Holyoke Conservation Commission

Minutes for 12/12/ 2013

Full audio recording available at the Conservation Commission Office

Attendees:

Bowler / Moriarty / Panitch / Sugrue / Dahlin / Horan / Ryan
 /  /  /  /  /  / 

PLEASE CHECK ATTENDANCE TO CONFIRM ACCURACY

Staff: A. Smith

Public: Brett Trowbridge &Mitch West

Minutes 12/12/13 - Draft

Called to order at 6:30 PM.

1. New Commission Business

a) Request for Determination of Applicability

i.Representative: Brett Trowbridge, Oxbow Associates

ii.Description: Utility line maintenance within existing utility row

Chairperson Moriarty called the meeting to order and requested that Mr. Trowbridge present the RDA to the Commission. Mr. Trowbridge stated that SBA has an existingutility easement up Mt.Tom that crosses the historic ski facility and ski slopes, including the Boys and Girls Club property, the USFish and Wildlife (USFW) Property, the Mass DCR Property and the remaining Mt. Tom Rock Quarry parcel. He stated that the utility line services two tower sites and the topography is steep but level once it reaches the top of the mountain. He stated that the towers service multiple public utilities, public safety entities and a few private entities and that the goal is to prevent winter storms from wiping out these services. He stated that the utility poles are the same age as the preexisting ski facility and that the project is two-fold: the first phase includes removal of branches that overtop the utility line and the selective replacement of existing poles. He stated then that sensitive wildlife that will require MESA permitting and that they have been using feedback to meet MESAconcerns. Trimming has been designed to minimize impact to rare wildlife; Barry Parrish from USFW has also asked that trimming minimize the use of heavy equipment. As such, they are proposing to run a light-weight ATV with a four-man tree crew that will be hired to climb the trees, trim the overtopping branches, and cut them into 18” sections. The existing roadway will be used for access, as will the existing two-track roadway. This is the only area where they are proposing to access the site with the light-weight ATV. He reiterated that there will be no need for heavy equipment or ground disturbance during the tree trimming segment of the work. He stated, once again, that the secondary piece would be selective pole replacement to address top-priority poles for replacement. He stated that USFW and NHESP are in the process of reviewing this to minimize and oversee the use of heavy equipment during the pole replacement process. He stated that he has spoken with DCR and Bob Carr at DCR to determine whether or not he would need a special use permit for this work; Mr. Carr stated the trimming wouldn’t require a special use permit, if it’s an allowed activity within the easement language. Mr. Trowbridge stated that the USFW permit would equal or match the requirements of DCR’s special use permit. Mr. Trowbridge stated that they had no concerns and were amenable to extending the special use permit language across all properties. Mr. Trowbridge reiterated that he had confirmed with Mr. Smith that the work is exempt from the local ordinance. He stated that they were amenable to on-site consultations to review limit of clearing and placement of erosion control.

Mr. Smith stated that on-site meetings are common but that the Commission usually requires a plan in advance so that Commission members who cannot attend the field visit have a chance to remain abreast of site conditions. He stated that a plan that showed the maximum limit of required clearing and proposed erosion control is standard for the Commission.

Commissioner Ryan wanted to make sure chippers and chipping would not be required for the initial round of tree clearing and that the 18” wood sections would not be stockpiled but rather scattered by-hand. Mr. Trowbridge confirmed that this would be the nature of the work, as permitted by USFW and MESA.

Chairperson Moriarty reiterated that NHESP will issue a permit for this work and wanted to address the smaller plant varieties that are on-site and she wanted to know how to make sure they would not bury these rare plants.

Mr. Trowbridge stated that these are flagged, annually, and that a biologist will be providing current data, as required by NHESP, to the crew in GIS shape files. He also stated that a biologist will be present on-site to ensure that brush is not deposited on these rare species.

Mr. Trowbridge stated they would be following up in each year of the permit with a plan that identified the poles that were going to be replaced, the access routes, and limits of clearing to address concerns the Commission might have about the extent of the work. It was agreed that this would just be a submission, not a plan that would require a meeting and approval from the Commission.

Chairperson Moriarty asked for more information on the pole replacement process.

Mr. Trowbridge stated that they would be using the existing gravel road and choosing the shortest distance between poles that need to be replaced and the access road.

Chairperson Moriarty asked Mitch West (SBA) what the process would be for removing those poles needing to be replaced. He stated that they would be cut flush against the ground to minimize soil disturbance after the replacement pole had been placed and wires transferred. Mitch West stated that a half-a-dozen or a dozen poles would be replaced at a maximum. Chairperson Moriarty asked why that was different from the RDA, which stated that they would be removed. Mr. Trowbridge stated that stockpiles were specifically precluded by NHESP feedback.

Mr. Smith asked if there would be any guy wire replacement.

Mitch West stated that they would reuse the existing anchors.

Chairperson Moriarty wanted clarification on the 2017 expiration date for the ORAD and wanted to clarification that the RDA would only be for three years, not until 2017. 2016 for the RDA was confirmed.

Chairperson Moriarty asked about the possibility of using composite poles. Mitch West stated that they cost three times as much as regular poles and that they can’t be climbed. Mr. Trowbridge stated that USFS and NHESP have no issues with the existing proposes poles.

Mr. Smith asked if they would need a lay-down or staging area for the poles.

Mitch West stated that the poles would be replaced one-at-a-time and no staging areas would be required on any of the four properties.

Chairperson Moriarty asked about the relocation of three structures. Mr. Trowbridge stated that these three structures were flagged by NHESP, that they were existing utility poles, and that NHESP had asked that they be relocated to avoid rare wildlife. Mr. Trowbridge stated that these would need USFS approval, as they are outside of the footprint of the original ROW easement, and that this process was ongoing. Mr. Smith clarified that these three poles are located outside of the 100’ buffer and were, therefore, technically, outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction, even though it is part of the same project.

Commissioner Sugrue wanted additional information about whether or not the Commission had gone on record about whether or not this was exempt. Mr. Smith stated that the regulations state that utility maintenance projects do not require the filing of a Notice of Intent. Mr. Smith stated that the RDA process is set up to give Commissions a chance to decide whether or not a proposed project would remove, fill, dredge or alter a resource area and therefore would require an NOI. With that possibility removed, the only option on the state level would be a negative determination, with conditions. He stated that the local ordinance also exempted utility maintenance, but that a negative determination with conditions would still be appropriate, due to the fact that it was in the buffer zone, which would necessitate a negative three. He also stated that if the Commission wanted to issue findings on state and local exemptions, it would be a Negative #5 and a Negative #6, but that it is not required, as this information is known, but that it might be beneficial to include information on the local ordinance for other agencies.

Commissioner Ryan asked how much of the project was in the 100’ Buffer zone. Mr. Trowbridge estimated approximately half of the project is within the 100’ Buffer.

The Commission agreed that it would be a negative determination under the state and local ordinance, with the following conditions:

  1. Permittee is authorized to use an UTV or an ATV on existing gravel access road to the cell towers and the native surface two-track trail that follows the old ski runs to transport personnel and equipment to work sites. UTV/ATV use is not authorized anywhere else.
  2. Cuttings from trees will be scattered (not piled) within the woods (not grassy former ski runs) and lopped to 18 inches.
  3. Permittee will not conduct activities in connection with this permit in any manner that would cause damage to regulated resource areas or present hazards or significant annoyances to wildlife.
  4. Permittee will have acquired all necessary state, local and other federal permits/authorizations prior to start of work.
  5. Permittee will have in possession a signed copy of this DoA and list of special conditions while engaged in activities described in this document and shall present it to the Commission upon request.
  6. All materials, tools and equipment used on-site shall be broomed clean and visually inspected to confirm absence of invasive plant or animal species prior to entry to site.
  7. Prior to commencement of pole replacement work, in each calendar year, permittee shall submit a plan that identifies poles to be replaced and/or removed, access routes to work areas, limits of clearing, and erosion control subject to review and approval of commission with a follow-up on-site conference to confirm limits of work.

With that, the Commission moved on to the annual attendance report for 2013; copies were distributed to members in attendance for informational purposes.

Subsequent to review of the 2013 attendance records, the Commission blocked out the meeting schedule for 2014, with a tentative 6:15 start time for the entire year, subject to review and finalization in January 2014.

With that, the Commission approved the Minutes for October 24, 2013, as amended.

After a quick review of 2013 accomplishments, including land conservation and funding for trees, the Commission adjourned at 7:45 PM.