HomeMy WebLinkAboutResponse to DEPs 1.5.2023 Comments -1.13.22
MEMORANDUM
BETA GROUP, INC.
www.BETA-Inc.com
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide responses to comments issued by the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Southeast Regional Office on January 5, 2023 at the
time of file number issuance under the MA Wetlands Protection Act.
MassDEP’s comments are quoted below in italics:
Twenty-one test pits were described in the Riverfront Area. Sixteen of the test pits contained asphalt and
meet the definition of degraded Riverfront Area. Three of the test pits appear to not meet the definition of
degraded; these are test pits 2-3, 2-17, and 2-18. The Commission should review area around test pits 2-
10A and 2-10B to determine if they are degraded or not. The application should be updated to reflect the
percentage of degraded Riverfront Area and compliance with 310 CMR 10.58(5)(a) through (g).
The issuing authority shall include a continuing condition in the Certificate of Compliance for projects under
310 CMR 10.58(5)(f) or (g) prohibiting further alteration within the restoration or mitigation area, except
as may be required to maintain the area in its restored or mitigated condition. Prior to requesting the
issuance of the Certificate of Compliance, the applicant shall demonstrate the restoration or mitigation
has been successfully completed for at least two growing seasons (310 CMR 10.58(5)(h)).
COMMENT RESPONSES
Responses to MassDEP’s comments are provided below in plain text, separated by topic:
1. MassDEP: Twenty-one test pits were described in the Riverfront Area. Sixteen of the test pits contained
asphalt and meet the definition of degraded Riverfront Area. Three of the test pits appear to not meet
the definition of degraded; these are test pits 2-3, 2-17, and 2-18.
BETA: As described by Gary James (PE, SI, SE) and summarized in BETA’s 12/21/2023 memorandum,
even without consistent evidence of asphalt pavement in these three specific locations, the surficial
soil of these three test pits qualifies the site as degraded due to the absence of topsoil material
sufficient to support biological activity. . As noted in the test pit logs, the top layer of material above
the pavement is a Fine -Medium Sand with no discernable organic content with the exception of
limited root structure related to intermittent and sparse grass and weed growth on the surface, thus
documenting that the area of investigation and as identified on the Plans meets the definition of
degraded under the Wetlands Protection Act.
Date: 1/13/2023 Job No.:10056
To: Brittany DiRienzo, Conservation Agent, Town of Yarmouth
Cc: Kathy Williams, Yarmouth Town Planner
Andrew R Poyant, PWS, MassDEP Wetlands & Waterways
From: Laura Krause, Lead Scientist, BETA
Gary James, PE, SE, SI, Civil Engineer, BETA
Arek Galle, BETA Group Inc., BETA
Subject: 669 Route 28, Yarmouth, MA
Riverwalk Park
Response to MassDEP Comments
Yarmouth Riverwalk Park
1/13/2023
Page 2 of 4
The top layer of soil on the Site is a Class I Sand with less than 10% fines. The soil composition is
individual grain particles with no cohesive capability. Simple field tests conducted on the soil in the
layer show no signs of any fines or organics. In the dictionary, topsoil is defined as:
Topsoil is composed of mineral particles and organic matter and usually extends to a depth of
5-10 inches. Together these make a substrate capable of holding water and air which
encourages biological activity.
Since all soils from 5-10” could be considered topsoil, BETA evaluated these soils to determine
whether the organic content is sufficient to encourage biological activity and promote vegetative
growth. Based on observations, the soil conditions onsite do not meet this topsoil definition. The soil
is a Class I soil, with few fines or organics, which is not capable of holding water and air. Furthermore,
based upon observation of the limited vegetative growth on the Site, the soil does not promote plant
growth and development.
Beyond the absence of topsoil capable of supporting biological activity as described above, reference
is made to prior documentation that has been furnished (Notice of Intent Appendix E Degraded
Riverfront Area Supporting Information (14pg.) dated December 01, 2022, and the Supplemental
Analysis Memorandum (15pg.) dated December 21, 2022) which provide historic and present-day
photographs of the site conditions and test pit operations. These indicate not only the extent of the
paved surfaces at the Drive-In Site (1989) but also document the presence of pavement that remains
today, often slightly below the surface sands.
In conclusion it should be noted that regardless of the classification of degraded, the Project still
meets the Riverfront Area performance standards under 310 CMR 10.58(5) as described below in
response to #3.
2. MassDEP: The Commission should review area around test pits 2-10A and 2-10B to determine if they
are degraded or not.
BETA: Based on field observations and test pit data, these test pits meet the definition of degraded.
Test pits 2-10A and 2-10B were sited near or within the limits of the upweller driveway in an area void
of vegetation without topsoil.
TP 2-10A TP 2-10B
Yarmouth Riverwalk Park
1/13/2023
Page 3 of 4
3. MassDEP: The application should be updated to reflect the percentage of degraded Riverfront Area
and compliance with 310 CMR 10.58(5)(a) through (g).
BETA: Based on MassDEP’s comments, BETA evaluated whether the Project would meet the
performance standards under 310 CMR 10.58(5)(a – g) if the areas surrounding TP2-3, TP2-17 and
TP2-18 were considered previously developed but not-degraded.
As shown in Attachment 1 (Proposed Site Plan - Select Test Pits & Invasive Plant Management Areas),
permanent impacts in the vicinity of these test pits total of approximately 7,600 square feet (sf). Note
these permanent impacts are all located in the outer (100-200’) Riverfront Area and are on Map 32
Parcel 122.
As originally described in the NOI, “Permanent RA alterations within non-degraded RA on Assessor’s
Map 32, Parcel 122 result from construction of walking paths along the Parkers River and within the
wooded area to connect to the separately-permitted boardwalk. These impacts, totaling
Approximately 7,169 sf, have been minimized to the extent practical and feasible by generally
following existing walking paths and traveling through areas vegetated with invasive species. The
Project on Map 32, Parcel 122 has been designed to fully meet the performance standards at 310 CMR
10.58(5)(a through h). Attachment 2 depicts the originally submitted RFA impacts”.
When including the impacts in the vicinity of TP2-3, TP2-17 and TP2-18 as permanent impacts, the
permanent impacts to RFA total approximately 14,769 sf. Using this permanent impact quantity, the
Project still meets the performance standards under 310 CMR 10.58(5)(a-g) as outlined below:
a. The work will result in an improvement over existing conditions by restoring areas of degraded
RA along the Parkers River, directing visitors to durable walking surface to minimize erosion to
coastal Resource Areas, and improving stormwater management at the Site;
b. As described in the originally submitted NOI, the Project has been designed to fully meet the
Massachusetts Stormwater Standards;
c. Generally, the Project is not located closer to the River than previously developed conditions, with
the exception of the proposed walking paths along the Parkers River and to the boardwalk, as well
as in the vicinity of TP2-3, TP2-17 and TP2-18. See below for compliance with 310 CMR 10.58(5)(f
and g).
d. Work along the River is proposed to improve public access to the waterfront in an area primarily
vegetated with invasive species and evidence of previous development. These areas have been
established with woody vegetation over time, and no longer meet the definition of degraded.
Work proposed closer to the River and in the vicinity of TP2-3, TP2-17 and TP2-18 will be mitigated
by approximately 27,986 sf of RA restoration within degraded RA, with a focus of restoration
within the inner riparian area. (See discussion of compliance with 310 CMR 10.58(5)(f and g)
below). In addition, approximately 10,800 sf of invasive plant species management has been
quantified within the RA for inclusion in the Site restoration.
e. The adjusted total existing degraded area on Map 32, Parcel 122 (eliminating areas in the vicinity
of TP2-3, TP2-17 and TP2-18) is approximately 92,429 sf, and the Project will result in a total of
approximately 74,743 sf of degraded RA following completion of construction and restoration.
See below for compliance with 310 CMR 10.58(5)(f). Accordingly, the Project will not result in an
increase in degraded RA on the Site.
f. The Project has incorporated approximately 27,286 sf of restoration of degraded RFA to mitigate
for the approximately 14,769 sf of permanent RA alteration of Map 32, Parcel 122. This mitigation
will remove all refuse, debris and retain mature native vegetation within these areas, as
Yarmouth Riverwalk Park
1/13/2023
Page 4 of 4
applicable. The restoration will also include topography and soil improvements to restore natural
soil conditions and infiltration. The area will also be seeded and planted with native plant species.
g. Approximately 10,800 sf of onsite invasive plant species management has been noted within RA
and has been quantified for inclusion in the site restoration. Note that this additional mitigation
would be subject to the 2:1 restoration provision, however, the Project has already been shown
to y meet the restoration requirement as documented above under 310 CMR 10.58(5)(f).
In addition, if the areas associated with the three test pits were to be counted as RA Restoration
and were considered to be restoration of non-degraded RA, the Project does meet the 2:1 ratio
as approximately 10,800 sf of identified invasive plant management areas when added to the
27,286 sf RA restoration, yields 38,086 sf of total RA restoration proposed. Applying the 2:1 ratio
to the 14,769 sf of Permanent RA alteration area, when multiplied thru (14,769 x 2) results in only
29,538 sf of restoration that would be required.
This is well below the area of restoration currently proposed.
h. In accordance with this Provision, we anticipate the Commission will include a continuing
condition on the Site prohibiting further alteration of the proposed restoration areas. The Town
understands this Provision.
4. MassDEP: The issuing authority shall include a continuing condition in the Certificate of Compliance
for projects under 310 CMR 10.58(5)(f) or (g) prohibiting further alteration within the restoration or
mitigation area, except as may be required to maintain the area in its restored or mitigated condition.
Prior to requesting the issuance of the Certificate of Compliance, the applicant shall demonstrate the
restoration or mitigation has been successfully completed for at least two growing seasons (310 CMR
10.58(5)(h)).
BETA: The Applicant agrees with inclusion of the conditions as recommended by MassDEP.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Site Plan - Select Test Pits & Invasive Plant Management Areas (1/12/2023)
2. Originally submitted Riverfront Area Impact Plans (12/1/2022)
152°152°152°****MARSHMARSHMARSHMARSHTEMPORARY RIVERFRONTAREA IMPACT (TYP.)LIMIT OF DEGRADEDRIVERFRONT AREAPERMANENT RIVERFRONTAREA IMPACT (TYP.)RESTORATION AREA (TYP.)200' RIVERFRONT AREA100' RIVERFRONT AREA200' RIVERFRONT AREAREDEVELOPMENT AREA -PERVIOUS (TYP.)REDEVELOPMENT AREA -IMPERVIOUS (TYP.)MEAN HIGHWATER (MHW)EL: 2.05'LIMIT OFSALT MARSHRESTORATION AREA (TYP.)APPROXIMATELIMIT OF DEGRADEDAREA (TYP.)PERMANENT RIVERFRONTAREA IMPACT (TYP.)TEMPORARY RIVERFRONTAREA IMPACT (TYP.)100' RIVERFRONT AREARESOURCE SYSTEM AREALIMIT OF COASTAL BARRIERRESOURCE SYSTEM AREAMARSHWOODED AREAWOODED AREAN150°155°160°132°152°152°152°160°126°126°200' RIVERFRONT AREA100' RIVERFRONTAREA****0+001+002+003+004+005+006+007+008+009+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+00TEMPORARY RIVERFRONTAREA IMPACT (TYP.)PERMANENT RIVERFRONTAREA IMPACT (TYP.)MARSHMARSHMARSHMARSHTEMPORARY RIVERFRONTAREA IMPACT (TYP.)LIMIT OF DEGRADEDRIVERFRONT AREAPERMANENT RIVERFRONTAREA IMPACT (TYP.)LIMIT OF COASTAL BARRIERRESOURCE SYSTEM AREATEMPORARY RIVERFRONTAREA IMPACT (TYP.)UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR CHANGED BY REPRODUCTIONSHEET NO.SCALE12/1/22DATEDESIGNED BY:10056CHECKED BY:BETA JOB NO.:ISSUE DATE:DRAWN BY:REVISIONSNO.TITLEPROJECTPREPARED BYWest Yarmouth, MAYARMOUTHRIVERWALKPARKAKP/ALGFor Review OnlyAWGAWGREGISTERED PROFESSIONAL100SCALE IN FEET: 1"=50'50050NOTICE OF INTENT PLAN SET -RIVERWALK PARK & EVENT SPACEREGISTERED PROFESSIONALRIVERFRONT AREAIMPACT PLAN - 1----LOCUS PLANSCALE: 1"=500'AERIAL IMAGERY SOURCE: NEARMAPDATE FLOWN - SEPTEMBER 2021PARKER'S RIVERN/FTOWN OF YARMOUTH669 ROUTE 28ASSESS. MAP 32PARCEL ID: 32/122DEED BK 4985PAGE 18123.32 ACRESN/FTOWN OF YARMOUTH1146 ROUTE 28ASSESS. MAP 18PARCEL ID: 24/92DEED BK 8979PAGE 44122.28 ACRESEXIST. PROPERTY LINE (TYP.)LIMIT OF SALT MARSH (TYP.)MEAN LOW WATER (MLW)ELEV.: -0.7'MEAN LOW WATER (MLW)ELEV.: -0.7'MEAN HIGH WATER (MHW)ELEV.: 2.05'MEAN HIGH WATER (MHW)ELEV.: 2.05'LIMIT OF MODERATE WAVE ACTION /FEMA AE ZONE ELEV. 12C.3.1
43+004+005+006+007
+
0
0
8
+
0
09+0010+0011+0012+0013+0014+00PARKERS RIVER LEGENDTEST PITS - 12/13/2022NON-DEGRADED AREA ASSOCIATEDWITH TP2-3, TP2-17, TP2-18 AND TP2TOTAL AREA: APPROX. 10,300 SFEXISTING WOODED AREAAREA OF PERMANENTALTERATION ASSOCIATED WITHTEST PIT 2-3 - APPROX. 900 SFAREA OF PERMANENT ALTERATIONASSOCIATED WITH TEST PITS TP2,TP2 - 17 & TP2-18 - APPROX. 6,700 SFTP2-17TP3-2 APPROXIMATED INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT AREAS AREA 1 (15% OF TOTAL AREA) - 4,350 SF AREA 2 (12% OF TOTAL AREA) - 4,560 SF AREA 3 (8% OF TOTAL AREA) - 1,880 SF TOTAL AREA - APPROXIMATELY 10,800 SFTP2-18TP2-3UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR CHANGED BY REPRODUCTIONSHEET NO.SCALEDATEDESIGNED BY:CHECKED BY:BETA JOB NO.:ISSUE DATE:DRAWN BY:REVISIONSNO.TITLEPROJECTPREPARED BYFor Review Only80SCALE IN FEET: 1"=40'40040REGISTERED PROFESSIONALREGISTERED PROFESSIONALYARMOUTHRIVERWALKPARKPROPOSED SITE PLANSELECT TEST PITS &INVASIVE PLANTMANAGEMENT AREAS1/12/2023AWGAKP10056AREA 3APPROX. 23,500 SFAREA 2APPROX. 38,000 SFAREA 1APPROX. 29,000 SF