Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2012 Hanscom ESPR appendix F
Appendix F Wetlands and Rare Species Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Fisheffies & Wildlife Mass wi/d/ife Wayne F.MacCallum,Director January 31,2013 Chris McCarthy CH2M HILL 18 Tremont Street Si ite 700 Boston MA 02108 RE: Project Location: Hanscom Field Town: BEDFORD, CONCORD, LEXINGTON, LINCOLN N H ESP Tracki ng No.: 06-19316 To Whom It May Concern: Thank you for contacting the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program ("NHESP") of the MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife for information regarding state-listed rare species in the vicinity of the above referenced site. Based on the information provided,this project site,or a portion thereof, is located within Priority Habitat 300(PH 300) as indicated in the Massachusetts Naturaf He'itageAtlas(13th Edition). Our database indicates that the following state-listed rare species have been found in the vicinity of the site: Scientificname Common Name Taxonomic Group State Status Bartramialongicauda Upland Sandpiper Bird Endangered Ammodramussavannarum Grasshopper Sparrow Bird Threatened Emydadeablandingii Bl and ing'sTurtle Reptile Threatened Glyptenysinsculpta Wood Turtle Reptile Special Concern The species listed above are protected under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) (M.G.L. c. 131A)and its implementing regulations(321 CM R 10.00). State-listed wildlife are also protected under the state's Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) (M.G.L. c. 131, s. 40) and its implementing regulations (310 CMR10.00). Fact sheetsfor most state-listed rarespeciescan befound on ourwebsite(www.nhesp.org). Please note that protects and activities located within Priority and/or Estimated Habitat must be reviewed by the N HE for compliance with the state-listed rare species protection provisions of MESA (321 CM R 10.00)and/or the WPA (310 CM R 10.00). Wetlands Protection Act(WPA) If the project site is within Estimated Habitat and a Notice of Intent (NOI) is required, then a copy of the NOI must be submitted to the NH ESP so that it is received at the same time as the local conservation commission. If the N H ESP determines that the proposed project will adversely affect the actual Resource Area habitat of state-protected wildlife, then the proposed project may not be permitted (310 CM 10.37, 10.58(4)(b) & 10.59). In such a case, the project proponent may request a consultation with the N H ESP to discuss potential project design modifications that would avoid adverse effectsto rarewildlife habitat. www.masswildlife.org Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Temporary Correspondence: 100 Hartwell Street, Suite 230,West Boylston,MA 01583 permanent: Field Headquarters,North Drive,Westborough,MA 01581 (508)389-6300 Fax(508)389-7890 An Agency of the Department of Fish and Game NHESP No. 06-19316,page 2 of 2 A streamlined joint MESA/WPA review process is now available. When filing a Notice of Intent (NOI), the applicant may now file concurrently under the MESA on the same NOI form and qualify for a 30-day streamlined joint review. For a copy of the revised NOI form, please visit the MA Department of Environmental Protection'swebsite: http://www.mass.gov/ dep/ water/ approvals/wpaform3.doc. M A Endangered Species Act(M ESA) If the proposed protect is located within Priority Habitat and is not exempt from review (see 321 CMR 10.14), then protect plans, a fee, and other required materials must be sent to N H ESP Regulatory Review to determine whether a probable "take" under the MA Endangered Species Act would occur (321 CMR 10.18). Please note that all proposed and anticipated development must be disclosed, as MESA does not allow project segmentation (321 CMR 10.16). For a MESA filing checklist and additional information pleaseseeourwebsite: www.nhesp.org ("Regulatory Review" tab). We recommend that rare species habitat concerns be addressed during the project design phase prior to submission of a formal MESA filing, as avoidance and minimization of impacts to rare species and their habitats is likely to expedite endangered species regulatory review. This evaluation is based on the most recent information available in the Natural Heritage database,which is constantly being expanded and updated through ongoing research and inventory. If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact Eve Schluter, Endangered Species Review Biologist, at (508) 389-6346. Sincerely, 71-n� , -70'-t�) Thomas W. French, Ph.D. Assistant Director 1"irttaroi HeriUge&Endangema pocte: Massachusetts Progmto Division orFisberies&'W°ildlife Natural Heritage Route 135 Program Westborough,MA 01581 (508)792.7270,a x.200 MASSACHUSETTS RARE AND ENDANGERED WILDLIFE UPIAND SANDPIPER (Bartramia longicau a) DESCRIPTION aa; The Upland Sandpiper is a slender, rcderate-sized share- bird with a sma."l.l head, large, shoe-button eyes, short t ' and thin dark-brown bill, long, thin neck and relatively "' : long tail. Tors are yellowish. It stands about 12 i (30 n) tall and has a wingspan of 25 to 27 in (64 to 66 .,,, cm) . The crown is dark brown with a pale buff crow - stripe. The rtop, upper tail and wings are much darker than the rest of the bird. Calls include a rapid "quip-ip-ip-ip" alarm call, and a long, drawn-out courtship call which has been described as a windy Mi whistle, "whiiiip-whee•,ee-co"M The sexes are similar. This species often poses with its wings up raised when alighting on utility poles or .fence posts. AtM'bAMiMn�.,".n 1. 9YMIM4r aW V.",,L A.M.. "4.Y'd/ ��A,,,//J/���..,yy, ry[ iA wdpA.h . Gn1�MM AkaeM.Wrw!Tarr A,. t'►4A«. ECOLCG Habitat in Massachusetts The Upland, Sandpiper inhabits large manses of open grassy uplands, wet. mead , old fields, and pastures. 1n Massachusetts it is restricted to open erases of grassy fields, hay fields, and rn:wn grassy strips adjacent to runways and taxiways of airports and military bases. They need feeding and loafing areas as well as nesting areas. It winters in similar Landscapes in South erica. movement/texrito /b eedipS behavior The Upland Sandpiper returns to its breeding habitat in Massachusetts mid-April to early May. The birds arrive already paired and usually return to the sane area year after year. Their courtship displays include circling flights by individual birds that last 5 to 15 minutes and mach as high as (continued overleaf) i 0 'verified since 1978 Range of Bartramia 12n2icauda 0 Reported prior to 197 Breeding Distribution in Massachusetts by Town 1986 100Oift (305 m) during which they give their "windy whistle" call. On the ground, the male will raise his tail and run at his mate stopping suddenly.. The nest is a grass-lined depression on the Around., it is well concealed by arched grasses making it invisible from Vie. Four, or occasionally 3 eggs are laid at 266 hour intervals., The eggs are pinkish-buff with fine brown spots. Both sexes incubate the eggs beginning after the clutch is Mete. Renesting may occur if the initial clutch is destroyed. Incubating adults are well-concealed and will tolerate close approach before flushing. The adults are secretive around the nest, approaching it from a distance by walking cautiously through the grass, head held law and squat- ting lower and lower. unless flushed, the bird leaves the nest in the same manner. Each bird has a characteristic flushing distance. it becomes less willing to flush as the eggs begin to pip. The adults are very unlikely to abandon the nest even if repeatedly disturbed, but will immediately desert if the egg's are damaged. The chicks are downy and precocial at hatching and leave the nest very soon thereafter. one or both adults care for the- chicks, watching for danger as the chicks catch insects and as they sleep.. The young .reach full s�ize� and adult plummage by the time they fledge at 32 to 34 days. The adults do not defend the nest or a nesting territory. They do however, drive other individuals and animals such as ground squirrels, away if they approach the young. This behaviour diminishes as the young mature and disappears when the young fledge. After fledging, families and individuals begin to mix and form flocks. The Upland Sandpipers gather in increasingly large flocks in July and begin fall migration from Massachusetts in late July and August. Feeding behavior The Upland Sandpipers primarily pursue grasshoppers, crickets, evils, beetles, ants, spiders, snails and earthworms on the ground.. They chase the insects rapidly and even leap into the air in pursuit.. RANGE The Upland. Sandpiper breeds from Maine to central Canada and. Alaska, Maryland to Oklahoma and Colorado. It breeds locally in Massachusetts.. It winters in similar habitats in South America, particularly on the pampas of northern Argentina and Uruguay. POPULATION STATUS The. Upland. Sandpiper is classified as "Endangered" in Massachusetts. In 1985 a total of 35 to 37 breeding pairs nested at only 7 sites in the state. European settlement created extensive nesting habitat through the clearing of the forest for agriculture and grazing. The Upland Sandpiper was common in the 1850's and at that time was seen in the thousands. Commercial shooting for food reduced its numbers dramatically. Currently, after having been protected from hunting for over sixty years, it is threatened by loss of habitat to dewelcpmuent and succession of open lands to forest. The Upland Sandpiper is experiencing population decline over much of its range, particularly in the must and, eastern United States. Natural Heritage&Endangered Species + Program Massachusetts Ilivisift of F'isberies&WAdlift Roi Natural Heritage Westborough,MA 01581 Program (98)792-7270,tit.200 MASSACHUSETTS RARE AND ENDANGERED, WILDLIFE GRASSHOPPER SPARRCW (Amrogdraniis savannarLan) I)ESCRIPMON The Grasshopper Sparrow is a mall sparrow of open fields. It is 4.5 to 5.5 in (11 - 13 cm) long with a narrow short tail. Each feather of the tail tapers to a point giving it a ragged, appearence. It has a flat head which slopes directly directly into the bill. The unstreaked throat and breast are bright buff colored. The upperparts have reddish streaks which con- trast with the intervening gray. The dark brown crown is divided by a thin cream-colored center stripe. A yellowish spot extends fro m'the bill in front and below the eye. The sexes are similar. The typical song, often mistaken for the song of a grasshopper, misists of two chip notes followed by "trick trick tsurrrrr". Breeding birds also sing a cxmplicated song with many squeaky and buzzy notes intermixed in a long phrase. Simliar Scecies Young birds resemble adult Fienslcwls Sparrows but have &Lsky brown streaks or spots on the buffy breast and flanks. Adialt Grasshopper Sparrows can be distinguished frciz the Field Sparrow by the batter's pinkish bill, 'rusty cap, and white eye ring. other species sixnilar in appearance and also found in the same type of habitat include the Vesper Sparrow, Savannah Sparrow and Song Sparrow- but Grasshopper Sparrow differs, from these by its buffy unstreaked throats and breasts and the yellowish area around the eye. However, its distinctive call best distinguishes it frcm all other birds. �Wr�_Y/tEH�AVIOR Grasshopper Sparrows eat, sleep and nest on the ground. When flushed, it usual- ly flies up fran the grass, flutters rather low,and erractically for a short dista,nce and drops into the grass again. on the ground it either hops or runs. Habitat in Massachusetts it is found in sandplain grasslands, pastures, hayfields and airfields charac- terized by bunch grasses (rather than sod forming grasses). It is (continued overleaf) 0 10 5. Range of Armiondramus savannar= verified since 1978 Reported prior to 1978 BreedIng Distribution in massachusetts by Town 1966 also found in open knolls, sandplains within Pine Barrens and coastal heath- lands. It requires a patchy grassland habitat with bare ground and bunch grasses such as poverty grass (Danthonia sDicata) , bluest (Androocaon spa. ) and fescue (Fescue spp). Prefered habitat is characterized by relatively low stem densities and limited accimtilation of ground litter. This species is generally absent fran fields with over 35% cover in shxrubs. Bare ground is especially important, as Grass-hopper Sparrows behave much like field ice in their it of running along the ground to escape predators and to forage for invertebrates. " Migration The Grasshopper Sparrows arrive in Massachusetts in late May. The male lays claim to a 1-4 acre exclusive non-overlapping territory by singing the "grass- hopper" song aU day from a tall weed, fence post, haystack, etc. During the non-breeding season both the male and female sing. Grasshopper Sparrows migrate to the wintering grounds by ndd-September. Breeding habits Grasshopper Sparrows produce one brood each summer in n Massachusetts. The well-' hidden nests are walled, domed structures of grasses built at the base of cluul;rs of grass. Only the ferrale incubates the eggs, which take an estimated 12 days to hatch. The usual 3-5 eggs are white with spots or blotches of brown to red- dish brown which are concentrated on the larger end of the egg. The young, which are wholly dependent on the mother at hatching, leave: the nest after 9 days and follow the parent on the ground until they fledge. If found on the nest, the =ther flutters through the grass feigning lamieness. Though the male does not care for the young, he does react to predators near the nest. Nests may be parasitized by cowbirds. Breeding activity diminishes by mid-August after which the families disperse. Feedin g_Habits This species is ,largely insectiverous. Patches of bare ground are critical to this sparrow's foraging behavior as grasshoppers, a primary food item, are umt often pursued an or near the ground. Grasshopper Sparrows also feed on spi&!xs, myriapods, snails, earthworms, weed and grass seeds. PWM The Grasshopper Sparrow can be found from New Hampshire to California, and south to South Carolina to Mexico, Cuba, the Bahama's and Guatemala. It winters from southern California, southern Arizona, Oklahcm, A leans as, Tennessee and North Carolina to El Salvador, and the West Indies. POPULATICN STATUS The Grasshopper Sparrow is classified as a species of Special Concern in Massa.- chusetts, where it is known.to nest at less than 20 sites. Many of the current locations are in fields adjacent to air fields. This sparrow formerly was abundant on Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard and in eastern Massachusetts. Lass of appropriate habitat to land development, changes in agricultural practices (early harvesting and fewer fallow fields) and natural succession (abandoned fields growing up to shrubs and woods), appears to be the PrinzrY factor in its decline. Cpenings created by forest fires once provided habitat but these are now rare. ri Natural Heritage r� agere 'peeie Blanding's Turtle ProgramEmydoidea blandingii Massachusetts Division of Fisheries& Wildlife Route 135, Westborough, MA 01581 tel: (508) 389-6360; fax: (508) 389-7891 State Status: Threatened www.nhesp.org Federal Status: None DESCRIPTION: The Blanding's Turtle is a mid- sized turtle ranging between 16 and 22 cm (6-9 in.)in shell length. Its high-domed carapace (top shell)is dark and covered with pale yellow flecking. The lower 5 B shell(plastron)is yellow with large black blotches on the outer posterior corner of each scute (scale). The � plastron is hinged, allowing movement;however, the shell does not close tightly. In older individuals, the entire plastron may be black. The most distinguishing feature is its long,yellow throat and chin,which makes it recognizable at a distance. Males have slightly concave plastrons, females have flat plastrons. The tails of males are thicker and their cloacal opening (the common orifice of the digestive,reproductive and Photo by Susan Speak urinary systems)is located beyond the edge of the carapace. Hatchlings have a brown carapace and RANGE: The Blanding's Turtle is found primarily in brown to black plastron, and range between 3.4 and the Great Lakes region, extending to Kansas. Several 3.7 cm (1.3-1.5 in.)in length. smaller, disjunct populations occur in the East: in southern Nova Scotia,in an arc extending from eastern SIMILAR SPECIES: This species could be Massachusetts through southeastern New Hampshire to confused with the Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene southern Maine, and in the lower Hudson Valley of New carolina). The Eastern Box Turtle can have a yellow York. These populations (with the exception of those in chin but lacks the yellow throat and neck. Box Turtles New Hampshire) are all listed as Threatened or are smaller, 10-18 cm (4-7 in.)in shell length. In Endangered at the state or provincial level. addition, the Box Turtle has a prominent mid-line ridge (keel) on the carapace,which is absent on Blanding's Turtles. The Blanding's Turtle may also be confused with the Spotted Turtle. However, The Spotted Turtle is much smaller, 3.5-4.5 inches in length and has very distinct round yellow spots. HABITAT IN MASSACHUSETTS: Blanding's Turtles use a variety of wetland and terrestrial habitat types. Blanding's Turtles have been observed in seasonal pools,marshes, scrub-shrub wetlands and open uplands (Sievert et al. 2003). Habitat use appears to vary according to the individual and the Distribution in sachuse amount of precipitation,with more upland utilization 1980-200006 Based on records in Natural Heritage Database during dry years (loyal at al. 2001). Wetlands are used for overwintering during their inactive season (Nov-Mar). LIFE CYCLE &BEHAVIOR: Blanding's Turtles Blanding's Turtles display temperature-dependent sex overwinter in organic substrate in the deepest parts of determination; eggs incubated below a pivotal marshes,ponds, and occasionally,vernal pools. Some temperature that lies between 26.5°C and 30°C(79.7- individuals overwinter under hummocks in red maple 86°F)produce males, and higher temperatures produce or highbush blueberry swamps.Upon emergence from females (Ewert and Nelson 1991). Typical clutch size overwintering, Blanding's Turtles often leave ranges from 10 to 12 eggs. Hatchlings emerge in the late permanent wetlands and move overland to vernal August and September. The typical size of a hatchling is pools and scrub-shrub swamps,where they feed and about 3.5 cm (1.4 in.) and 10 g (0.35 oz). mate. It is during the summer months that females estivate in upland forest or along forest/field edges. At ACTIVE PERIOD night and during periods of hot weather, Blanding's Turtles retreat to "forms". These small terrestrial Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug I Sep I Oct Nov Dec shelters are found beneath leaf litter,in the grass, under logs or brush located up to 110 in (361 ft) from the nearest wetland. They are called"forms"because when the turtle leaves them,they retain the shape of THREATS: Blanding's Turtles are particularly the turtle's shell. vulnerable because they travel very long distances Blanding's Turtles are omnivores, eating both plants during their active season, do not reproduce until late in and animals. They eat while on land and in the water. life (14-20 yrs), and have low nest and juvenile The animals Blanding's Turtles are know to eat, either survivorship. These traits make them extremely sensitive alive or as carrion, consist of Pulmonate snails, to even a 1-2%increase in adult mortality. Roads are the crayfish, earthworms,insects, golden shiners,brown primary cause of adult mortality. Blanding's Turtles bullheads, and other small vertebrates.Vernal pools travel to multiple wetlands throughout a single year are an important source of many of these prey items. (typically 3-6) and adult females travel to nesting The plants that Blanding's Turtles have been known to habitats, crossing roads in the process. eat include coontail, duckweed,bulrush, and sedge. As this turtle is relatively difficult to study,it is not Courtship and mating takes place during the spring known how great a decline this species has experienced. and early summer and typically occurs in water. In Massachusetts, few nesting sites are currently known Baker and Gillingham (1983)reported that in and a variety of factors are attributed to this species' low seminatural conditions male Blanding's Turtles exhibit numbers. Habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation a variety of behaviors during mating including: (i.e.roads) are driven by human activities such as chasing,mounting, chinning, gulping, swaying, commercial and residential expansion. Other threats violent swaying, and snorkeling. Chinning occurs include illegal collection,unnaturally inflated rates of after the male is mounted,if the female moves forward predation in suburban and urban areas, agricultural and the male will start gulping (taking in water and forestry practices, and natural succession (i.e. loss of expelling it over the female's head). Gulping is nesting habitat). typically followed by swaying and escalates to violent swaying if the female remains motionless. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: Females will remain in wetland or vernal pool Using a turtle habitat model developed by UMass and habitat until they begin nesting. The majority of NHESP records, Blanding's Turtle habitat needs to be nesting occurs in June in open areas with well-drained assessed and prioritized for protection based on the loamy or sandy soils, such as: dirt roads,powerline extent, quality, and juxtaposition of habitats and their right-of-ways,residential lawns, gravel pits and early predicted ability to support self-sustaining populations successional fields. Female Blanding's Turtles reach of Blanding's Turtles. Other considerations should sexual maturity at 14-20 years of age (Congdon et al., include the size and lack of fragmentation of both 1993; Congdon and van Loben Sels, 1993) and may wetland and upland habitats and proximity and travel great distances, often more than 1 km (3280 ft), connectivity to other relatively unfragmented habitats, to find appropriate nesting habitat(Grgurovic and especially within existing protected open space. Sievert, 2005). Females typically begin nesting during the daylight and continue the process until after dark. Given limited conservation funds, alternatives to Forestry Conservation Management Practice outright purchase of conservation land is an important guidelines should be applied on state and private lands to component to the conservation strategy. These can avoid direct turtle mortality. Seasonal timber harvesting include Conservation Restrictions (CRs) and restrictions apply to Blanding's Turtle habitat and to Agricultural Preservation Restrictions (APRs). stands with wetlands. Motorized vehicle access to Another method of protecting large blocks of land is timber harvesting sites in Blanding's Turtle habitat is through the regulatory process by allowing the restricted to times when the Blanding's Turtle is building of small or clustered roadside developments overwintering. Hand felling in wetland areas is required in conjunction with the protection of large areas of in order to maintain structural integrity of overwintering unimpacted land. sites. Habitat management and restoration guidelines Finally, a statewide monitoring program is needed to should be developed and implemented in order to track long-term population trends in Blanding's Turtles. create and/or maintain consistent access to nesting habitat at key sites. This is most practical on state- REFERENCES: owned conservation lands (i.e. DFW, DCR). However, educational materials should be made Baker,R.E., and J.C. Gillingham. 1983. An analysis of available to guide private land owners on appropriate courtship behavior in Blanding's turtle, management practices for Blanding's Turtle habitat. Emydoidea blandingi.Herpetologica 39:166- Alternative wildlife corridor structures should be 173. considered at strategic sites on existing roads. In Congdon, J.D., Dunham, AE. and R.C.van Loben Sels. particular, appropriate wildlife corridor structures 1993. Delayed sexual maturity and should be considered for bridge and culvert upgrade demographics of Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea and road-widening projects within Blanding's Turtle blandingii)—Implications for conservation and Habitat. Efforts should be made to inform Mass management of long-lived organisms. Highways of key locations where these measures Conservation Biology 7, 826-833. would be most effective for turtle conservation. Congdon, J.D. and R.C.van Loben Sel,. 1993. Educational materials are being developed and Relationships of reproductive traits and body- distributed to the public in reference to the detrimental size with attainment of sexual maturity and age effects of keeping our native turtles as pets (an illegal in Blanding's turtles (Emydoidea blandingii). activity that reduces reproduction in the population), Journal of Evolutionary Biology 6, 547-557. releasing pet store turtles (which could spread Ewert, M.A., and C.E.Nelson. 1991. Sex determination disease), leaving cats and dogs outdoors unattended in turtles: Diverse patterns and some possible (particularly during the nesting season), feeding adaptive values. Copeia 1991:50-69. suburban wildlife (which increases numbers of natural Ernst, C.H., Lovich, J.E. and R.W. Barbour. 1994. predators to turtles), and driving ATVs in nesting Turtles of the United States and Canada. areas from June-October.People should be Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and encouraged,when safe to do so, to help Blanding's London. Turtles cross roads (always in the direction the animal Grgurovic, M., and P.R. Sievert. 2005. Movement was heading);however turtles should never be patterns of Blanding's Turtles (Emydoidea transported to "better"locations. They will naturally blandingii)in the suburban landscape of eastern want to return to their original location and likely need Massachusetts. Urban Ecosystems 8:201-211. to traverse roads to do so. Joyal, L.A., McCollough, M. and J.M.L. Hunter. 2000. Increased law enforcement is needed to protect our Population structure and reproductive ecology of wild populations,particularly during the nesting Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii)in season when poaching is most frequent and ATV use Maine,near the Northeastern edge of its range. is common and most damaging. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 3:580-588. Sievert,P.R., Compton B.W., and M. Grgurovic. 2003. Blanding's Turtle (Emydoidea blandingii) conservation plan for Massachusetts.Pages 1- 61. Report for Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. Westborough, MA. Updated 2007 Natural Heritage Wood Turtle Endangered Species Glyptemys insculpta Program State Status: Species of Special Concern Massachusetts Division of Fisheries& Wildlife Federal Status: None Route 135, Westborough, MA 01581 tel: (508) 389-6360; fax: (508) 389-7891 www.nhesp.org DESCRIPTION: The Wood Turtle is a medium-sized turtle (14-20 cm; 5.5-8 in) that can be recognized by its sculpted shell and orange coloration on the legs and neck. The carapace (upper shell)is rough and each scale (scute) rises upwards in an irregularly shaped pyramid of grooves and ridges. The carapace is tan, grayish-brown or brown,has a mid-line ridge (keel) and often has a pattern of black or yellow lines on the larger scutes. The Photo by Mike Jones plastron(lower shell)is yellow with oblong dark patches on the outer,posterior corner of each scute. The head is HABITAT IN MASSACHUSETTS: The preferred black,but may be speckled with faint yellow spots. The habitat of the Wood Turtle is riparian areas. Slower legs,neck, and chin can have orange to reddish moving mid-sized streams are favored,with sandy coloration. Males have a concave plastron, thick tail, bottoms and heavily vegetated stream banks. The stream long front claws, and a wider and more robust head than bottom and muddy banks provide hibernating sites for females. Hatchlings have a dull-colored shell that is overwintering, and open areas with sand or gravel broad and low, a tail that is almost as long as their substrate near the streams edge are used for nesting. carapace and they lack orange coloration on the neck and Wood Turtles spend most of the spring and summer in legs. mixed or deciduous forests, fields,hay-fields,riparian wetlands including wet meadows,bogs, and beaver SIMILAR SPECIES: The habitat of the Eastern Box ponds. Then they return to the streams in late summer or Turtle (Terrapene carolina) and the Blanding's Turtle early fall to their favored overwintering location. (Einydoidea blandingii)may overlap that of the Wood Turtle,but neither has the Wood Turtle's pyramidal shell segments.Unlike the Wood Turtle, the Box and Blanding's Turtle have hinged plastrons into which they can withdraw or partially withdraw if threatened. The Northern Diamond-backed Terrapin(Malacleinys terrapin)has a shell similar to that of the Wood Turtle. However,its skin is grey and it lives only near brackish water,which the Wood Turtle avoids. RANGE: The Wood Turtle can be found throughout New England,north to Nova Scotia,west to eastern Minnesota, and south to northern Virginia. The Wood Turtle appears to be widespread in Massachusetts. Distribution in Massachusetts However,it should be kept in mind that little is known a -o 1980-2006 about the status of local populations associated with the Based on records in Natural Heritage Database majority of these sightings. Most of the towns have fewer than 5 known occurrences. LIFE CYCLE &BEHAVIOR: The Wood Turtle In Massachusetts,most nesting occurs over a four- typically spends the winter in flowing rivers and week period,primarily in June.Nesting sites may be a perennial streams. Full-time submersion in the water limited resource for Wood Turtles. Females are known to begins in November, once freezing occurs regularly travel long distances in search of appropriate nesting overnight, and continues until temperatures begin to habitat(average straight line distance of 244 in; 800 ft). increase in spring. It may hibernate alone or in large Once they have arrived at a suitable nesting area, there groups in community burrows in muddy banks, stream may be multiple nesting attempts or false nests that occur bottoms, deep pools,instream woody debris, and over the course of several days,prior to laying eggs. abandoned muskrat burrows. The Wood Turtle may They abort attempts when disturbed (e.g.by human make underwater movements in the stream during the activities) early in the process or hit a large rock while winter;however, extended periods of activity and digging. Female Wood Turtles lay one clutch a year and emergence from the water do not occur until mid-March often congregate in a good nesting area. Clutch size in or early April. Massachusetts averages 7 eggs (Jones, 2004,pers. In spring, Wood Turtles are active during the day and comm.).Hatchling emergence occurs from August are usually encountered within a few hundred meters through September. The life span of the adult Wood from the stream banks. They have relatively linear home Turtle is easily 46 years and may reach as much as 100 ranges that can be '/z a mile in length in Massachusetts years. (M. Jones,unpubl data). They will use emergent logs or ACTIVE PERIOD grassy, sandy, and muddy banks to soak up the spring Jan Feb Mar Apr I May I Jun I Jul I Aug I Sep Oct I Nov Dec sun. During the summer months they feed in early successional fields,hayfields, and forests. Wood Turtles are opportunistic omnivores; their diet consists of both plant and animal matter that is THREATS: Hatchling and juvenile survival is very low consumed on land and in the water. The Wood Turtle and the time to sexual maturity is long. These occasionally exhibits an unusual feeding behavior characteristics are compensated by adults living a long referred to as "stomping."In its search for food, this time and reproducing for many years. Adult survivorship species will stomp on the ground alternating its front must be very high to sustain a viable population. These feet, creating vibrations in the ground resembling characteristics make Wood Turtles vulnerable to human rainfall. Earthworms respond, rising to the ground's disturbances.Population declines of Wood Turtles has surface to keep from drowning. Instead of rain, the likely been caused by hay-mowing operations, earthworm is met by the Wood Turtle, and is promptly development of wooded stream banks,roadway devoured. casualties,incidental collection of specimens for pets, Although the peaks in mating activity occur in the unnaturally inflated rates of predation in suburban and spring and fall, Wood Turtles are known to mate urban areas, forestry and agricultural activities and opportunistically throughout their activity period. Males pollution of streams. have been observed exhibiting aggressive behavior such as chasing,biting, and butting both during the mating MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: Using a season and at other times. A courtship ritual"dance" turtle habitat model developed by UMass and NHESP typically takes place at the edge of a stream or brook for records, Wood Turtle habitat needs to be assessed and several hours prior to mating. The dance involves the prioritized for protection based on the extent, quality, and male and female approaching each other slowly with juxtaposition of habitats and their predicted ability to necks extended and their heads up. Before they actually support self-sustaining populations of Wood Turtles. touch noses, they lower their heads, and swing them Other considerations should include the size and lack of from side to side. Copulation usually takes place within fragmentation of both riverine and upland habitats and the water. Courting adults may produce a very subdued proximity and connectivity to other relatively whistle that is rarely heard by observers. A female may unfragmented habitats, especially within existing mate with multiple individuals over the course of the protected open space. This information will be used to active season. direct land acquisition and to target areas for Conservation Restrictions (CRs), Agricultural Preservation Restrictions (APRs) and Landowner Incentive Program (LIP)projects. Mowing and nest site creation guidelines developed Forestry Conservation Management Practices should be by NHESP should be followed on properties managed applied on state and private lands to avoid direct turtle for Wood Turtles. These practices will be most practical mortality. Seasonal timber harvesting restrictions apply on state-owned conservation lands. However, these to Wood Turtle habitat and to upland habitat that occurs materials are available to town land managers and up to 600 ft(183 m)beyond the stream edge. Motorized private landowners. vehicle access to timber harvesting sites in Wood Turtle Alternative wildlife corridor structures should be habitat is restricted to times when the Wood Turtle is considered at strategic sites on existing roads. In overwintering. Bridges should be laid down across particular, appropriate wildlife corridor structures should streams prior to any motorized equipment crossing the be considered for bridge and culvert upgrade and road- stream in order to maintain the structural integrity of widening projects within or near Wood Turtle habitat. overwintering sites. Efforts should be made to inform local regulatory Finally, a statewide monitoring program is needed to agencies of key locations where these measures would track long-term population trends in Wood Turtles. be most effective for Wood Turtle conservation. Educational materials are being developed and REFERENCES: distributed to the public in reference to the detrimental effects of keeping our native Wood Turtles as pets (an Compton, B. 2006. Personal Communication. illegal activity that reduces reproduction in the University of Massachusetts,Dept of Natural population),releasing pet store turtles (which could Resources Conservation, Amherst, MA spread disease), leaving cats and dogs outdoors DeGraaf, R.M. and D.D. Rudis. 1983. Amphibians and unattended (particularly during the nesting season), Reptiles of New England. Amherst, mowing of fields and shrubby areas, feeding suburban Massachusetts: The University of Massachusetts. wildlife (which increases the number of natural predators Ernst, C.H., Lovich, J.E. and R.W. Barbour. 1994. to turtles), and driving ATVs in nesting areas from June- Turtles of the United States and Canada. October. People should be encouraged,when safe to do Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and so, to help Wood Turtles cross roads (always in the London. direction the animal was heading);however, turtles Jones, M. 2006.Personal Communication. University of should never be transported to "better"locations. They Massachusetts, Dept. of Natural Resources will naturally want to return to their original location and Conservation, Amherst, MA. likely need to traverse roads to do so. Kaufmann, J.H. 1986. Stomping for earthworms by Wood Increased law enforcement is needed to protect our Turtles, Cleminys insculpta: A newly discovered wild turtles,particularly during the nesting season when foraging technique. Copeia 1986(4),pp.1001- poaching is most frequent and ATV use is common and 1004. most damaging. Updated:2007 61.kti. STd7Cadp�{� �s�as� cncryr�a: aG tevec;�r e United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WII.I:yt,tl'1" SERVICE New England Field Office 70 Commercial Street, Suite 30C O Concord, N11 tl330� 1-5tf 7 http-// a '.fws. crv/newen Land lanuuary 22, 7013 Deference; '.ro cct ➢ outctrt 2012 1-1anscoin Environmental Status and Planning Report Beef rrd, M 'Ir. Christopher J. McC"arthy f-112TvI IIill 1 '"1"rennont Street, Suite 7(")0 Boston, MA 0710 Dear Mr. McCarthy: This responds to your recent correspondence requesting, inforrnnartion crrn the lare.sc°rnce of federally listed and/or proposed endangered or threatened species in relation to the proposed activity referenced above. 1'ltese comments are provided ire ac ordanc e with the E'ida n r°ed Species Act' 7 tact. 884, as amended; 16 U.S,C. 1551, cat seq }. Based corn information currently available to us, no federally listed or, proposed, threatened or endangered species or critical habitat under the jurisdiction of the [J. . Fish and Wildlife Service tare known to occur in the protect area. Preparation of a Biological Assessrrrernt of furthc°r-c;onsultratiora with us under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required, No further 1'.ndaarng,ered. Species ,act coordination is necessary for a period of came year fronn the date of"this letter, unless additional information on listed or,proposed species becomes available. To obtain updated lists of federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered species and critical. habitats, it is not necessary to contact this office. Instead, please visit. the Endangered Species CAmsult.ation mange on the New f9;ngland Field, Offices website. rarvw�vw rr� . r�aFla >rsarr l rarf'r rr r"urr ar °. � �arrrx. art tiara. r r7r. (accessed January 2015), On the website,there is also a link to procedures that may allow you'to conclude iflaabitat fora listed species is present, in the project <area. If no such habitat exists, then no federally listed species are present in the project area and there is no need to contact us for further consultation. If the above conclusion cannot be reached, fuurther consultation with this office is advised. Information describing the nature and location of the proposed activity that should be provided to us for further informal consultation can be found at the above-referenced site. r, Christopher J, McCarthy 2 ofarlUary 22, 2013 `l°h :a k you for your coordination, Please contact Brett Hillman of this office at 60 3-22 - 541, extension 34, if we can be of further assistance, Sincerely yours, ... ..r. .... mas R. t ha tnan Supervisor New England Field Office L,.,G,. Hanscom Field Grassland Management Program Prepared by: MassachLlsett Poirt Authority Environmental Planning and Permittingi January 2004 Table of Contents/Outline Introduction 2 Background 2 Regulatory Context 3 Grassland Management Program Goals and Objectives 5 Grassland Management Program Recommendations 4 Bibliography 7 Figure 1 Site Locus Figure 2 NHESP Priority Habitats of Rare Species Figure 3 Hanscom Grassland Management Areas January 2004 1 HanscomIFleld GrasslandIManagement Introduction L.G. Hanscom Field (BED) is owned and operated by the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport). The airport is situated on approximately 1,300 acres located in the towns of Bedford, Concord, Lexington and Lincoln, MA (Figure 1). Hanscom Field is primarily a general aviation airport, but also supports limited commercial operations and military flights. The airport consists of two paved runways, Runway 11/29 is 7,001 feet long and Runway 5/23 is 5,106 feet long. In 2003, Hanscom Field supported approximately 200,000 aircraft operations (landings and takeoffs). Nearly one-third of its annual operations are pilot training flights. This Grassland Management Program outlines a series of guidelines for maintenance of portions of the grass infield areas between runways and taxiways at BED as well as selected grassed approach areas. As noted throughout this document, the goal of grassland management must be carefully balanced with the airport's primary goal of maintaining aviation safety. It is within the context of aviation safety that this program has been developed. As is discussed below, a key goal of the program is the reduction of wildlife hazards and evidence suggests that properly managed grasslands will support that aviation safety goal. While Massport has taken a lead in the development of this program, finalization of the plan involved coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Wildlife Services, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), MA Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program and MA Audubon. Background Grasslands are a vegetative community that is gradually disappearing in New England; a region that once supported vast natural and managed grasslands. This change is a result of natural succession, development, and the decline in farming. Many of the region's larger grasslands have historically supported large and diverse wildlife populations. As a result of the incremental loss of grasslands, many of these species are now at-risk. Many airports maintain extensive grass infield areas between runways and taxiways; hence, airports often unintentionally provide some of the best, and last, grassland habitat in the region. This relationship can be a significant aviation safety concern, however, when there is an increase of the risk, frequency and potential severity of wildlife-aircraft collisions. Similar to other airports in the Northeast, Hanscom Field has provided habitat for a number of grassland birds, several of which have been designated by the MA Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) as threatened (T) or January 2004 2 ..k b >ys �;, roc r•,i erd l r(d i�rtY.,,r, rr�� �ip4 ,s Fsa h .�. �!FJ iI ff vl"` Sir rrl "dn{hut , �i���� 43 ,�. _ '� �, � s,,id ,dad 1q 7r„ r P, rt„�, icy . . �yv"7°. srr �`�dr d �`",u t�„kv,• t Y,.a �r;�5 „ � ?' t t ,-�r w �«"'� �,Sv�aa�' .d.,1.,><-I, fk � " y w Jril l as d�w r, � alb s ✓�. � �,•. , ra>< r•r it y�!!f' u E ". l �y y .}. y )r 4 t y �' , ;Y a; i u t "� R fi � 4�f�1 PsC�"�' �yi r« ^,�"`i�, ,1 w✓«++ �"�; �' i gvp 'i' � s + wil xt r.d, J w aY d g Pfau u 4 a Rr rRR Ogg— Grassland Management Program - Hanscom Field Figure 1 Site Locus Source: USGS Quadrangle Maps for Billerica(1987), Reading(1987), Maynard(1987)and Boston North (1985) January 2004 3 endangered (E). These include the grasshopper sparrow (T) (Ammodramus savannarum) and the upland sandpiper (E) (Bartramia longicauda). Hanscom Field has also been observed to support other grassland bird species considered to be in decline, but not specifically protected by state or federal regulation. Regulatory Context Based upon information included in the NHESP Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (11t" Edition, July 2003), substantial portions of Hanscom Field are identified as "Priority Habitats of Rare Species" (Figure 2). Certain activities within the habitats of rare species are subject to the MA Endangered Species Act (MESA) of 1990 and its implementing regulations of 1992 (MGL Chapter 131A). Within the context of MESA, species are listed as endangered, threatened or special concern species. Endangered (E) species are "native species which are in danger of extinction throughout all or part of their range, or which are in danger of extirpation from Massachusetts, as documented by biological research and inventory." Threatened (T) species are "native species which are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, or which are declining or rare as determined by biological research and inventory." Special Concern (SC) species are "native species which have been documented by biological research or inventory to have suffered a decline that could threaten the species if allowed to continue unchecked, or which occur in such small numbers or with such restricted distribution or specialized habitat requirements that they could easily become threatened within Massachusetts." As stated above, Hanscom Field has been documented to support grasshopper sparrow (T) (Ammodramus savannarum) and the upland sandpiper (E) (Bartramia longicauda). No avian species of special concern (SC) are reported to exist at Hanscom Field. In 1996, a series of grassland management recommendations were implemented at Hanscom Field together with a limited haying operation. While the management strategies were noted to result in an increase in grassland birds, the program was suspended in 1999 due to a dramatic increase in bird strikes (notably barn swallows) at Hanscom. Recently, in addition to requirements pursuant to MESA, there has been ongoing interest by the Conservation Commissions of the Hanscom Area Towns, through the recent 2002 - 2006 Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) process, to establish a more formalized Grassland Management Program for Hanscom Field. The grassland management recommendations described herein have been developed with consideration of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Advisory Circular 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near Airports, which states that "caution should be exercised to ensure that land use practices on or near airports do not enhance the attractiveness of the area to hazardous wildlife." January 2004 4 dA a wa�Ur '� i ✓ul �'� � I b �° r� �`��'`�`�' �� ( � � � d�, m as r �vr. V�' ri*"btp '�Epp ��'"�i♦�` +���; � ( �i °�Y �.�' Jr f �„ d jd '�` ar r eP Hanscom Reld dd ' 1� ru= 'a �,u d ,' ''�' t �•,� r "�F ¢'1 - m * P dk` A�� wr Ni " 11 " ''vd Nix; m" 9a ! ✓ „�'��, 6 d y Yn �i ri VV g/ w� "M ...... IN mf s p d✓k4 � 2 dM� , t " n iP`r '`X ,a; d .,.w � �r I � ✓ �'d ;��yu I ^� pr l� � an` � ( �ti'Wl�`„�� w� ry i ✓ � � � �,�"n � �+ d r+r«k � v urdr.,�u��� �dl" ""�� 'P� '� �' "%" �✓� I V"�� 'W r yl �I � �', �n4 Wti. �f,,�d'f ub } �N �' i ,( � ;� 4 �fi " Ip A m a , q Grassland Management Plan - Hanscom Field Figure 2 NHESP Priority Habitats (PH) of Rare Species Sou rce; N H ES P Heritage Atlas (1 ith Edition, July 2003) January 2004 5 Grassland Management Program Goals and Objectives The goal of this program is to provide safe operating conditions at Hanscom Field and the conservation of listed grassland bird species. In this manner, the grassland management program strives to maintain appropriate habitat that is adequately and safely separated from airport operations. Field evidence suggests that properly managed grasslands can, in fact, reduce bird hazards at airports. According to MA Audubon guidance found at i ftp //vma i,nass,aa.jaiubon oa'g,/Fia-ds..__ ,__Beyccigid,/(.=u assla'id._ "Mowing is essential in grasslands surrounding airfields to prevent growth of woody vegetation and comply with airport safety regulations. However, mowing can be manipulated to reduce mowing costs and benefit grassland birds. Ground-nesting birds found nesting at airfields should not pose a threat to aircraft because of their small size and low direct flight; in addition, managing for these species by leaving some areas unmowed during the summer can help discourage large flocking birds that prefer fields of very short grass, such as gulls, crows, and Canada geese, and are more likely to damage aircraft." Based upon information developed for the Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan 2002-2006, resources available through NHESP, MA Audubon and other sources, a set of grassland management techniques have been developed for Hanscom Field, with the specific goal of managing grasslands at Hanscom primarily for Grasshopper sparrows and upland sandpiper as well as other declining grassland bird species. It is anticipated that the recommendations included herein will be used as guidelines for grassland management at Hanscom Field. The plan has been developed to be flexible enough to allow for the proper management of target hazardous wildlife species without compromising aviation safety. Particular attention will also be paid to the effect that higher grass heights could have on attracting other hazardous wildlife species such as deer, turkey, pheasant, swallows (flocks), raptors, coyote, and fox. If after implementation of these recommendations there is a documented increase in hazardous wildlife, bird strikes or other safety issues, the plan will be immediately modified. However, NHESP will be notified of any modification of this plan and the process will involve timely notification of the Hanscom town conservation commissions. Draft Grassland Management Recommendations The following section outlines a series of grassland management guidelines for implementation at L.G. Hanscom Field (BED) in the towns of Bedford, Concord and Lincoln, MA [Note: there are no grassland areas at BED within the Town of Lexington]. The management of grassland areas on the airport property will be conducted where such management is compatible with airport operations, and does not result in the attraction of wildlife species that are known to be aviation hazards. While the focus of this plan is the careful management of grasslands in close January 2004 6 proximity to airport operating surfaces, the guidelines are also intended to cover selected airport grasslands outside of the fenced airfield areas. Figure 3 illustrates the general limits of grassland management areas. These guidelines will be followed until such time that conditions change at BED or there are indications of increased bird strike hazards or other potential compromises to aviation safety. In the event field conditions necessitate revision of the plan, modification will be implemented immediately to reduce the aviation safety risk. Changes to the plan will be forwarded to the MA Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) and the Hanscom town conservation commissions. 1. Conduct annual pre-breeding season review of grassland management procedures and protected grassland birds identification (upland sandpiper and grasshopper sparrow) with operations staff. 2. Develop an annual mowing schedule that would maintain managed grassland areas at a height of 6-15 inches. 3. Develop a plan of the managed areas The plan shall clearly designate managed areas. Where feasible, the areas shall be separated on the plan using existing, observable features in the field such as signage, hangars, pavement intersections, etc. By using such identifiers on the plan, mowing personnel can more easily identify the different mowing areas in the field. Mowing areas may be adjusted annually based on weather conditions. 4. Mow Runway and Taxiway Safety Areas prior to May 1, when feasible, to avoid conflicts with breeding. [Runway and Taxiway Safety Areas are rectangular areas centered on the runway or taxiway centerlines that include both the runway/taxiway and shoulders. These safety areas are typically level turfed areas that are capable of supporting maintenance and rescue equipment and the occasional passage of an aircraft without causing major damage to the aircraft.] 5. Maintain mowed strips along runways (250-feet from runway centerlines) and taxiways (85-feet from taxiway centerlines) throughout the breeding season to discourage birds from nesting in these areas. Maintenance of the safety areas to the ground elevation is necessary throughout the year to comply with FAA Part 139 certification criteria. The safety areas include all areas immediately adjacent to paved surfaces. Where these adjacent areas are less than 50 feet in width, they will not be included in this management program. Most grassland birds prefer the presence of a range of grass heights within the habitat area. By mowing the airport safety areas throughout the growing season, nesting is discouraged. A spring season mowing of these areas prior to nest building activities will discourage nesting in safety areas. By completing an early season mowing, the breeding pairs will opt for the adjacent undisturbed habitat management areas, thus confining the nesting away from the airport operations. January 2004 7 Figure 3 Hanscom Field Grassland Management Program Areas (IIxI7 COLORMAP INSERT F MOWING AREAS) January 2004 8 6. Restrict mowing during the breeding (nesting and brood-rearing) season. (May 1 to July 31) on designated portions of airfield not directly adjacent to runways and taxiways. (Figure 3). Late July typically represents the end of the brood season for most grassland birds, including those species which commonly produce a second brood such as grasshopper sparrow. 7. Conduct pre-mowing field reconnaissance to observe and mark locations of nesting birds in "critical areas" [see safety area recommendation #4] along runways and taxiways. Mark and maintain 50- foot diameter unmowed buffer around identified nesting areas until birds have fledged. Avoid mowing marked areas until birds have fledged. 8. Inspect grassland management areas for young prior to mowing. The August I" date is to be used as a guide for the onset of mowing of the protected areas. A general inspection of the management unit should be completed by Massport Operations staff to inspect for active nests. Outside agencies such as USDA and or MA Audubon may also be invited to participate in these activities In the event active nests are identified at this time, mark and maintain 50-foot diameter unmowed buffer around identified nesting areas until birds have fledged. Avoid mowing marked areas until birds have fledged. A reinspection scheduled shall be developed to determine when mowing can resume. 9. Avoid, as practical, activities on grassland portions of airfield and approach areas not directly adjacent to runways and taxiways during the breeding season (May 1 to July 31). This would include activities such as parking. January 2004 9 Bibliography http://www.massaudubon.org/Birds_&_Beyond/Grassland_Birds/large.htmI#burning http://www.state.ma.us/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/nhrare.htm Audubon Society of New Hampshire, Upland Sandpipers at Pease, 1995 — Final Report, December 1995. Department of the Airforce, 102D Fighter Wing, Otis ANG Base Grassland Management Plan August 2002 Dufresne-Henry, L.G. Hanscom Field 2002-2006 Vegetation Management Plan, March 2002. Edwards and Kelcey, Worcester Airport 5 Year Plan of Improvements, Draft Supplemental EIS/EIR, December 1994. Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission. Grassland Habitat Management Plan — Carver State Forest, Plymouth Municipal Airport Runway Protection Zone. September 1997. Melvin, S.M. Memo to NHESP File: Updated Recommendations for Managing habitats of breeding upland sandpipers and Grasshopper Sparrows at airfields and military bases in Massachusetts. May 1994 Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas, 11t" Edition, 2003. Rizzo Associates, 2000 L.G. Hanscom Field Environmental Status and Planning Report, July 2002 January 2004 10 i V o ' i r l w ra a „� � ����.i M�r�ii�lu�*�'( I✓`� � ,.' V��,�7Nbl,'iN��f %�i�rr��t � ,�vw :„rm�„; u I/` � r r wrw� :✓a�r a a a ! � �Wr rt ! i i�rw �anlVll' � lrrjl Mai4r J� 11 i A"r' fo l rw! r NqI apY� f lylU la Ga,.! I � ������r rl1 �' '!�!�� v���'�4� � a»•` a �'�� alb , w, 4 9r0�1 1 r a 1 r° �d r � �� tii �"', � � r¢ tiro" 'may✓ ,r �''�' b, �. r rar u i oW .......... L.G. HANSCOM FIELD - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface ............................................. ............................................................................. i 1 Introduction A. Purpose and Goals .................................................................................1-1 B. Setting.....................................................................................................1-2 C. General Information ............ - 2 Airport Protection Zones A. FAA Protected Airspace..........................................................................2-1 B. Identification of Existing Obstructions .......................--..........................2-2 3 Sensitive Environmental Resources A. Rare and Endangered Species.......................... ....................................3-1 B. State and Federal Wetland Resources...................................................3-4 C. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern ................................................3-4 D. Wild and Scenic River Corridors .............................................................3-4 E. Drinking Water Resources/Outstanding Resource Waters .....................3-5 F. Nuisance Vegetation.............................................................................3-10 G. Steep Slopes.........................................................................................3-10 H. Organic Soils.........................................................................................3-10 1. Historic/Archeological Resources..........................................................3-10 J. Closed Landfill Areas............................................................................3-10 4 Vegetation Management A. VMA Descriptions....................................................................................4-1 B. Selection of Vegetation Removal Methods ...........................................4-14 C. Alternatives Analysis.............................................................................4-18 D. Selected Primary Removal Methods.....................................................4-22 E. Selected Secondary Vegetation Management Methods .......................4-26 E-1 Herbicide Application..................................................................4-27 E-2 Prponr-ihQd Burning ....................................................................4-30 E-3 Selective Thinning......................................................................4-31 E-4 Mowing .......................................................................................4-31 F. Yearly Operational Plans ......................................................................4-31 G. Discussion of Environmental Effects.....................................................4-32 5 Mitigation Measures L.G. HANSCOM FIELD W VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDICES A. Wildlife Habitat Assessment Forms B. Herbicide Product Information C. Spill Prevention and Containment Plan D. 1. Vegetation Management Area Map 2. 2009 Vegetation Removal Areas L.G. HANSCOM FIELD - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN LIST OF FIGURES Fire Pare 2-1 FAA-Defined Airspace Protection Zones...........................................................2-3 2-2 Three-Dimensional View of Approach Surface and Approach Light Plane at Runway 11 ................................................2-4 2-3 Example of Obstruction Analysis Point Plot.......................................................2-4 2-4 FAA Missed Approach Graphics........................................................................2-•5 3-1 Estimated Habitats Map.....................................................................................3-3 3-2 FEMA Flood Map, Runway 11 ...........................................................................3-6 3-3 FEMA Flood Map, Runway 29 ...........................................................................3-7 3-4 FEMA Flood Map, Runway 5 .............................................................................3-S 3-5 Public Water Supplies Map................................................................................3-9 L.G. HANSCOM FIELD - VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN LIST OF TABLES 3-1 Summary of the Environmental Constraints Analysis........................................3-2 4-1 Summary of Vegetation Management Areas................................ 4-3 through 4-6 4-2 Available Vegetation Management Methods ...................................................4-17 4-3 Summary of Vegetation Management Areas...................................................4-19 4-4 Primary Recommended Vegetation Removal Methods...................................4-23 4-5 Yearly Operational Plan...................................................................................4-32 5-1 Sensitive Areas that Require Specified Staging Areas and Access Routes ......5-4 5-2 Brush Pile / Snag Creation................................................................................5-5 L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Update PREFACE This document is an update to the Vegetation Management Plan for L.G. Hanscom Field. A vegetation management plan (VMP) provides a strategy to be employed by airport operators for prioritizing removal of vegetation which currently penetrates protection zones, and for preventing other vegetation from penetrating protection zones in the future so as to avoid repetitive, large --scale removal projects. Vegetation removal in wetlands at public use airports is regulated by the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (310 CMR %00). Within these regulations are provisions for several types of"limited projects," one of which is specifically for the purpose of removing vegetation penetrations from protected airspace (310 CMR 10.24(7)(c)(5) and 10.53(3)(n)). These limited project provisions were enacted as part of the Wetlands Protection Act in January 1994, with the latest revision effective October 6, 1997. A guidance document for conservation commssions relative to VMPs and the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act was prepared by the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission, Massport, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Environmental Protection in 2004. This document, entitled "Vegetation Management at Airports; a Guidance Document to Conservation Commissions" contains important information on the purpose and need for VMPs, the selection of removal and maintenance methods, effects of removal on wetland functions and values, and a discussion of VMPs relative to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Regulations. It is available at http://www.massaeronautics.org/downloads/macfiles/AirportVMPConsCommGuidanceDoCO3 -24-04.pdf. The limited project provisions were the result of a Generic Environmental Impact Report (EOEA No. 8978) produced by the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission (MAC) and the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) which was finalized on August 31, 1993. The Certificate for this GEIR was issued on October 15, 1993. As a follow-up to the GEIR and the limited project provisions, the MAC, Massport and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) prepared and submitted an update to the 1993 GEIR in November 1999 titled "GEIR Update/Expanded GENF-Airport Vegetation Management." This GENF (Generic Environmental Notification Form) was a requirement of the 1993 Certificate and served as a progress report on vegetation management projects sponsored by the MAC and Massport that had occurred in Massachusetts to date. A second GEIR Update and Expanded GENF was prepared by MAC and Massport in June 2006 providing another progress report on the statewide VMP process. The existing limited project provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act require that Notices of Intent filed for vegetation removal projects at public use airports include a five-year vegetation management plan (VMP)with the following elements: a. purpose and goals statement, b. identification of airport protective zones, c, identification of proposed vegetation management areas within the protective zones, d. identification and prioritization of future vegetation removal projects. Based on recommendations from the 1993 GEIR and the 1999 and 2006 GENFs, vegetation management plans, or VMPs, have been increasingly expanded to include comprehensive background information that is collected and analyzed during their development. In addition, November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. i LG. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Update an open, public planning process was added to the VMP development, which is conducted prior to the submission of a Notice of Intent for a specific vegetation removal project identified in the VMP. This open, public planning process uses several forums for notification, disseminating information, and for receiving input from the general public and from other interested agencies. L.G. Hanscom Field (Hanscom) is owned and operated by the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport). Penetrations to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) protected airspace exist at Hanscom. This VMP serves as a guide to effectively and responsibly manage their removal and to deter the development of new obstructions while protecting the environment. The VMP will allow Massport to comply with FAA airspace regulations, orders and advisory circulars regarding navigational aids, approach light systems and published approach procedures at Hanscom in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act. The Limited Project provisions state that airport vegetation removal projects "shall not include the construction of new airport facilities or the expansion or relocation of existing airport uses." This vegetation management plan totally complies with this stipulation. The VMP, all associated permitting (through the Notice of Intent process) and vegetation removal and management will not alter the current permitted operation of the airport or enable larger or louder or more aircraft to use the airport. It is important to understand that the VMP does not serve as a permit to remove vegetation from wetlands. It is a guidance and strategy document that includes all vegetated areas in and around the airport that may be subject to any vegetation management in relation to protected airspace. It is a comprehensive document to be used by the owners of an airport, the sponsors of any vegetation removal project, and those involved with preparing and effecting any vegetation removal at the airport, whether in uplands or wetlands. It is also an important element of the Notice of Intent when a specific project moves to the permitting phase for work in wetlands. Where this VMP provides general management techniques for various vegetated areas of the airport, the Notice of Intent for a specific removal project will address the more detailed information necessary regarding removal techniques and site access restrictions. In accordance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, this VMP provides guidance for a five-year period. As it is updated, the document will continue to include the subsequent five- year period and builds upon information learned and from proven successes from the previous period. A committed maintenance program is part of this five-year plan. The evolution of the VMP is to be based on results of vegetation removal and management efforts, findings of monitoring efforts, changes in available management techniques, changes in site conditions, changes in environmental regulations and practices, and renewed obstruction analysis. November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. ii L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Update CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION In 2002, Massport prepared a Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) to guide the maintenance of protected airspace at L.G. Hanscom Field. The VMP served as a guide for current and future vegetation removal projects conducted at the airport. This overall guidance document provides necessary background information for each permitting and maintenance cycle that will occur on an approximately 5-year basis as updates to the airspace analysis and project environmental permitting are completed. Upon completion of each cycle, this VMP will be updated to reflect changes in site conditions, lessons learned from previous removal projects, and changes in regulations. The majority of the VMP information will remain per the original document. This revision is the 2008 Update of the Vegetation Management Plan for L.G. Hanscom Field. It is the first update to the original VMP completed in 2002 and reflects information obtained and lessons learned as a result of the initial removal project and associated maintenance program implemented from 2003 through 2007. Updates are made to the VMP when each new five-year plan is developed. Massport will provide copies of the updated document to the four abutting towns' conservation commissions as part of the permitting process. The Conservation Commission meetings will provide opportunities for the public to review the revisions and ask questions of Massport officials. A. Purpose and Goads The purpose of the VMP for L. G. Hanscom Field is to comply with FAA regulations and Massachusetts General Laws regarding protected airspace. Specifically, vegetation removal and management must be undertaken to comply with the following: Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace; FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design; FAA Order 6750.16B, Siting Criteria for Instrument Landing Systems; FAA Order 8260.313, United States Standards for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In addition to the above-referenced standards, the following standards were reviewed with respect to protected airspace: 1. FAA Order 6850.2A, Chapter 2, regarding approach lighting clearance criteria; 2. FAA Order 6850.2A, Chapter 3, regarding Visual Approach Slope Indicator criteria; 3. FAA Advisory Circular 50/5345-28D, Precision Approach Path Indicator criteria. These standards are for systems ancillary to instrument landing systems covered under FAA Order 6750.16B. The goal of the 2008 Update to the VMP for L. G. Hanscom Field is to maintain airport safety in accordance with FAA requirements through the removal of vegetation that currently penetrates or is expected to penetrate protected airspace in and around the airport, and to create low- growing vegetative communities within critical areas to facilitate long-term management of the areas. A secondary goal is to minimize the extent and magnitude of future removal projects. To that end, this VMP will serve as a guide for vegetation removal and management practices that November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1-1 L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Update will minimize the potential for adverse impacts to the environment. It also provides suggestions to adequately mitigate for such impacts. While the VMP is a guide for the current and future vegetation removal projects at the airport, individual permit applications under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act may need to be prepared for specific removal projects. Details regarding wetland impacts, project access routes, staging areas, etc., will be described in the permit applications for each project. Performed in concert with an obstruction analysis which identified vegetation heights based on aerial photogrammetry, this VMP is the result of a comprehensive and exhaustive environmental review of the entire airfield landscape. The development of a pre-established set of vegetation management techniques tailored to specific areas of the airfield will allow Massport to maintain L.G. Hanscom Field in an efficient and environmentally responsible manner. B. Setting Hanscom Field is located in the Towns of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln, Massachusetts (see U.S.G.S. Site Locus, Figure 1-1). The facility comprises approximately 1,300 acres of land north of Route 2A and west of Route 128. Topographically, the airport is located within a broad, level plain with intermittent low hills to the south and east. Two perennial stream valleys extend through the property. Elm Brook flows from south to north in the approach to Runway 11, and the Shawsheen River flows from south to north in the approach to Runway 29. Kiln Brook, a perennial tributary to the Shawsheen River, flows from east to west within the approach of Runway 29. Although VMP work will occur within the watershed of this brook; it is not located on airport property. The airport consists of two paved runways. Runway 11-29 is 7,001 feet long and 150 feet wide, and Runway 5-23 is 5,106 feet long and 150 feet wide. South of the airport, and entirely outside of the VMP project limits, is Minuteman National Historical Park. North of the airport and directly off of the Runway 23 end is the ,Jordan Conservation Area and the Hartwell Town Forest; two properties owned by the Town of Bedford for conservation and recreation purposes. Airspace management could involve both Bedford properties as discussed in this VMP. November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1-2 L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Update G. General Information General Information Summary for the 2002-2022 L.G. Hanscom Field VMR Airport Na L.G. Hanscom Field Airport Location Bedford, Concord, Lexington, Lincoln - Massachusetts I ContactMr. Tom Ennis, Senior Project Manager/Senior Planner Telephone_ (617) 568-3546 Air • • • Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) Owner Address One Harborside Drive East Boston, MA 02128-2909 3 Airport Director Ms. Barbara Patzner Massport Civil Air Terminal 200 Hanscom Drive Bedford, MA 01730 I Telephone: (781) 869-8000 i E November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 1-3 Source. Office of Geographic and Environmental information ORE I MEADOWS (t�RassIS),Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive r✓ebh �� ,'l - tt�p+ri�-` `— _` "�"`" Office of En "RE ergy and EnWronmental Affairs WILD I ft RrFuGE "�„�a' 1 6 w} 4i a ..� �'�.h�--�'.+✓'.,�„,�, C 4 W,' `�i �''1'r�i�yTM'�.,�""'�C ��, '�� *""✓,�', m a F d. . r &,gym ,• f Mq t" � j� ��"� � "�W f � � a' e d ✓i ,��, W�: �,, 6! ��1'ry"� !"-� ✓ � � � ',V yu�x „":' ��m�W.mw'm� ` ^'� � ^� ' � pk Y a ev✓ �" tau m X,taa""I to.., ' fir✓ "w� ' � ' ✓ r ✓" � F �u i s �"' L � � "f W �"�'Q Y40, "° AW ,yi .. ,� flm `i.+ at ,✓ 5t^.wv�ur' `I y V '� 'w�wra ?t iu r ��, s..mJ,w"yid ; +M`""n, "; V✓ !,,.�,a,-m +4, t ,.. gg�a ✓""� ��"✓ M � w "r t^, � � "�r`y,� �9 �, �U�r".m ro i N r �'� .; 1'r �� 9amuw� I r r �, r ,w <:""✓✓ h i + 7. ,:; ✓� � m ✓ ✓ r n rY J,`F c �7 #4w ' ✓^V .06 d ,n r ". err"""" „d� ✓ r ..�.... _, °2 it i t x ...,_ �� �,I„,�C�G V�t MCP,' I a�i',.m�'� � i a"r'��••.11'yy �:.'^ 9 95 '�� g �" �"^,��" i ri 19, .rC '�, �. ��,A ",�✓" "5^� �a x �"y � .,�'' ✓ air f�) ✓� C, � r, ��� , 8 7` a / 1r ,N """ •ta M 0 i `o �\ "i " ' Nht' !X.""r'S F' 3 p I I :ro wmwww�4� r�:� w � � d'S t V � Va e� o"" �°" µ�d° tJ n � !�✓y1� 6 t Y A " dF ,d✓ ✓,,�W iC 4�M'G"✓ Wt�?"4ri Y ( 9°9�q a ^�,,,r r ,✓ �,as y�y C/" i 71 3 I� �'C �� � ✓} � u � a� � r ,�✓ +. y4 ,�' ," I1 ,� � r��mrrr""���° „� w" ��"�� "✓ �� �+ a" �����°� � Id�o- ""� '�CK j r„� ����'�' �r 4 �r vF i i.",r C d s tit a,/✓ a r ,( �.d mC�'� fi✓° �" ✓ �" -� � ��. ,� `' V,�y�;�� �„ "S r�� �,',,r�^� nrrrl y�; '�✓;�u� � ,w Jaeµ. CGs �trp mJ m~ y 'm �i { h ,�✓ p .."� ✓."y } r✓, uG�Mao", "�.' ✓,.:. ,- '+w mr �^"."� """ ,y � Cv �`r a ✓m aq t�ru ✓ , ���� ma ,�� u ..... � 1 r✓a w ✓. V, ✓� �✓ ;,rC. i„ �� i� J a r M � � v ,rti�W �� �Y "', 1 till ✓ � �J�n�1C��„�.B ui ➢.t,,� Y un w,ar v d a •" ,� "fi i �r '. �W J" x rumDf Jp+ 4 IW w ✓ 4 m t,t�a W,✓"' ( M d � ~rkY �i a� w k r� yr r u u,! '' � 4^��A iN� ✓ a �Ca ra& q � + C ¢ l�a N � p'4 ✓ d �r' �� ,e P+b,wh w� y"f, ! ✓ r P� ',,,.✓ / v' 4 l "' rw,w„ ✓ Gy °r q dd° pi' y ,, "w m✓ mIma i I�mii� e1�` II t,r „✓ ,� r i� 1 ? ✓ �"✓ m �✓ r w 4 ,r t 7 ^j^^m+ w ' � �i �a �,.,,,; tb h`Uk�4���„ C ��;�"✓ r✓rY°�w� �'"'�'� �,y�l � �i �t� i � � � .�,r�1����,,�+ d'sw7lrf i. p �. ,�n s ", �, ,,✓� 1,' ,'l �+( 4�i ;'��' yl i�, ! i �/✓� NtC � it ��F ✓ � . +R ;nv �' G """;,..9✓✓ ;� "'�°t ,�"✓,r ,„ J y p c;�; +!F E' s "�h ✓ r" �'4 i m ,;, ;� �whw� �t�r� ,,, � �'' i ~�"a � wA „?tr w✓ ��t � � i �dau�, � n , �"yr � 7w ""�"�" it, .� '� i✓. m pct �y �7N g ✓✓& . ,r.„ rt'-,,";inn s„ ,� �,�`,- ', � �_�urr'� ✓,✓ ik ' L.G. HA 1 G ►f FIELD P'ra'ect No. /952/0330 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN' En Mgr, SGl SITE LOCUS Scare V=3000' gate SEPT 2008 rd tavafseaaa- BEDFORD FIGURE �-"I MASSACHUSETTS A L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan update CHAPTER 2: AIRPORT PROTECTION ZONES A. FAA 'ECI rots.clis—d Airspace The FAA has defined numerous protected airspace "surfaces," or protection zones, in and around airports. The surfaces important to vegetation management at L. G. Hanscom Field are as follows: 1. Primary Surface - a surface longitudinally centered on each runway and extending 200 feet beyond each runway end. For Runway 5-23, this surface is 500 feet wide. For Runway 11-29, which has a precision instrument approach landing system, the primary surface is 1,000 feet wide. The elevation of this surface at any given location is the same as the nearest point on the centerline of the runway. Any object, including vegetation, which is within the primary surface and is at a higher elevation than the runway centerline, is a penetration of navigable airspace. 2. Approach Surfaces- sloping areas beginning at the limits of the primary surface at each runway end and extending outward and upward. The surface widens at a prescribed angle as it extends outward. The slope depends on the type of navigation instruments present for each particular runway approach. The approach slopes for Runway 11-29 and Runway 23 are 34:1, meaning the surface rises one foot in elevation for each 34 feet outward from the end of the primary surface. The approach slope for Runway 5 is 20:1. Within the approach surface areas of Runway 11-29 are approach light planes, which are 400 feet wide and 2,500 feet long beginning at the runway thresholds. Vegetation within the approach light planes must be maintained below the elevations of the approach lights to ensure that pilots have an unobstructed view of the lights when landing. The slopes of the approach light planes are 50:1. 3. Transitional Surfaces - sloping areas extending outward and upward at right angles to the runway centerline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of 7 to 1 from the sides of the primary surface and from the sides of the approach surfaces. 4. Missed Approach Surface--sloping areas of varying degree utilized for landing during instrument flight rule (IFR) conditions. If a pilot does not visually locate the landing runway when an established "minimum" elevation and distance from the runway is achieved, the attempted landing must be aborted and a missed approach must be flown. Figure 2-1 shows the areas of the primary, approach, and transitional surfaces at L.G. Hanscom Field. Figure 2-2 shows a three-dimensional view of the approach surface and the approach light plane at the Runway 11 end. Figure 2-3 shows graphics of typical precision missed approach surfaces from FAA Order 8620.313, U.S. Standard for Terminal Procedures (TERPS). These areas are the basis for the vegetation management areas that have been defined in this VMP. Runway designations and threshold locations have not changed from previous projects, nor will they change as a result of any vegetation management proposed in this VMP. November 2008 2-1 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Update Prior to the development of each VMP update, Massport completes an extensive analysis of the existing obstructions at L.G.Hanscom Field using aerial photogrammetry (obtained in 2007) to determine object heights and ground elevations. The photogrammetry data included the elevations of the ground surface, structures, vegetative canopy height, and in sparsely vegetated areas, individual trees. The photogrammetry data is compared to three dimensional computer modeling of the primary, approach, transitional and missed approach surfaces at the airport based upon existing runway lengths, widths, approach categories, and navigational aid types and locations. The model assigns elevations to all of the protected airspace surfaces and compares them to the identified object elevations. Where vegetation is sparse, individual tree heights were identified from the aerial photogrammetry. Where the cover is dense, it is not feasible to determine the height of each stem. In these areas, the tallest point is determined within a 50 foot by 50 foot grid. Field analysis is then used to supplement this data to determine whether an identified penetration represents one or more actual trees, saplings and/or shrubs. The photogrammetry data used for the VMP update was collected in June 2007. Copies of the VMP update will be provided to the four towns' libraries and conservation commissions. The comparison of elevations between the protected airspace surfaces and vegetation around L.G. Hanscom Field allows for a determination of the location and extent of penetrations to these surfaces. A two-dimensional point plot of the analysis is prepared to show all points that are currently penetrating the protected airspace as well as those that are within ten feet below each individual surface. (Figure 2-4 shows an example of a portion of a point plot from the airspace analysis from the 2007 photogrammetry data.) Tables are then generated to describe the type of penetration (i.e. vegetation, pole, building), the elevation of the top of the object in feet above mean sea level, the ground elevation, and the elevation of the object with respect to the protected airspace surface. Woody vegetation within ten feet below protected airspace is expected to become a penetration within five years and so is included in each removal project. After five years, it is recommended that the vegetation management plan be updated with new aerial photogrammetry point data. Through careful comparison of the penetration data with the various vegetation species and cover types, it is possible to determine the extent of the required vegetation removal. In many areas, only sporadic individual penetrations need removal. In other areas, significant understories may be preserved beneath the taller penetrating vegetation. The relative height of the protected airspace and the ground is important. Where the protected airspace is only a few feet above the ground, for example, removal of woody vegetation to ground level may be necessary, and a management method may then be employed to encourage lower growing vegetation to thrive, Where the airspace elevation is well above the ground, management for a taller vegetative community is possible. Upon completion of the original (1998) obstruction analysis, the vegetation types and the environmental resources that exist within the study area were identified for the original VMP. For each update, the environmental resources are re-investigated for any potential changes. Sensitive environmental resources within the project area are discussed in Chapter 3. November 2008 2-2 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Update " r r a i �s Figure Neven7,ber q8 - tantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G, Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Update c r / 11I � '�✓uc,`�'^' � r ���"Y "�� i ' I .,a �W; I�� I i Figure 2 r k �7 r I J 'i V ✓�/ ���My ✓ ' f/r.� dl��1� J,yX ! Id�I�F y �.��� Y ��J��,Iv� r 1rr a rrrrr r j . i' ���� 1r� li '(� RAMMIA MMIZWK RZE" riMN KEY g i r NCOdfGWY'E�I ,�, �i rl asr wrouawernt`rurafw��:Pww'Pn„ i ^T r i �p i >` p1i/ rr/ v4 eld/<lai�Jdk�aGa� .Rl,'MInsD„„ a�..r Figure 3 November 2008 2-4 Stant c Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field, Vegetation Management Plan ► pdate 8260311(.1 i()19 .5115/02 (:3) Conmpara the ROC'surt"lice elevation aa1 the obstacles penetrate the 0:1 surface, lake action to clearammce&unit with the 40:1 surface elowat,ion. srlh'nhrate IN Penetration. (a) if the computed 40:1 surface eicvation is d. 'rile charted missed approach andtude is the equtaf ko or greater Wain the ROC surface cicvation,a higher or time pneticninary cfnrrted missed approach eiirub-in.hold evaluation is NOT required. allilude or the MT IA esniblished uaader para- graph 274e(3 Xb). (by 4f die computed 40:1 suri'aa e elevation is less loan the ROC sutrace clevalaon a ehni an-hold caaaluatumn IS required FAA Order 7130 3 holding Ir trinm�uea CNYafructwon r -.. 4p a h a ..... Pattern Criteria paragraph 3 specifies higher speed et S,das groups and foiv th5ru ,#aagar r anplet sixes are usually res� PPa necessary for die chrnh-in-hold c,aluahon These C9ozran�anflnal , templates ilia), require an increase in lvlliA under TI RPS,Paragraph 293a. If tiais evaluation requires all msm �. increase in the MI IA,evaluate the rmeav altitude using the higher speed group specified in paragraph 35. This grlfmr�etl7. a"4B(AtlC`l!rC'��i�S4�C��AI'PIAt?A(l��l sequence of review shall he used until wire;ivfN lA tiwaus OBSTACLE CLEARANCE par 274, not increase,then'thee 40.1 sur(aee is re-evaluated. if &19,0 0IN gtA s 7 '9-7 h Primary Area i wee 1 s�i d u � i Kr 1WCIC:P CCl)lRSE GUIDANCE IS AVAILABLE Fiyura I& MISSED APPROACH CROSS Sf^.CTtON. 'Pnr 274, 27S, T(JGtiVING h)tSSFI)APPROACH ARLA. (See a. The dimensions and shape. of This area are Volwnv 3 fear sl,Tccial provi&ono). if a tumn or more tlian affeewed by tlircu variables: 15'from(lie I hC is required,is lunihmp,or combination straight and turning inissed approach area musk be (1) 'lWidth,(off9nal approack area al the MAP. constructed. (2) Ali eategori"oaf salrcvaft authorirad to use NOTI'': I/ tho 11.47' szuhee uNsucivrecl arith the Cie procedure. 1141410.4' is less !been 400 fiwfN conourl a cojobbzatdean swalAIltt ond"¢awarinq nvdmd cagapvacrh (3) Number of degrees of writ required by the (Yee,pvreo iw)alm 277)to eae^runroraelnry climb as 4�00 procedure. .Ietet chore onic telora=n zone elevalinn,tu'r`caa-to tarn, Page 28 Chap 2 Par 274 Figure+4 November 20082-5 St ntec Consulting Services Inc.. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Update Page intentionally left blank. November 2008 2-6 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Update CHAPTER 3: SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Preparation of this VMP update involved the investigation of various environmental resources which could affect the design of the vegetation management program. Data were collected from state, federal, and municipal agencies as well as from field research. The following is a list of protected environmental resources investigated as part of the preparation of this VMP update. • Rare and Endangered Species (state and federal) • State and Federal Wetland Resources • Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (state-defined) • Wild and Scenic River Corridors (U.S. Dept. of the Interior) • Drinking Water Supplies (Massachusetts Water Quality Classification) • Nuisance Vegetation • Steep Slopes • Organic Soils • Historic/Archaeological Resources • Closed Landfill Areas Table 3-1 provides a summary of the results of the environmental resources investigation. A. Fare and Endangered SpeGieS The most recent edition of the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (October 1, 2006) was consulted to determine whether this proposed VMP update will adversely impact any state-listed rare or endangered wildlife species. The Atlas indicates the presence of three certified vernal pools within Vegetation Management Area (VMA) 2 at the Runway 11 end in the Town of Concord on the Estimated Habitat Map (Figure 3-1). Additionally, a non-certified vernal pool area exists just north of the Runway 29 end within VMA 6 in the Town of Bedford. The Atlas also shows a priority site designation (site PH-461 pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act) for much of the non-wooded areas within the airport property (Figure 3-1). The identified species within the priority site designation include Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), and Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus palfiatus). Due to the presence of protected wildlife species within and adjacent to the proposed clearing areas, coordination with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (MNHESP) during the preparation of each removal project under this VMP update will be required. Coordination will include the submission of a copy of the Notice of Intent (Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act) for each removal project to the MNHESP for review and comment. Note that Massport has developed and enacted a grassland bird management plan as a part of the implementation of the original VMP. Chapter 5 includes project mitigation measures designed to protect, preserve, and, in places, enhance the habitat provided for state-listed rare wildlife species. Vegetation within each of these identified habitat areas will be managed based upon the selected management technique described in Chapter 4 and shown on the VMA Map in Appendix F. However, the management within the identified sensitive habitat will be completed with additional mitigation measures, so that the obstruction is addressed, but the habitat is protected. November 2008 3 1 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Update Table 3-1: Summary of the environmental constraints analysis Protected Resource Present or Comments Absentatthe airport Rare and Endangered Present State-level threatened and special concern species Species have been identified within the project limits. Three certified vernal pools exist within the property limits at the RW 11 end (Concord), and one non-certified pool exists at the RW 29 end (Bedford). Notice of Intent review by the Mass, Natural Heritage Program required. State 1 Federal Present Full delineation of wetlands within the VMAs has Wetlands been completed for this VMP Areas of Critical Absent No ACECs occur within the project area according to Environmental Concern the Department of Conservation and Recreation (formerly Ma. Dept. of Environmental Management). Wild and Scenic Rivers Absent The Shawsheen River and tributaries are not listed as Wild and Scenic by the National Park Service (NPS) according to the most recent update of the NPS database. Public Water Supplies Present Elm Brook at the Runway 11 end and much of the surrounding land is within the gone II of a public water supply wellfield. The Zone II designation indicates that it is a contributing watershed to the well. Nuisance Vegetation Present European Buckthorn Common Reed and Purple Loosestrife exist within both wetland and upland areas on the project site. Buckthorn is a dominant shrub in most upland and wetland wooded areas of _ the airport property, Steep Slopes Present Designated access routes and sensitive clearing techniques have been specified for the Shawsheen River and Elm Brook corridors which contain steep bank areas. Organic Soils Present Full delineation of wetlands within the VMAs. has been completed for this VMP and areas of soft soils identified. Historical/Archeological Present No reduction in visual buffer between Minuteman Resources National Historical Park and aircraft operating areas will be allowed, Closed landfill Areas Present No equipment or vehicles will be allowed on or near landfill caps to ensure no damage is done to these areas. November 2008 3 2 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. la Source: Office of Geographic and Environmerntai Information �a qti peg h (Maaad,IS),Commonwealth ofMassachusetts Executive e �N ti � pffiae of Energy and Environmental Affairs w�1" g1 41, q r s'p r e . I K;��✓ 7 ,.r4' w^N' uF '„� ^"" r�4e5nw rc t 'F tg�,. .a.�" tl w "` i' " J �q b° J r q 1 v a r d h aN ur a S+ r 3� sf � —h +t 1nrtr tN r � ru Jlv m r u i„ r it ;y; , It rw �tr "1i'�;�F^^,yrW`, "sw," ),A, N " %' "'Csi' u" " �¢4n „!r 5a k i �; o 5 k Y d VAX t y,td� ,ww�w; rw' u :arP� ?Py �^.`^',o � �; L`� d �' qbr Vol e, , ^ .W^ w 8 j � ^' xw � gars { ) � � q " r t✓N �,"`�a Ad%t '�r `'"w 1 6N L *' r, r s x d'� ^�Nd ✓�, �y � w^ 4u *� t. e � +�' � ry,w„, LrvN a " + 4 ti. T A 5 w. 4 wrf, s�,"N RG , ik �r '' 'r w•.w a " "'V"�� ",% „, ,s, Y . ;iw y 4'a 4q a r °rd d .r f r r d r p✓' o f w11 ,,,,, rrl 9N wwp d4a wsw w. Y. Y��JviIn"m r Y w"da P k �ir'�a1M9G�m " 4� 1 r «n �w«rr �Yy / 1 , r1 on „�.. m _ 4 ql N uid q , &I 4 t � t � L ' n v " 4 NHESP 2008 Certified Vernal Pools �" SM111111111 � " NH ESP 2007 Priority Habitats of Rare Species CHESP 2007stimated Habitats of Pare► ildl fe , r r n w L.G. HANSCOM FIELD Pro'tecl No. 198210330 �r ' VEGETATION: MANAGEMENT PLAN Prr�'. M r. Cat ESTIMATED AND PRIORITY HABITATS Scale 1„=3000' M@tt@ pb..%':Amuh...U FIGURE -1 7al(4%})650.d]7G I,GAE IJI-%ad�1.! M/ S wH ETTS A)'ate SEPT. 2008 Y4 +'h'4'WY 919M1EBC:CtlM1% L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Update B. State and Federal Wetland Resources Implementation of the VMP update requires the identification and delineation of the state and federal wetland resources within the VMAs. Many of the VMAs contain penetrations that are located within wetland areas, buffer zones of state wetlands, riverfront areas of perennial streams, or 100-year flood zones. Consequently, environmental permits are required to implement the VMP. If soil alteration within wetlands is proposed, a permit is required pursuant to Sections 401 and 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq.). Any proposed work within wetlands or wetland buffers requires a permit pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MGL c. 131 s. 40). A requirement of the permit process is the delineation of the wetland resource areas pursuant to the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (1987) and the manual Delineating Bordering Vegetated Wetlands pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act(1995). Wetlands within the VMAs were delineated by certified professional wetland scientists for this VMP update. The field delineation was completed during the growing season, in August 2001 and updated in July 2008. The limit of vegetated wetland was marked in the field using sequentially numbered surveyor flagging (pink and blue) tied to vegetation. These flags were refreshed for the 2008 update within those areas pertinent to the next removal project. To provide for quick identification of the wetland flags, each delineation point was marked with "witness" flags tied above and below the numbered flag to provide for easy observation in the field. These wetland areas were approved by the conservation commission of each municipality through the Abbreviated Notice of Resource Area Delineation (ANRAD) process in December 2001. The limits of the wetlands are shown on the Vegetation Management Areas map provided in Appendix F of this VMP. In addition to vegetated wetland, other wetland resources exist on the site as defined in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Regulations (MWPA). Both Elm Brook and the Shawsheen River contain 100-year floodplain identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). These areas are shown in Figures 3-2 through 3-4. A floodplain is a resource area known as "bordering land subject to flooding" in the MWPA. Additionally, these waterways are both shown to be perennial streams on the United States Geological Survey Quadrangle (Figure 1-1) and thus contain a 200-foot riverfront area measured outward from each bank. Additionally, the area between the banks below the average mean water level is defined as "land under water". C. areas of Critical Environmental Concern No Areas of Critical Environmental Concern are located within close proximity to the airport according to the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation Website, 2008. D. Wild and Scenic River Corridors The United States Department of the Interior National Park Service maintains a database on the wild and scenic river program which provides the regulatory status of all rivers which have been designated since the implementation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Shawsheen River, Elm Brook, and Kiln Brook are not listed in the most recent update (2006) of the database. November 2008 3 4 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. LG. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Update E. Drinking Water Resources f Outstanding Resource Waters The on-site waterways are listed as Class B waters according to the most recent edition of the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards indicating that they are not used as public drinking surface water supplies. While the wetlands and waterways within the VMAs are not considered to be drinking water resources, the three certified vernal pool areas at the Runway 11 end are considered to be Outstanding Resource Waters pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act, and are thus afforded the same protection as Class A waters, and are subject to the "no alteration" provisions of the Section 401 regulations. The Towns of Bedford, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln were consulted to determine the presence of public or private water supply wells within 400 feet of those VMAs where herbicide applications are proposed as a secondary vegetation management technique (see Chapter 4). Based on the lists of registered private wells maintained by the towns' boards of health, and discussions with the individual town water departments, the following information is provided: The Town of Bedford maintains only three public water supply wells located along Shawsheen Road near the Page Road intersection. The proposed herbicide applications are located outside of the Zone 1 and Zone II boundaries of this wellfield. The remaining Town water is provided by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA). No private potable water supply wells were identified within the Town of Bedford adjacent to the site. A Zone II delineation of a public water supply wellfield includes a portion of the airport property along Elm Brook at the Runway 11 end (figure 3-5). The Town of Lexington obtains municipal water exclusively from the MWRA, and does not maintain any active municipal wells adjacent to the airport. The business park at the Runway 29 end is serviced by municipal water and does not maintain an on-site potable water supply well. The Town of Lincoln municipal water supply is located in the southern end of the Town. The Zone I and Zone II boundaries do not extend into any VMAs. Private water supply wells exist within Lincoln along Airport and Old Bedford Roads, however no herbicide applications will occur within 400 feet of these areas. Based on the investigation of water supplies within the project area, the use of state-approved herbicide applications as a secondary management technique in the identified VMAs is allowable under the present drinking water regulations and the Massachusetts Pesticide Control Act, November 2008 3 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Source: Office of Geographic and Environmental Information o. (MassGIS),Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive i Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs i i��h" � i rd° � � � ��✓ a *i � / � er OF u, N�r v t w w Ir, ry �+nA.m. N�V Mp °f, s 9 �(IUJ i I ii n ( r S q �� � �74 n" � Np •mq '�� W o aN /f ti° k j li � I 71, a or Nt e i 1 A it q be Legend ......... 6 rvNuyu Potential 100-Year Flood Zone 100-Year weed Zone e. u �'rrs'ec1 Na. 19S21QSCt L,G. HANSCCMIELf� VEGETATION MANAGEMENT`PLAN Pry. Mar. 5 0 Sta_. F� FL MAPUNWAY 11 Scale 1"'=5010' �t Wft.pm Nbwmhwatt¢ Cate SEPT, 2008 �m rssn. FIGURE 3-2 �,� 6 BEDFORD MASSACHUSETTS A mt)584.«47r Source: Office of Geographic and Environmental information ( assGIS)"Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs �w IN %gyp' 00100 . t"000 Ve 01 "#4 n '� �,;, as r��°,��a'"� ,��P" ✓ � �"" � ��""�`'' � m ��' �; -� N +fin "a ' �.." n � � �� �..y „;�,' F�/ �, ���, a➢, 4 t b fa 04, " "" " ✓ �, r�yy Uifr. L', L,,�d'ryry a 0 ' t°a# tNot oo 01 o " n W,HI f u �. wi y a.a, IP 00 aINS Legend � r Potential 100-Ye r Flood Zone o 100-Ye r Fled ZoneN,5%g ,V7 '*, L.G. HANSCOM FIELD Pro'�ct Mo. 19�21 Q33a� VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN ��°' � '�"L t FERIA FLOOD MA r RUNWAY 2 Scale 1""= 1000' 00 Nwa—plan Massathwseltz FIGURE 3,- gate SEPT. 20 r i Gara9s�aaaa� SEC}F . I MASSACHUSETTS A and r �q Source S�I$iI�iXp rtt9ogra is fl��ul�a vino men a l Information r �+ h e �'CI»7t1'V� ,��ryr nf��'�a��'t1�rSJ'y�1nt��l'Or!'prilPkrr��'t"Nk��.q�V�EGprS � p, ¢ lµr � dy A, 6qM ','�,J1 7, 011 Park a ........ �.; .,U �. rz 1 ell "1 ax / n s 4p4p4p �,..A IU 19 m� I� mioi /� mN i � m RUNWAY W 29 a .�,..�.,.. ��.u ,� . Of ", Legend Potential 100-Year Flood Zane �I 100-gear Flood Zane A 44 y �v,,,, rr »�v✓�r� »xl��',',ark,,,, ,�a�� � �� Project No. 195210330 L.G. Pro. v r. 5�L VEGETATION MANA EMNT PLAN ..._ FEMA FLOOD MAP'- RUNWAY 29 aeale 1"=50V N1Pftjhl�Masa�ch..to. Late S .P'T. 2008 TI�atapssaaaze IC�P� FIGURE - nns, tUTT WMn/glAn�gt GQNR Source: Office of Geographic and Environmental Information4-4 �r " (MassGBS),Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive and Enviro nmental Affairs Office of Energy der , � I�J }}p e a f na f"�"�w"er~' a✓° ✓ RYd � ,r� "' 1r ���' `�"w � �" f r,I� " � �'? "rt� q1�Y�'"�`� l ° 9� r pvI ;21k ,r A r �.� �""r p �'i✓ ( � '� q ".... �'"? �V�r' y/" l k^« Y'y" �"a sr. 6 i ,,r rd n �,✓ r .,r ''' ¢ �I "" f�r'p r/'r ,,,fir, .t",^"3< ✓" r Ssh k''� uC` 1 �l'` ,✓ G ° a"✓ta+ ", � '°�, " ',+ f V.� �lv,'� u�„r d'"e"+�re�uJ�, ,p `, � �'r '�'Nl�re�' ,�& G ✓. ��� �* AA irch"�j� rI� � ��'," � �Swry�1q��� ;°°� ",r �,ryJ'`�:'. �f�,,�' ✓�"J"k° ✓ �t'f �.. '� ".to-' "�'�"��d?�,�J I� g ��w. ram "" lip q �, '�w" A r �, °a sae d ✓ y y m1 In a , .. " x r'r /' ✓ 7 +,,�:�# �r ^��o"Wr a xa+,y1+Fr ,v' r T �r ZZ of J r 1lraaswau Io~roca� Y aon .ti w r se10 d4 '�;�,„,gyp A9 ✓t r,.^^ fir" r�" hv""";�.q.wre ,✓, '"+" rr 1 rw�,�snx �` a�"M '" y� !''" f'r"w �^dt ".✓ {" �9 - '�, r �..,, ✓ � � i �. i� N �l�s`dl" Y'd%G1N�wCY. %JY r+ � "'TM r � � � � 'J '�� ����n g 4f � �, r ` p, r w "p kr rib r d o x, ✓ -!pra "w��4r � /� � �J} � 4( " ° r p � r rm 'l`'�^°"'�,✓I" ".r�m "r Y ry"/' � � �,,,� w� r" � "�' % f r�r,� �r M �" , ��i " ���/ " �4 ✓�l � rI ry P ref � "�"qW".. r J�A�."?�' f r+yr k �'��iw'�. �°v�i't �" � �rt'� 1� � � ,, -. �. "'%7"�`W'�l��ifr%��✓��,ti� / �� �fi� r�r �� ���' r� �,u r������ ru r f ,rW �� �k �vArr� r 1 9 yr r wl bi�i�N'ryare "` R Legend '✓ g n rr 1 + 1' %'� 1 Public Water Supply Welly �/� ^r, rr9 ri /r r' GOne 2- Public Water Supply �¢���y;,��> 1- ,,,,.n,,, :';,^y,,,pr•, :' ,'i, o°G�� ^r "xd,. � � a...'"'ri �"� � r". �„��i�r�rHN ��� ��"r� /.".'",��r�„,+�+ �";,. b��b� ��ti�".'��, �;, �; � "���� OAP,.. L.G. I-IAN CC?Nl FIELD Project GAO. 195210330 �pVEGETATION! MANAGEMENT PLAN Prp". Mar �` SQL Staiftc._... ATE SEE Scale =300r ° NWD—PI. 1hge14-asea}nuseIt Date SEPT. 200'3 T6I Ad1®,�� 07,E BEDFORD' FIGURE -� MASSACHU'SETTS � 4e qm L.G, Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Update F. Nuisance Vegetation The airport property and adjacent properties presently contains established stands of purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Purple loosestrife is an herbaceous species which is capable of rapid colonization of disturbed soils and can outcompete most native vegetation where disturbed soils and full sun coverage occur within and adjacent to wetland areas. This species is dominant within the emergent marsh area of VMA 13, but is also common within the beaver impact areas of the Elm Brook and Shawsheen River corridors at the Runway 11, 29, and 23 ends. Where seed stock for these species exists, it is imperative that disturbed soil surfaces be protected within both upland and wetland areas, and that native vegetation is established through seeding where soil alterations occur. The spread of this species is primarily a concern in those wetland areas where conversion from a scrub-shrub wetland to a wet meadow area will result from the vegetation removal (VMA 7). In these cases, immediate protection of the soil through seeding is required to block colonization. Selective removal and mowing frequencies can be used to control this species within the VMA in the long term. Mowing can be especially effective if it is completed prior to seed germination. Mitigation measures to control or reduce the spread of nuisance vegetation on the airport are discussed in Chapters, European buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula), an invasive shrub species also located on the property, is the dominant shrub layer species in most wooded wetland areas on the site (see Appendix A). It is immune to removal through cutting, and is capable of rapid colonization of areas where competition is low, and light penetration is not a limiting factor. Seed dispersal by this species is completed by several common wildlife species, thus eradication of buckthorn from a site is not feasible if seed stock occurs within adjacent, unmanaged areas. The proposed control of this species within this VMP update is limited to the control of the spread of the species into new areas as a result of the vegetation removal, and the establishment of control areas where elimination of the nuisance species from selected areas will be attempted. The control process is detailed in Chapter 5. Common reed (Phragmites australis) is present in limited amounts within VMA 7 on the north side of the Runway 29 end. Control of this colony has been partly achieved through the past use of herbicides on the airport property. Common reed is capable of rapid colonization of adjacent areas through spreading by rhizomes and seed dispersal. It is particularly adapted to wetland soils on sunny landscapes, but is capable of colonizing upland areas as well as the flooded margins of water bodies. Areas of European honeysuckle (Lonicera xylosteum) are common within the wooded wetlands at the Runway 23 end in Bedford (VMA 14), and the Runway 5 end in Lincoln (VMA 13). It is not a dominant shrub species in the subject areas, and occurs along the wetland/upland transition area. This shrub is spread mainly through seed dispersal (the berries are readily eaten by several wildlife species), and is found primarily in shaded conditions. Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergh) is common at the Runway 5 end in Lincoln (VMA 13). This small shrub is found in rich soils along the wetland/upland transition zone, principally in shaded habitat. It spreads primarily through seed dispersal. Though only a low shrub, it is capable of creating dense thickets that can eliminate other shrub species. Its dense, long thorns can restrict pedestrian access through areas. November 2008 3-9 0 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Update G. Steep Slopes The presence of restrictive topography will often dictate the available access routes to a VMA, or, where the steep slopes contain penetrations to navigable airspace, how the penetrations are to be removed. Slopes at the airport are generally not severe, and pose only a minimal constraint for access and obstruction removal. Disturbance of soils on slopes exceeding 2:1 in grade create a high potential for erosion, and are difficult to stabilize with basic control techniques. Due to this problem, removal methods that minimize the potential for soil disturbance on steep slopes are to be utilized. These methods involve selecting access routes that avoid the slopes, and require the careful removal of felled timber to protect the soils. The Elm Brook and Shawsheen River corridors (VMAs 4 and 9) contain steep and tall banks which could be impacted through vehicle access. Control of access to the vegetation on either side of the channels needs to be specified to protect the banks. Further discussion of the protection for these areas and access to the VMAs is provided in Chapter 5. H. Organic Sails Many wetland soils include a surface horizon of highly decomposed organic material. The hydrology required to develop this characteristic typically results in a soil that will not support machinery under normal conditions. Such soils are highly susceptible to disturbance from vegetation removal activities, thus the identification of these areas on the project site is required to reduce wetland impacts. Where the areas of these soils are too wide (i.e. greater than 100 feet) to allow vehicle access to penetrating vegetation, special removal techniques must be considered. A reconnaissance survey of the site resulted in the identification of the following VMAs where all or portions of the soils within the wetland boundary contain a thick layer of decomposed organic material, and the area of poor soils is too wide to allow for access to penetrating vegetation by vehicles. The subject VMAs include the following: 3A, 3B, 3C, and 10. VMAs 4, 13, and 14 contain small areas of these soils; however, alternate access routes to these areas are available and will be used to avoid soil disturbance. 1. Historic/Archaeological Resources Minuteman National Historic Park is south of Hanscom Field. The park boundary abuts one of the VMAs (VMA 13), however only minimal work is proposed adjacent to the park property boundary. None of the vegetation removal that will be required in the next 5-year cycle is visible from the park, nor will a reduction in visual buffer between the park and aircraft operating areas occur. J. Closed Landfill Areas Two capped landfills exist in the project area; one at the Runway 29 end adjacent to the southern portion of VMA 10, and one at the Runway 5 end within VMA 13. The use of vegetation removal equipment could damage the cap and/or liner material, thus special provisions are included in the VMP for work adjacent to the landfill areas. See Chapter 5 for further discussion of this topic. The VMA map provides the location of these two landfills. November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 3-11 L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Update CHAPTER 4 : VEGETATION MANAGEMENT This chapter provides a description of the vegetation management areas (VMAs) and removal plans addressed by this vegetation management plan (VMP) update. The VMAs are characterized in section A of this chapter, with additional information on the VMAs presented in the wildlife habitat descriptions located in Appendix A. The process of reviewing and selecting available vegetation removal methods for each VMA is described in section B. Section C describes the alternatives analysis performed to determine the primary removal method for each VMA. Section D provides thorough descriptions of the selected primary removal methods recommended for L.G. Hanscom Field, and section E provides descriptions of the selected secondary removal (maintenance) methods. Finally, the recommended yearly operational plans (YOPs) for the next five years of the plan are presented in section F. Note that the YOPs will include the most recent removal project, along with the continued maintenance of previous removal projects. Over time, the acreage of maintenance will increase, as the acreage of any new removal will greatly decrease. This will signify the attainment of one of the principle VMP objectives; the creation of low growing vegetative communities. The wildlife habitat focus areas provided in Appendix A provide descriptions of the condition of the VMAs at the start of the VMP process. Over time, portions of the VMAs will be modified as removal plans are implemented_ Modifications include the conversion of wooded habitats to lower growing vegetative communities through the elimination of taller species over time. This plan provides overall management for all of the critical areas of L.G. Hanscom Field, through the development of VMAs. Each vegetation removal project will encompass small sections of each VMA, which will then be permitted as a separate removal project. Since vegetative characteristics change over time, the wildlife habitat focus areas included in this VMP provide baseline (pre-vegetation management) conditions for the VMP. As future projects are proposed under this VMP, updates of the habitat information will be required. Comparison to the baseline provides some measure of the loss/gain/change of wildlife habitat resulting from VMP implementation. A. VMA Descriptions Most areas surrounding the airport containing vegetation that currently penetrates, or has the potential to penetrate protected airspace, have been categorized into distinct vegetation management areas, or VMAs. Each VMA at L.G. Hanscom Field shall be managed based on the criteria and procedures outlined in this section. VMAs have been defined based on distinct vegetation communities in relation to other factors including topography, soil type, geographic location, and the elevations of airport protection zones. For example, areas within runway primary surfaces, which allow no objects higher than the nearest point of a runway centerline, and which are currently dominated by upland grass will have management objectives much different from an area at the outer portion of a runway approach surface that is dominated by mature trees and includes protected airspace that is considerably higher in elevation. The VMA Map included in the back pocket of this VMP provides the location of each of the VMAs identified at L.G. Hanscom Field. Where a VMA has multiple locations, then the VMA identifier number is followed by a letter on the map (i.e. VMAs 3A, 313, and 3C). November 2008 4-1 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Update Each VMA has a primary mechanical vegetation removal method associated with it. In addition, some areas include recommendations for use of secondary management techniques which include hand removal of saplings through selective thinning and/or herbicide treatment in accordance with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and other applicable state and federal regulations. Cont4led burns aFe only propesed as a p9tential seG9RdaPj4naRa9ement technique ninno the onvirnnm gHite rigid and RGt always available in eaGh year that mawRtellallGe 06 required. Table 4-1 provides a summary of the VMAs, the recommended primary and secondary removal methods, and comments on special conditions that may exist within each VMA. The corresponding wildlife habitat identifier for the VMA is provided in the comments section of the table. Habitat identifier forms are located in Appendix A of this VMP. November 2008 5tantec Consulting Services Inc. 4-2 N ° OE CZ � D c ou) ° CD.TT ° Q Ea U O ° � v m (D � � o . oO Uc � L oL oma) ° o C) ai Qn � � d) X�>, M CD ca crs LQ er = >o ma o D b v = O O 0) �= M� ¢ a) (D 'U m U) 0 -- +� O a) � � 0)� > . oN o 0 o � E O 0 W U) E_ L } L m U) (4 O L O O � � r 'S U � Q) -Cz .. f� a) O L V p >O a) r Q) a) m E CY a e ° mo o sn o Cf5-c � �_ � � Y- m Q C3 C2 Ud U O 5' Ca G N O U) N " m m U E U) U) L7 Q a) Y N G 7.� 0 L r o a ca = o ° «5 0 E c`�a o r ca V) -o (? o ._ X 0 0 — co E ° co O N G O y- m a) M O o D (D O v m � cu a� ca ` -o O- oa) Q QE D ° cow � m � m °' a) 70 o m o — � c OU) 0 m -a CM T C > U)U •C) • a)Cr3 -aco Q) i = •U a) -� O C w aa) cL c°a .c U a) pp p � m a) o O ` U) ` U)) oQ. � �' mca) " . 7, a) � _ EO a) Q N Q) �j LE1 3 ° f4 (D Q Cm6 7 0 a) m [U U Uy m O 1 - U r a) .X .- F o m ,� C IL O •U5 �[ U (n cu .� C Qr U ,O 4) N � -p E aU U O r L .O > 0) "0 N U) a m a) N E (� ` Co ros 0 � ,= a� � � cn � Eo � p � o3a) aim cpE �? C#1 U C � a) L 0 a O (D a m C 0 7 O iwm W -0cm � -000 � _ . 7 � E LuT) > moEL Q N ._ ...... . (D 0 r- 2 ��[ '� c m E > 0 ° o � T E � v c cis o 0 � O � ca N c a � z u a� � o mQ ia- a� m o ; c C) cn �C -Q as a} � .L UCo � . ] . __A p o LL U) m � � � o co03 CO O U a -0 -2 -a ° p p o p 0 O O O U3 mU mU U 0. , C � k F- `a E r m N > c a) O p@ p Q) 3 -Cp wa+} � E ' a) Y) Q o , - -o m CC O — CS � O a) 0 -0 , m C) � Q C0 .- � o c � C tomNo � a) � � Y M O° . a0 TU N c ° a) 0- C)> aria � � U .� D m U ' c Q c3 cu C c N U c ?: a) U `o cans emu) � ' a ° ° a) � mcg 72 w p C N ,M m m ai -0 a) � ro �•o) m a) � m Q 2 � O cn � � Dom � � �� oc � � � `o � � � .6 �noc� U ) � �Qa B N a X -0C to a) aU Q> c0 j U � CD ° m(D m W — .U) O -0 po � ) E X - o te a -a — o) O — N a)U ° C ] 7 CD .r�Tn cr)CD � � m mc E � jai L C j oam1 o3 QoT N ° Q ' (D a j OU Q L) a 6) O C° N 0- 0 o > N U' ~ aa� saQN Q) C � cm�. °Q. (D a) mN o o � M 0) o va �(D ao N � E f 'D Ln N � U U " •aCX 0 ) m r a) a) . mz�) D C: co Q o Q _ cO n° + — .° °° O � a o Z 7 l C aLa) � m U �j.0 � I€ Q Casas CU M Q Cc E = C m cn ? Cu m a) ° " CA N a) N _ c 0 CV ° a) U c 0rO � mo a ao ce N p c cn m a 4 a — ) o � mQ m a) a 4 cm a ) w � 01Co 60 > N Q�i c U) CZ p tp O ca c c Lri m C O ` ? a) Q a) J o) ' 7 (DQ O a w (n (n f- a [1y R3 j N m > _N 0) U C U C C m _ D U U Q m co �_ C LYa (Y) J CII C O U r rn rn rn rn N N N N Q� F- C C (E C C6 (D — 0 C, U) i2 N o cu `o E a) L o �. � ra � c Q ;� � o � 2 0 -0 -0 -0 o m � 0) (D co C cr ....1 a) C — "C3 U m C O O — p CLf C a) pN. O ui C G N L -6 v Q O a) Q j L �' a) .p o N �? U C (D C E O va .? M . _ Q Cn tt� (7) N � a) 7 O � N 0 ci cu c o o -0 d 0 c) m o > to 0 Cz p c c is 4- o 'p C- C,) ,c � � a� � � tz .(D •rm oC � U) O C c C 0 4) ,n �- p p ,0 O O C a p 0 a) 6 a) w C Q 'i r m U E O (ll Q > C `_ aCj c C C2 C CB — CV +�+ `0 m (D p a' C = a) C C O O .0 O N N �i a) c C ._� 6 (D to = � a) U 0).- � CZ-6 -- CQ C U C 7+ w F U ( CD N a) -0 (D ro N a- N N a) c ° Q m (v is (DN o �— o N -0 @ 0 o o 0 ca 1 0 M M E a c4 0 (n Q o p 5 U a) M _ m -6 � Q o as "t3 O � I 9 -0 fn p C) Q '''� d) E C Z- L a) C "- : - C O CA a) C U) 2 C C -o C a) O Q C6 .C O �i w u) m U N "t7 fly a) D- O a '- +� �'- -r- O a 7 U) (1) CV o I� M a 0 C 7 O � cn •`- ,. l5 6] ca _C o o a) O C a U U r7' 0 � O a) O to O o � Q � � � -0 -0 � � •� o m (U aci c Qp � c _ � tea) CZ Ca a) O Q) p O L a) v) O U) Mo cs C O p 0) m 'a)� O p M ) ) — 0OC D U) N0U' a = p �O � a) y - - � m a) 3 0c 0S•tt�2S Q c o (na> tzt ) 0x3 O � ioW c `aa) cd0 � o (�s Ow pp mca o � � a) Q a) c a) Q m -o b Q N C) coi co ? Q O • • C � U � � CU) a7 C � (� � co U) M Q -ZD' a3 a) 70 O a1 o a) 70 X � i CO C C U o O 2 {!) Q Q C O m Q O d 0 0 -6 .E .0 C C C C 0 m J m N o f ) J m U U C n r- N N N i 4 W � w p c�a cum N c� co cu su d m cu r 0 f] c— Q 0 (D "� U) � q) U) Q3 U K-' CO O O to p CO c} U UC C C Q) a acc� c = C (D m io ob cs� oc0mL- cc � ro Q p Q c � ❑- c_ p a) � � � � D o p U cti a� a > c O � .0 � L � a t-0A " N o cn a C c � N Q o 6 .c p CD O Z U 0 -0 0 w i U (6 U ` O M LD O E t Q tl� _? 0 N N aJ N Q) N C L rA (4 a) Ut O (i5 O 0 0 -0 aS co to - U) C CL Q C)-.a N ur E fa (D ClS E (Tf O a--. -p + 6) c C 20) a N co N a) c I Q m .N O to — a} m O a7 -0 Q1 L (D C U X aJ L aT w Q a) (6 ' i] co C D O E -U U) a) U7 CIO Q a3 Oa04 , Otm-00 (L — C Q) O () U G aS C (tf 0 Ry NL O o O Q 0 O Ecu C ~ (D *' QU a3 i LL U>+L (D � L T � � (4 o ca o o c v, (D oc > } 0 Cu E � 'c c j � a - o m p • LL m ~ p O F- z O Q CZ .A m Q LQ U L O UZ5 U L m O U U) � lL Z3 Q aJ I _ O O O � m t71 L]7 a) C C O M M cYi � a E L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan The following narrative describes each of the 16 VMAs identified for this VMP: VMA 1: This VMA includes the turf infield areas within the primary, approach, and transitional surfaces of all runways. It is located within the towns of Bedford, Concord, and Lincoln. This area includes all primary surfaces. This VMA has been identified as containing grassland habitat for two state-listed rare bird species. The continued preservation of this area as grassland habitat, and continuation of the current mowing practices will preserve the habitat for the identified species. Massport has coordinated with the Massachusetts Audubon Society and the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program to study the on-site grassland bird populations. This effort is on-going. Management includes the scheduled periodic mowing of these areas to restrict the establishment of woody vegetation, and to maintain the height of the vegetation at or near the runway surface elevation. No secondary management techniques are required for the existing turf areas. No modifications to the vegetative characteristics of this VMA are proposed. VMA 2: This VMA includes the approach and transitional surfaces at the Runway 11 end within the towns of Bedford and Concord. It consists of mature forested upland and wetland areas that are located a moderate distance from the runway end and approach light plane. The gently rolling topography results in groups of trees on the higher ground penetrating the airspace, while trees within the low pockets are not likely to achieve an obstructing height. Only mature trees are identified as penetrations within this VMA in the current analysis. Dominant tree species include Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Red Oak (Quercus rubra), and White Pine (Pinus sfrobus). The soils within this VMA are capable of supporting machinery in dry or frozen ground conditions, and access is available through a myriad of gravel roadways that traverse the site. Upland staging areas are available throughout the VMA. The wetland areas within this VMA are small and narrow, allowing for tree removal from the wetland edge. Three certified vernal pools are shown to occur in the western half of the VMA in the 2006 edition of the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (Figure 3-1), requiring mitigation measures to protect the habitat as detailed in Chapter 5 of this VMP. Direct inspection of the three areas,in 2005 revealed that successful amphibian breeding continues to occur in each of the three pools. Secondary management of the cut areas is not required since only the tallest trees within this VMA penetrate protected airspace. As trees are removed, sapling and shrub density increases within the cut areas. As the smaller trees grow and penetrate the airspace, they will be removed in the future by subsequent mechanized felling operations. Modifications to the vegetative community include the creation of pockets of early successional woodland between the non-cleared mature forested areas. Protection of the vernal pools is important and is discussed in Chapter 5. VMA 3: VMA 3 includes deciduous forested wetland areas within the approach and transitional surfaces at the Runway 11 end within Bedford and Concord. The wetlands are located within the watershed of Elm Brook, and border a portion of the brook channel, as well as several intermittent tributaries to the brook. The three areas of forested wetland contain seasonally flooded soils that will not typically support machinery. Beaver activity in portions of this VMA has exacerbated the poor soil conditions. The three areas are located a moderate distance from the runway end and are not within the approach light plane, thus only mature trees are identified as penetrations to the protected airspace. Selective topping and girdling of the mature trees is proposed to avoid soil alteration that would occur from skidding operations. November 2008 4.7 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan This technique requires only foot access to each obstruction. VMA 3A includes an area within the transitional surface that borders directly on Elm Brook within the Town of Bedford. Access is restricted by the brook channel to the west, the property line to the north, and by other wetland areas with poor soils within VMA 4 to the east. Large Red Maple (Acer rubrum) dominate the canopy layer with some mature White Pine (Pinus sfrobus) along the wetland fringe. VMA 3B is a mixed deciduous/coniferous forested wetland area within the approach surface, located just north and west of the approach light plane within the Town of Concord. Portions of this wetland area are quite narrow, and are to be cleared by dropping individual trees, and using a cable where necessary to drag the logs to the adjacent uplands. However; a portion of the wetland within VMA 3B is too wide to access from the adjacent uplands. Furthermore, beaver activity has impacted the soil conditions in some areas, and the dragging of logs could disturb the wetland soils in these locations. Thus, the use of a removal method that is sensitive to the poor soil conditions is required. Top-and-girdle may have to be used to address mature Red Maple (Acer rubrum) from the wetland interior. Where suitable soils along the fringe of VMA 3B exist, the primary removal method prescribed for VMA 5 will be used. VMA 3C is a large contiguous forested wetland area associated with a tributary to Elm Brook within the Town of Concord. It is located over 1,500 feet from the runway end, in an area of slightly depressed elevation, thus mature trees are the only vegetation capable of penetrating protected airspace. Soil conditions along the wetland boundary are suitable to support machinery during dry or frozen ground conditions; however, the soils within the wetland interior are saturated to the surface, and would be impacted by ground removal even under dry or frozen ground conditions. Red Maple (Acer rubrum) and some Oak (Quercus spp.) are capable of penetrating the approach surface of Runway 11 in the wetland interior. Tap-and-girdle of individual penetrating trees will be utilized where equipment access is not available. Secondary management of the cut areas within VMA 3 is not proposed since only the tallest trees penetrate the protected airspace. Stump regrowth, shrubs, and saplings will grow in response to the increased light penetration, restoring the wetland functions of the area. As the existing smaller trees grow and become obstructions, they will need to be removed during a future mechanized felling project. The principle vegetative characteristics of this VMA will not be significantly modified by the work as only individual locations require management. Most of VMA 3C is not expected to require large scale management in one removal operation. VMA 4: This VMA includes a portion of the Elm Brook corridor, and an area of scrub- shrub wetland within the approach and transitional surfaces of Runway 11 within Bedford and Concord. Moderately steep slopes occur along the brook channel and within the northeast shrub wetland of this VMA. It is located close to the runway end, and the ground is similar in elevation to the runway, thus both trees and saplings are capable of penetrating the protected airspace. Most of the VMA is capable of supporting machinery, and only low vegetation presently exists in the area. Thus, the selective removal of small trees and saplings, and chipping of this small vegetation within the adjacent uplands is proposed. The maintenance of a dense shrub layer throughout this VMA will preserve the wetland functions, and also inhibit the establishment of trees. Machinery will not be allowed to cross the stream channel to access vegetation. Rather, all removal will occur from the wetland edge, and shrubs that currently overhang the channel will be protected. November 2008 4-8 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management flan This VMA is located within a critical area directly at the runway end, thus secondary management techniques are required to maintain a low cover of vegetation. An initial foliar treatment of tree species will be completed following the mechanical removal. Once the VMA has been reduced in shrub/sapling density, the use of foliar treatment will be used on tree species re-sprouts to maintain the VMA. The control of invasive species within the wetland boundary along Elm Brook from the approach light access road northward to a straight line between wetland flag 3318 and 3378 is proposed as a mitigation strategy in this area. After the mechanical removal of obstructions as described above, the selective removal of invasive shrub species from the wetland boundary will be practiced, while protecting native shrub species. The goal is to control the invasive species until the density of native shrubs within the area is sufficient to suppress buckthorn and honeysuckle. The periodic inspection and foliar treatment of target species shall be practiced until native shrub densities approaching 40% cover have been realized (as measured within a random 15- foot radius circle within the mitigation area based on leaf-on conditions). VMA 5: This combination of wetland and upland area consists of a dense area of shrubs and saplings within the approach and transition surfaces, as well as the approach light plane of Runway 11 within both Bedford and Concord. The VMA occurs close to the runway end, and contains areas that are both slightly below and above the runway elevation. Due to this close proximity to the runway end and the sections of elevated terrain, tall shrubs, saplings and trees are all capable of penetrating the protected airspace, and obscuring the light plane to the runway end. Maintenance of the vegetation to a low shrub cover is required. Red Oak (Quercus rubra), Scrub Oak (Quercus ilicifolia), and Black Cherry (Prunus serotina) dominate the sapling layer, while Sweet Fern (Comptonia peregrina), Lowbush Blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolia), and European Buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula) are common within the low-to- medium shrub layer. Preservation of the low shrubs while eliminating the taller vegetation is the objective in this VMA. The flail mowing technique will be used as the initial removal method. Like VMA 4, this VMA is located within a critical area directly at the runway end, thus secondary management techniques are required to maintain a low cover of vegetation. Foliar treatment (selective application of herbicides to the leaves of target vegetation) of tree species will be completed following the mechanical removal to address tree regrowth. Once the VMA has been reduced in shrub/sapling density, the use of periodic foliar treatment to treat tree re-growth is proposed. + Iled burniRg techniques as dessnori_bed in app d'x F of th' \111 ieiilf hc� }yy,,��� +}��,,..,� .t..p.e�Flcrurn---r-""'�s�""xrrl�s-'-v'rvsi,���,,}vrir-vc �'s rtai Rtain tYtlyv�'4 i�Rdmfi-!n A--a'I'lwv. Furth eG#ve thinning_V tFee sapliRgS will be allow fop the use of a_r_nntrell©d h,wp VMA 6: This combination of scrub-shrub wetland and shrub upland area occurs within the transition surface of Runway 29 close to the runway end within the Town of Bedford. The terrain is slightly elevated from the runway elevation. It borders the northeastern property boundary of the airport, where there is an area of residential development. The wetland portion of this VMA contains a pooling area known to support vernal pool species. The soils are capable of supporting machinery under dry or frozen ground conditions. Surface water is absent except for the small pool area that typically contains water into the early summer months. Vegetation in this area consists of a moderate layer of low trees including Gray Birch (Betula populifolia), White Pine (Pinus strobus), and Red Maple (Acer rubrum), and a dense November 2008 4-9 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan shrub layer of European Buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula) and Highbush Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum). Elimination of the mature trees and tall saplings while maintaining the shrubs and low saplings is the objective for this area. The tall shrubs and saplings will maintain a visual screen between the runway and the adjacent residences, and will also preserve the wetland functions of the area. Special consideration of the vernal pool habitat requires the directional felling of vegetation, the avoidance of herbicide applications close to the water's edge, and the avoidance of continuous erosion control barriers during the amphibian migration period. Protection and enhancement of the shrub layer and the elimination of mature tree species are objectives within this VMA. Secondary management will include the application of a foliar treatment to tree species within the cut area, and the periodic removal of individual saplings as a standard maintenance practice. The improved sunlight conditions will enhance the shrub and sapling layer within the wetland and upland, providing a screen for adjacent residences and improved habitat functioning. VMA 7: This VMA consists of an early successional forested wetland within the approach and transitional surfaces of Runway 29 in the Town of Bedford. It is located immediately at the runway end, and at a similar elevation. Within this VMA, vegetation as low as 8 feet in height penetrates the approach surface. The wetland drains to the east via an intermittent drainage ditch with eventual discharge to the Shawsheen River. Soil conditions will allow for the use of machinery for vegetation removal under dry or frozen ground conditions. Tree sapling coverage is dense throughout the wetland, and there is a dense shrub layer consisting of several wetland species, but dominated by European Buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula). Due to the low elevation of the protected surface over this wetland, conversion of the scrub-shrub wetland to a wet meadow condition is proposed through the use of a wetland seed mix. The boundary between this VMA and VMA 6 is well short of the plantings that were completed as part of the 1995 vegetation removal project, and is also outside of the 100-foot habitat limit of the non-certified vernal pool. Secondary management is critical within this VMA due to the close proximity to the runway end and the dense sapling growth that is comprised of species that will re-sprout immediately after cutting. The application of a foliar treatment is required to control the re-sprouts, and to allow the herbaceous wetland species in the seed mix to colonize the cut areas. While this methodology will result in a loss of scrub-shrub habitat, there will be a conversion to wet meadow habitat which is a rare wetland cover type in the area. Caution tape will be used to define the exact limit of the vegetation removal in the vicinity of the vernal pool during the mechanical removal process. geMePA ©i j he -rrbe#iva4-. Portions of VMA 7 were managed as a part of the 2003/2004 removal project. Maintenance is on-going in the removal area, as conversion to a wet meadow is not yet complete. VMA 8: VMA 8 includes upland areas along the east and west bank of the Shawsheen River in the Towns of Bedford and Lexington. Most of this VMA is within the outer riparian zone of the river as defined in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Regulations. The edge of this VMA ends at the inner riparian zone. It is located within the approach light plane, and the approach and transitional surfaces of Runway 29. The vegetation borders the turf areas surrounding the runway, and consists of a dense cover of deciduous saplings and shrubs November 2008 4-10 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan including Black Cherry (Prunus serotina), Quaking Aspen (Populus tremula), Red Oak (Quercus rubra), and European Buckthorn (Rhamnus frangula). Due to the close proximity of the vegetation to the runway end and light plane, and the elevated terrain, even low vegetation penetrates protected surfaces. Management of this area through clearing and grubbing will result in the establishment of a mowable herbaceous surface, adding to the field habitat that presently exists within the turf areas of the airport. The upland shrub layer will be cleared and grubbed, and the area will be seeded with an upland seed mix. Erosion control barriers will be used as necessary to protect adjacent wetlands. Once established, the turf will be maintained along with the adjacent existing field areas. Secondary management of this VMA will involve periodic mowing of the established turf. VMA 9: This wetland VMA includes the section of the Shawsheen River corridor that is located within a deep channel at the Runway 29 end within the Town of Bedford. The channel is located within the approach light plane, as well as the approach and transitional surfaces. The river is contained within a trapezoidal valley with steep side slopes. The river channel is approximately 12 feet wide within the valley, and is approximately 15-20 feet below the elevation of the surrounding upland areas. Most vegetation that grows within the valley does not penetrate the airspace due to the elevation difference, however tree saplings near the top of the side slopes, and mature trees along the river bank are obstructions (primarily Red Maple (Acer rubrum)). Management includes the hand removal of vegetation that extends above the upland elevation. The bank areas will not support machinery, thus the processing of removed vegetation will occur within adjacent uplands. Since only large saplings penetrate the airspace, and open water is present, no herbicide application is proposed within 10 feet of the bank limit. Rather, hand removal of saplings as they penetrate the top of the gully will be performed. VMA 10: VMA 10 consists of mixed deciduous/coniferous forested wetland and scrub- shrub swamp along the Shawsheen River and a tributary to the river within both Bedford and Lexington, Similar to VMAs 8 and 9, it is located within several protected airspace surfaces at the Runway 29 end, including the approach light plane. This VMA is located further out in the runway approach, thus only mature trees, dominated by Red Maple (Acerrubrum) and White Pine (Pinus strobes), penetrate protected airspace. Beaver activity and ponded areas restrict the use of ground vehicles for vegetation removal. Access to the taller vegetation within the VMA from adjacent uplands is not an alternative due to the width of the wetland. HeliGopte rern oval ef legs that are felled by hand is nd in order to pFete Gt the wetland soils from dig opera+inns DireGtinnal felling of trees r„e a y from Oho ri,.or __Re! and r,nnr7in Top-and-girdle technique will be used to address the obstructing portions of individual trees. A capped landfill occurs along the southern boundary of VMA 10 on the Bedford/Lexington boundary. No vegetation removal vehicles or tree felling associated with this project shall occur on the cap or the maintained landfill slope area. VMA 11: This mix of upland and wetland vegetation is located along the roadways and buildings of the business parks at the Runway 29 end within both Bedford and Lexington. It is located within the approach surface of the runway, but is quite distant from the runway end. Only mature trees penetrate the approach surface within this VMA, with White Pine (Pines strobes) as the dominant tree species. Individual large Red Maple (Acerrubrum) and Red Oak (Quercus rubra) also penetrate the airspace in this VMA. Selective removal of large trees within November 2008 4-11 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan easement areas will be completed with strict coordination with the business parks and other off- airport properties. The wetland areas within this VMA are small, and the trees to be removed are accessible by machinery. No secondary management of the cut stumps is proposed since only the tallest vegetation penetrates the protected airspace within this VMA. The proposed management will not significantly modify the vegetative characteristics of the area. VMA 12: VMA 12 consists of an early successional upland area dominated by tree saplings including Quaking and Big-tooth Aspen (Populus tremula and grandidentata), Red Oak (Quercus rubra), and American Elm (Ulmus americana). It is located within both Lincoln and Concord. The shrub layer is limited due to the high sapling density. It is located in an area of elevated terrain within the approach and transitional surfaces across Virginia Road from the Runway 5 end. The terrain is higher than the runway elevation, which exacerbates the. penetration problem within the VMA, and saplings and trees penetrate the protected surfaces. Management of most of the area as a mowable herbaceous field is proposed. The extreme north and south portions of this VMA are sufficiently removed from the approach surface so that management as a scrub-shrub upland could be proposed. Erosion control barriers will be needed to protect the adjacent wetland area during stabilization of the soils within the VMA after the clearing/grubbing operation. A 25-foot setback from the wetland boundary will be established with the erosion control barrier prior to the grubbing of the root systems. Secondary management of this VMA will involve the scheduled periodic mowing of the established turf, or the herbicide treatment of stumps in non clearing/grubbing areas. Once the area is cleared and grubbed of root systems, the soils will be seeded with an upland seed mix specified in this VMP. Once established, the turf will be maintained along with the adjacent existing field area. Erosion controls are needed to protect the adjacent wetland area until vegetation is established. VMA 13: This VMA is located further south in the approach of Runway 5 than VMA 12, and the ground elevation drops from the boundary between the two VMAs to the southern boundary of VMA 13. It is located in the Towns of Lincoln and Concord. The combination of increased distance from the runway end and the lower topography results in a significant decrease in the number of airspace penetrations. In this area, only mature trees are capable of penetrating the approach and transitional surfaces, with Red Maple (Acer rubrum), Red Oak (Quercus rubra), and White Pine (Pinus strobus) the most common large trees. The VMA includes both wetlands and uplands. Vegetation management is restricted to the wetland fringe where soils are capable of supporting machinery during dry or frozen ground conditions. Further within the wetland interior, saturation to the soil surface occurs, and the soils do not support trees, and thus the interior does not contain penetrations. If individual trees at the edge of the marsh area must be removed, evaluation of access on a case-by-case basis will be required. If soil conditions prevent access to an area, a modification to top-and-girdle will be needed as was completed in the first removal project in 2003. A capped landfill exists within VMA 13 that has some obstructing vegetation located along the perimeter of the cap. Access to the vegetation with machinery would require work on the landfill that could potentially damage the liner. To avoid this impact, trees along the perimeter of the cap will be felled by hand away from the landfill, and processed in place. The logs and slash will be reduced and allowed to rot in place, thus avoiding any vehicles on the landfill liner. November 2008 4_12 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Secondary management of the cut areas is not required since only the tallest trees within this VMA penetrate protected airspace. As trees are removed, sapling and shrub density increases within the cut areas. As the smaller trees grow and penetrate the airspace, they will be removed in the future by another mechanized felling. The proposed management will not significantly modify the characteristics of the area. The control of invasive species within portions of this VMA is proposed as a mitigation strategy in this area. After the mechanical removal of obstructions as described above, the selective removal of invasive shrub species from the limits of the cut areas of Wet-1 and Up-3 will be practiced, while protecting native shrub species. The goal is to control the invasive species until the density of native shrubs within the area is sufficient to suppress buckthorn and honeysuckle. The periodic inspection and foliar treatment of target species shall be practiced until native shrub densities approaching 40% cover have been realized (as measured within a random 15- foot radius circle within the mitigation area based on leaf-on conditions). VMA 14: This VMA consists of an area of mature coniferous forested wetland and upland within the transitional surface of Runway 23 in the Town of Bedford. Mature White Pine (Pinus strobes) are principally responsible for penetrations to the protected airspace in this area. The wetland contains some small pockets of unsuitable soils; however, access to these areas from adjacent stable soils will allow ground removal within the VMA. Beaver activity is significant within the adjacent wetland areas and new water diversions may alter the soil characteristics. Should this occur, a modification to helicopter removal or topping and girdling may be required for a portion of the VMA. Management of this area includes the removal of the mature trees only, with protection of the sapling and shrub layers. Secondary management of the cut stumps is not required, since only the tallest trees within this VMA penetrate the protected airspace, and most of the trees to be removed consist of coniferous species. Control of invasive shrubs through foliar treatments was practiced after the initial removal project in 2003. VMA 15: This VMA, in the town of Bedford, consists of a mix of upland and wetland scrub- shrub areas directly at the end of Runway 23 within the approach and transitional surfaces. A drainage ditch exists along the runway perimeter roadway, and tall shrubs and saplings that exist along the ditch penetrate the protected airspace. Dominant tree species include Red Maple (Ater rubrum), Gray Birch (Betula populifolia), and Quaking Aspen (Populus tremula). Due to the close proximity of this VMA to the runway end, and the similar terrain elevation, all saplings are to be removed with preservation of the shrub layer within the wetland boundary. The upland sections will be mowed to ground level, and seeded with an upland seed mix. Maintenance of the upland areas as meadow habitat is proposed. The VMA is accessible from stable soils on either side of the subject vegetation, and removal can be completed easily from stable areas by reaching with the cutting equipment, or cutting by hand and dragging the cut vegetation out of the wetland area. The cut and chip technique is prescribed for the wetland areas in VMA 15, where access across the surrounding wetland ditches is not possible for flail mowing equipment. It should be noted that a runway safety area project has been approved that will modify uplands and wetlands in this area. An update to the VMA description and prescribed management techniques may be necessary at the completion of the runway safety area project. This VMA is located within the area directly at the runway end, thus secondary management November 2008 4_13 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan techniques are required to maintain a low cover of vegetation. Following the mechanical removal, there will be a foliar treatment of tree re-growth followed by selective thinning of saplings within the wetland boundary. VMA 16: VMA 16 includes a mature upland forested area within the transitional surface of Runway 23. The northernmost area of the VMA borders a residential area. The VMA occurs along the side of a moderate slope that is slightly higher than the runway elevation. Mature Oak (Quercus spp.), Quaking Aspen (Populus tremula) and some individual White Pine (Pines strobes) penetrate the protected airspace in this area. The soils are capable of supporting ground removal of the individual trees. Shrub and sapling layers are to be preserved in the northern portion of the VMA as a screen for adjacent residences. Secondary management of the VMA is not required since only the tallest trees penetrate the protected airspace. VMA 17, This VMA is not located on Massport property. It is located directly within the approach of Runway 23 immediately north of the property boundary. It is an area of mature trees that penetrate the approach and transitional surfaces of Runway 23 has been identified in Bedford's Jordan Conservation Area. The management of the penetrating vegetation in this area will be addressed through meetings with the Town of Bedford. The selected management techniques will be included in a future update of this VMP. , Selection of Vegetation Removal Methods An objective of this VMP is to eliminate or control the growth of woody vegetation that threatens protected airspace at L.G. Hanscom Field. To achieve this objective, the selection of an initial removal method that addresses the penetration and creates a maintainable vegetative community, but also is sensitive to environmental resources is required. Once a removal project is completed, it is necessary within many VMAs to address the re-growth of the vegetation from stumps, especially where the elevation of the protected airspace is close to the ground elevation. Examples of the problem of re-growth exist at the airport as a result of the 1995 clearing project. Dense and tall re-growth exists from most of the stumps within the previous management areas since secondary management techniques were not included in the project. To address this maintenance and project longevity issue, secondary vegetation management methods were incorporated into the 2003 VMP and are also considered and proposed in this VMP update in accordance with Section 5.2 of the GEIR for Vegetation Removal at Public Use Airports. Analysis of the characteristics of the vegetation within the vegetation management areas (VMAs)was an integral part of the preparation of this VMP update, as shown in the habitat identifier forms in Appendix A. Such analysis is required to determine the most appropriate minimum impact vegetation management methods for a particular VMA. Each selected removal method considers environmental impacts, project longevity, ease of maintenance, and cost effectiveness. Environmental resources to be considered include wetlands, water quality, rare species habitat, topography, soil stability, abutter screening, historical/archaeological resources, and accessibility. Project longevity is directly related to environmental sensitivity and cost effectiveness, since the frequency of completing vegetation removal projects has both environmental impact and cost implications. Ease of maintenance is an important consideration when determining removal methods, because the ability of the airport to control future re-growth of vegetation into protected airspace directly impacts the initial project longevity, as well as the future costs and environmental impact of vegetation management at the airport. November 2008 4-14 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. LG. Hanscom ]wield Vegetation Management Plan The 2003 VMP included the control of invasive plant species using herbicide treatments. This effort was proposed as mitigation of wetland impacts resulting from vegetation management efforts. Several removal areas in the 2003 VMP were designated for invasive species control, and included both wetland areas and wetland buffers. Herbicides were applied in years 2 through 5 of the 2003 VMP process. Monitoring of the invasives was conducted in these areas as a part of the control program. The effort resulted in significant reduction of invasives in the control area, but outright elimination was not achieved. An objective of the herbicide treatment program was to control the numbers of invasives while protecting the native shrubs. The temporary control was to allow for a competitive advantage of the natives over the invasive species, thereby contributing to one of the overall VMP objectives of creating low-growing vegetative communities with a focus on native species. The results of the program were impressive, but further control through the next process appears warranted to encourage coverage of native species. Additionally, the 2003 effort included research efforts to improve future VMP activities. One such effort was the comparison of the clear/grub technique to the use of herbicide in the conversion of a scrub-shrub wetland to a wet meadow. The results show that careful clear/grub methodology combined with the application of a wetland seed mix clearly provides a more successful post-clearing wetland community in terms of wetland plant coverage and overall wetland functions and values. Seed mix success in the grubbed area was more than twice as successful as the application of seed to non-grubbed ground area where herbicides alone were used to remove shrubs and saplings. Strict control of herbaceous invasives (Le, purple loosestrife) in the grubbed areas was necessary for the first 3-5 years after seeding. Hand pulling of loosestrife from the plot was practiced annually. The use of nursery stock shrubs to assist in the revegetation of managed areas was also attempted in the 2003 VMP program. Pour hundred native shrubs were planted in wetlands and wetland buffer zones in an area where saplings and invasives were controlled using herbicide applications. Significant predation of the nursery stock by whitetail deer occurred, even though plastic mesh netting was applied to each planting. Crowding by adjacent, naturally occurring shrubs and groundcover also resulted in mortality of the nursery stock. Overall, it appears that 50% mortality was experienced by the nursery stock, while the planted area has re-vegetated naturally at a high rate. Invasives control, while protecting natural regrowth of native species, appears to be a more efficient way of revegetating wetlands and wetland buffers in comparison to the use of nursery stock. If used in the future, a concentrated planting of select problem areas would appear to be more beneficial in comparison to a lower density planting of a wider area. The selection of appropriate vegetation removal methods involves a review of the techniques outlined in the Vegetation GEIR including physical, chemical, combination physical/chemical, and non-equipment/non-chemical methods. Each of the methods is assigned a "tier classification" that corresponds to its level of potential impact. A listing of the available removal methods from the Vegetation GEIR and their associated "tier classifications" are provided in Table 4-2. November 2008 4-15 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Table 4-2: Listing of available vegetation management methods with associated tier classifications from Section 5.2 of the Final Generic Environmental Impact Report (GEIR) for Vegetation Removal at Public Use Airports . . gull Physical Methods Push Trees Over High Impact f Pull Trees Down Moderate Impact Shear Trees with a Bulldozer High Impact i Mechanized Felling Moderate Impact i Build an Impoundment(flooding) High Impact i *Remove Trees by Helicopter Minimal Impact Clear and Grub High Impact Chemical Methods Fell/Lop/Cut-Surface Treatment Low Impact Fell/Frill-and-Inject Treatment Low Impact Fell/Selective Basal Treatment Low Impact Selective Foliar Treatment Moderate Impact I Combined Physical/Chemical_Me_t_hods Frill-and-Inject/Pull Trees Gown Moderate Impact Frill-and-Inject/Push Trees Over High Impact t Mechanized Felling/Cut Surface Treatment Moderate Impact Shear Trees with Bulldozer/Cut-Surface Treatment High Impact i Non-Equipment/ Non-Chemical Methods I Fell Trees and Lop Slash Minimal Impact Top Trees Minimal Impact Girdle Trees Minimal Impact i Prescribed Burning High Impact *Helicopter removal originally proposed in the VMP has been substantially replaced by top-and- girdle methodology. Use of the guidelines for selection of vegetation removal alternatives {Section 5 of the GEIR} involves the use of a process that is based on: Size of the area requiring vegetation removal Elevation of the protected airspace surface compared to the ground surface Potential height of the dominant vegetative species Density of the trees and understory within the removal area Ability of the soils to support removal equipment Presence/absence of environmentally sensitive conditions Available funding Each VMA was assessed for alternatives based upon these factors, resulting in the selection of the initial/secondary management techniques described in this chapter. The following section provides the alternatives analysis used to select the removal methods for the VMAs at L.G. Hanscom Field. November 2008 4_16 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan C. Alternatives Analysis As part of the initial VMP, alternatives to vegetation removal were assessed including the "no action" and runway threshold displacement alternatives. The "no action" alternative was considered for the project in order to establish a baseline for the project's environmental effects. By not addressing any of the penetrations at L.G. Hanscom Field, the degree of penetration into protected airspace, in terms of the number of penetrations and the height of each, would increase on an annual basis within each of the VMAs. Many of the tree species identified as obstructions have growth rates of three feet or more per year, and few of the obstructions have reached full mature height. A "no action" alternative would impact the operations at the airport, potentially resulting in decreased runway lengths available for landings, modifications to approach categories, loss of control tower line-of-sight, and overall reduction in airport utility. Runway displacement to avoid or minimize the extent of obstructions to the approach surface was also assessed, and was identified as not practicable. The use of the displaced threshold siting criteria to address approach obstructions would impact all runway ends, resulting in a significant reduction in the amount of runway length available for landings. This is especially critical on the Runway 11-29 which has precision instrument landing systems for each end. Displacing a runway threshold does not address the obstructions within the transitional surface, and allows approach obstructions to continue to grow, requiring further displacements and an incremental loss of safety and utility of the airport. The combination of the reduced runway usage, the continued obstruction presence, the threat of continued future threshold displacements, and the overall degrading of the facility for aircraft use would compromise the substantial federal and state investment in the facility. Maintenance of the airport for the existing based aircraft cannot be achieved if displaced thresholds are used to address the approach obstructions. The no-action alternative is not feasible since it does not address current FAA regulations and does not maintain the condition of the navigable airspace around Hanscom Field. Having identified the need to physically manage the vegetation within the protected airspace in order to address FAA safety regulations, the alternatives are reduced to the type of management selected for each VMA. Table 4-3 presents a summary of the selection of the initial and secondary vegetation removal alternatives for each of the VMAs at L.G. Hanscom Field. in the table, the "height of vegetation to remain refers to the height of the woody species within that VMA that will not be removed because the subject vegetative layer is below the protected airspace elevation and can be easily maintained. "Soil suitability" refers to the ability of equipment to be used in the VMA under dry or frozen ground conditions without causing significant disturbance of the soils. The suitability is determined through field investigation and not through the use of existing soil surveys. "Environmental sensitivity" refers to the presence of resources within the VMA that could be impacted by the selected removal methods such as rare species, vernal pools, and/or sensitive wetlands. "Re-growth capability" refers to the ability of the vegetation within the VMA to generate rapid re-growth from the cut surface that would penetrate protected airspace within a short period of time if secondary management were not practiced. The "re-growth capability" is determined by assessing the dominant species within the VMA, as they relate to the difference in elevation between the protected airspace and the ground surface. November 2008 4-17 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Table 4-3: Summary of information for each VMA at Hanscom Field used to select the initial and secondary vegetation removal methods for the Vegetation Management Plan. Data includes entire airport and is not limited to areas requiring actual vegetation removal within the next 5 years. � . . eftitivity,7 . . . 1 567 acres < 1' < 1' Stable High NIA (includes pavement) , 2 117 acres 60-80' < 50` ; Stable Moderate Low 13 65 acres 20-60' < 25' Unstable High Moderate 4 23 acres 35' < 15' 1 Stable Moderate High 5 55 acres 35' i < 51 I Stable Low High I 6 12 acres 60' < 15, 1 Stable High High 7 10 acres 30` < 5' Stable Moderate High 8 19 acres 25' < 5' I Stable Low High 9 ; 12 acres —� 45' < 15' i Unstable High Moderate 10 21 acres 65' < 25' Unstable Moderate— Moderate I 111 .._— 70 acres — 60-90' < 50' -- 1i Stable —Low --- _ —�- Low --- 12 23 acres 40-65' < 5' ; Stable Low High ! f 13 27 acres 60-85' < 50' I Stable Moderate Low 14 19 acres 55-80' — < 50' Stable Moderate Low - 15 10 acres 30' < 5' Stable I Moderate High ...._- ____--____....._ 16 11 acres rn -5D-60' < 25' 1 Stable Low —TLow Based on the information collected for each VMA and a comparison of the vegetation characteristics to the elevation and location of the protected airspace surfaces, management options were selected that minimized impacts to environmental resources while providing for a reasonably maintained VMA. The following general principles were followed in analyzing the VMA alternatives: Where only mature trees penetrate protected airspace within a VMA, removal methods that protect and preserve the understory were selected while non-selective removal methods that may result in significant damage to the understory were not considered. Where the elevations of the protected airspace surfaces are greater than 50 feet above the ground elevation within a VMA, re-growth of the cut vegetation was not considered to be an issue so secondary control methods were not proposed. Removal methods that result in the alteration of soils (push/pull trees, clearing and grubbing) were not considered for any wetland VMAs. November 2008 4-18 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan e habitat mitigation measure. Herbicide application is restricted to direct foliar treatments after at least one year of re- growth due to the increased effectiveness over cut-stump or frill-and-inject treatments. Increased method effectiveness results in reduced volumes of herbicide and overall lower project costs. Where unstable soils exist, removal methods that involve mechanized ground removal were not considered. Non-ground removal method alternatives were restricted to top- and-girdle since the subject VMAs are not conducive to high-lead logging based on VMA size, distance to staging areas, and soil conditions between the vegetation to be removed and the staging areas. High-lead logging is a means of removing cut vegetation from an area by means of high-tension cables strung above the area and eliminates the need to skid, or drag, trees along the ground. Helicopter removal, while included in the original version of the VMP, was not used as a primary removal technique based on the success and environmental sensitivity resulting from the top-and-girdle technique used in the 2003 clearing project. Based on the above-noted principles, the number of alternatives considered for each of the VMAs was significantly reduced. The following methods from Table 4-2 were determined to be inappropriate: Push Trees OyerIPull Trees Down Soil disturbance is excessive as the root mass is removed from the ground with the attached soil, requires heavy machinery access to each individual tree, which is not available in many locations addressed in this VMP, and cannot be used in wetland situations since it involves disturbance of the soil. There is high potential for the spread of invasive species when using this technique. Shear Trees with a Bulldozer: While this method allows the root mass to remain in the ground, machinery access to each individual tree is required. A bulldozer exerts force on the soils to remove the tree, increasing the potential to alter the soils as compared to other available methods. Ground pressures developed by a bulldozer are much higher than those for typical logging machinery. Thus, the areas where this technique can be used are limited due to the presence of unstable soils on the site. Build an Impoundment: The creation of open water areas to flood the penetrating vegetation in close proximity to aircraft movement areas is contrary to FAA policy since open water resources attract waterfowl which pose a hazard to aircraft. Additionally, the standing dead timber created by flooding often remains a penetration to the airspace, and must be removed anyway. Impoundment creation may also be subject to the Department of Environmental Management Dam Safety Regulations, which require a thorough engineering design for any created dam. This would be a costly option and would not fully achieve the goals of the project. Cut Surface Treatments Herbicide Application): The application of herbicides to freshly cut vegetation as a cut surface, frill-and-inject, November 2008 4-19 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. LG. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan and/or basal treatment has a lower success rate as compared to foliar treatments following at least one season of regrowth. Over the long-term, the improved success of the selected application technique will result in lower herbicide volumes and improved project longevity. Cut surface treatments typically require a more concentrated solution of herbicide (up to a 50% solution compared to 7-15% solutions for foliar applications). The higher concentrations combined with the lower success rate results in overall higher volumes of herbicide, increased project costs, and more intensive labor. Combination Physical/Chemical Methods: All of the available combination methods utilized the immediate application of herbicides to the cut vegetation, which has been shown to have a lower success rate than selective foliar treatments of re-growth. After eliminating the above removal/management methods, the remaining alternatives were reviewed. The assessment considered removing all vegetation (including the root systems), allowing only vegetation that would not likely penetrate the protected airspace to remain (selective removal), or allowing all vegetation to remain but reducing it in height to below the airspace elevation (topping). Topping was initially not selected for any of the VMAs in 2003 for the following reasons: Topping requires direct access to each individual penetration and access to the top of the penetration using either a type of lift truck or climbing the vegetation. This is a labor intensive action posing a higher degree of hazard to the work crew than other removal methods. Access to each tree with a lift truck involves a greater degree of incidental damage over selected clearing methods, since direct access to the base of each tree by heavy equipment is not required for the mechanized felling option. Access to many of the VMAs is constrained by soil conditions, thus topping with the use of a lift vehicle would be infeasible in those areas. The exact elevation of each penetration or group of penetrations would have to be determined so that the correct topping height is known. This would likely require ground survey of each penetration. Topping results in only a short-term gain, as re-growth would be rapid, requiring a new project within 2-3 years of the action. Maintenance of the topped areas is not feasible due to the number of penetrations existing at the airport. Many of the penetrations involve White Pine and Pitch Pine, which would die after topping resulting in standing dead timber. However; based on the results of the 2003 removal project, topping has been determined to be an effectgive technique in some VMAs. It was also found to be feasible without the need for a lift vehicle. Skilled professional climbers were able to access target trees, and remove the obstructing portion. Further reduction of the dropped limbs on the ground was required to reduce the mulching effect of the downed limbs. All cut vegetation remained at the tree base. This technique was found to be suitable where small areas of trees similar in height exist, and direct view of the tree tops was observable from open ground so that survey could be performed on the cut tops to ensure adequate removal heights. Additionally, the area had to be well removed from any pedestrian activity or structures. The issue of re-growth was addressed through the girdling of all topped trees, which stunted their growth and resulted in the elimination of the tree over an approximate 3-5 year period. November 2008 4-20 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Based on a thorough review of the available techniques versus the airspace, ground and plant community conditions at Hanscom, the extent of plant community conversion for the VMAs at Hanscom were evaluated. The following provides the degress of anticipated plant community conversion necessary for the Hanscom VMAs. Removal (conversion) of all Vegetation: VMAs 5, 7, 3, 12 Selective Removal of Vegetation: VMAs 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 Having identified the type of vegetative community to be established, the remaining available vegetation removal methods were considered for each of the VMAs. In the list of selection principles, the narrowing of the alternatives based on environmental conditions is presented. Soil alteration and VMA access were two of the primary considerations in determining the initial removal method. Where unstable soils and/or limited site access were identified within a VMA, the lowest impact alternative was selected (helicopter removal or top-and-girdle). Where stable soil conditions allowed for machinery use and access, the height of the vegetation that could remain in the VMA determined the removal method. Where shrubs were to be protected, a selective removal was proposed (cut and chip, or mechanized felling depending upon the diameter of the vegetation to be removed). Where shrubs penetrated the protected airspace in the stable soil areas, mowing (wetlands) or clear and grub (uplands), with a conversion to meadow habitat was proposed. The alternatives analysis resulted in the application of the principle of Integrated Vegetation Management to each of the VMAs. Removal methods were carefully selected based on environmental constraints, airspace elevation, and ground elevation. Then, the need for secondary measures to control re-growth within the VMA was assessed, and methods selected where appropriate. The use of the initial and secondary removal methods establishes a vegetative community within each VMA that is maintainable in the long-term, thus addressing the safety requirements of the airport for many years, and reducing the need for large scale projects in the cut areas in the future. D. Selected Primary Removal Methods The following section provides a description of the selected vegetation removal methods to be utilized at L.G. Hanscom Field. The selection of the appropriate removal methods was based on a host of factors, including the height and diameter of the obstructions, the ground/soil conditions, the height of the protected airspace above the VMA, and the accessibility of the particular VMA. Where vegetation at shrub height penetrates the navigable airspace, the complete removal of the woody species, typically through mowing, is specified. However, where only trees have the ability to penetrate, selective mechanized clearing and protection of the shrub layer is specified. A summary of the removal methods to be used is provided in Table 4-4. Work within wetlands and buffers will not be performed until Massport has secured all necessary permits for each removal project under this phase of the VMP. November 2008 4-21 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. iID +' rn Uai o n3 a) o o o q) a) a� co 0- C7 INU (n o a) m U a`) a) O a) Ui L 7 .U C7 (D o oc' a) I � �' E ainapi ° ' (naEi (� a�) Q a � c� � � o � a) � �) 0 oiu � Q ; mom � � E cn ! a � o o N n E o i O a) U CD 6 O � O a) Q U) n ro E llc (o Ecn E ) E q ) (� v) a) c cu ° 0 o a C)0 a) Oaj O p o o ) o 3 cll O E � -oo (D � -C E D c c V _a Umo 0) roQ� � U) ro .� —o QE 1- cn €-6 U) a (D 7 E a) Ur .w Q a) Y) � cEa o 0 = 0 ooQ ma) iE G o0m roa _ m O p CS Y j a7 4) C �� Q E U) O .a) ro � O U n N 3 Q)) �� � E a ° O E _ m ], O a) U m o o > -a c o 3 IC-1 0-o — O - a) o 'C a) � r O N a) c ro Y) o Q) a E p LCL m co Q ` o E + ro E Oa) � N ) O n E .d• Q w L Oc O0 n a) a) a) Ch _ o ma) e ro o - - C: c . ' 7 � Q B.. E Uc Y)v Uro ro - - ' 4 � € � N � N 0 _N N_ LO iU (CS 0} V V V V (U (6 d � ffyU r LD (r? r r LO N I O ~ I � co Q LO i M • � � -o o � a) � E a) • U) {T) O Q- - 0- LL O i rw O 'er c 'O U N N n ( U a) (n 0 O I a) al 0 � E, S i2 > 2, (D U U F- L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Mowing, Grass Areas Mowing in grass areas is a regularly performed airport maintenance operation to maintain those areas in proximity to runways, taxiways, safety areas, and other operational areas of the airport. These areas are mowed to provide clear lines of sight and to prevent woody vegetation from encroaching into these areas. Standard tractor-type equipment is used. Vegetation in these areas is generally maintained at 12 inches or less. Mowing, Woody-Vegetation This removal method is reserved for those areas where even saplings and tall shrub species are able to penetrate the protected airspace, which typically occurs in areas in close proximity to the primary surface, and within the initial section of the approach surface. Mowing is only used where stable soils are present under dry or frozen conditions, or where only a short reach is required over unstable areas to access the target vegetation. Flail mowers can reach approximately 15 feet over unstable areas. Mowing will be performed by mechanical shredding of woody vegetation down to near ground level using a tracked or tired vehicle that exerts low ground pressures. In VMA 7, conversion to a meadow is proposed thus removal to ground level will occur. In VMAs 5 and 15, the establishment of a low shrub layer is proposed, thus mowing will be restricted to saplings and tall shrubs. Vegetation is converted to a fine, evenly spread mulch. Erosion control barriers are not typically required in these areas, however the use of seed and mulch to protect areas with no groundcover is specified. This removal method will result in the re-establishment of a low shrub layer or grassland habitat, and saplings will be subject to periodic removal as part of the long-term maintenance of the areas. It is recommended that these mowing areas be treated with a foliar herbicide application to eradicate tree saplings. The use of flail mowing in VMAs 5 and 15 was limited after the 2003 removal project. The continued growth of the vegetation at the airport has resulted in a reduced area where flail mowing can be practiced. When the occurrence of tree species with a diameter exceeding 6 inches becomes too high, then mechanized felling replaces the flail mowing equipment. As the VMP updates are generated, the phasing out of this technique will likely occur. Clear and Grub This upland method includes removal of all woody vegetation to ground level. Grubbing shall involve the mechanical removal of all root systems, and the entire area will then be graded, topsoiled and seeded. All grubbing debris will be removed from the site. No grubbing within any wetland area is recommended in this VMP. Erosion control barriers are typically established along the downslope area to protect adjacent wetlands. This removal method will provide for easier long-term maintenance of the area as grassland. Cut and Chip This removal method is specified where tall shrubs, tree saplings, and small trees are the obstructing vegetation, and preservation of a low shrub layer is an objective. This method will include hand cutting of target woody vegetation in the most sensitive areas. Additionally, this November 2008 4-23 Stantec Consulting Services Inc, L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan method is specified where soil conditions prohibit equipment access to all or part of the VMA, requiring the hand carrying or cabling of trees to a staging location for processing and removal from the project site. No wood chips will be deposited on the surface of the ground. Vegetation subject to cut and chip removal is highly selective, and results in the protection of the shrub and groundcover layers. Cut areas will be subject to herbicide application to control re-growth from stumps. The locations of the VMAs to be subjected to this method require the contractor to preserve and protect vegetation 30 feet in height or less in the vicinity of residential neighborhoods at the Runway 29 and 23 ends. In all other areas, where it is more efficient to remove smaller trees in the process of removing those over 15 feet in height, the contractor will be directed to do so. In any case, if trees less than 15 feet in height are damaged during the removal of taller trees, they shall also be removed. All native shrubs in these areas are to be preserved and protected to the extent practicable. All downed timber, logs, snags, debris, and rubbish of any nature shall be removed as part of the initial vegetation removal. No equipment will be allowed within wetland buffers unless the Contractor can demonstrate that no soil disturbance will occur. Work within wetlands and wetland buffers will not be performed until Massport has secured all necessary permits. All rutting created by removal efforts will be regraded. Any rutting and soil disturbance that may occur on slopes shall be regraded and stabilized immediately by seeding and mulching as per the mitigation measures contained in Chapter 5 of this VMP. Erosion control barriers are used in these areas on an as-needed basis only. Where optimal working conditions occur, soil disturbance can be completely avoided. Mechanized Felling Vegetation in areas designated for mechanized felling predominantly have an upper-story height of 60 to 100 feet. Species primarily include Red Maple, Red Oak, and White Pine. Areas designated as mechanized felling areas are located around the airport periphery, where only the tallest vegetation penetrates the protected airspace and soils allow for equipment access. In these areas, only mature trees need to be removed from the site. Staging areas are to be established in upland areas for log loading. This technique uses a front-mounted felling head operated hydraulically from a remote cab. The vehicle type can be either small or large, and the vehicle can be tracked or rubber tire. Mechanized fellers include three categories: feller-buncher, feller-director, multi-function harvester. Hand felling is proposed in the area of the capped landfill within VMA 13 to avoid any damage to the landfill liner by machinery. Feller-bunchers allow the operator to cut several stems at one time and use an accumulator to carry cut trees together to a single location where they can be loaded onto trucks for disposal from the project site. Feller-directors can only cut one tree at a time and must bring individual trees to a bunch for removal from the site. Multi-function harvesters allow an operator to fell, delimb, and buck (cut to length) trees from a remote cab. November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 4-24 L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Erosion control barriers are used on an as-needed basis in these areas. Where rutting occurs, seed and mulch are applied. Jute netting is used where rutting occurs on slopes. Helicopter Removal The use of helicopter removal has been specified for those areas where access is limited due to poor soil conditions and/or the presence of other sensitive environmental resources. This removal methodology is suitable for those VMAs where the vegetation removal is limited to large trees and the sapling and shrub layers are to be preserved. This method is proposed primarily as a measure to address potential wetland impacts. Helicopter removal requires the felling of trees by hand with chain-saws, topping and reducing limbs in place (optional), and attaching the trunk sections to a cable lowered from a helicopter. The trees are then transported to an established staging area where further processing of each tree is completed. This processing may include chipping of unusable sections and reducing trunks to standard lengths for trucking. Chips and logs are then removed from the staging area by trucks. Directional felling of trees within wetland areas is practiced to avoid stream channels and dense shrub areas, providing protection to wetland functions and values. Where possible, felling will be directed to the most open area available, since protection and promotion of the shrub layer is an objective within the helicopter removal areas. In VMA 10, directional felling will also be used to avoid impacts to the capped landfill area at the southern end of the VMA. Top-and-Girdle The use of the top-and-girdle technique is specified for those mature forested areas where access by machinery is not feasible due to poor soil conditions or other environmental issue; mainly in wetland areas and was substituted for helicopter removal during the 2003 VMP. This technique results in standing dead timber, and thus is not used where pedestrians may occur, or near parking areas or structures. Top-and-girdle requires access to the trees (on foot) by climbers with chain saws. The height of the trees relative to the airspace elevation must be certain. The individual or small group of trees is then climbed, a specified amount of the limbs dropped to the ground, and then the limbs are further reduced on the ground. Some hand scattering of the limbs is prescribed to avoid too much biomass in one area. This technique is the most target-specific and sensitive of the primary removal options. It is labor intensive, and results in standing dead timber. The added biomass on the ground did not result in groundcover or shrub impacts in the 2003 clearing project. En Selected Secondary Vegetation Management Methods Vegetation management at public use airports is a multi-task, continuous process which can only be successful if the initial removal plan addresses the long term maintenance issues. Typically, the initial removal of penetrations is completed by a contractor, while the maintenance of selected areas is completed by the airport staff which is normally limited in terms of both number of personnel and budget. The ease of this maintenance task usually determines the November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 4-25 L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan long term viability of the clearing project. It is this maintenance issue which is of primary concern to the airports in general since the protected surfaces must be kept clear of penetrations after the initial removal project. The VMP for L.G. Hanscom Field involves an initial mechanical removal of the vegetation which is presently penetrating the protected surfaces. Dominant species within both the upland and wetland areas at the airport include many which are capable of rapid re-growth from stumps, stems, and/or root systems. Shrub species are typically not a concern in this regard since their maximum height restricts them from penetrating the protected surfaces in most cases. However, many deciduous tree species routinely exhibit re-sprouting from cut surfaces. These sprouts have the capacity for rapid growth since the full mature root systems remain in the ground providing the necessary ingredients for growth. Additionally, the sprouts are often multi- stemmed, resulting in more penetrations to the surface than the original individual plant, and a higher density of stems to maintain. Some of the species capable of this type of re-growth and which are common at the airport include: Red Maple Acer rubrum Red Oak Quercus rubra White Oak Quercus alba Black Oak Quercus velutina Quaking Aspen Populus tremula Cottonwood Populus deltoides Secondary management techniques proposed with this project that address the long-term maintenance of the VMAs include: Herbicide application �- P-FeSGrobed burns Selective thinning Mowing Table 4-1 provides a listing of the VMAs and the applicable secondary management techniques proposed for each. The following sections provide a discussion of each of the selected secondary management techniques. E-1 Herbicide Application This maintenance issue has been a concern for many years in various vegetation management situations including power line rights-of-way, roadsides, and railroad corridors. Chemical control of these situations has developed as the preferred method in terms of the environmental protection, the intensity of the labor involved, durability of the control, longevity of the project, and cost. Since these efforts have been ongoing for many years, research and development of increasingly advantageous chemical controls has been constant, resulting in a variety of safe and beneficial types. Additionally, the research has developed a variety of types of these controls which have differing properties, allowing for the selection of one which is specifically matched for the intended situation. The data which have been accumulated over these many years regarding these modern herbicide types show that the proper use of these chemical methods provides an efficient means of control while protecting the environment. Many of the November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 4-26 L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan products are approved by both federal and state resource protection agencies for use in wetland situations, and even within close proximity to drinking water supplies. Many conservation agencies employ chemical methods for the elimination of invasive species in sensitive wetland areas. Chemical methods are a lower impact, more efficient option than continuous mechanical removal of stems. In general, the use of the chemical control alternative has the following advantages over several mechanical clearings; There is an increased longevity of the original vegetation removal since new growth must generate new root systems, as opposed to regrowth utilizing existing mature root systems. The frequency of mechanical removal is decreased, thus improving the overall landscape of the site by eliminating stumps, slash, etc. Chemical controls are selective, allowing shrubs and groundcover to remain without injury after the completion of the application. There is typically no incidental damage to non-target vegetation. Access to the management sites is not an issue when chemical applications are used since a backpack sprayer is the common form of equipment used for the application. Maintenance of the areas is significantly decreased thus reducing the overall costs of vegetation management. Herbicide Re ulato Authority The use of various chemical methods for long term vegetation management is an acceptable alternative and was thoroughly discussed and reviewed throughout the GEIR for Vegetation Removal c, ss. The selected method of herbicide application and the brand name products to be em,, _... J were also included in the GEIR. This method has been reviewed pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act and the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, and is regulated by the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture (MDFA) through a series of regulations. Additional federal regulatory authority which may pertain to the use of the specified chemical controls includes the Occupational Safety and Health Agency and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Over eight vegetation management plans at public use airports which involved the use of herbicides in buffer zone and wetland situations have been approved by local conservation commissions and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection pursuant to the limited project provisions of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Regulations. Additionally, the particular herbicide to be used at Hanscom Field is approved for use in wetland situations and near public water supplies (see Appendix C). In order for an herbicide to be used in a particular situation, it must be registered and approved for that use by the U.S. EPA and the corresponding state agency (Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture). Use of herbicides in wetland situations usually requires additional levels of regulation and, in Massachusetts, the Rights of Way Management Regulations (333 CMR 11.00) apply for railroad and utility rights of way. The GEIR recommends these regulations be used as guidance for airport vegetation removal projects. These regulations include measures for storage, mixture, application rates, species selection, applicator training requirements, etc. The preparation of a vegetation management plan prior to the use of the herbicides is a requirement of these regulations. The proposed use of chemical methods will be November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 4-27 L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan in compliance with all state and federal regulations. Applicators will be required to be licensed as per the requirements of 333 CMR 13.00. Proposed Application Techniques The application of herbicides can take many forms such as hand spraying of un-cut vegetation, including foliar treatment, application into man-made wounds, or coating of tree stumps after cutting has occurred. Based on an evaluation of the techniques employed at other airports in combination with the target species at L.G. Hanscom Field, foliar treatment was selected as the single method of herbicide application most appropriate for this VMP due to its efficiency and ease of target selection. Discussions with conservation agencies that employ a variety of herbicide application methods assisted in our selection. Foliar treatments will be conducted at least one growing season after the initial mechanical or hand removal of vegetation from the target areas. This treatment consists of applying a designated amount of spray (as per the manufacturer's recommendations) to the regrowth to cover about 50-60% of the existing foliage using a low pressure sprayer. The application is to an individual sprout, and is not broadcast over a wide area. It is not necessary to wet the entire plant, thus reducing herbicide volumes. The regrowth should be between 2 and 6 feet in height when treated, with a maximum of 10 feet. This height range should be achieved during the growing season following the cutting. Typical spray volumes are 15-25 gallons per acre of the low concentration herbicide/water mixture. Applications will be conducted during the growing season and during calm wind conditions to limit the mortality of non-target species. Herbicides for use in wetland areas are even more limited since potential impacts due to toxicity, persistence, and mobility are key issues in protecting aquatic organisms and drinking water supplies. The Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture has developed a listing of the pesticide components which are not approved for use in wetland areas. The herbicide to be used in this VMP shall be approved for use in wetlands. Review of the material safety data sheet for the selected type reveals very low toxicity for aquatic organisms, a short half-life, and low mobility in soils (Appendix C). Restrictions on the use of the herbicide in wetland areas include the following (as found in 333 CMR 11.00): No herbicide shall be applied on or within 10 feet of any standing or flowing water. At L.G. Hanscom Field, the foliar treatment is to be completed annually until the objectives are achieved. For the 2003 clearing project, 4-5 applications were necessary to control re-growth and invasive species. Touch-up applications will be required periodically after the initial intensive control period. No herbicide shall be applied within 100 feet of the edge of a vernal pool. These existing and potential pool areas occur in VMAs 2 and 6. Herbicide Product Information The target species at the airport include deciduous trees that are capable of heights exceeding 60 feet. Many of the species are quick growing (Populus spp.) and are prolific (Ater sp.) warranting the additional management beyond the removal stage. As was discussed above, most modern herbicides are specific for groups of similar vegetation, thus the list of target species for a site needs to be compared to the manufacturer's data. For L.G, Hanscom Field, November 2008 4-28 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan the list of target species and the need for chemical control in wetlands is adequately addressed by a single type of herbicide: a glyphosate product with several brand names including Accord, Roundup, and Rodeo. Roundup is widely used by the general public and professionals throughout the world. It has an excellent safety record and is approved for use in wetlands by the MDFA (333 CMR 11.00), It is recommended that a glyphosate herbicide with a surfactant be utilized as a foliar spray where the treatment is required. The application will consist of an approximate 7% solution which also contains a surfactant to improve contact time with the target species. Surfactants act as a detergent which improves coverage of the spray on the leaf surface and a higher mortality of the target species. The surfactant is composed of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, and is chemically related to an alcohol. Most surfactants have very low toxicities, and are rapidly broken down in the environment (short half-life) to harmless byproducts (carbon dioxide and water). The solution would be applied at the rate of approximately 20 gallons per acre using a backpack sprayer by a professional who is licensed in accordance with all applicable state and federal regulations. This person will be responsible for the proper mixing, handling, and application of the product. After the completion of the initial clearing and foliar treatments, some regrowth will remain and tree saplings will become re-established within the management areas. The number of saplings will be initially low; but if no maintenance is practiced, the numbers can be unmanageable within three years after the initial treatments. Without maintenance, there will likely be a need for additional intensive mechanical and chemical management in the future. It is anticipated that after the third or fourth foliar treatment of each removal area where this technique is prescribed by this VMP, tree saplings will begin to establish themselves within most management areas. Through the use of hand clippers, chain saws, or brush trimmers, the saplings will be selectively removed from wetland areas allowing all shrubs to remain. By protecting the shrub layer and enhancing shrub growth, sunlight will become a limiting factor for sapling establishment, thus reducing the maintenance effort in the wetland management areas. This is also important for the restriction of nuisance vegetation from the management areas. Protection of the shrub layer will restrict the spread of this vegetation to additional areas. Within the upland management areas, the same maintenance can be practiced or, if available, a small brush mower can be used to keep all vegetation down to ground level, promoting herbaceous growth. Through the use of a brush mower, additional land can be maintained at the airport in an efficient manner, E_2 Dree.Gdbed Burning P�eSGPibed IDUFRiRg G91-11d- be utilized as a supplemental maiRteRaRGe too! within VMAs 4 @Rd 5. This m iRteRance method offnrn varie is add ntaogee to the airport and 'note irol room moos eve F, mechanized mainteRanre-, although, its use is limited tG Iew shFub areas with adequ nrtant in terms of both nontrGl e burn,the and pmteetieR ef wildlife. The bi iFr c nn=,_Sat t„for,.,khe SPFIR season prior to May sheFtly thepeafter, iR rder to take advantage ef theRatural 9FOURGImoisture during that seaseR eeies en _crate November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 4-29 L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan VMA 5 in 1998. The G9rApilatiGR ef the burn plan involved iRput from several univeFsities and leGal and state agenGies, and may be used as the basis f9F future buFRs when feasible, it RGluded in Appe. di., F of this VMP document as a proposed method of implementati Prescribed burning is listed on this VMP as a potential maintenaRGe teol, and not as a vegetation remeval Fnethod, due to the extent of the vegetation growth WithiR the subjer't VMAs. VMAs, wh'Gh as currently exressive oempared to the standard. it is proposed to possibly utilize Femoval. All necessary permits and coordination will be rompleted during the winter months the burns ape RGt fea le—, -he-FbiGid addpess the re growth E-3 Selective Thinning Selective thinning refers to the removal of target re-growth using hand clippers or gas operated brush cutters. Since ground disturbance is not an issue when using this technique, it can be completed during any season. The use of selective thinning is restricted by the density of the target vegetation. Where re-growth densities are high, the use of selective thinning becomes labor intensive. For this reason, it is listed in combination with herbicide applications, to be used at the discretion of the airport. E-4 Mowing The mowing of herbaceous cover within both wetland and upland areas is listed as both a primary and secondary management technique in this VMP. Where the existing VMA consists of herbaceous species (i.e. VMA 1), mowing is used to maintain the area in its present condition. Where the initial removal method will create an herbaceous cover (i.e. VMAs 7, 8, and 12), mowing will be used as a maintenance tool once the woody species have been eliminated. Mowing can be completed during any season within the upland areas, however the mowing of wetland areas (VMA 7) will require dry or frozen ground conditions. F. Yearly Operational Plans (YOPs) Development of Yearly Operational Plans (YOPs) provides strategies for annual scheduling and budgeting of vegetation management activities. The costs associated with the vegetation removal normally require the separation of the removal work into two or more years. Additionally, many maintenance tools require specific time periods and/or weather conditions to be utilized. YOPs are typically specified over a five year period. The proposed vegetation management plan for areas other than the Hartwell Town Forest involves an initial mechanical and hand removal of obstructions followed by sapling removal and nuisance vegetation control through the following methods: foliar treatment of the regrowth, selective thinning, and/or mowing. It is proposed to complete all of the necessary penetration removal in the first year (during dry or frozen ground conditions sufficient to eliminate wetland November 2008 4-30 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan impacts due to the removal of the logs and slash), followed by fofiar treatments as shown in Table 4-5. Maintenance of all management areas will be performed during the third year of the plan, and then on an annual basis. By continuously eliminating tree saplings, a dense shrub cover will become established suppressing future sapling growth within the applicable VMAs. Only through yearly maintenance will management areas remain free of obstructions, thus the maintenance is included in this VMP. Typically, lack of maintenance over one year is sufficient to create unmanageable conditions. However, the extent of the maintenance will be significantly reduced by the use of herbicide treatments as part of the VMP. Table 4-5: Yearly operational plans for the VMP at Hanscom Field for each of the five years of the plan. 1 Removal of all identified penetrating vegetation from the VMAs according to the removal methods proposed in this VMP. Wetland work is restricted to periods of dry or frozen ground conditions. Complete baseline monitoring of the vegetation plots and the invasive species control areas. 2 Initial Fo€tar Treatment within VMAs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 15, typically completed in mid-to- late summer. Initiate invasive species mitigation in VMAs 4,6, 9, and 13. Complete vegetation and invasive species monitoring reports. 3 Maintenance of all VMAs including second fofiar treatment. Invasive species control in applicable VMAs. Complete vegetation and invasive species monitoring reports. 4 Third foliar treatment of all applicable VMAs. Invasive species control in applicable VMAs. Complete vegetation and invasive species monitoring reports. 5+ Maintenance of all VMAs including fourth fofiar treatment. Invasive species control in applicable VMAs. Complete final vegetation and invasive species monitoring reports. i _-_.-------.--.-..-._-.____ __ As the YOPs for each removal project prepared under this VMP are completed, the need for additional maintenance beyond the final year of the plan will be determined. If additional removal or treatments are needed, they will be included in the next VMP removal project (and the permitting thereof). G. Discussion of Environmental Effects The potential effects from the implementation of the VMP at Hanscom Field are primarily restricted to the modification of vegetative cover types within the WAS, The change in cover may affect wildlife habitat, storm water runoff characteristics, surface water quality, and overall aesthetics. The assessment of the potential environmental effects associated with the vegetation removal projects completed under this VMP will be addressed in a project-specific fashion, within the individual permit applications completed for each removal project. The scope of the assessments should be based on the size and location of each removal project, and the assessment method should be consistent with applicable state and federal environmental regulations. Assessments of individual projects are to be provided in the respective Notices of Intent. November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 4-31 L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan CHAPTER 5: MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures are proposed to address the environmental constraints discussed in Chapter 3. Additional measures may be included in the individual permit applications completed for each Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) update. The primary goals of the mitigation measures include: Remove identified and potential penetrations to the FAA Part 77 and TERPs surfaces at the airport in a safe and orderly manner according to the contract documents, environmental permits, and all applicable state and federal laws and regulations. Conduct the vegetation management in a manner that protects sensitive environmental resources, produces a wetland vegetative community that provides important functions and values and requires minimal maintenance. Be sensitive to immediate abutters of the airport who may be affected by any change in the vegetative community within the Vegetation Management Areas (VMAs). Control the spread of existing nuisance plant species at the airport through a combination of project timing, methodology, and restoration. Protect wetland resources from erosion and sedimentation impacts during the initial removal operation and maintain suitable wetland plant communities for wildlife. The following is a listing of the mitigation measures which will help to achieve the overall goals of the project as listed in Chapter 1, while also addressing the mitigation goals as listed above. Mechanical Removal Methods and Timin Selection of the mechanical removal methods and identification of the VMAs that will receive designated treatment is the result of a comprehensive investigation of the vegetative communities and environmental resources that comprise the airport property and available removal alternatives as discussed in Chapter 4. Criteria for the selection included the locations and sensitivity of environmental constraints, and the elevations of the protection zones. The heights of the vegetation to be removed, the height and density of the vegetation to remain, along with the environmental conditions dictate the type of equipment that can be used to remove the obstructing vegetation. In this manner, only that vegetation which penetrates, or threatens to penetrate the protected surfaces will be removed allowing, in most cases, the shrub layer to remain. The mechanical methods will be used only during periods of dry or frozen ground conditions where the tracked or rubber-tired vehicles will not cause disturbance of the soils. This is the most important mitigation measure proposed since it minimizes or avoids soil disturbance and thus eliminates the threat of sedimentation and significantly reduces the extent of disturbed ground which is favored by invasive species. November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 5-1 L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan The proposed mechanical removal methods also result in a diversification of wildlife habitat; potentially resulting in a cover type that is increasingly rare in the northeast. Many rare avian species are facing a decline in numbers due to the cessation of farming and the gradual succession of open fields to mature woods. The loss of this habitat type to succession and development has left many avian species without nesting and feeding habitat. Many of the estimated habitats of rare species in Massachusetts include such ecosystems. In fact, most airports are included on the estimated habitat maps due to the presence of substantial area of the early successional cover types. Species such as the grasshopper sparrow, upland sandpiper, and short-eared owl are all confirmed rare species that currently inhabit airport properties in Massachusetts due to the presence of open grassland and early successional scrub-shrub habitat. Removal of debris after the completion of the mechanical removal will be a condition of the contract, unless areas are identified where removal may result in more damage than allowing the cut vegetation to remain, such as in VMA 13 adjacent to the landfill or in top-and-girdle areas. In these cases, the logs may be cut into 24" lengths and allowed to rot in place. The creation of brush piles as habitat is an exception as discussed in this chapter. Chemical Control Methods Any Notice of Intent prepared for vegetation management proposing herbicides at L,G, Hanscom Field will include herbicide application guidelines similar to existing utility rights of way regulations as described in Chapter 4. Full compliance with these guidelines is a mandate. Through the full compliance with the guidelines, by following the additional use restrictions, and by using a product which is approved for use within wetlands and has a relatively low toxicity to aquatic organisms, potential impacts to wetlands will be mitigated. On this project, herbicide applications will not occur within 10 feet of any standing water, or within 100 feet of any certified or potential vernal pool. Erosion Controls Locations of erosion control barriers and matting are not established on the project plans since it is anticipated that only minimal controls will be required (based on experience with the first phase of VMP implementation at Hanscom Field as well as experiences with other several airport vegetation management projects). Barriers will be required adjacent to those WAS where grubbing is proposed including VMAs 8 and 12. It will be a requirement that the contractor stockpiles a minimum of 300 feet of erosion control fence on the property, and 1,000 square feet of jute mesh in case of unforseen soil disturbance within other VMAs. The engineer and/or environmental monitor shall have the authority to direct the contractor to install any and all erosion controls within both wetland and upland areas which he/she deems necessary to protect wetland areas from sedimentation impacts. The environmental monitor will ensure that all necessary precautions are employed to avoid soil disturbance that could otherwise result in the spread of invasive plant species which presently inhabit the airport and surrounding areas. Much of the proposed work will occur during the winter months where snow and/or frost conditions do not typically allow for the proper installation of these erosion control devices, or it may be determined that the installation will not result in any additional protection. Since it is not possible to foresee all conditions under which the work will be completed, the engineer and/or environmental monitor will have the authority to determine the required controls. November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 5-2 L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Seeding Specifications Areas of ground disturbance will be further protected through the use of seed mixes that will establish a reasonably quick cover (thus reducing the ground available for invasive species) but will not out-compete the species already present in the areas. The contractor shall have available 80 pounds of upland seed and 40 pounds of wetland seed, and sufficient mulch to cover 10,000 square feet (30 bales). Seed and mulch shall be applied at the direction of the engineer and/or environmental monitor. The seed mixtures and application rates for both upland and wetland situations are provided below. Upland Seed Mixture: 45% Red Fescue (Festuca rubra) 35% Annual Ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) 13% Virginia Wild Ryegrass (Elymus virginicus) 5% Partridge Pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata) 2% Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) 40 l bs/Acre Wetland Seed Mixture: 50% Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) 20% Fowl Bluegrass (Poa palustris) 15% Deertongue Grass (Panicum clandestinum) 10% Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) 5% Annual Ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) 40 lbs/Acre Each seeded area will receive additional protection through the use of a mulch to protect the seed during the winter months and to protect against dessication during the summer months. Mulch may consist of the following: Mulch: Hay or Straw, air dried and free of undesirable seeds. Wood fiber, cellulose with green dye (for hydroseed option) 120 lbs/1000 SF (3 bales) The upland seed mix shall be used within VMAs 8 and 12 where grubbing is proposed. In both areas, the seed and mulch shall be applied using a hydroseed application, where wood fiber mulch is included in the mixture. Where incidental soil disturbance occurs during the removal operation, hand application may be substituted for hydroseeding. Staging Areas Staging areas (the locations to be used for log/debris storage) are specified only for those areas where the proximity to wetland boundaries, property lines, and/or steep slopes make the pre- designation of such areas necessary to protect these resources. The contractor may establish as many other staging areas as necessary to complete the work, but only upon the approval of the engineer and/or environmental monitor. It is likely that permit applications for each vegetation removal plan prepared under this VMP will require that staging areas be specified on the permit application plans. Such areas are likely to result in some upland soil disturbance, thus all staging areas are to receive upland seed and mulch when construction is complete. November 2008 5 3 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Debris is to be removed from the staging areas after completion of each section of the work, as per the removal specifications for each mechanical removal method discussed in Chapter 4. upland areas elese to the VIVIA but in nnnrrlination with-he aiF+raffie nnn#oTtewer, The IIeGatieRs of the staniRg areas may vane depe4:;r[ine upan the weather nenrdi+inns d iriRg the days. 1-4.;-- 1-hHs pre determination of the sites is R9t pPaGtiGal. p , Limited Access Areas One of the environmental constraints identified on the project site was restrictive slopes, mainly associated with the two stream channels on the airport property. Additionally, soil conditions and rare species habitat also affect the areas to be used for access. Designated access is identified only for those areas where unrestricted access may affect the goals of this VMP. In other areas, access may be gained by a variety of routes, per the concurrence with the engineer and/or environmental monitor. All access and movement by vehicles associated with this VMP must adhere to airport safety policies and regulations. Access routes referenced herein do not relieve the contractor from meeting all restrictions and regulations regarding movement in and around the airport. Table 5-1 provides information necessary to complete the vegetation management while avoiding sensitive areas. Table 5-1: Listing of sensitive areas at L.G. Hanscom Field which require specified staging areas and access routes due to soil, topography, rare species, and/or wetland issues. 3 and 10 Soil conditions unable to support heavy machinery. Directional felling and cabling of logs will be required for removal. Top-and-girdle is specified for the removal of interior obstructions from these VMAs. i 15 and 16 Preserve a vegetated screen between the airport and adjacent residences. 14 Locate and mark groundwater monitoring wells, and avoid damage to the wells. 2 and 6 Vernal pool areas. No machinery allowed within 50 feet of pool banks. No herbicide application within 100 feet of pool banks. Pools and the setbacks are to be marked with flagging prior to vegetation removal. 4 and 9 Steep and wide stream channel with unstable banks will not allow for crossing between the upland VMAs on either side of the channel. Hand clearing will be required for the wetland VMA within the stream corridor. No crossing of the i channel will be allowed. I i 13 and 10/11 Existing capped landfills to be avoided by machinery. Directional felling shall j E be practiced adjacent to the landfills to avoid damage to the liners. 6 Additional precautions shall be taken to preserve the shrub and sapling layer to continue functioning as a screen between the airport and adjacent residences. November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 5-4 L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Wildlife Habitat Improvements FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports, states that "caution should be exercised to ensure that land use practices on or near airports do not enhance the attractiveness of the area to hazardous wildlife." Within the criteria set forth within this advisory circular, limited numbers of isolated brush piles and standing dead timber (snags) will be constructed on the airport property to sustain existing wildlife habitat during the each removal operation. Brush piles shall be constructed of fresh cut branches and trunks that do not exceed six inches in diameter and are not less than six feet in length. Each pile shall measure between four and eight feet in height (lightly compacted), and have a surface area of between 300 and 600 square feet. Severe compaction of the piles shall be avoided, since the creation of void space is a goal of this habitat improvement. Piles shall be placed in locations approved by the Environmental Monitor at the densities indicated in Table 5- 2 for the initial cutting plan. Snags shall be created out of live trees that are greater than 10 inches in diameter. Individual trees shall be selected by the environmental monitor at the density indicated in Table 5-2 for each removal plan that involves the applicable VMAs. The selected trees shall be cut a minimum of 15 feet off of the ground so that a standing trunk remains. The base of the tree shall be girdled to ensure tree mortality. Existing snags encountered during removal operations shall be preserved and protected if they are not obstructions to existing airspace. Additional snags/piles can be specified for future management operations. Table 5-2: Brush pile and snag creation within specified VMAs for each removal project where the VMA is involved. - . 2 12 8 _3_ —g n/a i 13 8 3 _ 14 ._.. _ 12 3_ 16 4 � Environmental Monitor A qualified environmental monitor who is proficient in the state wetland, herbicide, and forest cutting regulations, and who has a working knowledge of this VMP shall supervise the completion of the mechanical removal portion of the yearly operational plans. The minimum requirements for the monitor include a bachelor's degree in environmental science or related field, a minimum of two years experience with erosion controllwetland monitoring of construction projects, and a minimum of five years experience with the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Regulations. This monitor shall be aware of the locations of all sensitive areas, including wetland boundaries and the limits of the habitat of rare species, The environmental monitor shall direct the contractor to apply certain mitigation measures on an as-needed basis, including the installation of erosion controls and the seeding of altered areas. The environmental monitor shall be consulted on access routes and staging areas, and shall be the environmental contact person between the airport, community, and the contractor. November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 5-5 L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Vegetation Plot Monitoring Massport will continue a program of vegetation monitoring of the existing plots within the VMAs throughout this VMP update. Plot locations were determined during the 2003 VMP and consist of the following: Plot centers permanently marked with an iron rod pounded into the ground and marked with highly visible paint. The plot locations have been survey-located and included on a plan of the airport. Each plot has been marked on the plan with latitude/longitude and Massachusetts state plane coordinates. The plan shall be used as a figure in each monitoring report. Baseline data of the existing vegetation within the monitoring plot shall be collected during the growing season and prior to any project disturbance of the subject VMA. Photographs of the shrub/sapling layer, and a close-up of the groundcover layer shall be collected for each plot. Monitoring data shall be collected using techniques specified by the Department of Environmental Protection in determining wetland plant species composition and abundance. This technique includes an evaluation of the following vegetative strata: Canopy Layer Basal area, in square inches, of all tree species within a 30-foot radius circle Lianas Stem count of all climbing woody vines within a 30-foot radius circle Saplings Percent cover of all saplings greater than one inch diameter and 30 feet in height in leaf-on condition within a 15-foot radius circle Shrubs Percent cover of all shrubs greater than three feet in height in leaf- on condition within a 15-foot radius circle Groundcover Percent cover of all woody/herbaceous groundcover species within a 5-foot radius circle. An annual monitoring report shall be completed for the monitoring plots for an additional five years. Vegetation monitoring shall be completed each year during the growing season, and at approximately the same time of year as the baseline data collection. The reports shall contain an analysis of the vegetation in the plots using the above described methodology, a comparison of the percent coverage and species composition of the plots to the baseline data, a computation of percent wetland species coverage, a discussion of the increase/decrease of invasive species coverage, and a discussion of the re-vegetation of the plot relative to the performance standards of the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. Photographs for each plot shall be collected for each annual report, and they shall be taken from the same location and angle as the photos taken for the baseline data. As part of each annual report, the measures taken for nuisance species elimination from the nuisance species control areas (described below) shall be included. November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 5-6 L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan Nuisance Vegetation Invasive vegetative species exist at the airport: and have been identified as an environmental constraint in this VMP. In most wetland areas on the site, European Buckthorn is a dominant species within the shrub layer. Furthermore, Purple Loosestrife is common within the scrub- shrub and emergent wetlands on the site, particularly where beaver activity has resulted in increased light penetration along Elm Brook and the Shawsheen River. Since these species occur on and adjacent to the airport property in high densities, eradication of the species is not an objective of the VMP. Control of the spread of these species will be practiced. The following measures will be taken to control the spread of nuisance vegetation: Erosion control measures identified in this chapter shall be followed immediately upon the identification of disturbed soils. Seed and mulch specifications are particularly important since the establishment of a dense cover of other vegetation is the principle deterrent to the spread of these species. Staging areas and the clear/grub VMAs (8 and 12) are the largest potential areas of disturbed soil, thus the mitigation focus in these areas will be the quick establishment of turf. Where opportunities exist within the mowing and cut-and-chip VMAs, European Buckthorn will be targeted for removal if other shrub species are present in the community. The environmental monitor will identify mono-cultures of the nuisance species that can be cut along with the sapling removal. This will allow native shrub species an opportunity to colonize the area. Four nuisance species control areas were established as part of the 2003 VMP. These included portions of VMAs 4, 6, 9, 10 and 13. Additional control areas may be established as a part of future VMP updates. Protection of native shrubs during the invasive species control is an objective of this mitigation measure. The control includes the identification of the control area limits followed by the systematic identification and elimination of nuisance shrub species using a combination of selective thinning and herbicide applications that favor the growth and spread of existing native shrubs. Target species in the sites include European Buckthorn, Japanese Barberry, and European Honeysuckle. Nuisance groundcover species are not known to occur in the selected areas, however, if present, the following species will also be targeted: Purple Loosestrife, Common Reed, and Oriental Bittersweet. The process of control includes the mechanical and/or hand removal of the nuisance species from the limits of the control areas during the mechanical removal phase of the project. During the following four yearly operational plans of a management period, hand thinning or a combination of thinning and herbicide treatments will be used for the elimination of the nuisance vegetation. Herbicide applications, while effective, cannot be used in all of the control areas due to open water restrictions on herbicide applications. As part of this mitigation measure, the success of the control sites shall be documented on an annual basis, with the results submitted along with the vegetation monitoring reports described above. Baseline data of each control area shall be collected prior to any control measures including an analysis of the shrub layer composition and density using the vegetative data collection techniques for the shrub layer described above. A sufficient number of baseline November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 5-7 L.G. Hanscom Field Vegetation Management Plan photographs shall be taken of each control area during the growing season which, in combination with the shrub plot data, can be used to determine the success of the control. Annual data collection and photographs shall be collected after each year's control efforts have been completed. Each control area will require five years of monitoring. Vernal Pool Protection Vernal pools within VMAs 2 and 6 shall be marked in the following manner prior to the vegetation removal projects within the subject VMAs: The pool edge shall be marked every five feet with brightly colored surveyor's flagging (four pools). The 50-foot perimeter from the pool edge shall be marked with "caution" tape during mechanical removal operations. The 100-foot perimeter from the pool edge shall be marked with "caution" tape during herbicide applications within the subject VMAs. All markings will be removed after completion of the work. The following conditions are part of this VMP and apply to working within VMAs 2 and 6: No mechanical removal of vegetation shall occur within 50 feet of the vernal pool edge as marked by "caution" tape. No herbicide applications shall be made closer than 100 feet from the edge of the pool, and shall be completed within vernal pool habitat between July 1 and September 1. Directional felling of vegetation shall be practiced within 50 feet of the vernal pools. Trees shall be felled away from the established 50-foot perimeter. Erosion control barriers within 200 feet of the vernal pools shall be installed in a staggered format so that gaps exist within the barrier to allow for the passage of wildlife, but continue to provide effective stormwater filtering from disturbed areas. Barriers shall not remain in place for more than four months. November 2008 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 5-8