Tag Archive for: Groundwater

Carver: Meadow Street Sand Mine: Jury Returns Verdict

 

August 11, 2026

MASSACHUSETTS JURY FINDS SAND MINE OPERATOR LIABLE; TRIAL REVEALS NEW SILICA DUST AND HEALTH EVIDENCE

Nearly four years after CLWC published an investigation on the sand mining operating at 0 Meadow Street in Carver, Massachusetts— and after years of complaints by Meadow Street residents — a Plymouth Superior Court jury returned a verdict a 2023 case brought by two neighbors impacted by the operation. The jury awarded a total of $530,000 in damages to the neighbors. See it here: Jury Verdict: August 11, 2026

The Plymouth County Superior Court jury trial lasted from July 27 to August 11, 2026 when the jury returned the verdict on three claims under the 2023 complaint. The jury  found the sand mine operator G. Lopes Construction and the landowner Bette Maki operating under the Alex Johnson and Sons cranberry company liable under the three counts. First, under private nuisance, the jury found both G, Lopes Construction and Maki contributed to conditions substantially and unreasonably interfering with the neighbors’ use and enjoyment of their property. On that nuisance finding, it allocated 80% of the fault to G. Lopes Construction and 20% to Maki.

The jury separately found that G. Lopes Construction caused dust, sand, sediment or another thing for which it was legally responsible to enter the neighbors’ property, that the company was negligent, that the entry was not authorized by the neighbors and that the entry caused legally recoverable harm. On the negligent-trespass claim, the jury allocated 100% of the fault to G. Lopes Construction. The completed verdict slip awards each Beadling $15,000 for property damage and $200,000 for pain and suffering on that claim.

The verdict follows a trial based on new evidence about the silicon dioxide components of Carver loamy soil which was being mined and generated Respirable Crystalline Silica according to experts. The mining operation lasted over 13 years and generated at least 54,000 truck trips to haul the sand and gravel. The trucks passed within 35 feet of neighbors’ front doors, on narrow country roads, causing air pollution, noise and vibration compounded by the mining operation itself.

Below: Map showing forested land where the mining operation dredged in the Sole Source Aquifer. This is before the mining. Below is after the mining.

Above:  March 17, 2022. The mining site owned and operated by Maki and G. Lopes Construction at 0 Meadow Street. Before the mining, the area shown as a open water was  forested upland area. A total of 19 acres was strip mined and the operation dredged the Sole Source Aquifer, exposing it to contamination.

Wathc the Drone Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MPSWuw0BDI&t=6s

From complaints to accountability

At the trial, the plaintiffs testified that they had brought the situation to the Town’s attention since at least 2014 about sand covering the property, excessive noise, traffic and speeding trucks. Two neighbors who were not plaintiffs testified about vibrations from truck traffic so hard they caused a picture to fall off the wall.  Another testified that there was so much sand on his deck he used a leaf blower.

The trial record ultimately included resident testimony, company records, site sampling, laboratory silica analysis, meteorological analysis, engineering evidence, land-use and aquifer analysis, and pulmonary medical testimony.

The jury then made a finding that goes directly to the central issue CLWC reported on it blogs and to the Town in 2022: G. Lopes Construction negligently caused dust, sand or sediment to enter the neighboring property and cause legally recoverable harm.

About the trial

The two week trial involved 10 witnesses from the plaintiffs and five from the defendants, G. Lopes Construction and Maki. The lawsuit was first filed in April 2023, when the neighbors first challenged the town’s Earth Removal Permit issued to Maki despite over 10 years of complaints from the neighborhood about noise, dust and vibration from the mine. The complaint also contained claims for nuisance, negligence and negligent trespass.

In July, 2023, the plaintiffs requested an injunction to stop the mining until the lawsuit could be resolved.  They supported the request for an injunction with the expert affidavit of Gary James, P.E. and photographs and testimony from the neighbors showing sand covering cars and the yard.  See the Affidavits Here  On  July 17, 2023, Superior Court Judge Glenny denied the injunction. The mine continued to operated until March 2024.  In the meantime, residents appealed to the Appeals Court but did not prevail and the mine kept opereating.  More available here: Appeals Court proceedings.

The trial testimony established that there were at least 54,000 truck trips through the residential neighborhood, up to 120 trips on some days, that the defendants were repeatedly notified about sand, dust and noise; a company safety official offered to power-wash the house and provided car-wash tickets because sand had blown from the site; the excavation intercepted the groundwater table; and the neighborhood relies on wells drawing from the aquifer

Scientific evidence on silica dust and wind directions

Environmental engineering expert Scott Hersey testified that that four samples collected on June 11, 2025 contained material met the conditions he identified for respirable crystalline silica (RSC). He concluded that wind conditions made it more likely than not that dust from the site reached the plaintiffs’ home and that RCS from the mining operation more likely than not entered the property.

Hersey compared approximately 1.12 million meteorological observations with 25 documented dust events and found mine-to-home winds during the preceding 24 hours for 20 of those 25 events.

Pulmonary expert evaluated possible silica-related health effects

Pulmonary specialist Stephen L. Newman, M.D., testified at the trial about a peer review of the residents’ pulmonary complaints and their possible relationship to silica-dust exposure. The medical expert did not diagnose them with silicosis, but stated that one of them was at risk for progressive silicosis and associated complications given what Dr. Newman characterized as prolonged extensive unprotected exposure to silica dust.

As to the second  resident, Dr.Newman reported bilateral lower-lobe interstitial lung disease typical of rheumatoid lung disease, with possible atypical, accelerated silicosis. He identified both prolonged silica exposure and rheumatoid arthritis in his causation analysis.

These medical opinions should be understood alongside the site’s later silica testing and dust-transport analysis. They are expert opinions; the jury verdict itself should not be characterized as a diagnosis of silicosis.

Above: March, 2022. One of many photos documenting sand emissions from the 0 Meadow Street sand mine. Expert testimony gave the opinion that to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty it was more probable than not that the sand contained RSC, a health hazard, and that the plaintiffs were exposed inside their home as well as in their yard.

Engineering and scientific experts also evaluated the operation itself

Professional Wetland Scientist Brandon Faneuf concluded that approximately the operation did not comply with the site plans and encroached within 277 of the plaintiffs’ home. He testified this was a commercial mining operation, not “cranberry agriculture” as claimed. In a separate report, Mr. Faneuf shows 19.3 acres were disturbed and that the mining exceeded the 10.99-acre excavation area depicted in the Draft Gilmore plan. He also concluded that part of the mining occurred in the federally designated Plymouth-Carver Sole Source Aquifer.

Professional engineer James DeVellis concluded that the operation more likely than not caused sand and dust to reach the Beadlings’ home and that ordinary dust-control measures expected at earth-removal operations near residences were lacking.

Role of the cranberry industry in sand mining

Like many mining operations in Southeastern Massachusetts, this mining operation dredged sand and gravel from the Sole Source Aquifer to maximize the volume of sand and gravel for commercial sale. Estimates of the commercial value of the sand and gravel is up to $11 million at today’s prices. Testimony at the trial showed G. Lopes Construction paid Maki at least $670,340 for materials removed from 2012 to about 2023. The total amount paid to Maki likely exceeded $770,000 through March 2024.

These sand and gravel dredging operations are ubiquitous throughout the region. Cranberry companies claim the dredging is part of normal cranberry operations.  They claim they are building a “water hole” or reservoir to supply their cranberry bogs, or a “tailwater pond” to collect polluted water that discharges off the bogs.  Find out more here.  Watch the short documentary,  Sand Wars: An investigation into the money, politics and corruption behind sand mining and its silent environmental crisis in Southeastern Massachusetts.  Website: www.sandwarssoutheasternma.org

Town’s role 

Sand and gravel mining extraction requires a municipal permit in Massachusetts — and little or no state permitting. In Carver, the Earth Removal Committee (ERC) is responsible for local permitting of sand and gravel mining. In 2011, the ERC granted Maki a permit for 545,000 cubic yards of earth removal for a “cranberry reservoir.”  The permit expired in 2016, but the Town allowed the operation to continue, until residents brought the situation to their attention. The Town issued a cease and desist in September 2022, but then issued a new permit allowing it to continue until March, 2024. 

The Town allowed G.Lopes Construction and Maki to operate with speeding trucks, violations of the 25-truckload per day limit, and excavation in the groundwater despite residents’ concerns.  The ERC has conflicts of interest because the majority are in the cranberry, trucking or excavation business. 

ERC issues second permit in March, 2023

Despite the harm to the residents and environment, the ERC issued Maki and Lopes a second permit in March, 2023. GAF Engineering, Lopes and Maki filed for the new earth removal permit to extend the illegal operation for another 15 months.  Speaking about the public hearings on the permit a spokesperson for Carver Concerned Citizens said,

“To say that we are disappointed is an understatement. I wonder what it is going to take for the ERC to do their job, which is to protect the residents of Carver.  I have yet to see one board in this town do the right thing. When residents showed the ERC pictures of silica sand from the operation covering their property and described the excessive and concussive noise and vibrations they have endured for a decade, causing cracks in their home’s foundations, we were treated with disrespect and dismissed. Town officials work for the residents, not for the sand and gravel industry.”

 

The public asked the ERC, Board of Selectmen, Carver Police Department, Building Inspector and Board of Health for years to protect the residents from excessive truck traffic, silica dust, noise, and vibration. Residents complaints and concerns continue to be dismissed and disregarded today. Trucks run after hours with no consequences.

State government’s role

Massachusetts officials have failed to take action to address sand and gravel mining in Southeastern Massachusetts and other parts of the state. There is no state licensing program that the sand mines follow. The Governor has ignored residents’ appeals for almost 5 years. 

State environmental and public health agencies have failed to act. One example is the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. On March 28, 2022, Ten Residents of Carver filed an appeal with the agency challenging Maki’s claim of an exemption from the Wetlands Protection Act. In 2022 the MassDEP and Environmental Strike Force did a site visit to view site. The DEP ruled on July 30, 2022 that the reservoir was three times the size needed for 12 acres of bog and was not exempt agriculture. The DEP continued to allow the mine to operate, dredging in the aquifer for another two years!

On December 5, 2022 ten residents sent a Citizens Suit Law demand letter and notice of intent to sue to the Carver Earth Removal Committee and Massachusetts Attorney General over illegal mining. It has been ignored.

 

 

 

 

Carver Earth Removal Committee Must Deny Permits, Enforce Bylaw

Town of Carver, Earth Removal Committee

Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025 3 p.m. Public Meeting & Hearing

See the Agenda here.

 

E

TELL THE ERC TO DENY PERMITS

 PUBLIC COMMENT ALLOWED ON ITEMS 10 and 11

Excerpt from ERC Agenda:

PERMIT 1 –  0 MAYFLOWER ROAD/ADGA REALTY LLC

Read more here:  CLWC Letter to ERC Nov. 2, 2025 0 Mayflower Rd.

      • See the permit application here. It is for a 7.45 acre strip mine. Will dredge the Sole Source Aquifer, everyone’s drinking supply, for at least $7 million in sand.
      • Requires a wetlands permit which it does not have so ERC cannot issue the permit.
      • Impacts to Residents:
        • At least 37,500 truck loads, at least 3 years of work.
        • Excessive truck traffic, air pollution from sand dust, noise in Tremont St. area where there are already numerous sand mines  — EJ Pontiff Cranberries sand mine at 104 Tremont St., Edgewood Cranberry sand mine also on Tremont St.

 

PERMIT 2 – 25 FULLER STREET/ADGA REALTY LLC

Read more here: CLWC Letter to ERC Nov. 2, 2025 Fuller St.

        • The sand mining is already done, but AGDA seeks an  “after the fact” permit for 8,100 cubic yards. See the permit application here.
        • Sand mining has been going on here for years. CLWC seeks a complete audit of the volume of sand removed, the fees paid, and a wetlands investigation.

Carver: Stop Sand Mining! Enough is Enough

COME TO THE AUGUST 5, 2025

PUBLIC HEARING & RALLY

Carver Town Hall

2 p.m. Rally & Press Conference

3 p.m. Public Meeting & Hearing

See Permit Applications on the Town Website Here

DOWNLOAD OUR FACT SHEET TO USE AT THE HEARING HERE:

Carver ERC Fact Sheet

 

DECADES OF SAND MINING IS

DEVASTATING OUR REGION!  

TELL THE TOWN ERC TO DENY

4 NEW PERMITS, SHUT DOWN ACTIVE MINES

 

PERMIT 1 –  0 MAYFLOWER ROAD/ADGA REALTY

      • 7.45 acre strip mine, dredging Aquifer
      • ADGA company falsely claims mining is “cranberry agriculture.”
      • At least $7 million in sand.
      • Does not have wetlands permits under state and local law.
      • Forest destroyed: Critical Natural Landscape, near Core Habitat and Priority Habitat for Rare Species.
      • Impacts to Residents:
        • At least 37,500 truck loads, at least 3 years of work.
        • Excessive truck traffic, air pollution from sand dust, noise in Tremont St. area where there are already numerous sand mines (Pontiff at 104 Tremont St., Edgewood on Tremont St.
        • Impacts to drinking water wells says expert, groundwater protection district.

          PERMIT 2 – 25 FULLER STREET/ADGA REALTY

      • ADGA company falsely claims mining is “cranberry agriculture.”
      • Decades of illegal sand mining here already– violating Earth Removal Bylaw, wetlands laws.
      • Demand an audit of illegal mining.
      • ADGA seeks “AFTER THE FACT PERMIT” for illegal sand mining and to continue.
      • NO plans submitted!

    • PERMIT #3 – ROUTE 44 DEVELOPMENT GREEN PARK WAY

       

      • 108-acre development site – Up to $8 million in sand to be strip mined.
      • Almost ½ million cubic yards — years of mining and at least 50,000 truck loads.
      • Developer wrongly claims this is just “grading” for future construction.

      PERMIT #4 – ERIC WESTON / SLT CONSTRUCTION CO. – 0 PLYMOUTH STREET

      VOTE NO EXPANSION OF 2021 PERMIT!

      • Weston falsely claims mining is “cranberry agriculture.”
      • MINING IS EXPOSING RESIDENTS TO HARMFUL Silica Dust.
      • In 2021, the ERC illegally gave Eric and Elaine Weston an earth removal permit for over $1 million in sand.
      • Mining is being performed in Aquifer.

        SAND MINING: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

        Silica Dust, Noise, Vibration, Truck Traffic

        Clearcuts forests and wildlife habitat

        Threatens drinking water for 200,000 people

         Read more in Sand Wars here

        • Sand worth almost ONE BILLION DOLLARS has been mined in the Plymouth/Carver area since 1990 – and probably more.
        • Sand mining covers at least 3,000 acres
        • 5 million truck loads – enough to circumnavigate the globe 1.3 times.
        • Carver has about 55 sand mines, and about 16 are active.
        • Currently, 11 sites are mining in the Sole Source Aquifer falsely claiming it is “cranberry agriculture.
        • Rare and important forests destroyed: 521 acres of BioMap3 Core Habitat, 377 acres of BioMap3 Rare Species Core, 15 acres of Priority Habitat.

         

        SOME ACTIVE SAND MINES IN CARVER

         

        A.D. Makepeace Co., Federal Road

        • About 100 acres at 46 and 59 Federal Road – about $50 million in sand.
        • Claims “cranberry agriculture.”
        • Abuts Cranberry Village, Pine Tree Village, Copper Lantern Lane.

        EJ Pontiff Cranberry, 104 Tremont St.

        • About 47 acre mine at 60 acre mine – about $15 million in sand.
        • Claims “cranberry agriculture.”

         

        Read more about active sand mining sites

        in Carver MA here

Carver: AD Makepeace expands mine at 46 Federal Road

June 18, 2026 BREAKING NEWS: Conservation Law Foundation announces intent to sue AD Makepeace Co. for wetlands violations in Plymouth

 

AD Makepeace’s wetlands filling at the Wankinko Bogs in Carver at 46 Federal Road are the subject of a notice of intent to sue by Conservation Law Foundation. Read CLF’s letter here.

Excerpt from CLF’s letter:

The Wankinko Bogs Site is within an approximately 538-acre parcel identified by the Town of

Carver Assessor as Map 131, Lot 2-4. The wetlands at the Site included a perennial stream that connected to the Wankinco River. The Wankinco River flows through Tihonet Pond and into the Wareham River. These waters constitute waters of the United States. A.D. Makepeace engaged in commercial sand and gravel mining at the Wankinko Bogs Site since 2011. In doing so, it has strip-mined or plans to strip-mine approximately 60 acres of wetlands. Between June 2012 and May 2015, A.D. Makepeace filled the perennial stream, permanently eliminating it. The discharged dredged or fill material remains in place. A.D. Makepeace also entirely filled portions of the wetlands in order to build trucking roads to facilitate its mining operations.

Upon information and belief, A.D. Makepeace did not obtain an individual permit from USACE to discharge dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States at the Wankinko Bogs Site, nor did it obtain coverage under a general permit.

MAY 2026: MassDEP judge says AD Makepeace violates state Wetlands Protection Act by mining without a valid permit;  mischaracterizes sand and gravel as “agriculture”

On May 12, 2026, a MassDEP Presiding Officer found ADM Cranberry conducted sand mining in a wetland buffer zone in violation of the Wetlands Protection Act while an appeal was pending. The judge also found AD Makepeace’s project was not “agriculture” for purposes of the wetlands law, but commercial and agricultural. This sets a major precedent for all the region’s sand mines that claim their sand mining is “agriculture.” The judge found Makepeace must comply with the state stormwater rules. Read the Decision here:

MassDEP Decision on AD Makepeace Sand Mine

  • Decision was in response to CLWC appeal of Town of Carver wetlands permit to allow AD Makepeace mining expansion

  • In May 2024 the Earth Removal Committee gave AD Makepeace its 13th sand mining for “cranberry agriculture” since 2003

  • Earth Removal Committee admits bogs not built in 20 years, issues permit anyway 

  • Residents suffer from noise, dust, excessive truck traffic, threats to drinking water wells

Above: April, 2025. AD Makepeace Co. sand mining operation at 46 Federal Road, Carver, MA. The mine started in 2011 and has continued expanding since. As of 2025 it covers about 60 acres. The company claims it is building cranberry bogs. This claim is used to evade local land use laws. See the drone footage here.

May, 2024: Town of Carver issues 13th sand mining permit to AD Makepeace Co.

In March, 2024, the Town of Carver Earth Removal Committee (ERC) granted AD Makepeace Co. the 5th sand mining permit for 46 Federal Road. The mine has been operating since 2011. Today the mine covers about 60 acres. Makepeace claims mining 60 acres is necessary to build 23 acres of bogs. At this location, Makepeace has mined sand worth at least  $60 million in sand according to recent price information.  The cranberry bogs are not built and it has not harvested one cranberry in 14 years of mining.

The ERC issued the “earth removal” permits under the claim that the mining is “necessary” to level the land for a cranberry bog and “incidental” to using the land for agriculture. It is not. Makepeace uses the sand and gravel to supply is its commercial aggregate business Read Custom Soils located on the same site.

The ground-breaking investigative report Sand Wars in Cranberry Country explains how AD Makepeace and other cranberry companies evade the laws to get sand mining permits.

For the 2024  Earth Removal Bylaw permit application Makepeace recycled old plans from 2011 called “Cranberry Bog Development and Earth Removal Plan.”

This site is one of seven Makepeace mining sites in the south Carver area.

Mining harms Environmental Justice neighborhood, environment

Local residents challenged the May 2024 earth removal permit for 46 Federal Road in court. They exercised their rights under the law to protect their health, homes and their environment including their drinking water.  See lawsuit here. 

A court dismissed the case on “standing” grounds saying the residents are not harmed. Those living in Cranberry Village, a mobile home park, know better. The mining is happening over the Carver aquifer protective district.  The mining threatens drinking water according to world renown expert Scott Horsley. The mining exposes the Environmental Justice community to sand dust, excessive noise, and diesel emissions from incessant trucks.

Town ERC sided with Makepeace in getting the case dismiss — ignoring the rights of its own residents to be free from harm from sand mining.

Plymouth: The Plymouth Foundation: A shadow government of land developers?

Plymouth Foundation is a registered  IRS 501(c)(3) charity, acts as shadow Town government according to research

Foundation listed on Town  website, taxpayers fund  staff salaries according to IRS filings

Foundation stacked with developers, 3 town employees, makes land deals with the Town

Update:  Attorney General’s Ruling Oct. 15 2025 says Foundation does not have to follow the Open Meeting Law, allows Foundation to continue to meet in secret

Attorney General Rules Foundation Exempt from Open Meeting Law: October 15, 2025

All the more reason for Town Meeting to vote YES on Article 26!

On October 15, 2025, the Attorney General ruled the Foundation is not covered by the Open Meeting Law because it is a private, not public, entity. This allows the Foundation to continue to meet in secret to talk about things like selling off Town land and helping developers with their projects. Read the Attorney General’s Ruling Oct. 15 2025 ruling here

The Attorney General ruling was in response to a September 25, 2024 Open Meeting Law complaint filed by CLWC here: Open Meeting Law Compliant Sept. 25, 2024. CLWC argued the Foundation should have to follow the Open Meeting Law because paid and unpaid town “employees” run the Foundation, the Town funds the Executive Director’s salary, and the Foundation uses Town resources to promote its mission of economic development.

While it might be technically “legal” for the Foundation to operate behind closed doors to promote “economic development” is this open and transparent government?

The Town Manager, the Town Planner and the Foundation’s Executive Director are being paid by the Town when they are meeting behind closed doors and conducting business for the Foundation. Should the public have the right to know what they are talking about?

Is the preferential treatment given to “economic development” by the Town and Foundation fair to other interests? Should the Town provide equal access and funding to other groups interested in the future development of the Town such as housing or sustainable development advocates? Why special treatment for business people promoting economic development?

The Attorney General’s Ruling turns on the legal question of whether the Foundation is a “public body” under the Open Meeting Law. The Attorney General ruled it is not a public body so does not have to comply with the Open Meeting Law.

Read more:

Report: Shining the Light on the Plymouth Foundation

Letter to the Editor: The Secretive Foundation is a shadow government of Plymouth Town Hall, 2024

Background

Who is the secretive “Plymouth Foundation”? The Foundation recently rebranded itself – it was founded in 2001 as the “Plymouth Regional Economic Development Foundation”. Here is its www.plymouth-ma.biz 

Is the Foundation a shadow government working hand in hand to siphon Town owned land into the hands of developers for private profit?

The Foundation claims “Our work preserves the character of our community and enriches quality of life in Greater Plymouth, Massachusetts.”

But the Foundation is involved in sand and gravel mining deals. Is this preserving our community?

In 2005, the Town sold 23 acres of public land to the Foundation which then conducted a sand and gravel mining operation.  Read about the Foundation’s sand mining at 103 Hedge’s Pond Road (Cantor Court) on SandWars.org  and on this  blog.

In 2022, the Plymouth Select Board sold more Town land to the Foundation —  33 acres for $1.00. The land is part of the Cedarville Conservation Area. The Town Planning and Development Department told Town Meeting that 134 acres would be put into conservation in exchange for the 33 acre sale. The 134 acres was not in put in conservation when the sold the Conservation Area to Standish Investment Group whose principal is E.J. Pontiff. Pontiff is involved in sand mining throughout the region. Read the blog: “Just say NO to New Sand Mine in Cedarville Conservation Area.”

Foundation registered IRS 501c3 charity

The Foundation is an IRS 501(c)(3) charity. This allows the Foundation to be exempt from paying  taxes on money it makes. Should the Foundation be claiming  “tax exempt” status when it is doing sand mining and selling Town land to developers? 

The Foundation’s tax returns from 2004 to 2023 here.   The tax returns show the Foundation generated income from sand and gravel mining.  Was the income generated by mining on Hedges Pond Road at the Cantor Court site where the ZBA gave the Foundation two sand and gravel mining permits?

Below: Example of Foundation’s IRS 990 tax return showing income from “sand and gravel sales” in 2008 and 2009.

On its 2022  IRS 990 tax returns the Foundation listed a website called  “econdevtownhall.plymouth.ma”. This website is supposed to be the place where the public can find the Foundation’s records and reports. The website is defunct.  Where are the records?

  A shadow government?

The Foundation has all the features of a “government body”  — but operates in the shadows behind closed doors in meetings with the developers on the board and the three town officials — making sand mining deals and selling land. The Foundation’s website mimics the Town website: “plymouth-ma.biz” much like the official Town website  “plymouth-ma.gov“.

The Town website features the Foundation prominently with a “Quick Link” and then identifies the Foundation’s Executive Director as “staff” of the Planning & Development Department. The Town website shows this below.

Then, the Town Planning and Development website lists “Economic Development & Tourism“:

Then the Town’s Economic Development & Tourism page lists Plymouth Foundation executive director Stephen Cole in the “Staff Directory”. As shown below, the Town website leads the public to believe the Executive Director of the Plymouth Foundation has an office at Plymouth Town Hall, 26 Court Street.

Three Town officials have permanent spots on the board of directors of the Foundation under the Foundation Bylaws. Two of them are paid town employees: the Town Manager and the Town Director of Planning and Economic Development. Are these town employees working for the Foundation as part of their town jobs, with their salaries paid by taxpayers?  Is this a conflict of interest? The third board position under the Foundation bylaws reserved for Town officials is the Chair of the Select Board.

See the Foundation’s list of most recent list of officer and directors of the Foundation below:

Source: Secretary of State, Corporations Division, Massachusetts

 

The directors include developers Rick Vayo, William Hallisey, and Dee Wallace Spencer, who is related to Scott Spencer of the sand and gravel mining project on Route 3 in Plymouth, as well as developer Tom Wallace.

Town taxpayers fund Foundation’s staff salary

The Foundation’s tax returns say that it provides “services” to the Town of Plymouth. For example, the Foundation’s 2022 IRS 990 tax returns state under Relationship of Activities to the Accomplishment of Exempt Purposes in Part XV-8, Line 11a:

“Economic development provide economic development services to the Town of Plymouth and such related services to other charitable organizations. Create and implement an industrial park within the Town of Plymouth To provide study of land and development….” 

Below: Plymouth Foundation 2022 IRS 990 tax return describing “economic development services to the Town of Plymouth.” This appears to be describing the executive director that the Town pays for.

Source: ProPublica

 

Below: Plymouth Foundation 2014 IRS 990 tax return stating it is “currently fee for service with the Town of Plymouth, providing Economic Development Director for the Town of Plymouth”. This also identifies sand and gravel sales in 2010 for $308,333.00 and in 2011 $261,444.00.

The Town is not a “charitable organization.” There are questions about whether a private 501(c)(3) can pay the salary of what is essentially a Town employee who appears on the Planning & Development directory as “Staff.”

On September 23, 2024, CLWC submitted a request to the Town Manager under the state Public Records Law for all records showing Town payments to the Foundation since 2001, including salary for the Foundation executive director. See the request Public Records Request to Plymouth here.

Click here to see the 2014 Memorandum of Agreement between the Town of Plymouth and the Plymouth Foundation. MoU-ToPandPREDF

Click here to see the 2025 Memorandum of Agreement between the Town of Plymouth and the Plymouth Foundation. This MOU was increased by 21.8%, raising the annual taxpayer contribution to the Plymouth Foundation from $125,000 to $152,298.

Click here to se a spreadsheet containing all records of monetary compensation paid by the Town of Plymouth to the Plymouth Foundation since 2009. 

 Conflicts of interest?

The state’s Conflict of Interest law prevents government employees like the Town Manager, Development Director and Selectboard members from engaging in activities that conflict with their duties to the Town. Read more about the State Ethics Commission here.

Plymouth Beach Sand Project: A Folly?

 

Plymouth’s $2.9 million beach nourishment project uses sand mined through the destruction of Carver’s forests and leveling of hills

Above: Site of the 120-acre A.D. Makepeace sand mine in Carver where forests have been clear-cut and valuable silica sand is extracted from beneath the hills. The sand mined from this area was transported to Plymouth Beach in 2023. As of May 2024, this remains an active sand mining site. Prior to strip mining, this area was an intact Pine Barrens forest classified under BioMap3 as “Interior Forest,” designated as high priority for protection. The mine is adjacent to two ponds identified by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program as Priority Habitats 512 and 514.

  • Sand erodes, blows out to sea

  • Taxpayer funded project OK’d in backroom deal between Carver Earth Removal Committee and sand mining giant AD Makepeace Co.

  • Beach nourishment is a $7 billion industry — Makepeace cashes in

  • Does clearing our forests and leveling hills to replenish the beach make sense?

The $2.9 Million Plymouth Beach Nourishment Project of 2023

In 2023, the Town of Plymouth, with $2.9 in taxpayer funding from the state contracted with Dig It Construction to install a “beach nourishment” project on Plymouth Long Beach. Read the Town’s letter to Dig It Construction here. The Plymouth Letter to Dig It is here.

Dig It planned to get the sand from AD Makepeace’s Read Custom Soils in Carver, about 9 miles from the Beach. Someone claimed that Makepeace’s “Load Restrictions” for sand hauling (the number of truckloads of sand it can haul off in a day) limited the ability to bring enough sand to Plymouth. So Plymouth and Carver got together with Makepeace to pursue a “waiver” from the Carver Earth Removal Committee. This was a ruse because Makepeace already had numerous earth removal permits allowing at least 150 trucks loads a day to leave Carver with sand. Learn more about Makepeace’s “earth removal “permits here. 

Below: Makepeace mined the sand from pristine forests in Carver. Dig It Construction and other contractors trucked the sand about 9 miles from the mines to Plymouth Beach.

Makepeace’s Backroom Deal: Seeking Carver Earth Removal Bylaw Waiver to Increase Sand Sales

Despite holding at least four sand mining permits from Carver and transporting hundreds of truckloads of sand daily, Makepeace claimed it did not have enough for the Plymouth project. The manager of Read Custom Soils requested an “emergency waiver” from the Carver Earth Removal Committee to exempt Makepeace from the Town’s Earth Removal Bylaw. The Makepeace Letter addressed to the ERC can be found here.

The ERC granted the waiver as expected. The ERC Letter dated February 14, 2023, confirming the waiver for Makepeace, is available here.

The ERC letter verifies that the sand originated from Makepeace’s mines at Read Custom Soils on Federal Road in Carver. This allowed Makepeace to haul 50 truckloads per day, totaling 35,600 cubic yards, to Plymouth. With fees set at 25 cents per cubic yard for earth removal, A.D. Makepeace should have paid at least $8,900. However, they were exempt from paying these fees due to the emergency waiver.

Below is the Bylaw Makepeace and the ERC exploited to be able to take more sand from Carver to sell.

 

When resident investigators tried to find out the truth behind the back room deal, Carver’s lawyers refused to release all of the public records, claiming “Attorney Client Privilege” with the ERC. This is wrong. The ERC is a public entity — accountable to the public. Read the lawyer’s letter here. 

See the Carver Earth Removal Bylaw here. 

Who is AD Makepeace Co. and Read Custom Soils?

A.D. Makepeace and its subsidiary, Read Custom Soils, operate the largest aggregate sand and gravel mining operation east of the Mississippi. A.D. Makepeace also holds the distinction of being the largest landowner in Massachusetts. Their operations involve strip mining their land for sand and gravel, which is then marketed and sold through Read Custom Soils.

Learn more about AD Makepeace’s sand mining in the Sand Wars Report here.

Below: Another AD Makepeace sand mining location in Carver. This is the same day that the sand was being hauled to Plymouth Beach. March 23, 2023.

Conflicts of interest?

One of the companies that transported sand for Makepeace to Plymouth beach was Oiva Hannula Co., a cranberry and trucking company based in Carver, MA. In 2023, Scott Hannula, president of Oiva Hannula & Sons, Inc., was appointed as chair of the Carver Earth Removal Committee (ERC). The ERC is tasked with enforcing the Earth Removal Bylaw to promote public health, safety, and welfare. Scott Hannula benefits financially when the ERC grants permits to sand mining companies like AD Makepeace Co., as his company is hired to transport sand for these permitted operations.

Below: Hannula’s truck delivering sand to Plymouth Beach for AD Makepeace Co. Photo: 3/23/2023 Plymouth MA, Long Beach project.

Understanding Beach Nourishment: Is It Worthwhile?

A beach nourishment project is a coastal management strategy designed to restore eroded beaches or improve existing ones by adding sand or other sediments. Typically, this involves dredging or mining sand from alternate sources and depositing it onto the beach to expand its width or raise its elevation. However, sand is a finite resource. Is it sensible to strip mine land to place sand on a beach where it will inevitably erode or be carried away by wind and waves?

Learn more here.

The Hidden Costs of Beach Nourishment Projects

This isn’t the first project of its kind, and it’s likely not the last. Beach nourishment efforts often need to be repeated as sand inevitably blows away or returns to the ocean. While it provides a short-term fix for ongoing coastal erosion, exacerbated by more frequent and severe storms, research in Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science (Parkinson, Ogurcak 2021) indicates that beach nourishment isn’t a sustainable solution for mitigating climate change impacts on coastal communities.

These repeated projects come with costs and ecological disruptions, potentially impacting local habitats and wildlife. Despite being touted as a nature-based solution, beach nourishment has serious consequences. The extraction, transportation, and deposition of sand can disrupt ecosystems and marine life, disturbing the delicate balance of shorelines. Negative impacts include the burial of biota, loss of habitats in nearshore sandbars, and disturbance of bird and other animal nesting areas. Moreover, some species, like sand-dwelling invertebrates, are sensitive to changes in sediment types. The placement of large quantities of sand can smother these benthic or invertebrate communities, which serve as vital food sources for many seabirds and fish species.

At What Point Do We Stop Mining Sand to Dump on Beaches Where It Erodes Out to Sea?

Plymouth’s Long Beach, a narrow, elongated barrier beach stretching about three miles northwest from Plymouth’s mainland, is regularly fortified against storm surges and erosion through taxpayer-funded “beach nourishment” projects conducted by the Town and state.

It is estimated that “More than $7 billion has been spent in the United States in recent decades on artificially rebuilding hundreds of miles of beach nationwide.” (Beiser, 2018). 

To source sand and sediment, we must mine for it somewhere else, removing earth and leveling hills or mining below the surface of the earth. Globally and in Southeastern Massachusetts sand mining is a major business. It destroys the environment and threatens our drinking water.  By removing layers of sand, soil, and sediment, we are removing parts of our natural water filtration system. Find our more here.

Most sand mining is illegal and unregulated.   As we are attempting to correct the natural process of shifting sands and inevitable patterns of erosion on the beach, we are mining for sand in nearby locations to supplement.

Should we keep altering and reinforcing the beach ourselves, or should we let this natural barrier beach change naturally with the waves, tides, and storms?

Below: Sand blowing out to sea at Plymouth Beach. This is sand mined by Makepeace in Carver for the beach project. 3/23/2023. Residents reported sand blowing out to sea regularly during the project.

 

Other Coastal Towns: Duxbury, Provincetown, and Salisbury MA

Duxbury has active beach nourishment projects. In 2023-2024, the town transported 168,000 cubic yards of sand from Duxbury Construction to nourish Duxbury Beach, supplemented by an additional 120,000 tons from Duxbury Beach Park, totaling about $2 million worth of sand. A recent article acknowledges that much of this sand will erode away relatively quickly. At a recent public forum, there was discussion about sourcing sand and gravel from various local pits.

In Provincetown, ongoing beach nourishment projects have faced opposition from the shellfish industry, which argues that the sand projects are burying their oyster grants and smothering native grasses. The town is now exploring alternative methods. Read more about it here.

In 2024, coastal homeowners in Salisbury spent $565,000 to truck in 15,000 tons of sand to bolster dunes against erosion. Unfortunately, most of it washed out to sea within days. Despite these setbacks, residents are seeking state funding to reinforce Salisbury Beach’s defenses. Read more here. Republican state Senator Bruce Tarr plans to seek $1.5 million in state funding to help strengthen the dunes at Salisbury Beach. 

Learn more:

Sand Wars in Cranberry Country: An investigation into the money, politics and corruption behind sand mining and its silent environmental crisis in Southeastern Massachusetts

Sand Wars Film: Short Version 5 min.  Long Version 10 min.

Website: www.sandwarssoutheasternma.org

United Nations Environment Program here.

Alternatives to sand mining: here and here. We must acknowledge the intricate interplay between human activities and the health of our ecosystems. We can work toward more sustainable solutions to preserve our beaches and protect our natural environments for future generations.

Plymouth: Attorney General Slams Selectboard — Again

State Attorney General Slams Plymouth Selectboard for Open Meeting Law Violations

Second time in 8 months Selectboard slammed by Attorney General

Exposed the Town to up to $44,000 in penalties for violations ($1,000 per day x 44 violations)

Attorney General finds closed door meetings, failure to provide the public with minutes all violate the law

Violations ongoing for almost all of 2023, over 44 instances of violations

Selectboard ordered to release minutes and come into “immediate and future compliance” or face a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation

On April 18, 2024, the Massachusetts Attorney General slammed the Plymouth Selectboard for additional Open Meeting Law violations. Read about the Attorney General’s August 2023 ruling on their violations here.

Find the April 18, 2024 Attorney General ruling here. Attorney General OML Ruling April 17, 2024

Highlights of the Attorney General Ruling

The Attorney General found FOUR types of violations on 44 instances:

  • Failure to approve 19 sets of regular minutes on time as required by law.
  • Failed to “review executive session minutes at reasonable intervals.” The Board “convened in executive sessions on over 25 occasions during the 2023 calendar year” but did not review the minutes as required by law.
  • Illegally convened in executive session on June 20, 2023 on disposition of the 1,000 acres in South Plymouth.
  • Gave insufficient notice of an August 8, 2023 of an executive session meeting on the Holtec land (Pilgrim nuclear site), about 1,500 acres.

“Government in the sunshine”

The goal of the Open Meeting Law is to “eliminate much of the secrecy surrounding deliberations and decisions on which public policy is based.” Read more here on the Attorney General’s website.

How can a Town like Plymouth with its massive new Town Hall building and extensive staff continue to operate like an autocracy behind closed doors? We will continue to fight for transparency and accountability behind the facade of Town Hall.

Take Action: Be a Town Hall Watchdog!

Anyone can file an Open Meeting Law complaint. It is simple and the Attorney General has a citizen guide here.

Join the Plymouth Area League of Women Voters and learn more about how local government works!

Contact CLWC for assistance. environmentwatchsoutheasternma@gmail.com

Plymouth: Spencer-G.Lopes Construction Industrial Park Mining

Photo history shows mining in the Sole Source Aquifer from 2021 to 2024

Spencer-G.Lopes Industrial Park Mining Exposes Groundwater to Contamination

Photos taken from Drone Footage on You Tube.

Use the Search Box and put in “Collins Ave” to find 3 years of drone footage documenting this site.

 

Above: Mining operation as of Spring, 2024 showing groundwater exposed. Photo Courtesy of Plymouth Independent

Plymouth: Wastewater Treatment Plant Proposal To Discharge to Aquifer

Town of Plymouth Proposes 300% Increase In Wastewater Discharge to Sole Source Aquifer

Google Earth Image showing proximity of Plymouth Wastewater Treatment Facility to the Eel River System

 

Good news! State rejects Town’s environmental “lite” study, requires full, 2 part environmental impact report and “robust” study of alternatives

State agrees with CLWC and coalition that the Town’s study is inadequate, must be redone according to standards

Read the Secretary of Energy & Environmental Affairs Dec. 22, 2023 Decision here:
16758 EENF Plymouth WWTF Treated Effluent Discharge PLYMOUTH (V2)

Read the 2023 Expanded Environmental Notification Form

In 2023, the Town of Plymouth announced plans to divert the effluent flow from the 131 Camelot Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) from Plymouth Harbor to five groundwater infiltration beds located adjacent to the facility. The Plymouth WWTF currently discharges approximately 1.75 million gallons a day (mgd) of treated sanitary sewer  effluent (wastewater) into Plymouth Harbor and uses the groundwater infiltration beds as a backup discharge location; the proposed plan would reverse these two locations, and use the groundwater infiltration beds as the primary discharge location, and only use the Harbor as a backup discharge location when needed. The proposal also seeks to increase the permitted discharge to the ground to up to 3 mgd. The Town’s website about the proposal is here.

The goal of this diversion is to decrease or eliminate the discharge of treated wastewater entering into Plymouth Harbor. Proponents of the project state that the diversion will result in improved water quality in the harbor, with associated benefits to the harbor ecology, commercial aquaculture, and recreation. While diverting wastewater from the harbor and improving harbor water quality would be a benefit to the environment, the discharge of 3 mgd of wastewater into the ground must be carefully studied, so that all ecological consequences of this groundwater injection operation are understood. Alternatives to this discharge location should also be considered during this process.

When treated wastewater is discharged from the WWTF to the infiltration beds adjacent to the facility, the wastewater enters immediately into the Plymouth Carver Sole Source Aquifer, the only source of drinking water for the Town of Plymouth. The concentrations of and types of pathogens, pharmaceuticals, PFAS, endocrine disrupting chemicals, etc. as well as the concentrations of metals such as iron and manganese in the wastewater being discharged to the Sole Source Drinking Water Aquifer at the WWTF should be communicated to the public in advance. The Plymouth Carver Sole Source Aquifer is highly permeable, with little buffering or absorption capacity, and therefore vulnerable to contamination.

The Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF), an environmental review required by MEPA and the EPA, only experimented with discharging wastewater into the sediment infiltration beds once, with a discharge volume of only 1.6 mgd, and only during the months of August and September 2018, typically a dry period. Climate change impacts predict that this area will see an increase in rainfall with a potential for short term rises in the groundwater elevation. Therefore, more study should be done during wetter months of the year with an associated higher water table. Furthermore, the EENF relies on a 1997 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for much of its scientific conclusions. While the 1997 EIR was a more in-depth environmental study of the region, relying on it ignores the significant land-use changes in the area since 1997, such as deforestation, residential, commercial and industrial development, sand and gravel mining, and ground-mounted solar installations, all of which have impacts on the local groundwater recharge rates.

When wastewater is discharged into the ground at the WWTF, the ultimate environmental receptor of the water is the Eel River System, located approximately 0.7 miles southeast of the WWTF. The Eel river system is a sensitive ecological environment, supporting populations of river herring, which return to the river from the Atlantic ocean each year to breed. River herring are a protected species under the Endangered Species Act. Historically, the Wampanoag People have made the Eel River system their home for hundreds of years, and used its waters for fishing, a subsistence practice that they continue to this day. Furthermore, Russell Mill Pond, seasonally impaired by harmful algae blooms, is also part of the Eel River system. Because of this historic, economic, and ecological sensitivity of this river system, any foreign discharges of water into the system needs to proceed with caution.

Finally, there are better alternatives for the wastewater than to be discharged into the Eel River System. In 1997, during the original EIR study, one of the alternatives proposed was discharging the wastewater to the Pine Hills Golf Course and other golf courses in Plymouth. Golf courses are one of the major water consumers in Plymouth, and the nutrients present in wastewater can potentially fertilize the greens. Discharging the wastewater to the golf courses would still provide the same benefits of returning the water to the aquifer. Saving water, and reducing pumping from the Sole Source Aquifer, is an immediate priority for the Town of Plymouth as it continues to see population growth. Discharging the wastewater from the WWTF to the golf courses in Plymouth should be seriously considered during this process.

Read Community Land and Water Coalition, Herring Pond Wampanoag, Eel River Watershed Association and Jones River Watershed Association’s full joint comments to MEPA on the EENF:

EEA 16758 Plymouth WWTP Comments_Dec 1 2023

Community Groups Also Monitoring this Proposal:

Chiltonville Community Group

 

Carver-Plympton: SLT Construction Mining Site: Archaeologically Significant

Archeological report states SLT’s Mining Site is “felt to have high potential for containing archeological resources” according to a preliminary study.

Excerpt:

 

This site was identified as having high potential for containing prehistoric archaeological resources. As well as being next to a pond, the soil is of the Carver Loam Series which are well drained soil, sandy soils, which were preferred.

Native populations favored ponds making Rickets pond likely a location of a prehistoric settlement. There are four recorded prehistoric sites located less than 2 kilometers from the project on spring street that were found during cultural management surveys. Two sites were found directly within the project area, indicating that there are likely additional sites could be present. 

Was a complete study ever done? Where is it? Today, the area is obliterated.

The preliminary archeological study done by the Mass Department of Transportation when it sold the land to SLT Construction is below.

SLT Spring St Carver 2018-04 PARP Archaeology Report from MASSDOT

Find out more about the SLT – Carver MA mining operation in the Sand Wars Report. 

Community Land and Water Coalition

P.O. Box 1699, Plymouth, MA 02362
Email
Phone: 508-259-9154

Please consider making a donation to help strengthen our impact!

DONATE

You can sign our Sand Mining Petition to Governor Healy and town Selectboards here

Facebook
YouTube
Instagram
Tiktok
JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Join Our Email List