CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Town of Monterey, Massachusetts
MEETING DATE: 5/5/09 (Interim Meeting)
Present: Bruce Griffin of New England Environmental, David Dempsey, Richard Andrus, and Christopher Blair
The meeting convened at 6:05p.m.
The Board met with Bruce Griffin of New England Environmental to review his findings and recommendations of the Levkoff property and their suggested restoration plan. The Commission discussed with Bruce what the cost would be to replace the trees that were illegally cut with the same size trees, even if replacement wasn’t an option. The Commission entertained the idea of the taking the actual cost to replace all the trees minus the cost to realistically replace the trees and put the difference into an preservation fund or something to that effect.
The work that the Commission was allowing in the buffer zone with regards to clearing was not undertaken. Bruce asked how the limit of the Scenic Mountain Region line was determined by the Levkoff representatives in their restoration plan (areas that are in the SMA area aren’t noted as so but areas that aren’t in the SMA area are marked as being in it); his understanding of the regulation is that it’s anything with a 15% or greater slope, which is correct. They mention an area on their plan that doesn’t seem to relate to slope. Chris explained the reason for this.
The Commission asked for a synopsis of Bruce’s position on the cutting/replanting plan after his site visit. Bruce noticed a lot of unmapped stumps but he wasn’t sure that they missed any that would’ve been considered 5” or greater at rest height. The area cleared was mainly saplings of significant size, 20-30’ high (possibly even taller). The species identified as being cleared was mostly right, they misidentified some, which Bruce stated were poplar. Big tooth aspen and quaking aspen were also on the site. One called an oak was actually an aspen and one called a birch was also an aspen. The dominant tree in the mature forest is hemlock and that’s not what you want to plant. The applicant proposed planting white pine (largest number) which
Bruce assumed was in response to the enforcement order. Bruce mentioned that there are also some invasive species in the area, the most notable being Japanese barberry (a thorny shrub). Bruce recommended removing those to return it to its natural habitat. The other invasive alien plant notice was coltsfoot, this was not as important to get rid of as its well established in Massachusetts. He feels the main issues to be concerned with are erosion control, stabilization of the slope and restoring the forested nature as quickly as possible. He feels the fastest way to do this would be to aggressively manage the stump sprouts; the biggest value to this is that they have established root systems which will support rapid growth and they are acclimated to the climates there. The suckers will have to be thinned out for at least a couple of years. The commission explained the mapping of 30 additional stumps, that they counted, as trees that would have been
left at the end of the initial clearing, bringing the total count of trees to 52 .
The Commission bounced their restoration ideas off of Bruce. The Commission also discussed the option of having an environmental monitor on site at all times through the construction process (2-3 years minimum) at the cost of the owner. The Commission clarified that when they use the word crane it’s because the applicants were the one’s that originally offered to have a crane on site to drop materials, remove and bring in trees, etc from the top to the steep slope; this has since been taken away as an option by the applicant. The proposed location of the beach was reviewed, as well as the idea of expanding the wetlands at both property lines. The removal of the viewing platform and additional plantings to increase the buffer on the western property line was considered an option as it falls in
the mapped scenic area.
The Commission reviewed the original order of conditions that was issued with Bruce and discussed what items could be changed from the original approval because of the violation. The Commission discussed their options with regards to amending the existing OOC, making the applicant’s re-file or other options available. It was asked if there should be separate plans for each phase of the restoration project. The applicant’s plan is that once the restoration plan is complete it reverts to the original OOC plan and they move forward. If the Commission wants to amend the OOC and change some of the original things they were allowed to do then a new plan will have to be submitted in addition to the restoration plan which would then be reference in the amended OOC. Bruce suggests that the
2 large burned areas and the platform are the best areas to plant large trees. The emphasis should be on “healing the scar” as best as possible without any further damage to the environment.
The Commission informed Bruce that the public has shown an interest in receiving a copy of his written report. The Commission did not feel it would be necessary to have Bruce at the meeting scheduled for next week. The Commission discussed with Bruce the memo with findings that state that the applicants can be fined civilly. Bruce will send a draft via email to the Commission members before their next meeting.
Meeting adjourned at 7:50pm
Submitted by: Melissa Noe, Inter-Departmental Secretary
cc: Conservation Commission Board Members
| 
