Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Approved Minutes 7/11/2013
Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting

Date and Time:  Thursday, July 11, 2013, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location:       Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present:        Chair Julia Knisel, Dan Ricciarelli, Gregory St. Louis, Amy Hamilton, Bart Hoskins
Members Absent: David Pabich
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder:       Stacy Kilb

Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05

Old/New Business

  • 12 Woodbury Court, DEP #64-525: Request for certificate of compliance
Here for this item is Mark Denisco, the owner. The Commission issued this Certificate two meetings ago, with one concern about a flat pipe connecting a catch basin to the City’s drainage. It is, in fact, flat but was not supposed to be according to the drawing. Mr. Denisco says there were gas and water mains and other obstacles. The contractor could not go any deeper. Chair Knisel asks about backup during rain events; there was none and it does flow, possibly due to suction from the storm drain. Ricciarelli asks about a sump but it would not have been practical.

St. Louis asks if a condition for ongoing maintenance, such as quarterly observation and cleaning as necessary, can be added to the Certificate. Devine will add in that ongoing condition then release the issued Certificate.

  • Witch Hill Subdivision requests for certificates of compliance: #64-528 (lot 231), 3 Good Circle; #64-529 (lot 232), 1 Good Circle; #64-530 (lot 230), 5 Good Circle; #64-533 (lot 233), 5 Nurse Way; #64-535 (lot 234), 3 Nurse Way; #64-536 (lot 215), 2 Nurse Way
. Bob Griffin of Griffin Engineering discusses the lots. House footprints are true to the plans if not smaller than approved. All work in the buffer zone was no closer than specified, and in some cases further. Mitigation plantings have been installed.

Plantings were for mitigation in the buffer zone, not restoration. The Commission reviews the original and as built plans. There is a question about decks and Mr. Griffin comments about a drain on one of the lots as well. There are no discharges to the street. Devine notes that some houses are smaller and yards farther from the buffer zone, and Mr. Griffin says some vegetation was switched due to unavailability from the nursery.

Delineation of backyards is clear due to a steep slope and vegetation. The Commission did not request wetland markers for these lots. Devine may want to ask that the realtor give a Greenscapes guide to each homeowner moving in; Mr. Griffin will ensure that it is done.

Mr. Griffin would like to remove the erosion controls, removing the sock and spreading the mulch that was in them. Some road construction is ongoing so there is a little bit of debris.

A motion to issue all six certificates is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins, and all are in favor.


  • Meeting minutes—May 23, 2013 and June 13, 2013
A motion to approve both sets of minutes is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor.



North River/Commercial Street—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-551—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed improved stormwater treatment facilities on Commercial Street, along the North River across from Leslie’s Retreat Park within a wetlands resource area.

Presenting is Rebecca Dupont with New England Civil Engineering. Bart Hoskins recuses himself since his wife owns an abutting business. Chair Knisel comments that it was straightforward and there are no modifications. The grant has been obtained.

Chair Knisel opens to the public and Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coast Watch speaks. She has worked with them on the project and thinks it is a hallmark project, and is looking forward to permitting and getting the design grant.

A motion to close the public hearing is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes 4-0.
A motion to issue the Order of Conditions is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes 4-0.


Legacy Park Apartments at Harmony Grove (former Salem Oil & Grease)—Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-547—Michael Hubbard of MRM Project Management, LLC, PO Box 388, Beverly, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss a proposed mixed-use residential and commercial development with associated building demolition, site clean-up, landscaping, vehicle and pedestrian bridges, parking areas, utilities, and stormwater management features within resource areas and buffer zones regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem’s Wetlands Protection Ordinance at 60 & 64 Grove St. and 1 & 3 Harmony Grove Road.

Documents:
Letter from Robert Griffin to Heidi Davis, dated 7/5/2013
Revised plan set, Griffin Engineering Group, various dates

Robert Griffin of Griffin Engineering presents. He reads through his response letter to DEP comments on the project.

Chair Knisel comments that the DEP comments were the final outstanding issue, and all other Commission concerns have been addressed. Ricciarelli comments that the only change then is the swapping of Stormcepters for Defenders.

Chair Knisel opens to the public.
  • Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch has some concerns about Rainbow Smelt spawning habitat, but the river bottom will not be altered.  However, the applicant will follow the suggestion of the Division of Marine Fisheries to limit work outside of smelt season. This is from March to May, but must be verified as it is changing.
  • Ms. Warren and Mr. Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt St. both strongly feel that the Commission should wait for the Environmental Impact Report to be completed before moving forward, in case there are significant changes to the plans.  They feel that the Commission does not have enough information to move forward, but the Commission feels that it cannot justify holding up the project while waiting for that information, and they have enough to decide on now, with regards to the Wetlands Protection Act.  The applicant would have to come before them if there are any significant changes in any case, so that the Commission can determine whether they are minor or major, and act on them in the latter case. Ms. Warren is still concerned that if the Commission moves forward now, it will not have the leverage to have the applicant make further improvements.
  • Mr. Treadwell is extremely concerned that MEPA (Mass. Environmental Protection Act) is not being followed early in the process. Mr. Griffin reiterates that MEPA can impose conditions and changes and is not taken lightly. Just because there may be changes is no reason to suspend Wetlands Protection Act proceedings. Chair Knisel comments that the Commission has not withheld decisions in the past because of outstanding MEPA review, and has considered modifications after issuing an Order of Conditions. It is also not the responsibility of the Commission to uphold MEPA when its language does not require its timing to be enforced, but merely says it “should” be initiated early in the process. Also, since Mr. Treadwell cannot tie MEPA directly back to the performance standards the Commission is bound to, they cannot address specific issues. Mr. Treadwell is concerned about wetlands, waterways, tidelands, flood control and air and water pollution in general.
  • Mr. Treadwell is also concerned the Commission may not have thoroughly reviewed the Environmental Notification Form for the project.
  • Ms. Warren is concerned about the drainage in building three, is connected to the sanitary system and will accept floodwater.
  • There is much discussion between Ms. Warren, Mr. Treadwell and the applicant regarding the Army Corps of Engineers and the timing of their plans, as well as possible future improvements to the North River Canal, and the Peabody flood mitigation project, especially with regards to the width of the bridge. Mr. Treadwell feels they should consider culverts for now instead.
  • Mr. Treadwell is concerned about the sludge beds but Chair Knisel reassures him that they are well defined, with little contamination underneath, and can be relocated quickly. He is also concerned about other remediation that may be needed.
  • He also questions demolition of a building on the historic inventory of the state, which must undergo review. That has not yet started. He again comments on the relevant aspect of MEPA on this issue.
  • Teasie Riley Goggin of 9 Wisteria St. asks about the Activity and Use Limitations (AULs). The current ones are 10 years old and will be updated now that the LSP as done more samples, contamination areas are better defined, and demolition, construction and relocation will have to be taken into account as well. She is also concerned about the velocity of the water under the bridge, but it will decrease, not increase. She is also concerned about the perceived lack of information and feels the Commission should wait for further reports, in order to avoid having modifications end up in court, and also save Peabody and Salem the trouble. However, there is no set date for information coming from the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Commission can’t justify waiting indefinitely. If the Order of Conditions is granted, it means that all design elements of the project are in compliance with the Wetlands Protection Act. That requirement has been met, though major changes that would affect the bank or stream bed would trigger a new review.
  • Michael Ross of 20 Beaver St. is concerned about contaminants in the river bed, but Mr. Griffin reiterates that they are not changing or disturbing the bottom of the river. Mr. Ross is also concerned about the impact of widening the river in general, but Mr. Griffin says that they are removing buildings directly on the canal and new ones will be set back 40-50’, thus making the Peabody Flood Improvement project more feasible. They are coordinating as best they can with the Army Corps of Engineers. He is also concerned about the speed of the water and a possible “bottleneck” situation further on, and does not understand why it is called a “100 year flood” if it happens more often. The terminology is being changed to reflect the chance of flooding in a given year, not how often it happens.
Chair Knisel asks about closing the open Order of Conditions for sampling and grading. There have been no requests made to prepare a Certificate of Compliance since no significant work is planned for the near future.

St. Louis asks about granite curbing – it is in the most heavily used areas. He also asks about the redefined wetland boundary. It was land subject to coastal storm flowage; the determination was appealed and DEP determined it as bordering land subject to flooding, so compensatory flood storage has been included. He asks if they can proceed with demolition before the EIR is complete, but Mr. Griffin is not sure.

Chair Knisel asks about further data and if it should affect the decision regarding resource areas. St. Louis asks about the threshold for filing an ENF. They were required to file an ENF, and are now required to file an EIR. Mr. Griffin says this is because there are more than 1000 trips per day in average daily traffic expected, plus the parking space threshold. This, along with alteration to the bank/bridge and the Chapter 91 license, triggers it.
        
Mr. Griffin states that the EIR is a new requirement, and that after filing the ENF now they have to file an EIR since MEPA has determined it necessary. He thinks doing the EIR after the Commission’s issues have been identified makes sense, since they can come back to modify the Order of Conditions if necessary.
        
Ricciarelli comments that the EIR could be pertinent. St. Louis comments that the applicant understands they may need to modify the plan in the future. He cannot have the developer sit on this while the EIR moves forward.

Chair Knisel sympathizes with the public’s concerns about flooding and marine habitat, but the Commission must make a determination based on the data they have, and can’t wait for reports on projects to be done outside the City of Salem. Unless the information can be tied into this project, it can’t be used. Mr. Treadwell is merely pointing out that information will be forthcoming that is relevant to the performance standards and is not asking for a delay but it does seem logical. The Commission is not trying to rush but is trying to make a determination based on information and performance standards. Chair Knisel feels they do have adequate data about issues such as the sludge basins.

Devine asks about the timing of the AULs. Some are existing, and new ones are being written but may not be finished until construction is complete. They will be modified as the project moves forward. Timing is discussed.  

Ricciarelli asks if it must be stated or if it is implicitly understood that if issues comes up in EIR, the applicant must return? Mr. Griffin says if there are changes, they need to come back.

Ricciarelli initially thought it would be beneficial to see additional data, but he just wants to know that they have to come back if there are changes. The DEP has reviewed the plan so he is satisfied.

Hoskins asks about the DEP review from a Wetlands Protection Act standpoint - is this different from EIR standpoint? Yes, there will be different comments. With an EIR, the DEP looks at many issues, not just wetlands. Mr. Treadwell says that the DEP commented on the EIR on May 14, after comments were made on the Notice of Intent. He states that these comments say that the ENF does not provide enough detail. Chair Knisel says it ties into long range plans but Ms. Warren says the letter states that they do not have enough information from this particular applicant. The DEP said they could do more, and lists possibilities. Mr. Treadwell agrees. They are not asking the Commission to wait for the Peabody Project.

Chair Knisel checks in with the Commission. The Stormwater plan has been peer reviewed, reviewed by this Commission and by the DEP. The Commission seems comfortable with the project, without seeing an EIR, and does not expect major changes. St. Louis has worked on similar projects and does not anticipate changes unless specific to the bridge, but in any case, proposed changes would trigger the applicant coming before the Commission again. The Secretary’s letter asks for a complete rerouting. Determination as to whether a change is major or minor is done on a case by case basis, but the applicant would come back to have the Commission decide.

Hamilton asks about stormwater modeling, but nothing above a 100 year flood was analyzed. She wonders about elevations to buildings that would prevent more severe storms from infiltrating building three. There are some zoning constraints so they cannot raise the building without a variance. The exterior wall facing the river is concrete with some air holes a few feet off the ground. There is a knee wall of concrete so water would have to go over the curb. Water would have to rise to 11.7 to get into the building and Hamilton wonders if they can model a larger flood to see what would happen and perhaps mitigate it. Mr. Griffin will address some concerns of flooding from the river but perhaps not from runoff. He will raise the one curb one foot.

Ricciarelli comments that they should raise the slab but it is not possible due to constraints on the number of stories that the building can have. A certain amount of basement has to be below grade to meet this requirement, and the applicant has done more than the minimum in this area.

Hoskins asks if flooding is rain driven or rain plus tidally driven? Both factors drive flooding. Mr. Ross opines that the flooding is tidal and water will not move during a high tide, no matter which measures are taken.

Hoskins says there are sea level rise scenarios that make building three a bad idea, but we don’t know which scenarios will actually happen and can’t regulate based on possibilities.

Hamilton would like to see 500 year flood scenarios. Mr. Griffin says it is a lot of work, with lots of offsite work to establish topography, plus there are no associated performance standards to meet. He describes the process used.

The Commission is satisfied with raised curbing around building three for flood control.

A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St.Louis and passes unanimously.

Special conditions are as follows:

  • Prior to start of site activity, applicant shall obtain a certificate of compliance for the site’s outstanding order of conditions, DEP #64-447.
  • During the remediation and construction period, a monthly report shall be submitted to the Conservation Agent. This report shall include photographs of site conditions, a description of the status of demolition, remediation, and construction, and a detailed description of any unanticipated impacts on the resource areas and corrective actions taken.
  • No in-water work shall take place between March 1st and June 1st, as recommended by the Division of Marine Fisheries in its May 14, 2013 letter to Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, Richard Sullivan, in response to the project’s Environmental Notification Form.
  • The Conservation Agent shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to any excavation in the portion of the site located between the railroad tracks and the North River.
  • In order to limit inundation of floodwater into the Building 3’s parking area, where it will enter the sanitary sewer system, curbing on the eastern side of Building 3’s driveway entrance shall be at elevation 12’.
The Commission requests, but does not require, that the applicant notify the neighborhood prior to excavating the former sludge beds, since this work will create an unpleasant odor.

A motion to issue the Oder of Conditions, including the Commission’s standard conditions and the noted special conditions, is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor.

Salem Harbor Station at 24 Fort Avenue—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-552—Footprint Power Salem Harbor Redevelopment LP, 1140 Route 22 East, Suite 303, Bridgewater, NJ. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Station at 24 Fort Avenue, including demolition of the existing power station and associated structures, environmental remediation, and construction of a new power plant and appurtenances within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem’s Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.

Documents:

“Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Project: Salem Conservation Commission”, PowerPoint presentation by Footprint Power, 7/11/13
“Project Review Notes” by Gregory St. Louis, 7/3/13
“Review of Footprint Summary of Response to Comments” by AECOM, 7/9/13

Joseph Correnti of 63 Federal Street, attorney for the applicant, speaks. Mr. Correnti outlines the project and where they are in the permitting process. They are currently under Planning Board review. There have been and will be more public hearings and the project is being peer reviewed as well. They have been to the Zoning Board of Appeals and received approvals for height variances for the buildings and also got a special permit for essential services use. They have a waiver for demolition delay. All tanks will be removed, since none have historical significance, but are over 50 years old so that triggered the demolition delay ordinance. They will be removed in late summer/early fall. They also have a MEPA certificate. A Chapter 91 license application has been filed.

Peter Furniss of Footprint, and Lisa Carrozza and Mike Billa of Tetra Tech, present the PowerPoint.

Hoskins asks about metal deposits found, which are mostly associated with oil ash. Mr. Billa describes their findings. There are some background levels of nickel and vanadium not necessarily due to releases, but they are found naturally in Boston blue clay. Past ecological assessments have been reviewed and no issues were found with materials dissolving. However, more contaminants will be found during construction, but few reportable things have been found so far. Whatever they find should be easily manageable.

St. Louis asks about cleanup. It is for the whole property, not just the Phase 1 site of the actual plant? Work must occur over the entire site, so it is all included. There will be separate operable units within it. Additional remediation will be proposed during subsequent phases; right now they are just planning, but working in concert with the DEP, plant staff, and contractors. The sequence of remediation will be determined as planning proceeds.

Soil testing was not done in the coal runoff pond since everything in the pond goes to wastewater treatment, and the pond is lined with no way to get under the liner. After it is demolished, they will check it out, but they do not anticipate finding much.

Regarding reuse of stockpile area where the current coal pile is, they can either do cleanup before the construction laydown requirements come into play; or if there is not a large enough window, the pile will be used up down to grade, and could be covered and finished later. Options have not been fully vetted but potential for contamination will be minimized through many measures. It is an MCP site and that will be made clear to contractors.

Ricciarelli asks about the large stormwater management area. What happens to it post-construction? Matt DesMoines of TetraTech says that it will remain as is, in place, until Phase 2 is developed, then additional design measures will be put in place, but it is not determined yet.

Hamilton asks about the monitoring well network. Mr. Billa outlines.

St. Louis comments on the landscaping berm; Mr. Furnace illustrates and describes the wall as 25’ high. It is a gabion wall, wire cages of fine mesh filled with rubble. The part facing the berm is vertical and non-scalable, 8-12’ high on that side.

Chair Knisel asks about stormwater flowing off the site, and Mr. Moyen outlines. All stormwater is collected onsite and treated before discharge. Some catch basins will be deep sump, others are drop inlet structures.

St. Louis asks about site redevelopment and if Phase 2 is also considered redevelopment or if they are creating new impervious areas. They assume that Phase 2 will need to be elevated and have a permanent stormwater management system at that time, so they will be coming before the Commission again with those plans. Impervious area created in Phase 1 may become pervious in Phase 2.

A member of the Commission asks whether there plans to upgrade the City’s outfall? Scott Silverstein, President and CEO of footprint, has been discussing this with the City. There are no plans to work on the outflow itself, but the drain line may be re-sized. They are working with the City Engineer on this. The main concern now is size and routing, then they can explore the other issues.

Roof drains go into a storage vault; it is a quantity used for irrigation, 30,000 cubic feet with overflow into the stormwater system.
        
Mr. Ken Kinkela states that demolition of the wall will occur above elevation 10, so it will be above 100 year flood level and does not impact coastal functions. The face of the wall will stay in place and not impact the coastal bank.

Ricciarelli asks about a network of tunnels under the site. Lou Arak of Footprint Power outlines the plans, which are to isolate them at the ends with stop logs, and then fill them.

The existing turbine building is being evaluated, but the interior has architectural and industrial value, so it is uncertain if it will be demolished. If kept, it would be stripped of exterior masonry, and then reclad. But, unless there is an appropriate reuse option, this will not be done.

There are three dedicated areas for snow storage, which Ms. Corrozza outlines. They are on plan C103.

Chair Knisel asks if there were modifications through the MEPA process. There weren’t any since this was only the conceptual design development, and they went to the Planning Board after completing MEPA review. Ms. Corrozza notes that the DEP has received the notice of intent and indicated that it will not be issuing comments.

Hamilton asks about Stormcepters vs. First Defense. It would be offline vs. inline, but the issue is lack of available space. An inline system minimizes impact on the space. They will be inspected before a major event, as outlined in the Operation and Maintenance Plan.

St. Louis asks if after construction the site will still be considered a Land Use with a Higher Potential Pollutant Load. It always will be due to stormwater regulations. They intend to apply to qualify as No Exposure. It is an unusual situation.

Chair Knisel asks about controls that will be in place during geotechnical borings. They will be performed by barge with a casing driven. Ms. Corrozza describes the process. It should take no more than a day. Hamilton asks about getting the material to the barge from the casing. Ms. Corrozza shows a graphic but does not have sufficient detail with her. She will obtain that for the Commission.

Chair Knisel opens to the public and Barbara Warren asks about the nickel and vanadium in Boston blue clay. Is that native or always found in this type of clay? Br. Billa states that it is. The clay from Central Artery work was analyzed and they found some of these metals in that material. Mr. Billa outlines the different metals and their thresholds, and says some may be background materials. Nickel and Vanadium are found at very low levels throughout the site; they are not considered hazardous but are just background to the area. They will be evaluated relative to uses, but the site will in general be capped. If there are high levels it will be taken care of. Anything exceeding a reportable threshold in the MCP will be evaluated and managed if necessary. He describes how the standard applies. At the end of the process, there will be a condition of no significant risk for the entire site. Mr. Furniss mentions the nickel and vanadium are as a result of the coal and oil ash, which is a separate issue. That will be targeted and cleaned up or managed.

Linda Haley of 43 Turner St. in Salem, asks about 500 year flood elevations. What would be released from this facility in the event of a flood? Typically 500 year events are not run, only the 100 year, and they defer to building codes. They are accounting for projected sea level rise. The area that floods today will continue to flood, but the plant itself is far enough above the flood zone. Mr. Kinkela cannot cite what a 500 year flood elevation would be, but it would probably be under 11’, far less than the 16’ elevation they are building to.

Also mitigating this is that the berm is 15’ high on the side of the channel, which would block flood waters. Chair Knisel clarifies that Ms. Haley is more concerned about water flowing around the site and how it will impact flooding that the neighborhood already experiences. St. Louis explains that the previous project had to do with inland flooding, and this is coastal flooding. Flood elevations of different areas are discussed. Water would come in at lower elevations whether the site is raised or not. Ms. Haley is still concerned.
        
Barbara Warren comments that Forrester St. floods because it used to be a stream, but is not aware of how overland flooding occurs.

Jeff Brooks 14 Webb St. asks about amount of potable water used each day, but this is not under the Commission’s jurisdiction. The number is in the MEPA filings, but the amount used in the new plant will be less than that used in the old plant, which only uses it for sanitation and processing. The new plant will use 238,000 gallons per day maximum. The current plant uses 450,000.

Mr. Brooks asks about the gas line on the plan and Mr. Furniss of the team outlines, but the exact route is not set yet. There will be a different filing with the Conservation Commission for this.

Ms. Haley asks about cleanup and potential uses of the site. Mr. Billa outlines the process and standards that must be met.

Chair Knisel outlines the additional information needed for the next meeting:
  • Type of barge and drilling equipment, and transfer of materials with controls around the barge
  • St. Louis’s written questions and comments
  • 500 year flood zone elevation
  • Locations of borings
The applicant distributes

The applicant distributes a summary of the Planning Board peer review to the Commissioners.

A motion to continue to the July 25, 2013 meeting is made by St Louis, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously.

Miscellaneous

Hoskins discusses the Community Preservation Act and receipt and use of funding from that. It has been suggested that, due to timing issues, 10% of funds received be allocated to open space, affordable housing and recreation categories, as required by law, with the rest in a reserved account to be decided later.  If not, they cannot make decisions about it. He may want to review projects to be done with this funding at a later meeting with a lighter agenda. The Commission does not need to set priorities for several months, so there is no rush.

Chair Knisel mentions that the protocol for the climate adaptation assessment by CDM has not yet been set. She will continue to update the Commission. There is a deadline of the end of December to meet the CDM requirements for internal grants. It is a first step for Salem to account for sea level rise.

Gifts for former member Michael Blier are discussed.

Aggregate Industries has submitted a Request for Determination for construction of a vegetated berm and would like a site visit before the hearing at the next meeting, since they want to begin work soon and not have to wait for a second meeting in September after the August recess. The Commission agrees and a site visit is scheduled for 5:15PM before the meeting on the 25th.

A motion to adjourn is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.

The meeting ends at 10:30PM
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission

Approved by the Conservation Commission on September 12, 2013.