Holyoke Conservation Commission
Minutes for 3/13/ 2014
Full audio recording available at the Conservation Commission Office
Attendees:
Bowler / Moriarty / Panitch / Sugrue / Dahlin / Horan / Ryan / / / / / /
Staff: A. Smith
Public: Jessica Roberts, Tighe & Bond; Rebecca Sherer, Tighe & Bond; Paul Ducheney, Holyoke Gas & Electric; Rich Murray, Holyoke Gas & Electric.
Chairperson Moriarty called the meeting to order and established a limit to the meeting, per Commissioner Panitch’s request, with 8:45 PM being the limit. Chairperson Moriarty then identified the RDA and the Notice of Intent for the Holyoke Dam Downstream Fish Passage as the two items in the agenda. The Chairperson then asked the Applicant to present the RDA first. Mr. Rich Murray stated that the RDA had been submitted to allow HG&E to conduct six test borings within the Connecticut River upstream from the proposed fish passage and within the area that the barge trestle will be constructed. Mr. Murray stated that the test borings will be 4 inches in diameter and that they will be conducted to determine the overburden needed for the site. He stated that these will be case wash borings and five of the borings will tell the HG&E what the soil conditions are and one boring will go down five feet into the bedrock. He stated that the total impact would be less than one square foot and the excavation would be approximately 4 cubic feet. He anticipated that the borings would take 2-3 days. He stated that the borings would be conducted from a barge-mounted drilling unit and that Natural Heritage is reviewing the application and that they are going to pursue permitting with the army corps once permitting has been secured from the Commission. He stated that NHESP had not issued a response to the application. Chairperson Moriarty stated that the DEP circuit rider commented on this application and stated that it incorrectly claimed an exemption for the work in the river; the DEP circuit rider stated that the exemption is only for buffer and Riverfront projects not within a resource area.
Commissioner Panitch stated that she wanted to know how this related to an application from 2010. Mr. Murray stated that the method was exactly the same and that those borings were closer to the dam. Commissioner Panitch stated that she would like to see a plan that showed the location of the borings from 2010. Commissioner Sugrue asked why they were excavating upstream from the work site. Mr. Murray stated that the work was being done to facilitate the construction of the proposed barge trestle. Commissioner Ryan asked if the boring were going to be back-filled. Mr. Murray stated that they would not be backfilled. Chairperson Moriarty stated that she wanted to see the NHESP letter and the 2010 boring plan before the Commission makes a determination on the Application. With that, Commissioner Panitch moved to continue the meeting pending receipt of the requested information. Commissioner Sugrue seconded. Mr. Smith asked if Mr. Murray agreed to continue the meeting. Mr. Murray agreed. The motion passed, unanimously.
Chairperson Moriarty then moved on to the public hearing for 186-0251, a Notice of Intent for the construction of a downstream fish passageway at the Hadley falls Dam and associated access infrastructure located off of St. Kolbe Avenue. The Notice of Intent was filed because proposed work will occur within the following jurisdictional resource areas Bank, Bordering Vegetated Wetlands, Land Under Water, Bordering Land Subject to Flooding, Riverfront Resource Area, and the inner and outer 50' Buffer Zone and the 100'Buffer Zone.
Mr. Smith clarified that DEP had issued a file number, that notice had run in the paper of local record, that the public hearing had been posted in compliance with the open meeting law and that, pending receipt of abutter notification, the Commission could open the public hearing.
Jessica Roberts from Tighe and Bond introduced herself and identified that project as a fish passage enhancement for downstream fish passage at the Hadley Falls station including the upstream construction of a barge trestle. She stated that the enhancements are a Federal Energy Regulatory Committee requirement and that the cooperative consultation team had been reviewing designs for this project for the past ten years. She stated that the NOI is being submitted because it is a water dependent project and that most of the work is taking place at the dam but that upstream access is necessary to allow a barge to be floated downstream to conduct the work and that the construction of this trestle site is 1300 feet upstream from the river. She identified the presence of an existing gravel road at the proposed upstream access point and stated that the Applicant was seeking limited project status for water-dependant uses as well as a variance from the Commission’s 50’ Buffer performance standards. She stated that the upstream impacts were temporary in nature. She stated that most of the work at the dam involves the construction of a bascule gate, and Alden weir, and excavation within a portion of the dam apron.
Commissioner Panitch stated that the application identified two turbines and it was her understanding that there was a third turbine that could have been constructed at the Dam. Rebecca Sherer, project manager for Tighe & Bond, stated that FERC had only licensed G&E for two turbines. Ms. Roberts then identified additional components of the project that were not previously addressed, including the partial removal of the top three feet of the submerged original timber crib dam as well as the removal of an abandoned steel utility transmission tower. She also stated that a 1950s coffer dam would be removed. Ms. Sherer also stated that the fish outlet would be extended, slightly.
Ms. Roberts stated that the work will take place between 2014 and 2016. She stated that downstream resource areas were not delineated due to the man-made nature of the dam-such as the vertical face of a concrete wall- and the hazardous conditions associated with delineations in and around the dam. However, she stated that the plans do use existing available data to identify the locations of Bank, Land Under Water, Ordinary Highwawater, the Bank of the canals, and 100’ buffer from Bordering Land Subject to flooding, which is 74’ in this vicinity and which had been converted to the local vertical elevation for the dam. Mr. Smith sought clarification on why the consultant was using two vertical data sets to identify the flood elevation. Ms. Sherer stated that the vertical datum is different due to the data that the dam uses but that this has been converted from the flood profile for the dam. She likened it to using centimeters or inches to measure an object and she clarified that while the numbers used are different, they are referring to the same flood elevation and that this elevation has been determined by the 2013 FEMA flood profile for this portion of the CT River.
Ms. Roberts then went on to discuss the upstream resource areas for the proposed barge trestle site. She identified an A-Series wetland, which is coincident with the top of Bank for the CT River and which was used to delineate the 200’ Riverfront Resource Area for the site. She identified the B and C Series BVWs which contain intermittent stream channels. She stated that a connection exists between the C series wetland and the river, which is shown on the map. The 100’ Buffer Zone was drawn from the boundary of these wetlands. She stated that the elevation for BLSF in this area is 114HGE /111FEMA and that the 100’ Conservation Commission Buffer for BLSF was delineated off of this elevation. Mr. Smith sought clarification on a red arrow that was identified on the submission that did not match up with the elevation (111) identified during the hearing. Ms. Sherer stated that this was used to highlight the reference points that are easily located on the map and that the trestle is located between the AR and AQ flood profiles, continuing that these were included for reference. The Commission agreed with the Applicant’s interpretation of the location of BLSF for the two components of the site.
Commissioner Moriarty asked for clarification on why the BVWs delineated onsite do not overlap with the DEP wetlands layer.
Ms. Roberts stated that sometimes the FEMA map is used as the BVW map layer and that this is sometimes used as a shorthand layer. She stated that BVW was further refined on-site.
Mr. Smith stated that the NWI and the DEP layers are calling out palustrine forested and palustrine emergent inundated sites. Mr. Smith stated that forested floodplains are difficult to delineate because sandy soils might not seem like wetlands soils, which is when delineators are directed to look at other features such as drift lines. Ms. Sherer stated that the FEMA firm line was used as the DEP layer. Mr. Smith stated that he had mapped it out and the FIRM layer was larger than the DEP Wetlands Layer. Ms. Roberts stated that the delineator used the DEP field delineation manual when determining the boundary and this was based upon vegetation, soils, and hydrology.
Commissioner Moriarty stated that she wanted further review of the existing conditions, specifically the delineation process. She continued stating that she wanted to know how the lines were drawn, especially considering the fact that the site visit showed a quickly moving stream in an area that was not delineated as a wetland. She stated that the pictures from June and October were dry, but her sense from the site visit is that the site was more wet than the plans showed. Ms. Roberts stated that winter conditions could cause the ground to freeze which could result in ponding of water in an area that would not allow water to infiltrate.
Ms. Sherer stated that the ground was frozen and that runoff from an upgradient culvert has nowhere to go, which is contributing to the presence of surface water. During the growing season, conditions would be different, she stated.
Commissioner Horan noticed overland flow, and an occluded drainage culvert, with deep snow, and he assumed that the delineation was done based upon fac wet species and that it seems that there is a flow that connects two of the delineated wetlands. He continued, stating that it doesn’t hugely change the site but that his gut and his experience indicate that the site is more complex than the delineation indicates.
Ms. Sherer stated that the growing conditions were documented. She continued, stating that flash floods are a possibility at this site. She stated that it is an impacted site, and that the area in question is being used heavily, which would make the presence of a wetland difficult, as the proposed access road overlaps with the existing maintenance activities of HG&E.
Mr. Horan asked about an upgradient culvert and Ms. Sherer stated that with the presence of snow and frozen soils the water exiting this culvert might be redirected in a direction that is different from the direction that contributed to the delineation shown on the plans.
Commissioner Panitch asked about the weather conditions at the time of the delineation. Mr. Horan stated that it certainly matters when delineation occurs but he had a sense that the two areas are hydrologically connected more than the plans show. Ms. Roberts asked for clarification as to whether it was A, B, or C that had more of a connection. Mr. Horan stated that he was of the opinion that B&C were more connected than the plans showed. Commissioner Ryan stated that when they were out in the field, a definite channel could be observed. Ms. Roberts asked whether or not they were talking about the A-B wetland. Commissioner Ryan clarified that she was talking about the wetland to the north of B. She stated that she thought it was the fill associated with the road that was preventing a connection from existing between the B and C wetland. Mr. Horan agreed, stating that his gut feeling is that it is trying to reconnect over the fill and that it is easier to see with a lot of snow during a wet winter what the system is trying to do. Ms. Roberts asked for clarification on the location that they were referring to. Mr. Horan clarified that they were referring to the two wetlands with a gravel road between them. Ms. Roberts stated that the field report did show a connection with broad flow between the two wetlands that have a railroad bed between them and that this was outside of the limits of the project. The Commission clarified that they were referring to the very wet straight flow that was connecting across the existing traveled way. Ms. Sherer stated that a storm - a 5, 10 or 20 year storm - might cause it to flow over into another wetland system and that the system is very storm depedendent. She stated that the pipe might not be able to accommodate flows in the winter that the Commission cannot anticipate, which explains why the delineator went out in June and October.
Mr. Smith directed the Commission to the wetlands data form for the site which can answer questions they have about the site and that data for soil, vegetation and hydrology that can be found on-site. He stated that these data sheets should have data on soils and hydrology and that this can be used to refine the questions and to determine whether or not enough data exists to determine whether or not the delineation is a good one.
Ms. Roberts then summarized the process for delineating a wetland, based upon DEP’s wetlands delineation manual.
Commissioner Moriarty asked where soil borings occurred. Ms. Roberts identified the hydrological connection between A and B as the location of the test pits and the test borings. Ms. Roberts referenced the wetlands data sheets and said she didn’t know the exact location of the soil augers. Ms. Moriarty asked why augers were not used or test pits dug in the vicinity of the proposed wetlands fill. Ms. Roberts stated that this work occurred later, during the restoration planning process so they would be able to confirm the adequacy of the scope of the proposed restoration plan. Mr. Smith referred to the wetlands data sheets, noting that they did include information on hydric soils and that they are directed to identify and mark down the presence of high groundwater so the data sheets might be a good place to look for answering questions about the water table. He identified places where the soil depth was 9 inches to hydric soils, noting that it might be possible to find data about the depth to the water table, based upon the data sheet if the Commission is interested in going into that level of detail. Commissioner Moriarty expressed concern that soil samples were not collected from the area of temporary impact. Ms. Roberts confirmed that the entire site is subject to jurisdiction and that there are restoration plans for the entire site, based upon the fact that the entire area is subject to jurisdiction. Mr. Horan stated that the BVW line in this one location might not, then, change the scope of the permitting process.
Ms. Roberts then continued to address the temporary impacts for the site at the Commission’s request. She stated that the entire project area is in jurisdiction and stated that the proposed gravel access road will be underlain with non-woven geotextile fabric to preserve the site conditions. She stated that the area is degraded in its current condition due to its use as a maintenance path for the city and intravenous drug users who leave debris and start fires in the site. Ms. Sherer stated that within the limit of work for the project vegetation will only be removed to grade and will not be stumped or excavated from the ground because Mass Historic does not want any disturbance of the soil at this site for archaeological purposes. Ms. Roberts stated that invasive species will be removed, such as winged euonymus and honeysuckle. Ms. Roberts continued, noting that the impacts include 25 linear feet of Bank impacts in association with the construction of the trestle; approximately 1,000 s.f. of BVW impacts; 18,000 s.f. of BLSF impacts. Mr. Horan asked for information on the average depth of fill. Ms. Roberts referred to the NOI Planset and addressed the restoration plan, which included dogwood and willow within the proposed choir logs and the removal of fill and geotextile within BLSF; she continued and addressed the planting plan and the proposed seed mix and then referenced the wildlife habitat restoration plan, which is designed to address the most important wildlife habitat characteristics found on-site.