No preview available
 /
     
2022.12.08 Staff Report.pdf December 8 2022 Staff Report To: Conservation Commission From: Sarah LaValley RE: Staff Report, December 8 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. An orange marker layer will be added to demarcate the limits of contaminated soil within the stockpile. 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: December 8 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. If the Commission finds that the portions of the work proposed, such as the retaining wall, do not qualify for the type of limited project status claimed, or finds that exercising discretion to approve is not appropriate, an Order could be denied. Additional questions: The Commission should note the following if it is able to make the determinations detailed and above and finds that issuance of an Order is appropriate. These should be addressed in conditions. If appropriate, any plans for ongoing maintenance of the area will need to be specified; otherwise additional permitting would be required. The application indicates that the site access roadway is temporary, but a full restoration plan is not included. The area is planned to be seeded. Is mowing proposed? How will invasive species be managed, if at all? December 8 2022 Staff Report 3 What remedial actions will be necessary if the orange marker layer becomes visible? 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. A chain link fence is proposed to remain in place around the area. A condition should be added to require room for wildlife passage underneath. The applicant indicates that holes could be placed in the fence, but the possibility of raising the fence in its entirety (as is typical with a solar field) or sections of fence should be discussed. 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. A 648 sf IVW replication has been added. Standard conditions related to replication should be added, including those necessary for construction, and a requirement to maintain the area in its replicated state. 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. 6:20 PM Request for Determination of Applicability to determine if transformer and utility pole installation within riverfront area and buffer zone to bank (Mill River) is subject to the Northampton Wetlands Ordinance or MA Wetlands Protection Act. Massachusetts Electric Co, 238 Nonotuck St, Parcel 23A-286 Application Overview: The application proposes installation of one new utility pole, a pad-mounted electrical transformer, and trenched conduit within riverfront area and buffer to bank. All work will take place within footprint of an existing driveway. Consistency with the WPA and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance, Staff Recommendations: The application notes exemptions for trenched utilities and poles. The work may extend to an expansion and portions may not be covered by these exemptions, but all work is confined to existing paved areas and will not create any new disturbance or impervious areas. Issue a negative determination by checking box 2. Require notification no less than 48 hours in advance, and again when work is complete. 6:30 PM Notice of Intent for construction of a stormwater outfall within buffer zone to bordering vegetated wetlands. 80 Locust Street, Parcel ID 23B-047 (Smith Vocational & Ag. High School) Northampton DPW, applicant. December 8 2022 Staff Report 4 Application Overview: The application proposes construction of a new stormwater outfall, settling basin and swale within buffer zone to BVW, in an area that is currently mown pasture. Work will be located more than 300 feet from Elm Street/Broughton’s Brook. Nearly all of the stormwater from the 14.3 acre developed portion of the Smith Vocational High School campus flows through a 24” concrete pipe to a receiving 18” pipe. This undersized system surcharges to Locust Street and is damaging the roadway. The new proposed system will receive flows over 1”. DEP Comments: None Consistency with the WPA and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance, Staff Recommendations: As a buffer zone only project, performance standards under the WPA are limited; and discussed on page 9 of the application. The project is within the URB zoning district, and provisions of the Wetlands Ordinance above state law are waived; no work within the Protected Zone is proposed. A. It should be noted that the City developed plans for a raingarden to receive some of the flows from developed portions of SVAHS as part of a larger Designs With Nature project. Implementation of the full scope or portions of the design could help to reduce peak flows and should be considered as a long-term solution. The proposed work will retain water within the drainage area and should reduce peak flows and erosion at the southern outflow from the site, as well as address erosion along Locust Street. The commission could discuss whether there is any viable alternative to riprap within the buffer zone, and ask about plans for ongoing O&M of the basin. Add any additional conditions resulting from the discussion, and issue an Order with standard conditions.