HomeMy WebLinkAboutmin conservation com 09/25/00
RECEIVED
TOWN CLERKS OFF MICE Ii Id C . C ..
ans e onservation ommlSSlon
00 DEe - 6 PM ~tes of Meeting - September 25,2000
Present: ltillt(ii,Q.Qf,..~hair; Commissioners Bob Bean, Carol Matthew, Jack
Smithtv-il6~i,f.bll~iane Ready; Dick Lewis, Environmental Planner
r
Meeting called to Order at 7:40 P.M.
1. Request for an Extension permit, Town of Mansfield, Walsh Well
The completion ofthe new pipe work on the Walsh Well field was delayed this
summer due to wet weather. The Water Dept. would like to get an Extension
Permit for one more year. One Extension was already issued last year. The File #
is 211-507. Motion [Bean/smith] to issue a one-year Extension. Voted 4-0-0
[two commissioners not yet present].
2. Request for a Partial Certificate, Mill Farm, Lot 43
This lot is a high and dry lot with just the overall subdivision in effect. No
outstanding wetland issues. Motion [Bean/Smith] to issue a Partial Certificate of
Compliance; voted 4-0-0.
r
r
3.
Request for Determination hearings-Mass. Highway, Rte 495 work
Mass. Highway has filed two RDA's for work on a section ofRte 495 in
Mansfield. Tom McGuire, from Mass. Highway presented the projects. The first
RDA is for repair of frost heaves and the removal of certain section of damaged
concrete with the placement of asphalt. T. McGuire states that this a basic
maintenance project with all work taking place with the edges of pavement. The
second RDA is for complete rubblization of the existing white concrete sections
of the roadway and replacing it with asphalt. In addition, the state will install
some new Best Management Practices in five existing drainage structures. This
will help to eliminate direct discharge of storm water into waterways and other
cross-culverts. Any ground up material will either be hauled away or used in
place as the base for the new pavement. This work will be shoulder to shoulder.
All catch basins and manholes will be raised to accommodate the new additional
depth of the roadway surface. Motion (ReadylBean] to the close the hearings;
voted 5-0-0. Motion (SmithlBean] to issue a Negative Three on the first
Determination; voted 5-0-0. Motion [BeanlMatthew] to issue a Negative Three
on the second Determination; voted 5-0-0.
4. Presentation by David Foulis, DEP Circuit Rider
D. Foulis explained that the Circuit Rider program was started in 1996 to help the
local Commissions with the Rivers Act and the storm water regulations and
policies. The program is not a regulatory program. but is instead there to explain
policies and programs.
Page 1
,r'
The first tool to use when dealing with the Rivers Act regs is the current USGS
map. These maps outline what waterways are considered a perennial river and
what is an intermittent stream or river that would not trigger the river regs. He
handed out copies of the map legend that showed the appropriate symbols for the
different classifications. He did state that the USGS program never intended for
their maps to be used for regulatory purposes, and there is an attempt to clarify
some of the confusion that has been created by the use of these maps. But for
now, the maps form the presumption under the regs for what is and isn't a river
under the regs.
If a Commission or an applicant wants to over the presumption shown on the
USGS map, then competent information must be provided. Knowledge or
information provided by the Commission or its agent is considered to be
competent information. Question of what if a third party comes forward with
information about a river. D. Foulis explained that creates a he said/she said
scenario, which is difficult to deal with. A third party would need to submit a
signed affidavit. Question of what other evidence can be submitted. D. Foulis
explained that the regs spell out other pieces of information, such as rate of flow
and stream gauge data, that can act as a factor is the decision making process a
Commission must go through. An another important piece of data is whether
there is uni-directional flow present.
r
D. Foulis points out that any applicant or engineer has at their disposal the
necessary information to answer the questions oft is it a river under the regs and
where is it located. The Commission always has the option of hiring outside
experts to review the evidence that is presented. Question of why isn't every
waterway that flows into a pond, lake, and etc. a river under the regs. D. Foulis
explained that a perennial stream is treated the same as a perennial river.
Question of whether man-made wetlands are jurisdictional. D. Foulis says that a
resource area is a resource area, no matter if it is man-made or not. There is a
short discussion on Great Ponds. A Great Pond is a waterbody that existed pre-
European settlers and is 10 or more acres in size. Flood plain question. D. Foulis
explained that the US FEMA office is involved with updating the flood plain
maps.
D. Foulis stressed that the Performance Standards set forth in the regulations
outline in detail what the Commission can require or not require, permit or not
permit, or request or not request. This applies not only to the River regs, but all
other areas of the wetland regulations.
For the Rivers regs, one performance standard requires a written alternatives
analysis for work within the 200- foot zone. The Alternatives Analysis is a
complicated section of the Rivers Act. The potential profit for the developer is
r
Page 2
r'
not a fuctor. There is a discussion of costs that can be considered outlined in the
Act. The question of what is a "practicable expenses" discussed. It is explained
that the Commission should start at zero percent [0%] work within the 200-foot
zone when discussing/negotiating what work may be allowed in this zone.
Question about Rare Species on a lot. D. Foulis explains that again, the
presumption is based on what is or isn't shown on the map from the Natural
Heritage program.
It is explained that if a project proposes, and Commission agrees to allow,
aheration of more than 5000 sq. ft. of the outer toO-foot zone, then a wildlife
analysis is required. If the area is determined to be wildlife habitat, then the
disturbed area must be replicated.
D. Foulis explains that if a project meets the storm water guidelines then is
presumed to satisfactorily protect the riverfront area. If the project engineer
proves to the Commission that a Best Management Practice can only be placed in
the Riverfront area then the Commission can allow that.
On a question about vernal pools, D. Foulis explained that the Programmatic
General Permit from the Army Corps now deals with potential vernal pools not
just certified pools.
r
Everyone thanked Dave Foulis for his time, guidance, and valuable information.
Motion [BeanlBoyden] to adjourn at 9:50 PM. Voted 6-0-0.
Approved October 30, 2000
~~
Page 3
r-