HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence 11.2.2020
Grant, Kelly
From:Keith Murray <kmurray@cdwconsultants.com>
Sent:Friday, November 6, 2020 3:44 PM
To:Grant, Kelly
Cc:Eric Wilhelmsen; Daniel Colli; Andrew Hazelton
Subject:RE: Question about inland wetlands
Hello Kelly,
Per our recent phone conversation regarding the status of the apparent wet area on the site of the proposed school, it
appears the wet area was constructed prior to 1996, making it a possible jurisdiction area as an Isolated Land Subject to
Flooding (ILSF). To meet the criteria as an (ISLF) it would need to be shown that the wet area confines standing water to
a volume of at least 1/4 acre-feet and to an average depth of at least six inches then it would be ILSF. If it doesn’t have
that volume, then this area would simple be a stormwater basin. It is likely that this area does meet that criteria simply
based on its size and constructed volume. However, since we do not have sufficient information to accurately determine
the extents of the drainage area discharging to this area to calculate a volume, we will proceed on the assumption that it
is a ILSF.
As an ILSF per state regulation it does not have a buffer zone and would not require a filing for doing work within 100-ft
of it. You had mentioned before about filing a Request for a Determination of Applicability (RDA), and as long as the
work was outside a 35-ft setback, which it is, you would not need anything further. As you mention below, “as the work
area is outside this area I am not planning to challenge it”. Its unclear if you still want to file an RDA or not.
Please confirm whether or not we need to file and RDA. Thank you for the clarification and your time.
Keith Murray
Project Manager
CDW CONSULTANTS, INC.
6 Huron Drive
Natick, MA 01760
508-875-2657 x15
978-758-8913 (cell)
www.cdwconsultants.com
CDW is a Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB), a Woman-Owned Business Enterprise (WBE-MA/RI), and a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE-
MA/CT/RI/NY/CA).
1
The information contained in this transmission is privileged, confidential and intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mail transmission
is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please notify CDW Consultants, Inc. immediately by e-mail. Thank you.
From: Grant, Kelly <KGrant@yarmouth.ma.us>
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 2:17 PM
To: Keith Murray <kmurray@cdwconsultants.com>
Subject: FW: Question about inland wetlands
Hi Keith
Below is the feedback I got from the MassDEP Circuit Rider.
Based on this response I reached the conclusion that based on the definition it could be ILSF. However, ILSF does not
have a buffer zone so unless there is work proposed within the potential ILSF then the project is outside the
jurisdictional area. If you are able to provide the calculations that support it either way, that would be great but as the
work area is outside this area I am not planning to challenge it.
As discussed, it does meet the definition of a vegetated wetland under the bylaw.
Regards
Kelly Grant
Conservation Administrator
Town of Yarmouth
508-398-2231 Ext 1288
kgrant@yarmouth.ma.us
From: Grant, Kelly
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2020 8:56 AM
To: 'Poyant, Andrew (DEP)' <andrew.poyant@state.ma.us>
Subject: RE: Question about inland wetlands
Thanks Andrew, this makes sense. It appears to be an old stormwater management system constructed in perhaps the
early 1990’s. I find no record of an NOI.
Thanks for the quick response.
Kelly
From: Poyant, Andrew (DEP) \[mailto:andrew.poyant@state.ma.us\]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 11:07 AM
To: Grant, Kelly <KGrant@yarmouth.ma.us>
Subject: Re: Question about inland wetlands
2
Attention! This email originates outside of the organization. Do not open attachments or click links unless you
are sure this email is from a known sender and you know the content is safe. Call the sender to verify if
unsure. Otherwise delete this email.
Hi Kelly,
I just tried calling on your office line because it might be easier to talk it over. It is likely it isn't
jurisdictional. Is there an intermittent stream that runs within the wetland? Double check the definition of
stream in 310 CMR 10.04. If it doesn't border on a creek, river, stream, pond or lake then it isn't a BVW. being
connected to a stormwater outlet doesn't exclude it from being Isolated Land Subject to Flooding. If it meets
the requirement of at least once a year it confines standing water to a volume of at least 1/4 acre-feet and to
an average depth of at least six inches then it would be ILSF. Note, per 310 CMR 10.57(2)(b)3. the boundary is
the largest observed or recorded volume of water confined in said area so this is typically above where the
limit of vegetated wetland is. If it doesn't meet the definition of BVW or ILSF than it is non-jurisdictional.
Is there any chance it is a stormwater management system that was desigend and constructed as a part of an
old NOI?
Andrew
From: Grant, Kelly <KGrant@yarmouth.ma.us>
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2020 10:28 AM
To: Poyant, Andrew (DEP)
Subject: Question about inland wetlands
CAUTION: This email originated from a sender outside of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts mail
system. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe.
HI Andrew
Could you please clarify for me the jurisdiction related to inland wetlands. We have a wetland that is not bordering a
water body and has a storm drainage input (and probably groundwater input under some conditions) - It is not a
bordering vegetated wetland (no water body), it is not bordering or isolated land subject to flooding (not isolated due to
stormwater input). Is it jurisdictional under the state regs? Its about 7,000 SF in area.
Thanks
Kelly Grant
Conservation Administrator
Town of Yarmouth
3
508-398-2231 Ext 1288
kgrant@yarmouth.ma.us
4