2002-05-07
CITY OF BEVERLY
Public Meeting Minutes
BOARD: Conservation Commission
SUBCOMMITTEE:
DATE: May 7, 2002
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:Chairman David Lang, Vice-Chairman Anthony Paluzzi,
Linda Goodenough, Dr. Mayo Johnson, Jay Donnelly
BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Jon Mazuy, Richard Benevento
OTHERS PRESENT:
RECORDER: Karen Bradley
Call to Order
Chairman Lang calls the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
Paluzzi moves to recess for Public Hearing, seconded by Goodenough. All members in favor.
Motion carries 5-0.
Notice of Intent
Cont: within Beverly Harbor – construct natural gas pipeline – Algonquin Gas
Transmission Company
Attorney John Bonsai is present to represent Algonquin Gas Transmission Company. Also
present is Gus McLaughlin, Ray Hicks, Mike Tyrell, Paul Martin, Ann Pembroke, Jim Graham,
Wayne Dwyer, Ron Gorjo and Mike Bryant.
Bonsai states that they have submitted a letter in response to a letter that they received from the
Conservation Commission agent. He states that a letter was also drafted to DEP and they intent
to brief the mayor on the information included in this letter.
Bonsai states that they would like to discuss the following topics at this evening’s meeting:
1. Construction schedule;
2. Information that has been filed;
3. Contaminated sediments.
Gus McLaughlin, the environmental manager for this project states that their intent is to answer
as many questions as possible that the Conservation Commission has this evening.
Mike Tyrell of TRC Management provides a review of the construction methods and states that
additional detail requested by the Conservation Commission will be included.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2002
Page 2
He explains that the work windows have been modified to comply with the resource agencies
involved with this project. He states that the resource agencies include National Marine
Fisheries Service, EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Marine Fisheries, Army
Corp of Engineers and DEP. Tyrell states that the Comprehensive Marine Monitoring Plan will
monitor the impact of this project both during and after the pipeline is put into place.
Ron Gorjo is present to explain the construction schedule from November 2002 through May
2003. He explains that the entire project consists of 30 miles of 30-inch diameter pipeline that
will include five horizontal directional drills and two water-to-water directional drills.
A summary is provided as follows:
In waters less than 20 feet
·
Lay
·
Conventional bucket dredging to lay the pipeline
·
Backfill using spud monitoring equipment
In waters greater than 20 feet
·
Lay
·
Post lay plow to dig the trench for the pipeline, in deeper burial areas a jetty will be used
·
Backfill
He states that in the areas of the HDD there will be very little impact. The only impact that will
occur is at the entry and exit points of the HDD where some dredging will be required. He states
that they are using HDD in these areas to try to minimize any impact to these areas. He displays
a map of the eelgrass and shellfish beds and states that there will be no impact to the eelgrass
beds in this area. A detailed timetable is provided for the entire 5,000-foot drill from Salem into
Beverly that will begin in September with anticipated completion in December.
City Councilor Ron Costa expresses concern for the noise factor for this 24-hour a day operation.
The response is that they are aware of the concern for the noise that will be created and are
working out the details.
Gorjo explains that once the drill is complete in Salem, they anticipate the drill process to take
place in Beverly from January through April of 2003. He explains the water-to-water drill
process that will take place during this timeframe. In summary, a three to four month drill will
take place, and dredging and sediment disturbance will span over a two-week timeframe.
Gorjo states that the shallow water work will take place from November through March 15,
2003. He states that within this timeframe approximately 3,600 feet of pipeline. The plan
consists of dredging approximately 1,000 feet per day using a conventional bucket dredge. The
shallow water lay barge will lay approximately 2,500 feet per day.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2002
Page 3
Gorjo states that in the ½ mile area of contaminated sediments a closed environmental bucket
will be used. He states that the contaminated material is approximately two feet thick. This
material will be dredged using the environmental bucket and placed on one side of the trench. A
conventional bucket will then be used to remove some clean material to the 7-foot depth that is
required and placed on the other side of the trench. The pipeline will be laid and covered first
with the contaminated material and then covered over with the clean material.
Gorjo explains that after this point, post-lay operation will be employing using a conventional
plow. He states that there is a small area approximately ½ mile long designated as an unobscure
anchorage area that will require deeper jetting to lay the pipeline. Post-lay operation will
proceed one mile per day, dredging will proceed 1,000 feet per day.
Lang asks if this unobsure anchorage area overlaps the contaminated area. Response is no. A
detailed discussion takes place regarding the contaminated areas.
The schedule that has been committed to with the various agencies is as follows:
November – March 15, 2003 – Near shore work to be completed.
Until May 1, 2003 – All offshore work to be completed.
Lang asks if there are any questions at this point.
City Councilor John Murray questions whether there was more than one test conducted to
determine the contaminated areas. He also asks if the tides were considered when the tests were
conducted. He states that the noise issue should be a consideration. Murray states that the South
Essex Sewer District has good historical data on the areas that have been identified as
contaminated.
Lang asks why not employ HDD at the point of contamination. The response is that water depth
becomes a problem as well as the actual fiscal requirements. Lang states that the depth does not
greatly differ from the other HDD locations. Response is that there is some concern for
capturing the drilling fluid in a casing to minimize impact in the contaminated area. A detailed
discussion takes place on the determination of why HDD is not being employed in this area.
Lang asks what the deepest HDD is in the United States. Wayne Dwyer states that this area is
unique to HDD since the bedrock is very hard. He explains that in the areas of HDD for this
pipeline the bedrock is close to the surface. He explains the process and the equipment
requirements to complete the process.
Lang asks for an explanation of how the drilling fluid is captured. Dwyer explains the process
in detail and states that the fluid is recycled. Lang expresses concern for the metal contaminants
as a result of the drill process. Dwyer states that the first drill at 5,000 feet will be the longest
water-to-water drill.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2002
Page 4
A representative explains any additional drills will not be permitted by the agencies through the
timeframe allotted and states that the drills cannot be done simultaneously.
City Councilor John Murray asks if there was any consideration given to moving the pipeline
onto land. Attorney Bonsai provides a detailed explanation of why this option is not being
utilized and adds that the City of Salem would sustain extensive impact if they were to move the
pipeline onto land.
Paul Martin asks a representative to identify the location of the eelgrass and shellfish beds on the
map. A representative points out those locations and states that shellfish harvest in this area is
closed. He states that the intertidal zone is being avoided in Beverly because of the drill out of
Salem. He explains that the movement of sediment is less than a millimeter or two within 200
feet of the dredging area. He states that this level of movement is consistent with that of the tidal
movement that shellfish are exposed to on a regular basis. He states that the monitoring plan has
mechanisms will be in place to document that species of concern are in fact regenerating in the
contaminated areas.
Lang asks if chemical sampling is included in the monitoring plan. The response is yes, in the
contaminated areas. The two-year monitoring plan includes sediment restoration. The
representative states that the mapping of the eelgrass beds is accurate. He states that the impact
analysis revealed that eelgrass has a die-off period during the winter, therefore working in this
area during the winter months should alleviate disturbance of the eelgrass beds. The
representative states that 5 to 10 millimeters of the surface sediment is regularly and periodically
disturbed by tidal motion. Within 200 feet of dredging, the amount of disturbance will fall
within the variability of what would occur within nature. He states that post-construction
monitoring will disturb the eelgrass beds near the point of exit.
Hurlburt states that more detail of the water quality monitoring should be included in the plan.
The representative states that the plan is very complicated. She asks if they will be monitoring
sediment toxicity. He states that turbidity levels were monitored during the Boston Harbor
dredging program and provides a detailed explanation of this process. Hurlburt asks if the
contingency plan is based on monitoring. The response is yes. He explains that the monitoring
plan is based on other projects that have been done in the past. The representative explains that
they are committed to return the bottom level contours within one feet of what originally existed.
A detailed discussion takes place regarding the measuring of TSS in the contaminated areas. The
representative states that the contaminated locations will be open for only 1½ weeks. Lang states
that the impact to those areas will be immediate explaining that spores will be suspended upon
impact. The representative states that the process to move the contaminated material is a very
meticulous process and the Army Corp. of Engineers have done extensive testing of this process
and it has been determined that only 1 to 3% of the sediment could be resuspended. A lengthy
debate takes place as to the texture of the contaminated material. Lang states that he has concern
for a 2,600-foot area that was part of the historic outfall for chromium waste that has never been
discussed. The representative states that they were planning to discuss the area and this area will
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2002
Page 5
be part of the monitoring plan. He states that at the end of construction a two-year monitoring
plan will begin. He states that the plan will include baseline information for the purpose of
measuring habitat restoration. If at the end of two years restoration is deemed insufficient,
additional restoration and monitoring measures can be added at that time. Lang asks if the
monitoring plan will include mitigation for shellfish. The response is that the restoration process
will be evaluated against the baseline information and if it is determined that befit species are
insufficient they will reseed the shellfish beds. They are of the opinion that reseeding will not be
necessary.
Paul Martin states that there is a difference in defining the term restoration through the process of
mitigation. The representative states that the term restoration is being defined as storing
sediment types. He states that by restoring sediment types. He states that once the habitat is
restored the natural recolonization of the beds will occur.
Donnelly asks if calculations have been made that determine how far the contaminated material
will move during construction. The response is that the probable plume during dredging would
be a millimeter of deposition within ¼ feet of the impact zone. The representative states that the
modeling is complete and the effect of current velocities and magnitude of tidal effects were all
taken into consideration.
Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street asks if heavy winter storms were considered in the model. The
response is that the model did not consider a major storm event, however extreme tidal activity
was a consideration.
A copy of the Sediment Sampling Report is handed over to Lang. Ann Pembroke provides a
detailed explanation of the sediment sampling that was conducted in Beverly. She states that the
focus of the sampling was on the surface materials. She describes the area of contamination
between Milepost 1 and 2 in detail. Pembroke states that they were able to refine the boundaries
of the contaminants by conducting surface samplings in this area. She states that other methods
of samplings were conducted at various points. She defines Milepost 1.95 to Milepost 2.45 as
the area of contamination since Mileposts 1.9 and 2.5 were free of any contaminants based on
their samplings. Mileposts 2.2 and 2.3 contain the highest levels of contaminants. She states
that the results indicate a minimal chance of toxic effects on marine organisms. An extensive
discussion takes place on the effects to the marine organisms due to the level of contamination in
this area.
City Councilor John Murray engages in an extensive discussion regarding the potential effects
that the suspension of the contaminated sediment could be. Lang states that he is concerned that
this is being based on the two tests that they conducted in the aforementioned contaminated
areas. Pembroke states that DEP is more protective of the aquatic resources than that of humans.
She states that the all the contaminated areas are between 2,000 and 4,000 feet away from land
and if any of that material is transported toward the beach the contamination level would be well
below any level of concern for humans. Lang asks what could happen to a lobster at Milepost
2.2. The response is that a lobster is a scavenger, therefore it could accumulate contaminants in
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2002
Page 6
its tamale. A clarification is made that the depth of the sediment varies from 25 to 35 inches
through the course of the contaminated areas.
A resident asks if they were using the dredging process in the contaminated areas would the
sediments be able to be disposed of in the water. The response is that under the DEP Dredged
Soil Classification System the contaminants in this area are Category 2 and 3. He states that
Category 2 and 3 are not normally approved for onshore disposal.
Lang states that there is no guarantee that sediments will not be redistributed due to this process.
Lang asks how many samples contained chromium between Milepost 1 and 3. A representative
explains the elimination process of the sampling that was conducted and shows the geophysical
map that was used when determining the route of the pipeline. It is stated that rock was avoided
in specific areas in order to avoid extensive blasting and the geophysical survey shows the best
route that avoids extensive blasting and extensive contaminated areas. Lang argues that the
hotter contaminated zone cannot be determined by the geophysical survey. An explanation is
provided on the routing determination. A representative states that any movement of the pipeline
will bring it closer to the original outfall area or the intertidal zone. Lang asks if the South Essex
Sewer District has been contacted to determine where the historical outfall is located. The
response is that they have never discussed the historical outfall with the South Essex Sewer
District.
Lang asks how many samples for metal were taken. The response is that 15 samples were taken
between Milepost 1 and 2. Lang asks how many samples were taken at a shorter distance. The
th
response is between Milepost 1.9 and 2.5, 8 samples were taken at 1/10 mile increments.
Lang asks if there are any questions from the public.
Kathy Abbot, 132 Water Street, asks for an explanation of the Post-Construction Monitoring
Plan. Pembroke states that there will be two monitoring stations in Beverly that she points out
on the map. Abbot asks if those locations correspond with the areas that an environmental
bucket will be used. Pembroke states no. Abbot is of the opinion that it would make more sense
to conduct monitoring where a greater chance of disruption of the ecology exists. Pembroke
states that they plan to continue to meet with resource agencies regarding the Monitoring Plan
and adds that baseline sampling will be conducted this summer.
Renee Mary, 274 Hale Street, expresses concern for the eelgrass areas. She states that eelgrass
does die back in the fall, however not completely. The response is that wintertime construction
will best suite the eelgrass since growth is very minimal at that time. It is stated that the
construction schedule is sensitive to this issue and a stationery vessel will be used in this area as
well as in the shellfish bed areas.
A Beverly resident asks why the pipeline went further out in Boston and Weymouth. The
response is that the route was taken to avoid extensive blasting.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2002
Page 7
A Beverly resident asks about the status of the Uranium in the harbor from the Ventron plant.
The response is that DEP has resolved that issue and the area of activity for the pipeline is more
than 1,000 feet away from that area. It is stated that the Department of Energy has closed out
this file in an appropriate manner.
Mike Malewicki, 5 Arielle Lane, Peabody, a lobsterman out of Beverly Harbor, asks where the
pipeline goes once it leaves Beverly. The response it that it goes into Marblehead and the
pipeline should be complete by June 2003. Also stated is that protocol has been established with
the Lobstermen’s Association. Malewicki asks how deep the hole has to be when digging the
trench for the pipeline. The response is that when using the plow, the trench will be
approximately 7 ½ feet deep and 25 feet wide.
Lang asks if there are any additional questions from the public.
A Beverly resident asks if Duke will conduct compensory mitigation to assist with the impact
assumed by Beverly. The response is that based on the process of the project, impact should be
short-term and minimal. The MEPA certificate outlines all mitigation and compensation.
Lang states that Beverly will sustain the greatest impact. He asks if there is a mitigation package
in place for Beverly. The response is no.
City Councilor John Murray asks who their contact is with the South Essex Sewer District. The
response is Arthur Knight, Ray Bouchard and Jeff LaTrapp.
A Beverly resident asks if the public will be notified when the drilling will take place. The
response is that the Conservation Commission can make that a requirement in the Order of
Conditions. Also stated is that there will be a website set up to post a detailed schedule of
construction activities and monitoring could also be posted online if the Conservation
Commission were to make that request. The resident asks what type of monitoring is in place for
gas leaks once the pipeline is functioning. The response is that constant monitoring will be
available. The gas control plant is located in Brighton, MA, and a local dispatch will be used.
A Beverly resident asks the cost of a third horizontal directional drilling. The response is that it
will cost in excess of $10 million. Also stated is that 20% of the total cost of the pipeline is
going to Beverly Harbor.
Hurlburt reads correspondence from Mayor Thomas Crean, Conservation Commission member
Richard Benevento and Beverly Resident Kathy Abbott.
Hurlburt recommends to Lang to legally close the public hearing this evening and write a draft
Order of Conditions. She states that the Conservation Commission has 21 days to issue and
Order of Conditions after the public hearing is closed.
Conservation Commission Meeting Minutes
May 7, 2002
Page 8
Donnelly states that he would like to see a map of the polluted areas that illustrate how extensive
the contaminated material is.
Johnson moves to close the public hearing, seconded by Donnelly. All members in favor.
Motion carries 5-0.
Lang states that they will deliberate an Order of Conditions at the meeting next week. Bonsai
requests the opportunity for interaction regarding the Order of Conditions. Lang states that the
Order of Conditions are not negotiable. Bonsai states that he would like to provide the
Conservation Commission with a copy of the Order of Conditions from Boston. Donnelly
requests a copy of Weymouth’s Order of Conditions. Bonsai states that they have not yet
received them and will forward them to the Commission when they are received.
Old/New Business
Hill Property
Hurlburt states that in order for the city to receive the self-help grant for the Hill Property an
agreement must be signed that states that the Conservation Commission will assume the role of
managing entity for the property.
Paluzzi moves that the Conservation Commission assume role as managing entity for the Hill
Property, seconded by Donnelly. All members in favor. Motion carries 5-0.
Adjourn
The meeting is adjourned at 9:45 p.m.