Loading...
1,3,5 HARMONY GROVE RD, 60,64 GROVE ST - PLANNING (15) i. .-.__ u-.�.� ..e ,--..__ - Jnr,� ...� _.,-..-- L .�'.. _ _ F'(.01-64 Grove Ch, 91 ►i 3,�' S !-4wcv»cr�y C�ro�re.Rd . �-fcerSG 205 I i r MUG 0 G 201a DEPT. OF PLANNING& DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMP,UN!TY DEVELOPMENT WATERWAYS REGULATION PROGRAM Notice of License Application pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 91 Waterways License Application Number WIS-4471-N Applicant: MRM Project Management, LLC Project Location: 60&64 Grove Street and 3 Harmony Grove Road, Salem, Essex County Scheduled Public Hearing:August 27, 2015 Public Comments Deadline: September 11, 2015 NOTIFICATION DATE: August 12, 2015 Public notice is hereby given of the Waterways License Application by MRM Project Management, LLC to perform remedial actions pursuant to RTN 3-2131, repair and maintain an existing bridge for pedestrian/bike use, maintain continued use of existing building and maintain associated parking facility, construct and maintain a paved shared use path with associated appurtenances, install stormwater treatment system with two new outfalls, and demolish several existing buildings and structures on filled tidelands and over flowed tidelands of the North River located at 60 & 64 Grove Street and 3 Harmony Grove Road, Salem, Essex County. The Department of Environmental Protection, Waterways Regulation Program, will conduct a public hearing on the aforesaid project proposal on Thursday,August 27, 2015, at 3:00pm at Salem City Hall Annex, 3rd Floor Meeting Room, 120 Washington, Street, Salem. The Department will conduct this public hearing in order to receive information to be used in its decision on whether to grant a Waterways License pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 91. The Department will consider all written comments on this Waterways Application received by September 11, 2015 (Public Comments Deadline). Failure of any aggrieved person or group of ten citizens or more to submit written comments to the Waterways Regulation Program by the Public Comments Deadline will result in the waiver of any right to an adjudicatory hearing in accordance with 310 CMR 9.13(4)(c). Additional information regarding this application may be obtained by contacting the Waterways Regulation Program at (617) 292-5551. Project plans and documents for this application are on file for public viewing, by appointment only, at the address below. ' Written comments must be mailed to: Frank Taormina, MassDEP Waterways Regulation Program, 1 Winter Street- 5th Floor, Boston, MA 02108 or email to: frank.taormina@state.ma.us } FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY. I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEDS. I CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE THE LINES DIVIDING EXISTING OWNERSHIP, AND THE LINES OF STREETS AND WAYS SHOWN ARE THOSE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS ALREADY ESTABLISHED, AND THAT NO NEW LINES FOR DIVISION OF EXISTING OWNERSHIP OR FOR NEW WAYS ARE SHOWN. 7/24/os' DATE ROBERT H. G IFFIN, P.E. APPLICATION FOR NON-WATER DEPENDENT USE 1, APPROX. HISTORIC N. RIVER \ HIGH WATER LINE CANAL FLOOD �`" o �i EXISTING ROVE ST. ZONE �� �!� `` FILLED IDELANDS FYI yy STOP +- A\ SO (ELcam . \ J'• v 1 ♦ `' pp \ \; MLW VICINITY MAP (EL. 2.0'±) j<`?* \ n0 SCALE 1"= 1,500' RAILROAD CROSSING SITE LOCATION: v ` \ ', N EASEMENT �, N42 31' 18"; W700 54'41 #3 HARMONY 'RD: �� EXISTING,\ ! ;� APPROX, FILLED TIDELANDS j y� \, HISTORIC, HIGH ROBERT �� � WATER; LINE p GRIFFIN •L" STONE WALLS \ FILLED UNDER v9 CIVIL LIC. #606 LINE CANAL 036666' \ (20,130 SF) \7zx FEMA FLOOD i l - ' °�yA� I t EXIST. FILLED \�1 � " ZONE ��. \ #60 I ZO \ GRTIDELANDS 9 (66,470± SF) �; LIST OF EXISTING STRUCTURES �ti,:5;APPROX. 1� OFFICE BUILDING (SAVE) \ }n�o lam;HISTORIC Q BARREL STORAGE BUILDING \ #64HIGH WATER COOPLD NG ERAGE/FINISHING \ \ t `GROVE ST. ,r �` 1', ,iC) ; LINE BUIWAREHOUSE/SULFONATION BUILDING FILLED UNDER 5 PRETREATMENT BUILDING LIC. #606 \ �t' /� / (26,960± SF) (6 STORAGE BUILDING � � s + q rt ,� (77) CHIMNEY " it • r MHW (EL. 5.0') ® I :� r VEHICLE BRIDGE (SAVE) , MLW (EL. 1.0'±) 09 ELEVATED ENCLOSED WALKWAYS \, I « EXISTING BOX NOTES AND,REFERENCES: .> � CULVERTS 1. EXIST. CONDITIONS AND BOUNDARY SURVEY BY - LEBLANC SURVEY ASSOCIATES OF DANVERS, MA. ; 2. FEMA 100-YEAR FLOOD ZONE AE-ELEV. 10.8' (1929 IN D). % EXISTING CONDITIONS THE ENTIRE 60 GROVE ST. PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR-ZONE. & SITE CONTEXT PLAN 3. HISTORIC HIGH WATER LINE DEVELOPED FROM LIC. 605 &606 AND MASSDEP PRESUMPTIVE LINES, & REGISTRY OF DEEDS RESEARCH. 4. SEE SHEET 2 FOR LEGEND. 0 75 150 300 5. DATUM = 1929 NGVD. SCALE I"= 150' LICENSE PLANSACCOMPANYING PETITION OF MRM PROJECT MANGEMENT, LLC TO p�� DEMO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND ����d��l4� CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON FILLED AND FLOWED TIDELANDS OF AUG 0 6 2010 THE NORTH RIVER CANAL, SALEM, MA. DEPT.OF PLANNING& JULY 21, 2015 SHEET 1 OF 8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY. I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DE D5. 0-11 DATE ROBERT H. G FFIN, P.E. APPLICATION FOR NON-WATER DEPENDENT USE PROPOSED jA, ; RELOCATED MATERIAL ` , APPROX. HISTORIC a� IM3ERT �c CELL HIGH WATER LINE < � H. m `� .GRIFFIN '4 CIVIL ' < - s'• �'y> SHARED USE PATH D' J� REPAIR EXISTING BRIDGE OVER CANAL IN, PROPOSED REMEDIATION AREA v `•,�'r \: (15,000± SF) ^' PROPOSED MATCH LINE \� - 1 FENCE ALONG'', ; SHEET 4 \ \ ' CANAL WALLS SHEET 3 PROPOSED LANDSCAPE LIN BUFFER (6'± ; & SHARED \\,USE PATH, 1��- N ` LEGEND "� y� �'ti[APPROX. - - HISTORIC HIGH WATER i` rp� (ice! HISTORIC MEAN HIGH WATER THIGH WATER MEAN LOW �'0% LINE - -- FEMA FLOOD LINE � °ti Z ;i,`� - .;�I PROPERTY LINE (SITE) \; y - - PROPERTY LINE (ABUTTER)\, EXISTING BUILDING \ \ �. ;'PROPOSED ----- SHARED USE PATH \ O -``o FENCE ALONG —� �- FENCE \ 9 % MBTA PROPERTY mm�numl CROSSWALK PROPOSED 25' SIDEWALK WIDE LANDSCAPE ® PARKING AISLE \ BENCH BUFFER (WDUZ) ® } RETAINING WALL \, /APPROX. / - -HISTORIC HIGH PROPOSED SITE PLAN /;j WATER LINE 0 75 150 300 SCALE 1"= 150' LICENSE PLANS ACCOMPANYING PETITION OF MRM PROJECT MANGEMENT, LLC TO DEMO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON FILLED AND FLOWED TIDELANDS OF THE NORTH RIVER CANAL, SALEM, MA. JULY 21, 2015 SHEET 2 OF 8 I FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY. I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEDS. Ali,/s 'OL DATE ROBERT H. GRI IN, P.E. APPLICATION FOR NON-WATER'DEPENDENT USE PROPOSED 6'f L t '• �.� LANDSCAPE BUFFER PROPOSED \\ '` FENCE ALONG ' V t G �Oa 1 `' ` CANAL WALLS I \X, PROPOSED I "fl 7 G LANDSCAPED 1 2*���0 ��j �� AREA (WDUZ) y - APPROX. V HISTORIC HIGH ✓ N 1 i �`+ , v` \\ `WATER LINE 34't PROP. FENCE ALONG MBTA IJ �'•, fiOPROPERTY APPROX. HISTORIC HIGH WATER LINE Y 'Z� O �' . t op \ As Z \ �� %PROPOSED 25' WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER (WDUZ) Roe�Rr otic `, �u, �_*— .EXIST. BOX H• m \ t �i CULVERTS G IF FiFIN Civt �' PROPOSED o . 36s8s �4 -- f FENCE ALONG PROP. 8EN,CH ; ; CANAL WALLS (TYP OF 14) / ;` PROPOSED j DRAINAGE ' OUTFALL PROPOSED SITE PLAN — PART 1 NOTES: 1. REFER TO SHEET 5 FOR SECTION A-A. 0 40 80 160 2. WDUZ=WATER DEPENDENT USE ZONE. SCALE T'= 80' 3. SEE SHEET 2 FOR LEGEND. LICENSE PLANS ACCOMPANYING PETITION OF MRM PROJECT MANGEMENT, LLC TO DEMO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON FILLED AND FLOWED TIDELANDS OF THE NORTH RIVER CANAL, SALEM, MA. JULY 21, 2015 SHEET 3 OF 8 FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY. I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEDS. 7/24/15 _ L4 DATE ROBERT H. GWFIN, RE. APPLICATION FOR NON-WATER DEPENDENT USE Z PROP. FENCE' r,s o�'' \ ALONG MBTA R9llERT �yc ' ' �. PROPERTY o GRIFFIN tivl� y APPROX. HISTORIC .9 #36686 HIGH WATER LINE REPAIR EXISTING PROPOSED ° BRIDGE OVER CANAL RELOCATED FOR PEDESTRIAN USE MATERIAL X V CELL �;� PROP. SHARED USE PATH 451 •,\ Gam;\ .. 9' �` <<\. ,C� ;y . \ 'OHO 'V 1000, \ �� J`p \\z\ rl z; ' PROPOSED ✓ r / DRAINAGE OUTFALL PROPOSED SITE PLAN - PART ---13 NOTES: 1. REFER TO SHEET 6 FOR SECTION B-B 0 40 80 160 2. WDUZ= WATER DEPENDENT USE ZONE.. SCALE 1" =80' 3. SEE SHEET 2 FOR LEGEND. .LICENSE PLANS ACCOMPANYING PETITION OF MRM PROJECT MANGEMENT, LLC TO DEMO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON FILLED AND FLOWED TIDELANDS OF THE NORTH RIVER CANAL, SALEM, MA. JULY 21, 2015 SHEET 4 OF 8 FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY. I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEDS. 7/2r/is-' DATE ROBERT H. GRIT , P.E. APPLICATION.FOR NON-WATER DEPENDENT USE ,D PROPOSED APARTMENT " ' vn Bt Ft�BER7 UILDING Z i F 42 :FILLED` TIDELANDS_ . ; z � t ��vIry y 36 " APPROX HISTORIC MEAN J o ..Issas e 1�HIGH:WATER'LINE* 32 j t?RbP 1"d' PROP v o 28 i SHARED LANDSCAPEF ui m 24 F _1 1 .U1SE PAH BUFFER (6'. ) *SEE NOTE 2. T N20 I i_ . , �,,,,—LOT rn LINE 100-YEAR FLOOD 16 BSMT �`IO ZONE AE - EL. 10.8' 12 _ 8 PROP .5': EENCE: ' MHW w 4 MLW - EL. 1.0'f J 0 „ . . CA,NNAL: ^LC: 1 : w i -q TOP';ELI 9;6' ': - RIVER BOTTOM -8 6>4 GROVE- SAL _ EL. 0.8' 0+00 0+25 0+50 0+75 z j FILLED -TIDELANDS 42 zi o 40 36 UJ EXIST . OFFICE > 25' DE BUILDING_`TO BE I LOT 28 z LOT LANDSCAPE RENOVATED ( LINE 24 rn LINE BUEF£R PROP. 20 MHN/ FF' 13 3tE: = -1 ,6' FENC16 " I 12 EL. 5.0t — - — — — MLW :CANAL' OP. 3.5 :iFENCE . 8 > EL. 1.0'f V EXIST;: :STONE: :: . . 1OO-YEAR. FLOOD- 4 WALL.. . ' 0 w RIVER .ZONE AE:= 'EL. 10-$ TOP. .EL. 9.6'f BOTTOM . GAN�AL -4 - META EL, 0 8` 00. GROVE ST. . . " -8 . . . . I. . .... . . . :. .. I. I , . . . . I . -12 `0.1-75 . 1+00`- 1+25 1+50 1+75 1+85 -o SITE SECTION "A-A" mn SCALE. 1"=20' NOTES AND REFERENCES:- 1, ELEVATIONS BASER UN 1929 N.G.V.D; 2. HISTORIC MHW LINE DEVELOPED FROM:LIC.:605&606 AND 0 20 40 80 MASSDEP PRESUMPTIVE-LINES,AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS RESEARCH SCALE 1".=20' LICENSE PLANS ACCOMPANYING PETITION OF MRM PROJECT'MANGEMENT, LLC TO CIEIvMO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON FILLED AND FLOWED TIDELANDS OF THEf NORTH RIVER CANAL; SALEM,.MA I ,!. JULY 21, 2015 SHEET 5 OF'"8 FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY. I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEgS. 7/24//S- // ' ./&Z DATE ROBERT H. GRIT N, P.E. APPLICATION FOR NON-WATER DEPENDENT USE EXIST. 12' DECK WIDTH- PROPOSED 10' CLEAR WIDTH 91 3.5' HIGH EXISTING RAILINGS REPLACE CONCRETE WOOD DECK ABUTMENT I TOP EL. 9.3'f - . EXIST. STEEL BEAMS MHW IEL. 5.Ot EXISTING GRADE ROBERT 2 , ALONG ABUTMENT REPAIR EXISTING g STONE ABUTMENTS H, (EL. ZOf) GRIFFIN - CIVIL y pow 3s�ss ��4 BRIDGE.SEGTION "t• 5 ISCALE; 1(d"=1' 9 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,. . – 28 3L3 DEOK. PROP.: 10' 24 29' -SPA 1: SHARED, : , z 16 . . . . OEK USE PAT+i 100–YEAR FLOOD EL. 9.3. : ' ZONE AE – EL. 10.8' 14 —. BOTTOM REPAIR EXISTING 4 OE:BEAMS BRIDGE FOR 0 EL. 7:25'! PEDESTRIAN USE 5 –4 MHW: = :El_ 5:.0'x'. ONLY w –8 EXIST. STONE • MLW EL 2.0'± - -12 – CONCRETE RIVER; BOTTOM; –16 - ABUTMENTS. , ` . E.L . .1.5't . –20 0+00 0+25 0+50 0+75 /U1 SITE SECTION "B=B" SCALE-. 1"=20' NOTES AND REFERENCES; 1. ELEVATIONS BASED ON 1929 N:G.V.D. 2. HISTORIC MHW LINE DEVELOPED FROM LIC. 605&606 AND 0 20 40 80 MASSDEP PRESUMPTIVE LINES. SCALE 1"=20' LICENSE PLANS ACCOMPANYING PETITION OF MRM PROJECT MANGEMENT, LLC TO DEMO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON FILLED AND FLOWED TIDELANDS OF THE NORTH RIVER CANAL, SALEM, MA. JULY 21, 2015 SHEET 6 OF 8 FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY. I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE RULES AND.'REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DE DS. /s �5,.. _ DATE ROBERT H. G -FIN, P.E. APPLICATION FOR NON-WATER DEPENDENT USE k ROBERT G LF #3' HARMONY C) 4 1 h~ \ROVE RD. Q \ Y9 O #64 GROVE \ iJ --. - _ fir, l, .• 1 1` \ � \ : ; - p\ s % �J? 16 � 1• 1 \� v� #60 21 GROVE ST. NOTES AND REFERENCES: PROJECT ABUTTERS - PART 1 1. EXIST. CONDITIONS& BOUNDARY SURVEY BY LEBLANC SURVEY ASSOCIATES OF DANVERS, MA, 2. REFER TO SHEET 8 FOR LIST OF ABUTTERS. 0 75 150 300 3. SEE SHEET 2 FOR LEGEND. SCALE 1" = 150' LICENSE PLANS ACCOMPANYING PETITION OF MRM PROJECT MANGEMENT, LLC TO DEMO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON FILLED AND FLOWED TIDELANDS OF THE NORTH RIVER CANAL, SALEM, MA. JULY 21, 2015 SHEET 7 OF B FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY; I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEDS. DATE ROBERT H. GRIFF , P.E. APPLICATION FOR NON-WATER DEPENDENT USE LIST OF ABUTTERS - NOW OR FORMERLY 1: MASS BAY TRANS AUTHORITY 13: ROBERT TUCKER P.O. BOX 845142 1416 BROADWAY STREET BOSTON, MA 02284-5142 HAVERHILL, MA 01832 2: 50 GROVE STREET REAL EST, LLC (34 BEAVER STREET) 7 RANTOUL STREET 14: BRUCE LAWSON BEVERLY, MA 01915 25 COLLINS STREET (50 GROVE STREET) SALEM, MA 01970 3&4: HARMONY GROVE CORP. (32 BEAVER STREET) 30 GROVE STREET 15: PAUL BASH SALEM, MA 01970 28 BEAVER STREET (1&5 HARMONY GROVE ROAD) SALEM, MA 01970 5: JAMES W RAYMOND 16: SHAWN DEMEULE 18 SILVER STREET 24 BEAVER STREET SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970 6: DANIEL SARKES 17: RUSSELL ROSS 12 SILVER STREET 20 BEAVER STREET SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970 7: PAUL FLORES 18: PATRICIA MEYERS 6 SILVER STREET 14 BEAVER STREET SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970 8: MIRANDA REALTY TRUST 19A: PAMELA SACCO 2 SILVER STREET 17 JACKSON AVENUE SALEM, MA 01970 PEABODY, MA 01960 9: ERIC EASLEY (10 BEAVER STREET, UNIT 1) 145B SPOFFORD ROAD 198: RAMON FROMETA, TRUSTEE BOXFORD, MA 01921 P.O. BOX 3 (48 BEAVER STREET) SWAMPSCOTT, MA 01907 10: MER RILL KOHLOFER (10 BEAVER STREET, UNIT 2-4) 44 BEAVER STREET 20: PETER MCSWIGGIN SALEM, MA 01970 21 LIBERTY STREET MIDDLETON, MA 01949 11: A&N REAL ESTATE TRUST (6 BEAVER STREET) 7 PAULINE ROAD DANVERS, MA 01923 21&22: MARK PATTISON (40 BEAVER STREET) 65 CENTRE STREET DANVERS, MA 01929 12: JAMES CONLEY (2&4 BEAVER STREET) 38 BEAVER STREET SALEM, MA 01970 PROJECT ABUTTERS - PART 2 LICENSE PLANS ACCOMPANYING PETITION OF MRM PROJECT MANGEMENT, LLC TO DEMO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON FILLED AND FLOWED TIDELANDS OF THE NORTH RIVER CANAL, SALEM, MA. JULY 21, 2015 SHEET 8 OF 8 Griffin Engineering Group,LLC July 21, 2015 Ms. Erin Schaeffer, Staff Planner RECEIVED City of Salem Planning Department JUL 2 12015 120 Washington Street, 3r Floor Salem, MA 01970 DEPT. OF PLANNING& COMMUNITY DI-,JLLOPMENT Subject: Ch. 91 Waterways License Application for 60 & 64 Grove Street and 3 Harmony Grove Road Dear Ms. Schaeffer: On behalf of the Applicant, MRM Project Management, LLC, this letter notifies you of their pending Chapter 91 permit application for the subject project and requests that you acknowledge, by signature on page 7 of 13, that the plans have been submitted to the Planning Board. An extra copy of page 7 is attached for your convenience. The application is for the demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed use development on filled and flowed tidelands of the North River Canal. The Application is consistent with the plans approved by the Planning Board in 2014. Please review the application, complete page 7, and contact our office for pick-up. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Griffin Engineering G oup, LLC Robert H. Griffi , P.E. Enclosure: Ch. 91 Waterways License Application Chapter 91 Plans Extra Page 7 of 13 Phone 978-927-5111 1 Fax 978-927-5103 www.griffineng.com 495 Cabot Street 2nd Floor Beverly, MA 01915 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Waterways Regulation Program X266850 Chapter 91 Waterways License Application -310 CMR 9.00 Transmittal No. Water-Dependent, Nonwater-Dependent,Amendment Important:When filling out forms A. Application Information (Check one) usethe computer, NOTE: For Chapter 91 Simplified License application form and information see the Self Licensing use only the tab P P � pp � g key to move your Package for BRP W WO6. cursor-do not use the return Name (Complete Application Sections) Check One Fee Application# key. mVQ WATER-DEPENDENT- rL General (A-H) ❑ Residential with <4 units $215.00 BRP WW01a `�' ❑ Other $330.00 BRP WW01b For assistance ❑ Extended Term $3,350.00 BRP WW01c incompleting this ._.._.._.._.._ ._.._.._.._.._.._..___.._.._.._.._.._.._.___.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..___.._.._.._.._._.._.._____.._.._.._.._.._ application,please Amendment(A-H) ❑ Residential with <4 units $100.00 BRP WW03a see the — "Instructions". ❑ Other $125.00 BRP WW03b NONWATER-DEPENDENT- Full(A-H) ❑ Residential with <4 units $665.00 BRP WW15a ® Other $2,005.00 BRP WW15b ❑ Extended Term $3,350.00 BRP WW15c _.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._ Partial (A-H) ❑ Residential with <4 units $665.00 BRP WW14a ❑ Other $2,005.00 BRP WW14b ❑ Extended Term $3,350.00 BRP WW14c ._.._.._.._.._..---------.._.._.._.._.._.._..------------------------------- ---------------------- Municipal Harbor Plan (A-H) ❑ Residential with <4 units $665.00 BRP WW16a ❑ Other $2,005.00 BRP WW16b ❑ Extended Term $3,350.00 BRP WW16c --------------------------------------------- .._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._-------------_. _.._.._--------- Joint MEPA/EIR(A-H) ❑ Residential with <4 units $665.00 BRP WW17a ❑ Other $2,005.00 BRP WW17b ❑ Extended Term $3,350.00 BRP WW17c -----.._.._.._..--- -.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..--- ---.._.._.._.._.._.----.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._.._..------------------- Amendment(A-H) ❑ Residential with <4 units $530.00 BRP WW03C ❑ Other $1,000.00 BRP WW03d ❑ Extended Term $1,335.00 BRP WW03e CH91App.doc•Rev.08/13 Page 1 of 13 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Waterways Regulation Program x266850 j Chapter 91 Waterways License Application -310 CMR 9.00 Transmittal No. Water-Dependent, Nonwater-Dependent,Amendment B. Applicant Information Proposed Project/Use Information 1. Applicant: MRM Project Management LLC michael@cabotcompany.com Name E-mail Address PO Box 388 Mailing Address Note:Please refer Beverly MA 01915 to the"Instructions" Cityrrown State Zip Code 978-922-7089 001 Telephone Number Fax Number 2. Authorized Agent(if any): Robert H. Griffin PE bgriffin@griffineng.com Name E-mail Address 495 Cabot Street, 2nd Floor Mailing Address Beverly MA 01915 City/Town State Zip Code 978-927-5111 978-927-5103 Telephone Number Fax Number C. Proposed Project/Use Information 1. Property Information (all information must be provided): MRM Project Management LLC Owner Name(if different from applicant) Map 16, Lots 237, 236 &239 N4201'18" \AUM54'41" Tax Assessor's Map and Parcel Numbers Latitude Longitude 60&64 Grove Street&3 Harmony Grove Road MA 01970 Street Address and Cityrrown State Zip Code 2. Registered Land ❑ Yes ® No 3. Name of the water body where the project site is located: North River Canal 4. Description of the water body in which the project site is located (check all that apply): Type Nature Designation ❑ Nontidal river/stream ❑ Natural ❑Area of Critical Environmental Concern ® Flowed tidelands ❑ Enlarged/dammed ❑ Designated Port Area ® Filled tidelands ® Uncertain ❑ Ocean Sanctuary ❑ Great Pond ❑ Uncertain ❑ Uncertain CH91App.doc•Rev.08/13 Page 2 of 13 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Waterways Regulation Program X266850 Chapter 91 Waterways License Application -310 CMR 9.00 Transmittal No. Water-Dependent, Nonwater-Dependent,Amendment C. Proposed Project/Use Information (cont.) Select use(s)from Project Type Table 5. Proposed Use/Activity description on pg.2 of the "Instructions" Removal of existing industrial buildings and construction of a mixed-use residential and commercial development. 6. What is the estimated total cost of proposed work(including materials& labor)? $15+/-million 7. List the name&complete mailing address of each abutter(attach additional sheets, if necessary). An abutter is defined as the owner of land that shares a common boundary with the project site, as well as the owner of land that lies within 50'across a waterbody from the project. (See Attached) Name Address Name Address Name Address D. Project Plans 1. I have attached plans for my project in accordance with the instructions contained in (check one): ® Appendix A(License plan) ❑ Appendix B (Permit plan) 2. Other State and Local Approvals/Certifications ❑ 401 Water Quality Certificate Date of Issuance ® Wetlands 064-0547 File Number ❑ Jurisdictional Determination JD- File Number ❑ MEPA EEA# 15043 File Number ® EOEA Secretary Certificate May 8, 2015 (EEA# 15043) Date ® 21E Waste Site Cleanup 3-2131 RTN Number CH91App.doc•Rev.08/13 Page 3 of 13 I r .. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Waterways Regulation Program x266850 Chapter 91 Waterways License Application-310 CMR 9.00 Transmittal No. Water-Dependent, Nonwater-Dependent,Amendment E. Certification All applicants, property owners and authorized agents must sign this page. All future application correspondence may be signed by the authorized agent alone. "I hereby make application for a permit or license to authorize the activities I have described herein. Upon my signature, I agree to allow the duly authorized representatives of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program to enter upon the premises of the project site at reasonable times for the purpose of inspection." "I hereby certify that the information submitted in this application is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge." az, Applicant's signature Date - PropertyLLOw��ner's signature(if different than applicant) Date LiR4r -4 . �I 712.1 ' 1119— Agent's signature(if applicable) Date CH91App.doc•Rev.08113 Page 4 of 13 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Waterways Regulation Program x266850 Chapter 91 Waterways License Application -310 CMR 9.00 Transmittal No. Water-Dependent, Nonwater-Dependent,Amendment F. Waterways Dredging Addendum 1. Provide a description of the dredging project ❑ Maintenance Dredging (include last dredge date & permit no.) ❑ Improvement Dredging Purpose of Dredging 2. What is the volume (cubic yards)of material to be dredged? 3. What method will be used to dredge? ❑ Hydraulic ❑ Mechanical ❑ Other 4. Describe disposal method and provide disposal location (include separate disposal site location map) 5. Provide copy of grain size analysis. If grain size is compatible for beach nourishment purposes, the Department recommends that the dredged material be used as beach nourishment for public beaches. Note: In the event beach nourishment is proposed for private property, pursuant to 310 CMR 9.40(4)(a)1, public access easements below the existing high water mark shall be secured by applicant and submitted to the Department. CH91App.doc•Rev.08/13 Page 5 of 13 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection i Bureau of Resource Protection -Waterways Regulation Program x266850 Chapter 91 Waterways License Application -310 CMR 9.0o Transmittal No. Water-Dependent, Nonwater-Dependent,Amendment H. Municipal Planning Board Notification Notice to MRM Project Management LLC Applicant: Name of Applicant Section H should 60&64 Grove St& 3 Harmony Grove Rd North River Canal Salem be completed and Project street address waterway Cityrrown submitted along with the original Description of use or change in use: application material. Removal of existing industrial buildings and construction of a mixed-use residential and commercial development. To be completed by municipal clerk or appropriate municipal official: "I hereby certify that the project described above and more fully detailed in the applicant's waterways license application and plans have been submitted by the applicant to the municipal planning board." Printed Name of Municipal Official Date S-�- n cv- S 0.`P All Signature of Municipal OfficialTitle I City/rown 61 Note: Any comments, including but not limited to written comments, by the general public, applicant, municipality, and/or an interested party submitted after the close of the public comment period pertaining to this Application shall not be considered, and shall not constitute a basis for standing in any further appeal pursuant to 310 CMR 9.13(4) and/or 310 CMR 9.17. CH91App.doc•Rev.08/13 Page 7 of 13 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Waterways Regulation Program x288850 Chapter 91 Waterways License Application -310 CMR 9.00 Transmittal No. Water-Dependent, Nonwater-Dependent,Amendment Appendix A: License Plan Checklist General View ® PE or RLS, as deemed appropriate by the Department, stamped and signed, in ink, each sheet within 8 1/2 inch by 11 inch border ® Format and dimensions conform to"Sample Plan" (attached) ® Minimum letter size is 1/8 of an inch if freehand lettering, 1/10 of an inch if letter guides are used ® Sheet number with total number in set on each sheet ® Title sheet contains the following in lower left: Plans accompanying Petition of[Applicant's name, structures and/or fill or change in use, waterway and municipality] ® North arrow ® Scale is suitable to clearly show proposed structures and enough of shoreline, existing structures and roadways to define its exact location ® Scale is stated &shown by graphic bar scale on each sheet ® Initial plans may be printed on bond; final plans due before License issuance must be on 3mil Mylar. Structures and Fill ® All Structures and Fill shown in full BLACK lines, clearly labeling which portions are existing, which are Proposed and indicating Existing Waterways Licenses ® Cross Section Views show MHW`and MLW'and structure finish elevations ❑ Dredge or Fill, actual cubic yardage must be stated and typical cross sections shown ® All Structures and Fill shown in full BLACK lines, clearly labeling which portions are existing, which are Proposed and indicating Existing Waterways Licenses ® Cross Section Views show MHW'and MLW'and structure finish elevations ❑ Dredge or Fill, actual cubic yardage must be stated and typical cross sections shown ® Actual dimensions of structures(s) and or fill and the distance which they extend beyond MHW`or OHW' ® Change in Use of any structures on site must be stated `See 310 CMR 9.02, Waterways Regulations definitions of High Water Mark, Historic High Water Mark, Historic Low Water Mark, and Low Water Mark. Note: DEP may, at its discretion, accept appropriately scaled preliminary plans in lieu of the plans described above. In general, DEP will accept preliminary plans only for non-water dependent projects and projects covered by MEPA to address site design components such as visual access, landscaping & site coverage. Anyone wishing to submit preliminary plans must obtain prior approval of the DEP Waterways Program before submitting them with their application. CHMpp.doc•Rev.08113 Page 8 of 13 I Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Waterways Regulation Program x266850 Chapter 91 Waterways License Application -310 CMR 9.00 Transmittal No. Water-Dependent, Nonwater-Dependent,Amendment Appendix A: License Plan Checklist (cont.) Boundaries ® Property lines, full black lines, , along with abutters' names and addresses ® Mean High Water(MHW)*or Ordinary High Water(OHW)*, full black line ® Mean Low Water(MLW)*, black dotted line, (.............) ® Historic MHW*orOHW*(----) ❑ Historic MLW*(... ... _..._) ❑ State Harbor Lines, black dot-dash line (— .—. —. —)with indication of Chapter&Act establishing them (Ch. , Acts of) ® Reference datum is National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD)or(NAVD). ® Floodplain Boundaries according to most recent FEMA maps ❑ Proposed & Existing Easements described in metes & bounds Water-Dependent Structures ❑ Distance from adjacent piers, ramps or floats (minimum distance of 25'from property line, where feasible) ❑ Distance from nearest opposite shoreline ❑ Distance from outside edge of any Navigable Channel ❑ Access stairs at MHW for lateral public passage, or 5 feet of clearance under structure at MHW. Non Water-Dependent Structures ® Depict extent of"Water-dependent Use Zone". See Waterways Regulations at 310 CMR 9.51-9.53 for additional standards for non water-dependent use projects. Note: Final Mylar project site plans will be required upon notice from the Department, prior to issuance of the Chapter 91 Waterways License. CH91App.doc•Rev.08/13 Page 9 of 13 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Waterways Regulation Program x266850 Chapter 91 Waterways License Application -310 CMR 9.00 Transmittal No. Water-Dependent, Nonwater-Dependent,Amendment Appendix A: License Plan Checklist Cont. e s Registry Statement 31/2 inche 5 inches Locus Map First Sheet Ony a 1 „ -2114 inches-110, U Sample Plan B 1/2 inches P.E. Or R.LS Scamp �-3 314 inch e Plan Accompany irg T Petition al... T DEP Stamp First Sheet Only 314 " Border CH91App.doc•Rev.08/13 Page 10 of 13 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection X266850 Bureau of Resource Protection - Waterways Regulation Program Chapter 91 Waterways License Application -310 CMR 9.00 Transmittal No. Water-Dependent, Nonwater-Dependent,Amendment Appendix B: Dredging Permit Plan Checklist For projects applying for dredging permits only, enclose drawings with the General Waterways Application that include the following information: General View ❑ Submit one original of all drawings. Submit the fewest number of sheets necessary to adequately illustrate the project on 8-1/2 inch X 11 inch paper. ❑ A 1-inch margin should be left at the top edge of each drawing for purposes of reproduction and binding. A 1/2 inch margin is required in the three other edges. ❑ A complete title block on each drawing submitted should identify the project and contain: the name of the waterway; name of the applicant; number of the sheet and total number of sheets in the set; and the date the drawing was prepared. ❑ Use only dot shading, hatching, and dashed or dotted line to show or indicate particular features of the site on the drawings. ❑ If deemed appropriate by the Department, certification by the Registered Professional Engineer or Land Surveyor is included. Plan View ❑ North Arrow ❑ Locus Map ❑ Standard engineering scale. ❑ Distances from channel lines and structures if appropriate. ❑ Mean high water and mean low water shorelines (see definitions of"High Water Mark and"Low Water Mark" at 310 CMR 9.02, C. 91 Regulations). ❑ Dimensions of area proposed to be dredged or excavated. ❑ Notation or indication of disposal site. ❑ Volume of proposed dredging or excavation. ❑ Ordinary high water, proposed drawdown level, and natural (historic) high water(for projects lowering waters of Great Ponds). Section Views ❑ Existing bottom and bank profiles. ❑ Vertical and/or horizontal scales. ❑ Proposed and existing depths relative to an indicated datum. ❑ Elevation and details of control structure(for projects lowering waters of Great Ponds). CH91 App.doc•Rev.08/13 Page i t of 13 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Waterways Regulation Program x266850 Chapter 91 Waterways License Application -310 CMR 9.00 Transmittal No. Water-Dependent, Nonwater-Dependent,Amendment Appendix C: Application Completeness Checklist Please answer all questions in the General Waterways Application form. If a question does not apply to your project write"not applicable" (n/a) in that block. Please print or type all information provided on the form. Use black ink(blue ink or pencil are not easily reproducible, therefore, neither will be accepted). If additional space is needed, attach extra 8-1/2"x 11"sheets of paper. ® Proper Public Purpose: For nonwater-dependent projects, a statement must be included that explains how the project serves a proper public purpose that provides greater benefit than detriment to public rights in tidelands or great ponds and the manner in which the project meets the applicable standards. If the project is a nonwater-dependent project located in the coastal zone, the statement should explain how the project complies with the standard governing consistency of the policies of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program, according to 310 CMR 9.54. If the project is located in an area covered by a Municipal Harbor Plan, the statement should describe how the project conforms to any applicable provisions of such plan pursuant to 310 CMR 9.34(2). ® Plans: Prepared in accordance with the applicable instructions contained in Appendix A-B of this application. For initial filing, meet the requirements of 310 CMR 9.11(2)(b)(3). ® Applicant Certification:All applications must be signed by"the landowner if other than the applicant. In lieu of the landowner's signature,the applicant may provide other evidence of legal authority to submit an application for the project site." If the project is entirely on land owned by the Commonwealth (e.g. most areas below the current low water mark in tidelands and below the historic high water mark of Great Ponds), you may simply state this in lieu of the"landowner's signature". ® Municipal Zoning Certification: If required, applicants must submit a completed and signed Section E of this application by the municipal clerk or appropriate municipal official or, for the initial filing, an explanation of why the form is not included with the initial application. If the project is a public service project subject to zoning but will not require any municipal approvals, submit a certification to that effect pursuant to 310 CMR 9.34(1). ® Municipal Planning Board Notification:Applicants must submit a copy of this application to the municipal planning board for the municipality where the project is located. Submittal of the complete application to DEP must include Section H signed by the municipal clerk, or appropriate municipal official for the town where the work is to be performed, except in the case of a proposed bridge, dam, or similar structure across a river, cove, or inlet, in which case it must be certified by every municipality into which the tidewater of said river, cove, or inlet extends. ® Final Order of Conditions: A copy of one of the following three documents is required with the filing of a General Waterways Application: (1) the Final Order of Conditions (with accompanying plan) under the Wetlands Protection Act; (2) a final Determination of Applicability under that Act stating that an Order of Conditions is not required for the project; or(3)the Notice of Intent for the initial filing (if the project does not trigger review under MEPA). ® Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act(MEPA): MGL 30, subsections 61-61A and 301 CMR 11.00, submit as appropriate: a copy of the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) and a Certificate of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs thereon, or a copy of the final Environmental Impact Report(EIR) and Certificate of the Secretary stating that it adequately and properly complies with MEPA; and any subsequent Notice of Project change and any determination issued thereon in accordance with MEPA. For the initial filing, only a copy of the ENF and the Certificate of the Secretary thereon must be submitted. Note: If the project is subject to MEPA,the Chapter 91 Public Notice must also be submitted to MEPA for publication in the"Environmental Monitor". MEPA filing deadlines are the 15'"and 30'"of each month. CH91App.doc•Rev.08/13 Page 12 of 13 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Waterways Regulation Program x266850 Chapter 91 Waterways License Application -310 CMR 9.00 Transmittal No. Water-Dependent, Nonwater-Dependent,Amendment Appendix C: Application Completeness Checklist (cont.) ❑ Water Quality Certificate: if applicable, pursuant to 310 CMR 9.33, is included. ❑ Other Approvals: as applicable pursuant to 310 CMR 9.33 or, for the initial filing, a list of such approvals which must be obtained. Projects involving dredging: ❑ The term"dredging" means the removal of materials including, but not limited to, rocks, bottom sediments, debris, sand, refuse, plant or animal matter, in any excavating, clearing, deepening, widening or lengthening, either permanently or temporarily, of any flowed tidelands, rivers, streams, ponds or other waters of the Commonwealth. Dredging includes improvement dredging, maintenance dredging, excavating and backfilling or other dredging and subsequent refilling. Included is a completed and signed copy of Part F of the application. Filing your Completed General Waterways Application: ❑ For all Water-Dependent applications—submit a completed General Waterways Application and all required documentation with a photocopy of both payment check and DEP's Transmittal Form for Permit Application &Payment to the appropriate DEP Boston or regional office (please refer to Pg. 10 of the"Instructions" for the addresses of DEP Regional Offices). ® For all Non Water-Dependent applications—submit a completed General Waterways Application and all required documentation with a photocopy of both payment check and DEP's Transmittal Form for Permit Application &Payment to DEP's Boston office. Department of Environmental Protection Waterways Regulation Program One Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 ® Application Fee Payment for ALL Waterways Applications: Send the appropriate Application fee*(please refer to Page 1 of the"Application"), in the form of a check or money order, along with DEP's Transmittal Form for Permit Application &Payment. Department of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211 * Under extreme circumstances, DEP grants extended time periods for payment of license and permit application fees. If you qualify, check the box entitles"Hardship Request" on the Transmittal Form for Permit Application &Payment. See 310 CMR 4.04(3)(c)to identify procedures for making a hardship request. Send hardship request and supporting documentation to the above address. NOTE: You may be subject to a double application fee if your application for Chapter 91 authorization results from an enforcement action by the Department or another agency of the Commonwealth or its subdivisions, or if your application seeks authorization for an existing unauthorized structure or use. CH91App.doc•Rev.08/13 Page 13 of 13 FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY. I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEDS. I CERTIFY THAT THE PROPERTY LINES SHOWN HEREON ARE THE LINES DIVIDING EXISTING OWNERSHIP, AND THE LINES OF STREETS AND WAYS SHOWN ARE THOSE OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE STREETS ALREADY ESTABLISHED, AND THAT NO NEW LINES FOR DIVISION OF EXISTING OWNERSHIP OR FOR NEW WAYS ARE SHOWN. DATE ROBERT H. GRIFFIN, P.E. APPLICATION FOR NON-WATER DEPENDENT USE APPROX. HISTORIC N. RIVER FEMA 20.' `. HIGH WATER LINE CANAL FLOOD \ h �, EXISTING ROVE ST. ZONE �.. FILLED TIDELANDS S� (4,830± SF) S TF s MHW y 9ptii ' TONS (EL. 5.0') ��v9{ oy�, T MLW oL, \�F (EL. 2.0'±) F VICINITY MAP \;, po SCALE 1"= 1,500' RAILROAD SITE LOCATION: CROSSING �� N42° 31' 18"; W70' 54'41" EASEMENT HARMONY "\ GROVE RD. EXISTING\• APPROX. © FILLED TIDELANDS \; HISTORIC HIGH (14,550 SF) WATER LINE NDER STONE WALLS \ FILLEDLIC. #606 7 LINE CANAL (20,130 SF) _ v FEMA - ZONE D �, EXIST. FILLED FLOO ✓� ��. � TIDELANDS \�P�\Y 9 GROVE (66,470± SF) 5 ';� LIST OF EXISTING STRUCTURES v� j APPROX. (D OFFICE BUILDING (SAVE) ��� I%u); HISTORIC Q BARREL STORAGE BUILDING \ #649 0 WATER Q COOPERAGE/FINISHING \ .\GROVE ST. n \\ '� LINE BUILDING ® y 1 N %� ® WAREHOUSE/SULFONATION \ % v / FILLED UNDER BUILDING \ LIC. #606 55 PRETREATMENT BUILDING \ i A (26,960± SF) 6 STORAGE BUILDING 7 CHIMNEY ter, MHW (EL. 5.0') ® VEHICLE BRIDGE (SAVE) I\ MLW (EL. 1.0'±) 9Q ELEVATED ENCLOSED WALKWAYS \ ® EXISTING BOX NOTES AND REFERENCES: > / _ CULVERTS 1. EXIST. CONDITIONS AND BOUNDARY SURVEY BY W LEBLANC SURVEY ASSOCIATES OF DANVERS, MA. 2. FEMA 100-YEAR FLOOD ZONE AE-ELEV. 10.8'(1929 NGVD). / ' EXISTING CONDITIONS THE ENTIRE 60 GROVE ST. PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR ZONE. & SITE CONTEXT PLAN 3. HISTORIC HIGH WATER LINE DEVELOPED FROM LIC. 605&606 AND MASSDEP PRESUMPTIVE LINES, & REGISTRY OF DEEDS RESEARCH. 4. SEE SHEET 2 FOR LEGEND. 0 75 150 300 5. DATUM = 1929 NGVD. SCALE I"= 150' LICENSE PLANS ACCOMPANYING PETITION OF MRM PROJECT MANGEMENT, LLC TO DEMO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON FILLED AND FLOWED TIDELANDS OF THE NORTH RIVER CANAL, SALEM, MA. JULY 21, 2015 SHEET 1 OF 8 FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY. I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEDS. DATE ROBERT H. GRIFFIN, P.E. APPLICATION FOR NON-WATER DEPENDENT USE PROPOSED RELOCATED MATERIAL \:. APPROX. HISTORIC CELL HIGH WATER LINE IXsl9. y914", SHARED USE \ y \' ,o�1%y., PATH REPAIR EXISTING BRIDGE OVER CANAL PROPOSED REMEDIATION AREA \ `•�� -� �, (15,000± SF) a •. PROPOSED MATCH LINE '\ \� - FENCE ALONG \ ;' SHEET 4 l\ CANAL WALLS f SHEET 3 ` PROPOSED ' \ \ o �� LANDSCAPE I, �X - BUFFER (6'±� 1 & SHARED -- USE PATH I 13 Imo ; LEGEND ��. )3 ;� ; APPROX. - - - - HISTORIC HIGH WATER �`.�` ��o �_ I co"HISTORIC MEAN HIGH WATER \ \�\ G �``. yQ, W I HIGH WATER ...... MEAN LOW WATER - - - - FEMA FLOOD LINE LINE\ �� Z \\ y %� PROPERTY LINE (SITE) - - - PROPERTY LINE (ABUTTER)\\ 'PROPOSED EXISTING BUILDING \ \\ . -' FENCE ALONG -------- SHARED USE PATH \\�\. � ;' MBTA PROPERTY FENCE CROSSWALK PROPOSED 25' munnnnn SIDEWALK WIDE LANDSCAPE ® PARKING AISLE j BUFFER (WDUZ) ® BENCH APPROX. RETAINING WALL HISTORIC HIGH PROPOSED SITE PLAN WATER LINE 0 75 150 300 SCALE 1" = 150' LICENSE PLANS ACCOMPANYING PETITION OF MRM PROJECT MANGEMENT, LLC TO DEMO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON FILLED AND FLOWED TIDELANDS OF THE NORTH RIVER CANAL, SALEM, MA. JULY 21, 2015 SHEET 2 OF 8 FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY. I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEDS. DATE ROBERT H. GRIFFIN, P.E. APPLICATION FOR NON-WATER DEPENDENT USE PROPOSED 6't LANDSCAPE BUFFER 1 PROPOSED ,I . o FENCE ALONG �m p `\CANAL WALLS 1 G "' `PI�. \` PROPOSED I -10 mG �.a�� � \ ` •`, Z �`. LANDSCAPED � I • \ AREA (WDUZ) v Z 70 \�; _ \C APPROX. I A 13 1 �•N� ���. HISTORIC HIGH i 1 2 WATER LINE O'.` 34't q PROP. FENCE . 1 \ �'G` ALONG MBTA li APPROX. HISTORIC 'PROPERTY I HIGH WATER LINE , 1 ICE 03 C-) LA tuf) 03 C- 11 All 11 O PROPOSED `X ;` 25' WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER (WDUZ) EXIST. BOX CULVERTS FENCEOSED ALONG PROP. BENCH CANAL WALLS (TYP OF 14) %i% PROPOSED DRAINAGE OUTFALL PROPOSED SITE PLAN — PART 1 NOTES: r!m nm 1. REFER TO SHEET 5 FOR SECTION A-A. 0 40 80 160 2. WDUZ=WATER DEPENDENT USE ZONE. SCALE 1" =80' 3. SEE SHEET 2 FOR LEGEND. LICENSE PLANS ACCOMPANYING PETITION OF MRM PROJECT MANGEMENT, LLC TO DEMO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON FILLED AND FLOWED TIDELANDS OF THE NORTH RIVER CANAL, SALEM, MA. JULY 21, 2015 SHEET 3 OF 8 FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY. I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEDS. DATE ROBERT H. GRIFFIN, P.E. APPLICATION FOR NON-WATER DEPENDENT USE \ PROP. FENCE ALONG MBTA PROPERTY APPROX. HISTORIC HIGH WATER LINE REPAIR EXISTING PROPOSED BRIDGE OVER CANAL RELOCATED FOR PEDESTRIAN USE MATERIAL ` PROP. SHARED CELL \ ♦ ;\, USE PATH ••\ sem'•\ q .•�; ,F o,�;. ••\ -p •, v� � � •Q.;.%fop �=', O 00 -7 V 9 1 61 o i Gq c 9 J�2� PROPOSED i"� �� c � DRAINAGE OUTFALL PROPOSED SITE PLAN - PART 2 / �z1-0 NOTES: 1. REFER TO SHEET 6 FOR SECTION B-B 0 40 80 160 2. WDUZ=WATER DEPENDENT USE ZONE. SCALE 1" =80' 3. SEE SHEET 2 FOR LEGEND. LICENSE PLANS ACCOMPANYING PETITION OF MRM PROJECT MANGEMENT, LLC TO DEMO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON FILLED AND FLOWED TIDELANDS OF THE NORTH RIVER CANAL, SALEM, MA. JULY 21, 2015 SHEET 4 OF 8 FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY. I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEDS. DATE ROBERT H. GRIFFIN, P.E. APPLICATION FOR NON-WATER DEPENDENT USE PROPOSED APARTMENT BUILDING 421 : FILLED: TIDELAND:S : : : : w 36 ' APPROXI FIISTORIC MEAN z o . : HIGH :WATER :LINE*. . . . . 1 . J w 0 32 : : : : : . . I . . PROP. . : : : : : : : = m > I . . . P:ROP.: :1:4': : : : : : : : . . c) c� 28 LANDSCAPE : : w z I . . . . . SHARED. . 24 . . . . . . . , . . .U.SE. P.ATH. . . . . . . . BUFFER :(6':*) ) SEE NOTE 2. rn _ ., � . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . �. . LOT . . . . cv 20 � ; : ' ' ' . . .LINE. . 100—YEAR FLOOD 16 BSMT F 12 = . . . I . . . . . . . . ... . ZONE AE — EL. 10.8' j 8 : : : : : : : : : . :PROP.: 5.5'. FE:NCE: : : : : : ' :MHW: : : : MLW — EL. 1.0't w 0 'EXIST: STONE: : : : =El .: 50': : : CANAL: WALL: —4 . . . . . : : : : : : : : : :TOP :EL: : 9:6't: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : . RIVER BOTTOM —8 64 GROVE ST. CANAL EL. 0.8' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0+00 0+25 0+50 0+75 ' w : : : : : : FILLED TIDELANDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 z > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 .::i O . . . . . . . . . . . . . m _ ¢ 5 36 v 32 a I PROP . EXIST, OFFICE: I 25 WIDE BUILDING TO BE I LOT 28 z LOT v . : : : LANDSCAPE RENOVATED - l " LINE 24 LINE . . . 20 BUFFER : : : .;: : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : : :I: : : : : : : : MHW (WDUZ I: : : PROP:, . . . . : . . 16 " - -F7: EL._13:31: : : : : : . . . 6 FEN:CE. . . : : : : . . . . - -.- : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EL. 5.0't —.._ _,._.._1.._.._ .;_; _..—.._ ._.._.._.._ 12 w MLW PROP.: 3.5:': FENCE : 8 j EL. 1.0'±---* av EXIST. STONE: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :100=YEPR: :FLOOD: : : : 4 w RIVER . . . . . . .CAN,AL. WALL. : ; . : . . . ZQNE. AE. - .EL. 10.8': : : : : : 0 TOP EL. 9:6'f. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -4 BOTTOMCANAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.', . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MBTA EL. 0.8' :60 GROVE ST. -8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .I. . . . . . -12 0+75 1+00 1+25 1+50 1+75 1+85 � 1�ITE SECTION "A-A11 VIIV SCALE: 1" =20' NOTES AND REFERENCES: 1. ELEVATIONS BASED ON 1929 N.G.V.D. 2. HISTORIC MHW LINE DEVELOPED FROM LIC. 605 8 606 AND 0 20 40 80 MASSDEP PRESUMPTIVE LINES, AND REGISTRY OF DEEDS RESEARCH SCALE 1" =20' LICENSE PLANS ACCOMPANYING PETITION OF MRM PROJECT MANGEMENT, LLC TO DEMO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON FILLED AND FLOWED TIDELANDS OF THE NORTH RIVER CANAL, SALEM, MA. JULY 21, 2015 SHEET 5 OF 8 FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY. I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEDS. DATE ROBERT H. GRIFFIN, P.E. APPLICATION FOR NON-WATER DEPENDENT USE EXIST. 12' DECK WIDTH PROPOSED 10' CLEAR WIDTH 3.5' HIGH REPLACE EXISTING RAILINGS WOOD DECK CONCRETE TOP EL. 9.3't ABUTMENT L T EXIST. STEEL BEAMS 117 MHW EL. 5.0± EXISTING GRADE REPAIR EXISTING ALONG ABUTMENT (EL. 2.0t) STONE ABUTMENTS BRIDGE SECTION 32 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 . . . . . . 31:3' .DECK PROP. :10*. 0 24 : : : : : : . . . : m 29' :SPAN: : : : : : : : . SHARED: : > 20 USE PATH 100-YEAR FLOOD 0 DECK: : : : : : : : : : : : : . . . . . . . . . . . z 16LL.: :9;3' : : : : : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ZONE AE - EL. 10.8' 04m rn8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BOTTOM -: :— . . . . . : : : : : : REPAIR EXISTING 0 OF:BEAMS 4 BRIDGE FOR -4 EL:. 7,25 MHW: - :EL: : 5:0'±: PEDESTRIAN USE ONLY w -8 EXIST: STONE MLW - EL. 2:0't -12 : . . . : :C:QNCRETE : . : : RIVER : BOTTO. M'. : ; ; ; ; : : : : ABUTMENTS -16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . EL.. .1..5r f, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -20 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :I: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : j : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 0+00 0+25 0+50 0+75 sH a SITE SECTION "B-B" SCALE: 1"=20' NOTES AND REFERENCES: 1. ELEVATIONS BASED ON 1929 N.G.V.D. 2. HISTORIC MHW LINE DEVELOPED FROM LIC. 605&606 AND 0 20 40 80 MASSDEP PRESUMPTIVE LINES. SCALE 1"=20' LICENSE PLANS ACCOMPANYING PETITION OF MRM PROJECT MANGEMENT, LLC TO DEMO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON FILLED AND FLOWED TIDELANDS OF THE NORTH RIVER CANAL, SALEM, MA. JULY 21, 2015 SHEET 6 OF 8 FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY. I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEDS. DATE ROBERT H. GRIFFIN, P.E. APPLICATION FOR NON-WATER DEPENDENT USE l L #3 HARMONY GROVE RD. \ 929 \�04' \ - 10 #64 GROVE ST. -�0 o i �I; \ �o j"W #60 21 GROVE ST. NOTES AND REFERENCES: PROJECT ABUTTERS - PART 1 1. EXIST. CONDITIONS & BOUNDARY SURVEY BY LEBLANC SURVEY ASSOCIATES OF DANVERS, MA. 2. REFER TO SHEET 8 FOR LIST OF ABUTTERS. 0 75 150 300 3. SEE SHEET 2 FOR LEGEND. SCALE 1" = 150' LICENSE PLANS ACCOMPANYING PETITION OF MRM PROJECT MANGEMENT, LLC TO DEMO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON FILLED AND FLOWED TIDELANDS OF THE NORTH RIVER CANAL, SALEM, MA. JULY 21, 2015 SHEET 7 OF 8 FOR REGISTRY USE ONLY. I CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE REGISTERS OF DEEDS. DATE ROBERT H. GRIFFIN, P.E. APPLICATION FOR NON-WATER DEPENDENT USE LIST OF ABUTTERS - NOW OR FORMERLY 1: MASS BAY TRANS AUTHORITY 13: ROBERT TUCKER P.O. BOX 845142 1416 BROADWAY STREET BOSTON, MA 02284-5142 HAVERHILL, MA 01832 2: 50 GROVE STREET REAL EST, LLC (34 BEAVER STREET) 7 RANTOUL STREET 14: BRUCE LAWSON BEVERLY, MA 01915 25 COLLINS STREET (50 GROVE STREET) SALEM, MA 01970 3&4: HARMONY GROVE CORP. (32 BEAVER STREET) 30 GROVE STREET 15: PAUL BASH SALEM, MA 01970 28 BEAVER STREET (1&5 HARMONY GROVE ROAD) SALEM, MA 01970 5: JAMES W RAYMOND 16: SHAWN DEMEULE 18 SILVER STREET 24 BEAVER STREET SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970 6: DANIEL SARKES 17: RUSSELL ROSS 12 SILVER STREET 20 BEAVER STREET SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970 7: PAUL FLORES 18: PATRICIA MEYERS 6 SILVER STREET 14 BEAVER STREET SALEM, MA 01970 SALEM, MA 01970 8: MIRANDA REALTY TRUST 19A: PAMELA SACCO 2 SILVER STREET 17 JACKSON AVENUE SALEM, MA 01970 PEABODY, MA 01960 9: ERIC EASLEY (10 BEAVER STREET, UNIT 1) 1458 SPOFFORD ROAD 19B: RAMON FROMETA, TRUSTEE BOXFORD, MA 01921 P.O. BOX 3 (48 BEAVER STREET) SWAMPSCOTT, MA 01907 10: MERRILL KOHLOFER (10 BEAVER STREET, UNIT 2-4) 44 BEAVER STREET 20: PETER MCSWIGGIN SALEM, MA 01970 21 LIBERTY STREET MIDDLETON, MA 01949 11: A&N REAL ESTATE TRUST (6 BEAVER STREET) 7 PAULINE ROAD DANVERS, MA 01923 21&22: MARK PATTISON (40 BEAVER STREET) 65 CENTRE STREET DANVERS, MA 01929 12: JAMES CONLEY (2&4 BEAVER STREET) 38 BEAVER STREET SALEM, MA 01970 PROJECT ABUTTERS - PART 2 LICENSE PLANS ACCOMPANYING PETITION OF MRM PROJECT MANGEMENT, LLC TO DEMO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON FILLED AND FLOWED TIDELANDS OF THE NORTH RIVER CANAL, SALEM, MA. JULY 21, 2015 SHEET 8 OF 8 Griffin l Grineerin oup,LLC g ^ REG ��" APR 02Z015 March 31, 2015 DEPT.OF PLiNll ,_ Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs COMMUNITY DwEL0'rw1L[4T Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Attn: MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 (9"' Floor) Boston, MA 02114 Subject: Notice of Project Change for EEA# 15043 Mixed-Use Development- Grove Street Apartments Dear Secretary: On behalf of the project Proponent, MRM Project Management, LLC, we are pleased to submit this Notice of Project Change (NPC) for the mixed-used development at 60 & 64 Grove Street and 1, 3 & 5 Harmony Grove Road in Salem. The project was previously reviewed by MEPA under a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) as Mixed Use Development — Harmony Grove Road Apartments. The modifications significantly reduce potential project impacts. The project no longer exceeds MEPA review thresholds for Wetlands, Waterways, and Tidelands. The only remaining MEPA review thresholds exceeded are for anticipated daily traffic volume and the removal of structures on the Massachusetts Historical Commission's Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth. Please find enclosed the following: 1) Notice of Project Change (NPC) Form; 2) U.S.G.S. Map of the Project Area; 3) Secretary's Certificate on the Draft Environmental Impact Report; 4) Most Recent Previously-Reviewed Plan (Date 3/10/14); 5) Current Proposed Plan (Date 3/25/15). Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you have any questions or comments or require additional information. Sincerely; Griffin Engineering Gr up, LLC Robert H. Griffin, P.E. Cc: See Attached Circulation List Phone 978-927-5111 1 Fax 978-927-5103 www,griffineng.com �' 495 Cabot Street 2nd Floor Be`_erly, MA-01915 �� NPC Circulation List: _MEPA Office - (Signed Original w/Attachments One Copy of NPC Form) Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) Attn: MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 (9th Floor) Boston, MA 02114 Department of Environmental Protection - Boston Office (One Copy) MassDEP Commissioner's Office One Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 Department of Environmental Protection - Regional Office (One Copy) MassDEP Northeast Region Office Attn: Mr. John D. Viola, Deputy Regional Director 205B Lowell Street Wilmington, MA 01887 Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (One Copy) Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources Attn: Mr. Victor T. Mastone, Director 251 Causeway Street, Suite 800 Boston, MA 02114-2136 Department of Conservation and Recreation (One Copy) Department of Conservation and Recreation Attn: Mr. Richard Zingarelli, Program Manager 251 Causeway Street, Suite 600 Boston, MA 02114-2119 Division of Marine Fisheries (One Copy) Division of Marine Fisheries Attn: Paul J. Diodati, Director 251 Causeway Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02114 Massachusetts Historical Commission (One Copy) Massachusetts Historical Commission Attn: Brona Simon, Executive Director 220 Morrissey Boulevard Boston, MA 02125 i� Coastal Zone Management (One Copy) Coastal Zone Management Attn: Project Review Coordinator 251 Causeway Street, Suite 800 Boston, MA 02114 Army Corps of Engineers (One Copy) Army Corps of Engineers Attn: Ms. Karen Kirk Adams 696 Virginia Road Concord, MA 01742 Applicable Regional Planning Agency (One Copy) Metropolitan Area Planning Council 60 Temple Place/6th Floor Boston, MA 02111 Department of Public Health (One Copy) Department of Public Health (DPH) Director of Environmental Health 250 Washington Street Boston, MA 02115 Massachusetts Department of Transportation (One Copy) Massachusetts Department of Transportation Public/Private Development Unit 10 Park Plaza Boston, MA 02116 MHD District Office (One Copy) MHD - District#4 Attn: MEPA Coordinator 519 Appleton Street Arlington, MA 02476 Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority (One Copy) Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Attn: MEPA Coordinator 10 Park Plaza, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02116-3966 City of Salem Planning and Community Development (One Copy) City of Salem Planning and Community Development Attn: Ms. Lynn Goonin Dunkin, Director 120 Washing Street, 3rd Flood Salem, MA 01970 City of Salem Conservation Commission (One Copy) Salem City Hall Annex Attn: Conservation Commission 130 Washington Street, 3`d Floor Salem, MA 01970 City of Salem City Council (One Copy) Salem City Hall Attn: City Council 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 City of Salem Board of Health (One Copy) Salem City Hall Annex Attn: Board of Health 130 Washington Street, 4th Floor Salem, MA 01970 City of Peabody Public Services Department (One Copy) City of Peabody Public Service Department Attn. Mr. William Paulitz, City Engineer 50 Farm Avenue Peabody, MA 01960 Salem Sound Coastwatch (One Copy) Salem Sound Coastwatch Attn: Ms. Barbara Warren, Executive Director 201 Washington Street, Suite 9 Salem, MA 01970 James Treadwell. AICP (Not sent: Mr. Treadwell is deceased) Mr. James R. Treadwell, AICP 36 Felt Street Salem, MA 01970 Meg Twohey (One Copy) vze255gg Ca)verizon.net (Mailing Address Not Provided) MRM Project Management, LLC (One Copy) MRM Project Management, LLC P.O. Box 388 Beverly, MA 01915 Atty. Joseph Correnti (One Copy) Serafini, Darling, and Correnti, LLP Attn. Mr. Joseph Correnti, Esq. 63 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Geological Field Services. Inc. (One Copy) Geological Field Services, Inc. Attn. Mr. Luke A. Fabbri, LSP 14 Hubon Street Salem, MA 01970 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs ■ MEPA Office For Office Use Only Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Notice of Project Change MEPA Analyst: Phone: 617-626- The information requested on this form must be completed to begin MEPA Review of a NPC in accordance with the provisions of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations (see 301 CMR 11.10(1)). EEA # 15043 Project Name: Mixed Use Development—Grove Street Apartments (previously reviewed as Mixed Use Development— Harmony Grove Road Apartments) Street Address: 60 & 64 Grove Street and 1, 3 & 5 Hannony Grove Road Municipality: Salem Watershed: North Coastal Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates Latitude: N420 31'20" Longitude: W700 54'45" Estimated commencement date: Jan. 2016 Estimated completion date: July 2017 Project Type: Residential & Commercial Status of project design: 50 %complete Proponent: MRM Project Management, LLC Street Address: P.O. Box 388 Municipality: Beverly State: MA Zip Code: 01915 Name of Contact Person: Robert H. Griffin, P.E. Firm/Agency: Griffin Engineering Grou , LLC Street Address: 495 Cabot Street, 2n Floor Municipality: Beveri State: MA Zi Code: 01915 Phone: 978-927-5111 Fax: 978-927-5103 1 E-mail: bgriffin@griffineng.com With this Notice of Project Change, are you requesting: a Single EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.06(8)) ❑Yes ®No a Special Review Procedure? (see 301CMR 11.09) ❑Yes ®No a Waiver of mandatory EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.11) ❑Yes ®No a Phase I Waiver? (see 301 CMR 11.11) ❑Yes ®No Which MEPA review threshold(s) does the project meet or exceed (see 301 CMR 11.03)? (6)(b)(14): Generation of more than 1,000 ADT on roadways providing access to a single location and construction of more than 150 new parking spaces at a single location. (10)(b)(1): Demolition of Historic Structure listed in the Inventory of Historic and Archeological Assets of the Commonwealth (the former Salem Oil& Grease factory site is listed on the MACRIS database; several structures at the site will be demolished). Which State Agency Permits will the project require? A Chapter 91 license from MassDEP for the removal of existing buildings and construction of a water-dependent shared-use pathway along and over the North River canal. A new license for reuse of the existing office building is necessary according to MassDEP. Modification of an existing MBTA license (Application for Entry upon MBTA Railroad, Transit, or other Property) for the shared-use pathway railroad crossing improvements. A Final Order of Conditions for work under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. Effective January 2011 A Tier 11 classification/permit for environmental site cleanup activities under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) was issued by DEP. Cleanup work is ongoing. Identify any financial assistance or land transfer from an Agency of the Commonwealth, including the Agency name and the amount of funding or land area in acres: Metropolitan Area Planning Council funding(approximately$140k; administered by the City of Salem) has been received to support site environmental assessments. Additional monies for site assessment and clean-up may be pursued. PROJECT INFORMATION In 25 words or less, what is the project change? The project change involves . . . reducing the project density and eliminating previously-proposed vehicle and pedestrian bridges over the North River Canal. Vehicular access will solely be via Grove Street. See full project change description beginning on page 3. Date of publication of availability of the ENF in the Environmental Monitor: (Date: 4/24/13 ) Was an EIR required? ®Yes ❑No; if yes, was a Draft EIR filed? ®Yes (Date: 3/26/14 ) ❑No was a Final EIR filed? ❑Yes (Date: ) ®No was a Single EIR filed? ❑Yes (Date: ) ®No Have other NPCs been filed? ❑Yes (Date(s): ) ®No If this is a NPC solely for lapse of time (see 301 CMR 11.10(2)) proceed directly to ATTACHMENTS & SIGNATURES. PERMITS/ FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE / LAND TRANSFER List or describe all new or modified state permits, financial assistance, or land transfers not previously reviewed: dd w/ list of State Agency Actions (e.g., Agency Project, Financial Assistance, Land Transfer, List of Permits) N/A Are you requesting a finding that this project change is insignificant? A change in a Project is ordinarily insignificant if it results solely in an increase in square footage, linear footage, height, depth or other relevant measures of the physical dimensions of the Project of less than 10% over estimates previously reviewed, provided the increase does not meet or exceed any review thresholds. A change in a Project is also ordinarily insignificant if it results solely in an increase in impacts of less than 25% of the level specified in any review threshold, provided that cumulative impacts of the Project do not meet or exceed any review thresholds that were not previously met or exceeded. (see 301 CMR 11.10(6)) ❑Yes ®No; if yes, provide an explanation of this request in the Project Change Description below. FOR PROJECTS SUBJECT TO AN EIR If the project requires the submission of an EIR, are you requesting that a Scope in a previously 2 issued Certificate be rescinded? ®Yes ❑No; if yes, provide an explanation of this request We are requesting that the requirement to prepare a Final EIR be rescinded due to the project changes. If the project requires the submission of an EIR, are you requesting a change to a Scope in a previously issued Certificate? ❑Yes ®No; if yes, provide an explanation of this request SUMMARY OF PROJECT CHANGE PARAMETERS AND IMPACTS Summary of Project Size Previously Net Change Currently & Environmental Impacts reviewed Proposed LAND Total site acreage 8.3 0 8.3 Acres of land altered 5.9 -0.2 5.7 Acres of impervious area 3.2 0 3.2 Square feet of bordering vegetated 0 0 0 wetlands alteration Square feet of other wetland alteration: Bank: 150 ft -90 It 60 ft(30 It Temp) Land Under Water.- 850 sf -800 sf 50 sf(Temp) Bordering Land Subject to Flooding: 80,000 sf 0 sf 80,000 sf Acres of non-water dependent use of tidelands or waterways 0.7 -0.1 0.6 STRUCTURES Gross square footage 152,768 0 152,768 Number of housing units 141 12 129 Maximum height (in feet) 41.2'(Office) 0 (Office) 41.2'(Office) 49.2'(Apt. Bldg) 0 (Apt. Bldg) 49.2'(Apt. Bldg) TRANSPORTATION Vehicle trips per day 1,144 83 1,061 Parking spaces 237 10 227 WATERIWASTEWATER Gallons/day (GPD) of water use 32,000 -2,720 29,280 GPD water withdrawal 0 0 0 GPD wastewater generation/treatment 30,000 -2,550 27,450 Length of water/sewer mains (in miles) 0.22 (water) 0 0.22 (water) 0.12 sewer 0 0.12 sewer Does the project change involve any new or modified: 3 1. conversion of public parkland or other Article 97 public natural resources to any purpose not in accordance with Article 97? ❑Yes ®No 2. release of any conservation restriction, preservation restriction, agricultural preservation restriction, or watershed preservation restriction? ❑Yes ®No 3. impacts on Rare Species? ❑Yes ®No 4. demolition of all or part of any structure, site or district listed in the State Register of Historic Place or the inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? ❑Yes ®No 5. impact upon an Area of Critical Environmental Concern? ❑Yes ®No If you answered 'Yes' to any of these 5 questions, explain below: PROJECT CHANGE DESCRIPTION (attach additional pages as necessary). The project change description should include: (a) a brief description of the project as most recently reviewed (b) a description of material changes to the project as previously reviewed, (c) if applicable, the significance of the proposed changes, with specific reference to the factors listed 301 CMR 11.10(6), and (d) measures that the project is taking to avoid damage to the environment or to minimize and mitigate unavoidable environmental impacts. If the change will involve modification of any previously issued Section 61 Finding, include a draft of the modified Section 61 Finding (or it will be required in a Supplemental EIR). The project continues to be the comprehensive redevelopment of the former Salem Oil& Grease factory site on Grove Street and Harmony Grove Road in Salem. The redevelopment plans continue to include the demolition of existing buildings and construction of three multi-family residential buildings on the 64 Grove Street parcel and re-use of an approximately 17,000 square- foot commercial office building on the 60 Grove Street parcel. As most recently reviewed, the project included reconstruction of a vehicle bridge over the North River Canal to provide site access to the residential buildings from Harmony Grove Road. Site access from Grove Street was also previously proposed. A shared-use pathway along the North River Canal and a pedestrian bridge between the 60 and 64 Grove Street parcels, which would directly connect the commercial and residential uses, were also previously proposed. The material changes to the project since the most recently reviewed Draft Environmental Impact Report are: 1) Vehicle access from Harmony Grove Road and reconstruction of the vehicle bridge over the North River Canal has been eliminated from the project. The removal of the vehicle bridge reconstruction work reduces potential wetland resource area impacts, potential floodway encroachment, and minimizes potential interference with a future City of Peabody or U. S. Army Corps of Engineers flood improvement project. The Grove Street entrance will be the sole means of site access and egress for the three residential buildings. The design of the parking lot at the west end of the site has been modified to allow large emergency vehicles to loop through the site without requiring a three-point turn. The change in the parking lot layout created one additional parking space. To provide secondary emergency vehicle access, a portion of the shared-use pathway along the North River Canal has been widened 4 i from 10 to 14 feet. 2) Corollary to the site access change, Harmony Grove Road has been dropped from the project name. The project will instead be known as "Grove Street Apartments." 3) The number of residential apartment units for the project has been reduced from 141 to 129. The overall building sizes have not been modified. 4) The existing site access bridge over the North River Canal on the 3 Harmony Grove Road parcel is proposed to be repaired. The repaired bridge will carry the shared- use pathway over the North River Canal to Harmony Grove Road, thereby providing access toward downtown Peabody. 5) The previously-proposed pedestrian bridge over the North River Canal, between the 60 and 64 Grove Street parcels, has been eliminated to minimize potential interference with a future City of Peabody or U. S. Army Corps of Engineers flood improvement project. 6) Two previously-proposed stormwater outfalls to the North River Canal have been eliminated. The outfall pipe associated with the previously-proposed reconstructed vehicle bridge is no longer necessary, since the bridge will not be reconstructed. The drainage system on the 60 Grove Street parcel has been redesigned to convey stormwater to the Salem municipal drainage system which discharges to an existing concrete box culvert in Grove Street, thereby eliminating the need for a new outfall pipe. Previously-proposed rip-rap splash pads in the North River Canal have been eliminated. The splash pads were replaced with two concrete structures which will be embedded into the stone walls that line the canal. Water Quality Volume/Flow calculations for the proposed stormwater management system have been updated to treat the first-inch of stormwater runoff. The proprietary stormwater separator near Grove Street has been increased in size; the elevations of certain bypass weirs have been revised. 7) The Greenhouse Gas analysis for the Project was revised as requested in the comments on the Draft EIR. The energy efficiency of the proposed mitigation alternative substantially exceeds the requirements of the Stretch Code. The specific revisions include increasing the energy efficiency of the Package Terminal Heat Pumps (EER of 11.9), reducing the light power density in the residential buildings (0.55 watts/so, and specifying programmable thermostats to encourage energy savings during non-occupied hours. The Applicant presented the modified project plans to the City of Salem Planning Board at public hearings in fall 2014. The Planning Board commissioned third-party engineering consultants to review the associated traffic impact, site design and stormwater management system changes. The plans were modified where appropriate to incorporate board and public input. The Planning Board approved all of the changes as shown on the modified site plan provided herewith. In April 2014 the Applicant requested that the City of Salem Historical Commission grant a waiver 5 J of the Salem Demolition Delay Ordinance, which would have applied to the proposed demolition and removal of buildings and structures at 60 and 64 Grove Street, so that the redevelopment project could proceed. Consistent with the present plans, the office building at 60 Grove Street was not proposed for demolition. The Salem Historical Commission approved the application following a public meeting in May 2014. The project changes lessen potential project impacts so that there is no longer any exceedance of the MEPA review thresholds associated with Wetlands, Waterways, and Tidelands. Potential impacts to wetland resource areas have been reduced by the project changes. We note that the City of Salem is presently reconstructing the portion of Grove Street adjacent to the project site, in a manner that improves roadway capacity and safety in the project area. Unavoidable potential project impacts have been minimized through careful project design. During construction, erosion and sedimentation controls will be implemented to minimize potential impacts to the adjacent North River Canal. Proper demolition techniques will avoid impacts on surrounding properties. Stormwater runoff quality from the site will improve significantly as compared to pre- construction conditions due to the implementation of modem stormwater management techniques and the site-wide environmental cleanup of the dilapidated industrial site. The Project Proponent has committed to comply with the MEPA Greenhouse Gas Policy to reduce potential future environmental impacts. I 6 1 ATTACHMENTS & SIGNATURES Attachments: 1. Secretary's most recent Certificate on this project 2. Plan showing most recent previously-reviewed proposed build condition 3. Plan showing currently proposed build condition 4. Original U.S.G.S. map or good quality color copy (8-1/2 x 11 inches or larger) indicating the project location and boundaries 5. List of all agencies and persons to whom the proponent circulated the NPC, in accordance with 301 CMR 11.10(7) Signatures: Date 8ignafurdof R sponsible Officer Date Signature of per n preparing or Proponent NPC (if differerft from above) Michal Hubbard Robert H. Griffin P.E. Name (print or type) Name (print or type) MRM Project Management LLC Griffin Engineering Group, LLC Firm/Agency Firm/Agency P.O. Box 388 495 Cabot Street, 2nd Floor Street Street Beverly, MA 01915 Beverly MA 01915 Municipality/State/Zip Municipality/State/Zip 978-922-7089 978-927-5111 Phone Phone 7 (5I TE `—x•?^"s.,� 'xy :` jf t s ��. "nG yy)y�.. 1, ��s- �i L� r• ��)�'0� y r`X rL�� � �� 1 `• -^r Yt ..'. � `5. 'W :S �)�+'. '� �,,, µy sti.l]�h. ..A, .� "rY..A �" � L pie•. ii ��h . . r c...:'1 � •tz �25d` .`1 t° a 1 4 V'`.��e Yi: Y t, $'e• ..— N Y ,�: nYr s '" TlSj V �`^`. �t I ri ° r tL�-d -`+. V `✓ t`t�'• �_ t ��f1 '� � N ✓� aV .v �.r, I q } /+,�.r ,r ,i'�y.+' s� 1^�`,`, i� a+ + Ia�'..cy�'S !.I �, •.a,•+$' of �� II�At� •" .. �_L .eR c.. � ? i ^' , 4�,4a r x.,.y �l 1 f �� „f d j � e_�`4 � 11��r�.-se• �`o,� ?} �+IS`� ;r�_ �°41* h" ,+" ti•ft+ I +idr:. 1r:�.r �`'>'!e tr". a •i-• p; A" a soo a,aaa znoa a gaol a,afla Figure 1'' IPaet IWdu-z,oaureet Site Locus PDain Ref_ USGSSrannedTopoMaps(MassGIS)_ 'N NotuceofPro)ec4Chang& Gritfin Engineering Group, LILC @ARRA PROJECT MANAGEMENT, LLC Beverly, MA Grove Street&Harmony Grove Road r The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Eecutive Office of Energy andEnvironmentaCAffairs 100 Cam6ridge Street, Suite 900 t Boston, 9(A 02114 Deval L.Patrick GOVERNOR Tel:(617)626-1000 Richard K.Sullivan Jr. Fax:(617)626-1181 SECRETARY http:flw .mws.gov/envir May 2,2014 CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROJECT NAME : Mixed Use Development—Harmony Grove Road Apartments PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Salem PROJECT WATERSHED :North Coastal EEA NUMBER : 15043 PROJECT PROPONENT : MRM Project Management, LLC DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR :March 26,2014 Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act(M.G. L. c. 30, ss. 61-62I) and Section 11.08 of the MEPA regulations(301 CMR 11.00),I have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) and hereby determine that it adequately and properly complies with MEPA and its implementing regulations. As described in the DEIR, the project consists of the redevelopment of the former Salem Oil & Grease factory site on Grove Street and Harmony Grove Road.The project includes demolition of existing buildings,bridges,and a chimney, and remediation of the site. It will include construction of three 141-unit apartment buildings, each with a gross floor area of 45,256 square feet(sf), and re-use of an existing 17,000 sf commercial office and storage building. The residential buildings are located on the southwest portion of the site near an existing residential neighborhood. The commercial building is located adjacent to Grove Street and existing commercial buildings. The maximum height of the residential buildings is 49.2 feet. Primary vehicular access is proposed via a new access road from Harmony Grove Road, which will include a crossing of the North River Canal and the railroad tracks. Secondary access is proposed - 1 EEA# 15043 DEIR Certificate May 2,2014 from Grove Street.A pedestrian bridge between the commercial and residential parcels will be provided and a multi-use path is proposed along the length of the canal. Project Site The project site consists of five parcels located at 60 and 64 Grove Street and 1, 3,and 5 Harmony Grove Road in Salem.The total site area is 8.3-acres. It is bounded by Beaver and Silver Street residential neighborhoods to the south,by the City of Peabody to the west,by Harmony Grove Road and Harmony Grove Cemetery to the north,by commercial and industrial buildings to the northeast, and by Grove Street to the east.There is a significant change in grade from the project site to the Beaver Street and Silver Street residences. The Salem Oil&Grease Company occupied the site for 95 years,until 2006.The site includes 2.15 acres of impervious surfaces,consisting of roadways and parking areas,office, industrial and storage buildings,wood and metal bridges, and other infrastructure. The site includes buildings listed on the Inventory of Historic Assets of the Commonwealth. The site is included within the Blubber Hollow historic area(SAL.A). The Inventory identifies the Salem Oil&Grease Company (MHC#SAL.A376)at 60, 64/69 Grove Street,including a commercial building on the north side of the river and a large industrial building on the south side. The North River flows through the site from the west to the east. It is identified in the MassDEP Final Massachusetts 2010 Integrated List of Waters as a Category 5 impaired water body due to Taste and Odor, Sedimentation/Siltation,Phosphorus,Nitrogen, Foam/Floc/Scum/Oil Slicks,Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments,Debris/Flotables/frasb, and Fecal Coliform. The North River supports migratory and spawning habitat for rainbow smelt(Osmerus mordax), American eel(Anguilla rostrata), and white perch(Moron americana).Approximately 2.04 acres of the site is located within filled tidelands.The site includes various wetland resource areas.The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) is expected to formally adopt preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)for Essex County identify the 100-year floodplain at elevation 10.8 NGVD at the project site. Areas of Salem and Peabody adjacent to the North River have experienced considerable flood impact due to constrictions that reduce the hydraulic capacity of the North River. The site is regulated under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan(MCP) and three Release Tracking Numbers(RTNs)have been assigned to the site(3-2131, 3-22167, and 3-24908).The site plans identify three Activity and Use Limitation Areas(AULs) associated with RTN#3- 2131. Permitting and Jurisdiction The project is undergoing MEPA review and is subject to preparation of an Environmental Notification Form(ENF)pursuant to 301 CMR 11.03 (3)(b)(1)(e), (3)(b)(5), (6)(b)(14),and(10)(b)(1)because it requires a State Agency Action and it includes new fill or structure in a regulatory floodway,new non-water dependent use of waterways or tidelands, generation of 1,000 or more new average daily vehicle trips (adt)on roadways providing access to a single location and construction of 150 or more new parking spaces at'a single location,and 2 r EEA# 15043 DEIR Certificate May 2,2014 proposes demolition of a historic structure listed in the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth. The project requires a Chapter 91 License(c.91)from MassDEP. It also requires a Superseding Order of Conditions(SOC)from MassDEP because MassDEP J appealed the Order of Conditions issued by the Salem Conservation Commission. It requires a license (Application for Entry upon MBTA Railroad,Transit or other Property)from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority(MBTA). In addition,the project is subject to the May 5, 2010 MEPA Greenhouse Gas(GHG)Emission Policy and Protocol. The project requires a General Permit(Category 2) from the US Army Corps of Engineers(ACOE) and a National Pollutant Discharge System(NPDES) Construction General Permit(CGP)from the US Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). Also, it will be reviewed by the Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)acting as the State Historic Preservation Officer(SHPO)pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,as amended(36 CFR 800). MEPA jurisdiction is limited to the subject matter of required State Agency Actions. Because the project requires a c.91 License for a portion of the site, subject matter jurisdiction is functionally equivalent to full scope jurisdiction, in accordance with 301 CMR 11.01(2)(a)(3). Therefore, MEPA jurisdiction for this project extends to all aspects of the project that are likely, directly or indirectly,to cause Damage to the Environment as defined in the MEPA regulations. These include GHG emissions, land alteration,wetlands, waterways, traffic/transportation, historic resources, contamination, and construction period impacts. Environmental Impacts Potential impacts are associated with the addition of 1.03 acres of new, impervious surfaces, generation of 1,144 new adt, 0.6 acres of non-water dependent use of tidelands, alteration of 150 linear feet(If) of Inland Bank, 850 feet of Land Under Water(LUW),and 80,000 sf of Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF). Water demand is estimated at 27,000 gallons per day (gpd),the project will generate approximately 30,000 gpd of wastewater and the project will include 0.22 miles of water mains and 0.12 miles of sewer main. Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate project impacts include redevelopment of an existing brownfield site with access to transit,remediation of the project site, construction of a stormwater management system, erosion control and sedimentation measures,provision of public access within the site and along the North River, and rehabilitation of an existing building. Review of the DEIR The DEIR provides a description of the project,plans of existing and proposed conditions at a suitable scale, and identifies changes made to the project since the filing of the ENF. The DEIR includes an alternatives analysis that reviews the Preferred Alternative with the primary vehicular access from Harmony Grove Road and an alternative with primary access from Grove Street that avoids the need for a bridge over the North River Canal. The DEIR provides additional information regarding impacts to wetlands resource areas including the floodplain, stormwater management, water quality,historic resources, and tidelands, and includes an 3 EEA# 15043 DEIR Certificate May 2,2014 analysis of the project's GHG emissions. The DEIR includes a hydraulic analysis to demonstrate the effect of the project on the hydraulic capacity of the North River Canal and planned flood control improvements. The DEIR identifies State Agency Permits and approvals required and discusses the project's consistency with associated regulatory standards and requirements. According to the DEIR,the MBTA has preliminarily approved the project's application to access MBTA property to construct portions of the project within the 30-foot wide easement across the Danvers Branch railroad tracks. The MBTA's final issuance of the permit is contingent upon the Proponent obtaining permission.from PanAm Railways,which uses the tracks, and the selection of an approved and insured contractor. The DEIR states that PanAm. approved the project plans with conditions on February 14,2013. Changes to the project since the ENF include: • refinements to the size and location of drainage structures and pipes; • the addition of an engineered cell at the northwester end of the 64 Grove.Street parcel to contain on-site contaminated soil; • modifications to the site grades along the shared-use pathway and the railroad crossing; • elimination of the previously-proposed parking spaces and trash dumpster at the rear of the 60 Grove Street parcel;and • modifications to the Activity and Use Limits(AUL)proposed by the Licensed Site Professional (LSP),which may continue to undergo revisions as the redevelopment program is finalized. Alternatives Analysis The ENF listed alternative site layouts and site access options;however, it did not provide supporting documentation to facilitate review of the alteratives and associated environmental impacts. In order to explore alternatives for avoiding encroachment of the North River Canal floodway and affecting potential options for long-term flood control associated with the proposed bridge crossing for site access from Harmony Grove Road,the ENF Certificate included the requirement that the DEIR evaluate alterative means of site access,including, at a minimum,providing primary access from Grove Street(identified in the DEIR as the"MEPA- Required Alternative"),which avoids a crossing of the canal, as well as the Preferred Alternative that provides primary access from Harmony Grove Road. As described in the ENF,under the MEPA-Required Alterative,the existing crossing of the North River Canal to Harmony Grove Road will be rehabilitated for pedestrian and bicycle access to the site and site maintenance. Because the existing bridge will remain in place,there will be no change in the flood capacity of the North River Canal. This alternative also requires a revised internal traffic circulation patter, including a larger parking lot at the western portion of the site compared to the parking lot in the Preferred Alternative,to incorporate additional roadway to allow vehicles to turn around and exit the property. The Preferred Alterative would replace an existing bridge with a new vehicular bridge with a greater span and higher vertical clearance over the canal, and would allow access to and from the site via entrances on both Harmony Grove Road and Grove Street. 4 EEA# 15043 DEIR Certificate May 2,2014 According to the DEIR,the alternatives have similar impacts with respect to land alteration,area of impervious surface, wastewater,water supply, soil remediation work,traffic volumes, and use of tidelands. The Preferred Alternative results in greater alteration of wetlands resource.areas,including impacts to 1601f of Bank compared to 6.0 If under the MEPA-Required Alternative and 600 sf of Land Under Water(LUW) under the Preferred Alternative that is avoided under the MEPA-Required Alternative. The DEIR states that the wider and taller hydraulic opening provided by the bridge in the Preferred Alternative,compared to maintaining the existing bridge,will improve flood conditions and is consistent with the width of the canal proposed in the current City of Peabody Flood Improvement Project. According to the results of flood modeling using the ACOE HEC-RAS hydraulic model,the Preferred Alternative will reduce upstream peak flood levels during the 100-year storm by approximately one inch at the Salem-Peabody boundary. The DEIR states that by widening the canal in connection with the new bridge construction,the Preferred Alternative reduces the costs to the ACOE of increasing the flood conveyance capacity of the canal. The DEIR also discusses the differences in traffic patterns associated with the alternatives. According to the DEIR,the Preferred Alternative allows safer vehicular access because the sight distance at the Harmony Grove Road entrance is more than 500 feet, compared to 215 feet at Grove Street. Under the Preferred Alternative,the 978 average daily trips(adt) generated by the residential portion of the project would be distributed between the two access points. According to the DEIR,the MEPA-Required Alternative would cause 70 to 80 percent more of the project-generated traffic to pass through the Grove Street/Mason Street/Harmony Grove intersection,which currently has a high crash rate,compared to the Preferred Alternative. Signage and striping improvements to that intersection by the Proponent would be similar under both alternatives. The DEIR also suggests that under the MEPA-Required Alternative,more project-related traffic will use Beaver Street to access the site.Beaver Street is a narrow,one- way street that enters the Grove Street/Goodhue Street intersection near the Grove Street site entrance. The DEIR asserts that additional traffic would impact the historic nature of Beaver Street. The DEIR also notes that similar impacts to Beaver Street would result from constructing a site entrance on project frontage directly accessing Beaver Street. Based on the comparison of the impacts and relative merits of the alternatives,the DEIR concludes that the Harmony Grove Road access remains the Preferred Alternative. As directed by the ENF Certificate,the DEIR also utilizes the results of the alternatives analysis as the basis of its analysis of the water-dependency of the bridge. According to the c. 91 regulations,the bridge may be determined to be water-dependent if the facility cannot be reasonably located or operated away from tidal or inland waters,based on a comprehensive analysis of alternatives and measures that can be employed to avoid or minimize impacts. The DEIR states that direct access to Harmony Grove Road requires a crossing of the canal,and that two entrances to the site improves emergency access, site safety, and minimizes neighborhood traffic impacts. The DEIR states that on the basis of the alternatives analysis,there is no other feasible location for an access driveway that would avoid the need for a c. 91 license or would lessen impacts. The DEIR does not describe any refinements to the design of the Preferred Alternative that further minimize potential flooding impacts. MassDEP notes that the bottom girders of the 5 EEA# 15043 DEIR Certificate May 2,2014 bridge would be located within the flood way at elevation 7.2 feet to 8.0 feet NGVD,which would allow unimpeded flows only up to the l0-year stone,but not the 50- or 100-year storms. MassDEP also indicates that the bottom girder should be set above the 100-year flood elevation of 10.8 feet NGVD. Waterways The DEIR includes plans showing all project activities proposed within c. 91 jurisdiction, which includes the North River canal and adjacent filled tidelands. Activities proposed within these areas include the bridge and associated driveway across the canal,an area with contaminated soil adjacent to the North River to be remediated,installation of four drainage pipes,reuse of the existing commercial building on the north side of the canal,a pedestrian bridge,and a pedestrian walkway and adjoining open space. The pedestrian access will be provided in an area where existing buildings formerly used for nonwater-dependent uses will be demolished. The water-dependency of the Harmony Grove access alternative is a central issue for the permitting of the proposed vehicular bridge. As noted by MassDEP,an infrastructure crossing, such as the bridge,may be determined to be water-dependent if the facility cannot be reasonably located away from tidal waters based on a comprehensive alternatives analysis. MassDEP recommends that if a second means of egress/access to the site is required on a limited basis, then the feasibility of direct access to Beaver Street should be considered.I note that the MEPA- Required Alternative, with a single access to the site on Grove Street,is not located on or over filled or flowed tidelands. While noting the beneficial aspects of the Preferred Alternative,the DEIR water-dependency analysis does not demonstrate that that the Grove Street access is not a feasible alternative,particularly in light of MassDEP's comments expressing continuing concerns about the hydraulic effects of the bridge. In response to MassDEP's comments on the ENF,the project no longer proposes a new parking lot within the water-dependent use zone on the.filled tidelands north of the canal. According to the DEIR,the continued license use of the commercial building may require additional licensing of minor modifications to the building, including demolition of the existing barrel storage building and installation of a wheelchair ramp at the entrance to the building. According to MassDEP,the commercial building will require licensing since the building has been.vacant since 2002. As a building for nonwater-dependent use,Facilities of Private Tenancy (FPT) are prohibited on the portions of its ground floor on filled tidelands within 100 feet of the North River. MassDEP concurs that the public pedestrian facilities are water-dependent uses. The DEIR reviews the project's compliance with c. 91 engineering and construction standards. The proposed pedestrian bridge will be elevated above the 100-year flood elevation. The vehicular bridge will be located below the 100-year elevation but will be constructed to resist hydrodynamic forces. The vehicular bridge cannot be raised above the 100-year flood elevation because of topographic constraints imposed by the railroad tracks and Harmony Grove Road. The DEIR notes that the bridge will conform to c. 91 standards because it will not pose a threat to navigation,public health or safety or to adjacent buildings or structures if damaged by a storm, and will comply with all relevant requirements of the Massachusetts State Building Code. 6 EEA# 15043 DEIR Certificate May 2, 2014 The DEIR notes that c. 91 requirements related to sea level rise only apply to new nonwater- dependent use buildings in c. 91 jurisdiction. Wetlands Alteration to wetland resource areas include 80,000 sf of BLSF, 1501f of Inland Bank, 850 sf of LUW and 160,700 sf of Riverfront Area. The project includes discontinuing existing discharges and installing new drainage outfalls in different locations. In addition, it will include removal of 20 cubic yards (cy) of dredged material. The project will alter 1401f of Bank in connection with the construction of the vehicular bridge and 10 If of Bank to install the four drainage outfalls into the North River Canal. The DEIR reviews how the project will conform to the Wetlands Protection Act performance standards for Banks, including stabilizing the Bank by constructing concrete bridge abutments and wingwalls or by using rip-rap slope stabilization; widening the canal to improve water- carrying capacity of the channel without impacting low flow conditions;improving soil and surface water quality by managing contaminated soils and removing Total Suspended Solids (TSS)and other pollutants from stormwater, and using rip-rap scour protection around bridge abutments to provide habitat. A Wildlife Habitat Evaluation concluded that alteration to the Bank will not impair its capacity to provide wildlife habitat functions. The widening of the canal at the bridge location will require the dredging of 11 cy of sediment from the canal. An additional nine cy of sediment will be dredged to install three of the four outfalls. Rip-rap splash pads are proposed to minimize scouring from discharge water during low flow conditions in the canal. The total disturbance of 850 sf is below the ten percent or 5,000 sf threshold allowed in the wetlands regulations. The DEIR notes that the project will meet the LUW performance standards by improving water quality,enhancing aquatic habitat, and by meeting the Massachusetts River and Stream Crossing Standards(MRSCS). Both the vehicular and pedestrian bridges are designed to meet the MRSCS by spanning the entire canal without the use of intermediate supports or culverts; the pedestrian bridge will be located above the canal walls and the 100-year flood elevation and will not cause a channel constriction during bankfull flows;the vehicular bridge will span a distance of 38 feet,which is 1.3 times the existing bankfull and exceeds the 1.2 bankfull width standard;there are no changes to the natural substrate or stream bed of the canal; both of the bridges will satisfy the standard requiring an openness ratio of greater than 0.82 feet; and the stream banks on either side of the canal will not be altered by the pedestrian bridge and the vehicular bridge will match the conditions of the canal bank by transitioning between the sloped bank and the concrete abutment and wingwalls. Most of the project site is within the 200-foot Riverfront Area,however the eastern portion of the site is exempt from the Riverfront Area regulations as a Historic Mill Complex. The DEIR states that the remainder of the project site on the south side of the canal within the Riverfront Area is considered degraded according to the Riverfront Area regulations. According to the DEER,the project will satisfy the Riverfront Area standards by improving conditions in the Riverfront Area compared to existing conditions,including remediating areas with contaminated soil; implementing stormwater management measures; and providing a buffer between the canal and project development. Mitigation for the alteration of Riverfront Area due to construction of 7 EEA# 15043 DEIR Certificate May 2,2014 the driveway and vehicular bridge north of the canal will be provided by restoring,at a 2:1 ratio, an approximately 6,000 sf area on the 3 Harmony Grove Road parcel with appropriate native vegetation. The project is proposed within an 80,000 sf area of BLSF,including portions of one of the apartment buildings,the shared-use path,the vehicular bridge and approach ramps, remediation work, site regrading, and landscaping. According to the DEIR,the project will create an additional 4,000 sf of BLSF on the site for a total area of 84,000 sf. The DEIR includes a set of plans in Appendix E showing where BLSF is filled and created on the project site at one- foot increments between elevation 4.feet NGVD and 11 feet NGVD. According to the DEIR,the project complies with performance standards for BLSF because the project will provide 11,300 cubic feet(cf)more flood storage capacity than currently exists on the site,that floodplain capacity is maintained or increased at each increment of elevation,and the bridge is designed to not cause an increase in flood stage and will lessen the peak flood stage in a 100-year storm. The DEIR reviews the project's compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). According to the DEIR,the project will comply with NFIP requirements based on both the existing Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM)and the proposed FIRM that will take effect in July,2014. Stormwater and Rater Quality The project will increase impervious area by 44,671 sf. According to the DEIR,the project will comply with the MassDEP Stormwater Management Standards as a redevelopment project by using a program of Best Management Practices(BMPs)to treat stormwater before it is discharged and by implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)during construction in accordance with the EPA's CGP. The DEIR states that the use of Low Impact Development(LID)techniques is not feasible due to existing industrial development on the banks of the canal,unsuitable soil conditions, filled tidelands,and lack of naturally vegetated areas. The DEIR states that the new outfall will not discharge untreated stormwater. The outfalls include splash pads to dissipate the discharge velocity and reduce stream bed erosion. However, as noted by MassDEP,this design is not permitted by the wetlands regulations,which prohibit alteration of wetlands resource areas such as LUW for the purpose of sedimentation control or attenuation of pollution associated with stormwater discharges. The Division of Marine Fisheries(DMF)notes that the splash pads may not have habitat value for smelt,which typically prefer range of course cobble. The stormwater management system, including the use of swales and an infiltration field, reduce peak runoff rates in comparison to pre-construction conditions for the 2-, 10-,25-, and 100-year storms. The project includes a subsurface infiltration structure to provide the groundwater recharge required by the regulations. The project will remove over 80 percent of the Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in the stormwater by using catch basins,proprietary stormwater pretreatment devices, and a subsurface infiltration structure. The project will prepare 8 EEA# 15043 DEIR Certificate May 2,2014 a SWPPP and a stormwater system Operations and Maintenance Plan, and will remove all illicit discharges from the site. Asa redevelopment project, the project is required to meet the stormwater standards to the maximum extent practicable. The DEIR states that the project will direct only 35 percent of the site's total impervious surfaces to the infiltration structure compared to the standard of 65 percent. The project's use of proprietary separators as terminal water quality treatment devices is also only allowed for redevelopment projects. The DEIR also reviews measures that will be implemented by the project to address the Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for fecal-related bacteria established for the North River. These measures include: • During construction,portable toilets serviced by a licensed sanitary waste management contractor will be used. The toilets will be located outside of the floodplain; • The S WPPP will be implemented during construction and no untreated point-source discharges directed into the North River; • Any illicit discharges into the North River from the site will be removed; • The new sewer line to be installed for the apartment buildings will be tested to ensure there is no leakage; • The existing sewer service for the commercial building at 60 Grove Street will be inspected for leaks and repaired if necessary; • An existing sewer pump station and associated force main located within the floodplain will be removed' • The project will remove tannery sludge beds and place this waste into a lined cell outside the floodplain; • Signage will be placed along the multi-use path to remind pet owners to properly dispose of dog waste; • The landscaping plan will be designed to discourage large aggregations of birds and residents will be encouraged not to feed birds; • The project will provide a stormwater management system that removes TSS, as described above, where currently there is no such stormwater management; • Stormwater from the project's two main outfalls will be equipped with hydrodynamic separators to reduce the likelihood of sediment being resuspended and flushed into the river during peak flows; • A stormwater Operation and Maintenance manual will ensure that the stormwater system is maintained properly; • Infiltration BMPs are proposed that are effective at removing pathogens from stormwater; and, • A Long-term Pollution Prevention Plan will be implemented, including good housekeeping practices and non-structural BMPs such as street sweeping, trash removal, restrictions on fertilizer and pesticide use,and pet waste control. 9 EEA# 15043 DEIR Certificate May 2, 2014 Massachusetts Contingency Plan The DEIR describes the project site's status under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP)and describes proposed activities to remediate contaminated soil conditions. The site is regulated under the MCP pursuant to the Massachusetts Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention Act(MGL c.21E).Three Release Tracking Numbers(RTNs)are assigned to the site (3-2131, 3-22167, and 3-24908). Between 2006 and 2009 a Immediate Response Action(IRA) was implemented that removed oil and hazardous materials,Aboveground Storage Tanks (AST), I Underground Storage Tanks(UST),and other potential release threats. A Phase 1I Comprehensive Site Assessment(CSA) of the entire property was completed in March 2013. The CSA identified site-wide contamination trends,delineated the former tannery infiltration area,and identified several areas where soil arsenic concentrations exceeded Upper Concentration Limits(UCL).The contaminants of concern include metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH),and extractable petroleum hydrocarbon(EPH)compounds. A Phase Il- Identification,Evaluation, and Selection of Comprehensive Remedial Action Alternatives Plan (Phase III)was completed in March 2013 and included a Phase III Remedial Action Plan (RAP) that presented a"Permanent Solution"consistent with MCP requirements. An Activity and Use Limitation(AUL)was assigned to the property in April 2013. The AUL limits the types of activities that can occur on the site,how and where contaminated soil should be moved, establishes utility corridors and a"Relocated Material Cell"in which to place and cap on-site contaminated soil, and sets forth future studies.and obligations. As described in the DEIR,the Relocated Material Cell will be located at the northwestern end of the 64 Grove Street parcel. According to the DEIR,the AUL is consistent with the current development plan, but may be modified in accordance with the final project plans. An AUL established in 1994 that controls access to the basements of the existing buildings will be rescinded after the buildings are demolished. The Phase IV-Implementation of the Selected Remedial Response Alternative was expected to have been completed in September 2013,but has been delayed so that it can incorporate the final design of the project. According to the DEIR, a Response Action Outcome Statement is due in December 2015, subject to sufficient design development of the project through the permitting process. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The DEIR included a GHG analysis in compliance with the MEPA Greenhouse Gas Policy and Protocol ("the Policy"). The Policy requires projects to quantify carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and identify measures to avoid,minimize or mitigate such emissions. The analysis quantifies the direct and indirect CO2 emissions associated with the project's energy use (stationary sources) and transportation-related emissions(mobile sources). Direct stationary source CO2 emissions included those emissions from the facility itself, such as boilers,heaters, and internal combustion engines. Indirect stationary source CO2 emissions were derived from the consumption of electricity,heat or other cooling from off-site sources, such as electrical utility or district heating and cooling systems. Mobile CO2 emissions 10 EEA# 15043 DEIR Certificate May 2, 2014 I included those emissions associated with vehicle use by employees,vendors, customers and others. The DEIR outlined and committed to mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions. i The GHG analysis provided separate stationary source CO2 emission reduction estimates between the Base Case and the Mitigation Alternative for each of the buildings. The results of these separate analyses were then combined to estimate the overall CO2 reductions achievable by the project as a whole. The stationary source GHG analysis evaluated CO2 emissions for two alternatives as required by the Policy including 1) a Base Case corresponding to the 8a'Edition of the Massachusetts Building Code and 2) a Mitigation Alternative,which included energy efficiency design measures in order to meet the Stretch Energy Code (Stretch Code). The current building code incorporates the building energy provisions of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC)2009, which references the American Society of Heating,Refrigerating and Air- Conditioning Engineers(ASHRAE) 90.1-2007 standards. I note that the 9a'Edition of the Massachusetts Building Code, which will be effective on July 1, 2014, will include updated energy-related provisions that are based on IECC 2012 and ASHRAE 90.1-2010 standards and will require greater energy efficiency measures than the current building code. The City of Salem has adopted the Stretch Code(SC) subsequent to its designation as a Green Community under the provisions of the Green Communities Act of 2008. Therefore,the project will be required to meet the applicable version of the SC in effect at the time of construction. The SC increases the energy efficiency code requirements for new construction (both residential and commercial) and for major residential renovations or additions in municipalities that adopt it. Projects may meet the current SC requirements for better energy efficiency than the State's base energy code by either meeting the standard of 20-percent better than ASHRAE 90.1-2007, or in some cases,by using a prescriptive energy code. According to the DEIR, since each residential building is four stories high,they are treated as commercial buildings in the SC. In addition, each building is less than 100,000 sf, and therefore the prescriptive option for complying with the SC is available to the project. According to the DEIR,the project will meet the SC using the prescriptive option,which will reduce energy use of the apartment buildings by 9.4 percent compared to the base energy code;reduce energy use of the commercial building by 6.7 percent compared to the base code; and reduce energy use of exterior lighting by 66.7 percent compared to the base code. Because the electricity is proposed as the only energy source, reductions in GHG emissions mirrors the energy use reductions: GHG emissions from the apartment buildings, office building, and exterior lighting will be,respectively, 9.4 percent, 6.7 percent, and 66.7 percent lower than GHG emissions from the base case. I note that the DEIR used an outdated emissions factor of 829 pounds of CO2 per megawatt—hour of electricity(lbs/M)A7hr). The analysis in the DEIR used eQUEST Version 3.63 modeling software for the analysis of GHG emissions from stationary sources. The project's overall stationary source CO2 emissions were estimated at 427.5 tons per year(tpy)in the Base Case, with the Mitigation Alternative achieving a reduction of 66.7 tpy of CO2, for a project total of 360.8 tpy of CO2 subsequent to the implementation of a number of energy efficient design measures. The project is estimated to achieve a 15.6 percent reduction in GHG emissions in comparison to the Base 11 EEA# 15043 DEIR Certificate May 2, 2014 Case. The DEIR also described additional measures that may reduce GHG emissions,but could not be modeled using the eQUEST software. These include sealing,testing,and insulating HVAC supply ducts,minimizing the use of energy by orienting the buildings with south and east exposure,and providing storage and collection of recyclables. Energy efficiency measures proposed as part of the project include,but are not limited to: • Energy-efficient windows and building envelope that exceed the base building code,including double-pane,low-e glass with a U value of 0.35,R-30 roof insulation, and R-23 wall insulation; • Use of cool roofing materials; • High-efficiency heat pumps with EER 10 percent above the base building code; • High-efficiency heating systems using electric heat pumps with a coefficient of performance(COP) 10 percent more efficient than the base building code; Energy-efficient lighting with interior lighting power density(LPD)at least 10 percent below the base building code; • Energy-efficient exterior lighting including the use of LED fixtures in the parking lots;and, • Use of Energy STAR appliances that will reduce plug loads by at least 10 percent below the base building code. The GHG analysis evaluated the feasibility of adding a 200-kilowatt(kW) solar photovoltaic(PV)installation on the roof of the commercial building as part of this project. The analysis concluded that such a system is not feasible for the project at this time due to its negative Net Present Value and length of the payback period (eight years). However,the project will set aside space on the flat roof of the office building for a possible third-party installation of a solar PV system. The DEIR also analyzed the project's mobile-source emissions using MOBILE 6.2 emissions model and traffic data from a 2011 traffic study. Emissions in the traffic study area were calculated for three scenarios: 2016 No-Build,2016 Build without Transportation Demand Management(TDM)measures and 2016 Build with TDM. Based on projected future background traffic volumes on the roadway network,the 2016 No Build emissions will be 3,774.7 tons per year(tpy). Under the Build without TDM conditions,emissions will be 3,937.2 tpy,with 162.5 tpy attributable to project-related trips. Emissions under the 2016 Build with TDM include implementation of the project's mitigation measures and will amount to 159.2 tpy, for a reduction of 2.3 tpy or 2 percent compared to the 2016 Build without TDM. The TDM measures described in the DEIR include: • Secure,weather-protected bicycle storage with signage directing bicyclists to these facilities; and • A multi-use path through the site with connections to sidewalks on adjacent streets to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle access to the Salem MBTA Commuter Rail Station approximately 0.8 miles away. 12 EEA# 15043 DEIR Certificate May 2, 2014 The DEIR also includes identifies roadway and traffic control signage improvements at the Beaver Street/Grove Street/Goodhue Street and Harmony Grove Road/Grove Road/Mason Street intersections as TDM measures. Such roadway improvements are not typically considered TDM measures, since they are intended to improve traffic flow rather than reduce the number of vehicle trips. The DEIR does not provide details regarding these roadway improvements. Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation According to the DEIR,the project site is not likely to be affected by sea-level rise because it is located over 3.5 feet higher than the mean high water mark in the North River Canal,whereas sea-level rise is predicted in the range of one to two feet. The DEIR states that intensive precipitation events could cause flooding on the site and adjacent streets,but the residential habitable space will be located above elevation 20 feet and the commercial space will be located above elevation 13 feet and are unlikely to be affected by flooding. The most likely impact to the site from sea-level rise and severe storms would be associated with restricted site access,which could become inundated and inaccessible under severe storm and flood conditions. Construction Period Impacts The DEIR describes mitigation measures to be implemented during construction to minimize impacts to noise,air quality,wetlands and water quality. No in-water and silt- producing work will occur from March I"to June I'`,consistent with DMF's recommendations. The project will prepare and implement a SWPPP that will include sedimentation and erosion control measures. Stabilized construction exists will be provided to prevent the off-site tracking of soil. Disturbed areas will be protected from runoff using temporary drainage swales with haybale check dams. To reduce noise impacts,noisy equipment will be operated away from residential neighbors,mufflers will be used on construction equipment and engine idling over five minutes will be prohibited. The use of gas-powered compressors will be minimized by providing temporary electrical service to the site. According to the EENF, diesel construction equipment will use oxidation catalysts and catalyzed particulate filters to reduce diesel emissions. In addition, the project will require the use of ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuel for all off- road diesel equipment. According to the DEIR,the project will comply with all asbestos-removal requirements prior to demolishing the existing buildings. The removal and disposal of asbestos-containing material will be completed consistent with the requirements of 310 CMR 7.09 and 7.15, and MassDEP will be notified at least 10 days prior to asbestos removal work. The DEIR states that the project has set a goal of reusing/recycling 50 percent of the construction and demolition materials. Historic and Cultural Resources According to the DEIR,the only direct impact to historic resources is associated with the rehabilitation of the office building at 60 Grove Street and demolition of the other buildings at 60 and 64 Grove Street. The ACOE will consult with the MHC in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The DEIR indicates that a preliminary archaeological 13 EEA# 15043 DEIR Certificate May 2,2014 survey will be performed in connection with the site's ACOE permitting. No comments were j provided by MHC. f SCOPE Project Description and Permitting The FEIR should include a detailed description of the proposed project and describe any changes to the project since the filing of the DEIR The FEIR should include updated site plans for existing and post-development conditions at a legible scale. To facilitate its review,the FEIR should provide additional narrative to explain and support the analysis of the project's impacts and mitigation, and extract relevant documentation and tables from the Appendices to supplement the narrative. The FEIR.should describe and show on the updated site plans any proposed improvements to the area between the project site and residences on Beaver Street, including plantings,landscape treatments, and fencing. The FEIR should provide a brief description and analysis of applicable statutory and regulatory standards and requirements, and a description of how the project will meet those standards. The FEIR should include.a list of required State permits,Financial Assistance, or other State approvals and provide an update on the status of each of these pending actions. The FEIR should address whether plans are under consideration for development of the remainder of the site(i.e. #1,#5 Harmony Grove Road). As noted in the Certificate on the ENF, the Proponent should consult with the MEPA Office regarding any additional development to determine if potential changes would warrant additional MEPA review and how such review would be structured. Alternatives Analysis The project requires a balancing of the benefits of remediating and reusing this former industrial site while mitigating potential impacts to existing floodplain and tidelands. The City of Peabody and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)are evaluating flooding of the North River and reviewing potential improvements to the system, including the portion of the canal adjacent to the project site. Development of the project site must be designed to avoid exacerbating flooding downstream and an examination of alternatives should demonstrate that all feasible measures are employed to avoid narrowing the scope of alternatives available for flood control. Constructing a new bridge over the North River at this time may reduce feasible options for flood mitigation measures in the future. The DEIR compared the impacts of the Preferred Alternative,with driveway access onto both Harmony Grove Road and Grove Street and the MEPA-Required Alternative with access only onto Grove Street. While documenting the desirability of the Preferred Alternative for the project,the analysis does not support a determination that access cannot be reasonably located away from tidal waters,which is the applicable standard for determining the water-dependency of the vehicular bridge proposed in the Preferred Alternative. The FEIR must include a robust alternatives analysis to support such a finding. 14 EEA# 15043 DEIR Certificate May 2, 2014 The DEIR analysis cited better traffic safety and operations associated with the Preferred Alternative. The FEIR should provide supporting documentation and data to clearly identify the potential alternatives and support the assessment of the relative benefits or impacts of each alternative.A conceptual plan should be provided for each alternative and be used as the basis for an analysis of traffic operations. The FEIR should include, in the narrative and on project plans,the planned improvements to the Harmony Grove/Grove Street/Mason Street intersection and the Grove Street/Goodhue Street/Beaver Street intersection proposed by the City of Salem. The alternatives analysis should consider whether these improvements may change the relative traffic impacts of the two alternatives. In addition,the Proponent should consult with the City of Salem regarding how primary access from Grove Road could be incorporated into designs. MassDEP comments express concern that the bridge would cause a hydraulic constriction that would exacerbate flood impacts and potentially interfere with efforts to alleviate flood conditions in the North River. The DEIR documents that the proposed bridge is beneficial with respect to flooding impacts compared to existing conditions, which in comparison include a lower bridge and narrower canal in this section. According to the DEIR, if a vehicular access bridge to Harmony Grove Road is not provided,improvements to the railings, deck, and bridge abutments of the existing bridge will be required to maintain it for pedestrian use. However,the DEIR does not indicate why this bridge,if maintained for pedestrian and bicycle use, could not be elevated to reduce flood impacts under the MEPA-Required alternative. The FEIR should discuss the nature of the proposed improvements and any opportunities for designing the improvements to lessen flood impacts. Waterways As noted above,the FOR must include a robust alternatives analysis that will support a finding of water dependency or propose an alternative access plan. In addition,MassDEP comments note that the office building is not consistent with the existing c. 91 license for the site and will require a new license. The FEIR should provide more information about the landscaping and design of the riverfront open space and pathway. It should discuss what measures may be necessary to ensure safe pedestrian and bicycle access in the vicinity of the railroad tracks. The FEIR should identify all project elements that will require c. 91 authorization and provide an update on changes to the project necessary for compliance with c.91. Wetlands and Stormwater According to MassDEP,the rip-rap splash pads designed to dissipate flows at the outfalls are not permittable. The wetlands regulations do not allow wetlands resource areas such as LUW to be altered or filled for the purpose of controlling sedimentation or attenuating pollutants in stormwater discharges. The FEIR should review other design options that do not impact LUW or Bank, or demonstrate that the proposed outfalls can be designed to meet regulatory standards. The FEIR should also review the feasibility of incorporating DMF's recommendations for stormwater management measures with habitat value, such as vegetated buffer along the bank. The FEIR should also respond to MassDEP's comments concerning the stormwater management system. This should include: documenting groundwater conditions in support of 15 I i EEA# 15043 DEIR Certificate May 2,2014 the project's treatment of discharges from a Land Use with Higher Potential Pollution Load (LUHHPL); additional information concerning the size and TSS removal ratings of.the proposed First Defense BMPs;and providing additional documentation concerning the suitability of the design, and possible need for a setback, of the infiltration field proposed within the steep slope at the south side of the site. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The DEIR indicates that the project will use the prescriptive option of the SC to achieve the necessary reduction in energy use required of the SC. The FEIR should review the energy efficiency requirements of the prescriptive code applicable to the project and identify the corresponding measure to be implemented to satisfy that requirement. The FEIR should identify any prescriptive code requirements that are not applicable and explain why they do not apply to the project. I note that the DEIR used an outdated emissions factor of 829 pounds of CO2 per megawatt—hour of electricity(lbs/MWhr). The DEIR should revise the results of the analysis of the project's stationary emissions to incorporate the updated GHG emission factor(719 lbs CO2/ MWH)recently published by the Independent Service Operator-New England(ISO-NE). The FEIR should address DOER's comments concerning the modeling results of the analysis of stationary source GHG emissions. DOER notes a poor correlation between the Energy Use Index(EUI) shown in the EENF for the Base and Proposed designs and the benchmark established by the US Energy Information Administration's Residential Energy Consumption Survey(RSCS)should be explained in the DEIR. As noted by DOER,the Base Case EUI is 168 percent greater than the applicable RECS average and the Proposed Case EUI is 118 percent higher than the RECS average. This result is unexpected because of the numerous energy-saving measures incorporated into both design cases,which should result in a lower EUI than the RECS value. As directed by the GHG policy,the DEIR analysis of stationary GHG emissions appropriately uses the building code in effect at the time of the ENF filing to define the Base Case. The DEIR similarly documents measures to.be implemented by the project to meet the current SC.through the prescriptive approach. I note,however,that the energy use reductions documented in the DEIR for the residential and office buildings are relatively modest,with reductions of 9.4 percent and 6.7 percent respectively, compared to the results achieved by other projects subject to the GHG Policy. If modeling results do not increase reductions,then the Proponent should analyze additional energy efficiency measures to further reduce GHG emissions,including: • HVAC: Improve the cooling EER and heating COP of the as-proposed heat pumps to a level that is 15%better than the base code minimum, • Domestic Water Heating: Use of small packaged CHP units sized to meet the domestic hot water. Consult DOER and the applicable electric utility for assistance and information about sizing and available incentives for this option; 16 EEA# 15043 DEIR Certificate May 2, 2014 • Re-evaluate the use of rooftop solar PV systems using the cost per installed kW recommended by DOER; • Incorporate lighting motion sensors, climate control and building energy management systems; • Develop a tenant manual to encourage energy and water conservation, recycling, and use of Energy Star rated appliances to reduce plug loads; and • Consider the development of a"green lease"program whereby tenants agree to pay the landlord recovery costs for energy efficiency improvements in based on predicted cost savings to the tenant. The analysis of additional mitigation measures will also support project permitting in the event that the building permit for the project is sought after July 1,2014. On that date,a new building code with energy use standards based on the IECC 2012/ASHRAE 90.1-2010 standards will go into effect,which will raise the baseline for energy use reductions. Furthermore, an updated stretch energy code(SCII)is expected to be introduced in mid-2014 and will require reduced energy use relative to the new Building Code baseline. It is expected that SCII will require reductions in energy use compared to the building code baseline of approximately 12 to 15 percent. The project may not receive its Building Permit until after the SCII goes into effect, and therefore may be required to achieve greater energy reductions than presented in the DEIR. The DEIR also includes an analysis of the project's mobile-source GHG emissions. As mitigation to reduce GHG emissions,the project proposes to provide bicycle storage facilities, construct a multi-use path on the site to connect to streets and sidewalks leading to the Salem commuter rail station, and make certain roadway improvements to nearby intersections.It is not clear from the DEIR how the effectiveness of the TDM and roadway improvements was determined. The FEIR should provide a narrative description of how the mobile-source GHG analysis was performed, and include data from the traffic study and MOBILE6.2 output to support the emissions reductions associated with the proposed mitigation. The FEIR should also review the feasibility of the following additional TDM measures: • Designation of a resident or management staff as a Transportation Coordinator to promote transportation options and the implementation of TDM measures; • Organization of car/vanpools to nearby employment centers; and • Participation in a Transportation Management Association(TMA)to provide transportation options for residents to nearby employment centers or public transportation centers. The Proponent should refer to the Policy for additional guidance on the GHG analysis. MEPA,MassDEP and DOER staff are available to assist with these efforts and I encourage the Proponent to consult with them regarding the analysis prior to submission of the FEIR. The FEIR should include a.commitment to provide a self-certification to the MEPA Office at the completion of each building or group of buildings. It should be signed by an appropriate professional (e.g. engineer, architect,transportation planner, general contractor)indicating that all of the GHG mitigation measures, or equivalent measures that are designed to collectively achieve identified reductions in stationary source GHG emission and transportation-related measures,have been incorporated into the project. 17 EEA# 15043 DEIR Certificate May 2, 2014 Mitigation The FEIR should include a mitigation section and draft Section 61 Findings for each State Agency that will issue permits for the project.The draft Section 61 Findings should contain clear commitments to implement mitigation measures, estimate the individual costs of each proposed measure,identify the parties responsible for implementation, and include a schedule for implementation. As a condition of a Certificate approving a FEIR(or Supplemental FEIR if necessary), the Proponent must provide a certification to the MEPA Office signed by an appropriate professional(e.g.,engineer,architect,transportation planner, general contractor) indicating that the all of the mitigation measures adopted by the Proponent as the preferred alternative have been incorporated into the project. Alternatively,the Proponent may certify that equivalent emissions reduction measures that collectively are designed to reduce GHG emissions by the same percentage as the measures outlined in the FEIR,based on the same modeling assumptions, have been adopted.The certification should be supported by plans that clearly illustrate where GHG mitigation measures have been incorporated.For those measures that are operational in nature(i.e. TDM,recycling)the Proponent should provide an updated plan identifying the measures,the schedule for implementation and how progress towards achieving the measures will be obtained. The FEIR should indicate whether this Certification will be provided in phases upon completion of each building. The commitment to provide this self-certification in the manner outlined above should be incorporated into the draft Section 61 Findings. Response to Comments The FEIR should contain a copy of this Certificate and a copy of each comment letter received. To ensure that the issues raised by commenters are addressed,the FEIR should directly respond to each comment and not merely refer to a section of the FEIR. This directive is not intended to,nor shall it be construed to, enlarge the scope of the FEIR beyond what has been expressly identified in this certificate. Circulation The Proponent should circulate the FEIR to the individuals and organizations who commented on the DEIR, to any State Agencies from which the Proponent will seek permits or approvals and to any parties specified in section 11.16 of the MEPA regulations. In addition,the FEIR should be made available for review at the Salem Public Library. May 2, 2014 Date chard livan Jr. 18 EEA# 15043 DEIR Certificate May 2, 2014 Comments received: 04/25/2014 Department of Fish and Game (DFG)/Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) 04/25/2014 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(MassDEP)/Northeast Regional Office(NERO) 04/25/2014 James R. Treadwell 04/28/2014 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(MassDEP)Boston Office 04/30/2014 Department of Energy Resources (DOER) RKS/AJS/ajs i I 19 COMMOnwealth OfMassachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries ` 251 Causeway Street, Suite 400 Boston, Massachusetts 02114 _ PauIJ.Diodab (617)626-1520 Director fax(617)626-1509 Deval Patrick Governor Richard K. Sullivan,Jr. Secretary Mary B.Griffin Commissioner April 25,2014 Secretary Richard K.Sullivan,Jr. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs(EEA) Attn:MEPA Office Alex Strysky,EEA No. 15043 100 Cambridge Street,Suite 900 Boston,MA 02114 Re:Mixed Use Development Harmony Grove Road Apartments Salem,MA Dear Secretary Sullivan, The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries(MarineFisheries)has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report submitted by MRM Project Management,LLC for the proposed mixed-use development project at 60&64 Grove Street and 1,3 &5 Harmony Grove Road,along the North River in Salem,MA. The North River supports migratory and spawning habitat for the diadromous species rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordaz),American eel(Anguilla rostrata),and white perch(Moron americana)and specifically provides spawning habitat for rainbow smelt upstream of the project site to the Howley Street Bridge. The project may impact the above listed marine fisheries resources and habitats through the construction of drainage outfalls to include dredging and placement of rip-rap splash pads,dredging for the localized widening of the North River Channel to accommodate the reconstructed vehicle bridge,and associated impacts from stormwater discharges and increased impervious surfaces_The North River is a sensitive system and all efforts to avoid and minimize these impacts should be incorporated into the project design. MRM project management responded to our comments submitted in response to the ENF. We have further comments below: • MRM project management has agreed to avoid in water and silt producing work from March 1st to June 1" during the most vulnerable life stages for rainbow smelt. We recommend that the TOY restriction be added as a permit condition by DEP and the ACOE. • Alteration in river velocities and water depth may impact migrating anadromous fish. The proposed river widening should maintain a maximum velocity of 0.5 to 0.8 m/second,not to exceed 1.2 m/second velocities at expected high flows and a minimum of 6 inches of water depth during expected low flows(Chase 2006). • We recommend maintaining a vegetated buffer along the river bank for stormwater dissipation as well as improvement of smelt habitat.Any alteration to the river bank should be re-planted with native species that will develop a canopy overhanging the river. Shade producing vegetation maintains the quality of smelt spawning habitat by inhibiting periphyton growth. • The riprap proposed for the stormwater splash pads may or may not benefit migrating or spawning smelt. Typically a range of course cobble,including the size range of 10-20cm,has been noted as preferable habitat as it is associated with riffle pool habitats and provides ample substrate for egg attachment. Thank you for considering our comments. Please contact Tay Evans at our Gloucester office at(978)282- 0308 x. 168,should you have any questions regarding this review. Sincerely, Paul Diodati Director PD/te/ko/sd cc. K.Ford,T.Evans,B.Gahagen,K.Ostrikis Salem Conservation Commission Griffin Engineering s Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy &Environmental Affairs f Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office•2058 Lowell Street, Wilmington MA 01887.978 6943200 l7EVAL L PATRICK RIC,IARC K SULJVAiN dl. i uec,nb, seu eta., . DAVID'A'(7119 - Cmunsxb e'� I I April 25,2014 I Richard K. Sullivan Jr.,Secretary Executive Office of RE: Salem Energy&Environmental Affairs Mixed Use Development 100 Cambridge Street Grove Street and Harmony Grove Road Boston MA,02114 EEA# 15043 Attn:MEPA Unit Dear Secretary Sullivan: The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office (MassDEP-NERD) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) submitted by MRM Project Management, LLC to demolish the existing structures and remediate the site in order to construct a 152,768 sf apartment complex and retail project on an 6.8 acre site that straddles the North River in Salem(EEA#15043). The project would include 141 apartment units in three buildings, reuse of an existing 17,000 sf office building, and 237 parking spaces. Two - bridges over and a shared use path along, the North River Canal also are proposed. For 95 years and.until 2006,the project site was occupied by the Salem Oil & Grease factory, and prior to that a tannery. Approximately two acres of the project site are filled tidelands. The site is bisected by the North River Canal. MassDEP provides the following comments. Floodway Encroachment In Floods and Floodplain, Chapter 1 of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) paining series, the issues relating to flooding are reported, "Floodplain development exposes a community to the risk of periodic flooding. Because of these trends, a substantial portion of this country's development is now subject to flooding. Floodplains account for seven percent of the nation's land,but they now include fifteen percent of our urban areas. Floodplain are the home to some 9.6 million households. In an average year, floods cause deaths to 150 people and over$3 billion in property damage. Average annual flood losses continue to increase because of a number of factors. Most Presidential-declared disasters are flood related." This information is available in alternate format Call Michelle Waters.E kanem,Diversity Director,at 617-292-5751.TDD#1A66-5]9.7622 or 1 617-574-6868 Mass DEP Website:www mass.gov/dep i Printed on Recycled Paper I i Mixed Use Development EEA# 15043 The DEIR indicates that proposed access to this project site will be under water, which will put residents at risk during flooding conditions. As stated in the response to the January 6, 2014 correspondence to Heidi Davis,"A portion of Harmony Grove Road and the proposed site and access driveway off of Harmony Grove Road are below the 100-year flood elevation and i will be inaccessible during peak flooding events. This is an existing condition that will remain after the project is constructed."According to The Floodway Encroachment Standard: Minimizing Cumulative Adverse Impacts, May 2013, Alan R. Lulloff, P.E., CFM, `Existing development constructed below the BFE [base flood elevation] is by definition more vulnerable to flood damages." The project proposes to replace the existing bridge near Harmony Grove Road with a new 32-foot-wide and 38-feet long bridge, which includes abutments and wingwalls. This bridge appears to encroach upon the floodway, which can be described as the channel of a river i or stream and the overbank areas that must remain open to carry the deeper, faster moving water during a flood.The DEIR response to the previous correspondence states,"The proposed vehicle bridge, which substantially widens the North River Canal and will be constructed at a slightly higher elevation as compared to the existing bridge, results in a 0.09-foot(approximately 1 inch) decrease in peak water surface elevation along the upstream side of the bridge (River Stat. 48+73) during the 100-year storm event." This comment does not address the fact that the I bottom girders of the bridge, at elevations 7.2 to 8.0 NGVD, would encroach on the floodway, allowing unimpeded flow of only the 10-year (elevation 9.2NGVD/8.4 NAVD) and smaller storms, but not the 50-year (elevation 1.3 NGVD/9.5 NAVD) or 100-year storms (Preliminary, FEMA Flood Profiles for the North River, 107P). Although the bridge-cross section was not provided with the DEIRt'l the compensatory flood storage plans in the DEIR (Sheets SK-4 through SK-10) show the bridge encroachment into the floodway as fill areas at elevations 9 through 11 NGVD. FEMA bridge design standards recommend at least one foot of freeboard above the base flood elevation. Using this standard, the lowest girder of the bridge should, at a j minimum,beset at elevation 11.8 NGVD. i Although the DEIR states that the vehicular bridge would be compliant with the Massachusetts Building Code for construction within a floodplain, the requirements are not explained, so it is not possible to confirm that the bridge design would be conforming. The FEIR should address this issue for consideration in permitting. The DEIR reports that the hydraulic modeling of the pre-project and post-project conditions demonstrates that the upstream peak flood levels in the 100-year flood event would be reduced by about an inch; however, the FOR should explain in greater detail what information is required to satisfy the National Flood Insurance program floodway encroachment review to affirm that the bridge will not cause any rise in flood height.The DEIR has provided HEC-RAS Water Surface Profiles for reaches of the North River in the vicinity of the project. This information is incomplete without an explanation of the encroachment method and the bridge computation method.that were used. It also is unclear that a natural profile, (i.e.,without a bridge) is used to model existing conditions geometry in the multiple profile runs. In addition, the left and right encroachments in each of the cross-sections should be identified to facilitate an understanding of the analysis of flood height and changes in velocities due to proj ect-related impacts. 10 Sheet C-9,revised December 30,2013,included in the Superseding Order of Conditions submittal. I 2 Mixed Use Development EEA H 15043 JAlternatives Analysis The alternatives analysis indicates that eliminating the vehicular bridge across the North j River would have fewer impacts on wetlands resources, including a reduction of inland bank from 150 linear feet Of)to 60 If,and a reduction of impact to land under water from 850 sf to 250 sf. The transportation statements reporting short-comings of the Grove Street access alternative do not appear to have been supported with a traffic analysis in the DEIR. In Section 2.2.2, it is mentioned that there would be traffic deficiencies at the project's Grove Street access relating to increased traffic volumes on Grove Street and the potential for congestion. It is a concern that the DEIR has not identified or considered the benefits of a roadway improvement project that is planned in the vicinity of Grove Street. If this project is not sufficient to address traffic deficiencies, it would be appropriate to evaluate additional traffic mitigation at this and nearby locations to minimize the project's impacts. Waterways Jurisdiction I The DEIR indicates that the existing office building at 60 Grove Street was built on filled tidelands pursuant to license number 606 issued by the Massachusetts Board of Harbor and Land Commissioners in 1881. The DEIR indicates that the Historic High Water Line represents the jurisdiction of Chapter 91 at this site and the existing canal, which is below the Historic Low Water Line, is classified as flowed tidelands and therefore subject to Chapter 91 jurisdiction. MassDEP does not concur with the DEIR assertion that continued use of 60 Grove Street is consistent with waterways regulations at 310 CMR 9.05(3)(b). Therefore, the Department will require a Chapter 91 license application. Pursuant to 310 CMR 9.25(1)(c), "(a)ny license shall expire if the fill or structures are abandoned and not used for the purpose for which they were I licensed for a period of five consecutive years or more." Waterways license 606 did not have a I use statement, but tannery use is a reasonable implied authorized use. The DEIR indicates the building at 60 Grove Street was built in 1912 and Salem Oil and Grease Company occupied the building until approximately 2002 and it has been vacant ever since. The Department has determined that the proposed change in use of 60 Grove Street is a nonwater-dependent activity requiring a Chapter 91 license. The Department understands that the proposed building renovation of 60 Grove Street is intended for office use; however, the proponent is made aware the building renovation and change in building use is subject to the requirements of 310 CMR 9.51(3), including the prohibition of Facility of Private Tenancy (FPT) on the ground floor within 100' of the project shoreline. I The Department recognizes that the Secretary can make a determination that the vehicular bridge is water-dependent if he finds that such alternative site access cannot reasonably be located away from the North Canal, based on a comprehensive analysis of alternatives (310 CMR 9.12(2)(d). The DEIR indicates that there are no other feasible locations for access driveways or bridges that would avoid the need for a Chapter 91 license. The DEIR presents only two project site access alternatives; the Preferred Alternative includes a second means of vehicular access via a bridge over the North Canal to Harmony Grove Road as well as access directly at Grove Street. The MEPA Alternative includes a single means access at Grove Street. The DEIR indicates topographic constraints and neighborhood density preclude site access from Beaver Street. The Department recognizes the limiting factors for Beaver Street access. However, if a second means of vehicular access is required for the development of the 3 Mixed Use Develonment EEA ft 15043 i I site by local ordinance or other provision, including limited access only for emergency vehicles, the Proponent should further evaluate and determine whether Beaver Street access is feasible. j Open Space and Exterior Public Facilities: The waterways regulations at 310 CMR 9.52(1) require that the project provide public open space facilities. Specifically, 310 CMR 9.51(3)(d) requires that one-square-foot of the project site be preserved as open space for every-square-foot of tideland area within the footprint of buildings, containing nonwater-dependent use. Since the proposed project involves the re-use or renovation of an existing building, the ground level open space shall be provided to the maximum reasonable extent. The DEIR indicates that the proponent proposes to construct a shared use pathway on the site 64 Grove Street and a pedestrian bridge over the North River Canal connecting the 64 and 60 Grove Street properties. The Department concurs that the path and bridge are water dependent uses consistent with 310 CMR 9.12(2.)(a) as these are intended for public use and will be open during daylight hours. However,the site layout plans presented in the DEIR appear to show the portion of the pathway running adjacent to the MBTA tracks, as the access driveway serving the office building from Grove Street. The Department recommends that the Proponent provide greater design details of the proposed path and pedestrian bridge, and provisions necessary to promote safe, public access that is attractive and secure for 24 hour use as appropriate. 641aierways Application Status: The Department has not received a Chapter 91 license application. Upon receipt if an application that meets the minimal filing standards as set forth in 310 CMR 9.11(2)(b), including receipt of the Secretary's Certificate concluding the MEPA review,the.Department will schedule a public hearing. Wetlands and Stormwater The Stormwater Management Plan Report in Appendix G indicates that rip-rap splash pads are to be provided at each outfall to dissipate the discharge velocity and minimize the stream bed erosion. The proponent's consultants were advised (Heidi,Davis correspondence, January 6, I 2014) that this design is not permitted under the wetland regulations, 310 CMR 10.05(6)(k). Wetlands resourceslz, including land under water,may not be altered or filled for the control of sedimentation or the attenuation of pollutants in stormwater discharges. In addition, the Stormwater Management Standard 1 specifies that new Stormwater outfalls may not cause erosion of wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth. Therefore, the proposed erosion control design will need to be changed, and the proponent's consultant will need to provide a new demonstration that the discharge will not cause erosion or scour,for compliance with Standard 1, by computing the stonnwater discharge velocity, and determining the ability of the ground or surface to resist erosion, in accordance with the Stormwater Management Handbooks,Volume 3, Chapter I page 2. The Stormwater Management Plan Report states, "(s)tormwater infiltration at other locations on the project site is not practicable due to numerous Activity and Use Limitations (AUL) areas." The document also clarifies, "The existing paved areas and industrial building near proposed Outfall#1 are recorded as Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) areas. The gravel t'l Except bordering land subject to flooding,isolated land subject to flooding,land subject to coastal storm flowage,or riverfront area. 4 Mixed Use Development EEA N 15043 area between the existing Finishing Building and Building No. 59 near proposed Outfall #2 contain buried drums filled with boiler ash that will be removed as part of the site remediation program. The area near Outfall #3 A-9 is documented as containing tannery sludge infiltration beds that will be remediated. The area near outfall 44 also is designated as an AUL area." These areas constitute a Land Use with Higher Potential Pollutant Load (LUHHPL), as explained in MassDEP comments on the ENF. The stormwater management system needs to be designed to comply with this standard fully for the areas of new development, and if the standard cannot be met fully for the redevelopment portions of the site, there must be a clear demonstration that the proposed system includes the best of the best management practices that are practicable. Data for three test pits were provided, with notations reporting that the estimated seasonal high groundwater table (ESHG)W) ranges from elevation 5.9 NGVD to 7.6. However, the plans provided after the data do not show the location of these test pits, and it is unclear when the test pits were dug, and how the ESHGW was determined. This should be addressed in the FEIR. The stormwater management system has been changed since the ENF review. Downstream Defender and First Defense proprietary separators are now proposed. The Stormwater Management study provides some information on TSS removal efficiency, including third-party evaluations for the Downstream Defender, but no information on First Defense was provided. There also is no information on the sizes of units that are proposed. Therefore, MassDEP advises the proponent's consultants to review the technology evaluation information on the UMASS stormwater technology database clearinghouse (www.masteu.net), as explained in the Stormwater Management Handbook, Volume 2, Chapter 4 to address the deficiencies. In consideration of the third-party provided and the rating of 2 on the UMASS website for both devices, the proponent's consultants should be cautious in the use of the study results when redesigning the stormwater management system.-Although both devices may have a removal efficiency as high as 70 percent,their sizing, design, and BMP maintenance must adhere as much as possible to the recommendations in the third-party evaluations and the caveats provided in the MASTEP Technology Reviews. The total suspended solids (TSS) calculations will need to be revised in the FEIR to reflect the third-party evaluations, and guidance provided by MASTEP, recognizing that the TSS removal ratings were based on laboratory conditions using a synthetic sand/soil mixture. As explained in the DEIR, there are limited opportunities for low impact development on the project site, as currently proposed. Even so, in uncontaminated areas of the site, the landscape plan could include tree box filters, and walkways and surface parking could be pervious to minimize the runoff that would contribute pathogens and contaminants. By reducing the volume of runoff to the North River, these LID measures would be appropriate for consistency with the Total Maximum Daily Loads for Pathogens within the North Coastal Watershed The siting of the infiltration basin,within a steep slope at the property line is reported to be acceptable because the guidance in the Stormwater Management Handbook, Volume 2, Chapter 2, page 104-106 does not have a specific slope setback requirement or restrictions. However,the same issues appear to be applicable, irrespective of whether the infiltration basins is a surface or a subsurface basin, and no information is provided in the DEIR to show that the subsurface infiltration system will perform as required, that nearby structures will be protected, and that the I i 5 i I Mixed Use Development EEA# 15043 i slope will remain stable. Unless slope stability calculations demonstrate that the design and slope will not be compromised, infiltration practices should be set back, a minimum horizontal distance of about 50 feet from slopes greater than 15 percent. Greenhouse Gas(GHG)Emissions The DEIR includes an evaluation of GHG emissions (Appendix H) which is generally consistent with the MEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol. The direct and indirect stationary source GHG emissions were modeled using eQUEST v3.64 (DOE-2.2). The GHG analysis considered the stationary source GHG emissions for the project, and itis reported that CO2 emissions will be reduced by about 15.6 percent (66.7 tons/yr), and the proposed transportation demand management associated with the project are estimated to reduce mobile source GHG emissions by about 2.0 percent (3.3 tons/yr), for a total of 11.9 percent reduction compared with the base case. However, the DEIR has not demonstrated that this level of energy j efficiency satisfies the Stretch Building Code,which is applicable in Green Communities,including Salem. The proponent is advised that the Stretch Code requirements are expected to require an increase in efficiency of about 12-15 percent above the current 20 percent energy efficiency in the existing Stretch Code, when the IECC2012 and ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 becomes the new t baseline energy code on July 1,2014. The FEIR will need to address this issue. In general, the building designs credited in the analysis toward stationary source GHG emissions reductions are cool roofs, high performance building envelops, high efficiency beat pumps (EER 10 percent higher than MA Building Code), lighting power density 10 percent better than Code, energy efficient exterior.lighting (LED), and EnergyStar equipment, where applicable. There appear to be a variety of additional measures that can be taken to achieve a higher level of energy efficiency. However,project's such as this have a split incentive that is an obstacle to achieving significant levels of energy efficiency. Specifically, the proponent would have to pay a higher cost for a more efficient building, which would benefit the tenants. Strategies to overcome this issue need to be addressed in the FEIR. The proponent is encouraged to consider leasing terms that advance energy efficiency, such as has been done in New York City. Green leases create a pass-through where both the landlord and tenant share the costs and benefits of energy efficiency. Generally, both parties agree on the annual savings due to energy efficiency, and the tenants pay the owner recovery costs based on those predicted savings. Additional information is available on green lease language at the following website: hitp:Hm,tvw nvc gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2flc70lc789a0/index,i spvpage1D=mayor press release&catID=1194&doc name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nvc.gov%2 Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F201la%2Fpr109-11 html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1. It also would be advantageous to develop a green tenant manual emphasizing the need for energy savings, particularly energy demand associated.with plug loads. .The US Energy Information Administration is reporting that plug loads are among the fastest-growing energy uses for commercial buildings, accounting for about 30 percent of the energy demand. Educating tenants on this issue, identifying efficient equipment, (e.g., computers, scanners, printers, electronic equipment,microwaves, coffee makers, and other appliances), and providing on-going I 6 i 1 Mixed Use Development EEA H 15043 strategies to control the energy used by the plug loads will contribute toward higher levels of energy efficiency. Massachusetts Contingency Plan/M.G.L. c.21E Contaminated Soil and Groundwater: Three contamination sites, including Release Tracking Number (RTN) 3-2131, RTN 3-22167, and RTN 3-24908 are combined under RTN 3- 2131,which has three Activity and Use Limitations. From the Phase III study the contaminants of concern in the soil are PAHs, arsenic, chromium, and lead. The site wide risk is associated with arsenic, as the average concentrations of all other contaminants are below the applicable Method I S-1 standards. The volume of material to be removed is approximately 750 cubic yards with another 100 cy of material to be removed from three isolated locations. The Phase III study reports,"The options for the soil that exceeds UCLs are capping in-situ with an Engineered Barrier, removal with off-site disposal or removal and relocation into an on-site containment cell. Capping in-situ would be the most cost effective option and the least disruptive. However, capping in-situ would require placement of fill in a flood plain and most likely would not be permitted under the wetland regulations because there is no area for compensatory storage. Removal with off-site disposal and/or relocation to an on-site containment cell would be the preferred options. The difference between the two would be the cost of disposal versus the cost of an Engineered Barrier since excavation,stockpiling, and i site restoration would be the same for either option." The DEIR, however, indicates that the tannery sludge bed waste will be placed in a lined cell outside the floodplain." The FEIR should demonstrate and explain how the proposed site remediation and disposal plan conforms to the applicable MCP/21E requirements. The MassDEP Northeast Regional Office appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed project, Please contact Heidi.Davis@state.ma.us, at (978) 694-3255 for further information on the wetlands issues. If you have any general questions regarding these comments, please contact Nancy.Baker state.ma us,MEPA Review Coordinator at(978)694-3338. Si rel , D. Vio I Deputy Regional Director I cc: Brona Stenon,Massachusetts Historical Commission Ben Lynch,Jerome Grafe,Tom Maguire,MassDEP-Boston Rachel Freed,Heidi Davis,MassDEP-NERD City of Salem,Planning Board,DPW,Conservation Commission City of Peabody, Planning Board,DPW James Treadwell i ' 7 i I Strysky, Alexander(EEA) From: Maguire,Thomas (DEP) Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 1:03 PM To: Strysky,Alexander(EEA) Cc: Baker, Nancy(DEP); Davis, Heidi(DEP) Subject: Harmony Grove-Salem Alex: Nancy Baker indicated DEP sent over our comments on Friday. I just wanted to flag 1 item: Section 4.5.1 on page 36 indicates that the BLSF elevation agreed upon by both MassDEP and the applicant as a condition of settling the appeal on the SORAD is EL 10 feet NAVD (EL 10.8 feet NGVD), based on the Preliminary 2012 FEMA study. The 2012 FEMA study indicating the 100-year flood elevation is 10.0 feet NAVD(EL 10.8 feet NGVD) has since been finalized by FEMA and will become effective on July 16,2014. On Page 36, it indicates EL 10.0 feet NAVD (EL 10.8 feet NGVD) is more conservative (meaning higher)than the flood elevation developed by the Applicant's HEC-RAS analysis. The applicant's HEC-RAS analysis does not take into account future climate change,and was not reviewed in depth by MassDEP,so as such, EL 10.0 feet NAVD(EL 10.8 feet NGVD)should not be viewed as being conservative. EL 10.0 feet NAVD is instead the minimum elevation required to establish the horizontal and vertical extent of BLSF as specified at 310 CMR 10.57 based on the most recent available data from FEMA. The 2014 FEMA Elevation 10.0 feet NAVD extends along the North River from the Salem/Peabody municipal boundary through the site. Tom Maguire, MassDEP Wetlands Program 1 i 04-29-14 Harmony Grove Apartments Salem EEA 15168 Stationary GHG Sources DOER Comments JJ Ballam Due to the small size and relatively minor impact of the as-proposed office space, these comments are limited to the as-proposed multi-family apartments. Conformance with the MEPA GHG Policy and Protocol (the Policy) : Grid GHG Emission Coefficient: The Policy requires that the most current published value by ISO-NE of the average ISO-NE system GHG emission factor(lbs CO2/MWH) be used in the computation of the projected GHG emissions. Page 2 of the GHG Analysis(Analysis)submittal, states that a value of 829 lbs per grid supplied MWH was used in the submittal. The current(2012)value is 719 lbs per grid supplied MWH The quantification of the projected GHG emissions should be revised accordingly. Building Energy Code: The project has elected to use the 2007 ASHRAE 90.1 energy code as the base building energy code. Salem has adopted the Mass. Stretch Building Energy Code(SC)which is the effective code. The DOER reminds the proponent that after July, the 2010 ASHRAE 90.1 will be the only ASHRAE 90.1 energy code option in effect in the updated base energy code. Building Data(Areas and occupancy type are from the Analysis Tables IA and B.) Occupancy AREA Benchmark EUI sf 2005 RECS j Multi-unit Apartment (typical of 3 buildings) 45,256 76 Multi-unit Apartment Total 135,768 76 Office Space 17,000 1 77 The description in the submittal includes parking garages,but does not specify whether they are above grade non-enclosed, enclosed, or underground. If the garages will be fan ventilated volumes,the related energy for both the base and mitigated case must be included in the calculation of the overall energy consumption and related GHG emissions. Submittals should include elevations, sections and a floor plan of the as- proposed buildings. i 04-29-14 Harmony Grove Apartments Salem EEA 15168 Stationary GHG Sources DOER Comments JJ Ballam Provide a description of the as-proposed HVAC systems(e.g. are the as-proposed heat pumps PTHPs or roof or ground mounted units connected to a warm and cool forced air distribution system). Energy Modeling energy mo ed in this submittal. Submittal of the modeling e ener modeling files were not included Th g files is required by the Policy. The DOER understanding of the procedure and protocol used to model the projected energy consumption for the as-proposed apartment buildings, as confirmed in a telephone conversation with the GHG energy modeling consultant,is as follows: 1) As the individual buildings are less than 100,000 sf,the proponent can use the SC's prescriptive compliance path. 2) To comply with the MEPA GHG Policy and Protocol (Policy),the quantification of the projected energy usage and associated stationary GHG emissions,the proponent.must model the building using an approved simulation software application. 3) The Policy also requires that for communities that have adopted the SC,the modeling must be done per the protocol and.procedures of the 2007 ASHRAE 90.1 appendix G(energy only) standard. 4) Pursuant to the above,the proponent has elected to construct the model as- proposed case by meeting and/or exceeding the provisions of the prescriptive SC for all of the regulated loads and to otherwise comply with appendix G for unregulated loads including, schedules and plug loads. The base case model is fully compliant with Appendix G using whereas all regulated loads and equipment are compliant with the 2007 ASHRAE 90.1 Appendix G standard. The DOER accepts this approach with the following proviso: The SC prescriptive compliance path was designed to, on average; achieve between a 13 to 15%reduction in the energy consumption of a building in comparison with a design that is base code compliant for buildings less than 100,000 sf without imposing the requirement for computer"simulation energy modeling. For this reason,the DOER review uses this level of reduction as a measure comparing the level of mitigation achieved as compared with what is expected from compliance with the SC. 2 04=29-14 Harmony Grove Apartments Salem EEA 15168 Stationary GHG Sources DOER Comments JJ Ballam Results of Energy Modeling: (Based on the Monthly Energy Consumption by End Use reports for the base and as-designed cases in the Analysis, Appendix A) Multi-unit Electric Gas Combined % Apartment vs. Buildings MWh MMBTU kBTU kBTU kBTU EUI Benchmark EUI Baseline 2100 7165 7165200 0 7165200 53 -31% Proposed 1902 6490 6489624 0 6489624 48 -37% A% -9% N/A -9% -9% GHG Indirect Direct Combined TPY CO2 755 0.00 755 684 0.00 684 A%As-proposed .vs. -9% _9% Base Discussion: The DOER has several concerns with the above results: 1) The EUI resulting from the base case model scenario is 31%lower than the benchmark average EUI for the population of buildings in the same category located in the Northeast as published in the in DOE's 2005 residential energy consumption survey(RSCS). In the DOER's opinion,the base case EUI is unrealistically low and calls into question the accuracy of the model. The model should be verified and/or revised and rerun. 2) The 9%reduction in the buildings' energy consumption achieved by the as- proposed mitigated case is rather modest. This may be in part due to the issue discussed in(1)above, whereby,due to the base case EUI being unrealistically low,the%reduction for the as-proposed case is negatively impacted.. 3) As air source heat pumps have been included in the as-proposed design model, Appendix G requires use of packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHP)for buildings into which the as-proposed apartment buildings are included. PTHPs are defined in 90.1 as `intended for mounting through the wall to serve a single room or zone." In Table B of the Analysis, the cooling capacity of the AC unit is given as 15 Tons (180,000 BTUH), which would clearly exceed the capacity of the cooling capacity of a typical PTHP; calling into question whether PTHPs or some other system was actually modeled. The proponent should provide a clarification of this 3 i i i i 04-29-14 Harmony Grove Apartments Salem EEA 15168 Stationary GHG Sources DOER Comments JJ Ballam i, apparent discrepancy,or,if required, revise and rerun the energy model accordingly. Mitigation: Energy Design Mitigation Measures (EDMs): Based on the information included in Table 4 in the Analysis,the SC compliant prescriptive measures included in the as-proposed design are: Measure Value %Improvement Base Proposed Roof R-value 20 30 500/0 Window U-value 0.55 0.35 36% Walls R-value 13 23 77% LPD (W/sf) 0.7 0.6 14% AC EER 10.8 11.9 10% HP COP 3.02 3.32 1 107b The level of mitigation as shown above is compliant with the prescriptive path of the SC. LED Parking Lot Li hg ting: The DOER commends the project for adopting this significant measure. Photovoltaic Solar Energy: The cost data included in the evaluation of this measure is out of date. The DOER directs to the project to this link to current cost data:httu7//www mass gov/eea/enerev-utilities- clean teeh/renewable energy/ros-ans/qualified-generation-units.html. A current budgetary cost of.$4.00 per installed kW is a conservative value. The evaluation should be revised and resubmitted accordingly. Suggestions for Further Efficiency and GHG Mitigation: • HVAC: Improve the cooling EER and heating COP of the as-proposed heat pumps to a level that is 15%better than the base code minimum. • Domestic Water Heating: Use of small packaged CHP units sized to meet the domestic hot water. Contact the DOER(617 626 1070)and the electr c utility which will be serving the project for assistance and information about sizing and available incentives for this option. 4 Strysky, Alexander (EEA) I From: James R Treadwell Urtreads4@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 1:38 PM To: Buckley, Deirdre(EEA); michaela jergensen; Karen Adams Cc: Strysky, Alexander(EEA); Lynn Duncan; RoseMary O'Connor Subject: EEANo.15043, DEIR (March 2014), Harmony Grove Road Apartments(previously reviewed as Legacy Park), Salem Attachments: GroveSt-DemoDelay-Application.pdf,ATT00002.htm Begin forwarded message: FYI. I note that the PDF document cited below was apparently not transmitted to MEPA,MHC or USACOE. In my opinion,the information in the PDF could be of interest to these Agencies in connection with the historic preservation review that will be conducted,relative to the subject project,pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Thank you,Jim Treadwell. I I 1 Strysky, Alexander (EEA) From: James R Treadwell Urtreads4@gmail.com] Sent: Friday,April 25, 2014 6:13 PM To: Buckley, Deirdre (EEA) Cc: Strysky, Alexander(EEA); RoseMary O'Connor Subject: EEA No. 15043, DEIR, Mixed Use Development/Harmony Grove Road Apartments, Salem To: Secretary Richard K. Sullivan, Jr. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs ATTN: MEPA Analyst,Alex Strysky 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 (9th floor) Boston,MA 02114 From: James R. Treadwell,AICP 36 Felt Street Salem,MA 01970 (978)744-6080 jrtreads4@gmail.com Subject: DEIR,EEA No. 15043 Mixed Use Development/Harmony Grove Road Apartments (previously reviewed as Legacy Park) Dear Secretary Sullivan, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR),dated March,2014. 1. The Approved Minutes of the Salem Planning Board meeting of 10/18/12,that are included in Appendix A of this DEIR,indicate the following: "Mr. Puleo asked if they would do any clearing on the opposite side of the site with the new parcel. Mr. Griffin stated that they were not proposing anything off of 41 or#5 Harmony Grove Road. Mr.Puleo asked if it will be improved. Mr. Correnti stated that sidewalks will be replaced and repaired and brush will be cleaned up. They will make sure it is safe and clear." My understanding of this discussion was that a general cleanup and the clearing of brush, fugitive vegetation, debris, fallen trees, etc, currently cluttering the 41 Harmony Grove parcel,would be accomplished during implementation of the project. However, a provision related to such action is apparently not included in the Project's approval documents. Accordingly, if the MEPA staff should find that removal of such impediments would have a beneficial impact to flood flow, carrying capacity, flood storage ,etc, I would recommend that the Proponent be requested to take appropriate action to avoid, mitigate or minimize the cause of the adverse impact. 2. The City has received funding from the MassWorks Infrastructure Grant Program to provide enhancements to Grove Street. This Grove Street improvement project, that was announced by Secretary Bialecki on November 13, 2013, and has an anticipated construction start date of August 2014, is intended to address traffic and transportation issues related to the Harmony Grove Road Apartments t and other development in the North River Canal Corridor. Attached is an article that appeared in"Salem Life"that contains a brief description of the Grove Street project. A current and in-depth accounting of the project entitled "Grove Street, City of Salem, Massachusetts, MassWorks Infrastructure Grant Program,Mack Park Neighborhood Presentation, April 8,2014", can be found on the City's web site at Department of Planning and Community Development/Additional Links Economic Development/Business and Economic Development/Studies and Reports. The subject DEIR does not consider the cumulative environmental impacts of the Harmony Grove Road Apartments project and the MassWorks funded Grove Street Improvement Project even though a) a major element of the Grove Street project includes a "Preferred Strategy" for the Grove/Goodhue/Beaver Streets that would involve the entire Grove Street frontage of the Harmony Grove Road Apartment project,b) the Grove Street improvements that are tangential to and immediately downstream of the Harmony Grove Road Apartments,are located within the 100 Year Flood Plain of the North River and could involve wetland/waterways impacts and c)the "Primary Access from Grove Street" alternative analysis,required by the DEIR Scope,apparently did not consider the proposed improvements and enhancements included in the Grove Street project. To satisfy 301 CMR 11.01(1)(d), the environmental impacts associated with Grove Street Improvement Project, in my opinion, should be included in the subject EIR 3. Regarding the proposed plans for remediation of the sludge beds, and particularly "the material relocation work" that could involve noxious fumes and could take "approximately one week" to complete, I would suggest that a public information plan and program be developed by the Proponent and the LSP, in concert with the Mack Park Neighborhood Association,to insure that the residential community,that could be impacted by this action,will be thoroughly informed as the remediation planning and activities proceed. 4. Regarding the existing MBTA railroad crossing,the DEIR, at Page 5, indicates that the branch is infrequently used and that trains move slowly. Also, at Page 7,it is indicated that a MBTA License is required,that discussions have been conducted with MBTA and PanAm but evidence of results of these discussions are not included in the DEIR. I am attaching a graphic entitled North Shore Transportation Study Salem to Danvers, not dated, attributable to "T"/PB/DMJMHARRIS, with Data Sources: MassGIS,MBTA. This Plan has been known as the SPUR line and recognizes a commuter rail branch from the main rail line in Salem to Danvers and Peabody. If implemented, train traffic on the existing railroad tracks could be expected to be frequent and not slow. Could development of the Harmony Grove Road Apartment project, as proposed and with the major vehicular access road utilizing the existing MBTA crossing,negate the future use of the existing rail line by mass transportation?In my opinion,the EIR should analyze this aspect of the Harmony Grove Road Apartment proposal to ascertain if the project's impact on the potential for future mass transit development is adverse and if such an impact can be eliminated, minimized or mitigated? Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, James R. Treadwell, AICP 2 i i Grove Street Upgrades Get Fiscal Boost Compiled by Jesse Romani „: browntields,and abandoned facto- Editor ries into commercial storefronts,open green space,and new resideuces.These The state of Massachusetts has _ private investments will,in tum,add pledged$l2 million in funding for Sa- to our tax base,create local jobs,and lem through the MassWorks infrastrue- . _c.- provide needed housing for our growing tore Program to help support develop- __ community.An enhanced transporta- ment and growth in the city. tion infrastructure is essential to both The money will be used to help pay stimulate and accommodate this positive for improvements on Grove Street from �:_. r: n new erowth.” Harmony Grove Road to Goodhue —" "`` `'""- Through the Mass Works Infrastruc- Street.The plan is m create better cir- Mayor Driscoll speaks at the announcement. p Photo courtesy of Gry of Salem tore Program,Gov.partners Patrick's culation and add pedestrian and bicycle Administration partners with local cam- accommodations.MassWorks funds will "These funds will help implement munities and helps municipalities make be used for construction,environmental transportation improvements that are targeted investments in infrastructure remediation,and project design. an important component of our strate- such as roadways.streetscapes,water, The project will directly support the gic plan to revitalize the North River and sewer to facilitate and support new proposed redevelopment of Legacy Park Canal Corridor."Salem Mayor Kim- and sustained housing and economic and four other key sites within the North berly Driscoll said at a news conference growth throughout the state. River Canal Corridor to create a total of announcing the funding."Our goal is In 2012,the state approved 26 proj- 315 housing units. to transform the area,turning blight, ects worth ready S38 million. 3 I North SharreJy�Transportation Improvement Steady SALE 6 \ JIDMM i .� . s,o .�/. . '.\ '��g�i� I��s� !` �\ fir' r ` T wind x: � of ? ✓ ..�a� M '1 � M,` t \�\t �� L r J� 1 �9�--� --+,., amu Iw>=Ac,R..i Z+ gL:y+r`✓ Rf�er uW Pe` �g ��n, \L.1, ^hu f �' a '�r c2 � ,, � e {e e.. .. e -� iii Tr ✓rlv 1�Ca.,* Py.. Y Orn ' 1 .i �+ir �\ �:epi ��� -.,< r •" t s� J'}'�! `�:. �`�\f <<(�i ay`- X. 3 Legend ao ;F. a m a o FREIGHT LINE SALEM TO DA NVERS -= MB TA EXISTING SERVICE 0 0.25 0.5 \ x Miles Data Souroes:MassGiS MBTA � - i I, 4 j I i