GCC MEETING MINUTES
March 24, 2005
Attendees: Carl Shreder, Harry LaCortiglia, Michael Birmingham, John Bell, Paul Nelson, Laura Repplier
GENERAL BUSINESS
Meeting Opened – Carl
Minutes
MOTION to approve minutes of Feb 10, 2005 with noted changes– Harry / Paul / Unam
MOTION to approve minutes of Feb 24, 2005 with noted changes – Harry / Paul / Unam
2004 Outstanding Minutes – Match the agendas to the handwritten minutes & record the decisions / actions in there. Work in chronological order. We need to show we are working on them – due diligence.
Action: Laura will transcribe as time allows.
CoC
Site Walks will be done by:
400 Central – Carl
1 Farm - Michael, John & Harry
3 Canterbury – Harry
Additional Documentation Required for:
44 Elm - Obtain as-built plans
5 Whiffletree We are awaiting as-built plans from the owner.
12 Hillside - Obtain as-built plans
Extend OoC
302 Central Street – Rep Dr. Lewis Skeirik
MOTION to extend 2001-054 for one year – Harry / John / Unam
EOs
47 West Street –
We should ask Gale to help draft a new OoC. They have already made recommendations that would fit into the new OoC. We will also have Phase II DEP requirements (more grid sampling, migration) by the end of this EO. The second OoC should handle through the clean-up & residential preparation process - for a clean piece of land & development of the sub-division. The new OoC will need a hearing and the abutters process must be gone through again.
MOTION to approve the latest EO for 47 West St – Harry / John / Unam
Rock Pond –
The EO was signed by Harry & delivered on March 21. Paul & Harry visited the site on March 20 and photographed the dock in the pond.
The Harbormaster Regs state that a structure in the pond must not be more than 30’ long; may not be a permanent feature; and may not have a boat tied up to it.
Was this structure pile driven in or is it sitting on the bottom? There are two holes and two pipes (at a crooked angle). It is constructed of 10 x 2 pressure treated lumber – so maybe it is not portable. It is Grandfathered if there was a dock there before 1984.
Pressure treated wood is an issue but there is nothing in the Harbormaster Regs to deny it. Pressure-treated wood is not supposed to be in the water. But even it the dock is floating, rain could cause leaching.
Is it a permanent structure? The State owns under the lake but town has jurisdiction. Owner has to file with DEP & GCC.
The issued EO says to remove the dock but does not issue a fine. They are required to come into the Apr 7th meeting, & start a filing.
The full commission EO does not ask them to remove the dock but states that they must attend the April 7th meeting. Paul will talk to them and deliver the new EO.
MOTION to ratify the EO against the Rock Pond Dock at 15 Lakeridge Drive, (Map 6d Lot 93) as modified – John / Harry / Unam
AQUIFER LAND ACQUISITION
The Selectmen want the land use boards (GCC, Open Space) to sponsor that purchase. GCC needs to be the sponsor using CPC funds. The benefits of the parcel include its proximity to the aquifer, good species & habitat & open space access.
The fines follow the landowner – if the land changes hands the fines disappear. The fines have stopped now, so the new owner would not have to pay anything. So we need to get that land.
The vote will need to go to town meeting. CPC scored this parcel 28 points out of possible 30. Open Space voted unanimously to endorse it in partnership with GCC.
The parcel would have a Conservation Restriction applied (held by a third party) so the town could never change its use.
GCC should look into a partnership with Trustees of Reservations.
MOTION to endorse & sponsor the purchase of Map 6A, Lots 2, 2A and 3 jointly with the Open Space Committee – Harry / John / Unam
6 CARLETON DRIVE
Invite the applicant to attend April 7 meeting.
SITE VISIT
Work may begin at 8 Stone Row without a prior site visit.
HEARINGS
Pentucket Pond Advisory Committee
Fanwort Treatment 2004-001
Rep: Gerry Smith, ACT
ACT was hired by the Pentucket Pond Advisory Committee. They filed an NOI for treating the fanwort. It also needed to be filed with the NHESP who are concerned with the bridled shiner – a state protected species.
ACT met with Bill Dudley, Joe Pelczarski(Pentucket Pond Committee), and Pat Huckley (NHESP). Pat wanted assurances that all vegetation would not be lost through the SONAR treatment. They needed an aquatic survey, which was done in Summer 2004. They filed with the GCC & sent it to NHESP, showing them that the program wouldn’t remove all of the habitat for the bridled shiner.
They used transects & data points to identify the plant cover in their survey.
The fanwort has spread from 1 acre to over 20 – the pond is 80 acres in total. ACT recommend that all the pond be treated with SONAR. It isn’t possible to use barriers in applying the treatment as the fanwort is all through the pond area. ACT felt that with the positive flow of water & natural floating island barriers the bridled shiner would have an escape route during treatment.
This was submitted to NHESP but Pat had left & Dan Nein took her place. We still have not had a decision from them. A meeting took place earlier today (March 24, 2005) but not all the key people were there. Gerry told them that we need a decision by the end of April to get the treatment in for this year.
Paul N – What is our drop dead date?
ACT – We must apply for a DEP Chemical Permit within the next few weeks. The money is already available from the Town Meeting in 2003.
Carl S – Did Dan Nein offer any other solutions?
ACT – He said they can’t be sure the fish will use that escape area. When they are stressed they should move to the refuge area. If we don’t treat this year we could look for them in those areas – but they may only use it as escape rather than habitat. The bridle shiner needs leafy, submerged vegetation – coontail, tapegrass, etc. These plants won’t be taken out by the SONAR. ACT say that they have a refuge area & assemblage of vegetation that will remain after treatment but Nein is skeptical. We should get 3-4 yrs from a single SONAR treatment of fanwort whereas other vegetation recovers in one year. ACT has a good relationship with NHESP but the criteria changed with Nein.
Paul N/Carl S – What happens if we wait another year?
ACT – The pond may be 50% covered within 5 yrs.
Carl S – What is the efficacy of the SONAR treatment?
ACT – Should get 3-4 yrs. It may be only 2 years but generally 3-4. It might be advisable to use handpulling as an additional plan. We need a management plan defining a standing commitment & standing effort over the years including monitoring, education, and handpulling. It will cost about $57,000 for the initial treatment – but NHESP will probably want additional monitoring as well. It could cost up to $20k per year for the maintenance in the management plan.
Harry L – Only $45k was approved at the town meeting.
ACT – Is it not viable this year or are there other sources of funds?
Harry L – The CPA could take it back to town meeting … If billed in milestones it could work out.
ACT – SONAR is $1524 / gallon! 80% of the job expense is chemicals. The major threat to the bridle shiner is loss of habitat due to invasive species. If we don’t do something we will lose them anyway to loss of habitat.
Carl S – Can Nein make the decisions on his own?
ACT – He is not acting alone. More people are getting involved and things may be coming around. We need to fight for the pond or will lose it if don’t get rid of invasives. We must communicate with Dr. French at NHESP & sell it. We must get a vendor in place in time to be ready to work in early May / early June (for slowdown in flow). The letter should say we need approval by the May meeting dates.
Harry L – What’s the latest we can do this & be effective?
ACT – Can’t start beyond the 2nd week in June. We need a DEP chemical license – ACT could apply for us – needs to be done by the 3rd week in May. We must also notify the residents around the lake.
Paul N – We need a definitive yes or no. What analysis are the NHESP going through?
ACT – They have questions about the toxicity of the chemical – always asked. The ACT plan gives safety factors of 100 to 1k-fold. Habitat loss is the real issue. Will there be enough vegetation left for the fish after treatment? They have documented habitat loss over the last few years. So, if don’t want to do this, what do they suggest? SONAR is the ONLY way to deal with this plant.
Everything else has been tried. Can’t use barriers to control where SONAR needs to go as the fanwort exists throughout most of the pond. Can’t use drawdown because the fanwort is in 5 – 10 ft which would be a much greater problem. There are no biological controls like with other plants. Until SONAR there were no chemicals that would work on fanwort. SONAR has the most favorable toxicity profile, it can be used in drinking water because it only disrupts photosynthesis in plants.
Harry L – The alewife run at same time as the treatment. Huge biomass dropoff ?…
ACT – SONAR works slowly, it can take 45 – 60 days of continuous contact with the herbicide & plant to kill it. Saturation is calculated at 20 pts / billion. Water samples are sent to the manufacturer immediately to discover what the concentration is & if a booster application is needed. ACT estimates we will need one initial treatment & 2-3 boosters to achieve required contact.
Because SONAR works so slowly there won’t be a discernible change in oxygen levels as there isn’t an enormous amount of decomposition all at once.
Carl S – Will it affect the BOD / COD?
ACT – No. During a normal cycle it crashes normally anyway. It reduces the sedimentation rate as it reduces the biomass.
Harry L – What about the small bur reed?
ACT – That is off the table now as it was not found 4-5 years ago. It may possibly have been found last year but has not been positively identified.
MB – Are barriers possible?
ACT – Barriers work well as an impermeable curtain which increases the positive flow on the other side of the curtain. But the presence of the bridle shiner means that there isn’t just one area to try to protect – the fish are all through the pond. Mass Fish & Game are not convinced that they are truly threatened through loss of habitat, perhaps more so from game fish & stocked fish.
Writing a letter to Tom French, at NHESP would be very helpful.
Harry L – Is NHESP looking for baseline data?
Paul N – There is no way of determining that as we have no information.
Harry L – We don’t want to be delayed by a whole year.
ACT – Nein suggested taking an inventory for the bridle shiner but will need a specialist contractor as the fish are not easy to identify. It would probably cost $5k+. Even if they are not found the pond would still be listed as habitat for them.
MOTION continue to April 21, 8:30 – Harry / Paul / Unam
Mark Bellaud – will attend from ACT if NHESP has responded by then.
9 CHAPLIN HILLS
Reps: Jay Jones, Developer; John Decoulos, Engineer
There is no FEMA Zone A (100 yr flood) area around Chaplin Hill. FEMA Zone B (500 yr flood) is shown crossing Baldpate – overlay showing where that is (April 2001).
At the new plan: Monuments are <35’ apart. Size of the turnaround is reduced – was 20’ down to 14’.
Paul N – Was there any grading outside the monuments?
Appl – No. It was cleared by the previous owner but was not graded. There was only cutting of trees & brush. The wetland was delineated by the previous owner but applicant did it again & went up gradient from that line.
MOTION to lift EO from 9 Chaplin Hills Rd – Harry / Mike / Unam
MOTION to accept the revised plan and wetland line of 3/21/05 – Paul / Harry / Unam
MOTION to close the hearing – Harry / John / Unam
151 JEWETT STREET
Harry LaCortiglia recused and left the room.
No applicant attended.
GCC will contract someone to do the delineation.
MOTION to continue to May 19, 8:00 – Michael / John / Unam
Action: Laura contract someone to do the delineation.
Harry returned.
MOTION to adjourn - John / Harry / Unam
| 
