Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
4.23.12 Conservation Commission Minutes


Minutes of the Taunton Conservation Commission April 23, 2012


Present:  Chair Brian Marques, Vice Chair Steven Turner, Commissioners Neil Kelly, Ernest Enos, Renwick Chapman, Debra Botellio, and Marla Isaac.

Motion to accept the minutes of 3/12/12 and 4/9/12 with amendment to minutes on 3/12/12 that DB voted in opposition to Fairfax Gardens, RC, second DB, so voted.

Certificate of Compliance
  • Winthrop Street, City of Taunton, COC, SE73-2403  Field report states that this project was for the expansion of the sewer system to include replacement of an undersized depressed sewer (siphon) beneath the Taunton River at Dean Street.  The streets that were affected include Winthrop Street, Davenport Terrace, Davenport Street, Dean Street, Duffy drive, Williams Street, Mary Drive, Phyllis road, Barbara Road, Ellen Road, Baylies Road, Donna Terrace, and Marilyn Drive.  This project was considered a limited project under 310 CMR 10.53 because it is associated with the planning and design of the construction and reconstruction of an underground utility.  The four general areas of construction were: Area 1-this was the area under the Taunton River at Dean Street, Area 2- this was along Winthrop Street, Area 3-this included the Williams Street area, Harris Street, Mary Drive, Phyllis Road, Barbara road, Ellen Road, Marilyn Drive, Duffy Drive, Baylies Road, and Donna Terrace, and Area 4-Davenport Terrace and Davenport Street.  All work has been completed in significant compliance to the order of conditions issued on July 29, 2009 and amended on May 26, 2010.  MR recommends that the TCC issue a COC for this project .  Motion to issue COC, RC, second DB, so voted.
  • Spring Street, City of Taunton, COC, SE73-2378  Field report states that this project was for the installiation of 450 linear feet of PVC sewer pipe and manholes within the ROW of Spring Street.  The pipe will run from the Summer Street Bridge to Summer Street.  This project was a limited project pursuant to 310 CMR 10.53(3)(d).  All work has been completed in significant compliance to the order of conditions issued on 4-9-09.  There were no negative impacts to the resource areas.  MR recommends that the TCC issue a COC for this project.  Motion to issue COC, RC, second MI, so voted.
  • Dean Street, COT-DPW, COC, SE73-2394  Field report states that this project was for exploratory borings that were completed as part of the replacement of an undersized depressed sewer siphon beneath the Taunton River at Dean Street.  There is no as built plan as there were no changes to the boring locations.  The proposed borings were in the following locations: 1. On the north side of the Taunton River, under the Taunton River and on the south side of the Taunton River, 2. Off Harris Street at the Water Dept., Baylies Rd, Barbara Rd, and Duffy Drive, 3. On Williams St, and Mary Drive at the existing utility easement, 4. Along Winthrop St from Joseph Warner Blvd to Parker Terrace, and 5. On Davenport Street and along Davenport Terrace.  All work has been completed in significant compliance to the order of conditions issued on 6-24-09.  MR recommends that the TCC issue a COC for this project.  Motion to issue COC, DB, second MI, so voted.
  • 1094 Bay Street, Anderson, COC, SE73-2301  Field report states that this project was for the construction of a raised deck with wheelchair access to the building.  While under construction, additional work not authorized under the order of conditions issued on 11-7-07 was done.  The work included the paved parking area extending to within six feet of wetland, at its closest point, between flags 8-12.  This was done to create a straight edge of pavement along the southern property and adds approximately 1,598sf of impervious surface.  Other work included the addition of lamp posts along the southern property line and within four feet of flag 9, six feet at flag 11 and 7, and 17 feet between flags 4 and 5; and the addition of a dumpster enclosed by a stockade fence in the rear gravel parking lot.  An amendment to the order of conditions was issued on 3-14-12.  All work has been completed.  MR recommends that the TCC issue a COC for this project.   Motion to issue COC, ST, second RC, so voted.
  • 113 Craven Court, Meridian Custom Homes, COC, SE73-2188  Field report states that this project was to clear vegetation in order to establish a lawn.  Grading, installation of a silt fence, and partial clearing of the lot were done.  No other work has taken place on this lot.  The work stated above was done in significant compliance to the order of conditions issued on 7-10-06, therefore MR recommends that the TCC issue a COC for this project.  Motion to issue COC, DB, second RC, so voted.
  • 40 Homestead Crossing, Caetano, COC, SE73-2495  Field report states that this project was an after the fact filing for the construction of steps, retaining walls, crushed stone patio, barbeque pit, and finish grading within the 100 foot buffer zone of a BVW.  All work has been completed in significant compliance to the order of conditions issued on 3-19-12.  MR recommends that the TCC issue a COC for this filing.  Motion to issue COC, RC, second DB, so voted.
RC stepped down
Continued Public Hearing
  • Bassett Street, Henderson/Mass Development, NOI, SE73-2494   Motion to open the hearing, DB, second MI, so voted.  Motion to issue an order of conditions with special conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and no fence, ST, second DB, so voted.  Motion to close the hearing, MI, second ST, so voted.
RC back in
Public Hearing
  • 113 Craven Court, Meridian Custom Homes, NOI, SE73-2497  Field report states that this project is for the construction of a single family home, attached garage, back yard, utilities, and associated grading.  The wetland was delineated by Seth Dufort in February 2012.  MR reviewed the line and is in agreement with the placement of the flags.  MR recommends that the TCC approve the wetland line, flags WF-1 to WF-9.  The house and deck will be located 52 feet from the front of the property and will have water, gas, and sewer service.  The deck will be in the rear (west side of the property) facing the wetlands.  A siltation barrier is depicted on the plan at least 26 feet from the wetland, which is similar to the other sites in this subdivision.  The majority of the work is outside of the 100 foot buffer zone of the BVW with just the yard and the southwest corner of the deck within the buffer zone.  The plan depicts the 25 foot WPZ with clearing up to 26 feet from the wetland.  The area to be cleared between the 25 foot and 50 foot buffer zone should show trees greater than 8” dbh on the plan, and note which ones will be cut and which ones will remain.  This area does have a number of mature trees as well as greenbriar, poison ivy, and princess pine.  The land is relatively flat and there is only a one foot distinction from the wetland, or groundwater level, to the backside of the yard which could, over time, revert to wetland due to the number of trees that will be cut to create a backyard.  MR would recommend that some of the larger trees nearest the wetland remain.  The work as depicted should not negatively impact the resource area and is some trees are left alone then there should not be any negative impact to the yard or dwelling.  MR recommends that the TCC approve this project, with the changes recommended above, and issue an order of conditions with the attached special conditions.  Motion to open the hearing, MI, second DB, so voted.  Motion to approve the wetland line, DB, second NK, so voted.  RC wants the edge of lawn and clearing shown on plan.  BM said we can make it a condition that no work is to commence until a revised plan has been submitted.  RC says no wants it before a vote is made.  BM said we have done it like this before.  RC will not vote on plan like this.  Motion to approve the NOI with an order of conditions pending a revised plan submitted to MR and with MR’s approval of plan, and special conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29, (28-show trees greater than 8” within the 50ft buffer zone that will be cut and show trees that will remain, 29-no chemicals used to remove poison ivy, and 30-show edge of lawn and clearing on revised plan, ST, second NK, vote taken.  OPPOSED DB, RC, and MI.  IN FAVOR ST, NK, EE, and BM, Motion carries 4-3.  Motion to close the hearing, MI, second NK, so voted.  
  • 437 Whittenton Street, Jefferson Development & Partners, LLC, NOI, SE73-2498  Field report states that this project is for the removal of the Whittenton Dam (spillway) and the restoration of the Mill River upstream of the dam.  The applicant has submitted a chapter 91 Waterways Dredging Permit Application and a 401 Water Quality Certification to DEP and will be submitting the chapter 253 Permit Applications to the Office of Dam Safety in May.  Copies of the above applications as well as MEPA ENF Record of Decision, MA Historical Commission’s (MHC) response to the ENF, and the MA division of Ecological Restoration’s response to MHC are included in this file.  This is a limited project under 310 CMR 10.53 (4) as it will improve the natural capacity of a resource area by enhancing the riverine functions of the Mill River.  This project has the support of many local, state, and federal agencies including MA Division of Ecological Restoration, the Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District, the City of Taunton, American Rivers, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  The goals of this project included alleviating dam owner liability, enable passage for native diadromous fish and other native aquatic species, improve stream and riparian habitat, and improve water quality in the Mill River through reduced water temperature, increased dissolved oxygen levels, and restored nutrient pathways.  A Feasibility Study of the Mill River was conducted to review fish passage and river restoration options on the three dams below Morey’s Bridge Dam-State Hospital Dam, issued an order of conditions on 4-15-11; Whittenton Dam, this filing; and the West Britannia Dam.  This feasibility study can be found by following this line: http://www.srpedd.org/environmental.asp.  The Whittenton Dam and pond is located on the Mill River at the historic Whittenton Mills complex.  In 2005, the area was hit with heavy rains accompanied by heavy flooding and it was believed that the dam would be breached with catastrophic results.  The state authorized the removal of the dam’s superstructure and replaced it with riprap and three large concrete pipes.  During the historic flooding in March 2010, much of the riprap and sections of pipe were displaced downstream of the spillway.  Since 2005, water level within the pond remains about 2 feet lower than in the past.  The dam obstructs the passage of native diadromous fish, decreases the water quality, and decreases the natural riparian and fluvial habitat.  The wetlands that currently exist in close proximity to the work site were ground truthed and delineated by Massachusetts Riverways Program biologists.  At the area of the dam there is minimal BVW.  Upstream in the lower basin purple loosestrife, an invasive wetland plane, and water willow are the dominant species with red maple and sweet pepperbush along the edge of the impoundment.  On the western slope this area is bordered by upland lawns.  There are a number of areas along the shore where tussock sedge grows in the poorly drained impoundment areas.  On the west side of the impoundment is a forested swamp with red maple and smooth alder as the dominant species.  Along the shoreline of the pond are a number of sedges, rush, and swamp rose with water willow and tussock sedge further up the impoundment.  Within the deeper pond water, water lily is the dominant floating emergent.  Upstream, near Morey’s Bridge Dam, there are eddies dominated by water willow and broad leaved cattail.  A depression marsh and shrub wetland is located on the east side of the pond and is dominated by tussock sedge and water willow.  The project as proposed will open almost a mile of free flowing river and will restore 20 acres of riparian habitat downstream of Morey’s Dam and Lake Sabbatia.  Removal of the dam will allow the water and sediment to flow naturally and enable the natural interaction between the river and floodplain.  According to the proposal, approximately 16.5 acres of land under water will be converted to BVW.  The floodplain will be revegetated with native wetland and riparian plant species.  There is a relatively small amount of sediment trapped in the pond and so there will be minimal sediment removal necessary to fulfill the project goals.  Sediment removal is only proposed in the immediate vicinity of the dam and along the banks upstream where necessary to achieve sufficiently low shear stresses in the restored river reach.  Sediment sampling found that the highest pollutant concentrations were found in the lower portion of the impoundment.  Samples were collected as follows: 2 samples within the impoundment just upstream of the dam, one at the upstream end of the impoundment, and one approximately 1500 feet downstream of the dam.  The only pollutant found above the MCP thresholds was the PAH, benxo(a)pyren.  This was highest in the downstream sample, slightly above the MCP S1/GW-1 threshold in the sample just upstream of the dam, and well below the threshold further stream in the impoundment and upstream sites.  The samplings showed that Benzo(a)pyrene and several other PHs were found at levels that exceeded the probable effects concentration (PEC) for freshwater macroinvertebrates in the downstream sample and sample just above the dam.  The highest concentration for all of the PAHs analyzed, the greatest concentration was found downstream of the dam.  This then leads to the conclusion that the release of sediments within the impoundment that might occur during this project should not increase the downstream concentrations.  For the metals, VOCs, and EPHs, the sample collected just upstream of the dam contained the highest concentrations, but all were well below all thresholds.  Approximately 900 cy of sediment will be excavated from the former impoundment and reused for grading, shaping, and stabilizing the restored stream channel.  Approximately 420 cy will be reused on the dam owner’s property to the east of the dam for landscaping or other purposes.  This minimizes the cost of importing fill material or hauling material off site.  The applicant did an alternatives analysis to see which option would best meet the goals of habitat restoration and public safety.  One alternative was to do nothing.  This alternative would lead to continued erosion of the riprap downstream and expose the remaining dam to continued exposure to the forces of water eventually leading to total failure and ecological degradation.  A second alternative was to rebuild the dam.  This alternative would continue to restrict fish passage even with a fish ladder, reduce water quality, and continued degradation of the in-stream habitat.  The third alternative is to remove the dam, excavate and reuse the impounded sediment, and restore the impoundment to a free-flowing river.  Total dam removal offers the greatest benefit to the environment and reduces the risk of catastrophic flooding from dam failure.  The dam removal will include the removal of the concrete structure and all boulders, riprap, and pipes placed near the dam in 2005.  The proposed channel alignment will follow the historic channel alignment, identified by the location of tree stumps on the historic floodplain and a lower channel bed elevation.  A transitional riffle is designed to blend the stream channel grades with upstream and downstream reaches.  These riffles are designed following “roughened channel” design procedures such as those developed by the Washington Department of fish and Wildlife and Washington State University.  The restored stream channel will be graded so that the estimated shear stresses and velocities in the restored channel will be relatively lower than in the transitional riffles.  The substrate materials in this reach will range from small cobble to sand and some of this material may be exhumed during the excavation of sediment in the impoundment.  The streambank construction will utilize approaches that will be deformable over time, but that will initially provide resistance to erosion while the channel adjusts to flood flows following project implementation.  The intention is that by the time the banks begin to deform, the riparian corridor and new floodplain will have revegetated sufficiently to moderate the rate of channel adjustment.  The two primary types of streambank construction are utilized and detailed in the plans.  One is fabric encapsulated soil lift construction in areas of higher potential erosive force.  This technique uses two layers of coir fabric materials to encapsulate fill materials that provide growth material for streambank vegetation.  In areas of lower potential erosive force, the design includes grading and seeding of the streambank followed by installation of coir fabric on the bank slope.  The project construction will take place in two phases.  Phase 1 will consist of impoundment drawdown.  Prior to drawdown, mussel rescue activities will take place.  Drawdown will consist excavating the spillway crest to an elevation that will expose a majority of the accumulated sediment surface in the impoundment.  The applicant anticipates that 4-6 feet of the spillway crest will be excavated at this stage.  Some of the sediment just upstream of the spillway will need to be dredged to limit the amount of sediment that will be delivered downstream.  Filter check dams will be installed downstream of the dam to capture sediment mobilized during this stage.  Once excavated, the impoundment sediments will be allowed to dry for approximately one month.  Phase 2 will consist of excavation of the impoundment sediment, construction of the stream channel, removal of the remainder of the dam, and restoration of site vegetation.  To do this, a temporary bypass system will be installed to route the Mill River flow around the active project area so that the work can be completed in relatively dry conditions. This will be scheduled to occur during the driest time of the year.  The bypass system may utilize gravity, siphon or pumping provisions with a combination of open channel and piped water conveyance.  Sediment excavation will occur in zones with the fines sediment layer excavated first followed by the sand layer.  Excavation will be accomplished using track excavators and will be transported to the disposal area by off road dump trucks.  Following excavation, the remainder of the dam will be removed and the channel and floodplain restoration work will be completed.  Once the channel construction is complete, flow will be returned to the new channel and the temporary bypass system will be dismantled.  The NHESP determined that the project will occur within the habitat of the Tidewater Mucket and Eastern Pondmussel, both of which are listed as special concern.  NHESP recommends the following conditions: 1. Pre Construction Sweeps: The applicant is required to conduct pre construction sweeps within all suitable habitats, including subsurface exploration, to protect any state listed mussels.  A. a qualified, NHESP approved mussel biologist shall search for and remove all state listed mussels from within the limit of work and the impoundment drawdown area, B. Pre Construction sweeps shall occur between May and October, unless otherwise directed in writing by the NHESP, prior to the installation of siltation fencing or the initiation of work, C. All state listed mussels located within the limit of work and impoundment drawdown area shall be measured and then moved by the qualified biologist into suitable habitat upstream from the impoundment drawdown area.  2. Additional Details: A. the applicant shall engage a qualified mussel biologist to conduct the pre construction sweeps consistent with the NHESP Mussel Survey Protocol (currently under revision; the biologist shall be in direct contact with Misty-Anne Marold, Endangered Species Review Biologist, to discuss mussel protocol). B. the NHESP must pre approve the candidate biologist before work begins.  The ability to locate and identify state listed mussels requires significant experience with the target mussel species.  The resume/curriculum vitae of the candidate biologist, demonstrating extensive experience locating state listed mussels, shall be sent to the NHESP for written pre approval.  C. in order to handle state listed species, the biologist must obtain a commercial Scientific Collection Permit for this project site prior to conducting mussel surveys.  NHESP states that provided these conditions are included in the order of conditions, the project will not result in adverse impact to the Resource Area Habitats of the state listed wildlife species.  They also request that a copy of the order of conditions be sent to them.  The project is exempt from MESA review pursuant to 321 CMR 10.14.  This project will result in a permanent change to the project site.  The impoundment will be changed to a free flowing river with associated floodplains.  Land under water will be converted to BVW.  This project will not impact ACEC and Outstanding Resource Waters.  This project does occur within a Priority or Estimated Habitat for Rare Species.  This project will improve the habitat for the previously mention mucket and mussel species.  MR recommends that the TCC approve this project and issue an order of conditions to include the attached special conditions.   Motion to open the hearing, MI, second NK, so voted.  TCC members have some concerns with this project.  They feel that a site visit by the whole commission would be best before making a decision on this matter.  There were abutters present who spoke regarding this project.  David Darosa Theresa Street, Tim Watts and Priscilla Chapman from TRWA, Russ Morris, and Bill Napolitano.  Mr. Darosa is very concerned as the water near his home is almost completely dried up.  Ms. Chapman and Mr. Watts are in favor of this project, they feel it will create a better wildlife habitat, better water quality, and bring the river back to what is should be.  Mr. Morris is concerned because though he is up next to Morey’s Dam, due to the dry conditions his property edge is falling into the river and trees are dying and falling over.  Mr. Napolitano is in favor, is working on this project and sees the good it will bring.  Motion to continue for 2 weeks until 5-7-12, go out for a site visit on May 7, 2012 at 4pm meet in parking lot adjacent to dam, advertise as a public meeting, take funds from filing fees account for advertisement, DB, second RC, so voted.  Representative will get permission for public to access the property.
RC and NK stepped down  
  • 828 Middleboro Ave, Gosson, ANRAD, SE73-  Field report states that the applicant is wishing to receive approval of the wetland line located at the above address.  Brandon Faneuf, Ecosystem Solutions, Inc., delineated the wetland on 11-21-11.  The property consists of two lots located on the north side of Middleboro Avenue in East Taunton.  The wetland is located along the western property line of both lots.  A large portion of the property is located within NHESP Priority Habitat of Rare Species and Estimated Habitat of Rare Wildlife-primarily running diagonally north and south 100 feet behind the house.  The wetland was flagged using pink flags numbered 1BF to 15BF.  MR recommends that the TCC approve the delineation as follows: Flags 3BF to 10BF, and for reference purposes only flags 1BF, 2BF, and 11BF to 15BF.  MR recommends that the TCC issue an ORAD for this filing.   Motion to open the hearing, DB, second MI, so voted.  Motion to approve the wetland line, DB, second ST, so voted.  
RC and NK are back
Other Business
  • Consultant for Bassett Street.  They ran over the proposal, so modified the proposal and need it signed by TCC.
  • Peer Review Submittal.  A new consultant would like to be added to the TCC’s list of consultants.  Read and let MR know if she can add.
  • You Tube?  No
Motion to adjourn, ST, second DB, so voted.  Meeting ended at 930pm.