Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
STATE OF VERMONT
PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD
PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF
ADAM CRARY
ON BEHALF OF
BEAVER WOOD ENERGY POWNAL, LLC
The purpose of the pre-filed testimony of Mr. Crary is to demonstrate that the proposed
Pownal Biomass Project will comply with certain provisions of 30 V.SA. 248 (b)(5).
§
namely those pertaining to outstanding resource waters, streams, wetlands, rare or
irreplaceable natural areas, and necessary wildlife habitat and endangered species.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 1
2. Summary of Findings 3
3. Conclusion 10
EXHIBITS
Exhibit Petitioners AC-i Resumé of Adam R. Crary
STATE OF VERMONT
PUBLIC SERVICE BOARD
PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF
ADAM CRARY
ON BEHALF OF
BEAVER WOOD ENERGY POWNAL, LLC
1. Introduction
Al. My name is Adam Crary and I am employed by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin Inc.
(VHB), formerly known as VHB Pioneer. The VHB business address is 7056
responsible for managing projects, staff, and technical work in conduct of various
exhibit AC-i.
A2. I hold a B.S. degree in Natural Resources with a concentration in Natural History
vascular flora identification and collection; floristic monitoring and surveys; rare,
and environmental inventory; and technical and scientific report and oral
A3. The purpose of my testimony is to demonstrate that the Pownal Biomass Project
should not have an undue adverse effect on water purity or the natural
environment, with due consideration having been given to the criteria specified in
A4. Yes. Previously, I have testified regarding the Chittenden County Solar Partners,
LLC South Burlington Solar Farm project, PSB Docket No. 7611. In this prior
Q5. Based upon your evaluation and analyses, does the Project comply with Section
248?
AS. Yes. The project complies with the Outstanding Resource Waters criterion j10
V.S.A. § 1424a(d)] as the project is not located on, and would not affect any
segment of waters determined to be Outstanding Resources Waters. The project
complies with the Streams criterion [* 6086(a)(1)(E)] because the project requires
minimal work in streams and conforms to the ANR riparian buffer guidance, and
does not encroach on streams or their buffer zones. The project complies with the
Class I or II Wetlands are present on the project site. The project complies with
_____
the Rare and Irreplaceable Natural Areas criterion [ 6086(a)(8)1, because the
with the Necessary Wildlife Habitat and Endangered Species criterion R 6086
(a)(8)(A)1 because the project site does not comprise necessary wildlife habitat or
endangered species.
the site including streams, wetlands, and threatened and endangered species,
water marks and top-of-bank for the onsite stream channels, which include
segments of the Hoosic River (eastern bank) and Ladd Brook, and have made
have performed site inspections to delineate the wetlands, collect data per federal
requirement, and coordinate with the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers (USACE)
and the Vermont DEC-Wetlands Division regarding federal and state jurisdiction.
to the site and have corroborated the findings with onsite inspections. Much of
the work I, or my staff, have conducted, is presented in the “Wetland, Stream, and
have prepared this written testimony following review of the Bruno Associates
Inc. P.C. “2010 Construction Layout Plan”, dated 1015/10, as well as the Bruno
Associates Inc. P.C. drawing OA-1, revision date 10/18/10, sponsored in Exhibit
BHB-4 in the pre-filed direct testimony of Bruce Boedtker. I have also prepared
existing water supplies. In the following sections, 1 rely on the prefiled direct
testimony and supporting exhibits of either Mr. Perry or Mr. Boedtker for project
Q7 Is the project located on, or would it affect any segment, of any desigiated
under section 1-03D, state that the Natural Resources Board (NRB) may, under
Waters:
The proposed Project is not located in the vicinity of any of the listed waters;
Q8 Will the Project have an undue adverse effect on the natural environment, with
A8 No. As presented in Exhibit AC-2, there are no streams or other natural water
bodies within the planned project development site and there will be no direct
impact to stream channels for the project other than a single intake pipe described
in some detail below and in Mr. Perry’s testimony. The Hoosic River and Ladd
Brook do occur nearby to the project development site, the Hoosic River bank
lying approximately 50-feet from the nearest perimeter fence limit and Ladd
Brook banks lying, on average, approximately 25-feet from the perimeter fencing
limit. As presented in Exhibit AC-2. the Hoosic River existing riparian condition
and the Ladd Brook existing stream channel and riparian condition have been
_____
that the project is not within the vicinity of any waterways that would be
because the streams in the vicinity should not be considered “highly significant”
per Section 1424a(d), and considerations of these criteria are not applicable to the
project. Therefore, and as discussed further under the Streams section below and
in the testimonies of Mr. Perry and Mr. Boedtker’s, the Project will not have any
adverse effect on the natural environment with respect to waters that might be
A9 Yes. My colleague Meddie Perry will testify regarding the proposed water
withdrawal from the Hoosic River, which will maintain natural conditions of
of streams and their buffers, and the project’s design insofar as it does not
segments of the Hoosic River lie to the west of the project development site and
the Ladd Brook to the north. With exception of the placement of the river water
intake pipe below ordinary high water on the Hoosic River (generally described
below and in more detail in Mr. Perry’s testimony), the project will not require
which were assessed in accordance with Section III.B.3 of the Vermont ANR’s
_____
December 9, 2005 Guidance for Act 250 and Section 248 Comments Regarding
Riparian Buffers (the Guidance) and are graphically depicted on Page 21 of the
Attachment in Exhibit AC-2. The project development does not take place within
the Hoosic River stream buffer, and in most cases, the project site is sited well
beyond the buffer. Two minor perimeter fencing encroachments within the Ladd
Brook buffer will be necessary and is an acceptable activity per Section III.C of
the Guidance.
This river water intake will cause only a minimal amount of disturbance below
the basic River ordinary high water mark as it will be installed by hydraulically
jacking from a pit that is outside of the buffer, and the only disturbance will be an
8-inch diameter location where the intake pipe will protrude from the underwater
riverbank in the 5-foot deep intake pool. As Mr. Perry’s testimony explains, the
intake has been designed so that the maximum water velocity at the intake screen
will be less than 0.3 feet per second, which will not entrain or impinge fish and
aquatic organisms. This minimal intrusion will also not alter the natural fluvial
ANR Water Quality Division Stream Alteration Permit is not required. A federal
permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act will be a requirement for the intake structure and water
withdrawal, for which pre-application coordination with the USACE has been
initiated.
_____
Therefore, the project will have no undue adverse impact to onsite or downstream
QlO Will the Project comply with the rules regarding significant (Class I or II)
wetlands?
AlO Yes. As presented in Exhibit AC-2, there are no areas within or adjacent to the
project site that are subject to the Vermont Wetland Rules as Class I or Class II
As also presented in Exhibit AC-2, there is a wetland within the project site that is
subject to USACE (federal) jurisdiction associated with one man-made pond, but
is not included under Vermont (state) jurisdiction. The project will require the
filling of this man-made pond, which will result in approximately 2.6 acres of
impact requiring permit authorization from the USACE pursuant to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. Due to the minimal functions provided by this man-
induced wetland and the mitigative measures expected as part of the Section 404
permit, it is my opinion that there will not be any adverse effect from the project
Q1 1 Will the Project destroy, or significantly imperil necessary wildlife habitat or any
endangered species?
All No. As presented in Exhibit AC-2 at Page 5, there are no known threatened or
endangered species at the project site, nor is there any necessary wildlife habitat.
_____
Q12 Will the Project have an undue adverse effect on any rare and irreplaceable
A12 No. As presented in Exhibit AC-2 at Page 5 there are no natural communities that
have been identified within or proximal to the project site that are considered
Q13 With respect to the criteria that you have testified about, will the initial phase of
work proposed for 2010 and 2011 affect the Streams, Wetlands, Rare and
Species?
A13 No. The initial phases of work will not involve any work within or adjacent to
subset of the overall project and following the conclusions drawn in my testimony
above, the initial phases of work will not have any impact to these criteria.
4. Conclusion
A14. Yes.
STATE OF VERMONT
PREFILED TESTIMONY OF
ADAM CRARY
Exhibit BWEP - AC -1
Resumé
Adam R. Crary, PWS,
PWD
Senior Wetland Scientist
Mr. Crary is an experienced and skilled praCtitioner of wetland science, policy, botany,
and general ecological assessments. Since joining Vt-ID in 2009, Mr. Crary has applied Crary has worked as a state
these skills in technical and/or managerial roles for the following example projects:
park maintenance technician.
Mount Snow Ski Resort Expansion, Dover, VT a federal park ranger, a
In support of Mount Snow’s master planning efforts, Mr. Crary has served as the senior
wetland field ecologist in conduct of detailed and preliminary wetland delineation research assistant, a stream
efforts over several large developed and undeveloped land parcels owned by the resort, ecologist, a wetland ecologist.
Delineation efforts support planning under Vermont Act 250 and the state Wetland
Rules, as well as USACE 404 permitting. a botanist, and a project
manager. He has performed
Due Diligence Assessment Lot 15 Giroux Property, Hinesbwg, V’
In support of VI-IB Pioneer’s client’s purchase interest, Mr. Crary served as the project ecological services in 12
wetland scientist responsible for delineating wetland area on-site to facilitate project States and one U.S. territory
planning under Vermont Act 250 and the state Wetland Rules, as well as USACE 404
permitting. on both large- and small-scale
public and private projects. Mv.
Commonwealth Yogurt, Brattleboro, VT
Mr. Crary recently led a field crew conducting the third wetland delineation on the Crary has worked on rural and
property since 1998, the results of which were approved by the USACE and also urban sites acres, mum-state
resulted in a decrease in jurisdictional wetland area from previous studies. The project
development site has a complicated USACE 404 and Vermont Act 250 permitting lir- utility projects, as well
history, and Mr. Crary will serve as VHB Pioneer’s permitting specialist and regulatory as county-wide stream
liason for the project during acquisition of a Vermont General Permit from the USACE.
This development project is intended to incorporate sustainable and LEED practices assessment initiatives. At
with a goal of bringing dairy-focused industry to southeastern Vermont. VHB, Mr. Crary is responsible
Cape Cod National Seashore, Cape Cod, MA for managing or providing
In support of VHB’s Watertown, MA and Williamsburg, VA offices working for the oversight on projects focused
National Park Service, Mr. Crary compiled collected field data and offsite information to
complete a wetland function and value analysis of six wetlands located within the Route on ecological resource
6 roadway improvement study area, Utilizing the USACE Highway Methodology, inventory or involving lederal
wetland assessments were completed for estuarine, interdunal swale, and peatland
systems. or state environmental
permitting, as well as
Prior to joining VHB, Mr. Czar/s projects included the following:
managing wetland and
Cflesterfield Power Station, Chesterfield County, VA ecological services and
Prior to VFJB, in support of the 404/401 Individual Permit application, served as the
lead ecologist and task manager for the field assessments and Sections 404/401 technical staff.
regulatory coordination involved with this 250+ acre proposed ash monofill. The project
site is situated in the upper Coastal Plain and is subject to several environmental and
regulatory constraints, including tidal and non-tidal wetlands and streams, Chesapeake 12 years, professional
Bay Preservation Areas, rare flora and fauna, and several historical sites. To determine experience
wetland and stream constraints, the wetland delineation was performed for the facility
site as well as an access road corridor according to determine all areas subject to USACE
or VIJEQ jurisdiction. Perennial streams as well as tidal and non-tidal wetland were
assessed to determine the landward extent of the mandatory RPA according to the
Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. Complete site surveys for several rare seepage or
powerline flora, as well as rare molluscan fauna were completed. Regulatory work
VIIB
Adam R. Crary, PWS,
PWD
Confinued. p. 2
during the study and USACE sign-off was received. Prior to mine field development,
collected detailed botanical data by strata from a plot-based sampling design to support
secondary wetland dewatering impact monitoring.
Hill
Adam R. Crary, PWS,
PWD
Continued, p. 4
technical report of findings and a formal presentation to the Chesterfield County Office
of Water Quality. As a result of county-coordination and discussion, county perennial
stream determination procedures have evolved. Other responsibilities included wetland
delineation, RPA determination, regulatory support, and coordination with the USACE,
DCBLA, county staff, client, engineer, surveyor, and attorney.
Education! Education:
Professional
85, Natural Resources (Natural History and Ecology), University
r IflIfl9
of Maine, Orono, ME, 2000
Professional Training:
Applied Fluvial Geornorphology WildIand Hydrology,
Shepherdstown, WV, April 2009
OSHA 10-HR Construction Safety, Richmond, VA, February 2008
Emerg. Medical Response and Bloodhorne Pathogen Training,
Richmond, VA, March 2008
Fire Safety ann’ Extinguisher Use, Richmond, VA, March 2008
Wetland Deliheat/on and Management. RCET, Charlotte, NC,
October 2005
Field Botany and Florist/cs, Humboldt Field Research Institute,
Steuben, ME, June 2004
Perennial Stream Origin Identification for Appilcation of the CBPA
Designation and Management Regulations in Virginia, NC State
Dept. of Forestry, Richmond, VA, Jtme 2004
Advanced Hydric Soils, VJMS, Gloucester, VA, October2003
Fairfax County Perennial Stream Field Identification Protocol,
Fairfax, VA, May 2003
Prince William Co. and Fairfax Co., VA Physical Stream
Assessments, Sept. & Oct. 2003
Adam R. Crary, PWS,
PWD
Continued, p. 5
Memberships
Virginia Association of Wetland Professionals (2001 present)
-
FF12
Adam R. Crary, PWS,
PWD
Continued, p. 6
fiB
Adam R. Crary, PWS,
PWD
Connued, p. 7
vim
STATE OF VERMONT
PREFILED TESTIMONY OF
ADAM CRARY
Exhibit BWEP - AC -2
7056 US Route 7
Post Office Box 120
North Ferrisburgh, VT 05473
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. Telephone 802.425.7788
Fax 802.425.7799
www.vhb.com
Memorandum To: Beaver Wood Energy Project File Date: October 21,2010
From: Ryan Scott, Adam Crary Re: Wetland, Stream, and Other Natural
Resources Summary
At the request of Beaver Wood Energy, LLC (the Client), Vanasse Hangen Brusthn, Inc.
(VHB),
formerly VHB Pioneer (VHBP), conducted wetland and stream delineations at the former
Green
Mountain Race Track in Pownal, Vermont, as part of a proposed biomass energy project
(see
Attachment, page 1, Site Location Map). The Study Area includes an approximate 90
-acre portion of
the former race track situated along the eastern bank of the Hoosic River. The intent of
the wetland
and stream delineation is to provide an inventory of regulated resources under the Vermo
nt Wetland
Rules and Section 404 of the clean Water Act. The presence/absence of regulated resources
and
associated buffers will be an aid in overall site design and regulatory review/permi
tting for the
planned project. Also included with this memorandum are the results of stream
riparian buffer
assessments, database-level reviews for other natural resource criteria, particularly significant
natural
communities, rare, threatened, and endangered (RTE) species, and necessary wildlif
e habitat, each as
defined by Act 250 (and subsequently, 30 V.S.A. Section 248) criterion. A description
of the study area,
methods used, and findings are presented below and in the Attachment to this document.
Sm DESCRIPTION
The Study Area is located in Pownal, Vermont and is situated between the Hoosic River
and Route 7.
In the past, the site supported a dairy farm before opening as a racetrack in 1962. The
entire site is
paved except for the racetrack and two man-made ponds located within the racetra
ck. The site now
consists of grass that grew over the pavement, the racetrack grandstands, and various
buildings
associated with its past operations. There is a vegetated buffer between the paved area
of the site and
the Hoosic River. The site is bound to the north by Ladd Brook (a tributary to the Hoosic
River),
railroad tracks to the east, unleased property associated with the racetrack to the south,
and the Hoosic
River to the west.
The project site occurs in the Southern Green Mountains biophysical region of VermonV
within the
Hudson Hoosic Watershed (HUC: 02020003). According to the Natural Resource
Conservation
-
METHODOLOGY
Vi-IB Environmental Scientists Chelsea Martin and Ryan Scott conducted the wetland and stream
delineations on June 22, 2010 and August12, 2010. The team performed the delineations in accordance
with methodologies outlined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regional wetland
delineation supplement
. The regional supplement requires the presence of three parameters to
3
establish the occurrence of wetland resources: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland
hydrology. Under normal circumstances, all three parameters must be met for an area to qualify
as a
wetland resource under the method. Wetlands are flagged using pink”wetland delineation” survey
tape and labeled to include wetland ID and flag number (e.g., VHBP-2010-A1-1). Information
pertaining to vegetation, soil type, and hydrologic characteristics are recorded in the field to be
incorporated into USACE data forms as well as function and value forms for each wetland resource.
Stream determinations and ordinary high water (OHW) width is determined in the field from
guidance provided in the USACE “Regulatory Guidance Letter: Subject- Ordinary High Water
Identification.” Streams are typically flagged according to the Agency of Natural Resources
4
(ANR)
Riparian Buffer Cuidanc&. OHW width measurements are taken at regular intervals while flagging
along the length of a stream within the investigation area. Flow regimes are preliminarily classified
as
ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial and are determined based on qualitative observations
of in-
stream hydrology indicators at the time of delineation, as well as geomorphic characteristics.
Streams
are flagged using orange survey tape and labeled according to the type of survey (“SC” for stream
center and “TB” for top of bank) and include the stream ID and flag number (e.g., VHBP 2010-501-1).
Wetland and steam delineation flags were located by VHB in the field using a Trimble® GPS unit
capable of sub-meter accuracy. Data are post-processed using Trimble® Pathfinder software for
enhanced accuracy. Wetland data are collected according to the USACE regional supplement
procedure, and stream data pertaining to stream bed and bank condition, substrate, and flow
characteristics are recorded in the field.
RESULTS
VHB delineated two wetland/pond features and two watercourses within the Study Area. The
location and extent of each feature is shown on the Wetland and Stream Delineation Map (see
Attachment, page 2). The wetland/pond and streams are described generally below, as well as
in the
summary spreadsheets (see Attachment, pages 3 and 4). USACE Wetland Delineation forms further
describe vegetation, soils, and hydrologic characteristics for wetlands (see Attachment, page 5-7)
as do
the function and value Ionns provided in the Attachment (page 8). Representative photographs of
the
site as well as wetland and stream resources are provided (see Attachment, pages 9-13).
VHB environmental scientists delineated two wetland features in the Study Area (wetlands 2010-1
and
2010-2). Both features axe excavated features constructed as treatment and aesthetic amenity ponds
within upland areas during construction of the Green Mountain Race Track in the early 1960’s
(see
further discussion below). Feature 2010-1 is located within the northern loop of the former track
and is
now characterized as a palustrine emergent wetland (PEM)
6 (see Attachment, page 11, Photograph 5).
Feature 2010-1 is inundated for a portion of the year and is vegetated with a narrow leaf cattail (Typhq
angustlfoiñl) monoculture. Soils within the wetland are hydric but have physical characteristics
consistent with surrounding upland soils at corresponding elevations.
Feature 2010-2 is also a man-made pond located inside the math ioop of the race track, and is
larger
than feature 2010-I. The feature consists primarily of open water (POW), with a PEM fringe
(see
Attachment, page 11, Photograph 6). Vegetation within the PEM fringe generally consists of
narrow
leaf cattail, common reed (Phrag,nites aus trails), jeweiweed (Impati ens capensis), reed canary grass
(Phalaris arundinacea), and willows (Salix sp.). The pond receives hydrology from stormwater
runoff on
the property that is directed into the pond via pipes.
Field efforts identified two water courses within/directly adjacent to the Study Area. Feature
2010-TBI
consists of the east bank of the Hoosic Rivet Stream top-of-bank (rOB) and ordinary high water
(01-lW) was delineated along the eastern bank of this feature. The river flows north along the western
side of the Study Area and has steep banks that are well vegetated between the OHW and the
top-of-
bank (see Attachment, page 9, Photographs 1,2). Undercutting was observed along portions
of the
bank generally located in areas on the outside bend of the channel. Within the project site, a
forested
buffer exists between the top-of-bank flagging and the existing race track development, and
it is
estimated that this buffer ranges from less than 5-feet to 50-feet with an average of approximately
35-
feet (see Attachment, Page 13, Photograph 9).
Feature 2010-TB2 is located at the northern extent of the Study Area and consists of a segment of
Ladd
Brook. It is characterized as a smaller stream with steep banks. The stream begins at the eastern
property boundary and flows north into two 48-inch corrugated metal pipes before flowing
west
towards the confluence with the Hoosic River (2010-TB4) (see Attachment, page 10, Photographs
3,4).
It is noteworthy that based on reviews of previous topographic and aerial imagery mapping
resources
(described below and also included in the Attachment), this segment of Ladd Brook appears
to have
been re-located to follow the northern property boundary as part of the site racetrack/parking
Jot
development in the early 1960’s. Currently, trash and debris occurs within the channel and
invasive
riparian species, such as Polygonum cuspidatum, are prevalent in the riparian buffer. An existing
forested buffer exists between the stream top-of-bank and the former parking lot, and is estimated
to
average approximately 30-feet in width.
JURISDICTIONAL DISCUSSION
Based on current site conditions, information gathered through the Bennington County Soil Survey,
historic aerials, and conversations with the Energy Park Director, the artificial pond features
were
excavated from uplands. The Bennington County Soil Survey (2010) shows the site to be currently
underlain by Upsidamments and Udorthents, gently sloping (description included on Page 15
of the
Attachment). This series is characterized by areas where original soils have been removed or
covered
with fill material. To determine the on-site soils before the site was developed and the soils
were
disturbed, VHB identified areas in the general vicinity of the project site that shared characteristics
with relation to site topography, proximity to the Hoosic River, and similar historic land use
(farming).
Two sites, located approximately one mile and one and a half miles upstream of the Project
site, were
selected for its shared characteristics (see Attachment, page 14). Based on the most current soil
survey
6 Cowardin, LM., V. Carter P.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe.1979. Classitcation o Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitat in the United
States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBD-79J31 lO
pp.
3
for Bennington County, the Occum soil series dominates the comparable parcel which consists
of very
deep, well drained loamy soils formed in alluvial sediments. This series is not considered a
]iydric soil
series and appears to accurately represent the site. The Occum series is measured to a depth
of 65
inches and is a fine sandy loam for the first 36 inches underlain by a loamy fine sand. Though
it
frequently floods, it is for brief durations as permeability is moderate to moderately rapid
in the solum
and rapid or very rapid in the substratum. Depth to seasonal high water table in this series generally
is
between 4 and 6 feet (see Attachment, page 16, Vermont Soil Fad Sheet Occum Series). -
The data gathered from the soil survey are confirmed by monitoring wells throughout the site,
and
further soil investigations within feature 2010—i. Monitoring well data indicates that groundwater
is at
its highest during the spring months located approximately seven feet below the natural ground
surface. During the summer months, groundwater is located approximately ten feet below
the natural
ground surface suggesting that the water table is not high enough to support hydric soils, or
hydrophytes in the areas surrounding the excavated ponds (evidence the ponds were excavated
from
upland).
Historic aerials from 1942 arid 1962 (see Attachment, pages 17,18) show the area as a dairy
farm, and
just before construction of the race track, respectively (staging areas are visible in the 1962
aerial).
Wetland signatures at the locations of the current delineated features are not evident in either
of the
historic aerials, further indicating that the pond features were excavated from uplands. Additionally
,
the 1954 USGS topographic map shown on the Site Location Map (see Attachment, page 1), shows
Feature 2010-1 excavated from an elevation of approximately 540-feet above-mean-sea-level
which is
an elevation two feet above the high ground water table observed through soil borings and
monitoring
well data.
Both features are known to function as stormwater basins through the presence of infrastructure
connecting the two ponds as well as connecting the larger pond (2010-2) with various catch
basins and
drains throughout the site. Both features still function as stormwater receivers for the site
and exist for
the purpose of retaining collected watet It is also known through interview of former employees
that
the depressions doubled as ornamental ponds during the operation of the race track and were
also
once part of a treatment system for the runoff from the racehorse stables that are no longer
in
operation.
Agency of Natural Resources Water Rources Panel. August 1,2010. Vermont Wetland Rules: Vt CodeR.
7 —
12004056.
Accessed online at Jidp:J /nrhstate.vt.us/wrp/rules.htm
has been confirmed that neither delineated feature 2910-1 or 2020-2 would be subject to regulation
under the VWRs or otherwise considered waters of the State (electronic mail correspondence
provided
on pages 19-20 of the Attachment).
USACE regulates placement of fill material into navigable waterways and their tributaries,
including
adjacent wetlands, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Among other conditions,
USACE
General Permit authorization is required for cumulative wetland or stream impacts greater
than
3,000 square feet, and an individual permit for impacts greater than one acre
.
2
Both wetland features on the property consist of artificial ponds excavated from uplands for
the
original purpose of stormwater retention and aesthetics. Under normal circumstances, both features
should be non-jurisdictional under Section 404 of the CWA. A site visit with Marty Abair of
the
USACE on August 20, 2010 confirmed that feature 2010-2 is not jurisdictional as it is an open
water
feature, excavated from uplands for the purposes of stormwater management and aesthetics
and
continues to provide these functions. From follow-up coordination with the USACE, feature 2010-1
would be jurisdictional under the CWA. Though it was excavated at the same time as feature
2010-2
and for the same purposes, its current vegetated condition, presence of hydric soils, and lack of
defined inundation periods, have resulted in new normal wetland condition, This feature is
jurisdictional under Section 404 of the CWA and will require a permit for any fill placed within its
delineated boundaries.
Following VHB’s wetland and stream field delineation and flagging, stream riparian buffers
were
assessed in accordance with Section llI.B.3 of the Vermont ANR’s December 9, 2005 Guidance for
Agency Act 250 and Section 248 Comments Regarding Riparian Buffers (Guidance). Resultantly,
as
measured from the stream top-of-bank flagging, a 50-foot design buffer has been installed from 2010-
TB-i (Hoosic River) and a 25-foot design buffer has been installed in the plans for 2010-TB-2 (Ladd
Brook). Each buffer, overlaid with the design plans
, is depicted on the Stream Buffer Map, included
9
as Page 21 of the Attachment. Such buffer assessments take into consideration the riparian functions
and values as presented in Appendix A of the Guidance as well as the modifications! disturbance that
exist from previous site development and other existing degraded condition within these proposed
buffers.
Department of the Array General Permit State of Vermont. General Permit No. NAE-2007-24.
9
D esign plans from Bruno Associates as received electronically by VHS on 10/20/10.
10 Federal-listed species are protected
under the U.S. Endangered Species Act and Vermont-listed species are protected
under
IOV.S.A. §123.
Through review of the NHII’ database, one rare or sensitive species was identified that is known
to
occur within the one-mile radius of the Study Area, but there are no known species or significant
natural community EOs within or adjacent to the Project site. This EO is a plant considered
rare in
Vermont (S2), but is not afforded protection under Vermont Endangered Species Law. There
is a
mapped deer wintering area within the one-mile radius that is located within intact forestland
to the
west of the Project site, but is separated from the Project site by development roadways, agricultural
land, and the Hoosic River. The Rare Species and Wildlife Habitat Review Map is provided on
Page 22
of the Attachment, and details the map results of these database queries.
Based on the results of this database review, no species or community-specific surveys were
conducted
for any unknown threatened or endangered species or significant natural community types.
During
field investigations and data collection efforts as part of VHS’s wetland and waters delineation, site
conditions were found to be highly modified from natural undisturbed (or disturbed) condition
and
the likelihood that there are suitable habitats onsite for any protected species is minimal. There
are no
onsite habitat conditions that would be conducive to providing necessary wildlife habitat for
white
tailed deer or moose wintering or Hack bear (foraging or travel). These findings are similar to
those
included in the State of Vermont Public Service Board’s (P55) findings as part of Docket No.
7618 (2.2-
MW Solar Generation Facility at the Southern Vermont Energy Park).
Attachment:
• Site Location Map
• Wetland and Stream Delineation Map
• Summary of 2010 Delineated Wetlands and Summary of 2010 Delineated Streams
(two
summary tables)
• USACE Wetland Determination Data Form
• USACE Wetland Function-Value Evaluation Form
• Site Photographs Wetland/Stream Delineation
-
• 9/30/ 10 Electronic Mail Correspondence from Alan Quackenbush, Subject: Re: Pownal
Racetrack Beaver Wood Energy Project
—
Pownal Biomass Site Berlin, and North Adams Qiads from USGS (1954);
Roads and Property Parcels from VCGI (2005).
Legend Pownal, Vermont
Site Location Map
VHBP Investigathon Area
VT Class )&1I Roads August 18, 2010
—
PI4NE
70 US
ERt IZoult /F3 Ru :0
\Zo’th 1krosbLrqb r•
lfij:.
fl•V(V’1 bcnrn
—
cc’
.c
I sts1n
,
g
0 i:Ii}r
a
fl
tjfl’ ud
3
4 .1,. j
Beaver Wood, LLC - Pownal, VT
Summary of 2010 Deflneated Wetlands
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
October20, 2010
Man made depression originally consti-ucted as part of the Green Mountain Raceway in the
2010-1 early
¶14.420 Yes MiD Y PElt’ I 960’s to handle stormwater runoff and for aesthetic purposes. tJSACE jucisdictional feature
FF under
‘new normal circumstance’. Determined by the ANR-DEC to be non-jurisdictional under the VT
Wetland Rules or as a waters of the State, Typha angustifohia monocutture with s[wub fringe.
Man made depression originally constructed as part of the Green Mountain Raceway in the early
2010-2 390,844 No NJD N POW/PEM FF
1960’s to handle stormwatem runoff and for aesthetic purposes. USAGE non-jurisdictional ornamental
pond. Determined by the ANR-DEC to be non-jurisdictional under the VT Wetland Rules or as a
waters of the State. Mosgy open waler with porifons of hinge emergent vegetation.
All delineated wetlands flagged per the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Maunual and the 2010 Northeast Regional Supplement
2
Cowardin, LM., V,Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe,1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat in the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBO-79131 IOSpp.
-
-
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) New England District. 1999. The Highway Methodology Workbook: Supplement: Wetland Functions and Values A Descriptive Approach. NAEEP-360-l-30a. Functions and Values are
codified as follows: GW=Groundwater Rechargeloischarge, FFFloodflow Alleration, F Fish and Shellfish Habitat, STPSedimentiToxicant Retention. NU’VNuddent Removsl, Pt-Production Export, SSSedimenbShorene
Stabilization, W=Wildlife Habitat, R=Recreation, ES=Educationsl/Scientific Value, HHeritage/Uniqueness, V=Visual/Aesthetics, and RTERare, Threatened, or Endangered Species Habitat.
M.rage Ordinary
stream Blame Stream Associated Buffer
Stream Descnptton’ High Js (OHm
Recoo.wnm,dalion
Width Notes
((cot)’
ems.rekma,a— ascaeau_da,an
a
5—.
_______________________________________
______________________
______
______________
______
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features,
etc.
Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Salt Present? Yes ‘)( No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: Z—° IC’ —
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reouiredl
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check WI that ac,clv Surface Soil Cracks (86)
Surface Water (Al) — Water-Stained Isaves (89)
— Drainage Patterns (810)
High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (813) — Moss Trim Lines (816)
Saturation (A3) — Marl Deposits (515)
— Dry-Season Water Table (02)
j, Water Marks (81) — Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) — Crayfish Burrows (Cs)
Sediment Deposits (62) Oxidized Riiizospheres on Uving Roots (C3)
—
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagety (09)
Drift Deposits (83) — Presence of Reduced iron (C4) — Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
Algal Mat or Crust (84) — Recent iron Reduction In Tilled Soils (Cs) Geomorphic Position (02)
iron Deposits (85) Thin Muck Surface (07) — Shallow Aqultard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) — Other (Explain in Remarks) — Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) — FAG-Neutral Test (D6)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ,JS._ Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No — Depth (inches): tt in
Remarks:
Sampling Point: I
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: % Cover Soecies? Status Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Ne O&, FACW, or FAC: I (A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3. 1
Species Across NI Strata: I (B)
4.
PercentofDominantSpecles
5. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: I’
(AdS)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
7.
Total % Cover of: MultIply by:
Total Cover OBL species xi = 9Th
S&inajShnt Strahzn (Plot size: FACWspecies x2
FACspeoles x3
FACt) species x4 =
UPL species x5 =
Column Totals: t (A) 9 ‘ (B)
2.
Hydrophytic
4 Vegetation
Present? Yes 1 No
= Total Cover
Reniarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
— Black 1-IISIIC (AS) Thin Dark Surface (59) (tSR B, MLRA 1490) — 5cm Mucky Peat or Peat (53) (tSR K, L, B)
—
9ridicators of hydraphytic vegetaticn and wetland hydrology must be present unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (If observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No —
Remarks:
— Floodflow Alteration — — 5,6,7,8,9,1 0,15,18 Wetland originally constructedto acceptstormwater and actas an ornamental feature forthe
— Green Mountain Raceway.
Fish and Shellfish Habitat
SedimentfToxicant Retention 3,4,5,9 The constructed depression Is large and flat allowing opportunity for sedimentftoxicants to
settle out.
Nutrient Removal
it Production ExDort —
— 247 —
r
I .‘q. Recreation
Educational/Scientific Value
Uniqueness/Heritage
Visual Quality/Aesthetics
Other
*
Notes: Wetland consists of a depression constructed in the early 1960s as part of the Green Mountain Refer to backup list of numbered considerations.
Raceway.The jond was built to hold stormwater runoff from surrounding parking Adepted .
from: tLS.N,ny Corns of Enginesra New EnIsnd DIshict 1999. The flgtiway
areas and the
MeUlodology Wor*lioot Supplement WeOa,d Fuicifons aM values -A Oescdpve
grandstand. vegetation moved into the wetland due to lack of maintenance. Approsth, NAEEP-360-1-30s.
9
Site Photographs — Wetland/Stream Delineation
I’anasse Ihingen lirustliji. inc. Beaver Wood Energy LLC, Pownal Biomass Site
r
F.
1 /‘t
— — i.—- -
-.
t*__
t
_*
* —
r
-
-‘:- - --: t
:1i :W
4rT___
‘2 N /; \\
3
t ’
4
r —
a
Vanasse Ilangen Brush/n, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy LLC, Pownal Biomass Site
tj;rasse Iia2ge12 lir’u.stlbi, Izc. Beaver Wood Energy LLC, Pownal Biomass Site
I 4anasse Ilanpen lirustlin, Inc Beaver Wood Energy LLC, Pownal Biomass Site
The soil in this map unit has been altered or removed. This map unit is not suited to cultivated crops, hay or pasture.
Important farmland dassification: NPSL Land caoabiitv 8 s Vermont Agricultural Value GrouD: 11
Udipsamments
j
—
(Feel)
1.54>6.0
Frequency
None
I
Duration Frequency
None
I
Duration
I
soil?
No
I (range in inches)
WOODLAND MANAGEMENT
Management
Soil name concern Rating Reason Vermont natural communities
Udipsarnrnents Harvest equip operability: Not rated
Udorthents Harvest equip operability: Well suited
Udipsamments Road suitability: Not rated
Udorthents Road suitability: Well suited
Udipsamments Erosion hazard (off-road): Not rated
IJdorthents Erosion hazard (oft-road): Slight
This map unit is well suited to cultivated crops, hay and pasture. Flooding is a hazard, but is of short duration and usually
occurs in
the spring. Tillage operations may be delayed in some years.
Important farmland classification: Prime (I) Land caDabilitv: 1 Vermont Agricultural Value GrouD:
111g.- This unit is marginally suited as a site for soil-based residential wastewater disposal systems, based on a review by the
Natura
Resources Conservation Service of criteria set forth in the Vermont 2007 Environmental Protection Rules. The hazard of flooding
the major limitation, This unit is on floodplains and typically includes land in the floodway and the special flood hazard is
area. Consult
flood hazard maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in local town offices for more information.
Wastewater systems must be located, designed and constructed in a manner that avoids impairment to the system and
contamination from the system due to flooding.
Occum 0-10
(pH)
) ) (Pct) )KwIKfIT
FSL 2-12 4.5- 7.3 0.6-6 20-6.0 .20 20 3
10-36 FSL 2-12 4.5- 6.5 06-6 0.5-3.0 .20 20
36-65 LFS 0-5 4.5- 6.5 6-20 0.0-1.0 .17 .20
WATER FEATURES SOIL FEATURES
Soil name
I Hydrologic
group
Depth to seasonal
1
high water table
Flooding
WOODLAND MANAGEMENT
Management
Soil name concern Rating Reason Vermont natural communities
Occurn Harvest equip operability: w€II suited I Silver Maple-Ostrich Fern Riverine Floodplain
Occurn Road suitability: Poorly suited Flooding I Forest.
I Sugar Maple-Ostrich Fem Riverire Floodplain
Occum Erosion hazard (off-road): Slight I Forest,
Successional Floodplain Forest Variant
+
vHepToszo1o Cun l*o.ed..nd0010,oanDi.
-
— is
-
S.
I.——
4
‘fri
.1* C
F :%-
• *
5•
Adam,
I have visited the Pownal racetrack several times over the past 15 years for various
projects. Two man-made features (ponds) there were part of a sewage treatment
system, even though now are not part of a working system. Under the new rules
now in effect, they are exempt from the Rules. They are also not considered
waters of the state. Hope this is what you were looking for. Alan Quackenbush
—
,
State Wetlands Coordinator.
Alan:
I’m following up with you about the email I sent in early September (below) asking
for your written verification that the man-made ponds at the former Pownal
racetrack would not be jurisdictional under the new VT Wetland Rules. I know
you’re very busy, but your confirmation (an email will do very nicely) is needed as
Beaver Wood Energy nears a Section 248 filing. I’ve attached our delineation map
if it helps. If you need anything else, Alan, please let me know.
Thanks Adam
-
Pvc passed along the results of our conversation yesterday following your VT
Wetland Rules presentation. Our project manager (Meddie Perry) was happy
to
hear the news that both constructed pond features at the racetrack in Pownal will
not be Class II or jurisdictional under the new rules. However, my word is not
quite what yours is when you can, would you mind passing along a quick email
—
we can use for the project file confirming that neither feature would be regulated
under the VWRs?
If you need more information we have plenty of it, but knowing your past
—
acrary@vhb.com
www.vhb.com
This communication is confidential and intended only for the recipient(s). Any other use,
dissemination, copying, or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you
have received this communication in error, please notify us and destroy it immediately.
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin. Inc. is not responsible for any undetectable alteration, transm
ission
error, conversion, media degradation, software error, or interference with this transm
ission.
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 1101 Walnut St I Watertown, MA 024721
617.924.1770
I —
T1vdfrPOWr LC
bwip An.
OO6N
rI413W
(Appn 90 Aaes)
I, ‘.
s1 1”
ts
I
.-r’. -
•_\.. .‘b
sit
(. V
Ft -
fl