Becket Conservation Commission
Becket Town Hall 557 Main St.
Minutes
Thursday, November 15, 2012
The meeting is called to order at 6:33 PM.
Present: Scott Morley, Chair; Richard Pryor, Vice Chair; Kathy Vsetecka, Agent and Commissioner, Purr McEwen, Bud Moylan, Commissioners; Howard Lerner, Applicant; Robin MacEwan, Stantec; Robert Ronzio and Colleen O’Conner
Absent: Marty Winters
1. Approval of minutes from the October 18, 2012 meeting.
Mr. Morley made a motion to hold on approving the October 18th minutes. The motion was
Seconded by Mr. Moylan and passed unanimously.
2. Notice of Intent Howard Lerner (Sherwood Forest Lake District) Big Robin Hood Lake Dam
Will Scarlet Drive Map 216 Lot 418 DEP #102-0386 Rehabilitation of the dam in compliance with the Mass Dam Safety Regulations
Robin MacEwan from Stantec represents the NOI. The purpose of the project is the structural repair and maintenance of Big Robin Hood dam to comply with state regulations. This is a limited project.
The dam is an earth embankment structure which is 20 feet high and 250 feet long with a concrete
spillway section that is 20 feet long. Jurisdictional resource areas include land under water, bank,
bordering vegetated wetlands, buffer zone, bordering land subject to flooding and riverfront. There
is a low level outlet on the northwest side of the dam that is inoperable. To the north there is
uncontrolled seepage at the left abutment; The channel downstream of the low level outlet is
poorly maintained. The concrete spillway has a poor mortar/concrete surface. There is woody
vegetation on the embankment. Ms. MacEwan notes that these are all significant issues needing to
be addressed. Proposed work includes repairing the area of uncontrolled seepage by removing the
existing substrate and replacing with sand, filter fabric and putting in a toe drain. The existing low
level outlet will be removed and replaced with a new outlet. This involves the isolation of the work
area by using a sheet piling coffer dam. A gate valve will be installed to control outlet flow. The low level outlet drainage swale has filled up over the years with woody debris and organic material. These will be removed by hand to open up the channel. The concrete spillway will be isolated with sheet pilings and repaired in its present location. The concrete decking and wing walls will be restored and the stop logs reconfigured. All the woody vegetation will be removed on the downstream face and within15 feet of the toe of the embankment. Two areas on the spillway that were eroded by tropical storm Irene will be repaired by placing stone along the left bank and by
filling in a scour hole about 120 square feet in size to restore it to its original grade. This hole
is within a vegetated wetland. Proposed work at the dike is minimal and includes slightly expanding
the width of it. There will also be fill added at the toe of the dike. The proposed work results in
temporary impacts to land under water, bank, and riverfront. It also includes a permanent impact
to the wetlands of 480 square feet.. A area of wetland mitigation is proposed on land adjacent to the spillway. The replication area is 1,477 square feet. It will be excavated down about 2 ½ feet to get the elevation down to about a foot of the normal water elevation in the lake. A split rail fence has been added to the plan. Mr. Moylan states that there had been a discussion with Mr. Christensen (Stantec representative) during a site visit, that any boulders excavated also be put on the beach side of the replication area. There will be a chain link fence installed at the spillway; the present bridge will be removed. A silk sock will be used for erosion controls. There is an access point on Mr. Lerner’s property. Mr. Ronzio states that they would like to start the
project in 2013, perhaps doing both the Little Robin Dam repair at the same time as this one. Mr. Morley notes that the current plans increase the design of the dam to hold off big storms such as Irene but will not improve capacity. Equipment and storage will be on the lots 781.1 and 780.01 of Map 216. Ms. Vsetecka notes that the Commission will need to know the name of the contractor before work commences. Also, that reports as stated in the NOI for the replication area will be needed. Ms. Vsetecka and Mr. Morley ask if the Commission could ask for a weekly incident report . The oversight contractor or the engineer onsite could email a table formulated with a date, incident and action taken. Ms. MacEwan and applicants agree that a weekly incident report could be done. Ms. Vsetecka provides the group with an example of a weekly incident report. Ms. MacEwan notes that a contact list will be provided to the Commission
once the bids are out and decisions made. There are no maintenance schedules at the time. Ms. MacEwan notes that all other approvals have been received.
Mr. Morley motions to approve the Notice of Intent for Big Robin Hood Lake Dam project with Becket Standard NOI conditions. A weekly electronic incident report with pictures will be submitted to the Commission; any large excavated boulders will be placed outside the split rail fence around the replication area; storage of equipment and materials will be at Map 216 Lots 781.1 and 780.01. The motion was seconded by Ms. McEwen and passed unanimously.
3. Certificate of Compliance Michael and Christine Shannon 132 Nottingham Ct. Map 216 Lot 750 DEP #102-0363
The Committee agrees that all looks good and the Certificate of Compliance should be granted.
Ms. Vsetecka motions to issue a Certificate of Compliance for Michael and Christine Shannon 132 Nottingham Ct. Map 216 Lot 750 DEP #102-0363. The motion was seconded by Ms. McEwen and passed unanimously.
4. Weekly report from Center Pond re dam rehabilitation
Ms. Vsetecka notes that at Greenwater Pond logs were removed and the third will go out this week. Everything is on schedule. Ms. Vsetecka notes that the herbicide treatment is doing the job and divers have been coming in to take care of hand pulling. David MacWilliams does not believe any more chemical treatment is required. Paid divers will take care of the rest of the pulling.
5. Administrative Business
A. Colleen O’Connor
Ms. O’Connor notes that she attended a Committee meeting on October 18th to address them on the salt that is coming onto her property and contaminating her well. Ms. O’Connor believes that a decision back in 2001 is a permanent condition because the drains go directly into the river with no filtration. Ms. Vsetecka notes that most conditions are not “forever”. Ms. O’Connor called the DEP and notes that a Certificate of Compliance cannot be issued because of the time lapse from the expiration of the Order of Conditions. Ms. McEwen notes that it was presented as a possible idea but never confirmed due to the age. Ms. O’Connor also noted the Becket Conservation Committee should be policing more. Ms. McEwen further notes that
the Committee does not go out and find violations. Investigation is done if a problem is presented to them. Mr. Morley notes that the Committee cannot help with the well if there is proof that there is salt going into the river they can take action. Ms. Vsetecka notes that documentation is required and an enforcement order is needed. Mr. Morley inquires if the Committee can try writing a letter to the school reminding them that there are drains going to the river. Mr. Pryor suggests that because there was a complaint, the Committee invites the school and highway superintendent to attend a meeting and explain the school’s process for getting rid of waste water and if they educate their contractors. Ms. McEwen inquires on the Committee’s jurisdiction and the conditions before the project. Furthermore, after the project is done, can the conditions still be viable? Mr. Pryor suggests that the Committee refer to the DEP regarding
jurisdiction before a letter or an invitation to a meeting happens. A couple questions to ask the school are: whether or not they can actually use salt and do they have a material handling procedures. Mr. Moylan inquires where the chemicals are showing up and is there any documentation. Ms. O’Connor notes that she has some photographs showing buckets poured down the drains. The Committee agrees that they do not actually know what are in the buckets. First step will be for the Committee to contact the DEP.
5. Administrative Business
A. Colleen O’Connor
Ms. O’Connor notes that she attended a Committee meeting on October 18th to address them on the salt that is coming onto her property and contaminating her well. Ms. O’Connor believes that a decision back in 2001 is a permanent condition because the drains go directly into the river with no filtration. Ms. Vsetecka notes that most conditions are not “forever”. Ms. O’Connor called the DEP and notes that a Certificate of Compliance cannot be issued because of the time lapse from the expiration of the Order of Conditions. Ms. McEwen notes that it was presented as a possible idea but never confirmed due to the age. Ms. O’Connor also noted the Becket Conservation Committee should be policing more. Ms. McEwen further notes that
the Committee does not go out and find violations. Investigation is done if a problem is presented to them. Mr. Morley notes that the Committee cannot help with the well if there is proof that there is salt going into the river they can take action. Ms. Vsetecka notes that documentation is required and an enforcement order is needed. Mr. Morley inquires if the Committee can try writing a letter to the school reminding them that there are drains going to the river. Mr. Pryor suggests that because there was a complaint, the Committee invites the school and highway superintendent to attend a meeting and explain the school’s process for getting rid of waste water and if they educate their contractors. Ms. McEwen inquires on the Committee’s jurisdiction and the conditions before the project. Furthermore, after the project is done, can the conditions still be viable? Mr. Pryor suggests that the Committee refer to the DEP regarding
jurisdiction before a letter or an invitation to a meeting happens. A couple questions to ask the school are: whether or not they can actually use salt and do they have a material handling procedures. Mr. Moylan inquires where the chemicals are showing up and is there any documentation. Ms. O’Connor notes that she has some photographs showing buckets poured down the drains. The Committee agrees that they do not actually know what are in the buckets. First step will be for the Committee to contact the DEP.
Ms. McEwen made the motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Moylan and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned olleen O’Connor
Ms. O’Connor notes that she attended a Committee meeting on October 18th to address them on the salt that is coming into her property and contaminating her well. Ms. O’Connor believes that a decision back in 2001 is a permanent condition because the drains go directly into the river with no filtration. Ms. Vsetecka notes that most conditions are not “forever”. Ms. O’Connor called the DEP and notes that a certificate of Compliance is expired in 5 years. Ms. McEwen notes that it was presented as a possible idea but never confirmed due to the age. Ms. O’Connor also noted the Becket Conservation Committee should be policing more. Ms. McEwen further notes that the Committee does not go out and find violations. Investigation is
done if a problem is presented to them. Mr. Morley notes that the Committee cannot help with the well but the Committee can investigate if the salt is going into the river. Ms. Vsetecka notes that documentation is required and an enforcement order is needed. Mr. Morley inquires if the Committee can try writing a letter to the school reminding them that there are drains going to the river. Mr. Pryor suggests that because there was a complaint, the Committee invites the school and highway superintendent to attend a meeting and explain the school’s process for getting rid of waste water and if they educate their contractors. Ms. McEwen inquires on the Committee’s jurisdiction and the conditions before the project. Furthermore, after the project is done, can the conditions still be viable? Mr. Pryor suggests that the Committee refers to the DEP regarding jurisdiction before a letter or an invitation to a meeting can happen. A couple
questions to ask the school are: whether or not they can actually use salt and do they have a material handling procedures. Mr. Moylan inquires where the chemicals are showing up and is there any documentation. Ms. O’Connor notes that she has some photographs showing buckets poured down the drains. The Committee agrees that they do not actually know what are in the buckets. First step will be for the Committee to contact the DEP.
Ms. McEwen made the motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Moylan and passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:45PM.
Scott Morley, Chair Date
Richard Pryor, Vice Chair Date
Kathy Vsetecka, Commissioner/Agent Date
Bud Moylan, Commissioner Date
Purr McEwen, Commissioner Date
Marty Winters, Commissioner Date
Respectfully Submitted,
Colleen Callan
Scott Morley, Chair Date
Richard Pryor, Vice Chair Date
Kathy Vsetecka, Commissioner/Agent Date
Bud Moylan, Commissioner Date
Purr McEwen, Commissioner Date
Marty Winters, Commissioner Date
Respectfully Submitted,
Colleen Callan
conservation__________________________________________c_o_n_s_e_r_v_a_t_i_o_n___ ____T_o_w_n_ _o_f_ _B_e_c_k_e_t___\___,_7_1_5_ _G_e_o_r_g_e_ _C_a_r_t_e_r_ _R_
| 