Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, September 26, 2013, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Gregory St. Louis, Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton, Bart Hoskins
Members Absent: David Pabich
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Chair Julia Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM.
Algonquin Geotechnical Borings for Future Power Plant Pipeline—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—DEP #64-553—Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC, 890 Winter Street, Suite 300, Waltham, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed geotechnical borings within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem’s Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance, located offshore under Beverly Harbor & Collins Cove and on land at National Grid’s Waite Street and Pierce Avenue property, 1 East Collins St (Ward II Social Club), and at the southeastern edge of Szetela Lane along Collins Cove.
Amy Hamilton recuses herself and leaves the room. Jon Bonsall presents. Algonquin will connect its existing facility to the new Footprint natural gas plant.
This project is still in the data gathering phase, of which these borings will be part. Borings will allow them to design the facility and they will return for an NOI later. This is an interstate project so the federal government is involved; that process will start at the end of October or beginning of November.
Mr. Paquette with TRC Environmental outlines the NOI filed for the geotechnical investigation. They are investigating methods, possibly Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD), for building the pipeline. A feasibility assessment must be done and geotechnical information is needed for that. Borings are proposed both offshore and onshore, and Mr. Paquette outlines the locations of cores and the existing pipeline. There are 13 boring locations in Salem and 3 in Beverly. 10 in Salem are offshore with three onshore. Borings offshore and onshore and the processes for each are described in detail.
The existing hubline pipeline will be located. They will also do a sweep of the area for eelgrass as per the recommendation of Marine Fisheries. Then the offshore vessel will conduct borings via a work platform which will be supported on legs. The process is described. Bedrock must be reached so borings could be 75-100’ deep. Holes will later be sealed off. Each core will take 2-3 days with a total work period of 3 weeks. Land borings would follow a similar procedure with sediment controls in place.
Chair Knisel asks about the bottom of the barge at low tide; it will be supported on legs and Mr. Paquette shows a photo of a similar setup. Chair Knisel asks about the samples in Collins Cove; Mr. Paquette says they are necessary in order to determine a location to drill for the new pipeline.
Eelgrass was identified in the general area back in 2001, but none is shown in the 2012 layer. They will confirm whether or not it is there. A preliminary exploration of shellfish was done and there is a suitable area for them in the intertidal zone.
There will be spill kits available. Casings will be driven to keep fluids from entering the water. The system is contained within the vessel to prevent spillage. The drilling fluid is water and bentonite (a type of clay). Mr. Paquette further describes the process. Borings are 75-100’ apart, but may be modified according to field conditions.
Chair Knisel opens to public and Jeff Brooks of 14 Webb St. asks if there are postal receipts from notification of abutters, and Mr. Paquette produces them. Mr. Brooks states that he was not notified. Mr. Paquette produces a map showing which parcels were required to receive abutter notification, noting that 14 Webb St. is beyond that area.
Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt St. asks about alternative routing. This filing relates to Collins Cove geotechnical borings; they do not have a preference for overall routing at this point since they are still collecting data. There is another in-street alternative, and people along that route have been notified, but they must gather data on this HDD route first. If data confirms it is feasible, Collins Cove is the preferred route.
Mr. Treadwell also asks about National Environmental Policy Act matters. The overall project is under Federal regulation; that process will be initiated in late October or early November.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by St. Louis and passes unanimously. (4-0, with Hamilton recused.)
Chair Knisel would like to condition that the barge does not rest on the seafloor at any point. Devine has standard conditions and has stricken those that do not apply; he recommends a special condition to accommodate the Marine Fisheries request to ensure that there is no eelgrass impacted by the borings. The applicant will be using divers already so they will check for eelgrass. If there is eelgrass, they will adjust the locations of the borings.
If there is adjustment of sampling locations, the applicant will provide the Commission with an updated map.
A motion to issue the Order of Conditions is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 4-0, with Hamilton recused.
Salem State Central Campus Utility Relocation—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Massachusetts State College Building Authority, 253 Summer Street, Boston, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed relocation of underground utilities within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act at 71 Loring Avenue (Salem State University Central Campus).
Presenting is Sean Hale of Epsilon Associates. This is phase one of a two phase project as the University is planning a new residence hall in the location of an existing parking lot. Utilities in the parking lot must be relocated. The only resource area is land subject to coastal storm flowage. Historically, the area was not mapped as flood zone, but preliminary FEMA mapping has changed that. There are no other resource areas impacted by this project and the work now is confined to an existing paved area, which will be repaved after work is done. There will be no impact to flood storage.
Chair Knisel asks if there has been overland flow, but neither Mr. Hale nor anyone from the university can recall any. There will be another NOI filed for construction of the residence hall. Dan Ocasio with the Mass. State College Building Authority says the most recent dorm was built above the former floodplain, so now the new hall with have to be above the new floodplain as anticipated by FEMA.
The sewer line trench will need to be 4’ deep and 3’ wide. There should be no groundwater issues. Borings for the building have been done onsite. Further details on the process are provided. Pipes will be removed, and the ends capped within 10’ of the foundation. St. Louis would like to see trench and cap details on file with the Commission.
Chair Knisel opens to the public.
Mary Lou Gauthier of 26 Raymond Rd., an abutter, is concerned with diversion of underground water flow. She also asks if there will be impacts to Loring Ave. traffic, but that is not under Commission purview. No groundwater is anticipated so flow will not be interrupted. Dan Ocasio says that the entrance and exit to the Loring Ave. lot will not be altered.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
Devine has standard conditions prepared for the Commission to review. The applicant has suggested excluding those which do not apply and Devine finds that appropriate. St. Louis would like to see silt sacks in catch basins within 10’ of the trench; this is a standard detail that will be provided and all inlet protections will be covered.
A motion to issue the Order of Conditions with standard conditions and special conditions as discussed is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Pier Removal—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina, 10 White Street, Salem MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of a pier within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem’s Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance at 10 White Street (Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina).
Here for the applicant are Seth Lattrell and Noah Flaherty. Mr. Latrell outlines the proposed work. The pier is dilapidated and inaccessible. Proposed work would involve a floating barge extracting all piles; if any break, they would be left or cut flat to mudline. Piles along the seawall will not be extracted. Impacts of the proposed work are limited to extraction. This is shellfish habitat. The intent is for improved flushing; old piles are creosote infused so this will reduce leaching. Work will be limited to higher tides and contained in a siltation curtain. Work will be finished within a month. The barge will be moored offshore at the end of each day, or docked, depending on the contractor. That information can be provided. Pilings are shallow on the inshore side, possibly 1-5’ there. There will be no vessel grounding. They
do not know how far below the mudline the piles go.
Subtidal pilings will be extracted completely since voids in that area are not an issue and will be filled by sediment.
St. Louis asks about Coastal Zone Management permits and Knisel responds that none apply here.
Chair Knisel opens to the public. A resident of Turner St. asks about where the barge will be when not in use, but the applicant does not yet have that information. It will be provided and they will coordinate with the marina. The preference would be to have it moored offshore. It can be made a condition if necessary. The Commission does not have jurisdiction over views but can require that the barge not touch the seafloor.
Craig Burhnam of 14 Franklin St. asks about the concrete cap, which is still in place, but will be removed. They will break it apart and take it in sections; it is supported by timber decking underneath. Division of Marine Fisheries has suggested the silt curtain to contain that material; the Commission will also condition that any material that winds up on the seafloor be removed by hand.
Netting was explored, but in all likelihood they will position the barge so that material will fall onto that instead of into the water. This is a monolithic structure.
Special conditions:
Debris will be removed from the seafloor, if deposited.
The barge shall be moored offsite and not touch the seafloor.
A bottom weighted silt curtain will be used around the area of work.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins and passes unanimously.
A motion to issue Order of Conditions as noted is made by Hoskins, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously.
8 & 10 Franklin Street Marine Structure Repair—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Craig Burnham, Fortunate Son Realty Trust, 14 Franklin Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed repair and modification a of wooden bulkhead, railway ramp and pier within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance at 8 & 10 Franklin Street.
Luke Fabbri presents for the applicant. Mr. Fabbri describes the bulkhead and the surrounding area. The bulkhead will be replaced with steel sheeting and the ramp will be closed off. Work would be from the upland side; debris would be removed. A silt curtain is proposed; the project is 116’ and should take 2 days to complete. Silt fencing will be used where applicable. The Division of Marine Fisheries issued a letter about the intertidal area; only part of the area is intertidal but they are concerned about spawning habitat. Mr. Fabbri argues that cleaning up the area and removing ties would be an improvement rather than a detriment. By definition, it is a “beach,” but also a railroad ramp coming into the water. Mr. Burnham has a requirement to repair the existing wall under Chapter 91 and if they cannot come across
they will need to add additional sheeting.
Rails are set on railroad ties buried in mud, without footings, and are just rotting in place. It is not a well built structure. The ramp will be backfilled, and 260’ of that is below mean high water; the entire ramp and pier is 455 square feet so the entire thing will not be backfilled, just a small segment (37 square feet). Mr. Fabbri describes the setup. It is uncertain if the original area of the ramp was dredged, but it was most likely filled.
Mr. Fabbri believes his setup will be more stable after his modifications, and a new Chapter 91 is being filed due to that change. It should also help with erosion on the abutter’s property.
Further descriptions of the materials to be used are provided. Mr. Fabbri further outlines the original elevations. Chair Knisel wonders about backfilling flush to the bulkhead; it will not be flush, but there is a cap. Storm water will not come over the wall; there are no stormwater structures but everything is gravel, rather than pavement. Mr. Fabbri can change the grade if needed. There is further discussion of the grades as portrayed on the drawing and Mr. Fabbri clarifies.
The new bulkhead is anticipated to last indefinitely; similar facilities have existed for 30-40 years and do not yet need replacement. Mr. Fabbri would like to proceed to Chapter 91 with the proposal to close off the railway ramp.
The fill is not absolutely necessary, but Mr. Fabbri believes it will be better since it will keep the abutter’s property from failing as it is now. He understands DMF’s request regarding beach and spawning areas, but thinks it would be better if it did not erode into the tidal flat areas. Online maps show that this area is not included in the shellfish area; this is different from the maps that DMF has.
Mr. Fabbri again outlines the setup in more detail. There is some discussion of property boundaries. This project will not depend on the neighbor’s wall being stable. Granite and concrete blocks will be removed and taken offsite as they are too big to be used as backfill. All staging will occur up gradient of the new wall; the only thing in the intertidal area will be the silt curtain. Once the wall is established there will be silt fencing behind it, and the stockpile of material for the trench will also have a silt fence enclosure.
Chair Knisel is still concerned about the filling of the area and St. Louis concurs that if using EPA Form 3 NOI they would have to specify that this is a unique situation. More discussion of the fill occurs. Chair Knisel does agree that the setup will minimize erosion, but filling in a resource area should be prevented. Mr. Fabbri wonders about moving the wall two to two and a half feet back which would create more “beach” as a compromise. He is more concerned with maintaining a straight line. He describes this option. The Commission approves.
St. Louis suggests that Mr. Fabbri revisit WPA Form 3 and clarify that coastal beach is impacted.
Chair Knisel opens to the public and Jim Treadwell of 36 Felt St. states that he is here to gather information for neighborhood associations. He requests documentation. Mr. Fabbri and Devine each provide a copy of the submittal to Mr. Treadwell.
Mr. Treadwell observes that the property line does not include the project, but comments on riparian rights. The associations are also interested because eventually there will be development of that area and he wonders if the Commission has an interest in that. The Commission will have to review any development in this area.
St. Louis wonders if the bulkhead would be under a structural or civil engineer’s purview. This raises the question of possible additional permitting needed, depending on how the project qualifies. Mr. Fabbri will have a structural engineer examine the project.
Mr. Fabbri is willing to pull the wall back by 2+ feet to create more beach. St. Louis would like him to update Form 3. Devine wonders if filling the beach is permittable. DMF prefers that it not be filled, but won’t require it. It may work out better to pull the wall out. If they put the wall around the ramp, there would be no fill and no Chapter 91 review, but that is not a good option as the sidewall would cave in.
Devine comments on Wetlands Protection Act regulations for Coastal Beaches (if significant, the form of the beach may not be changed). Mr. Fabbri comments that this is not relevant to the habitat. DMF says that the intertidal area is supporting habitat. Mr. Fabbri states that that does not apply to this beach in particular, but to intertidal beach in general and they want Commission to apply its knowledge of the area to protect it. Devine says if the Commission permits filling of the area of boat ramp, they would have to make a determination that it is not significant to wildlife habitat. Chair Knisel states that the Commission can determine that it is restoring habitat and not altering the nature of the ecosystem by moving the bulkhead back. Smelt and shellfish could not use the habitat behind the bulkhead.
The Commission thinks pulling the wall back is an improvement to the existing condition and Devine says he would note in the findings that this beach is not significant to habitat. The whole wall would be moved landward to compensate for filling of the boat ramp area. Devine says we don’t have to require that they move the bulkhead back, but the commission wants to. They can state a reason for that condition; they want to protect the area even if it is not “significant,” and they will be reducing scour and erosion to adjacent properties. Another reason could be to facilitate placement of the new wall.
Mr. Fabbri will provide a revised plan. Chapter 91 needs an Order of Conditions; he will provide the Commission with a plan in a week or so, but work cannot begin without a Chapter 91 License. The Order will be issued, but a preconstruction requirement would be submission of the Plan and the Chapter 91 License.
The Commission defines what they want in the modified plan: A revised plan showing a two foot landward shift in the position of the bulkhead to compensate for the filling of the boat ramp and square footage lost in the intertidal area. This will also reduce scour at the ends of the bulkhead. The Plan will also be modified to show the proper fill area. Fill and cross sections will be shown along with final grade of the fill below the top of the cap. An engineer will review the plan as required. A revised WPA Form 3 will be submitted along with the Plan.
Wood and debris will be put into a dumpster and removed in one day.
Mr. Treadwell says that residents will be interested in materials being hauled from the site. Mr. Fabbri again outlines the work and the timeframe.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.
A motion to issue an Order of Conditions, with special conditions as outlined above, is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
29 Winter Island Road Stone Path—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Joanne Scott, 29 Winter Island Road, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed removal of an existing stone path and patio and construction of a new stone path, within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area at 29 Winter Island Road.
Joanne Scott, owner of above property, presents. She is seeking to construct an unpaved private walkway for pedestrian use, plus conversion of lawn in certain situations. She describes the project. She is unsure what the square foot difference in old and proposed paths are. Separate stones for the path would be pervious. Width would vary from 9-15 feet, depending on the layout. The Commission comments that it would be better to avoid filling and raising any areas.
Devine comments that this should be a Negative Three determination; it is in the buffer zone and will not alter the resource area.
There are no members of the public to comment.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
A motion to issue a Negative three determination is made by St. Louis, seconded by Ricciarelli and passes unanimously.
Old/New Business
- 24 Congress Street/281 Derby Street, DEP #64-540: Request for Certificate of Compliance
Devine comments that the project is complete and in substantial compliance with the Order of Conditions. There is a standard condition requiring an as-built plan; the applicant requests that that be waived. St. Louis comments that the design plan can be submitted with an engineer’s stamp of approval. A letter from an engineer has been provided, saying the project was completed with no significant changes.
Ricciarelli is not comfortable with waiving the requirement. This was not a Chapter 91 project, so no as-built would have been required for that.
The Commission tables the matter until the applicant submits an as-built for the Commission’s review.
- Discussion of work exempt under the Wetlands Protection Act: South Essex Sewerage District pipeline replacement
A letter from SESD describes this work.
- Discussion and vote regarding funding for MACC conference attendance
The Fall Conference (theme: Invasive Species): Devine is requesting $95 for registration and $75 for mileage. A motion to fund $165 to Devine is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
Draft minutes are not yet available.
Miscellaneous
Devine announces an upcoming meeting on preliminary FEMA maps in Lynn; Devine will attend but requests reimbursement for mileage. A motion to fund is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton and passes unanimously.
A motion to adjourn is made by Hoskins, seconded by St. Louis, and passes unanimously.
The meeting adjourns at 8:45PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on November 14, 2013.
| 
