The RDA

On March 29, 2000 Berkshire Community College filed a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA). This was a request for a determination by the Pittsfield Conservation Commission as to whether the proposed project was subject to the Wetlands Protection Act. A negative determination would indicate that the Conservation Commission did not consider itself to have jurisdiction in this matter and the college was free to proceed with its proposed work. A positive determination would indicate that the work came under the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act and that the college would have to present its project more formally and completely before the Conservation Commission in the form of a Notice of Intent (NOI).

The RDA filed by the college made no mention of the endangered species habitat, the certified vernal pool, the nearby pond, the bordering vegetated wetlands, or the buffer zones. The map submitted with the RDA (labeled L-1) did not include the vernal pool, although the pool’s position is within the scope of the map. Since Caleb Mitchell was so familiar with the site that he did not have to walk the wetlands, perhaps he should have recognized that the wetlands weren’t on the map. In the RDA application, the college claimed the work was exempt from the Conservation Commission’s jurisdiction because “Work area is set back from delineated wetlands.” However, the wetlands had not been delineated. No wetland delineation had been performed. Also remember that the original map, S1, did not even show wetlands, although they were there.  Where were the wetlands on that map from which the work area was “set back?”

NOTE: “Delineation” has a very specific and technical meaning in the context of the Wetlands Protection Act.  The colleges reference to the “delineated wetlands” indicates that this process was undertaken and completed. It was not.  See here for an explanation of what is meant by “wetland delineation.”