Conservation Commission
February 9, 2010
Approved March 9, 2010
Members Present: Katheryn Holmes, Chair; Eric Unger, Vice-Chair; Bill Annable; Chuck Crickman; Deane Geddes
Ms. Holmes called the meeting to order at 4:40 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE
Minutes
The Commission reviewed the minutes of January 12, 2010 and made corrections. Mr. Geddes made a motion to accept the minutes of January 12, 2010 as corrected. Mr. Unger seconded the motion. All in favor.
NH Municipal Conservation Finance Guidebook
Ms. Holmes asked Mr. Crickman about the availability of the NH Municipal Conservation Finance Guidebook. Mr. Crickman said the book should be published and available in April 2010.
Ausbon Sargent Land Preservation Trust (ASLPT)
Andy Deegan, Land Protection Specialist/Stewardship Manager, with the ASLPT met with the Commission and discussed strategies to identify and heighten awareness and interest in possible conservation easements for Newbury large parcel landowners.
Mr. Deegan said ASLPT has identified two such landowners and asked the Commission for help in identifying others. Ms. Holmes said the Commission has a mailing list of Newbury landowners with 10 or more acres, and those with seven or more acres and offered Mr. Deegan the list for future mailings from ASLPT concerning potential conservation easements.
Ms. Holmes said the Commission’s intent is to generate interest in conservation easements with the landowners whose property abuts the Town Forest. Mr. Deegan asked if the property owners would prefer getting conservation easement information from the Commission or from ASLPT. The Commission said ASLPT should send follow up letters to the property owners and asked Mr. Deegan to give Ms. Holmes a copy of said letter.
Ms. Holmes asked about the content of the ASLPT letter. Mr. Deegan said it would reference the workshop on conservation easements that the Commission and ASLPT held last fall, offer more information about conservation easements and updated information about the tax benefits. He said the House passed legislation extending the tax benefits through 2010 but the Senate has not yet acted on the bill.
There was further discussion about the tax benefits and the pending legislation.
Mr. Crickman said the pending legislation concerning tax benefits would present a good reason to send a follow up letter to landowners reminding them of the benefits of placing their property in a conservation easement.
Ms. Holmes suggested that Mr. Deegan send follow up letters to three Newbury property owners whose land abuts the Town Forest and said she will provide him with names and addresses. She noted that ASLPT is also looking at the South Newbury area for potential conservation easements. Mr. Deegan agreed, saying ASLPT is looking at that area from the standpoint of wildlife preservation since wildlife prefer large blocks of land in which to live. He said that South Newbury also contains a number of larger parcels of land.
There was additional discussion about the existing ASLPT projects in the South Newbury area.
Ms. Holmes said the Commission and the Town remain focused on the potential easement project between Newbury and Society for the Protection of NH Forests (SPNHF) regarding the trail head at Andrew Brook. She noted the potential easement would allow the Town to place a parking lot at that location.
Mr. Deegan said the ASLPT has noticed a new development in view of the difficult economy: namely, some developers having to abandon their projects because of the economy and turning to conservation easements as an alternative strategy.
Commission members discussed additional potential large parcel landowners and offered Mr. Deegan assistance in identifying their mailing addresses.
INTENTS TO CUT
There was one Notice of Intent to Cut Wood or Timber:
- January 26, 2010 to Richard and Lucia Pietrafitta, 28 Parker Road, Wakefield, MA 01880, for property located at Forest Brook Road, Newbury, Tax Map/Lot # 045-634, 263, 90,000 feet of white pine on 10 acres out of 31.60 total acres.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ms. Holmes reviewed the following communications from the NH DES with the Commission:
- January 19, 2010 to Torene Tango-Lowy, State of NH Dept. of
- Resources & Economic Development, P.O. Box 1856, Concord, NH 03302, a Notice of Administrative Completeness Standard Dredge and Fill Applications, Wetlands file Number 2010-00027, Tax Map/Lot # 13 / 386-92.
- January 20, 2010 to Michael Todd, P.O. Box 888, New London, NH 03257, a Request for More Information regarding Standard Dredge and Fill application for The Fells, 456 Route 103a, Newbury, NH, File # 20009-02034, Tax Map/Lot # 18 / 232-347, regarding construction of dock.
- January 28, 2010 to Deane Geddes, P.O. Box 205M, Newbury, NH 03255, a letter regarding Wetlands Bureau Complaint File # 2002-00974, Route 103, Newbury, Tax Map/Lot # 20 / 343,520, indicating DES Wetlands Bureau, Shoreland Program is in the process of an administrative review of pending files.
- February 2, 2010 to Newbury Station Boat Club c/o Hodan Properties Inc., 985 Route 103, Newbury, NH, Tax Map/Lot # 20 / 270,364, a Wetlands and Non-Site Specific Permit 2009-02128, to dredge 13 cubic yards from 750 square feet and backfill with 2 cubic yards on 195 square feet with 6 inch stone to prevent erosion of the lake bed at the toe of a boat ramp on Lake Sunapee, in Newbury.
Ms. Holmes read the following article by Judy LaPorte that appeared in The Intertown Record, January 19, 2010, which reads as follows:
Conservation Commission
There was an interesting discussion regarding the role of the conservation commission (CC) about its influence and oversight authority regarding cutting in the buffer zone of the lake, shore land protection and DES permits. This was especially interesting to Wayne and me because last spring we were aware of a very bad wash of mud directly into the lake, partly due to uncontrolled flooding. If something had been done immediately, the damage could have been reduced considerable, but when we contacted the LSPA, we were told they had no authority in the matter. [Ms. Holmes noted that she was not sure if the former statement was true.]
Now we wish we had contacted the CC and perhaps the DES. Katheryn Holmes, chairman of the CC said that one of the challenges facing the CC is oversight, particularly in the matter of cutting in the buffer zone. There was discussion about how to proceed with oversight activities and she reiterated the need for shore owners to understand what the buffer zone actually does in relation to saving the life of a lake. It is contamination with phosphorous and nitrogen that kills lakes. We have also seen the results of this lack of understanding, and some of the professional landscape contractors in the area have no idea about landscaping for the benefit of the lake.
Holmes suggested that vice chairman, Eric Unger, send written notification to property owners suggesting conservation measure, planting a rain garden, and ‘plant a tree if you take a tree’, along with a copy of the shore land protection act to property owners who make an application to cut in the buffer zone.
OLD BUSINESS
Conservation Commission Oversight
There was further discussion regarding the Commission’s role in oversight and follow up to DES communications.
Mr. Unger suggested increasing the efforts to educate the landowners surround the lake by developing an updated “Dos & Don’ts” for timber cutting. Ms. Holmes said the LSPA has a number of good handouts available for education regarding the lake and the property surrounding the lake.
Ms. Holmes said a project that the Commission could address is the process involved in filing a complaint report with the Town. She said a stumbling block to encouraging people to file complaints is the identification requirement of the person filing the complaint. She referred to the complaint form used by the DES in which there is a choice for confidentiality regarding identity. She added that if Newbury offered its residents a similar guarantee of anonymity, more legitimate violations of cutting in the buffer zone would be surfaced.
Mr. Crickman reviewed the current “Application for Approval to Cut in a Buffer Zone” and indicated that it needs to be updated. Ms. Holmes asked Mr. Crickman to prepare a draft for review at the next meeting.
Mr. Geddes suggested creating an informational vehicle for public outreach – a document that the general public could read to remind them that permits are required for certain activities, such as tree cutting, etc. He added that it is unlikely that the general public comes to the Town offices and reads the bulletin boards for information.
Mr. Crickman and Ms Holmes agreed that updated forms and applications, prominently displayed in the Town office lobby, will help create that informational bridge.
Ms. Holmes suggested that the Commission consider a campaign to raise awareness within Newbury about what activities require permits.
Mr. Geddes suggested creating a large poster that lists what permits are necessary and displaying it at the upcoming Town Meeting.
Ms. Holmes suggested that Old Home Days is another opportunity for information outreach. She suggested a “Did You Know……?” approach to printed handouts that would clearly describe an array of information that is both mandated law and also helpful background research.
NEW BUSINESS
Ausbon Sargent Land Preservation Trust (ASLPT)
The Commission reviewed the ASLPT Outreach Committee meeting notes from January 25, 2010 which outlined the ASLPT updated website, current conservation easement projects, the winter newsletter, the feedback from the “How to Make Your Town Farm Friendly” workshop held on November 12, 2009, and current warrant articles among member towns concerning conservation efforts.
Village Road and Sutton Road Bridges
Mr. Annable presented his research on the proposed bridges (see Attachment “A”). There was general discussion concerning the report.
Mr. Crickman asked if there was an approved design. Mr. Annable said he did not know. Ms. Holmes said the Commission has not yet received a letter from the DES with approval concerning this project.
New England Handicapped Sports Association (NEHSA)
Mr. Annable presented his research on the proposed NEHSA building at Mt. Sunapee (see Attachment “B”). There was general discussion concerning the report.
Ms. Holmes said LSPA is looking at the project. Concerns include slope side development, impact on the watershed and wetlands, a parking lot on the slopes and the potential for wash out of surface treatments into Beck Brook. She said numerous groups and individuals have questioned why the NEHSA has not looked at alternative locations that would present less negative impact on the surrounding environment.
Mr. Geddes suggested inviting the NEHSA director to the next Commission meeting for the purpose of gaining more definitive information about the NEHSA needs and proposed project.
There was further discussion concerning alternative locations for the project. Ms. Holmes said the project discussion will be ongoing.
Mr. Geddes made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Unger seconded the motion. All in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
Attachment “A”
The town of Newbury, through its agent, Dubois & King, Inc., on October 7, 2009, filed Standard Dredge and Fill Applications with Department of Environmental Services (DES) to replace the Village Road and Sutton Road bridges. I have reviewed these applications and my comments follow.
Village Road Bridge Replacement
My only comments are of the nit-picking variety. Page 1 of the Project Narrative, second paragraph states that a Shoreland Permit will be submitted, but page 4 says it is not required. Also on page 1 of the Project Narrative, Introduction; the bridge is approximately 300 feet west, not east, of Route 103.
The photos accompanying the application show quite a few boulders in the stream channel close to and under the bridge. I assume the contract documents will call for the removal of those.
Any project impacts to wetlands will be more than offset by the improved safety and hydraulic capacity of the new bridge.
Sutton Road Bridge Replacement
I had been aware of the need for improvements to and around the Sutton Road bridge previously, and knew of concerns involved. Consequently, some of my comments go a little beyond wetlands considerations for the bridge.
As the Project Narrative states: “…the (existing) bridge is undersized hydraulically…” as well as “…suffers from numerous structural deficiencies…” Construction of the new bridge will cause some, what I would call, “minor” impacts to wetlands; but the new bridge will be safer and will alleviate flooding problems which have occurred with the existing bridge.
The existing 38-foot span will be replaced with a 48-foot span, and all of the additional ten feet will be to the right, looking downstream. An earlier preliminary design would have split the additional width to either side, moving the bridge abutment and storm flow closer to Mrs. Plunkett’s home, located close to the existing upstream left abutment. Having the extra width on the right side seems a far better solution to me; along with the riprap on the left bank for a short distance upstream of the bridge, a slight stream channel realignment of Andrew Brook just upstream from the bridge, and enlargement of the spit of land at the intersection of the brooks. These measures should lessen the impact of storm flows on the left bank just upstream from the bridge.
The widened span increases flow capacity of the bridge during “design storm” runoff, and the channel banks under and in the vicinity of the bridge will be lined with riprap for stability and erosion protection.
The new design also takes into better account the potential for ice-jams at the bridge. This is described on Page 4 of “Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis” in the material accompanying the dredge and fill application. The analysis states that ice jams typically occur during flows in the 1-year to 5-year runoff frequency. To be conservative, the designers used a 25-year frequency discharge in their analysis.
Presently there is a low spot on Sutton Road just to the west of the bridge that provides an “emergency spillway“, when flooding occurs at the bridge. That area will be raised as it will be in the raised approach to the new, higher-elevated bridge. (“Low chord” under new bridge is 1.6 feet higher than existing low chord.) A new “overflow” low-spot will be constructed on Sutton Road further to the west.
According to Dubois & King’s hydraulic analysis (“Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis”, page 4, Table 3), the estimated water surface elevation at the bridge will be 1.8 feet lower for the 50-year peak discharge and 1.5 feet lower for the 100-year. Under “extreme ice jam” conditions (25-year discharge with 80% of bridge opening blocked by ice) the estimated water surface elevation will be the same as for the existing bridge. It should be recalled, however, that this is for a 25-year storm discharge versus the 1- or 5-year discharge when the designers say ice jams typically occur.
There are a couple other items which could be considered in connection with the new bridge. In the past, when flooding caused water to flow across the low spot on Sutton Road, some erosion and undercutting were reported to have occurred at the edge of the paving. Some degree of “armoring” might be in order at the “new” low spot in the road; for example, a riprap or stone-lined strip along the edges of the road extending laterally in both directions to, or beyond, design high water elevation for flow over the road.
Negotiations will be needed with adjoining landowners, for construction will extend beyond right-of-way limits.
Perhaps consideration should also be given to relations with landowners, particularly downstream of the new low-spot on Sutton Road, which will be further from the stream channel and involve lengthier overland flow back to the channel.
There has been erosion, bed-load movement, and tree-undercutting reported along Andrew Brook upstream from the junction with Ring Brook, with loss of use of the adjacent field. This might be a propitious time for a study of stream stability and potential corrective measures along the stretch between the old town garage and the Sutton Road bridge.
A potential source of assistance for such a study would be the Southern New Hampshire Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D) Area,
Sincerely,
Bill Annable
Attachment “B”
New England Handicapped Sports Association (NEHSA)
Recreation Facility for Mt. Sunapee Ski Area
The New England Handicapped Sports Association (NEHSA) proposes to build a new facility/lodge adjacent to the beginner slopes at Mt. Sunapee, across the access road from the old main lodge. This is a review of conservation aspects of the land-disturbing work and of the materials accompanying the dredge and fill application.
The Permit Plans show a comprehensive approach to the drainage and environmental control of runoff from the developed site. Stone-lined channels direct runoff from the steep, deeply-excavated slopes northwest of the planned lodge and along the access road excavation to controlled outlets. Sheet D-4 of the Permit Plans contains an outline of how construction sequencing would proceed, and shows that work would proceed from, first, construction of an “off-site” retention basin/s (across main access road from new NEHSA access road entrance; see Sheet ECP-3). Then work would progress upslope, starting with the new entrance, the access road, the lower parking lot; finally up to where the lodge would be built.
As I recall, an earlier, preliminary proposal to the Department of Environmental Services (DES) explained how the system would work, and described an underground detention system (Sheet D-2), 30-feet by 90-feet in size, which would collect runoff and allow sediment and pollutants to settle out. As far as I can see, the underground detention system is not labeled on the Permit Plans, but is apparently located under the lower parking lot. (See dashed-line rectangle outlined on Sheet ECP-2.) I think that the concrete structure shown on Sheet D-3 is what is shown on Sheet ECP-2 as the proposed precast concrete water quality structure (“CS” on plan and legend).
There is a shortage of labeling, stationing, and elevations for key features (e.g. invert elevations) that leave the operating details open to assumption and interpretation, but I make a good faith assumption that these measures will be installed in accordance with a plan for drainage, erosion and sediment control and environmental concerns that have been reviewed by DES and will be fully detailed in the construction drawings. Another example, there are several retaining walls proposed, which apparently would be as much as 10 to 12 feet in height, but there are no details of materials to be used, drainage provided behind the walls, etc.
Also, seepage areas were shown on several of the photographs accompanying the dredge and fill application, so it is obvious that there is subsurface water finding it’s way to the ground surface in this area that will be excavated. I did not seem to find any provision for seepage that may outlet on the excavated slopes after construction. Perhaps this has already been considered and found unnecessary. If seepage does break out on the excavated slopes, however, it could cause erosion and slippage; and repair could be considerably more difficult then providing for such a situation as part of the original construction. To that end, the designers might consider control measures such as riprapping certain slopes during construction.
A cursory examination indicates excavation, if I am not mistaken, as much as 30 feet deep below existing ground. This development is an enormous change to the existing wooded, steep-sloped area.
A sentence in the answer to Item 9 of the dredge and fill application form (Sheet 2 of 12) seems to me a bit of a quizzical statement regarding the proposed access road:
“…dedicated driveway, utilizing as much as possible an abandoned dirt road to minimize development impacts.”
That “abandoned dirt road” will have been excavated out and the new access road will be around eight feet lower, and the side slope of the excavation for the access road will extend as much as 80 to 90 feet back into the hillside. Also, I believe the “abandoned dirt road” is a section of the colonial Old Province Road.
Hey, I realize this NEHSA proposal is for a good cause and is badly needed, but this statement about minimizing development impacts by using the abandoned road seems like gilding the lily. That section of old woods road will be entirely obliterated and in its place there will be a wide swath of paved road, excavated slope and 40-car parking facility (lower parking lot).
It just stuck in my craw as a gratuitous, “feel-good” statement. It made me wish the developers could have found a more environmentally friendly site: such as somewhere in the vicinity of the present NEHSA facility; or farther downslope from the proposed location, where the terrain is a little flatter, for example the area of the proposed NEHSA lower parking lot, with a relocated lower parking lot where at one time a new parking lot (Parking Lot #4?)for the ski area was proposed. Perhaps even going so far as to bridge over a section of Beck Brook (obviously in a manner to avoid environmental damage) if built closer to the toe of the existing beginner slopes.
What will be done with the existing NEHSA building? Is there no possibility for enlarging that, or utilizing its footprint as part of a new lodge? Could part of the ground area nearby that existing building also be reworked to accommodate parking for NEHSA and develop a new beginner’s slope somewhere adjacent? There has got to be a tremendous cost in developing the proposed site with the complications it presents. Is there an alternative to redevelop the area near the present NEHSA building, at equal or less cost? Or in another location as noted above?
By the way, Sheet ECP-2 shows a stub for what is probably some future access road for some purpose nearby the new entrance from the main road.
The erosion and sediment control measures to be installed under this proposal will most definitely need maintenance; the stone-lined channels, the catch basins, the water quality structure, the underground detention storage, the retention basins, etc. It is imperative that an operation and maintenance plan be developed. It seems as though DES would want to see it before they approve for construction. It should also spell out who would be responsible over the long term, the ski area management, or NEHSA?
The access road from the lower parking lot to the lodge area appears to have an 8-10% slope. In regard to its steepness, the developers might consider a sidewalk to accommodate those walking up from the lower lot, as well as a safety consideration.
In Item 14 (page 4 of 12) of the dredge and fill application, near the bottom of the page, there is discussion of a drainage swale (or swales?): constructing a deck over a 20-foot section; and a 75-foot area where a swale buffer has been reduced to accommodate the parking area near the project entrance. I was not able to pinpoint those areas on the permit plans, but assume they would be handled in an environmentally-appropriate manner.
I have faith that this proposed project, if approved, will be carried out with full due attention to all environmental concerns and will be very valuable for NEHSA objectives. I wish, however, that a different site, with less upheaval to the existing natural terrain could be located.
Sincerely,
Bill Annable
| 
