Salem Conservation Commission
Minutes of Meeting
Date and Time: Thursday, Sept. 11, 2014, 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street
Members Present: Acting Chair Gregory St. Louis, Tom Campbell, Bart Hoskins, Bob Pond, Dan Ricciarelli, Amy Hamilton
Members Absent: Chair Juila Knisel
Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent
Recorder: Stacy Kilb
Acting Chair St. Louis calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM.
- Algonquin Pipeline Weld Seam Investigation—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC, 890 Winter Street, Suite 300, Waltham, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed excavation of approximately 80 cubic yards of sediment to expose and inspect a portion of the existing gas Hub Line under Salem Harbor for the purpose designing a connection to a proposed future gas pipeline to the planned new Salem Harbor Power Station. Said activity is within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem’s Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.
Amy Hamilton recuses herself as she works for TRC. Here for the applicant are Jon Bonsall, Sabrina Hepburn, and Rick Paquette, environmental manager for TRC. Mr. Bonsall gives an overview of the project and states that they will be filing an NOI for the project itself shortly; this is just one piece.
Mr. Paquette provides background on the necessity of this portion of the project. He describes the pipeline (Salem Lateral) and the hot tap connection, which requires specific placement that avoids the weld seam in the existing pipe. Internal inspections have been conducted, but they must verify 100% before finalizing the line. This entails physical excavation of about 4’ of the line. This should be conducted in October, to be completed by the end of the month or beginning of November.
Mr. Paquette describes the work to be done. There will be a dive crew on a support vessel that will use hand jetting. The maximum depth will be 7’ and up to 80 cubic yards of material will be displaced. This is a short term operation, and it should take no more than 5 days. He describes the setup of the pipelines. Once the inspection is complete, the area will be temporarily backfilled using sand bags, since it is in the same location as construction for the rest of the project, and will eventually need to be excavated again.
The location of the weld seam is described. Surveys for the larger project have been completed. There is no eel grass. They have consulted with the DEP, NOAA, the Division of Marine Fisheries, and others. The larger NOI will include those technical reports. Modeling of sediment dispersion has also been done. This work is being done during a time of year that will not impact marine organisms. Comments from the DMF have been received. The process is further described.
Sand bags will contain washed gravel, most likely be of a nylon type material. A water quality monitoring plan is being developed and will include monitoring during further excavation, but not during this minor activity. DMF is in support of this. The sediment plume is discussed but it will not impact marine organisms.
If it turns out that the seam is not where they think it is, the applicant would have to examine an area slightly to the east or west of this one (50-75’) since seams alternate locations on various pipe segments. They would need to collect additional data first. Devine comments that the DMF letter was received today and he outlines the comments made, which have already been discussed as above. Mr. Paquette further outlines them regarding time of year, contingency plans, mitigation, and water quality monitoring. St. Louis asks about the coffer dam and Mr. Paquette describes.
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, minus Amy Hamilton who has recused herself.
Several standard conditions do not apply, such as a preconstruction inspection by the Agent, which can be waived. Both Harbormasters (Beverly and Salem) have been contacted. The contingency plan will address removal of sandbags if the excavated location has to be abandoned.
Borings are further discussed. If additional geotechnical work must be done later, the Commission would consider it within the parameters of work approved previously. That order is still open and no certificate of compliance has been issued. The amendment to this Order could be rolled in with additional conditions; one or two additional borings could just constitute a minor change. If necessary, the applicant can discuss with the Agent.
Mr. Paquette further discusses water quality monitoring, which will be done during future work. The preconstruction meeting in the standard conditions is waived, and in lieu of an as-built plan for this portion of the project, photos should be submitted.
Special Conditions:
- Submission of a contingency plan to Agent for review and approval prior to start of work
- Material to be placed in sand bags should be double washed
- Time of year restriction for in-water work, for this activity, of Feb. 15 to June 30
A motion to issue an order of conditions for the standard conditions as edited and above special conditions is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously, with Hamilton recused.
- Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina Seawall and Head House—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—Noah Flaherty of BHCM, Inc., 10 White Street, Salem, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss proposed seawall repairs and head house reconstruction at Brewer Hawthorne Cove Marina (10 White Street) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem’s Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.
Here for the applicant is Ron Bourne with Bourne Consulting and Engineering. Noah Flaherty, owner, and the architect, Derek Bloom, are also present. Mr. Bourne describes the project. A two story building and two smaller sheds are involved, as well as the sea wall. He describes the protections, including a silt curtain and wattles.
He describes the work to the building foundation, seawall, etc. The building will be gutted and re-constructed with the same square footage/footprint, but in a new location, with a pile foundation for support. The sheds will also be moved or reconstructed – it is not certain yet, but they will be in a similar location relative to the main building, which will itself be moved back. Once the building is moved, the seawall will be reconstructed.
Elevations and flood zones are described along with structural details. Placement of the buildings is also further discussed with the Commission. Tenants as well as the public need access in different areas. They are also planning a new deck area where the original building is, but it will not extend beyond the existing footprint of the original building. That is not on the plan but Mr. Bourne describes it in detail.
Acting Chair St. Louis asks about the wall and its grades and Mr. Bourne describes. Shed foundations will be removed once the sheds are relocated; right now they are slabs. Hamilton asks about equipment Mr. Bourne describes the timing of the project.
Hoskins asks about the silt curtain and Mr. Bourne describes. Pond asks about the new building locations and Mr. Bourne outlines the correct numbers for the footprints. Acting Chair St. Louis thinks that the Building Dept. would hold them to a foot above the 100-year flood elevation. No topography is on the plan. Construction and location of the sheds is further discussed.
Acting Chair St. Louis opens to the public.
John Zbyszynski of 55 Turner Street asks about the sheds – the Fire Dept and possibly the Building Dept. regulate the flammable materials and placement of them (one shed contains some). There will be a new foundation further from the water. All buildings will be further from the water. Mr. Zbyszynski was also not notified of this project, though his neighbor was. The applicant provides the proof of mailing for Mr. Zbyszynski and Devine says he will investigate why the notice didn’t reach him.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton, and passes unanimously.
Standard conditions have been reviewed. Special conditions:
- The applicant must submit a plan to the Agent with elevations of the flood plain, top of seawall, and finished floor, including a plan depicting the full proposed buildings with decking, prior to the start of work
There are no comments from DMF as long as the conditions outlined in the proposal are met. The building will be on skids for the relocation.
A motion to issue the order of conditions with standard conditions and the one special condition is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
- Univar Soil Remediation—Public Hearing—Notice of Intent—BASF, 227 Oak Ridge Parkway, Toms River, NJ. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed remediation of chromium-impacted soils at 25/30/40 Colonial Road (Univar property) within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem’s Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance.
Here for the applicant is Mr. Frank Lilley, LSP. This is a legacy site being cleaned. Joe Robb with ERM is representing Univar, the owner. A history of the property and activity there is reviewed. Mill Pond is tidal. Previous remediation of Mill Pond from 2006 is also described. This project is the last stage of remediation. One building was demolished and everything in the area up to the fence paved. The entire project will be within pavement, with no structures demolished or built. The area will be cleaned and then repaved. Mitigation effort and layouts of staging areas are outlined. Silt fencing around the former building and hay bales around the staging area will be used. They expect to excavate 1200-1400 cubic yards but are constrained by existing utilities and an area owned by MBTA.
Acting Chair St. Louis asks about property location and Mr. Lilley describes. Additional mitigation such as the truck washing station are also described. There will be dewatering since they may dig deeper than the water table, though they are excavating solid soil. A NPDES permit will be sought. This is cleanup of a hotspot discovered after the building was demolished. The ultimate goal for the site is a permanent solution with deed restriction, but Univar may or may not have plans for building in the future and will come before the Commission if it does. Groundwater monitoring occurs yearly and is submitted to the DEP.
Hoskins asks about the AUL (Activities and Use Limitation) and purpose of the pavement and Mr. Lilley is unsure, but can find out if pavement is a requirement of the AUL. They could say the entire property is restricted to below pavement, but it is to be determined. Acting Chair St. Louis notes a possible typo on the street address, as abutter locations only say numbers 25 and 30. This is at the intersection of 3 parcels, but 20 Colonial Road is the address for the building, as DEP likes a street mailing vs. a parcel address. All previous orders of conditions have been closed. This will be closed as a commercial facility and will not be cleaned to residential standards. There is some hexavalent chromium as well as some trivalent chromium (the former is much more harmful but is only in a limited area). Concentrations and areas are
discussed. Both types are in the groundwater but there has not been a contributing source since 1980, so the groundwater has stayed hot but only in this one area. Any discharge to Mill Pond is diluted, with minimum impact. Concentrations of both types of chromium will be lowered as a result of this project. There are sentinel wells in place, with an extensive monitoring network. Wells and their locations are further discussed, as are DEP standards for discharge. There is also further discussion of both types of chromium and groundwater standards. Levels of both types have been steadily decreasing.
Hamilton asks about erosion controls in the catch basins; they will be installed. Univar has a stormwater plan on file and is coordinating this project with that.
Acting Chair St. Louis opens to the public but there are no comments.
A DEP comment states that they should get a letter form the Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup, but the applicant is not clear on what this means. Mr. Lilley will investigate. The worst materials will be segregated and clean soils, and those that are not as contaminated, will be re-used.
A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
RAM plans are discussed. A NPDES permit must be obtained. Water discharging to Mill Pond will be cleaned first. 700 cubic yards of material will be reused with 700 being disposed of in an approved landfill.
Special Conditions:
- The Agent must be CC’d electronically on the NPDES documentation
- Straw bales rather than hay bales should be used
- Truck wash details will be submitted to the Agent, which may be included in the RAM plan or NPDES documentation
A motion to issue the order condition is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously.
4. Old/New Business
• DEP #64-519, 11R Winter Island Road: Request for Minor Change
Ryan Macomber with Sudbury Design Group is here with the new owners, Mr. and Mrs. Jackson, who would like to repair a terrace and conduct some landscaping improvements. This plan is for slightly less than the approved impervious square footages and Mr. Macomber outlines the project and the square footages. Originally 907 impervious square feet were approved. An as-built survey was conducted and 641 square feet of impervious surface area were actually installed. The current proposal includes 364’ of covered and 510 square feet of uncovered impervious surface, still 100 feet under the originally approved amount. Straw wattles with snow fence would serve as erosion controls, as outline in the original plans.
Devine comments that all violations by the developer were satisfied close enough to the Commission’s satisfaction. Devine outlines the violations. Repair work was also done on the wall at the edge, beyond the order of conditions. However, if this is merely the repair of a wall, it is not an issue. But if the issue of the wall cannot be resolved tonight, Devine suggests that the Commission still consider the proposed landscaping changes.
Devine previously signed off on a certificate of occupancy, not a certificate of compliance. Having an open order of conditions gives the owners the option to request approval of minor changes.
There are no members of the public to comment. Acting Chair St. Louis reminds the current owners that the entire lot is within the Commission’s jurisdiction.
Wall repair would be an after-the fact correction to an existing structure, not on the applicant’s property (part of the wall is no their property and part is not). Devine opines that the landscaping and hardscaping constitute a minor change. The applicant could devise a plan to properly repair the wall then come before the Commission again. The current order is open until 2017, as it was extended 4 years by two Permit Extension Acts, so they have more than the standard three years to make changes. They will have to resolve the issue of work being done on the portion of the wall that is on the City’s public way, and may need approval from the City.
It is unclear whether or not the wall has a Chapter 91 license. The Commission would need proof that work done on the wall was appropriate in order to be satisfied. The Commission does not give or take permission to work on others’ property, so it could approve the work with a comment that the approval it does not constitute approval of encroachment, but has no problem with work done as it relates to the Wetlands Protection Act and local wetlands ordinance.
A motion to approve the minor modification, including the wall repair, is made by Pond, seconded by Hoskins, and passes unanimously. The Commission asks that the owner submit a letter to the City solicitor regarding the wall’s encroachment onto the public way.
• DEP #64-561, 25 Winter Island Road: Request for Certificate of Compliance
Devine presents photos of the work. This involved extension of the revetment and installation of a patio. There were no issues. New sod has been installed and the wall built as approved. The Commission did ask for pre-and post beach profiles, which have not been provided. The engineer’s opinion is that there is no alteration of the beach.
A motion to issue the certificate of compliance is made by Hoskins, seconded by Pond, and passes unanimously.
• DEP #64-459, Osborne Hills Subdivision, Lot 16: Request for Certificate of Compliance
Recharge must be done for every lot in this phase. Positioning of the house and driveway are discussed. Retaining walls as per the plan are also discussed. There is one larger farther from the wetlands as opposed to two walls in the plan, one closer to the wetlands. The wall is continuous behind multiple lots. Devine recommends approval if the Commission is comfortable with the level of conformity with the plan.
The Commission points out that lawn clippings and yard waste should be disposed of as appropriate (i.e. not over the wall).
A motion to issue the certificate is made by Hoskins, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously.
• Discussion and vote regarding funding for education and training
Devine requests $141 for registration and mileage for the MACC fall conference later this month, and invites the members of the Commission to join him. Funding has already been approved for Commissioners to attend educational events. The Southern NE Conference of the APA in Providence RI is in October; Devine can attend one day and is requesting $180 for registration and round trip train fare. Devine notes that the theme is climate.
A motion to approve funding for both events is made by Hamilton, seconded by Campbell, and passes unanimously.
Hoskins motions to adjourn, Campbell seconds, and all are in favor.
The meeting ends at 8:37PM
Respectfully submitted,
Stacy Kilb
Clerk, Salem Conservation Commission
Approved by the Conservation Commission on October 23, 2014
| 
