land Use Planner
Northampton Office of Planning and Sustainability
City Hall, 210 Main Street, 2nd Floor
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060
Re: Manhan Meadows Floodplain Forest Restoration Project
Arcadia Wildlife Sanctuary, Northampton, Massachusetts
DEP File No. WE 246-0744
ESS Project No. M393-000
Dear Ms. LaValley,
On behalf of Mass Audubon (the Applicant), ESS Group, Inc. (ESS) has prepared the following responses
to the comments and questions included in the Notification of Wetlands Protection Act File Number for the
above-referenced project issued by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on March 25,
2020.
1. This NOI is subject to MESA review. The NHESP has until April 8 to issue its determination.
The NHESP determined that the project is exempt from MESA review in a letter dated April 13,
2020.
2. This project has been submitted as an Ecological Restoration Limited Project. The commission
needs to review 310 CMR 10.11, 310 CMR 10.12 and 310 CMR 10.53(4)(e)5 as well as the
included Appendix A.
No Applicant response needed.
3. There appear to be eight (8) Certified Vernal Pools on the parcels. These must be shown on the
plans and no activity should occur in those areas. The commission should review the definition of
vernal pool habitat, as found at 310 CMR 10.04 and pay close attention to any proposed work in
that habitat.
One Certified Vernal Pool is located within planting area 1 and three other CVPs are located near
the perimeter of the planting areas. The restoration plans have been revised to display these
features. Restoration actions within vernal pool habitat would be expected to improve the habitat
for vernal pool species such as wood frog and spotted salamander by restoring the native
vegetative communities which existed in these areas prior to conversion of the site to agricultural
use.
4. What elevation datum is used on the plans? The FEMA flood map uses NGVD29 with a flood
plain elevation on the FIRM of 123 feet. Is the entirety of the work area at or below 123 feet?
Ms. Sarah LaValley
April 23, 2020
2
Please explain. One cannot simply overlap a FIRM onto a plan and expect to understand where
BLSF is located.
As stated on sheet 2 of the restoration plans, General Note #2, “The vertical datum for
topography references NAVD88.” The highest elevation within the restoration planting area is 111
feet NAVD88, which converts to approximately 111.6 feet NGVD29.
5. In an area subject to flooding that has also been used as agricultural land, one should assume
that areas of the floodplain are in fact BVW and not BLSF. Look at the definition of BLSF found at
310 CMR 10.57(2)(a)1. It (BLSF) extends from the banks of these waterways and water bodies;
where a bordering vegetated wetland occurs, it extends from said wetland. BVW and BLSF
cannot overlap. Review the definition of BVW found at 310 CMR 10.55(2)(c)3. Where an area has
been disturbed (e.g. by cutting, filling, or cultivation), the boundary is the line within which there
are indicators of saturated or inundated conditions sufficient to support a predominance of
wetland indicator plants, a predominance of wetland indicator plants, or credible evidence from a
competent source that the area supported or would support under undisturbed conditions a
predominance of wetland indicator plants prior to the disturbance.
The restoration planting areas are nearly entirely BLSF, with the exception of a relatively small
portion of planting area 1 which is BVW. The field-located wetland line is displayed on the
restoration plans; this line represents the boundary between the BVW and the BLSF, and these
resource areas are not intended to be displayed as overlapping. The BVW/BLSF boundary was
determined in the field based on observations of vegetation, soils, hydrology, and topography. In
general this field-located line is very consistent with the DEP-mapped wetland layer.
6. The commission may certainly ask for additional information on resource area impacts, or it may
decide that it should not approve any specific delineation of any resource area, but simply review
the work to ensure that it is appropriate for the likely resource area in a specific footprint.
No Applicant response needed.
7. Any herbicide treatment in BVW shall require the applicant to obtain a WM04 permit.
https://www.mass.gov/how-to/wm-04-herbicide-application
Mass Audubon and/or their contractor(s) will obtain a WM04 permit prior to conducting herbicide
treatments.
8. Page 2 of Attachment A lists activities that are proposed from the fall of 2019. Some of those
activities probably required permitting, if they were done.
No proposed work has been undertaken or will be undertaken until an Order of Conditions is
issued by the Conservation Commission.
9. NRCS soils data cannot be relied upon to accurately describe soil types.
The Applicant believes that the available soil data is sufficient to support the restoration plan.
Ms. Sarah LaValley
April 23, 2020
3
10. Use of a York Rake is considered a discharge of dredged or fill material in BVW that is not land in
agricultural use.
To avoid a discharge of dredged or fill material in a BVW, the Applicant will not use a York Rake
in BVW areas.
11. Plans need to show where the fence is proposed. The commission should carefully review that
work for compliance with the regulations.
The proposed locations for deer exclusion fencing are displayed on sheets 6 and 7 of the project
plans. The nature of the proposed fence (an electric wire fence supported by metal posts and
fiberglass rods) will avoid any reduction in the flood storage capacity of the BLSF and changes in
the direction or velocity of flood flows.
12. Several FACU species are proposed to be planted. Are those appropriate here? The commission
should only allow plantings of species native to Hampshire County, using the latest Vascular
Plants of Massachusetts.
Facultative upland (FACU) plant species such as shagbark hickory, tulip poplar, and American
basswood will be planted in the higher elevation zones within the planting areas and are expected
to thrive there due to the intermittent nature of flooding at the site. A smaller number of FACU
species are proposed compared to facultative (FAC), facultative wetland (FACW), and obligate
wetland (OBL) species because the higher elevation planting zone (areas greater than 109’)
accounts for only about 20% of the overall size of the planting area. All species proposed in the
restoration plan are native to Hampshire County per the Vascular Plants of Massachusetts with
the exception of sweetgum. As stated in the restoration plan, sweetgum was included in the plan,
along with a small number of other species more abundant to the south of the project area, as a
form of climate resilience.
13. The applicant might consider requesting a five year OOC and the commission might consider
including Special Conditions that would survive subsequent to the issuance of a Certificate of
Compliance.
Mass Audubon respectfully requests that due to the nature of the proposed work, the
Conservation Commission issue a five-year Order of Conditions for the project.
If you have any questions for need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(401) 330-1208 or cwood@essgroup.com
Ms. Sarah LaValley
April 23, 2020
4
Sincerely,
ESS GROUP, INC.
Craig A. Wood, PWS
Principal Scientist
Attachments: Revised restoration plans
C: Tom Lautzenheiser, Mass Audubon