Loading...
2006-10-30 CITY OF BEVERLY PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Date: Board: Members Present October 30, 2006 Conservation Commission Chair David Lang, Vice Chair Tony Paluzzi Dr. Mayo Johnson, Gregg Cademartori, Mary Reilly, and Bill Squibb Members Absent: Ian Hayes Others Present: Amy Maxner - Environmental Planner Recorder: Eileen Sacco Chair Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. at Beverly City Hall, 191 Cabot Street, Beverly, MA. Paluzzi moves to recess for public hearings. Squibb seconds the motion. The motion carries 6- O. Continuation of Public Hearin2 - Massachusetts Bav - DEP File # 5-925 - Construct Natural Gas Pipeline - Al20nauin Gas Transmission. LLC Lang refers to the original Order of Conditions that was issued in 1992 for the first Hubline project and notes that it has been red lined for the information of the Commission to consider as potential Special Conditions for this project. Cademartori questions if additional information is to be considered and asks if there is any data on the soft bottom habitat dominance within this particular geographical area. Paul Murrary states that for the ease of construction and to reduce the environmental impact they have cosidered a combination of engineering and environmental facts. He explains the USGS sonar imaging noted in the blue area of the plan is not unique and a large percentage of the water is in the depth category. He explains the details on the plan and explains the sonar imaging. He also notes that the Hubline in part of Beverly will be able to plow with special handling and estimates that they will be 45-65 feet deep and there is not so much depth at the shoreline contours. Bonsall notes that the final EIS has been published and this issue has been addressed in the body of that document. He also states that there is no blasting anticipated that they are aware of and they feel that there is an environmental benefit to the route they have selected. Beverly Conservation Commission October 30, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 20f7 Lang asks if they are planning to have an environmental inspector on site similar to what they had for the Hubline project. Bonsall explains that they will have an inspector on site and available as it worked well last time. Lang asks if any turbidity testing will be done. Bonsall states that they are in the process of drafting the water quality management plan with DEP and other state agencies. He notes that ADCP would be used to monitor construction and target the greatest potential to release sediment. Lang states that he would like to see water quality monitoring in the Order of Conditions. George McLauchlan states that they strive for the least amount of turbidity during construction and especially since they pass by the Massachusetts Bay Disposal Site area. He also notes that the Mass Bay Disposal site and DEP focus on monitoring the deering plow. McLauchlan notes that there is no radioactivity in the area and they did a magnatometric survey which would have picked that up and they didn't find anything. Cademartori questions how successful the recovery has been from the Hubline project. Bonsall notes that they are monitoring the Hubline for five types of habitat. He explains the results that they have so far and they have found that the area plowed had recovery in the first year of post construction. He also notes that there was 30-60% recovery for smaller habitat. He also explains that the second year shows ha shown some amount of improvement and also notes that there may have been some regression due to storm activity. Bonsall also notes that the third year samples were collected this summer and are being analyzed and a report will be available next year. Cademartori clarified that 30-60% of the site samples of natural species showed recovery. Bonsall states that it is common in maritime venting for habitat in shallow water. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Mary Rodrick, 14 Peabody Avenue, addresses the Commission and refers to the Metcalf and Eddy reports prepared for the Manchester Conservation Commission and questions the cumulative impact of the two pipes and the land containing shellfish mitigation. She asks if they are addressed in the Order of Conditions. Bonsall states that the some areas contain shellfish and there is not a great abundance of shellfish in Beverly and they are not proposing any kind on mitigation. He explains that they found quahogs, clams and scallops the first year post construction but their abundance was scant. Beverly Conservation Commission October 30, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 30f7 Rodrick notes that the Hubline created a lot of problems that they did not anticipate and asked if they expect the same this time. Bonsall states that some recovery can take 3 to 6 months and has been documented and some can take 2-4 years to return to pre construction conditions, but as far as problems encountered during the Hubline, they do not anticipate many since the substrate they are going through involves the most straight forward techniques. Lang asks Bonsall if any communities are receiving mitigation funds. Bonsall states that the EOEA is coordinating the mitigation packages for the communities. He notes that Beverly has been recommended for funds. Maxner asks if there is a grant process to get the funds and would cities and towns compete for the money. Bonsall states he is unsure as to how the funds will be administered at this time. Cademartori notes that there is a direct impact on the resource areas of Beverly from this project and asks if there is a way to accelerate the process so that we can see what the mitigation package is before they issue the Order of Conditions. Bonsall explains that the EOEC is negotiating that and it should be released in a month. Cademartori states that the project mitigation package for Beverly could be enhanced from a habitat prospective. Bonsall states that they are monitoring the eel grass and hard substrate monitoring will also be taking place from the Hubline project. He notes that there was a lot more monitoring necessary with the Hub Line project. He also explains that with this project there are muddy, silty substrates and that is the kind of monitoring they are proposing to do. Cademartori asks about the possibility of smothering habitat during construction activity. Bonsall explains that the plow moves slowly, so fin fish should be able to get out of the way. Lang opens the hearing up for public comment at this time. Rene Mary asks if the eel grass is coming back from the disturbance during the Hub Line project. McLauchlan explains that they are mapping the bed and have seen pre and post construction sections grow further off shore and further in shore. He suggests that they will be looking at a longer time frame and would leave that to the eel grass experts. Mary expresses concern about the ducks feeding in the area. McLauchlan notes that there is plenty of ell grass out there and the amount of eel grass disturbed by the Hubline was a very small percentage compared to what is available to wildlife. Mary asks if the corporate boundaries have been resolved. Bonsall notes that the City Solicitor has been referred that issue and is addressing it. Beverly Conservation Commission October 30, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 40f7 Mary Rodrick addresses the Commission and expresses her concern about the cumulative effects of the two pipelines. She also suggests that the Commission wait to issue an Order of Conditions until the mitigation package is released by EOEA. She notes that it is early to make a decision on this when no one knows if it will be built. She also notes that it was thought that two companies were vying to build the same pipeline and now we find out that it is two separate pipelines. Lang asks what the construction sequence will be for the two pipelines. Bonsall explains that they are aiming for construction in 2007 and that Neptune is slated for 2009. Reilly asks if the Commission could have the conditions that were issued by Manchester and asked if they address cumulative impacts. Bonsall notes that it was addressed in the Metcalf and Eddy report and notes that there will not be a crossing of the two pipelines. Bonsall also notes that the FEIS and the EIR will address the cumulative impacts. Lang notes that this project is not as complicated as the Hubline project and will be much shorter in length and construction time. He also notes that there is two-year time span between projects which may well have an impact on the economic feasibility of building the second lateral. There being no further questions or comments regarding this matter, Paluzzi moves to close the public hearing. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Lang states the potential Special Conditions can be discussed at this time. Johnson notes that he reviewed the conditions issue by Manchester and suggests that the Commission adopt Manchester conditions 9, 15, 17, and 19. Bonsall states that he would disagree with number 9 because what applies in Manchester doesn't necessarily apply in Beverly. He also explains that pre construction documentation of the land to document shellfish in the area is not necessary in Beverly since there is no resource area of that nature within Beverly waters. He also states that he thinks that Manchester misinterpreted the regulations with regard to that condition and there is no clear consensus on that Commission about including it in the Order. Lang states that he does not think that is an unreasonable thing for a Conservation Commission to ask. Bonsall states that the Manchester Conservation Commission is split on that and the recommendation came from a consultant. Squibb notes that if the next project is in two years how will the post construction monitoring be effected. Bonsall explains that the other project will be a significant distance away and could be thousands of feet away from their site. He also notes that when they are in service Neptune will have to comply with safety rules and standards if they are going to construct their lateral. Beverly Conservation Commission October 30, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 50f7 Squibb states that he has a problem issuing an Order of Conditions, as the information on the mitigation package is vague. Cademartori agrees noting that there is a big impact on the City of Beverly from the project and there is zero mitigation. Bonsall notes that the mitigation package is being developed by the EOEA and they offered to sit down with the City Solicitor and they never got back to them so there was an opportunity for the City to be involved in this. He notes that they understand that the local communities need to be considered, and in their negotiations with EOEA compensation for the communities directly impacted was advocated for. He also notes that the last draft of the mitigation package that he saw included the City of Beverly and he thinks the Commission will be pleased. Cademartori notes that there is a disconnect as to how the project impacts are going to be mitigated and that he was not aware that the City Solicitor dropped out of the process. . Bonsall notes that financial compensation would be within the package that EOEA is negotiating. He explains that they are looking to fund stormwater management, coastal access, and restoration projects for the communities involved. Maxner asks who the contact person at EOEA is regarding the mitigation package. Bonsall states that it is Deerin Bab-Brott. Maxner asks if they would be opposed to funding a project recommended by Salem Sound Coastwatch. Bonsall states that the Commissioner wanted EOEA to handle the compensatory mitigation with the cities and towns, and he believes that EOEA would be open to proposals. Squibb suggests that the Commission reserve the right to amend the Order of Conditions if the City receives additional information from the state regarding the mitigation package. Lang states he does not believe that a final Order can be agreed upon tonight, and notes that the next meeting of the Conservation Commission is on November 14, 2006 and suggests that the Commission review the proposed conditions and see if it can get some more information from Manchester. Bonsall states that they have to be at a meeting in Manchester that same evening and asks if they could be placed early on the agenda. Lang suggests that the Commission start the meeting at 6:30 p.m. and take this up first so that they can make their meeting in Manchester. Johnson moves to continue the matter of the Order of Conditions to November 14, 2006. Reilly seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. Old / New Business Beverly Conservation Commission October 30, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 60f7 New: 7 Tall Tree Drive - Pool Construction - ReQuest for Relocatin2 Pool and Cabana Maxner explains that the applicant has requested to reverse the location of the pool and the cabana, which are both located in the lawn area without a change in the footprint of either. She asks if the Commission would be willing to approve this change without any further paper work. Cademartori states that as long as the structures don't change in size or dimension, he would have no problem with allowing them to flip the locations within the limit of the lawn area. Paluzzi agrees noting that there is a fence that encapsulates the work relative to those structures and as long as they stay within the fenced area he would have no problem with the change. Paluzzi moves to approve the request. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. New: West Street - Sewer Extension Project - ReQuest to Install New Water Main Maxner explains that the work has begun on the sewer extension project and the water main was found to be in very bad shape in some sections, and the neighborhood associating is requesting that the Commission allow replacement of the entire main before the winter weather hits. She explains that the main would be within the right of way and has no impact on the resource areas whatsoever, as the sewer project has resource protections already in place. Paluzzi moves to allow the installation of a new water main. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries 6-0. New: Tree Removal on Conservation Land at Sally Milli2an Park - Kelly Pruell - 23 Jewett Road - Maxner explains that resident Kelly Pruell of23 Jewett Road is requesting to remove a tall pine tree that is located immediately adjacent to her house, but is on the Sally Milligan Park City owned property. She explains that due to the excavation for the house there may be root damage according to the City Arborist, Phil Klimowicz. She provides photos of the tree and surrounding property for members to review. Squibb asks Maxner to verify that the tree is indeed on Sally Milligan as he thinks it is too close to tell without the Engineering Department verifying it. Maxner agrees to work with Roland Adams, GIS Coordinator, to GPS the location of the tree. Paluzzi moves to allow that the tree be taken down. Johnson seconds the motion. The motion carries (4-1-1) with Reilly opposed and Cademartori abstaining. New: 274 - 280 Hale Street - Mass Hi2hway Department - Culver Repair Maxner shows photos of work progressing on the culvert repair by the pond between 247-280 Hale Street, which was authorized by the Commission under an Emergency Certification. She states that MHD representative, Bob Boone, has requested that they be allowed to move forward Beverly Conservation Commission October 30, 2006 Meeting Minutes Page 70f7 with the installation of a weir or lintel for pond level maintenance now so that they will not have to re-mobilize work equipment after the work on the culvert is done. Lang states that this was specifically discussed and the Commission indicated that the pond level would be monitored post construction and only after some time of monitoring would a weir or damn structure be considered. He states he is not willing to provide MHD with carte-blanch on this project and would not recommend allowing them to just go ahead at this time. Paluzzi agrees, and states it may be too early to determine what the water elevation will end up. The Commission members agree that no further work will be authorized at this time. Adjournment There being no further business to come before the Beverly Conservation Commission this evening. Paluzzi moves to adjourn the meeting. Hayes seconds the motion. The motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m.