Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, September 12, 2013, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Acting Chair Gregory St. Louis, Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton, Bart Hoskins
Members Absent: Chair Julia Knisel, David Pabich
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Acting Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:07PM
Algonquin Geotechnical Borings for Future Power Plant Pipeline—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—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.
Illustrations: Salem Lateral Project, Geotechnical Survey, Figure 1 9/9/13, Geotech survey permit plan
Devine announces that because Amy Hamilton works for TRC—the consultant for the applicant—she must recuse herself from the public hearing. This leaves only 3 members, short of a quorum of 4. Devine apologizes to the applicant and attendees for this oversight. Devine reviews relevant law and regulations, and notes that without a quorum, the Commission can continue an item and schedule a site visit, but cannot deliberate or motion to issue a permit.
Hamilton leaves the room.
John Bonsall of TRC requests that the Commission allow an informal presentation of the project for the benefit of members of the public present. Devine states that the Commission should not deliberate, since this hearing will not open until the next meeting.
Mr. Bonsall states that his project is intended to connect to Algonquin’s existing facilities and provide gas supply to Footprint Power. Algonquin is still in the planning phase. Sabrina Hepburn, Jeff Branford and Rick Paquette are also present.
This is an interstate project and will initiate a federal process. The borings will allow them to gather the data needed for facility design and pipeline alignment. This is early in the process and they will return before the Commission once facilities, construction techniques and the route have been identified.
Mr. Paquette, project manager for TRC, outlines the project. Geotechnical borings will allow Algonquin to plan for the project. There would be 13 borings, 10 offshore and 3 in upland locations. They are laid out along potential drill paths.
The water is shallow and 6 borings are in intertidal areas with the remainder in subtidal areas. A barge and drilling rig would be used and is described. First they would verify the location of the existing hub line. They will drill 75-100’ below the harbor bottom, examining the bedrock consistency.
It will take 2-3 days per boring, and they anticipate a 3-4 week operation including the work to be done in Beverly. Onshore there is a similar approach to collecting the cores. He describes their locations.
Mr. Paquette continues and describes the work in the resource area. There is land containing shellfish. They also received input from the Division of Marine Fisheries regarding eel grass. There will need to be a preconstruction sweep for eel grass in the vicinity of work. The recommendation is to use divers or a camera. The 2012 mapping data for eel grass does not show any beds but there are older records of one.
Acting Chair St. Louis invites the public to comment, with Devine noting that this discussion is purely informational, and not a formal public hearing.
Hans Weedon asks if they have considered drilling all the way under water, and not on land.
If so, they would go under facilities such as Beverly School and the federal regulators do not like borings going under homes and schools. St. Louis reminds the public to ask questions only related to the geotechnical borings, not the pipeline.
Jodi Smith, of 16 Commerce Rd., asks about the purpose of the project. Mr. Paquette describes the subsurface drilling and its purpose. The pipe will be buried the entire way.
Jeff Conley of 13 Settler’s Way asks about the timing and the platform, especially at low tide. Mr. Paquette describes the setup with pads under the feet of the barge, and shows a photo of the rig.
The commissioners agree to an informal site visit since most of the work will be done underwater.
A motion to open the hearing on September 26 is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes 3-0.
28 Goodhue Street Gas Line Connection—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Boston Gas Company d/b/a National Grid, 170 Medford Street, Malden, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed extension of a gas main on Grove Street to service the North River Apartment Complex at 28 Goodhue Street within riverfront area and bordering land subject to flooding.
Hamilton returns.
Sergio Bonilla, wetlands ecologist for Conico, presents. This is a 100’ gas main extension. Mr. Bonilla is requesting a negative determination for work in a previously degraded area that does not drain toward the North River. Land subject to coastal flooding may or may not encroach upon it. He outlines the grade, which would be returned to preexisting conditions. This project should not take more than half a day. No gas was proposed in the original work. The North River is channelized in that area. He plans to employ silt sacks in the catch basins as this is a paved roadway. Construction is ongoing on that building and there is already disturbance there.
Acting Chair St. Louis asks about the depth of soil excavation. It will only be 2-3’. There is no mandatory depth and they must avoid other utilities. Is there a typical trench detail? It can be provided. These will be saw cut trenches, and it will be repaved. Normally Mr. Bonilla does weekly inspections to ensure the gas company follows any special conditions.
Acting Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
St. Louis would like to see the trench detail and Mr. Bonilla agrees to send that. The project as proposed includes erosion controls.
A motion to issue a negative two determination is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously, 4-0.
Aggregate Industries Berm on Swampscott Road—Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Aggregate Industries, 1715 Broadway, Saugus, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a vegetated berm at 140 and 216-226 Swampscott Road (Aggregate Industries) within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area.
Illustration: Info. Permit Site Plan/Grading and Drainage Plan
Jennifer Grawin of Aggregate Industries presents. They are seeking a negative determination, but the Commission was concerned about additional drainage going onto Swampscott Rd. Additional engineering was provided regarding that issue.
Vaclav Talacko of Hancock Associates outlines the plan. Construction of the berm will cut off water flow and direct it into the drainage system, then direct it across the road into the wetland, as it always has been. He describes the existing catch basins and the watershed. Under proposed conditions, the actual area of drainage is decreased by 50%, thus runoff is also decreased for the watershed.
Acting Chair St. Louis asks about drainage onsite. That drains to an onsite detention pond and silt trap, then eventually it will drain to catch basins in Swampscott. That town has issued a negative determination on this project.
The concern from the last meeting was about additional stormwater being directed toward the road, and that is not the case. Acting Chair St. Louis would like to see straw rather than hay bales; silt fence and straw bales instead of a silt sock were discussed and agreed to at the last meeting.
Ricciarelli asks why they cannot move the berm out of the buffer; there is space needed for the quarry operations, plus there is an access road. Acting Chair St. Louis comments that the retention pond should also be protected, and it will be, though it is on the Swampscott side.
Acting Chair St. Louis opens to the public, but there are no comments.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded Hamilton, and all are in favor.
A motion to issue a negative three determination is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
Special conditions: Straw bales and silt socks will be used for erosion control.
Salem Hospital Stormwater Detention Basin—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—North Shore Medical Center (Salem Hospital), 81 Highland Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss whether maintenance of a stormwater detention basin at 55 Highland Avenue (Salem Hospital) is subject to the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.
Here for the applicant is William Manuell, Wetlands Scientist, and Scott Patrowicz of Patrowicz Land Development Engineering.
Mr. Manuell presents along with Shelly Bisegna, Director of Project Management for North Shore Medical Center. He describes the hospital setup. At the corner of Powder House Lane and Highland Ave., there is a stormwater basin along Highland Ave. All stormwater flows downhill into the basin via overland flow or by a series of catch basins and drains. This basin was constructed in the early 1980’s and predates the Wetlands Protection Act, but has always been a stormwater basin. There is an outlet at one end, possibly a deep sump, though it is filled with sediment. Ultimate discharge is to the Highland Ave. drainage system. This basin has not been maintained for the past 12-15 years. The storage for this basin has been eliminated and during storm events there is ponding in the parking areas. It should have maintenance on an annual
basis. It is vegetated at this time. It looks like a wetland but is meant for stormwater retention. The hospital would like to clean out the sediment and organics and restore the basin to functionality.
The applicant is seeking a negative determination so they do not have to continue to come before the Commission for future maintenance. This basin falls between the cracks of regulations – if a basin is created but grows wetlands vegetation, is it a wetland? Now they are coded as stormwater basins, not new resource areas. If constructed between 1996 and 2008, maintenance is an exempt activity, but this was constructed before that.
Acting Chair St. Louis asks if there are original design plans, but they do not exist. He would like to see confirmation that this is not a wetland area on a USGS plan from previous times. He wants to make sure a wetland was not filled in to create the structure. This is not the case. The hospital itself is on a rock pile so he does not think it was on a previous wetland. Photos are included in the application. This basin has been like this since the photos in 1995. It has riprap slopes. Mr. Manuell says that things this small do not appear on USGS maps.
Ricciarelli asks about the outlet; it does not drain Highland Ave, but only discharges to the system there, though that system is clogged as well. The outlet pipe is probably silted in, so whatever flows over it flows out.
Acting Chair St. Louis asks about excavation and removal of sediments. Mr. Patrowicz thinks there is probably crushed stone at the bottom of the basin. It would be cleared to that level. If there is no bottom treatment, most of the fill is granular sand from the parking lots and organics, and they should be able to distinguish that from the natural soil profile. Mr. Bisegna comments that when this area functioned, the parking lots did not flood. At one point there was even a tennis court. Acting Chair St. Louis discusses the layout of the structure. Mr. Patrowicz describes the flooding.
Hoskins asks about cleaning the whole line and if material will be released. Material will be jetted from one side and vacuumed from the other. It will not be flushed downstream.
Hamilton would like to see the USGS maps to verify that it was not a historic wetland. Mr. Manuell says that even if it was, how far into the past should it be considered, since the Wetlands Protection Act came into play in 1983, and the basin was created prior to that. Will they still hold the hospital accountable? There is no problem in restoration if it was not a wetland; however wetlands that were allowed to be used to handle stormwater are regulated differently. However it was not until 1996 with 2003 revisions that stormwater policies came into play. Acting Chair St. Louis discusses current requirements for basins and to what depth they should excavate.
At this point, the soil there will have converted to hydric soil. However they can differentiate between the overburden and native earth. This area has been dry in the past, when it worked as it should.
Acting Chair St. Louis asks about a landscaping plan if cleared. They would like to be able to maintain the area, which was previously mowed and it was easy to see the area. They envision restoration of the riprap and putting a stone check dam around the outlet structure, with a low flow middle channel and seeding the middle of it. They may need to seed again if there is a major rain event.
Mr. Manuell discusses the setup in the photo from 2000. St. Louis comments on peak flows and how to prevent the sediment now going into pond from washing downstream. The whole system needs to be cleaned onsite. An Operation and Maintenance Plan needs to be made for the site, to ensure that cleaning continues. Mr. Bisegna comments that there is a plan for the rest of the hospital, but this is an extreme case. Once it is cleaned out, that system will be included in the existing O & M plan. If cleaning doesn’t help, there will be further issues, but they won’t know what those may be until the work is done.
Acting Chair St. Louis asks if installation of an inline treatment like a Storm Scepter, prior to discharge to the municipal system, is an option. They want to protect the outlets with riprap and perhaps a sediment forebay, and keep it on a maintenance program. The area from the southeast sheetflows into that area. They would rather use low impact solutions.
There is some discussion of permits and what must go before the City of Salem and Conservation Commission if stormwater goes into the City’s system.
The applicant is requesting a negative 1 and a negative 6 determination, recognizing it as a stormwater structure, so they do not have to return every time they want to maintain it. Devine comments that a negative 6 (local ordinance does not apply) determination should be issued with all negative conditions.
Acting Chair St. Louis suggests restoring the basin to its original depth, whatever that is, and then limited stormwater quality improvements to prevent future scouring of the basin from the outfalls. A gravel check dam is an option. The pipe to the municipal system and those that contribute to the pond should be cleaned then maintained with an O &M plan, but the request is for the Commission to determine that it is not under its jurisdiction, and not subject to protection, so they would not have that option. If a 1 and 6 are granted, the hospital can do what everyone wants.
Mr. Manuell points out that the hospital comes before the Commission a lot, and would like to keep the good will they have built. They all have the same goal. A discussion of which negative determination is applicable continues.
Devine says he wants to be sure the Commission makes a decision they can defend. Mr. Manuell thinks he has provided sufficient justification since this was in place prior to regulations. Devine thinks they can issue a negative 1, meaning the area is not subject to protection, but can request that maintenance is observed by the agent.
Acting Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments. Maintenance would be added to the plan and occur on a semi-annual basis. The area will be seeded and sediment removal implemented.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
St. Louis pulls up a 1940 USGS map on his phone, which does not show any wetlands.
He feels that maintenance should be allowed and ongoing maintenance should be required as discussed.
A motion to issue a negative 1 determination, stating that the basin is not subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act, and a negative 6 determination, that this is not subject to the local wetlands ordinance, is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
Old/New Business
- 38 Swampscott Road (North Shore Self Storage): Discussion of Wetlands Violation
Devine states that the DEP passed along an anonymous letter to him with a long list of complaints. Only two turned out to be relevant to the Commission. He made a site visit, and describes the situation. Sediment has built up on the other side of a gate, the possible result of snow being pushed through the gate and into the buffer zone and wetlands. More concerning is a stockpile of sand in the inner buffer zone to the wetlands, if not within the wetlands themselves. Vicki Wilson, Property Manager, and attorney Ted Papadopoulos are present.
It is unclear when this facility was permitted. There is a mound of sand beyond the gate, probably less than a cubic yard, but it is unclear how much if any went into the wetlands. Devine would like to see the Commission state what the law is, that there be no dumping or snow storage without a permit, and stockpiled sand should be removed. Hoskins asks if there is a designated snow storage plan or area. The lawyer outlines the snow storage plans. This facility goes back to the 1980’s and was purchased by current owners in the late 1980’s. There is some question as to why the gates are there. There is an Order from 2001 for a parking lot, which Mr. Papadopoulos describes. Devine notes that a certificate of compliance has not been obtained for that order and suggests that this be resolved.
A letter will be issued requesting that materials be removed, with follow up, and also that wetland markers be placed on the gates. The owner agrees that signage would be desirable, for customers as well. The area is constantly cleared of trash and is maintained.
There is only curbing in some areas. Storage of the sand is discussed. Devine says the Commission should require that the sand be removed but is unsure about what to do if it got into the wetlands.
Acting Chair St. Louis says any sand placed outside the pavement should be removed, so if it is in additional areas outside of the one pictured, they must be cleaned up as well, and then the Agent will review the perimeter of the site post-removal. Work should be completed by October 15th, when Devine will go check on progress. Wetland marker signs will be posted.
Devine will inspect the site once the Certificate is requested. A letter regarding the violation will be sent in the next few days.
- 47 Congress Street (Shetland Park): Discussion of proposed seawall maintenance
The city Engineer says this wall could collapse, as sinkholes have developed behind it, the wall slopes outward and has gaps in the stone. There are boats in the water to one side of the wall and cars parked along the top. The wall is being undermined by sediment washing out due to sheetflow off the parking area above.
A structural engineer should examine the wall. The Building inspector agrees that it is a dangerous situation. Devine’s question is whether the Commission issue an emergency certificate. Acting Chair St. Louis thinks that would be an appropriate action. An emergency certificate would say they can do work without filing an NOI first. Acting Chair St. Louis thinks that due to the size of wall there may me MEPA requirements. The wall must be replaced in kind, and all stones must be documented and replaced exactly.
Options are discussed for how to fix the wall. Devine prefers not to treat this as a wetlands enforcement issue. The Building Inspector has the authority to mandate repair to resolve a safety problem. The Commission’s role would be not to mandate the repair, but to allow it to occur without an order of conditions.
As agent, Devine can sign off on an emergency certificate. Hamilton thinks they should rope it off to prevent parking there to prevent failure due to loading the top of the wall.
Devine will write a letter to the Building inspector stating that the Commission considers this a serious safety matter and is willing to issue an emergency certificate to expedite the repair work.
- 24 Fort Avenue, DEP #64-552 (Power Plant Redevelopment): Review of Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
Devine informs the Commission that he has reviewed and approved this document. He notes that no further action is necessary if the Commission concurs.
- 144, 146, and 148 Marlborough Road, DEP #64-550: Request for certificate of compliance
The Commission issued an after the fact order of conditions since it was an emergency situation, so the work had been completed already by the time the Commission issued the order. This is a City of Salem drain line. Because the surface is grass and gravel, the site was closed up seamlessly. Devine recommends issuing the certificate.
A motion to issue the certificate of compliance is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and all approve.
- 63 ½ Jefferson Avenue, DEP #64-277: Request for certificate of compliance
The applicant was issued an order of conditions for expansion of the building, including a special condition to obtain a certificate of compliance for the 1999 order that permitted the building and surroundings. This is the request for that certificate. Devine does not have enough information to say whether the project was built as approved. There is equipment where there are catch basins are shown on the plan. He recommends the Commission should wait until the applicant submits an as built for this project for the current project. The Commission tables this request until that time.
- Discussion of Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps
Devine displays FEMA’s new preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The new maps, though preliminary, are now considered the best available information for determining the boundaries of the flood zone. The boundaries are substantially expanded in some locations, bringing projects under the Commission’s jurisdiction that would have been previously.
- Discussion and vote regarding funding for conference attendance
Devine requests to attend the Southern New England American Planning Association annual conference in Worcester, with registration, mileage and parking in the amount of $400. It is a two day conference. Each day offers different workshops, many related to conservation.
A motion to issue those funds is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
- Meeting minutes—July 11, 2013 and July 25, 2013
A motion to approve the minutes with edits is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
Miscellaneous
Footprint Power will go to the state energy facilities siting board for a composite permit that will subsume and supersede all local permits. Decisions by local boards and commissions will be incorporated into this state permit, but it will override the appeals of the Planning Board and Board of Appeals decisions.
The DEP has appealed the order of conditions for Salem Oil & Grease. The DEP has indicated that it believes the project does not meet performance standards for bordering land subject to flooding and see problems with infiltration in the slope. Devine notes that the appeal is not related to concerns about the timing of MEPA review raised by the public.
Devine reports that Salem Suede has issued an Expanded Environmental Notification Form and that he can distribute this to members of the Commission upon request.
The Mayor has nominated Tom Campbell, formerly of TetraTech, as a new Commission member.
A motion to adjourn is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
The meeting adjourns at 9:05PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on November 14, 2013.
| 
