Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, December 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, Amy Hamilton, Bart Hoskins, Tom Campbell
Members Absent: Chair Julia Knisel, Dan Ricciarelli, David Pabich
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Acting Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:10PM.
Castle Hill Park Stream Maintenance—Continuation of Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—City of Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed clearing of vegetation along, and removal of obstructions within, the stream located along the east edge of Castle Hill Park (14 Story Road), within a paper road and a city easement through portions of 7 Laurier Road, 6 Champlain Road, 19 Arthur Street, and 26 and 28 Read Street.
Devine notes that the applicant requests to continue the hearing until the next meeting. A motion to continue to the January 9, 2014 meeting is made by Hoskins, seconded by Amy Hamilton, and passes unanimously.
SESD Marblehead Pipeline Replacement—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—South Essex Sewerage District (SESD), 50 Fort Avenue, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed replacement of 2 parallel sewage pipelines running under Salem Harbor between Marblehead and the SESD treatment facility at 50 Fort Avenue within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Acting Chair St. Louis and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.
Documents:
- N. Tay Evans’, of Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), comment letter to Salem Conservation Commission, dated 12/12/2013.
- Draft Attachment to Order of Conditions
Acting Chair St. Louis discloses that his wife works for the applicant’s consultant and has been involved with the project. He consulted with the State Ethics Commission, which directed him to file a disclosure before participating in the Commission’s review.
Alan Taubert, Executive Director of SESD, outlines the situation. In March, there was a hole in one pipeline servicing Marblehead. The hole was repaired, but the pipes were determined to be severely corroded and must be replaced entirely. Project design is 80% complete.
Rachel Burckardt, professional civil engineer manager of the project, describes other alternatives such as replacing one pipe at a time. This might damage the other. Repairs with a lining were explored but would also not work due to length and geometry. They explored dredging and HDD (horizontal directional drilling), but the logistics of the latter would be very difficult. They are mostly in sediment but the part by Cat Cove is ledge, through which the original pipe was blasted. To go deeper would be in solid rock, and would be very time consuming. The current pipes will be replaced by high density polyethylene pipes, slightly off from where it is now. An ENF (Environmental Notification Form) and DEP permits (Chapter 91) were filed. They are also in consultation with the Mass. Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources
(BUAR).
An enlarged version of the illustration showing the Salem jurisdictional area is shown. The pipeline will be placed in the same location at the end, with a temporary bypass on the sea bottom. There are several resources in this area, including land under the ocean and intertidal zone (coastal beach) and coastal bank. There is also a designated port area and the Division of Marine Fisheries states that there are shellfish present. In the NOI they review the performance standards for each resource area. The method will be to trench and put things back as they were, so they are not altering the bottom relative to the resource areas.
Dredging will be using a mechanical method and sidecasting of the material. They did look into the eel grass issue and there are two areas. They avoided those locations in the Salem areas and will sidecast away from the main eelgrass areas. Siltation curtains will be used. There will also be turbidity monitoring to ensure the curtains are working.
Hamilton asks about the extent of blasting from the prior installation. Ms. Burckardt describes. Hoskins asks about the current setup of the pipeline. There is not ledge but just slopes on the illustration. They need to be 42’ between mean low low water at the top of the pipe; they will be 44’ below due to the way the pipe will be constructed. The only ledge areas are near both shorelines. The existing trenches will be reused in those areas and the existing pipe will be abandoned in place in other areas. Acting Chair St. Louis asks about staging areas that will be in buffer zones. Some will be in buffer zone, but the area is paved or grass within the treatment site. Campbell asks about taking into account tidal flow during dredging, and Ms. Burckardt states that as part of turbidity monitoring, the tide will be
“upstream” and “downstream”. They can take it into account when working around the eel grass areas and will look into it. Hoskins asks about the eel grass beds and Ms. Burckardt points out the illustration in the Commissioners’ packets.
Hoskins asks about the dredging process and Ms. Burckardt describes. Acting Chair St. Louis asks about the option of concrete thrust blocks, but they are not needed. There is not as much pressure as would be in a water main. The pipe being replaced was originally installed in 1978. The new one should last 50-100 years. Hamilton asks about testing wells and Ms. Burckardt describes the process. They would like to test each joint. Hoskins asks how long the process will take. They estimate, barring any turbidity issues, that this will take about three to four weeks. They do not have a projected start date since some other permitting processes are ongoing. They would like to start as soon as possible and will put it out for bid when they have a projected date.
Hoskins asks about stockpiling material away from eel grass when working in those areas. Ms. Burckardt outlines their options; one was to install a secondary turbidity curtain, but without a study of micro currents, that’s the best approach they can do rather than piling it elsewhere. The siltation curtain will be 20-30 feet off the trench. They will work with the Coast Guard regarding working in the navigation channel in order to avoid being there during an active time.
Acting Chair St. Louis opens to the public, but there are no comments.
DMF gave Devine comments today and he asks if the applicant would like to respond. There are no contaminants of note. Other issues were relative to turbidity and may have to do with water quality certifications and may be addressed by DEP and other permits. Ms. Burckardt feels some of the measures called for are overkill. Acting Chair St. Louis asks if this will be a winter construction project; they would like to work over the next few months and believe there are fewer environmental and recreational conflicts this time of year.
Campbell asks if there will be an eel grass survey after work is complete. It will be done if the permits require it, but it has not yet been suggested. Acting Chair St. Louis asks about plans for testing soils as they proceed, but there are none. The only additional coring will be for archaeological purposes. Acting Chair St. Louis states that the letter sounds as if the DEP will require additional samples, and the applicant will provide them in that case. The comments submitted and the procedures to incorporate them are discussed.
Hoskins asks about sediment data so far and Ms. Burckardt describes. There are no contaminants that would classify it as waste material and those results can be provided. Hoskins comments that chemicals in the sediments are more the role of the DEP. Hamilton asks about, and Ms. Burkheart describes, the temporary bypass and installation process.
Adria Leach of Salem State University asks to be informed of potential impacts to the University’s nearby Cat Cove Marine Laboratory.
Barbara Warren of Salem Sound Coastwatch, mentions that all pipes are in distress and there could be an eruption of sewerage at any moment, so she would like to see this done fairly quickly in February and March. She notes that there is a closed period for winter flounder spawning, but data show that the most important time for juveniles is limited to May and June. This is a potential emergency. She wants to see the project move along.
Acting Chair St. Louis asks if the turbidity boom can be segmented so channels would be open for migration; the boom will move along with dredging. Turbidity once sediment has settled is minimal. St. Louis comments that bullets 3, 4 and 5 are written similar to conditions in the letter. Acting Chair St. Louis reads them aloud; they have to do with silt curtains, turbidity levels and eel grass monitoring.
John Darling, attorney for the applicant, says they are concerned with conflicts between this the Commission’s order of conditions and conditions of other permits. Acting Chair St. Louis says any changes would require the applicant to come before the Commission again. Mr. Darling would like the Commission to put a caveat that its conditions should match up with the ones from the DEP, especially in areas of water quality. Devine comments on the silt curtain condition, as proposed in ENF. What was proposed there was double layers in close proximity to eel grass beds. Eel grass beds are unavoidable. There are many small ones. Performance standards are to minimize, not avoid impacts, for underwater areas.
Hoskins is concerned about eel grass monitoring, and its replacement and post construction survey are discussed. A 39 square foot area of replanting is planned, to replace 13 square feet being lost, as eel grass is notoriously picky about where it grows. The Commission must make eel grass mitigation a part of its conditions in order to make it enforceable. Any loss associated with the project must be mitigated.
Devine noted that Ms. Burckardt has mentioned that the pipes will be flushed prior to adamndonment, but it is not included in the NOI. That will be added as a condition.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton, and all are in favor.
A motion to issue an order of conditions subject to the standard conditions and special conditions as discussed is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and all approve.
Salem State Residence Hall—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Massachusetts State College Building Authority (MSBCA), 253 Summer Street, Boston, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a new residence hall within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Acting Chair St. Louis at 71 Loring Avenue (Salem State University Central Campus).
Documents: Draft Attachment to Order of Conditions
Here for the applicant is Sean Hale from Epsilon Associates. This is phase 2 of the project; they were here in September for phase 1 where utility relocation work was approved. Mr. Hale describes the work and wetland areas affected. It is mostly existing pavement and buildings, already developed. This is land subject to coastal storm flowage based on preliminary 2013 FEMA maps, not current maps.
There are four phases to the project: demolition, construction of the residence hall, upgrades to stormwater management, and associated landscaping. There will be 90,000 square feet of land subject to coastal storm flowage but there will be a reduction of 20,000 square feet of impervious area. Construction of the hall is described. It will result in the loss of 180 parking spaces on the existing site, which will need to be mitigated elsewhere (see next agenda item). Minimal excavation will be necessary and there will be no basement or need for dewatering. Any excavated material will be stockpiled on site before reuse or removal.
There are no performance standards associated with the coastal flood zone, but the project must comply with state building codes that require it to take into account storm and flood protection, so the hall is designed to have entry points and ground floor elevation higher than the new preliminary flood zone. All mechanical equipment will be outside or above flood plain elevation.
Other project components include utility connections and stormwater management upgrades, which Mr. Hale describes. There are no new proposed outfalls, and water will discharge to the existing system. The landscaping plan incorporates new green spaces.
Acting Chair St. Louis asks about previous utility permitting compared to the current permits. Tony Annato, of Niche Engineering, describes. The whole area discharges to an existing outfall, and the impervious area is being decreased. Previous parking lot runoff will now be roof water.
Acting Chair St. Louis asks about erosion controls and Mr. Annato describes them and the setup in detail. There will be a SWPPP plan associated with the work. Campbell asks about the emergency generator’s fuel source and Edward Adelman of MSCBA states that the preference is for natural gas.
Acting Chair St. Louis opens to the public and Barbara Warren asks about contamination. Samantha Olney, environmental engineer for the applicant, says it has been precharacterized and there is nothing at levels of concern, so any soils not reused will be disposed of offsite in a regular facility. Although the building will be LEED certified, Ms. Warren is very concerned about landscaping. Mr. Adelman and Dan Ocasio comment on the landscaping plan.
Acting Chair St. Louis asks about more drainage specifics and Mr. Annato describes. Options for recharging roof runoff are discussed. Straw bales should be used in place of hay. Hoskins asks if they should request documentation that the Vortex has been maintained; it has a separate Operation & Maintenance plan which can be provided. Acting Chair St. Louis would like a maintenance schedule, but not inspection reports.
There will be some overlap with two open orders of conditions on this one project and that is acceptable. The final utility layout will be provided once the City Engineer approves, and the Commission will be provided with a copy.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and all approve.
MikeHoward of Epsilon reviewed the special conditions and asks for clarification, so Devine outlines. Standard conditions will apply.
A motion to issue the order of conditions, with standard and special conditions as discussed, is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins, and all approve.
Salem State Parking Lot—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Massachusetts State College Building Authority (MSBCA), 253 Summer Street, Boston, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed demolition of existing buildings and construction of a parking lot and appurtenances within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Acting Chair St. Louis at 265 & 285 Canal Street and 70 Loring Avenue (former Weir property).
Documents: Draft Attachment to Order of Conditions
Mr. Hale presents again for this related project. A fourth parcel of land owned by the City is not associated by this project. He describes existing site conditions, which are similar to those in the above agenda item. The only resource area involved is land subject to coastal storm flowage according to 2013 preliminary FEMA mapping. Elevations are outlined since figures are different on one figure vs. the project plans. Proposed work will be demolition of the existing buildings and pavement, and construction of parking areas. They will modify the existing stormwater systems. 31,000 square feet of land subject to coastal storm flowage will be temporarily impacted.
The demolition is described. Materials will be temporarily stockpiled then removed. Erosion controls are described for the city owned bike path. They are proposing 284 parking spaces as temporary parking for 2-3 years. The applicant may construct a large parking garage in the future. Mr. Adelman comments that a study for the parking structure is examining three sites, only one of which is at the Central campus. There have been no decisions yet.
No new curb cuts are needed. The existing stormwater system will be maintained as much as possible, but there is a proposed infiltration trench. There will be no new outfalls. A SWPPP will be prepared and submitted to the Commission.
Paul Avery, engineer for the applicant, states that they will work with the City Engineer. Drainage is further discussed and the setup is described.
Acting Chair St. Louis comments that this is the second project involving work in a public way and Devine comments that this is a paper street (meaning it exits on paper records but the City does not maintain it). Campbell asks about infrastructure connections between this and the resident hall, and the system is described by Mr. Avery.
Hamilton asks about the pea gravel diaphragm and Mr. Avery describes its function. Acting Chair St. Louis asks about the drainage report; Mr. Avery notes the project’s compliance with stormwater standards.
Acting Chair St. Louis opens to the public and Josh Turiel, Ward 5 city councilor, is concerned about the reconstruction of Canal St.; there will be changes to storm drains and access points during this project, and he wants the applicant to work with the City Engineer and project supervisor to ensure that any Canal St. changes integrate well with this project. No new catch basins are proposed, but the illicit connection is being removed and redirected to Loring Ave. There should be no conflict.
Grading is discussed.
Acting Chair St. Louis requests that the City engineer weigh in on the status of Clover St. to ensure that this project does not prevent public use of the right-of-way. The Commission will look for other TSS removal associated with permanent development as the project proceeds in the future. There is some debate as to whether the Commission should set a temporary status timeline if the site is not redeveloped. The city built a temporary parking lot near Universal Steel, yet it still had to meet all stormwater standards, as does this one. Permanent and temporary facilities have the same requirements. Acting Chair St. Louis is still concerned with drainage.
Barbara Warren of Salem Sound CoastWatch asks about pollution coming off a parking lot which will run into unprotected storm drains, so even if temporary, it is an issue. The regulations are written so that this kind of project needs to meet stormwater standards to the maximum extent practical. The Commission could ask for more now but it may be torn out in 3 years. Devine says he trusts that the site will be redeveloped soon; if amenable to applicant, in 3 years if a certificate of compliance is sought, the Commission will get an update on future status. The university has always been good about updates in the past. Acting Chair St. Louis says some catch basins they discharge to are on town property. Warren says this happens all the time but they must deal with stormwater onsite.
Mike Howard of Epsilon states that they do comply with the standards as written and are not asking for any relief. They have had these conversations internally as well. Can the Commission condition that catchbasins be treated with inserts if there is no development in 5 years? Mr. Howard says that the applicant is not proposing that right now, and it is a complex issue. He is not sure what kind of catch basins are there, so he can’t determine what is feasible.
A motion to close public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton, and all are in favor.
Acting Chair St. Louis suggests that when the City Engineer finalizes utilities, they may want to look at improvements to drainage. This is a suggestion, not a condition. He suggests a condition that the Operation and Maintenance plans for the basin and manholes should be edited (p.2) and changed from 2’ to 6” of sediment accumulation triggering a cleanout. This only applies to catch basins on the applicant’s property.
A motion to issue an order of conditions with standard and special conditions is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously
36 March Street Seawall Replacement—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— Terryanne St. Pierre, 36 March Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed replacement of and existing seawall within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Acting Chair St. Louis and Salem Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.
Document: Draft Attachment to Order of Conditions
Here for the applicant is George Fallon, wife of the applicant, and Kevin Pelletier with Northshore Marine, contractor for the applicant. Mr. Pelletier describes the existing wall and plan. Mr. Fallon describes the current condition of the wall.
Acting Chair St. Louis asks about the setup of the new and old walls and Mr. Pelletier outlines. They own to mean low water. There are no DMF comments because nothing is below mean high water. There is a Shea block standard installation manual; they come up with a structural drawing for it from their own people once provided with specs. The pier will then be reattached; there are no piles for it, and it sits on wood posts with a metal ramp on floats. There will be no work on the wood pier or on the beach. Work will all be from the shore side of the wall. Hoskins suggests conditioning that they do not stack parts of the pier on the mud flat. It will be stored on land. The applicant will also use siltation booms in place of hay bales except in one area.
No members of the public are present to comment
Cambell asks about the filter fabric and drainage and Mr. Pelletier outlines. Water only comes up to the wall during very high tides and storm surges, otherwise there is beach.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell , and all are in favor.
Special conditions:
- Pier must be kept off of marsh grass, with all staging and work to be done landward of the wall.
- Proposed face of wall will be no further seaward than existing wall.
- Silt boom will be installed within 5’ of wall.
A motion to issue the order of conditions with standard and special conditions is made by Hoskins, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.
Old/New Business
- 297 Bridge Street (former Universal Steel), DEP #64-544: Request for minor modification for installation of light posts
Devine describes the setup. The plan includes light posts in islands, which may not be the best place. Neighbors behind the lot want fewer lights anyway; Devine says they should not be put into islands which are used for drainage. Acting Chair St. Louis says it is not conflicting with drainage, but they are not noted as graded depressions on the plan. There is clean cap over this dirty site, and the MBTA doesn’t want to excavate and involve an LSP, so this will be above ground work only. No specs on lights have been provided. Acting Chair St. Louis thinks that if the light posts are not conflicting with drainage, they should comply with prior notes made by the LSP. The requirement is that if they dig in the cap, they need to meet many other requirements, so they are not excavating. The posts will be set in 4’ x 4’ x 3’ concrete blocks.
A motion to approve the plan as submitted is made by Hamilton, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
- Review of proposed 2014 meeting schedule
The schedule will be emailed for Commissioner’s review.
- Meeting minutes—October 24, 2013
The Commission tables these minutes until the next meeting.
A motion to adjourn is made by Hoskins, seconded by Campbell, and is approved by three Commissioners (Hamilton left earlier).
The meeting ends at 9:05PM
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on February 27, 2014
| 
