This 1993 research paper (PDF, 156KB) underscores the value of the North Street woods for water management and pollution control around Millyard Brook. Kohl Construction proposes to cut down many mature trees near the Millyard Brook wetlands to make way for a condo project.

Highlights from the paper:

"A mature forest can absorb as much as 14 times more water than an equivalent area of grass (NCASI, 1992)... Trees aggressively convert nutrients into biomass... Their deep spreading root systems resist erosion, stimulate biological and chemical soil processes, and draw water and nutrients from deep within the soil profile. Trees produce high amounts of carbon needed as an energy source for bacteria involved in the denitrification process... With buffers of adequate size, 50% to 100% of sediment and its adsorbed nutrients has been shown to settle out in the streamside forest as the speed of runoff is reduced by the many obstructions encountered... The shade provided by a riparian forest buffer moderates stream temperatures and levels of dissolved oxygen. These factors are critical for fisheries and submerged aquatic vegetation, but also have water quality implications. Temperature increases the rate at which nutrients attached to suspended solids are converted to readily available (soluble) forms. As stream temperature increases above 60° F significant increases in phosphorus release from sediments occurs (Karr and Schlosser, 1978). In this way, the loss of forest shade may exaggerate nonpoint pollutant effects by reducing the streams ability to assimilate organic wastes and inducing algae blooms and low oxygen levels... Human habitat is also important. Forest buffers in urban areas provide a unique linkage between people and their environment... Forests should be retained as greenbelts along streams and drainageways during development... Urban forest buffers filter runoff, air pollutants, and noise. Forests cool the air and provide corridors for movement of birds and other wildlife. In urban areas, these buffers may provide the only available habitat for many organisms."

Here is the complete paper:















See also:

Our Ad in Today's Gazette: A Review of Our Objections to the Kohl Condo Proposal

Topographical Map Shows How Kohl Condo Proposal Will Eat Into a Rare Stand of Mature Trees in Downtown

Planning Board Gives Initial Critique of Kohl Condo Proposal: Jan 22 Video

Video: Conservation Commission Meeting of 1/22/09; Non-Compliance with Wetlands Protection Agreements; Kohl Asked to Revise Condo Proposal Again

Gazette Reports on January 22 Kohl Condo Hearings; Pictures of the Latest Proposal; Conservation Staff Report; HYLA Critique
Here is an analysis of Kohl's proposal prepared by Dr. Bryan S. Windmiller of HYLA Ecological Services for the North Street Neighborhood Association:

I have prepared the following brief commentary on the Notice of Intent for construction of the North Street Condominiums development, proposed by Tofino Associates along North Street in Northampton, Massachusetts.  I submit these comments to you with the intention that they be distributed to the Northampton Conservation Commission and included in the record of commentary of the Notice of Intent.  My comments pertain to the latest revised plans for the project (Berkshire Design Group, Inc., Jan. 16, 2009).

I contend that the extensive buffer zone alterations proposed by Tofino Associates to a largely forested buffer zone adjacent to the Bordering Vegetated Wetlands along Millyard Brook, will inevitably result in the physical, chemical, and biological alteration of these wetlands.  The proponent desires to work very close to the edge of wetlands, with intrusions apparently as close as 12 feet from the wetland edge.  Cumulatively, by the proponents reckoning, the construction would directly alter 6,325 sq. ft. of buffer zone between 35 and 10 feet from the wetland edge. The project would result in the destruction of the great majority of natural vegetation, most of currently mature woods.

Furthermore, in an effort to meet the stringent conditions set under the newly revised Northampton Wetlands Protection Ordinance regarding any proposal to alter buffer zone within 35 feet of a wetland resource area, Tofino Associates proposes to disturb an additional several thousand square feet of buffer zone between 10 and 35 feet from the wetlands in the course of creating tiny “wetland replication” areas.  Further, the proponent wants to directly disturb a significant area of forested bordering vegetated wetland through an “invasive species removal and native plantings” scheme.  These actions are presumably meant to be “extraordinary” mitigation to compensate for the unprecedented buffer zone intrusions that are proposed.  I argue here that this logic is ecologically fallacious: the applicant proposes to mitigate the impacts of buffer zone disturbance by disturbing even more area of inner buffer zone and forested wetland itself.  This mitigation effort will, in fact, only worsen the impacts to the wetlands bordering Millyard Brook.


1.  The Proposed Buffer Zone Alterations Will Inevitably Alter the Adjacent Wetland Resource Areas in Many Ways

The Massachusetts Wetland Protection Act seeks to prevent alterations to wetland resource areas within the Commonwealth.  In doing so, the regulations use a very stringent definition of the word “alter” (310 CMR 10.04):

Alter means to change the condition of any Area Subject to Protection Under M.G.L. c. 131,

§ 40.  Examples of alterations include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a)   the changing of pre-existing drainage characteristics, flushing characteristics, salinity distribution, sedimentation patterns, flow patterns and flood retention areas;

(b)   the lowering of the water level or water table;

(c)   the destruction of vegetation;

(d)   the changing of water temperature, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and other physical, biological or chemical characteristics of the receiving water.

The idea that the applicant can cut down mature woods to within 12 feet of the wetland edge and have no effect on the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of wetlands a mere long-jump away is completely untenable.  There is an abundance of scientific evidence demonstrating that the effects of removing natural vegetation, particularly forest cover, extend far into the remaining woodland from the newly-created edge.  The following is a sampling of known “edge effects” that alter ecological communities much beyond 12-feet from a disturbed area (e.g. an area of construction activities).

         Altered Physical Conditions:  The shade of a closed-canopy forest produces very different physical conditions at ground level than experienced in adjacent open areas.   Open areas are windier and drier at ground level, have sharper temperature fluctuations, and much deeper frost lines than adjacent woods.  Rain strikes the ground with greater erosive force in open areas.  These differences do not end abruptly at the forest edge but are propagated well into the woods.  Light levels near a forest edge return to normal (i.e. similar to forest interior) in only a few meters from the edge (e.g. <20 feet), but wind patterns, turbulence, and reduced humidity typically extend from 0.5 to several times the average height of canopy trees (e.g. >>30 feet into the North Street Woods, Richard T.T. Forman,  Land Mosaics, 1995. Pp. 88-89).   These altered physical conditions increase the penetration of invasive plant seeds into the forest, and stress forest interior adapted native forest floor plants.

         Increased Tree Mortality Near the New Forest Edge:  Changes in wind speed and turbulence near a newly-created forest edge increase the likelihood of tree mortality at some distance from the edge.  Wind-throw of trees becomes more common, with effects continuing many yards into the adjacent forest.  Quoting from an ecology textbook (R.J. Whittaker and J.M. Fernandez-Palacios. Island Biogeography, Ecology, Evolution, and Conservation­. 2001. P. 208):

“We can say, however, that at the edge of a newly-fragmented woodland patch, increased desiccation, wind-damage (to trees), and tree-throw can each be significant… Wind-throw of dominant trees can result in changes in the vegetation structure, and allow recruitment of earlier succesional species (e.g. many invasive weedy species).”  (Italics are mine.)

In addition, the construction process itself is likely to damage trees near the new forest edge as roots are dug up and the soil around them compacted by machinery.  In the proposed Tofino Associates development, the roots of the mature trees are likely to extend 25 feet or more from the trunks of the trees.  Trees may thus be readily damaged or killed by construction even though their trunks are yards away.  If these damaged trees fall, they propagate changes in the woods (light-levels, humidity, penetration by weedy seeds, etc.) further still into the adjacent wetlands...

...the intended removal of Norway spruce (Picea abies), a non-native species occurring in a dense mature stand in the Millyard Brook wetlands can, in no way be construed as an improvement.  Although these trees are not native, they provide complex habitat structure for wildlife, help bind the soil that enhances the erosion control and pollution attenuation functions of the wetlands, and moderate climate and humidity levels in the wetlands.  The removal of these trees will cause major direct impacts to the wetlands and adjacent buffer zone and will greatly facilitate the establishment of truly invasive exotic species.  The tree removal will also greatly reduce and simplify existing wildlife habitat.  The resident birds, mammals, and invertebrates care not one whit that these mature trees are originally native to Europe; they exist and provide excellent habitat structure...

Kohl Submits Revised Proposal Ahead of January 22 Hearings; Modest Concessions to Conservation Commission

Japanese Knotweed and Multiflora Rose: Is Herbicide the Answer?
In an effort to earn 'extraordinary mitigation' points and justify close encroachment to the wetlands off North Street, Kohl Construction proposes to apply herbicide in an effort to eradicate two invasive species on its property: Japanese knotweed and multiflora rose...

First up is this article on Japanese knotweed by R.H. Shaw and L.A. Seiger (2002):

...To be effective, Japanese knotweed control probably will need to be undertaken on a watershed-wide basis...

Once established, F. japonica is very difficult to eradicate and removal efforts may have further adverse impacts on the soil or other plants...

In areas where F. japonica has been introduced, it is found primarily in moist, unshaded habitats... Fallopia japonica requires high light environments and competes effectively for light in such situations. It is found primarily in open sites, and its growth and abundance are depressed in shady sites (Beerling, 1991b; Seiger, 1993). Consequently, it is unable to invade forest (Beerling, 1991b, Seiger, 1993)...

Even if Kohl tries to eradicate knotweed from its entire parcel, this is far short of a "watershed-wide basis". And while Bruce Young disputes the notion that removal of invasives can disturb the wetland and its buffer zone, just such a risk is mentioned by Shaw and Seiger. We also note that Kohl's proposed condo development calls for extensive tree-cutting. The resulting increase in light penetration on the property may well facilitate the spread of Japanese knotweed.

Invasive Plant Atlas of New England: Japanese Knotweed
Polygonum cuspidatum can be found in a variety of habitats. It thrives in riparian areas and wetlands, but can be found along roadsides and other disturbed areas. It prefers full sunlight, but can tolerate moderate shade. This plant is tolerant of high temperatures, dry soil and salt.