The Hudson Conservation Commission continued an ongoing review process for the permitting fee schedule and improvements to Robinson Pond’s boat launch and beach area at their May meeting. Garrison Beck from VHB was there for a presentation on the topic, warning the Commission there could be a lot of red tape before moving the project forward.
“Because Robinson Pond is a nutrient impaired water body, this site had to undergo more intensive planning efforts through the town’s MS4 permitting process,” he said. “It’s a municipally owned site that was a priority for potential structural stormwater treatment.”
Beck had a drafted agreement to pursue the final engineering design for the project, one crafted to meet local, state, and federal requirements. Under a previous agreement with the Nashua Regional Planning Commission, a water quality protection plan highlighted the need for an effective way to treat runoff in the area. Poorly controlled runoff can lead to cyanobacteria blooms, a perennial problem at Robinson Pond in recent years.
The plan will include dredging, something Beck noted complicated the permitting process.
“Because this would be a dredge project within a water of the United States, it requires US Army Corps authorization, we expect it would go under the US Army Corps general permit,” he said. “Because the project would require federal permitting through the Army Corps, there also comes with it a few more requirements.”
One example was the rare species requirement, meaning the pond would need a rare and endangered species screening run through the Fish and Wildlife Service. There needs to be involvement from the NH Department of Environmental Services to cover state-level permitting.
Other tasks included a wetland permit, alteration of terrain, and a review by the state preservation agency.
“We’ve basically assumed that we would have to do the most permitting,” said Beck.
He conceded that such preparations were a “worst-case scenario” and would try to work to streamline the process wherever possible, like with waivers for local permitting.
There was concern from members of the Conservation Commission that extra work related to permits would not be cheap.
“If the scope gets significantly reduced is there any opportunity to have a reduced cost on this? asked Secretary, Ken Dickinson. “The way it’s laid out, it looks like a major project, like if you were going to permit a shopping center or residential subdivision. I know the cost goes higher because you have more applications involved because you’re next to a water body.”
Beck confirmed reducing costs might be possible, but only after he talked with state regulators to see whether every permit was necessary.
“If we don’t have to do one of those permit applications, we’re not going to be charging for that entire task,” Beck added.
Town Engineer, Elvis Dhima, warned the Commission that “tedious work” Hudson officials were not equipped to handle.
“As far as the permitting process itself, what are we looking for once the applications for the permits are filled out? What do you think the timeframe, the turnaround, is?” asked Chair, William Collins.
Beck stated that it varied, estimating around 75 for wetland permits. By contrast, he thought the more streamlined Army Corps process would be faster, closer to 30 days. Ideally, these permits would be submitted simultaneously.
Once the permits are approved, the town will have five years to complete things.
“Something to keep in mind is the fees associated with these permits,” the Town Engineer reminded the Commission.
Beyond the cost to complete the permits and develop a final plan, Hudson will likely need to cover half the cost of the project, with the rest coming from grants. Dhima recommended having a solid idea by October when the boat launch project would need support from a warrant article.
As no other companies were interested in bidding for the job, the Commission voted to waive the bid process. They also voted to approve a formal contract for engineering and permitting services with VHB for an amount not to exceed $108,750, paid for from the Conservation professional services account.
Both votes were unanimous.
