Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 03/10/2011
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting


Date and Time:  Thursday, March 10, 2011, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location:       Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present:        Michael Blier, Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton, Rebecca Christie, Julia Knisel
Members Absent: Chairman David Pabich, Carole McCauley
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder:       Stacy Kilb

Acting Chair Christie calls the meeting to order at 6:12PM.

Meeting Minutes—February 24, 2011
Approval is tabled until the next meeting since there is no quorum as of now.

Old/New Business
  • Discussion of Greenscapes Massachusetts, Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coast Watch
Ms. Warren is again asking for the Commission’s support of the Greenscapes program. Devine has a copy of the letter asking for support, which Ms. Warren reviews. The scope of work this year is different; last year magnets were handed out and were well-received. This year three different educational leaflets are proposed; each community will receive 500 with an option to purchase more. There are 18 communities on the North Shore that support the program. The leaflets can be left out, handed out at events, or put into mailings. More articles will be written. The focus is on water conservation, green lawn care, and stormwater. They will also do workshops on organic lawn care. Additionally, the EPA is coming out with a draft of a plan for what communities must do for their discharge permits. It is under NPDES and as a result of the new permit, new outreach and education materials must be provided as well as having concrete goals. Over the five years of the permit, each audience listed must be targeted twice a year; Greenscapes will help the City set priorities and a timeline, and assist in developing outreach and education components of the NOI. With Conservation Commission support, they would develop materials for the targeted audiences.

This year the price is reduced again – the membership fee is $1500 per town, with a $300 materials fee for a total of $1800. In the past the City has split the cost between Conservation Commission and another department (Julie Rose). Devine has not yet spoken to Julie about this.

Last year the Salem Beautification Plant Sale was held, and Greenscapes has attended the Living Green Fair and had a volunteer organic landscaper come. They are continuing to build awareness and were at the Salem Maritime Festival. Next year there will be more news articles and SATV programs. They also paid for some trees planted on Columbus Day.

Christie asks if there is a deadline. Ms. Warren would like an answer by Mid-April; the end of April would be acceptable but they would like to place their order soon. Blier asks about the cost, which will depend on if they split it with another City Department. Devine asks who coordinates work for the NPDES permit; it would probably be the City Engineer. It is suggested that all departments form a committee. But, this is still in draft form and has not gotten going yet. The NOI must be put in by August but the EPA keeps changing the date. SSCW’s role with Greenscapes is that it is a coalition of organizations on the North Shore and Ms. Warren would work with Salem and nearby watershed communities to do outreach and education.

The Commission suggests that Devine speak to Julie Rose and Ms. Warren says a decision can wait until the next meeting.

Acting Chairwoman Christie opens to the public but there are no comments.

The issue is tabled until more information can be gathered, to be reviewed at the next meeting.

Public hearing—Request to Amend Order of Conditions for DEP #64-489—City of Salem, 120 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed remediation of contaminated soil within a riverfront area, buffer zone to a coastal bank and land subject to coastal storm flowage at 20 Franklin Street (Furlong Park).

Amy Hamilton recuses herself from this discussion.

Jeff Brant and Matt Robinson from TRC are here. Mr. Brant presents large scale plans.
Illustration: Plan Showing Limits of Remediation Work, March 2011

During the previous renovation, contamination was discovered at Furlong Park and TLC has formed a remediation plan. Soils must be removed and replaced with clean fill. There are four sites on the plan which will need to be excavated, at a total of 10,000 square feet or 1000 yards. They will excavate down 3 feet, remove the soil, and put it in a truck for immediate disposal or stockpile it at a temporary site with plastic, hay bales and silt fence. The entire site is in the riverfront area and 1/3 of the site is in land subject to coastal storm flowage.

To protect the resources, several mitigation means are to be put in place. These include augmenting and repair to existing erosion control on the site. Gravel will also be placed where the trucks will be driving; trucks will not come onsite so truck tires will not get dirty. There will be dust control and the contractor would monitor the amount of dust produced, and would spray if necessary. Two catch basins along the site on the roadways will also be protected with hay bales. Blier asks why they selected a certain area for stockpiling; it is large and flat with nothing around it, and is fairly central. Ricciarelli asks about the extent of stockpiling. It could be a couple of days; if overnight, the soil would be covered with plastic but they are hoping to immediately load it.

Blier asks about the method used to determine the four areas that need to be cleaned. There is another plan, not shown here, of test pits all over the site, which was carefully evaluated. These sites are the most contaminated areas. The outlines are an estimate; there could be less or slightly more contamination. Christie asks how far they will go down to remove the contamination; they will dig down 3’ or perhaps a little less.

There will be an environmental professional onsite to supervise erosion controls; he/she will report to the LSP. Blier asks if they will lose some trees. There are some along the tennis courts but they will try not to disturb them. Trees on top of material will be left, as they are a natural cap. Trees to the North of the site will also be left if possible.

Christie asks about the stockpile in the photo, which is currently onsite and will be taken away before the start of work. Mr. Robins explains that the stockpile there now is from previously stockpiled excavated materials and one of them is contaminated; those may have been in preparation of further grading onsite. The contractor may have left some materials when the project stopped suddenly. They will determine which pile is which. Testing was done in October and November of last year.

Knisel asks about Remediation Area #2 and how it will not destabilize the topography. The contractor will not go beyond the hay bales; there is no proposed work in the bank.

Blier asks again about the stockpile and grades around it, which head West and South. He asks about elevations and a swale—when the area is protected, it will need to be wrapped on the sides as well. Mr. Brant agrees and explains the control measures. Blier asks if there is a contingency plan if the extent of contamination grows as they work. If significant, the Commission would be notified; TRC is responsible for removing all contaminated material. Based on sampling the marked areas are the worst of it. Blier comments that the areas seem discrete.

Mr. Robins says the site was peppered with sample holes; they took the averages of them then chose the worst areas to be removed, to get the averages down. Confirming tests will be conducted before the holes are filled to determine if they are at acceptable levels. If a certain area still had high contamination, more removal would be done.

Acting Chairwoman Christie opens the item to the public.

Charlie Ferris comments that there are 2 storm drain pipes under the playground that drain to the river; they are poorly maintained and he wonders if they will be fixed. He asks if they are digging near the pipes. Blier comments that one of the contaminated areas sits on top of the pipe. Mr. Ferris wonders if it can be requested that the pipes be cleared. Mr. Brant says it was discussed and they will do hand digging near the pipe, but pipe repair was beyond the scope of the project. Mr. Ferris would like to see the pipe cleaned or modified so it does not get plugged up. Devine comments that the City may need to look at it but it does not have to do with remediation. Blier comments that it was not on the original designs. Mr. Robins adds that the remediation is for the land portion of the park, though the river bank and sediments are also contaminated. This is not defined enough for removal and further testing must be done before remediation. Pipes might be looked at in that case. The timeframe on cleaning up the river bank and sediments would be extended; that could be 6 months away or longer since assessing sediment contamination is a long term issue. Blier suggests taking it back to the City and having them look at it.

Larry Giunta of 35 Franklin St. comments about water in his basement. Ricciarelli asks how soon the park can open after remediation. Mr. Robin says that the work will take 3-4 weeks; the City has received bids from contractors but has not rewarded it yet. Remediation and construction work are set to be done before the end of June.

Dorothy Jodin asks what precautions will be taken while contaminated soil is being removed as the area is very windy. Mr. Brant says dust will be monitored and the contractor will wet the area down by spraying it so it doesn’t blow around. Mr. Robin says he expects it to be muddy while working but if it does dry out there will be remediation

Jim Treadwell of Felps St. asks if an Order of Conditions will be released; this is a request to amend the original. He requests that all abutters be given a copy of the Order so they may monitor. Devine says he can make it available to anyone who wants one but Mr. Treadwell wants them mailed out, and would also like to have a hotline to call. Devine says there will be a contact person available. Mr. Brant says one will be available but has not been identified yet. Mr. Robin states that he will be the contact; although he will not be onsite continually, he will have contact with the contractors. His phone and email are available in the remediation plan

The last plan and map were dated in February and the plan presented tonight has a March date; it is the same plan, only larger. The old plan does not show the stockpile site as the new one does. Mr. Brant shows the larger plan to the audience and points out the stockpile site. The truck cleaning area has also been added. Mr. Treadwell says it is important for abutters to know and be able to monitor the conditions and have someone to contact. The Neighborhood associations would like copies of the documents presented. He asks how they intend to keep the plastic on the stockpiles. Cathy Winn of the City of Salem states that the contractor will maintain the site and soil piles. The DPW is not there every day and does not do that. Mr. Treadwell comments that previously this was a problem and the area was not maintained for a long time.

The mayor sent a letter on February 22nd discussing the time frame and grant received; no residents got the letter and Mr. Treadwell wants to be sure that the abutters’ list and mayor’s distribution list are consistent. He comments that pits will be open for a few days and that they will be accessible to kids and dogs. They have consistently gotten onto the site during construction and he wants to know how they will keep them out or seal the pits temporarily. Mr. Robin says they will ask the contractor that in addition to the locked fence they can put a snow fence around each excavation; while not a physical barrier, it would be a deterrent. Mr. Treadwell says this is not enough and Mr. Robin says that local residents can contact him if they see anything.

Mr. Treadwell says this is the first he has heard of riverbank contamination and wonders when that area will be considered. Mr. Robins says he did mention it at the last meeting and that contamination would be further explored before the riverbank is cleaned up. The park will reopen in June. There is no plan to restrict access to the riverbank.

Blier asks if they City will forward that information requested by Treadwell; it will.

Judy Giunta  of 35 Franklin St. asks about the basketball and tennis courts, which do not have to be removed. The court surfaces provide a protective cover. Ms. Giunta asks about the grasses along the shoreline that had been planted. If they are seaward of the haybales that area won’t be touched, and areas other than the squares would not be disturbed. Barbara Warren asks how long it takes to get test results back for heavy metal. It takes a few days, at least 2 days, at most 5.

A motion to close public discussion is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Blier, and approved unanimously (Hamilton recused).

Blier asks about the storage of materials onsite and equipment used; there does need to be discussion of that and the Commission asks the applicant. Now that they are stockpiling, what happens to equipment left overnight? Mr. Brant says that the excavator would be stored next to the soil pile. Trucks would not be stored onsite except one for the next morning. He outlines locations on the plans. Devine suggests storage outside the inner 100’ of riverfront area.

New conditions are:
Machinery is to be stored 100’ out of the riverfront area
A contact person must be provided

Blier says if plans must change they must come before the Commission again, but this is boilerplate and always issued.

Ms. Giunti asks why they picked a particular spot to go in and out. One of the contaminated sites is near the end; there is also a gate at that location whereas the gate at the other end does not provide enough room between it and the excavation. Mr. Treadwell asks about the gate at the south end but that is the one where they are excavating. If the fence along Franklin St. will be replaced, why do gates matter? Mr. Treadwell comments that the site is not secure.

Devine will send map, the mayor’s letter and the Order of Conditions to abutters, though he notes that these are not special conditions.

A motion to approve the amended Order of Conditions to include the above is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Knisel and passes unanimously, with Hamilton recused. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—MassDOT, 519 Appleton Street, Arlington, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed drainage line repair on Loring Avenue at the Forest River crossing. The proposed work includes alteration of a coastal bank and is within a riverfront area and a buffer zone to a salt marsh.

Illustration: Maintenance & Repair of Outfall (no date provided)

Christie and Blier were not present at the prior meeting covering this issue, and sign an affidavit confirming they have reviewed the application and meeting materials and are up to date so they may vote on the issue.

Andrea Norton of Mass DOT presents. The Commission had asked for a number of issues to be addressed.

Previous issues were:

  • A site visit between City Engineer and Mass DOT did take place. They reviewed the project in detail and the City Engineer approves of the project. Devine confirms.
  • Mean high water line and the salt marsh were delineated. Flags mark both areas and soil sampling in the upland area were done; the upland area is 100% fill; salt marsh is typical.
  • A site visit with Commissioners also took place with Devine and Hamilton, and Ward Seven Councilor Joseph O’Keefe
  • A survey was also requested and completed; they ran elevations and locations, and opened catch basin but were not able to provide depth as it is not on the plan. It is at least 17” deep.
  • Plans were given to Devine and are passed out to commissioners, as are photos.
Ms. Norton reviews plans and shows photos to the Commissioners, describing the setup of the new line that will replace the damaged pipe. Ricciarelli asks if the blocks are consistent with what is there now. Ms. Norton says there is nothing out there as of now. She reviews the setup again. Ricciarelli comments that it looks like it should be slabs, not cinderblocks. Dave Knowlton has not seen the updated plan, though he did go out to the site. Ricciarelli wants to make sure it stays in place and suggests it would be easier for them to pour from above. Blier is also concerned about the plan.  There is not a stable surface and that concerns him. Riciarelli asks when the work would take place – as soon as possible as there is a sinkhole. Ricciarelli asks about talking to Dave Knowlton about the construction and integrity of thee headwall. Devine worries about a quorum if the issue is moves to another meeting; he suggests approving it while conditioning that a structural engineer approve it. Affidavits cannot be signed (allowing Commissioners to vote on an issue for which they were not present) if more than one meeting on a topic is missed. It would be hard to have a quorum at the next meeting but Blier says that none of them really approve of the wall as is and would like more information.

Ricciarelli asks about an erosion control plan; there was one, including a silt fence and wattle but something else is needed- that could be taken care of tonight but the structural issues can wait. Hamilton points out that the City engineer didn’t design this and has not seen the plan. He approved them doing the project in general but not the specifics. Blier reiterates that the opinion of a structural engineer is needed.

Devine says they are looking for a plan stamped by an engineer or approved by the City Engineer. Christie opines that something must be done and that should be sufficient. Ricciarelli says it is a state road, but it is in a resource area so we can use our engineer. If the Order of Conditions was issued tonight, they could settle erosion controls (such as a silt curtain in the water) but will ask for them to propose it in the future. Ms. Norton says they will not work below mean high water line, but Devine says it is work on the bank, at the edge of the water; if a professional thinks it is not necessary, the Commission can consider that.

Devine reiterates the Commission’s concerns about the viability of the structure in a new plan the City Engineer hasn’t seen. Ms. Norton should submit the plans to the City engineer and ask him if he approves of it or thinks it requires modification. The Commission’s concern is structural though the strategy itself seems fine. Ricciarelli asks about the sidewalk along the rest of the bank. There is no wall where the sidewalk is. Blier asks about footing; it is unknown but possibly gravel. The structure is again discussed.

Devine asks about causes of erosion of the salt marsh. Ms. Norton opines that it is due to the severe weather, with chunks of ice flowing through. Devine believes that because it is some distance away and around a bend, it is very unlikely related to the damaged pipe.

The Commission is also waiting for DEP comments which have not been issued; if this is continued they can get their comments.  Blier says we will get an inch of rain tomorrow.

Christie notes that there are no members of the public present to comment.  Ricciarelli motions to close public discussion, is seconded by Knisel, and the motion passes unanimously.

A motion to continue to March 24th is made by Blier, seconded by Hamilton, and all approve.

Old/New Business, continued
  • DEP #64-496, 295 Derby Street, Hess Harborwalk: Request for Certificate of Compliance
The Comission is still waiting on installation of the correct benches; this is not done yet. No action is required.
  • DEP #64-472, 100 Swampscott Road, Request for Certificate of Compliance
This issue was superseded by the DEP after the order was issued to fill and replicate wetlands; the Conservation Commission approved building a culvert in that case, but the  DEP allowed all the work but the culvert, and has now issued a Certificate of Compliance.  However, the applicant has requested a local Certificate of Compliance as it is still open under the local wetlands ordinance. Devine went out in December for the DEP inspection, where the inspector verified the replicated wetlands, and he now recommends issuing the local Certificate.

A motion to issue a Certificate of Compliance is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and approved unanimously. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.

  • DEP #64-487, 3 Everett Road, Request for Certificate of Compliance
Devine recommends issuing this.  One issue is almost a deviation – text of the Order of Conditions asked for crushed stone under the deck, but they put in semi-pervious pavers.  Duques went to inspect the stairs and did not raise the issue while the pavers were being installed. This is substantially in compliance.   

A motion to issue the Certificate of Compliance is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Knisel, and passes unanimously. The decision is hereby made a part of these minutes.


Miscellaneous updates

Devine states that in acting on the violation at 441 Lafayette St., he became aware of other nearby violations. Devine wants to let the Commission know before he sends out a first letter to one of the neigbbors.

He adds that Jim Treadwell had also asked that the Commission be made aware that the comment period for the South River Dredging ENF has been extended.

A motion to approve the minutes from the March 10, 2011 meeting with revision is made now that there is a quorum by Knisel, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.

A motion to adjourn the meeting is made by Knisel, seconded by Hamilton, and all approve.

The meeting ends at 7:45PM.

Respectfully Submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission

Approved by the Conservation Commission on March 24, 2011.