2022.11.10 Staff Report
November 10 2022 Staff Report
To: Conservation Commission
From: Sarah LaValley
RE: Staff Report, November 10 2022 Commission Meeting
5:30 PM – Continuation - Notice of Intent for remediation of contaminated soil and
bank stabilization; Proposed work to occur within bank, riverfront, land under
water, & bordering land subject to flooding (Mill River), and buffer zone to resource
areas. Cutlery Building Assoc, 320-360 Riverside Drive, Parcel 30A-77.
Application Overview:
The application proposes activities related to contaminated soil remediation at the former site of the
Cutlery Factory raceway. Work includes excavation and compiling of impacted soils within the
raceway, and retaining wall and bank stabilization work. An existing 185-foot section of vertical
retaining wall, 12-15 feet in height will be repointed. Soil above the wall is proposed to be excavated
and stockpiled onsite, and the slope of the bank lowered to 1:2. The downstream most section of wall
is also proposed to be rebuilt where it has collapsed where stones remain. In sections where the wall
is in the worst condition, a new gabion wall (“rocks in cages”) dug into the bank is proposed, and the
wall extended 105 feet downstream of its current limit. Stone rip rap is proposed to be placed along
the top of the retaining will up to the 100 year floodplain. Above the rip rap, a geocell turf
reinforcement mat is proposed. All trees along the riverbank are proposed to be removed. 96 trees
will be removed, as shown in the table on page 5 0f the Attachment A narrative. Stockpiled
contaminated soil is proposed to be added to existing soil areas for permanent storage. Work will
result in 36,398 sf of permanent impacts to riverfront; 33,364 of which are in the inner 100 feet, 161
linear feet and 703 sf of bank impacts, 799 sf of land under water impact, 3,211 sf of land subject to
flooding, and 129 sf of impacts to isolated wetland, and a reduction in capacity of wildlife habitat
functions. The Mill River is classified as a coldwater fisheries resource.
The project is located within NHESP priority habitat. NHESP issued a no-take decision without any
required conditions. A stormwater permit from the DPW is required and has been issued since the
project will disturb over one acre.
Consistency with the WPA and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance, Staff
Recommendation
The applicant has presented the entirety of the work as a limited project. Limited projects are
certain categories of work that may be permitted notwithstanding performance standards, which
this project would not meet absent this status. The Wetlands Ordinance does not allow work in
Protected Zones as proposed here except in certain circumstances, one of which is a limited project.
The Commission has two legal determinations to make:
1) whether "there are no practicable alternatives" to the proposed c. 21E response
action.
For this type of project, 310 CMR 10.53 (3) (q) specifies that the Commission consider:
November 10 2022 Staff Report
2
1. there are no practicable alternatives to the response action being proposed that are consistent
with the provisions of 310 CMR 40.0000: Massachusetts Contingency Plan and that would be less
damaging to resource areas. The alternatives analysis shall include, at a minimum, the following:
a. an alternative that does not alter resource areas, which will provide baseline data
for evaluating other alternatives; and
b. an assessment of alternatives to both temporary and permanent impacts to resource areas.
In deciding the above, the O’Reilly Talbot Okun (OTO) third party review report and applicant
response set out many technical engineering and wetlands impacts issues, and competing viewpoints
for consideration by the Commission. The NOI narrative (page 8) indicates only that alternatives
that do not include any resource area disturbance are not possible, but does not provide a full
alternatives analysis for less damaging alternatives. At its October 13 hearing, the Commission found
that the application did not contain sufficient information to determine whether the above criteria
are met, and requested a full alternatives analysis. The applicant provided additional information
regarding consideration of bioenginereed soils or other methods in place of wall repairs and gabions,
and costs of full excavation of contaminated material.
2) If the Commission determines that the above standard is met and there are no
practicable alternatives, the Commission in its discretion, applying the four
below factors of 310 CMR 10.53 (3) may determine to permit the work as a
limited project. The Commission is not required to allow all such work
proposed, and may impose additional conditions to protect the interests of the
WPA and Ordinance
In determining whether to exercise its discretion in approving, the Commission shall consider:
• the magnitude of the alteration and the significance of the project site to the interests
identified in M.G.L. c. 131, § 40 (the Wetlands Protection Act)
• The availability of reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity
• The extent to which adverse impacts are minimized
• The extent to which mitigation measures, including replication or restoration, are provided
to contribute to the protection of the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131, § 40.
The work proposed is significant in scope, as is the magnitude of alteration.
Staff recommends that Commission use the OTO report as a basis to consider minimization of
adverse impacts and additional restoration or mitigation, and discuss possibilities for increased
restoration and mitigation.
Additional questions:
The application indicates that the site access roadway is temporary. It has not been included on all
relevant project plans. It must be included on all plansheets, and a full restoration plan for the area
must be provided.
There are details on the plansheets for elements that are not included on the plan. All unnecessary
details should be removed.
What operations and maintenance will be required for the wall, gabion baskets and riprap? How will
this be achieved?
Notations on site preparation plans refer to ‘no tree removal’ areas, but do not appear to correspond
to any locations on the plans, and may be remnants from a prior revision.
November 10 2022 Staff Report
3
A chain link fence is proposed to remain in place around the area. This should be raised to allow for
wildlife passage underneath.
The response to OTO references NHESP’s no-take determination as a basis to justify the full extent of
tree removal proposed. The state-listed species present may not tie directly to river shading, but loss
of canopy and shading is part of the interests that should be considered by the Commission.
It is not clear why replication of isolated wetland is not proposed.
It was mentioned at the October hearing that completion of the project as proposed would
facilitate public access through City ownership of the property. The retaining wall proposed to be
created by the project will necessitate ongoing maintenance and repairs, and the costs and risks of
ownership of a potentially costly piece of infrastructure, as well as contained, but still
contaminated soil have not been discussed. Public ownership has not been approved and must not
be considered as one of the benefits of the project at this time.
6:00 PM Notice of Intent construction of an accessory residential structure, septic
system, and related improvements within riverfront (Broad Brook). Laura Minsky
& Brahm Wilson, 372 N Farms Rd, Parcel 7-015.
Application Overview:
The application proposes construction of an accessory residential unit, driveway, parking, and
walkway within riverfront area. Removal of an existing driveway and path are pro posed, for an
overall reduction in impervious area on the sire. Plantings are proposed within the inner
riverfront and no additional work within this area is proposed. The project will reduce the overall
amount of disturbed outer riverfront, but will bring development closer to the bank.
DEP Comments:
DEP Comments and applicant responses are attached.
Consistency with the WPA and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance, Staff
Recommendations:
The application includes an assessment, with which staff primarily agrees. Removal of the
existing driveway will reduce impervious surface and improve conditions in the outer riverfront
area. However, the placement of the new structure does not seem to meet the 310 CMR 10.58
alternatives analysis requirements (below) for siting projects as far as possible from the river. An
alternative that would shift the location of the structure to the east and towards North Farms Road -
closer to the proposed new parking area, away from the river, was not evaluated but would reduce
riverfront impacts. Moving the location would allow for the proposed use and would not require
additional zoning review.
"The purpose of evaluating project alternatives is to locate activities so that impacts to the riverfront
area are avoided to the extent practicable. Projects within the scope of alternatives must be evaluated
to determine whether any are 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...If there is a
practicable and substantially equivalent economic alternative with less adverse effects, the proposed
work shall be denied and the applicant may either withdraw the Notice of Intent or receive an Order
of Conditions for the alternative, provided the applicant submitted sufficient information on the
alternative in the Notice of Intent."
The Commission continued the hearing when the project was first proposed in May to allow for
additional alternatives assessment as well as a full septic design, but the alternatives assessment
November 10 2022 Staff Report
4
was not included in the revised application. The Commission should discuss this with the
applicant.
The Commission must find that the above standard is met to be able to issue an Order. At a
minimum, the riverfront enhancement area must be established as a permanent area to be
maintained in its planted condition. Creation of an exp anded habitat area to include the full 100
foot riverfront boundary or 100 foot buffer zone could be considered to provide additional
improvement over existing conditi0ns. Erosion control is not shown on the septic plan but must
be installed as shown on other plansheets.
6:20 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine if French drain
construction in buffer zone is subject to the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance or MA
Wetlands Protection Act. Richard Baker, 61 N Farms Rd, Parcel 12C-002
Application Overview. Consistency with the Wetlands Protection Act and
Northampton Wetlands Ordinance, Staff Recommendation
The application proposes
installation of an underground drain
to pull water away from the house
foundation. It will empty onto a
lawn area and flow to wetlands
downgradient. As proposed, the
work should not impact the resource
area. The limit of work is currently a
maintained lawn. Issue a negative
determination by checking box 3, to
indicate that work is within buffer
but will not constitute an alteration.
Include standard conditions, require
erosion control as shown on the
plan, and reseeding as necessary.
Request for Certificate of Compliance. Pride Convenience, 17 Damon Road, DEP File #
246 -420
The Commission issued an Order for the Pride Station in the 1990’s. Work appears to have been
completed as proposed (though this would not meet current stormwater standards), and a
requirement to submit ongoing O&M for the stormwater system completed. The property owner is
encouraged to clean and maintain the system as shown in the maintenance document but the
original Order did not require annual reporting.
Work area on left,
wetlands on right