MONSON CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES MAY 15, 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT: Glenn Colburn, Leslie Duthie, Davis Johnson and Audra Staples.
7:00 The Commission signed the Order of Conditions for the Town of Monson to make improvements to roadside drainage along Park Road.
The Commission signed the Order of Conditions for ExxonMobile to maintain its pipeline on Fenton Road.
Glenn Colburn stated Line 7 of the Minutes of April 24, 2013 should read Order of Resource Area Delineation not Order of Conditions.
Leslie Duthie moved to accept the minutes of April 24, 2013 with the correction.
Audra Staples seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
7:25 NOI Macomber /Upper Palmer Road, Cornerstone Power Monson, LLC continued.
Donald Frydryk, Sherman & Frydryk, Land Surveying & Engineering stated he received final submissions from Bryan Reiser, Whitman Engineering on May 14, 2013.
Mr. Frydryk stated his report dated May 15, 2013 is based on the following information submitted to them:
- Notice of Intent Revised Application Narrative, Upper Palmer Road & Macomber Road, Plat 90 & 91, Parcels 1,2,3 and 4 – 6, Massachusetts, Prepared for Conservation Commission, Town of Monson, 29 Thompson Street, Monson, MA Prepared by SAGE Environmental, Inc., 172 Armistice Boulevard, Pawtucket, Rhode Island, dated May 13, 2013.
- Plans entitled Preliminary & Final Site Plans for Ground Mounted +- 17 MW (DC) Photovoltaic System, Upper Palmer Road & Macomber Road, Hecate Energy, Cornerstone Power Monson, LLC 115 Rosa Parks Boulevard, Nashville, TN dated June 25, 2012 and revised through May 6, 2013.
- Stormwater Analysis for Ground Mounted Photovoltaic System at Parcel Map Sheets 90 & 91, Parcels 1,2,4,5,6 Town of Monson, Prepared by Whitman, Whitman Project No. 10-03-19T dated May 6, 2013.
- Response letter dated May 14, 2013 addressed to Hecate Energy, Andrew Boggs, Cornerstone Power Monson, LLC 115 Rosa Parks Boulevard, Nashville, TN as provided by Bryan Reiser, P.E., Whitman.
Donald Frydryk stated he has reviewed the responses in the letter dated May 14, 2013 from Whitman and has commented on the responses.
- The initial comment by Sherman & Frydryk stated the NOI form indicated a
“Buffer Zone Only” project but the notes on the plan indicate work within
jurisdictional wetlands.
Whitman’s response “All notes referring to work within wetland areas have been removed from the plan.
Sherman & Frydryk commented “addressed”.
- The NOI, Item C.6 indicates the project is subject to the provisions of the MassDEP Stormwater Management Standards. Since no new point source discharge is created within an Area Subject to Jurisdiction or within buffer zones the Stormwater Management Standards do not apply (310 CMR 10.05 (6).
Whitmans’s response “No new point source discharge created from the development proposed for this project, due to size and scope of the project MassDEP has requested a Stormwater Report be submitted for review.
Sherman & Frydryk commented “addressed”.
Glenn Colburn questioned if that was the Stormwater Analysis?
Donald Frydryk stated yes, Whitman prepared the Stormwater Analysis because DEP asked for it.
Glenn Colburn questioned if DEP had commented on the Stormwater Analysis?
Jeff D’Arrigo, Sage Environmental stated no.
Donald Frydryk stated the following are review comments and responses on the Site Plans:
- The initial comment by Sherman & Frydryk stated the limit of work is immediately upgradient of the wetland limit in several areas with minimal room between erosion control and the wetland limit. Silt fence is proposed between the work and wetland areas but the Commission should consider requesting additional row of protection where work is close to the wetland edge.
Whitman’s response additional soil erosion and sediment control can be added if requested by the Commission. Hay bales have been added in addition to the silt fence.
Sherman & Frydryk commented “addressed.”
- On Sheet SP-8.4 near wetland flag E-10 and Sheet SP-8.7 near wetland flag C-6 the limit of work is drawn within the limits of wetlands. If the intent is to work only in the buffer zone the lines should be revised.
Whitman’s response the limit of disturbance and silt fence line work has been revised not to encroach on the wetlands area at wetland flag E-10. Wetlands flag C-6 is located in DA-3 on Parcel 3 and all development activity has been removed from the plans and stormwater report because that area is no longer being utilized for this project. All other areas have been reviewed to verify there is no proposed disturbance within wetland areas including sediment control. Note 29 has been added to Sheet SP-2 stating “No work, including the installation of erosion control, is allowed within the wetland limit”.
Sherman & Frydryk commented “addressed”, but suggested the Commission include a condition that states no work including installation of erosion control, is allowed within the wetland limit.
Donald Frydryk stated he made the suggestion to the Commission to include the condition to make it absolutely clear that no work would be allowed within wetland areas including erosion controls.
- On Sheet SP-4.6 the proposed access drive to the southerly parcel has grades exceeding 10%. Additional measures may be required to ensure the stability of this gravel access.
Whitman’s response the access drive in question has been removed from the project along with all development on parcel 3.
Sherman & Frydryk commented “addressed”.
- Sherman & Frydryk questioned if the Temporary Topsoil Stockpile area shown on Sheet SP-82 was soil from stripping the entire site or from proposed roadways?
Whitman’s response the topsoil is being stripped and stockpiled only from the area of the proposed gravel access drive.
Sherman & Frydryk commented “addressed”.
- Sherman & Frydryk questioned if the stockpiled material would be removed from the site?
Whitman’s response topsoil will be stockpiled temporarily and redistributed around the site as required during construction to achieve the proposed grades. If surplus material is removed from the site the contractor will obtain the appropriate permits.
Sherman & Frydryk commented they estimated in order to remove the material for construction of the access road as show on SP-5 detail 2 approximately 5000 cubic yards would need to be stockpiled and redistributed around the site, based on 8300 feet of 20 foot access road at a removal depth of 10 inches. It does not appear from existing and proposed contours on the plan that the excavated material has been used as fill on the site. The applicant should confirm the excavation volumes and cuts and fills on the site and show where the surplus material will be used to ensure drainage patterns are not altered. Donald Frydryk suggested the Commission require that the surplus fill material not be used within the buffer zone.
This comment was based on the original detail for the driveway. A new detail has been added to the plans to show cut and fill section for construction of the driveway but the grading associated with these cuts and fills is not shown on the plan. It appears from the detail the gravel driveway will be above the grade of the adjacent ground this will cause runoff to channelize along the edge of the driveway and not maintain the sheet flow on the site as previously designed. Donald Frydryk suggested the Commission require a more definitive plan to show if surplus material will exist, if so where will it be distributed and show the final grading. An earth removal Special Permit would have to be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals to remove excess material, which could take several months to
obtain.
Glenn Colburn stated he thought the grade was already there and it was just a case of smoothing it out?
Bryan Reiser stated for the most part that is correct. The differences in grade and minor topographical changes have been included in the stormwater calculations. He stated they looked at crops that were planted and manner in which they were planted to make sure the run off values were appropriate.
Glenn Colburn questioned if there was a certain CN value for a corn field and another for grassed field?
Donald Frydryk stated yes and he believed the CN for a grassed field was lower than the CN for crops.
Bryan Reiser stated it also depends on the time of the year grass vegetation with decent cover will slow down the water and allow for infiltration.
- The Sequence of Construction shown on SP-9 and 3 phases of work on Sheet SP-2 do not clearly state if the project will be limited to one phase and/or work area at a time. Note 3 Sequence of Construction indicates the replacement of top soil but not when or where the topsoil would be removed from. Donald Frydryk recommended that the Commission request additional information regarding phasing of the project and a more detailed construction sequence.
Whitman’s response the construction has been phased due to utility interconnection. Phase 1 would be completed prior to starting construction on Phase 2. The limited topsoil stripped from the gravel access will be distributed over the site. The project owner can submit a more detailed construction phase narrative for review and approval once a contractor has been retained and construction timelines have been set.
Sherman & Frydryk recommended the Commission request additional information regarding the phasing of the project to limit the amount of open area at any one time and request a more detailed sequence of construction. The Commission has the option to make this a condition of approval and not allowing work to proceed until a Sequence of Construction is delivered to and approved by the Commission.
Glenn Colburn expressed his concern with issuing an Order of Conditions before having more information with regard to phasing and sequence of construction.
- The proposed access roads are located down gradient of the panel areas it would appear that sheet flow from the fields will collect and concentrate within the access roads.
Whitman’s response the roadway will not be cut into the underlying soil, but constructed over the existing topography. Water flowing down gradient should pass through the stone and continue as sheet flow with minimal channelization along the roadway. To address the concern of the reviewer this issue should be included in the Operations and Maintenance plan for the site and the access drive inspected periodically and repaired as required to ensure channelization does not occur. .
Bryan Reiser stated they changed the initial plan to address comments but ended up making things worse and now will revise the detail back to the original plan.
Donald Frydryk stated both will require maintenance to maintain sheet flow and he would advise the Commission to require a new sheet with revision date. He stated this goes back to the Operations and Maintenance plan and recommended the Commission review and approve the Operations and Maintenance Plan prior to closing the hearing and that it be made part of the Order of Conditions.
- The overall premise is that the panels are not considered impervious surface and will not create concentrated flow and sheet flow will be maintained; however, it appears a large part of the proposed installation runs nearly perpendicular to the slopes. If the elevation of the panels follows the slope of the ground, it would appear runoff would be concentrated to one end of the panel creating a drip line below the panels concentrating the flows from each row of panels which would run perpendicular to the slope and not return to sheet flow.
Whitman’s response to address this concern, specifications can be included in the Operation and Maintenance Plan for the site.
Bryan Reiser stated he made a quick review of the Phases. Phase I is 41 acres most of it fields that are fairly clear already. Phase II is 24 acres with limited tree or shrub cover. The area of most concern is Phase III in the North East corner of the property which is mostly woods.
Donald Frydryk stated he would recommend that the Commission require a detailed Sequence of Construction with additional information on the phasing to limit the amount of open area at any one time.
Bryan Reiser stated they do not have a Sequence of Construction yet because the applicant wants to hire a contractor first. He questioned if the Commission would issue an Order of Conditions but not allow any work to proceed until a Sequence of Construction is submitted and approved by the Commission?
Leslie Duthie questioned if Phase I would be finished before starting Phase II?
Bryan Reiser stated that is the way he understood it.
Donald Frydryk stated Phase I is 41 acres that is a large area to have open at one time.
Bryan Reiser stated he believes the work would start at the furthest point of Phase I and work back. The Commission could stipulate that only a certain amount of acreage could be opened at one time.
Glenn Colburn questioned if 10 acres was unreasonable?
Donald Frydryk stated that was still a fairly large area to have open at one time and he was thinking 5 acres.
Bryan Reiser stated the number of crews setting posts would have an affect on the area opened at any one time it would depend on how many resources are allotted to the project.
Donald Frydryk questioned how the posts were installed?
Bryan Reiser stated they have equipment that goes along the rows and drives the posts in. He stated he believed the contractor would go in and clear the area, lay down some seed right away, something to take hold and stabilize as they go and then go back and do the final seeding after the construction is complete.
Donald Frydryk questioned how long it would take to build a 40 acre site?
Bryan Reiser stated he had no idea.
Glenn Colburn stated if the grading and seeding is done and then move onto the next area not much germination would be taking place on an open area of 5 acres.
Leslie Duthie stated rye takes pretty quickly.
Davis Johnson questioned if the area is graded and seeded and then they go back to set the posts would that not disturb the initial seeding?
Audra Staples proposed allowing the contractor up to 10 acres but that 10 acres must be germinated before going onto the next ten.
Donald Frydryk stated this just shows the importance of an Operation and Maintenance plan and a very detailed Sequence of Construction.
Leslie Duthie stated she thought the Commission should hold the applicant to some kind of reasonable condition for a Sequence of Construction this would make it easier for the Commission to condition the work.
Review of Stormwater Analysis.
- The initial comment by Sherman & Frydryk requested the cover type, treatment and hydrologic condition that were chosen for determination of the CN.
Whitman’s response the fields were used to grow corn and the planting appeared to be in straight rows. Row Crops SR + CN with a hydrological condition of good was utilized for determining the CN value.
Sherman & Frydryk responded addressed.
- Confirm the soil hydrologic group for cultivated field area for the curve number calculations in the work sheet for existing drainage area 1 (DA-1).
Whitman’s response the hydrologic soil group for the cultivated field area is HSG ‘C’.
Sherman & Frydryk responded addressed.
- In existing DA-3 the CN for dirt road is indicated as 82. This CN chosen from the Curve Number Table includes the right of way for a dirt road. If the area for dirt road in worksheet 2 is the area only of the dirt road, the CN number would be higher since the right of way is not included.
All development activity for DA-3 has been removed from the plans and the stormwater report because that area is no longer being utilized for this project.
Sherman & Frydryk responded addressed.
- In the proposed drainage areas the CN for gravel is indicated as 85 or 89 depending on soil type. This CN chosen from the Curve Number Table includes the right of way, if the area for gravel road in worksheet 2 is the area only of the gravel road the CN number would be higher because the right of way is not included.
Whitman’s response as described in TR-55 handbook, the CN number was recalculated utilizing Figure 2-4 for the proposed gravel access drive.
Sherman & Frydryk responded addressed.
- The cover type of “woods” in the worksheets reflect the hydrologic condition chosen as fair or poor for selection of the CN. The choice of fair or poor does not accurately reflect what is in the field and a hydrologic condition of good should be used for the CN number. In cases where the solar panels will replace woods, the lower CN number for good condition of the woods would result in larger increase of runoff due to the greater difference of the CN from pre – to post – development conditions.
Whitman’s response the CN has been revised to reflect good conditions for all wooded areas on worksheet 2 for both drainage areas in pre and post development calculations.
Sherman& Frydryk responded addressed.
- The CN for meadow listed in the table for existing DA-2 is not consistent for similar soil conditions throughout the calculations.
Whitman’s response the CN has been revised to 71 for all meadow areas for both drainage areas in pre and post development calculations.
Sherman & Frydryk responded addressed.
- The total area for DA-2 for the existing conditions is 97.6 acres the total area for DA-2 for the proposed conditions is 95.4 these areas should be equal.
Whitman’s response the difference in area between present and developed was a result of the gravel access drive being omitted from the developed analysis. The calculations have been revised to correct the discrepancy.
Sherman & Frydryk responded addressed.
- For DA-2 existing and proposed, the land slope for sheet flow conditions is listed as 0.670 ft/ft. We believe this should be 0.067 ft/ft and should be corrected in the calculations.
The land slope sheet flow has been revised to 0.067 ft/ft.
Sherman & Frydryk responded addressed.
- For the time of concentration for DA-1 the flow path in the area of Sheet SP-3 does not appear to flow perpendicular to the contours in the area between the house lots and power line easement. The determination of the flow path for the time of concentration should be reviewed and confirmed.
Whitman’s response the flow path has been checked and revised to address the comment. The changes resulted in a shorter time of concentration for both present and developed calculations.
Sherman & Frydryk responded addressed.
- For the time of concentration for DA-3 the flow path starts on the easterly side of the property and follows existing paths or roadways to the south then west towards existing wetlands. It appears a portion of the flow path may be directed away from this drainage area resulting in a shorter time of concentration.
Whitman’s response all development activity for DA-3 on Parcel 3 has been removed from the plans and stormwater report, that area is no longer being utilized for this project.
Sherman & Frydryk responded addressed.
- New Comment from Sherman & Frydryk. The revised drainage calculations show a reduction in the overall peak flows for both drainage areas for the 2, 10 and 100 year storms. The reduction is based on the presumption that sheet flow will result from flow off of the solar panels, and based on the presumption that runoff from the access roads will sheet flow off the road and onto surrounding pervious areas. To ensure that these presumptions are correct and that peak flows are not increased from this site, it is important that the site is inspected to ensure runoff is not channelized from these areas, and that the site is properly maintained. As noted above an Operations and Maintenance Plan should become part of the Order of Conditions and should be a permanent part of the operation of the site.
General comments.
- Sherman & Frydryk initially commented the Stormwater Report Item 9, references an Operation & Maintenance Plan is available for this site. We recommend the Commission ask for a copy of the plan for review and to become part of this submission.
Whiteman’s response a preliminary draft of items that should be included in the Operations & Maintenance plan has been included in this submission. A comprehensive and complete Operations & Maintenance Plan will be completed and submitted to the Conservation Commission for review and approval if required.
- This project will result in excess of one acre of disturbance and will require the filing of a Notice of Intent with the EPA under the NPDES program and preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP will require periodic monitoring of the site and associated reporting. The Commission should consider requiring a copy of the periodic monitoring reports be sent to the Commission for review.
Whitman’s response no action required by Whitman at this time.
Leslie Duthie stated she felt the Commission was in a much better place. The Commission will expect a new set of plans with the revised sheet. The Commission will need an Operations & Maintenance Plan and a Construction Sequence.
Glenn Colburn questioned if it was the intent to fence only around the panels or to include the wooded area between Phase I and Phase III?
Bryan Reiser stated they would be fencing around the panels only. He questioned if the Commission wanted the fencing raised off the ground 8” in all areas or just certain areas?
Glenn Colburn stated it would probably be easier to keep it consistent and keep the fence 8” off the ground.
Leslie Duthie stated she wanted to guarantee in the Order of Conditions that Phase I would be complete before Phase II was started. The wetland line was great very conservatively flagged and the overall plan is good. She questioned the total amount of disturbed acreage?
Bryan Reiser stated 70 acres would be disturbed.
Davis Johnson stated the Commission should include a condition that the excess soil that it is proposed to spread across the site must not be placed in the buffer zone.
Audra Staples moved to continue to June 5, 2013.
Davis Johnson seconded the motion.
It was so voted unanimous.
8:35 Joseph Bolduc the consultant for Raymond Lavallee, Palmer Road did not attend the meeting.
Leslie Duthie stated she spoke with Mr. Bolduc and faxed him a copy of the enforcement order and made it clear the Commission expect a restoration plan and that the plan should identify the wetland line. Mr. Bolduc indicated to her he would attend the meeting.
Leslie Duthie stated she spoke with Ray Mansfield, Quaboag Riders Motorcycle Club who told her they have hired Peter Levesque, Pioneer Valley Environmental to represent them. Ms. Duthie stated she told Mr. Mansfield that they are moving in the right direction.
8:40 MAIL
- RFD Mass DOT Route 32 work involves milling and repaving Route 32 from Maple Street to the State Line.
- Pre-management report from Lycott Environmental for Dean Pond, Sutcliffe Road.
- Proof from Michael Shoum, Soft Touch Auto repair that the motor oil is being appropriately handled.
- Letter from Quaboag Riders regarding the enforcement Order and the Clubs intent to hire a consultant.
- Letter regarding the Mass. Environthon 2012 Monson Team.
- Beaver Permit issued to the Highway Department for culverts on Lower Hampden Road and Butler Road.
- Forest cutting plan 37 acres Cheryl Pereira, Hovey Road.
- NHESP reviewed the cutting plan for Thomas Harrington Wood Hill Road and approved the plan with a condition that work takes place between December 1st and March 31st.
- Various building permits.
8:50 Leslie Duthie moved to adjourn.
Davis Johnson seconded the motion.
It was so voted, unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda A. Hull
| 
