= Town of Pelham, NH<= span style=3D'font-size:14.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt'>=

Pelham Conservation Commission<= /o:p>

6 Villag= e Green

Pelham, NH <= st1:PostalCode w:st=3D"on">03076-3723

MEETING OF 12/13/06 = &nb= sp; APPROVED January 10, 2007

Members Present: &n= bsp; = ; &n= bsp; Absent: &= nbsp;

Paul Gagnon, Paul Dadak, Jay Stearns Lisa Loosigian

Karen MacKay, Glennie Edwards (Alt) = &nb= sp;

Chairman Paul Gagnon brought the meeting to order at <= st1:time Minute=3D"30" Hour=3D"19" w:st=3D"on">7:30 p.m.

NEW BUSINESS:

M/L: 35, 6-113-1 Sun Bridge Professional Center, LLC/Donald Ronning, 5 Old Bridge Street, South, Site Plan Review of proposed 6,240 s.f., 5-Unit Professional Office Building.

Presenting this case was Robert J. Balquist, Licensed = Septic Designer of Meisner Brem Corporation of Salem, NH.

Mr. Balquist stated that this site is 1.39 acres in area. Along the south-easterly border there’s an area of about 200 s.f. of wetlands that are classif= ied in the high intensity soil classification as group 5 which signifies poorly drained soils. Mr. Balquist s= aid that they conferred with their expert Peter Schauer who delineated the wetlands. There is no proposal to fill any wetlands, no proposal to have any construction activity in the adjacent 50-ft wetland/conservation district buffer. A retaining wall, also known as a fill wall, is planned adjacent to the 50 ft. buffer. The construction of the wall is th= e use of Uniblocks (precast cement block) and the maximum height at its greatest height of 6-ft. high. As it&#= 8217;s being built construction equipment can be on the upland side of the buffer = so as not to disturb the buffer. Between the wall and the wetlands a silt fence barrier will be place= d to catch any potential run off or erosion said Mr. Balquist. The proposed building is 6,240 sq.= ft. made up of 5 individual units. The roof run-off will drain into a recharger in the ground. It’s a chamber unit, having = 10 inner chamber units. Run off = from the roof will flow and settle and slowly dissipate into the ground. Run off from other areas of the si= te, i.e. from impervious pavement/asphalt surfaces, will flow into a detention basin on the westerly side of the property where it is detained and slowly released through an emergency rip-rap spillway, through a grass treatment s= wale and then released back into a buffer. There is no trenching, no digging in the conservation district said = Mr. Balquist.

Mr. Dadak asked what storm event the system was design= ed for. Mr. Balquist said it was designed for a 2, 25, 50 and 100 year storm. The summary is that there is no in= crease run-off from pre to post development. The septic design is currently under design and review by Paul Zanow= ski our health agent said Mr. Balquist. It’s not state or town approved yet. The leach field’s location is proposed for the front under the pavement and the well just outside of the WCD. There is a shallow dug w= ell on the property which will be discontinued and filled in. Two older buildings shown on the property are to be removed.

Chairman Gagnon advised that this area may become clas= sified as a prime wetland area if approved at the March ’07 town meeting, th= at this proposed location which is right on the border might be classified as a pri= me wetland. Chairman Gagnon stat= ed that we want to take some extra care and understanding of what’s goin= g on with this proposal as it has a tributary from Beaver Brook.

Mr. Dadak asked if there was any plan in place by the = owners to maintain the pond. He said= this concern was brought up at the Planning Board’s meeting. Mr. Dadak sits on this board as he= is representative of the Conservation Commission at these meetings. The largest part of the lot will h= ave impervious pavement and this is a concern.= The only place for drainage to go is to the detention pond. Mr. Balquist said that this is goi= ng to be owner occupied and will be monitored often, probably daily if not weekly. Mr. Stearns asked abo= ut the 2 year storm event stated earlier. That statement was clarified. Mr. Gagnon asked if they had considered pervious pavement. Mr. Balquist said that it had not = been considered, that this concept was just recently introduced to him by planni= ng director Jeff Gowan for a project he is working on for the Baptist Church at the corner of Dutton and Atwood Roads. Mr. Gagnon stated that he didn’t believe that you can use salt on pervious pavement(s). Mr. Balquist said that is how the = grass treatment swale and detention pond functions – for sediments, etc. They are designed for a very flat = pitch so that sediments fall out.

Ms. MacKay questioned Mr. Balquist about the removal o= f all the present vegetation which is currently sucking up water. Her concern is the large proposed = pavement area is a concern. Mr. Balqui= st explained the functions of the detention ponds, run-off and treatment swale= s. Mr. Balquist also said that this wi= ll be reviewed by the Planning Board and the town’s consultant. Mr. Gagnon said that normally this= case would not be brought to the Conservation Commission because they are not do= ing a dredge and fill and that they do not need our approval, but that it went = to the Planning Board and they would like our input as it is next to a prime wetland. Mr. Balquist said th= at he was asked to come before the Commission for advisory purposes to the Planni= ng Board. Mr. Gagnon said that he favored mulch berms over silt fencing.&nbs= p; It is basically a pile of bark mulch and according to the wetland scientist that the town uses say it is more effective than silt fences he s= aid. Mr. Balquist asked if it was very stable, that he was not familiar with the mulch application. He uses hay bales, rip-rap swales = and grass treatment swales. Mr. S= tearns asked if this was a prime wetland would there be a state process and would = the criteria be more stringent. M= r. Gagnon said if it is not a prime wetland then the state has no jurisdiction. The state would= only get involved if there was a certain distance from the prime wetland. Mr. Gagnon said that we have not s= een the actual maps that define the actual edge of the prime wetland yet but th= is parcel is on the edge of wet and is poorly drained soils. He didn’t know if this was contiguous with the prime wetland or whether the prime wetland ends 500R= 17; away, and then you just have another little area of wet soils. Mr. Gagnon didn’t feel that = the Commission could give a good clear answer this evening with regard to making comments to the Planning Board. The construction of this parcel is in before the wetland becomes designated at a prime wetland said Mr. Gagnon. When Mr. West comes before the Commission this evening he will be asked if this parcel is in the proposed prime wetland that is to go before the voters in March ’07. Depending on= the information that Mr. West gives this evening, we will make our recommendati= ons to the Planning Board.

Mr. Dadak asked about the test pits that have been dug= for the proposed septic system. He asked if any pits were dug where the proposed detention pond is planned and= how deep is the ground water. Mr. Balquist said that five test pits were dug. He referred to test pit #4 and #5.= Seasonal water table at #4 was 2 ½ feet and test pit #5 there was almost 3 feet. Mr. Dadak asked if the proposed detention pond was going to be in the water table. Mr. Balquist said that it was not supposed to intercept the water table.&nbs= p; Mrs. Edwards asked Mr. Balquist that if she was an abutter what woul= d be the biggest concerns. Mr. Bal= quist answered that every abutters concern is run off, they’re always afraid that development of an abutting lot that there will be run-off onto an abutter’s property and flood their home or their driveway. He feels that he has addressed tha= t and commented on the existing grade and the lowest area is where the detention = pond and treatment swale is and the general flow of the water is southerly. Mr. Gagnon said that the run-off g= oes in the direction of the parcel south of this parcel and a 24” culvert has been installed under the filled area of this abutting property. It’s believed that this culv= ert accommodates a seasonal stream. Mrs. Edwards said that she was concerned about water flow going in a westerly direction. Mr. Dadak= said that if the proposed detention pond over-flowed would it then go into the n= ext parcel and through the culvert. The answer was yes that it would go into that culvert that is located on the lot south of the lot we are talking about.&nbs= p; Mr. Gagnon said that even if the lower Beaver Brook were a prime wet= land that this parcel would not be within the limits of the prime wetland becaus= e it is at least the width of this entire lot away from the prime wetland. Mr. West will be asked that questi= on when he comes before the Commission later this evening. Mr. Stearns said he believes the k= ey is the retention pond that is to be reviewed by the Planning Board’s engineer and if it is designed to hold back a hundred year storm, that that= is the whole issue and it needs to be verified. Mr. Dadak said when the case came = before the Planning Board the concern was the large amount of impervious pavement = and if the detention pond had a problem, there wasn’t any backup. Mr. Balquist said that the planning director introduced him to the pervious pavement just this week. Mr. Balquist wants to go forward w= ith the traditional, conventional asphalt paving.

Mr. Gagnon said that we may have to recommend to the Planning Board of having a backup which would be a treatment swale and the = use of pervious pavement.

This case is coming back before the Planning Board on = Thursday, January 4, 2007. Chairman Gagnon will prepare a let= ter of the recommendations and concerns of the Conservation Commission.

PRESENTATION:

West Environm= ental – Power Point Presentation on the Prime Wetland Study<= /p>
Warrant Artic= le – Proposed Prime Wetland

Mark West of West Environmental, Lee, NH gave a power-point presentation of his findings in determining the lower Beaver Brook from Willow Street to the Massachusetts border off Pulpit Rock Roa= d/Coburn Road area as a prime wetland. He still intends to visit the Concord office for information on prior designations of prime wetlands in the town of Pelham.

Mr. West said that this is “one cool wetlandR= 21; with local and state significance because of many interesting findings. Mr. West gave a bit of history of = the town’s designated prime wetlands.&nb= sp; He said there are 12 existing wetlands in the town. Seven were designated in 1987 and = five additional have been designated since.&nbs= p; He was not able to extract too much information from the follow-up studies. He believes that tho= se were done by UNH students who used old soil survey and USGS maps. The original study was done by the Conservation Commission under the direction of the chairman, Doug Horth, a fresh water ecologist who did much of the work. The concentration appeared to be a= quatic systems and habitat life. The= total acreage of these wetlands is 415 and is spread out over 12 wetlands. The original prime wetlands includ= ed lower Golden Brook (79 acres), and upper Golden Brook (72 acres). The Camp Runels prime wetland is 29 acres, the Dunlap wetland at the southeast part of town= is the largest previous designated wetland of 93 acres. The cranberry bog wetland lies bet= ween the two Atwood Roads and is 20 acres in size. Mountain Orchard, Valley Hill Road is 16 acres and Ha= rris Brook is 22 acres. The total = of these previously designated wetlands is 331 acres. The actual designation was done in= 1988. There are five additional wetlands= and include St. Patrick, Pelham Memorial School (the largest of these additiona= l 5 wetlands), Little Island Pond (17 acres), Sherburne Road Open Water wetland= , a beaver pond having 10 acres, and Sherburne Road Bog. These wetlands total 84 acres. Five of these were done as recent = as 2000. The total acreage for all the designated prime wetlands is 415 acres.=

The lower Beaver Brook, by itself, excluding the islan= ds that have been mapped out of it, is bigger than all 12 wetlands combined th= at were previously designated. I= t is 416 acres in size. It is the largest marsh in Pelham, a contiguous fresh water marsh system which is lik= ely a key habitat for wading birds, bitterns and other species that may be in t= here that have not been found yet. It also has a rare plant community of swamp white oak flood-plain forest. Mr. West said he feels this is one= of the exemplary ones in the state of New Hampshire. He has put a call in to National Heritage to discuss it with them. Member Stearns asked Mr. West why this wetland was not captured in the first two groups. Mr. West said it = was looked at but it was separate from the report that was furnished to him and= was not suggested for further study. It is believed that it was not suggested for further study due to the largenes= s of it. There are over 9 miles of wetland boundary on the lower Beaver Brook wetland.

Mr. West said he spent the majority of his efforts wit= h mapping and evaluating this particular wetland for designation. Mr. West said he believes several additional wetlands in town that are in the 100 acre range qualify but have= not been designated. Possibly bac= k in 1987 there was an absence of beaver activity, poorly drained soils. The original prime wetlands regula= tions required very poorly drained soils only.&n= bsp; Mr. West said he believes that there are about 90% of very poorly drained soils within the 416 acres. These are flood-plains that hold lots of water. The marsh system alone might be a = 100 acre marsh said Mr. West. The= state has a lot of flexibility with how you designate prime wetland projects. As long as you document that it is= significant to the town and that it is performing important functions that that is satisfactory to the state. Portions of this wetland have recharge and seepa= ges along the flood-plain and have discharge.&= nbsp; This system has a large surface water system that floods into large areas, marshes, flood-plains and is overlaid by sand and portions of it go = into the ground and recharge aquifers. Because of its size and getting surface water flooding into it on a large watershed scale, it’s a significant recharge system for the town. It doesn’t have t= o be over the most conductive aquifers to still provide recharge. Mr. West said, without a doubt, th= is wetland provides the most flood storage of any wetland in the town simply because it’s next to your biggest stream system and it’s your biggest flood-plain. It has a variety of land covering the catch man are= a but its watershed position is the lowest in the town, it’s on your way ou= t of town into Dracut and at the bottom of the water-shed. It also has significant areas with constricted outlets that have beaver dams that trap and hold water and it protects land uses downstream. Many parts of the floodplain have dense, her= baceous vegetation that does trappings and woody vegetation that traps sedimentation. Other areas ha= ve ponding that holds water for extended periods of time. It also has nutrient removal, slow moving water, open water, nutrients on roads that nearby subd= ivisions contribute to that that drain into this system. This system is transforming these nutrients and holding them. I= t also has production export. Another important fact is that we have a flood plain= , a high volume stream, sediment stabilization of the wetland to prevent that stream from causing erosion problems to the adjacent banks. Mr. West did not see a lot of eros= ion because it has extensive wetlands on either side of it. It’s also a wildlife corrido= r, has connectivity and uplands. He = said in places it has undisturbed uplands adjacent to this system such as farm l= ands and areas like that in the south east area. Formal notice to abutters is not necessary. Each town handles = it differently said Mr. West. He= has only seen two towns that have opted to notify abutters. Back in 1987 the parcels were list= ed but the homeowners were not individually notified said Mr. Dadak. Mr. West said the bottom line is t= hat you are elevating the protection of a resource.

OTHER DISCUSSIONS (Walk-In Items)

Chairman Gagnon: Emails were sent out to Commission members regarding Land Trust Standards and Practices. It h= ad been suggested that we adopt the national land trust standards which are pr= etty extensive he said. He is not prepared to recommend them to the town but asked for input from other members. He feels that some o= f the requirements are beyond what we currently do, perhaps don’t benefit us. He feels that they are wr= itten for private land trusts and sets ethical and procedural standards for what a non-profit land trust should do. It includes everything from writing a miss= ion statement to how to you collect money and how you manage land. He feels that there is a very smal= l set of sub-standards that would apply to a town like ours. Chairman Gagnon advised how we came about this document. He said = LCHIP (Land or Community Heritage Improvement Program), which is part of the Stat= e of NH an= d make available grants promotes this. LCHIP oversees the stewardship of the land because they have a vested interest in properties that have been acquired with LCHIP monies. Someone at LCHIP asked us to adopt= these land trust standards and that’s how this came in front of us he said.= We want to make sure that this is = the right thing to do for the town. Chairman Gagnon asked members to take another look at this document = to be sure we understand it before adopting it. Member Stearns asked if there were= any nearby towns that have adopted this and if the Commission might implement j= ust certain sections or must we vote on the whole package or nothing. Chairman Gagnon said that we might= want to explore if other neighboring towns have adopted this and what their experie= nce might be. He will get in touc= h with Deborah Waters who might shed some light on these questions.

Member Dadak asked if this document was for current la= nd that we own or as part of planning for the future. Mr. Gagnon answered that it talks = about criteria which you should measure, whether a parcel is something you want to adopt – it talks about procedures for fund-raising – procedures about managing the land after you have acquired it. We have a stewardship committee wh= o is doing a fairly good job in managing the parcels we have said Mr. Gagnon. Mr. Dadak said as you read through= the table of contents it looks like there are a lot of things already in place = that we have and maybe not called by the same name. Mr. Gagnon said you could think of = it as a ‘best management practice for a land trust’. To say that we adopt this and whet= her the town would follow all these rules, I want to make sure what we are sign= ing up for. We need to explore this further.

Chairman Gagnon reported that a gentleman came in to t= he town hall that had concerns about map 36 – 10/15 that is located off = Birch Lane = under the power lines. Apparently o= ne of our foresters was walking one of the town’s parcels. The man had concerns that we had p= lans to cut the timber on the parcel. He was afraid that he was going to lose his protective buffer. The man did not leave his name. If he’s listening I want him= to know that there is a process for this said Mr. Gagnon. We don’t clear-cut parcels in general. I know of no parcel = that we have ever clear cut said Mr. Gagnon.&nb= sp; The process is that we use certified foresters who come in and look = over the parcels that the town owns. They put together a forest management plan and that plan is reviewed= by the forestry committee who makes recommendations and then presents it to the selectmen for their approval. The selectmen are the deciding board, whether to cut or not cut. We would harvest the timber on that parcel, but it would be a selective cut he said. We try to manage for wildlife, for recreation and for a healthy forest. Clear-cutting is rarely done with the exception of whether there may= be some type of infestation like what is at Pelham Veteran’s Memorial Pa= rk where there is an area of hemlock trees that are infested with hemlock woolly adelgid. That’s a case = where the state wants us to take down all those hemlocks and there is some questi= on as to whether they get burned or if the critters just die once the tree is = cut down where you ruin their life cycle. It is an exception where you would do a clear-cut said chairman Gagn= on. He said that if there were a need to do a clear-cut abutters would be notified= so that there would be no surprises and it takes about a year for this process= to take place. He wanted to make= this message clear to viewers on PTV.

Member Paul Dadak asked if we had any reports from mem= ber Lisa Loosigian with regard to water samples that were done on Long Pond this summer. Chairman Gagnon expla= ined that she had been going to school nights and has had trouble attending our meetings. She will give the Commission a summary of this testing as soon as she is able to rejoin us.

MINUTES APPROVED:&nbs= p; 11/8/06

MOTION to adjourn meeting – 10:02 p.m. (Stearns/MacKay)

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Respectfully submitted,

&nbs= p; &= nbsp; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Glennie Edwards, Recording Secretary