MONSON CONSERVATION COMMISSION
JUNE 3, 2009
MEMBERS PRESENT: Leslie Duthie, Donald Lambert, Glenn Colburn and Davis Johnson
7:05 Sewer & Water Superintendent Craig Jalbert submitted aerial photographs with a description of work he needs to do within the sewer easement on Palmer Road. The proposed work is to gain access to a manhole that is located well back from the road but within the riverfront area.
Leslie Duthie stated it appeared to be a good project and would require the filing of a Notice of Intent for the work.
It was so voted unanimous.
7:10 John Morrell met informally with the Commission to discuss his concerns that an overflowing well at a home located on the corner of Butler Road and Lower Hampden Road will undermine the road bed. The Commission met with Paul Winkler the property owner a few months ago and it was Mr. Winkler’s preference to wait and see what would happen once the Lower Hampden Road project was finished.
John Morrell stated Mr. Winkler must do something to stop the water coming onto the roadway and he did not want to take and wait and see approach because of his concern that the water would undermine the new road bed. Mr. Morrell stated he spoke with Mr. Winkler who has since left him a message that Connecticut Valley is going to cap the well.
John Morrell questioned if the Commission knew where the driveways for the lots on Carpenter Road were going to be located specifically the lot above the Keogh residence?
The Commission showed Mr. Morrell a plan and it appears the location of the driveway for Lot 3 would not be a problem.
Leslie Duthie stated she believed Lot 2 would be more of a problem because its on the steeper part of the slope.
7:15 NOI Harrison Avenue Bridge Repair, Town of Monson Highway Department.
Leslie Duthie stated the Commission made a site visit.
Donald Frydryk, Sherman & Frydryk, Land Surveying & Engineering described the project stating the bridge was damaged in the flood of October 2005 and as time went by continued to get worse on the southerly abutment.
John Morrell stated FEMA is paying 75% of the cost of the repair and MEMA 25% but the Town must stay within the scope of the repair outlined by FEMA.
Mr. Frydryk stated over the years the stream channel has migrated to one side and the proposed channel repairs will replicate the former profile of Margaret Brook. The work will be undertaken in a three phase approach, the first stage being the southerly bridge and channel repairs. Three access locations will be required for Phase 1 and all will have an anti tracking pad.
Phase 1 Southerly bridge and channel repairs.
The proposed work in the brook channel will only take place during a low flow period typically July 1st to October 1st. Placement of erosion controls on the river banks and sandbag embankment in the river to divert the flow prior to any other work. As a result of the flood some of the large boulders and granite blocks ended up down stream. It is proposed to recover as many as possible within the scope of the work to be used later to rebuild the stream bed. Disassemble and stockpile the stone retaining wall, place concrete in the scour hole as needed to create a stable foundation, replace the stone retaining wall to its original elevation. Place rock fill in the channel in the area of the retaining wall to an elevation of 410.5 and install armor stone. Place
concrete in scour holes under the footing for the bridge headwall as needed and complete pressure injection for crack repair. Rebuild the stream bed to its original condition using the stockpiled rock and rock salvaged from down stream. Place armor stone to create a meandering river flow and remove trees and stumps from the retaining wall and wing wall on the south side of the brook. Change sandbag embankment in the channel to divert flow over the completed channel and stream bed.
Davis Johnson questioned how far downstream was it proposed to go to retrieve boulders?
Donald Frydryk stated they did not intend to go outside of the area that was blocked off. A machine would be brought in to bring the boulders back into place because some of them weigh around 400 pounds.
Davis Johnson questioned how many were in the work area?
Donald Frydryk stated probably less than ten.
John Morrell stated he would estimate approximately 30% to 40% of what is needed is there and that means they would have to bring in 60% to 70% to complete the job.
Phase 2 Northerly bridge and channel repairs.
The phase 1 process would be repeated on this side. The reconstruction of the embankment northwest of the bridge would be completed to the grades shown on the plan and rip rap placed across the entire fill area.
John Morrell stated FEMA came out last October to look at the bridge and at that time the crack in the south wall was ¼ inch deep and 17 feet horizontally across, now it is ½ inch deep and goes all the way across.
Donald Frydryk stated there were no cracks in the north wall.
John Morrell stated because of the way the channel migrated the velocity of the water increased four fold. The proposed work repairs the bridge and restores the stream bed to its original condition and creates a reduced rate of flow. He stated the work to fill the crack in the bridge is a separate issue on the bid because FEMA did not include it in the scope of work, but it seems foolish to do all of the repairs and not fix it.
Phase 3 involves reconstructing the stone wall. Access is from Harrison Avenue and the blocks will be restacked and slanted backwards to make the wall more stable.
John Morrell stated he has signed rights of entry from the property owners to go onto their property to do the work.
Leslie Duthie questioned if it was proposed to remove the trees at the top of the wall?
John Morrell some trees have already been cut by National Grid because of the utility wires and because they were growing into the wall and pushing it out.
Donald Frydryk stated anything still there has to go to get access. The trees on the south east side have to come out because the root on one of them is around the abutment. The preference is to cut the trees down and leave the stumps. All access locations would be removed and reseeded. He stated DEP issued a file number 228-0322 with comments.
Mr. Frydryk submitted a response dated June 3, 2009 to the comments from DEP.
- How much bank disturbance?
Donald Frydryk stated the calculations submitted with the Notice of Intent incorrectly included the length of the bank on both sides of the brook throughout the length of the project. The actual length of work/restoration includes only the area east and west of the northern abutment. Page 2 of the Notice of Intent has been revised to reflect 75 feet of bank restoration and as such does not require a Category 2 review by the Army Corp of Engineers.
- Narrative detailing compliance with General Performance Standards CMR 10.54(4).
Donald Frydryk stated he believed the narrative submitted demonstrates conformance with the performance standards.
Bank – The proposed project improves the stability of the bank. The project does not narrow the flow channel and will not affect carrying capacity. Ground water is not affected by the project. The bank will be allowed to stabilize and re-vegetate. The current condition of the bank appears to limit the “important” wildlife habitat function, improving the stability of the bank and allowing it to re-vegetate improves the condition of the bank.
Leslie Duthie questioned what was proposed for re-seeding the bank?
Donald Frydryk stated the mix would include whatever the Commission would like. The bank is steep and is never going to be mowed.
Leslie Duthie stated her preference was for a seed mix than included shrub seed, something native.
Land Under Water – The bottom of the stream will be returned to its original condition to provide extra protection for the bridge footings and the carrying capacity of the channel will not be affected. Ground water is not affected by the project. The channel bottom will be stabilized and returned to its original condition and we believe will not affect breeding habitat, escape cover or food for fisheries.
Riverfront Area – To the extent possible the project meets the performance standards by improving the existing conditions and providing a more stable bank and channel bottom. The work proposed with the banks and on the stream banks is no closer than previous bridge work.
Donald Frydryk stated since new disturbance is proposed within the riverfront area and there is no alternative to the location of the proposed work and no reasonable area for restoration or mitigation within the control of the Town compliance with 310 CMR 10.58(5)(e)(f) and (g) is not feasible we believe the project qualifies for review as a limited project. He stated the limited project status has been noted on the revised Page 2 of the Notice of Intent.
Leslie Duthie stated she believed every effort has been made to minimize the amount of disturbance while keeping in mind the safety of the public.
Donald Frydryk stated the bid specs will include a pre-construction conference that includes the Conservation Commission.
Glenn Colburn questioned if there would still be a water fall?
Donald Frydryk stated yes. The water will still fall off as it did before, this was a pre-existing condition because of the level of the footings there is nothing that can be done.
Davis Johnson questioned if the habitat downstream would be disturbed when the blocks are retrieved?
Donald Frydryk stated they would not be going more than twenty feet from the bridge to retrieve the large boulders and would not disturb habitat downstream.
Glenn Colburn stated he was not happy with step in the stream.
Donald Frydryk stated there is an approximate 2 ½ foot drop off now where the blocks are gone. Page 5 of the plans shows the detail of the proposed channel paving and it is an approximate 3 foot drop.
Leslie Duthie questioned if a large block could be placed at the end to lessen the drop?
Glenn Colburn stated he understood that this is a repair of an existing condition but with the regulations for stream continuity this would be frowned on, a 3 foot drop is a big impediment for anything trying to get upstream in low flow. He questioned if a couple of step pools could be designed?
Donald Frydryk stated his concern was that there is so much water going through there in larger storms if the blocks were stepped he did not think they would hold.
Leslie Duthie questioned if there was someway of lessening the 3 foot drop off?
Davis Johnson questioned if a study had been done to determine what does live in the stream?
Donald Frydryk stated no.
Glenn Colburn stated it was a clean stream probably flowing from Paradise Lake.
Davis Johnson stated he believed it was too steep for fish to get upstream.
Glenn Colburn stated the added obstacles of the boulders that were carried downstream by the flood and are out of the work area were further impediments. Mr. Colburn stated he would not want to hold up or cause further expense over this one issue. This was a well thought out project and it was imperative to get it done.
Leslie Duthie moved to close the hearing at 8:20 P.M. and issue an Order of Conditions.
Glenn Colburn seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
8:20 Brian Cornine 144 Stafford Road met informally with the Commission to discuss a change he wanted to make to a project for which he received an Order of Conditions on August 30, 2007, DEP File # 228-308.
Mr. Cornine stated the project for which he received an Order of Conditions proposed stabilizing the banking and construction of a retaining wall behind his home on Stafford Road. The work was made necessary by the flood of October 2005 that drained Smith Pond and caused the failure of a downstream dike. After contacting several contractors it is evident that the cost of constructing the retaining wall is well beyond his means. Mr. Cornine stated he proposes to eliminate the retaining wall that was proposed on top of the bank but go ahead with the rip rap to stabilize the bank.
Davis Johnson questioned the purpose of the wall?
Brian Cornine stated to hold up the bank.
Davis Johnson questioned what Mr. Cornine intended to do instead? If the purpose of the wall was to hold up the bank and now that was eliminated what would take its place?
Brian Cornine stated John Prenosil, JMP Environmental Consulting Inc, would oversee the 80 feet of bank stabilization.
Davis Johnson stated that did not explain how the protection of the retaining wall was to be replaced.
Glenn Colburn questioned if the rip rap was going to be extended? If the rip rap was extended that should work. It looks like it will extend more into the back yard.
Donald Lambert stated the original plan showed four feet between the slope and the deck what is proposed now means the slope will end up two feet from the deck.
Glenn Colburn stated he did not believe the modification of the plan would result in more impact to the wetlands.
The Commission requested a narrative detailing the changes to the plan the elimination of the retaining wall and extension of the rip rap.
Davis Johnson moved to approve the modification of the plan conditioned upon receipt of written details of the proposed changes and modifications.
Don Lambert seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
8:35 The Commission signed a Certificate of Compliance for Frank Carey 98 Wilbraham Road.
MAIL
- Copy of a Beaver permit 40 Bunyan Road.
- Copies of C & A Construction bi-weekly report on the Lower Hampden Road project.
- Final Cutting Plan 258 Lower Hampden Road Paul Bourbeau.
- Forest cutting plan John Kane, Lower Hampden Road.
- Copy of MACC and Mass Wildlife News.
- Various building permits.
Glenn Colburn moved to approve the minutes of May 13, 2009 with a change on Page 3 the name of the appraiser is Bill King not Kane.
Davis Johnson seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
8:55 Glenn Colburn moved to adjourn.
Donald Lambert seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
