2020.05.14 Staff Report
Conservation Commission Staff Report 1
May 14, 2020
To: Conservation Commission
From: Sarah LaValley
RE: Staff Report, May 14, 2020 Commission Meeting
5:30 PM –Continuation: Notice of Intent for residential driveway construction within
buffer zone to wetland resource areas. Timothy Seney, 1087 Westhampton Rd, Map ID
41-70
Application Overview:
The application proposes construction of a 12 foot wide driveway and related stormwater features
within buffer zone to BVW. A house location is not shown. The work will also require a stormwater
permit from the Northampton Department of Public Works since the project in its entirety will
disturb more than one acre. This lot is a portion of a larger lot that was divided into four parcels, and
three other building lots served by a common driveway were created from the original parcel. The
work does not qualify as a Limited Development project, and this parcel was not considered to be a
developable lot by the Planning Board at that time. Zoning does not allow more than three lots to be
served by a common driveway.
The Conservation Commission issued a determination in 2016 that confirmed wetland boundaries
based on field conditions at that time, but that Determination expired prior to this application being
filed and a new delineation demonstrated different current field conditions. Staff visited the site, and
evaluated resource area boundaries in accordance with the MA Delineating BVW Handbook.
Revised plans include additional resource area in two locations following staff comment.
DEP Comments:
[1] The wetland data sheets incorrectly show Tsuga canadensis as FACU. Paragraph 9 of 131/40
states that it needs to be recognized as a wetland plant. Plot T1-UP needs to show that there is a
predominance of wetland plants.
Staff confirmed wetland boundaries at a site visit. The consultant provided the below followup to
this point:
Plot T1-UP was a transect on the upland side of the delineated boundary. Eastern Hemlock (Tsuga
canadensis) is listed as a Facultative Upland (FACU) plant species by the US Army Corps of
Engineers National Wetland Plant List 2016 for Northcentral and Northeast Region as well as
theMass DEP “Delineating Bordering Vegetated Wetlands Under the Massachusetts WPA”
Handbook.
In this transect, the hemlock trees did not exhibit morphological or physical adaptations
(buttressed trunks or shallow roots) to life in saturated or inundated conditions to consider a FACU
indicator plant as a wetland indicator plant. Therefore the T1-UP transect displays a
predominance of non-wetland indicator plants (3 dominant non-wetland indicator plants and 2
dominant wetland indicator plants) and since it also lacks hydric soils and indicators of hydrology,
it is an upland and not a wetland.
[2] The regulations at 310 CMR 10.53(1) in part states....For work in the Buffer Zone subject to
review under 310 CMR 10.02(2)(b)3., the Issuing Authority shall impose conditions to protect the
interests of the Act identified for the adjacent Resource Area. The potential for adverse impacts to
Resource Areas from work in the Buffer Zone may increase with the extent of the work and the
proximity to the Resource Area. The Issuing Authority may consider the characteristics of the Buffer
Zone, such as the presence of steep slopes that may increase the potential for adverse impacts on
Conservation Commission Staff Report 2
May 14, 2020
Resource Areas. Conditions may include limitations on the scope and location of work in the Buffer
Zone as necessary to avoid alteration of Resource Areas. The Issuing Authority may require erosion
and sedimentation controls during construction, a clear limit of work, and the preservation of
natural vegetation adjacent to the Resource Area and/or other measures commensurate with the
scope and location of the work within the Buffer Zone to protect the interests of M.G.L. c. 131, § 40.
Staff agrees. Even if an Order of Conditions pursuant to the Ordinance is not granted, standard
conditions pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act should be added to the Order.
Consistency with the Wetlands Protection Act and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
Section 337-10 (E) of the Ordinance provides additional standards for “Work within upland areas
adjacent to wetlands.”
A growing body of research evidence suggests that even "no disturbance" areas reaching 100 feet
from wetlands may be insufficient to protect many important wetland resource characteristics and
values. Problems with nutrient runoff, erosion, siltation, loss of groundwater recharge, poor water
quality, vegetation change and harm to wildlife habitat are greatly exacerbated by activities
within 100 feet of wetlands. These impacts may happen either immediately, or over time, as a
consequence of construction, or as a consequence of daily operation. Thus, in general, work and
activity within 100 feet of wetlands should be avoided and discouraged and reasonable
alternatives pursued.
Certain areas 50 feet to 100 feet from wetlands may be suitable for temporary, limited or
permanent disturbance as appropriate 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 Commission may allow the alteration of up to 20% of the area within the fifty foot
to one‐hundred‐foot buffer zone on a lot, or up to 2,000 square feet on a lot within a cluster
subdivision. This is a total, cumulative allowance for all projects on a lot developed since the City
first adopted a wetlands protection ordinance (August 17, 1989). The proposed work must have no
significant adverse impact on the resource area, and the applicant must provide evidence deemed
sufficient by the Commission that the area being disturbed will not harm the resource area values
protected by the law.
The application indicates that the parcel includes 257,700 SF of Buffer Zone area. The proposed
11,782 SF of disturbance equates to 4.5% of the total Buffer Zone area within the parcel. The
application does not include information to indicate that resource area values will not be harmed.
Staff Recommendation:
The application as presented does not meet the buffer zone requirements of the Ordinance. If the
applicant cannot demonstrate that the proposed work, activity or use will not affect wetland values
singularly or cumulatively, an issuance of an Order pursuant to the WPA, and denial pursuant to the
Ordinance, is recommended.
If additional information is provided, and the Commission finds that these standards are met, staff
suggests additional discussion and conditions:
Riprap drainage swales with settling pools increase the overall amount of disturbance, will require
ongoing maintenance, and are typically not included in plans for single-family driveways. The
Commission should discuss these, including O&M, with the applicant.
Discuss the proposed culvert under the driveway and any potential impact to abutting property.
Prior to any work, the applicant shall obtain a stormwater permit for development of a house and
driveway from the Northampton DPW.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 3
May 14, 2020
Prior to any work, the applicant shall provide an updated planset that includes a full driveway and
house footprint. Any additional work proposed within resource areas or buffer zones will require
additional review and permitting.
Except for the footprint of the driveway access, all areas shown on referenced plansheets as being
within wetland resource areas and buffer zones shall remain in a natural and undisturbed state.
Alteration within these areas, including but not limited to, removal of vegetation, construction of
buildings, maintenance of driveway that extends beyond the driveway footprint, and creation of
lawn, is prohibited without review and approval pursuant to the Wetlands Protection Act and
Northampton Wetlands Ordinance.
The applicant and contractor shall develop a specific plan to prevent alteration to wetlands areas
during construction. This plan shall include specific provisions, and must be included in the
sequencing plan.
5:50 PM – Ecological Restoration Notice of Intent for restoration 13.25 acres of
former agricultural land to floodplain forest. Work to include invasive species
management, native plantings and related work. MassAudubon Society, Old
Springfield Road/Arcadia Wildlife Sanctuary. Map ID 45-031
Application Overview:
The application proposes restoration of floodplain forest in the Meadows that has been cleared and
used for agricultural production beginning in the 1800’s. Since being abandoned, the fields have
been maintained in an early successional state through mowing. Resource areas are bordering
vegetated wetland and bordering land subject to flooding. Work proposed is control of invasive and
non-native species including the use of herbicides, control of agricultural plants, planting species
with high wildlife food value, and creation of a floodplain forest with dense woody stems through
shrub and sapling planting. Deer exclusion fencing is included to protect plantings.
The project area includes rare and endangered species priority habitat, and a ‘no-take’ determination
has been issued following Natural Heritage review. A portion of the area is under the care and
custody of the Conservation Commission.
DEP Comments:
DEP’s comments and applicant responses are attached.
Consistency with the Wetlands Protection Act and Northampton Wetlands Ordinance:
The application presents work that is proposed entirely to restore and improve jurisdictional
resource areas. Work within Protected Zones is allowed under the Ordinance as a “Project which will
improve the natural capacity of a resource area(s) to protect the interests identified in MGL c. 131, §
40” The application is presented as an Ecological Restoration limited project, a recent addition to
the 310 CMR to allow permitting of “projects whose primary purpose is to restore or otherwise
improve the natural capacity of a Resource Area(s) to protect and sustain the interests identified in
M.G.L. c. 131, § 40, when such interests have been degraded or destroyed by anthropogenic
influences.” An assessment of the project’s compliance with these provisions is provided beginning
on page 5 of the NOI application.
Staff Recommendation:
The project is presented solely to restore floodplain forest, improve habitat, and re-create a
natural community that is in decline statewide
Issue an Order of Conditions, including standard conditions, and prohibiting the use of York
rakes. Earth moving activities are not proposed, but work will take place near vernal pools.
Discuss precautions around the vernal pool area, and add conditions, if any, that may be needed
to ensure the vernal pool and surrounding area are protected.
Conservation Commission Staff Report 4
May 14, 2020
6:10 PM – Request for Determination of Applicability to determine if resurfacing of
an existing paved pedestrian pathway is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act or
Northampton Wetlands Ordinance. Northampton Office of Planning &
Sustainability, North Farms Road/Broad Brook Greenway - Fitzgerald Lake. Map ID
07-035
Application Overview:
The application proposes repaving of the paved pedestrian pathway from the North Farms Road
parking area to the bridge. Approximately 20 years old, the pavement is deteriorating and
experiencing root damage, making the popular trail less accessible. An overlay in the trail’s existing
footprint is proposed, with root trimming work where necessary.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff assisted application, no specific recommendation. If the Commission agrees that the work
will not impact any adjacent resource areas, issue a negative determination by checking box 2, to
indicate that the work is within an area subject to protection (buffer zone to wetlands and the
riverfront area to nearby Broad Brook), adding standard conditions and any other conditions the
Commission deems necessary to protect nearby wetlands.
Recognize and accept the provisions of M.G.L. c.110G regarding electronic signatures
on documents to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds
Staff recommend that the Commission vote to recognize and accept the provisions of C110G, the
Uniform Electronic Transaction Act, regarding electronic signatures and that its members will
henceforth execute documents either with electronic signatures or with wet ink signatures and that
both will carry the same legal weight and effect during the covid state of emergency. This further
clarifies the previous vote that allowed staff to sign documents during this time.
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