Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF
ADAM CRARY
ON BEHALF OF
BEAVER WOOD ENERGY POWNAL, LEC
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.S.A. § 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
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 [10
VS.A. § 1424a(d)1 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)j 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)J, because the
project site is not within a state-designated Natural Area, Significant Natural
with the Necessary Wildlife Habitat and Endangered Species criterion [ 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 Rivet (eastern hank) and Ladd Brook, and have made
requirement, and coordinate with the U.S. Army 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 1, 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 10/5/10, 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, I 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 designated
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 1-loosic 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 IILB.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 1-loosic 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
Q10 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
QI 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
Ql3 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, the past 12 years, Mr.
and general ecological assessments. Since joining VHB 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 peilonned
Due Diligence Assessment, Lot 15 Giroux Property, Hinesburg, VT
In support of VHB 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. Mr.
Commonwealth Vogtzt, 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, multi-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
linear utility projects, as well
history, and Mr. Crary will serve as VHB Pioneer’s permitting spedalist 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. VHS, Mr. Crary is responsible
for managing or providing
Cape Cod National Seashore, Cape Cod, MA
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 federal
wetland assessments were completed for estiiarine, interdunaL swale, and peatland
systems. or state environmental
permitting, as well as
Prior to joining VI-IB, Mr. Crary’s projects included the following:
managing wetland and
Chesterfield Power Station, Chesterfield County, VA ecological services and
Prior to \‘HB, 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 230+ 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 sublect to USACE
or VDEQ 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 Tare molluscan fauna were completed. Regulatory work
VHB
Adam R. Crary, PWS,
PWD
Continued, 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.
nffi
Adam R. Crary, PWS,
pwD
p. 3
U’s
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.
Educationl Education:
:fes anal
OS, Natural Resources (Natural Hisloiy and Ecology), University
of Maine, Orono, ME, 2000
Professional Training:
Applied Flu vial Geomorphology, Wildiand Hydrology,
Shepherdstown, , April 2009
OSHA 70-HR Construction Safety, Richmond, VA, February 2008
Emerg. Med/cal Response and Bloodbome Pathogen Training.
Richmond. VA, March 2008
Fire Safety and Extinguisher Use, Richmond, VA, March 2008
Wetland Delineation and Management, RCET, Charlotte, NC,
October 2005
Field Botany and Floristics, Humboldt Field Research Institute,
Steuben, ME, June 2004
Perennial Stream Ongin Identification for Application of the CBPA
Designation and Management Regulations in Virginia. NC State
Dept. of Forestry, Richmond, VA, June 2004
Advanced Hydric Soils, VIMS, 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
nifi
Adam R. Crary, PWS,
PwD
Continued. p. 5
Memberships
Virginia Association of Wetland Professionals (2001 present)
-
2000)
VHS
Adam R. Crary, PWS,
PWD
bontinued p. 6
VHB
Adam R. Crary, PWS,
PWD
Continued, p. 7
1MB
STATE OF VERMONT
PREFILED TESTIMONY OF
ADAM CRARY
Exhibit BWEP - AC -2
7056U5 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
Prom: Ryan Scott, Adam Crary Re: Wetland, Stream, and Other Natural
Resources Summary
At the request of Beaver Wood Energy, LLC (the Client), Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, 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 Vermont
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/permitting
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 wildlife
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.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The Study Area is located in Pownal, Vermont and is situated between the 1-Joosic 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 racetrack. 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 Vermont within
the
Hudson Hoosic Watershed (HUG: 02020003). According to the Natural Resource
-
Conservation
Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey for Bennington County
, the entire site is underlain by
2
IJdipsamments and Udorthents, gently sloping.
‘Thompson, El-i., and F. Sorenson. 2005. Wetland, Woodland, Wiidland, A Guide to the Naturnl
Communities of Vermont. Vermont
Departhient of Fish and Wildlife and the Nature Conservancy.
2 Natural Resource
Conservation Service. 2010. Bennington County Soil Survey. Accessed online at:
http:/ / websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda. gov.
METHODOLOGY
VHB 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 p• ‘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 Guidance
. OHW width measurements are taken at regular intervals while flagging
5
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-SCI-1)
.
Wetland and stream 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 ‘veil 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 forms 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-i and
2010-2). Both features are 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
3 (LJSACE) U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. InteHin Regional Supplement of the Ca’ps of Engineers Wetland Deiin.eaon
Manual: Northeast and North Central Region.
4 (USACE)U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.
2005. “Regulatory Guidance Letter, Subject: Ordinary High Water Mark
Identification.” No. 05-05. Accessed online at: http: / /www.usace.arrny.mil/cw/cecwo/reg/rglsindx.htm.
(ANR) Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. 2005 Riparian Buffet Guidance. Accessed online:
;‘ww.anr.state.vt.us/siIe.’htiiil/buit /anrhuifer2005.litm.
further discussion below). Feature 2010-1 is located within the northern ioop of the former
track and is
now characterized as a palustrine emergent wetland (PEM)
6 (see Attachment, page 11, Photograph 5).
Feature 201 0-1 is inundated for a portion of the year and is vegetated with a narrow
leaf cattail (Typha
angustifolia) monoculture. Soils within the wetland are hyd.ric but have physical characteristic
s
consistent with surrounding upland soils at corresponding elevations.
Feature 2010-2 is also a man-made pond located inside the math loop of the race track,
and is larger
than feature 2010-1. 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 (Phragmites australis), jewelweed (Impatiens 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-mi
consists of the east bank of the Hoosic River. Stream top-of-bank (LOB) and ordinary high
water
(O1-TVV) 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 011W 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 201 0-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-TB-i) (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
lot
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 Sun’ey,
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
5
\\vtdata\proje
7 407.OO cts\ beaver wood pownal\docs\memos\nr memo\pewnal biomass
or memojO.2140.docx
Beaver Wood Energy, LIC Project File
Pownal, VT
Wetland, Stream, and Other Natural Resources Sumznaiy
rage 4
October 21,2010
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
hydric 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
is generally
between 4 and 6 feet (see Attachment, page 16, Vermont Soil Fact Sheet Occum Series). —
The data gathered from the soil survey are confirmed by monitoring wells throughout the site,
and
further soil investigations within feature 2010-1. 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 and 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 water. 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 Resources Panel. August 1. 2010. Vermont Wetland Rules; Vt. CodeR.
—
12004056.
Accessed online at htlp;i Jnrhstnte vt.us/wrp/rules.htm
has been confirmed that neither delineated feature 2010-1 or 2010-2 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).
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-i
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 Ill.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 (1-loosic River) and a 25-foot design buffer has been installed in the plans for 2010-TB-2
(Iadd
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
buffer&
Department of the Army General Permit State of Vermont. General Permit No. NAE-2007-24.
Design plans from lruno 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
IOVS.A. §123.
5
\\vtdata\proje
7 407.OO ct9\ beaver wood pownal\docs\niemos\n, nemo\pownal biomass nr memo 1U-2i40.doc
x
Beaver Wood Energy, LLCPiojectFile
Pownai, yr
Wetland, Stream, and Other Natural Resources Summary
Page 6
October2l,2010 -
Through review of the NI-TIP 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 EQs within or adjacent to the Project site. This EQ is a plant considered
rare in
Vermont (52), 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 forestl
and tothe
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 provid
ed 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 VHB’s wetland and waters delinea
tion, 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 black bear (foraging or travel). These findings are similar
to those
included in the State of Vermont Public Service Board’s (PSB) findings as part of Docket
No. 7618 (22-
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
• IJSACE 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
—
ATTACHMENT
0
Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC
Sources: Badssrousd Thpo Pows4. North Powr.aL
-
4,’
nsgcnd
j Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, LLC
VI HIP I),IR,,Ilo,,1l!I0 i_I Oudall ripe ,
Pownal Biomass Site {‘nn., Pe,a 0,nku,d IS,,, nun wee, SI,!.
Wetland ‘S,a.u.anu,urS,no,uaknuoaeo.nepukw,&.
— c’j mo by nor Sn ,n Sen mn Cnn ‘CVI
01k.! Waler InnISIigolioql Ant, Pownal, Vermont eeoc wInow .uabyn.y,n’b,nv,nu,on.nsNaw,II
Man made depression originally constructed as part of the Green Mountain Raceway
2010-1 in The early
114,420 Yes NJD Y PEM FF 1960’s to handle storinwater runoff and for aesthetic purposes. USACE jurisdictional
feature under
‘new normal circumstance’. Determined by the ANP-DEC to be non-jurisdictional under the
VT
Wetland Rules or as a waters of the State. Typha angustitblia inonoculture with shrub fringe.
Man made depression originally constructed as part of the Green Mountain Raceway in the early
201 0-2 390,844 No NJD N OW,cEM 1960’s to handle storcnwater runoff and fc aesthetic purposes. USACE non-jurisdictional ornarnentai
FF
pond. Determined by the ANR-DEC to be non-jurisdictional under the VT Wetland Rules or as a
waters of the State. Mostly open water with portions of fringe emergent vegetation.
j
All delineated wetlands flagged per the 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Maunual and the 2010 Northeast Regional Supplement
Cowardin, LSvl., V. Carter, F.C. Golet. and E.T. LaRoe.1979. Classificaticn of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat in the United Stales. U.S Fish and Wildhfe Service. FWS/OBD-7
9/31 103pp
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) ‘New England District. 1999. The Highway Methodology Workbook: Suppiement: Wetland Functions and Values -A Descriptive Approach. NAEEP-360
-1-30a. Functions and Values are
codified as follows: GWGroundwater Recharge/Discharge. FF*loodflow Alteration, F= Fish and Shellfish Habitat, STpzSedimentiToxicant Retention, NUThNuftrie Removal, PE-Productio
nt n Export. SSSedimontfShoreline
Stabilization, W=Wildli(e Habitat, RRecreation, ESEducaticnsl’Scientitic Value, Hl-leritage/UnIqueness, WVisuaVAesthetics, and RTERare, Threatened. or Endangered Species Habitat
Average Ordinary
# Stieam ID Stream Name Stream Associated Buffs,
Stream DescrI High Water (OHW)
1
Type W51Ia,.d 1 ption Recommendation
Wth Notes
(Feet) (teeI’
5
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Nortticentral and Northeast Region
Project/Site: R1tdnJC4C J OO> City/County: ‘O tkj JkL. MU rveJ Sampling Date: az i o
Applicant/Owner; Pe-A%Ja4Q \jJOOT)
State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): C\)tSW A W#4-flrJ, M’ Sc.6’T Section, Township. Range:
Landform (hllislope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Lat: j2, gq
Slope (%): O’ .
( Long: ‘*3 oz3sL%
.tt” Datum: Mart II
SoilMaplinitName: tldrsctvnnu4l ía tviJ Utkt,Jtieiwits e
9 vil-&i t(Oi,oiV9
,
NWlclassification: t
V
7 aAA.
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation ,__,, Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are Norinal Circumstances’ present? Yes No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, Important feature
s, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes NoY. Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes ‘( No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Y- If yes, optional Wetland Site ID: 2.-° it) —
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two repuiiV
P,irnarq indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apoNi Surtace Soil Cracks (86)
Surface Water (Al) — Water-Stained Leaves (89) — Drainage Patterns (BIG)
High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (813)
—
— Moss Trim Lines (BIG)
Saturation (A3) — Marl Deposits (B15) — Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Water Marks (BI) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—
— Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Sediment Deposits (62) — Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots
(C3) — Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
.., Drift Deposits (B3) — Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) — Stunted or Stressed Plants (Dl)
Algal Mat or Crust (84) — Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C5) — Geomorphic Posilion (D2)
Iron Deposits (85) Thin Muck Surface (C7) — Shallow Aquitard (D3)
inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (87) — Other (Explain in Remarks) — Miorotopographic Relief (D4)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (88) — FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No 1L.
Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes .j,.,.., No — Depth (inches): tl- it’
Saturation Present? Yes_.._ No_S. Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
tincludes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
tc/Øta “rPi
.
7. .
at breast height (DSH), regardiess of height.
8.
Sapling/shrub Woody plants less than 3 In. DBH
—
2.
3.
Hydrophytic
4 Vegetation
Present? Yes f\ No
= Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet)
Cl
US Army Corps of Engineers Nohcentrei and Northeast Region — interim Version
______
7
SOIL Sampling Point: I
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicaton.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
finches) Color (moist) Color (moisfl V. 1
Type toe’ Texture Remarks
tO \JL zji °°
‘Type: C=Goncentratlon, DDeP!ptlon, R =Redqçgq_atri, CSCovered orçpated Sand Grains. Locatlon: PL=Pore Lining, MMatrix.
2
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric s&i
— Histosol (Al) — Polyvalue Below Surface (SB)
(tSR R, — 2cm Muck (AID) (LRR K. L, MLRA
1498)
— Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 1498) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
—
— Black Histic (AS) Thin Dark Surface (59) (LRR P. MLRA 1498)
—
5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (53) (tSR K, L, R)
—
—
—
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
—
lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
3
Restrictive Layer (If observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
— Floodflow Alteration 5,6,7,8,9,10,15,18 Wetland originally constructed to acceptstormwater and act as an ornamental feature forthe
Green Mountain Raceway.
. Fish and Shellfish Habitat
—
Sediment/Toxicant Retention 3 4,5,9 The constructed depression islarge and flat allowing opportunity forsedirnentltoxicantsto
‘ settle out.
Nutrient Removal
4
Production EXDOrt
2,4,7 —
—
Sediment/Shoreline Stabilization 2,15 —
Recreation
A
Educational/Scientific Value
. Uniqueness/Heritage I
j13 Visual Quality/Aesthetics
*
—
Notes: Wetland consists of a depression constructed in the early 1 960s as part of the Green Mountain Refer to backup list of numbered considerations.
-
Raceway. The pond was built to hold stormwater runoff from surrounding parking areas and the Adfld front U.SAjrny Cps & Erighieers
Ma Ençd,d DEStjd 19. The Hghway
-
grandstand. Vegetation moved into the wetland due to lack of maintenance. Meeodotogy Wcdthoot Supplen,e4t WeIw Fw,cfjais ai4 V&u A Desa4,ve
Appmad. NAEEP-360-140a.
9
Site Photographs Wetland/Stream Delineation
—
I’a;;asse Haiigen IJr,,stliu, inc. Beaver Wood Energy LLC, Pownal Biomass Site
IazIasst’ JIa.sigc,i Brustlin. Inc. Beaver Wood Energy LLC, Pownal Biomass Site
Vanasse ilangen Brustlin, Inc Beaver Wood Energy LLC, Pownal Biomass Site
S
—
lthzasse Ilangen iirustlin, Inc. Beaver Wood Energy LLC, Pownal Biomass Site
¼viasse Ilangeii Iirnst!i,s. Inc. Beaver Wood Energy LLC, Pownal Biomass Site
L.. Jill
T
S
57CW ker Wood Foo,slGlP!cjoP,a!_aI,lorsbcovn,,-od
USDA Natmal Resoces
COQnO,SY4C Vermont Soil Fact Sheet Bennington County, vermont 15
27B: Udipsamments and Udorthents, gently sloping
This man unit consists of areas where the original soil has been removed or covered with fill material. The fill material is
typically
-..
( loamy, but sandy and clayey areas are included. On-site investigation is needed to identity the soil properties and to determine
the
‘— hazards and limitations for specific uses.
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 classification: NPSL Land capability: 8 s Vermont Agricultural Value Group: 11
Udipsamments
group
—-
I (Feet)
1.5->6.0
Frequency
None
I
I
Duralion Frequency
None
) Duratn
I
sdl?
No
Depth to bedrock
(range in inches)
Soil name
LAND USE LIMITATIONS
Land use Rating Reason I
I
AGRICULTURAL YIELD DATA
crop name Yield / acre
Udipsamments Dwellings with basements: Not rated
Udortherts Dwellings with basements: Not rated
Udipsamments Pond reservoir areas: Not rated
Udorthents Pond reservoir areas: Very limited Seepage
WOODLAND MANAGEMENT
Management
Soil name concern Rating Reason Vermont natural communities
Udipsamments Harvest equip operability: Not rated
tidorthents Harvest equip operability: Well suited
Udipsamments Road suitability: Nol rated
Udocthents Road suitability: Well suited
Udipsamments Erosion hazard (off-road): Not rated
Udorthents Erosion hazard (off-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.
[jportant farmland classification: Prime (f) Land capability: 1 Vermont Agricultural Value Grouo:1!
Hg.- 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 is
the major limitation. This unit is on floodplains and typically includes land in the floodway and the special flood hazard
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.
(
hig h water table
Soil name group I
sod? I pth to bedro
(Feet)
Frequency
j Duration I
j
Frequency
j
Duration (range in inches)
Occum B 4.0->6.0 Frequent Brief None No —-
WOODLAND MANAGEMENT
Management
Soil name concern Rating Reason Vermont natural communities
Occum Harvest equip operability: Well suited I Silver Maple-Ostrich Fem Riverine Floodplain
Occurn Road surtability: Poorly suited Flooding I Forest,
I Sugar Maple-Ostrich Fern Riverine Floodplain
Occurn Erosion hazard (off-road): Slight I Forest,
Successional Floodplain Forest Variani
F”
+
ths,,dst.,,b720I07.
VHBPTOB 2010 GuIses
L._. ONOP ORW 2010 VHBP Wetlands 201 Aerial Imagery
i i,wesoxaoon ,eo
VN0P DelIneatIon 2010 I 1942
PItNEER
jzz: 01-ISP so’s’, soxtr
WoOaed
open waxen
I
I 0 laO 250
August 31, 2010
402 000
00% IjS Roulo 700 lou 10
txoxth Fenisbxx’oh, r05400
L002.’iS00% FS2b42.0 099
bxp.flynO xevhIxLor’r
• FOCI
“p 0ux0xx0x.xxxuxxd
P;t : LE$ \
-r
II
—— Colvemi
l’ownal, Vermont U
e
4 rreN eleenetn%105400e1.,ed
wsO.sda.nd SnssesaSIOl
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 treatm
ent
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 Quack
—
enbush,
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
-
I’ve 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
—
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, p’ease notify us and destroy it immediately.
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. is not responsible for any undetectable alteration, transmission
error, conversion, media dearadation, software error, or interference with this transmission.
Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 1101 Walnut St I Watertown, MA 02472 617.924.1770
•.r
4 1;
\
3
IL
r34
Beaver Wood Energy Pownal, Ltd
Inveatigadon Area
42’4B36N
73°1t13’W
rt (Appro9OAaes)
I —