The URL can be used to link to this page

64-552 - 24 FOREST AVENUE - CONSERVATION COMMISSION (2) �y �- �a-,,�- Gam.-�,� �- �+�,. mak - sS a a tl� - -- _ B l t� Footprint Power® RECr NED f 24 Fort Avenue, Salem, MA 01 970 �l�l 2 12014 DEFT.OF PLANNINC& Tom Devine, Conservation Commission Agent COMMUNITY[7 `>" -OPMENi City of Salem 120 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 RE: DEP File#64-552 -Salem Harbor Station Demolition and Construction Project, request for stockpiling in a resource area Dear Tom, In accordance with Special Condition 50 of the Salem Conservation Commission Order of Conditions we are requesting additional areas located within the 100 year flood zone for the temporary storage of demolition materials. Attached in Figure 1 is the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Phase 1 Diagram found in the Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan submitted to the Conservation Commission to support the approval mentioned above. The 100-year flood zone is indicated in light green and material storage is restricted in those areas unless approval is granted from the Con Com. The oil tanks designated with B3, B4, D6 and B5 in this area are scheduled for demolition in July and August and they are located entirely within the resource area. Once cleared the area is needed for storage of demolition material. We request permission to store material in footprint of the four oil tanks. Attachment 1 contains the best management practices we will employ to ensure the storage of materials does not contribute fugitive dust or sediment to Salem Harbor. The demolition material will be brick, concrete, steel, dirt, gravel and other miscellaneous non-hazardous material. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this matter. We look forward to your reply. Sincerely, Robert R DeRosier, PE, CSP 7�7r Environmental Specialist Date Footprint Power Salem Harbor Operations LLC Reducing Carbon Emissions One Step at a TimeTM ® RUBINAND RUDMANLu Attorneys at Law T.617.330.7000 F:617.330.7550 John A. DeTore 50 Rowes Wharf,Boston, MA 02110 Direct Dial:617-330-7144 E-mail:JDeTore@rubinrudman.com October 15, 2013 VIA HAND DELIVERYAND ELECTRONIC MAIL M. Kathryn Sedor, Esq. Energy Facilities Siting Board One South Station, 5`"Floor Boston, MA 02110 RE Application of Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP for a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest, EFSB 13-1 Dear Ms. Sedor: Pursuant to your letter dated October 1, 2013, please find the Final Decision issued in EFSB 12-2 on October 10, 2013 and a copy of the Application for a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest("Application")with the associated citations. We have provided three, three-hole punched hardcopies for inclusion in your binders. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jo eTore JAD/dm Enclosures cc: Andrew G. Greene, Director(w/out enclosure) James Buckley, General Counsel (w/out enclosure) Service List(w/out enclosure) Salem Public Library 1429742_1 WWW.RUBINRUDMAN.COM t R.17 9�@ eta a per, ` ^.7 i 072013 r RUBINAND • " RUDMANur Attorneys at Law T:617.330.7000 F:617.330.7550 50 Rowes Wharf, Boston, MA 02110 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL MEMORANDUM To: Richard A. Davey, Secretary of Transportation Kenneth Kimmell, Commissioner, DEP Eric Worrall, Acting Regional Director, DEP Northeast Regional Office Ben Lynch, Director, DEP Division of Wetlands and Waterways Kevin Brander, P.E., Section Chief, DEP Northeast Regional Office James Belsky, Permit Chief, DEP Northeast Regional Office, Division of Air Quality Steven D. Coan, State Fire Marshal, Department of Fire Services From: John A. DeTore Re: Application of Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP for a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest, EFSB 13-1 • Date: October 4, 2013 Enclosed please find a disk with Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP's ("Footprint") Application for a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest with respect to a generating facility in Salem, Massachusetts ("Application"). This Application is being filed by Footprint with the Energy Facilities Siting Board ("Siting Board" or EFSB") on October 11, 2013 pursuant to G.L. c. 164, §§ 69K%2 - 0'/2. This Application, along with the attached Notice of Adjudication and Notice of Adjudicatory Hearing ("Notice"), is being served on you at the direction of the Siting Board. No action is required by you or your office regarding this Application unless you wish to intervene in the Siting Board proceeding, or wish to submit written comments regarding the Application, in which case you must file a petition to intervene or submit comments in accordance with the deadlines set forth in the attached Notice. Please note that the attachments related to the Application are not being served on you. The attachments are or will be available at the Siting Board's offices, One South Station, 5a'Floor, Boston, MA 02110. If you would like a disk with any of these documents, Footprint would be happy to make one available to you. Please feel free to contact John DeTore at 617 330-7144 to obtain a disk of any of these documents. • 1415901_1 WWW.RUBINP,UDMAN.COM r� • COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD NOTICE OF ADJUDICATION NOTICE OF ADJUDICATORY HEARING EFSB 13-1 Notice is hereby given that Footprint Salem Harbor Development LP ("Footprint"), 1140 Route 22 East, Suite 303, Bridgewater,New Jersey 08807, will file an Application with the Energy Facilities Siting Board (the "Siting Board") on October 11, 2013 for a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest ("Certificate") with respect to its proposed 630 megawatt (MW) (692 MW with duct firing) natural gas-fired, quick-start, combined-cycle generating facility and associated structures (together the "Generation Facility"). In this adjudication, the Siting Board will review Footprint's Initial Petition, filed on August 5, 2013 and Footprint's Application, to be filed on October 11, 2013. In its Application, Footprint requests that the Siting Board issue in the form of a composite permit the following approvals for the Generation Facility: 1. A Special Permit for an Essential Service use pursuant to Section 3.0 of the City of Salem's Zoning Ordinance -Use Regulations, ordinarily issued by the Salem Zoning • Board; and Variances from the City's Dimensional Requirements pursuant to Section 4.0 of the Zoning Ordinance, ordinarily issued by the Salem Zoning Board; 2. A Chapter 91 License, pursuant to G.L. c. 91 and 310 CMR 9.00, ordinarily issued by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection; 3. A Comprehensive Air Plan Approval and Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit, pursuant to G.L. c. 142A- 142M, 310 CMR 7.00, and 40 CFR 52.2 1, ordinarily issued by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection; 4. An Industrial Sewer Use Permit, pursuant to G.L. c. 21, § 43 and 314 CMR 7.00, ordinarily issued by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection; 5. Department of Transportation consent to issuance of permit to build on lands formerly used as a railroad right-of-way, pursuant to G.L. c. 40, § 54A, ordinarily issued by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation; 6. A State Fire Marshal Above Ground Storage Tank Permit, pursuant to G.L. c. 148, § 37, ordinarily issued by the Massachusetts Department of Public Safety; 7. A Fuel Storage Tank Permit pursuant to G.L. c. 148, § 13 and an Inflammables License pursuant to Chapter 14 of the Salem Code of Ordinances, ordinarily issued by the Salem City Council and Fire Chief; • 1415056_1 tl October 4, 2013 Page 2 If you have any questions regarding the Application,Notice or the proceedings before the Siting Board, please feel free to contact M. Kathryn Sedor, the EFSB's Presiding Officer in this matter, at (617) 305-3525. Thank you for your attention to this matter. • • ,1 • 8. Approval of(1) Site Plan Review, (2) Planned Unit Development Special Permit, and (3) Special Permit for a Flood Hazard Overlay District,pursuant to G.L. c. 40A and Sections 7.3, 8.1 and 9.5 of the Salem Zoning Ordinance, ordinarily issued by the Salem Planning Board; 9. Approval to connect to the City of Salem public sewer and discharge industrial wastewater, pursuant to Chapter 46 of the Salem Code of Ordinances, ordinarily issued by the South Essex Sewerage District; 10. Approval to connect to the City of Salem water system,pursuant to Chapter 46 of the Salem Code of Ordinances, ordinarily issued by the Salem Water Department; 11. Approval of demolition of existing buildings pursuant to Chapter 12 of the Salem Code of Ordinances, ordinarily issued by the Salem Inspectional Services Department; and 12. A Building Permit for new construction,pursuant to Chapter 12 of the Salem Code of Ordinances, ordinarily issued by the Salem Inspectional Services Department. The following are important dates in the Siting Board's review of Footprint's Initial Petition and Application: • Friday, October 11, 2013 -Footprint to file its Application • • Monday, November 4, 2013 - (1) Deadline for persons wishing to be admitted as a party to this proceeding to file a Petition to Intervene or Participate with the Siting Board; (2) Deadline for submitting written comments to the Siting Board • Petitions to Intervene or Participate should include both a mailing address and an e-mail address for the petitioner's representative • Paper copies of all Petitions to Intervene or Participate and written comments must be served upon Footprint's counsel, John DeTore, Esq., Rubin and Rudman LLP, 50 Rowes Wharf, Boston, MA 02110, at the same time they are filed with the Siting Board • Wednesday,November 13, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. - Procedural Conference in Hearing Room A at the Boston offices of the Siting Board • Tuesday,November 19,2013 -Deadline for persons granted party status to issue written Information Requests to Footprint • Tuesday,December 10,2013 -Wednesday,December 11, 2013 - Adjudicatory hearings beginning each day at 10:00 a.m. in Hearing Room A at the Boston offices of the Siting Board • The proposed Generation Facility will be constructed at the property of the existing Salem Harbor power station, located at 24 Fort Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts (the"Property"). 2 14150561 L� The Property is a 65-acre parcel, which has been used for power generation since 1951. The • Generation Facility will be constructed on approximately 20 acres, and the remainder of the Property will be available for future development. The Property is bordered by Fort Avenue and the South Essex Sewerage District wastewater treatment plant to the north; Salem Harbor and Cat Cove to the east and northeast; the City of Salem's Blaney Street Ferry terminal and several mixed-use buildings to the southeast; and by Derby Street and Fort Avenue to the west. Residential neighborhoods and the Bentley Elementary School are located to the west across Fort Avenue and Derby Street. The Property is located in an industrial zoning district and almost the entire parcel is within the Salem Harbor Designated Port Area. A majority of the existing buildings and infrastructure of the existing facility will be demolished, with the exception of the existing Community Outreach Building and guardhouse, which will be renovated. Footprint will remediate the Property as may be required under Chapter 21E and the Massachusetts Contingency Plan. On June 28, 2013, the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Zoning Board") issued a decision granting Footprint's Petition for(1) a Special Permit for an Essential Service use pursuant to Section 3.0 of the City of Salem's Use Regulations; and (2)Variances from the City's Dimensional Requirements pursuant to Section 4.0 ("Zoning Board Decision"). Footprint has indicated that it is unable to construct its Generation Facility because, on July 17, 2013, Michael Furlong and William Dearstyne, both residents of Salem, appealed the Zoning Board Decision • pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, § 17 (the"Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal"). As long as the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal is pending,pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, § 11, the subject Variances cannot take effect and construction of the Generation Facility cannot begin. Footprint has requested that the Certificate be in the form of a composite of all permits, approvals or authorizations that otherwise would be necessary for the construction and operation of the Generation Facility pursuant to G.L. c. 164, §§ 69K'h - 690'/2. On August 5, 2013, Footprint filed an Initial Petition for a Certificate with the Siting Board. On August 8, 2013, the Chairman of the Siting Board accepted Footprint's Initial Petition for a Certificate and held that the Siting Board would (1) defer a decision on the merits of the Initial Petition; and (2) consider the merits of the Initial Petition concurrently with a hearing on the Application. The Siting Board will review Footprint's Application to determine: (1) the compatibility of the facility with considerations of environmental protection, public health, and public safety; (2)the extent to which construction and operation of the generating facility will fail to conform with existing state and local laws, ordinances, by-laws, rules, and regulations and reasonableness of exemption thereunder, if any, consistent with the implementation of the energy policies contained in chapter 164; and (3) the public interest or convenience requiring construction and operation of the facility. See G.L. c. 164, § 690'/2. • 3 14150561 l d • The Siting Board will review Footprint's Initial Petition to determine whether Footprint is prevented from constructing the Generation Facility because of delays caused by the appeal of any approval, consent, permit, or certificate. See G.L. c. 164, § 69K%. A copy of the Initial Petition and Application may be inspected at the offices of the Siting Board at the address set forth below, as well as at Salem Public Library, 370 Essex Street, Salem, MA 01970. Any person desiring further information regarding the Notice, including information regarding intervention or participation in the proceeding may contact the Presiding Officer at the following address: M. Kathryn Sedor Energy Facilities Siting Board One South Station Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (617) 305-3525 Date: October 4, 2013 • • 4 1415056_1 THE COMMONWEALTH EALTH O MASSACHUSETTS ]ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD ONE SOUTH STATION BOSTON, MA 02110 (617)30573525 4 Q - DEVAL L.PATRICK DEPT. OFF. GOVERNOR MAUR Md7Y tA MEMORANDUM TO: Kenneth Kimmel, Commissioner, MA Department of Environmental Protection Kimberly Driscoll,Mayor, City of Salem Richard A. Davey, Secretary, MA Department of Transportation Stephen D. Coan, State Fire Marshal, MA Department of Fire Services FROM Andrew Greene, Director, MA Energy Facilities Siting Board CC:: John A. DeTore, Esq. Service List in EFSB 12-2 DATE: August 16, 2013 RE: EFSB 13-1, Footorint Salem Harbor Development LP: Initial Petition and Application for a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 69K'/-690'/ I am writing this memorandura to alert you to a new Energy Facilities Siting Board Proceeding that may affect a permit within the jurisdiction of your agency or municipality. The proceeding, initiated on August 5, 2013 by Footprint Salem Harbor Development LP, is a "certificate proceeding"involving an existing proposal by Footprint to construct a new electric generating facility on the site of the current Salem Harbor Station. The new proceeding could affect some or all of the state and local permits that have been or will be issued for the facility. I. Background In August 2012' as you may be aware, Footprint filed with the Siting Board a petition for approval to construct its proposed generating facility.' That petition, docketed as EFSB 12-2is currently under review in an adjudicatory proceeding before the Siting Board. 2 In its ; anticipated 1 Footprint Salem Harbor Development LP, EFSB 12-2. 2 Evidentiary hearings on the petition to construct have been completed. At its July 11, 2013 public meeting, the Siting Board directed its staff to prepare a Tentative Decision approving the Petition. After reviewing the Tentative Decision, the SitingBoard will FAX:(617)345-9101 TTY:(800)323-3293 www.mass ooy/dyu EFSB 13-1 Page 3 Footprint has identified as necessary for construction and operation of its proposed facility. An agency or board within our purview has the authority to issue one or more of those permits.' The second part of the Certificate-proceeding initiation process is the filing of an Application. An Application sets out in detail the bases for an applicant's Certificate request and identifies the specific permits that the applicant seeks to have included in the Certificate. Footprint has not yet filed its Application. As stated in the enclosed Determination issued on August 8, 2013 by the Chairman of the Siting Board, Footprint cannot file its Application tuiless and until the Siting Board issues a Final Decision in EFSB 12-2 approving the Company's proposed generating facility.s Ill. Future When Footprint files its Application for a Certificate, it is required by statute to serve a COPY of the Application and the Notice of Adjudicatory Proceeding on the Secretary of each Executive Office and on the municipality in which the proposed generating facility would be located. To ensure that you receive timely notice of the Application(the second part of the Process, described above), the Siting Board will forward a copy of the Notice to you shortly after the Notice is filed with the Board. If you would like to designate a different person to receive the Notice on your behalf, please notify me. The filing of the Application will trigger a 30-day intervention period. Any agency or municipal body whose permit is included in Footprint's Certificate Application may file a Petition to intervene in the proceeding. The Siting Board encourages such petitions, as the Board has benefited significantly in previous Certificate proceedings from agency and municipal participation. 4 The Siting Board directed Footprint to file a co py Of its tial Petition with each ent whose permit Footprint seeks to include in the Certificate. If you have not received a COPY of the Initial Petition and would like to receive one,please contact me. s On August 13, 2013, Footprint filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Request for Waiver with respect to the Determination. F 43X:(617)345-9101 TTY:(800)323-3298 tirnv.mas_ s.00y�n� I COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SACHLISETTS Energy Facilities Siting Board Petition of Footprint Salem Harbor Development ) EFSB 13-1 LP for a Certificate of Envirorunental Impact and Public Interest Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 69 KY, ) August 8, 2013 ) DETERMINATIONS ON REVIEW OF INITIAL PETITION AND FILING OF APPLICATION I• INTRODUCTION On August 5, 2013 Footprint Salem Harbor Power Development LP ("Footprint"or "Company") filed with the Energy Facilities Siting Board("Siting Board") an Initial Petition for a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest,pursuant to G.L. c. 164, §69K/z- 690Y2 ("Certificate"). Footprint seeks the Certificate so that the Company may proceed with the construction and operation of a new 630 MW natural gas-fired electric generating facility at the Present location of the Salem Harbor Station in Salem, Massachusetts ("proposed generating facility"). The proposed generating facility is currently separate Proceeding.' under review by the Siting Board in a For the reasons set forth below, the Siting Board will: (1) defer a decision on the merits of Footprint's Initial Petition until Footprint has filed an Application for a Certificate, and (2)not accept the filing of an Application unless and until the Siting Board issues a Final Decision approving the proposed generating facility. II. THE COMPANY'S INITIAL PETITION Footprint states in its Initial Petition that the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Zoning Board") on June 28;2013'granted certain zoning approvals for the proposed generating facility. Specifically, Footprint states that the Zoning Board issued a decision granting Footprint's petition for(1) a Special Permit for an Essential Service use pursuant to Section 3.0 of the City of Salem's Zoning Ordinance, and (2) variances from the City's Dimensional Requirements pursuant to Section 4.0 of' Zoning Ordinance (Initial Petition g ance ("Zoning ,, n at 2 . F ( n Board D ' Footprint states that, on July 17, 2013, two residents of Salemappealedthe Zoning Board Decision pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, § 17("Zoning Appeal"or "Appeal') t See Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development 1, Docket Number EFSB 12-2. EFSB 13-1 August 8, 2013 permitOr certificate." G.L. e. 164, § 69K%,par: Initial Petition. 1(vi). Footprint asserted this ground in its The matters raised by the Initial Petition necessarily will be related to matters raised by the Application, and adjudicating them concurrently will save resources and time. Pursuant to 980 CMR 6.02(4), a decision on the Company's Initial Petition is hereby deferred. The Siting Board shall accept an Application for a Certificate of Envir Public Interest from the Company and consider the merits of the Initial onmental Impact and Petition concurrently with a hearing on the Application. V. DETERMINATION REGARDING APPLICATION FILING Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 69L% (3); "for the construction oan Application must contain a copy of the petition f a generating facility approved under the provisions of G.L c. 164, §69J'/." Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 690%, the Siting Board may issue a Certificate only if the Board determines that the issues raised by state or local agencies regarding a proposed generating facility"have been addressed in a comprehensive manner by the board in its approval of said generating facility under section 69J'/or in its review under section 69K%." Based on these statutory provisions, and on the comprehensive nature of the findings that the Siting Board is required to make in a Certificate proceeding pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 690%2, the Board will allow the filing of an Application only if the facility at issue has been approved by the Siting Board.' At this time, the Company's proposed generating facility has not been approved by the Siting Board. The Siting Board thus directs Footprint to file its Application in this proceeding if, and after, the Siting Board has issued a Final Decision approving the facility tinder G.L. c. 164, § 69J'/a. Dated this 8th day of August, 2013. Steven Clarke, Acting Chair Energy Facilities Siting Board 3 Section 69L% allows this requirement to be waived "for emergency or unforeseen conditions which may jeopardize the health and safety of the public." See also 980 CMR 6.06(1). Footprint has not alleged any facts that would justify a waiver. . 3 Footprint Power® 24 Fort Avenue, Salem, MA 01970 004vy� OFp 1 Tom Devine Y� I 4/4 4,Conservation Commission <p„�4 120 Washington Street- 3rd Floor 4F Salem, MA 01970 Hr Re: Footprint Power Salem Harbor Operations.LLC Dear Mr. Devine: Effective August 4, 2012, Footprint Power Salem Harbor Operations LLC ("Footprint Salem Harbor') has become the successor in interest to Dominion Energy Salem Harbor, LLC ("DESH"). Such succession was accomplished through Footprint Salem Harbor's parent, Footprint Power Acquisitions LLC,acquiring all of the outstanding membership interests in DESH. At Closing of the transaction, Footprint Power Acquisitions LLC merged DESH into its wholly-owned subsidiary, Footprint Salem Harbor. Footprint Salem Harbor will continue to hold the permits related to the facility and will continue to operate the plant with the same personnel as prior to the transaction. Please find attached a list of the ongoing or recently completed activities under your jurisdiction. If you have any questions please contact Robert DeRosier, Environmental Manager, at rderosier(@footprintsalemharbor.com or 978-740-8402. Sincerely, cott . ilverstem ' President and COO Date Footprint Power Salem Harbor Operations, LLC Reducing Carbon Emissions One Step at a TimeTM i Project Date approved Status In kind replacement of 4 timber piles June 18, 2012 Ongoing Repair sinkholes near sheet pile wall July 12, 2010 Complete Removal of dolphin structures May 13, 2010 Complete Replacement of dock house October 21, 2009 Complete North side drainage December 29, 2009 Complete Table 1 -Footprint Salem Harbor-Recent Conservation Commission Projects Reducing Carbon Emissions One Step at a TimeTM Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy &Environmental Affairs Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office•2058 Lowell Street, Wilmington MA 01887.978-694-3200 DEVAL L PATRICK MAEVE VALLELY BARTLETT Governor Secretary DAVID W.CASH Commissioner September 11, 2014 VIA U.S. MAIL AND VIA EMAIL Mr. Scott G. Silverstein Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP 1140 Route 22 East, Suite 303 Bridgewater, NJ 08807 Re: Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Notice of Final Permit Decision Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP PSD Appeal No. 14-02 PSD Permit: Application No.NE-12-022, Transmittal No. X254064 Dear Mr. Silverstein: The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(MassDEP), Bureau of Waste Prevention, acting under authority of a federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration(PSD) delegation agreement with the United States Environmental Protection Agency(U.S. EPA) dated April 11, 2011, is hereby issuing and providing you with notice of final permit decision regarding the PSD Permit, Application No. NE-12-022, Transmittal No. X254064 (Footprint PSD Permit), which MassDEP initially issued to Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP for construction and operation of a combined cycle electric generating facility in Salem, Massachusetts on January 30, 2014 under 40 CFR 124.15. On September 2, 2014, the U.S. EPA's Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) denied the petition for review, which was jointly filed on March 3, 2014 by four individuals (specifically, Jeff Brooks, Andrea Celestine, William Dearstyne, and Linda Haley). See In re Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP, PSD Appeal No. 14-02, Order Denying Review (EAB, September 2, 2014). Thus, in accordance with 40 CFR 124.19, this letter serves as the final permit decision by MassDEP for the permit. All conditions of the Footprint PSD Permit, as issued by MassDEP on January 30, 2014, are final and effective as of the date of this letter. This information is available in alternate format.Call Michelle Waters-Ekanem,Diversity Director,at 617.292.5751.TDD#1.866-539-7622 or 1-617-574-6868 MassDEP Website:w .mass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit-Notice of Final Permit Decision Transmittal No.X254064,Application No. NE-12-022 September 11,2014 Page 2 of 3 Public notice of this final agency action will be published in the Federal Register pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19. In addition, notice of this Final Permit Decision will be published in the Massachusetts Environmental Monitor. Regards, P � Susan P. Ruch, Esq. Deputy Regional Director &Acting Permit Chief MassDEP—Northeast Regional Office cc: Matthew F.Pawa and Wesley Kelman Pawa Law Group,P.C., 1280 Centre Street,Newton,MA 02549 Petitioner Jeff Brooks Petitioner Andrea Celestine Petitioner William Dearstyne Petitioner Linda Haley John A. DeTore' Amy E.Kwesell and Lauren Liss Rubin and Rudman LLP, 50 Rowes Wharf,Boston,MA 02110 United States Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) New England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Mail Code OEP05-2 Boston, Massachusetts 02109-3912, Attn: Air Permits Program Manager George Lipka,Tetra Tech, 160 Federal Street, P Floor,Boston,MA 02110 Board of Health, 120 Washington Street, 4°1 Floor, Salem,MA 01970 Fire Headquarters,48 Lafayette Street, Salem,MA 01970 City Hall,93 Washington Street, Salem,MA 01970 Board of Health,7 Widger Road,Marblehead,MA 01945 Fire Headquarters,One Ocean Avenue,Marblehead,MA 01945 Town Hall, 188 Washington Street,Marblehead,MA 01945 Metropolitan Area Planning Council,60 Temple Place,Boston,MA 02111 Deirdre Buckley,MEPA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900,Boston,MA 02114 John Ballam Department of Energy Resources 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 1020,Boston,MA 02114 Department of Public Utilities,One South Station,Boston,MA 02110 Robert J. Shea and Kathryn Seder Energy Facilities Siting Board One South Station,Boston,MA 02110 Sharma Cleveland,Esq. Conservation Law Foundation, 62 Summer Street, Boston,MA 02110 Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit-Notice of Final Permit Decision Transmittal No.X254064,Application No.NE-12-022 September 11,2014 Page 3 of 3 ecc: EPA: Ida E.McDonnell Pawn Law Group,P.C. MassDEP/Boston:Karen Regas,Yi Tian,Marc Wohnan,Glenn Pacheco,Madelyn Morris MassDEP/WERO:Marc Simpson MassDEP/CERO:Roseanna Stanley MassDEP/SERO: Thomas Cushing MassDEP/NERO: Ed Braczyk,Cosmo Buttaro, Jeanne Argento, Susan Ruch, Eric Worrall,Marc Altobelli and Mary Persky_ T COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF ADJUDICATION EFSB 12-2 ' FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP Notice is hereby given.that pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 69J'/<, Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP ("Footprint"), 1140 Route 22 East, Suite 303, Bridgewater; New Jersey 08807, has filed with the Energy Facilities Siting Board ("Siting Board") a Petition for approval • to construct and operate a natural gas-fired, combined-cycle, quick-start power plant capable of generating 630 megawatts ("MW") (nominal) (the "Facility") at the Salem Harbor Power Station site, 24 Fort Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts. (With duct firing under summer conditions, the Facility will be capable of generating an additional 62 MW, for a total of 692 MW.) Footprint anticipates that the proposed Facility would begin commercial operation in June 2016. The proposed Facility is subject to Siting Board review. The Petition has been docketed by the Siting Board as EFSB 12-2. The Siting Board will review Footprint's Petition pursuant to G.L. c. 164, §§ 69H, 69J'/a, which require the Siting Board to ensure a reliable energy supply for the Commonwealth with a minimum impact on the environment at the lowest possible cost. C - The Siting Board will conduct a public comment hearing to receive public comments on the proposed Facility at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 19, 2012 at Salem High . School, 77 Wilson Street, Salem, Massachusetts. At the public comment hearing, Footprint will present an overview of the proposed Facility. Public officials and the public will then have an opportunity to ask questions and make comments about the proposed Facility. The public comment hearings will be recorded by a court reporter. Interpreters for both Spanish and Portuguese will be available at the public comment hearings for any members of the public who need translation in order to ask questions or make comments. The Siting Board will also accept written comments on the proposed Facility at the public comment hearing. Written comments also may be filed with the Siting Board at the address below, on til 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 3, 2012. Footprint proposes to construct its Facility on the northwest 16-acre portion of the 65 acre Salem Harbor Power Station site used for power generation since 1951. The 65-acre site is bordered by Fort Avenue and the South Essex Sewerage District ("SESD") wastewater treatment plant to the north; Salem Harbor and Cat Cove to the east and northeast; the Blaney Street Ferry terminal and several mixed-use buildings to the southeast; and by Derby Street and Fort Avenue to the west. Residential neighborhoods and the Bentley Elementary School are located to the west across Fort Avenue and Derby Street. The existing Salem Harbor Power Station, which comprises four separate units, was " owned and operated by a subsidiary of Dominion Resources, Inc. from 2005 until August 3, 2012, when an affiliate of Footprint became the owner. Units 1 and 2,both coal-fired, were removed from service on December 31, 2011. The two remaining units—one coal-fired and one 12967882 . y oil-fired -- are scheduled to be shut down on June 1, 2014. The existing Salem Harbor Power Station will be demolished by Footprint consistent with state and local requirements, all above ground features will be removed, and the site will be remediated. The proposed Facility will be housed in an 115,000 square foot building, ranging from 26 to 125 feet high; the main stack will be 230 feet high. This compares with existing buildings totaling 205,000 square feet with multiple existing stacks,the highest of which is approximately 500 feet high. The proposed Facility will include two quick-start natural gas turbine generators; two steam turbine generators; two heat recovery steam generators, including pollution control equipment. Additional equipment includes administrative/warehouse/shops space; a water treatment facility; step-up transformers; a 34,000 gallon ammonia storage tank; two to three water tanks (a 500,000-gallon raw water tank and a 200,000-gallon demineralized water tank are proposed); and-air-cooled condensers. The Facility will be fueled by natural gas. Natural gas will be delivered to the site via a new 16-inch pipeline owned and operated by Spectra Energy ("Spectra"). Spectra also will construct an on-site metering and control station. Spectra will obtain all federal, state and local approvals, as necessary, which are separate and distinct from this filing. Footprint's portion of the gas interconnection is expected to require approximately 1,200 linear feet of underground 12- inch piping. The Facility will interconnect with the National Grid ("NGRID") electric transmission system at the northeast corner of the existing NGRID switchyard located on the site. In order to ( interconnect with NGRID, Footprint will construct ancillary facilities, including a new facility switchyard and four generator step-up transformers. Underground cable connections and overhead transmission lines of 115 M will be constructed to connect these facilities. The Facility will use water from the City of Salem municipal water system already connected to the site, or from the SESD water treatment plant, which involves building a new connection. The proposed Facility will use approximately 163,800 gallons per day of water on an annual average basis. (Maximum possible water use for the new plant could be as much as 294,480 gallons per day.) Water will not be used for cooling, but instead will be required for process uses, potable water supply, and fire protection. Copies of Footprint's Petition are available for public inspection at the following locations: (1)the Siting Board's offices, One South Station, Boston, MA 02110, 5a' Floor; (2) the City Clerk's Office in Salem, 93 Washington Street, Salem MA 01970; (3)the Salem Public Library, 370 Essex Street, Salem, MA 01970 Intervention and Participation Persons or groups who wish to be involved in the Siting Board proceeding beyond ( providing comments at the public hearing may seek either to intervene as a party or to participate as a limited participant. Intervention as a party allows the person or organization to participate in 2. 1296788_2 f the evidentiary phase of this proceeding, including evidentiary hearings in Boston, and grants the right to appeal a final decision. A limited participant may receive many of the documents that will be submitted to the Siting Board and present written or oral argument to the Siting Board after evidentiary hearings conclude. Any person interested in intervening as a party or participating as a limited participant in this proceeding must file a written petition with the Presiding Officer. Petitions must satisfy the timing and substantive requirements of 980 C.M.R. 1.05, the Siting Board's procedural rules, which can be found on the Board's website at: http://www.mass.gov/eea/energy-utilities-clean-tech/energy-facilities-siting-board/ A petition to intervene or participate as a limited participant must be filed in three places. First, the petition must be Bled in hard copy with:the Presiding Officer, M. Kathryn Sedor, Energy Facilities Siting Board, One South Station, Boston,Massachusetts, 02110 no later than the close of business (5.•00 p.m.)on [Wednesday, October 3, 2012. Second, the petition must be filed with the Siting Board in electronic format using one of the following methods: (1) by e-mail attachment.to dnu.efiling_@state.ma.us; or (2) on a PC- compatible compact disc. The text of the email or the CD label must specify: (1) the docket number of the proceeding (EFSB 12-2) (2)the name of the person or entity submitting the filing; and (3) a brief description of the document. The electronic filing should also include the name, title and telephone number of a person to contact in the event of questions about the filing. Third, the petition must be sent to counsel for Footprint, John A. DeTore, Esq., Rubin and'Rudman LLP, 50 Rowes Wharf, Boston, MA 02110. Any person desiring further information regarding this Notice, including information regarding intervention or participating in the adjudicatory proceeding, may contact the Presiding Officer at the address below: M. Kathryn Sedor, Presiding Officer Energy Facilities Siting Board One South Station Boston, MA 02110 (617) 305-3525 r� 3 1296788_2 s THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD ONE SOUTH STATION " X2 BOSTON,MA 02110 y4 b (617)305-3525 Doo OF Ot�VOP o t C.O��JN DEVAL L.PATRICK TIMOTHY P.MURRAY GOVERNOR .. s - LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR MEMORANDUM TO: All Interested Persons/Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP Proposed New Electric Generating Facility FROM: M. Kathryn Sedor,Presiding Officer DATE: September 5, 2012 RE: Public Comment Hearing, Salem, MA The Energy Facilities Siting Board ("Siting Board")will conduct a public comment hearing on the petition of Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP ("Footprint")for approval to construct a new 630 megawatt("MW") electric generating facility at the existing Salem Harbor power plant site in Salem, Massachusetts. The Siting Board will conduct a public comment hearing to receive public comment on the proposed Footprint generating facility. The public comment hearing will begin at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 19,2012,.at Salem High School, 77 Wilson Street, Salem. Enclosed is a copy of the legal Notice announcing the public comment hearing. The Notice is being issued in English, Spanish, and Portuguese, to reflect the presence of Environmental Justice communities in the vicinity of the proposed generating facility. The Siting Board would ask, if you are a public agency,that you post the Notice in your offices. In addition to providing notice of the public comment hearing,this Memorandum is intended to provide interested persons with some background on the Siting Board process. The Siting Board is an administrative agency of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Siting Board has nine members. The Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs serves as the Chairman of the Siting Board. The Siting Board's membership also includes the Secretary of Housing and Economic Development,the Commissioner of the Department of FAX:(617)443-1116 w .mass.eov/dou EFSB 12-2 Page 2 Environmental Protection,the Commissioner of the Department of Energy Resources,two commissioners of the Department of Public Utilities,and three public members appointed by the Governor. One of the principal functions of the Siting Board is to review proposals for the construction of energy facilities such as the generating facility proposed by Footprint. Before the Siting Board can reach a decision regarding the construction of any energy facility, it must determine that the facility will provide a reliable energy supply for the Commonwealth with a minimum impact on the environment at the lowest possible cost. G.L. c. 164, §§ 69H, 69J, and 69J'/4. The Siting Board's approval is required before construction permits may be issued by other state authorities. The Siting Board's regulations require it to hold a public comment hearing in the locality of a proposed energy facility, in order to provide the public with information regarding the facility, and to afford the opportunity for public comment on it. The enclosed Notice was forwarded to Footprint for publication in the Salem Evening News, the Boston Globe, and one Spanish-language newspaper with distribution in Salem. Following the public comment hearing,the Siting Board will conduct a comprehensive adjudicatory proceeding before issuing a decision regarding Footprint's proposed project. Any person may file a petition to intervene as a party or to participate as a limited participant in this proceeding. To be allowed, a petition to intervene in the proceeding must satisfy the standing requirements of G.L. c. 30A, § 10 and 980 C.M.R. 1.05: i.e., it must show how the petitioner may be substantially and specifically affected by the proceeding. The Siting Board is committed to a full public discussion of the proposal and can be served written comments at the address below: M. Kathryn Sedor, Presiding Officer Energy Facilities Siting Board One South Station Boston, MA 02110 (617) 305-3525 FAX:(617)443-1116 v .mass.eov/dou � „w .r LegenE k Y'� �4 ` r�'. • '� � ^1`, ..ba.A Lrb A, cccr i Ncaioe - m QPIn tI'll 110 be Removed) oa�riDg rwe ®swbr�dc-010-en •. LDEM u! +� j 1 °nrl T smeni f A 83 0 �j Ar 1be SIWI ed y x.,,1�P,, s ✓o }ed Yz wrae'1 I �yf i yye alar 1 e xaASx m I 1 ID y o rear FloMSY (No mW In, aAsw a _,,Iwn_w�y � Oil ']' f as x n ) enPx1 A ,prj `. •y-f-� Rt�, ne S 9° .:N 04 COAL PILE ' ➢ie� , suxolr L- w PONR f`` ✓I�� 14' �„el stlF - Elf (.] _?^``_,.. s i. I a J SR D .n (�coeL /rf 11 n + ,sit 16� ...✓ P6E/l�J�. V H II dRR Q /, e: RB 23 39 wj 01. fes"✓ / Phase 1 Demolition r' • Equip existing catch basins within active limit of work with geotextile inlet lel ' � ° -,y 'protection ;moi . �'�. 4 • Install 10ml plastic sheeting over grassed area between Tanks 33/M and Derby Street and apply 6 inch layer of gravel(per MassDOT M1.03.1). .dew si4, d Remove select tanks(D-6,B-3,B-5,D-1 through D-4,8 B-1) Convert D-6fonnertank area to temporary sediment trap ,n G 'Stockpile material only in designated areas(outside of 100 year Flood zone) �< ) Stabilize stockpile with hydmseed or equivalent and surround with silt fence Expand laydown/parking area to include farmer lank B-3 and BZ areas— install plastic sheeting and gravel • Regrade containment bemis • Demolish select buildings as indicated Stabilize building pad areas as shown ® Salem Hater Station Hedev9oprnen(Rged Salem,Mater Station ® sachusetts TETRATEGH o 125 x Erosion and Sedimentation Bow Y.:'N l45ne Aend Nobe:EriGnq P—Pbglobe Pwl sm Dd�,dsma Control Demolition Phase 1 Figure 1 — Proposed stockpiling locations Outlined in black a , 9 Attachment 1 All stockpiling locations will be managed in full compliance with the project SWPPP, specifically section 4.0 Erosion, Sediment and Stormwater Control Measures 1. Materials will be segmented to allow for recycle whenever possible. e 2. Hazardous waste materials will not be stored in the green shaded area. 3. In all cases use good engineering practices 4. The area will be protected from contact with stormwater (including run-on) using a temporary perimeter sediment barrier. 5. For storage longer than 14 days we will provide cover or.appropriate temporary stabilization to avoid direct contact with precipitation or to minimize sediment discharge; 6. We will not hose down or sweep soil or sediment accumulated on pavement or other impervious surfaces into any stormwater conveyance (unless connected to a sediment basin, sediment trap, or similarly effective control), storm drain inlet, or to Salem Harbor. 7. We will contact the Conservation Commission agent for a site visit 48 hours prior to storage of material. Reducing Carbon Emissions One Step at a Time TM r. r ��®• RUBINAND RUDMANLLe Attorneys at Law a ? John A. DeTore p 0 Rowes Whrf,Boston, 02110 OF Direct Dial:617-330-7144 E-mail:JDeTore@rubinrudman.com - �O August 13, 2013 VIA HAND DELIVERY Andrew G. Greene, Director Energy Facilities Siting Board One South Station, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Re: Footprint Salem Harbor Development LP, Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest, EFSB 13--1 Dear Mr. Greene: Enclosed for filing please find an original and four(4) copies of Footprint Salem Harbor • Development LP's Motion for Partial Reconsideration and Request for Waiver in the above- captioned proceeding. Please date-stamp the enclosed copy of this letter and return it in the enclosed self- addressed envelope for our files. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jo t6e JAD/dm Enclosures cc: Richard A. Davey, Secretary of Transportation Kenneth Kimmell, Commissioner, DEP Eric Worrall, Acting Regional Director, DEP Northeast Regional Office Ben Lynch, Director, DEP Division of Wetlands and Waterways Kevin Brander, P.E., Section Chief, DEP Northeast Regional Office • James Belsky, Permit Chief, DEP Northeast Regional Office, Division of Air Quality Control 1403349_1 W W W.RU B W P,UDMAN.COM • Andrew G. Greene, Director August 13, 2013 Page 2 Rebecca Curran, Chair, City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Charles Puleo, Chair, City of Salem Planning Board .4ulia Knisel, Chair, City of Salem Conservation Commission Jessica Herbert, Chair, City of Salem Historical Commission Thomas J. St. Pierre, Inspectional Services Director, City of Salem Inspectional Services Department Julie Rose, Business Manager, City of Salem Water Department Alan F. Taubert, Jr., P.E., Executive Director, South Essex Sewerage District David W. Cody, Fire Chief, City of Salem Fire Department James Buckley, General Counsel M. Kathryn Sedor, Esq. Robert J. Shea, Esq. Service List, EFSB 12-2 • 1403349_1 • COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD Petition of Footprint Power ) Salem Harbor Development LP ) for Approval to Construct ) EFSB 13-1 and Operate a 630 MW Generating Facility ) Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, §§ 69H, 69J/4 ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, pursuant to 980 C.M.R. 1.03(4), I have on or before this day served a true copy of the enclosed documents upon all parties of record in this proceeding. Dated at Boston,Massachusetts this 13th day of August 2013. • John A. DeTore, Esq. Robert D. Shapiro, Esq. Rubin and Rudman LLP 50 Rowes Wharf Boston, MA 02110 Counsel for: Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP • 1403354_1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD Petition of Footprint Power Salem Harbor ) Development LP for a Certificate of ) EFSB 13-1 Environmental Impact and Public Interest ) •'i MOTION FOR PARTIAL RECONSIDERATION AND REQUEST FOR WAIVER John A. DeTore Robert D. Shapiro David C. Fixler Rubin and Rudman LLP 50 Rowes Wharf Boston, MA 02110 (617) 330-7000 Dated: August 13, 2013 • 14023582 INTRODUCTION The Commonwealth relies on the Energy Facilities Siting Board("EFSB" or "Siting Board") "to provide a reliable energy supply for the commonwealth with a minimum impact on the environment at the lowest possible cost." G.L. c. 164, § 69H. The Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities ("DPU")has found that through restructuring the electric industry, the Commonwealth has made "a clear policy choice that electric generation resources are best developed in response to price signals from a competitive marketplace." D.P.U. 12-77, at 30. That competitive marketplace for Massachusetts and the other New England states is the Forward Capacity Market (`-`FCM") administered by ISO New England("ISO-NE")through its annual Forward Capacity Auctions ("FCAs"), "because the Commonwealth and most stakeholders agree that, in general, generation services, including installed capacity, are best developed in response to price signals from the region-wide wholesale electricity market administered by ISO-NE." Id. •\! Just last week, ISO-NE explained the functioning of the FCM in a letter to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection("DEP") ("ISO-NE Letter") attached as Exhibit hereto: The FCM is designed to ensure there is sufficient capacity by promoting economic investment in supply and demand resources where they are needed most. To purchase enough qualified resources to satisfy the region's future needs and to allow enough time to construct new capacity resources, FCAs are held each year for a delivery year approximately three years in advance. Capacity resources compete in the annual FCA to obtain a commitment to supply capacity in exchange for a market-priced capacity payment. If a new capacity resource clears in the FCA, it has approximately three years to build the infrastructure needed to fulfill its capacity obligation. "Clearing" in the FCA means that the resource was selected in the auction, and then must assume a supply obligation for the commitment period in which the FCA corresponds. ISO Letter, at 3. Thus, for the FCM to function, developers must be able to build necessary power plants within three years from the date of the FCA. In this case, Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP ("Footprint")participated in FCA#7 which ISO-NE conducted in February D ( P P )P P • 14023682 1 2013. The resulting obligation to supply capacity begins on June 1, 2016. In anticipation of a bid in FCA#7, Footprint began working on its Facility (as such term is subsequently defined in this Motion) in April 2010—six years before the capacity was needed. Footprint filed its EFSB application and MEPA Environmental Notification Form on August 3, 2012—the same day it acquired the existing Salem Harbor facility and six months prior to FCA 47. Footprint has been diligently pursuing all other necessary permits as evidenced by the fact that the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeal ("Zoning Board"), Planning Board, and Conservation Commission have each unanimously granted the permits and variances sought by Footprint for the Facility. These decisions contain numerous conditions that Footprint is ready, willing and able to meet and that Footprint urges the Siting Board to include in any composite Certificate that it may issue to Footprint. Moreover, the Siting Board itself has directed its staff to prepare a Tentative Decision granting Footprint's Petition to Construct the Facility. As Footprint made clear in its Initial Petition in this Docket, an appeal has been filed by two residents of Salem of the Zoning Board's unanimous decision granting Footprint's requested Variance and Essential Use permit. Footprint can and will vigorously oppose the appeal. However, the mere existence of this appeal, regardless of its merit, will unduly delay the Facility's construction and jeopardize Footprint's ability to comply with the timeline mandated by the ISO-NE market that the Commonwealth made the policy choice to rely on for the development of new generating resources. As discussed more fully below, the Siting Board's determination that Footprint may not file its Application until after the Siting Board has issued a formal written decision on the Petition to Construct will make attainment of the FCA schedule all but impossible. Accordingly, Footprint respectfully submits that the Siting Board reconsider its decision or, in the alternative, • 2 1402368_2 waive the requirement that Footprint attach an approved Application for a Petition to Construct •' to its Application in this Docket. In considering this request, Footprint respectfully urges the Siting Board to consider the practical difficulties that a successful bidder in the FCA faces in bringing its facility on-line within the time frame prescribed by the FCM rules. FCA 47 did not take place until February, 20133. Assuming the statutory deadline of one year for a Petition to Construct means that the Assuming rY Y project proponent must prepare,and file, its Petition to Construct well in advance of knowing whether its bid will be successful and its project financially viable.] Footprint did just that, filing its petition to construct more than one year ago on August 3, 2012, a full six months before FCA #7. Notwithstanding its diligence, and success in receiving its local permits, because of the appeal of a local permit, Footprint finds itself with little time to complete the Certificate process and maintain the ability to meet a June 2016 in-service date.2 •'' Simply put, if Footprint cannot even file its Application until after the Siting Board issues a written decision on the Petition to Construct-- currently scheduled for October 11, 2013 --the Certificate proceeding will be delayed two months, all but guaranteeing that the relief requested, even if granted, will come too late to mitigate the harm caused by the delay—undermining the purpose of the statute. In short, the message sent to developers will be that new power plants cannot be built in Massachusetts under the ISO-NE FCM unless there is unanimous consent-- not of the agencies, boards and commissions that must review permit applications, because to date, Footprint has unanimously secured all such permits sought -- but also of all citizens in the municipality in which the plant is to be constructed. G.L. c. 164, § 69 K''/z (vi) is intended to 1 For example,if a project proponent did not file a Petition to Construct until after the results of FCA#7 in February 2013, it could not expect a Siting Board decision until February,2014, which would make a June 2016 in-service date impossible to achieve. 2 This assumes,as it must,that Footprint is able to satisfy the statutory standards for a Certificate as set forth in • G.L. c. 164 § 690'/2. Footprint is not seeking any waiver of the substantive requirements of the statute. 3 1402368_2 prevent this very situation from occurring. Footprint respectfully requests that the Siting Board •' consider the central purpose of Section 69K'/z (vi) in considering the arguments advanced by Footprint in this Motion. BACKGROUND On August 3, 2012, Footprint filed with the Siting Board its Petition to Construct a 630 megawatt("MW") (692 MW with duct-firing)natural gas-fired, quick-start, combined-cycle facility ("Facility") at the present location of the Salem Harbor Station in Salem, Massachusetts. Footprint also provided extensive information regarding its plans to demolish the existing coal- and oil-fired facility, remediate the site, and make available for development approximately 45 acres of waterfront property in Salem. Construction of the proposed Facility is scheduled to commence in June 2014, with the Facility becoming operational in June 2016. The Siting Board docketed the Petition to Construct as EFSB 12-2. In EFSB 12-2,the Siting Board held 10 days .y of evidentiary hearings during which 23 witnesses provided testimony; entered 775 exhibits into the evidentiary record; allowed Footprint and intervenors to submit initial and reply briefs; and reviewed an Issues Memorandum issued by EFSB Staff, as well as comments filed by parties in response to the Issues Memorandum. On July 11, 2013, the Siting Board held a lengthy public meeting regarding Footprint's Petition to Construct. After reviewing the Staff s Issues Memorandum, hearing comments from Footprint and intervenors, and thoroughly discussing numerous issues, the Siting Board voted to direct the EFSB Staff to draft a Decision approving Footprint's Petition to Construct. On June 28, 2013,the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal unanimously issued a decision granting Footprint's Petition for (1) a Special Permit for an Essential Service use pursuant to Section 3.0 of the City of Salem's Use Regulations; and (2)Variances from the City's • 4 1402368_2 f Dimensional Requirements pursuant to Section 4.0 ("Zoning Board Decision"). On July 17, 2013, Michael Furlong and William Dearstyne, both residents of Salem, appealed the Zoning Board Decision pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, § 17 (the "Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal"). Footprint cannot construct the Facility while the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal is pending. Accordingly, on August 5, 2012, Footprint filed with the Siting Board an Initial Petition for a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest with respect to a generating facility ("Certificate") representing a composite of all state and local permits, approvals or authorizations that would otherwise be necessary to construct and operate the Facility pursuant to G.L. c. 164, §§ 69K'/2 - 690%2 and 980 CMR 6.02. The Siting Board's regulations regarding the issuance of Certificates divide the Certificate application process into two parts—an Initial Petition and an Application. Within seven days of the filing of an Initial Petition,the Siting Board must decide either to hold a • hearing on the merits of the grounds asserted in the Initial Petition, or to accept an Application for Certificate and to defer a decision on the merits of the Initial Petition until the hearing on the Application. IDC Bellingham Certificate Decision at 10, n.5, citing 980 CMR 6.02(4). On August 8, 2013, the Siting Board ruled that it would accept an Application for a Certificate and defer a decision on the merits of Footprint's Initial Petition until the hearing on the Application. See Determination on Review of Initial Petition and Filing of Application (August 8, 2013) ("Determination"). However, in the Determination, the Siting Board expressly precluded Footprint from filing its Application until the Siting Board has issued "a Final Decision approving the [Flacility..." Determination at 3. It is Footprint's understanding that the • 5 1402368_2 earliest the Siting Board will issue such Final Decision will be early to mid-October— • approximately two months from now.3 As more particularly set forth below, there is no legal support for the Siting Board's preclusion ruling, because there is no statutory or regulatory requirement that precludes Footprint from filing, and the EFSB from accepting, an Application for a Certificate prior to the issuance of a Final Decision in EFSB 12-2. Regardless, even if G.L. c. 164, § 69L`/2 can somehow be construed as requiring Footprint to delay filing its Application until the issuance of such Final Decision, the Siting Board should waive such requirement pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 69L'h (3), which allows such a waiver"for emergency or unforeseen conditions which may jeopardize the health and safety of the public." Such waiver should be granted because if Footprint is forced to wait another 60 - 70 days to commence the Certificate process, it will not be able to obtain financing (and therefore commence construction) in time for the Facility to generate electricity •" by June 2016. If the Facility is not on line by June 2016, then there will be a capacity shortage that may jeopardize the health and safety of the public. Accordingly, Footprint moves that the Siting Board (1) reconsider its ruling that G.L. c. 164, § 69L'h (3) precludes Footprint from filing its Application until after the issuance of a Final Decision in EFSB 12-2, or, in the alternative, (2) waive such requirement in accordance with G.L. c. 164, § 69LYz (3) so that the health and safety of the public will not be jeopardized.4 3 G.L. c. 164, §69J'/e states that the Siting Board"shall,within one year from the date of filing, approve a petition to construct a generating facility..."or"reject,in whole or in part,the petition..." As set forth above, Footprint filed its Petition to Construct on August 3,2012. 4 Footprint's request for a waiver is separate and apart from its Motion for Partial Reconsideration. Regardless of • the Siting Board's ruling on the Motion for Reconsideration, a request for a waiver pursuant to G.L.c. 164, § 69L'/,(3)can be brought at any time. 6 14023682 ARGUMENT A. Because the Siting Board made a number of mistakes in reaching its August 8, 2013 Determination, a Motion for Reconsideration is appropriate in this case. Pursuant to 980 CMR 1.09(8), any party may file a written motion requesting that the Presiding Officer reconsider a ruling as long as the motion is received within five days of the issuance of the ruling. Reconsideration of previously decided issues is granted only when extraordinary circumstances dictate that the Siting Board take a fresh look at the record for the express purpose of substantively modifying a decision reached after review and deliberation. North Attleboro Gas Company, D.P.U. 94-130-B at 2 (1995); Boston Edison Company, D.P.U. 90-270-A at 2-3 (1991); Western Massachusetts Electric Company, D.P.U. 558-A at 2 (1987). A motion for reconsideration should bring to light previously unknown or undisclosed • facts that would have a significant impact upon the decision already rendered. It should not attempt to reargue issues considered and decided in the main case. 5 Commonwealth Electric Company, D.P.U. 92-3C-1A at 3-6 (1995); Boston Edison Company, D.P.U. 90-270-A at 3 (1991); Boston Edison Company, D.P.U. 1350-A at 4 (1983). A motion for reconsideration may be based on an argument that the treatment of an issue was the result of mistake or inadvertence. Russell Biomass LLC, D.T.E./D.P.U. 06-60-A at 3-4 (2008) (granting motion for reconsideration where Department omitted analysis of proponent's request for individual zoning exemptions); NSTAR Electric Company, D.T.E./D.P.U. 07-4-A (2007); Massachusetts Electric Company, 5 The Siting Board issued the portion of the Determination on the timing of when Footprint can file its Application without hearing Footprint's arguments as to why the filing of the Application in advance of the Siting Board's final decision on the Petition to Construct is permissible. Thus,Footprint is not attempting to • reargue issues;rather,it is making its arguments on the issues for the first time. 7 1402368_2 D.P.U. 90-261-B at 7 (1991); New England Telephone and Telegraph Company, D.P.U. 86-33-J • at 2 (1989); Boston Edison Company, D.P.U. 1350-A at 5 (1983). In this case, the Siting Board's determination that it could not accept Footprint's Application for a Certificate until after a decision approving Footprint's Petition to Construct was a mistake. Moreover, it was a mistake for the Siting Board to reach a decision regarding the timing of Footprint's Application within the context of its 7-day review of Footprint's Initial Petition. Consistent with 980 CMR 6.03 and EFSB practice, the Siting Board's initial review of an Initial Petition is limited to whether that Initial Petition includes an acceptable ground under G.L. c. 164, § 69K'/2. It was a mistake for the Siting Board to reach the issue of the timeliness of Footprint's Application in its August 8, 2013 Determination, a mistake that deprived Footprint of its opportunity to present its arguments as to why the filing of an Application in advance of a Siting Board decision on the Petition to Construct is both supported by the law and appropriate ." given the unique circumstances faced by Footprint. B. The statute governing the Certificate process allows Footprint to file its Application for a Certificate prior to the issuance of a Final Decision in EFSB 12-2. By ruling that Footprint cannot file its Application until a Final Decision is issued in EFSB 12-2, the Siting Board effectively ruled that a Certificate proceeding may not commence until after the Siting Board has issued a Final Decision approving an applicant's petition to construct. Thus, the Siting Board has determined that it does not have jurisdiction to hear a Certificate case until and unless a final decision approving a petition to construct is issued. However, a review of the governing statute reveals that no such limitation exists. Simply put, nowhere in G.L. c. 164, §§ 69K'/2 - 690%2 does it state that an applicant may not file an Application and therefore commence a Certificate proceeding until and unless the applicant has • received a final decision approving its petition to construct. 8 1402368_2 In support of its ruling that a Certificate proceeding may not be initiated until the • issuance of a final decision approving the applicant's petition to construct, the Siting Board relies on language contained in two provisions of the EFSB's statutes -- G.L. c. 164, § 69OV2 and G.L. c. 164, § 69L'/z. G.L. c. 164, § 69OY� is the statute that describes the conditions that must be met for the Siting Board to issue a Certificate. It is not the statute that grants and governs the Siting Board's jurisdiction over Certificate proceedings. Regardless, even if it somehow could be construed as governing such jurisdiction, this statutory language does not require prior approval of a petition to construct to issue a Certificate. G.L. c. 164, § 690'/2 states that the Siting Board may issue a Certificate only if the Siting Board determines that the issues raised by state or local agencies regarding a proposed generating facility"have been addressed in a comprehensive manner by the board in its approval of said generating facility under section 69J'/4 or in its review under section 69K'/2." (emphasis added). G.L. c. 164, § 69L/2 states that the Application must contain a copy of the applicant's "petition for the construction of a generating facility approved under the provisions of section 69J'/4..." However, G.L. c. 164, § 69L%2 is not the statute that grants and governs the Siting Board's jurisdiction over Certificate proceedings. Rather, G.L. c. 164, § 69L'/2 merely governs the contents of an Application. Specifically, the statute contains a lengthy list of detailed information that an applicant must include in its Application. Thus, the focus of G.L. c. 164, § 69L/2 is on the information that is necessary to assist the Siting Board in determining whether a Certificate should be issued. One important piece of information is the materials and statements contained in the petition to construct(e.g., maps, a description of the facility, photographs, etc.). Finally, in addition to detailing the specific information that must be contained in the Application, the Legislature, recognizing that the process of compiling the large 9 1402368_2 quantity of information required to obtain a Certificate is a fluid one, expressly allowed the •\ Application to be amended during the course of a Certificate proceeding. See G.L. c. 164, § 69L'/z (d). It is G.L. c. 164, § 69KYz that sets out the jurisdictional requirements for the Siting Board to hear a request for a Certificate. G.L. c. 164, § 69K%expressly states that the Siting Board "shall consider" a request for a Certificate if an applicant meets one of the statutory requirements. See City Council ofAgawam v. Energy Facilities Siting Board, 437 Mass. 821, 824 (2002) (Board has jurisdiction only if the applicant meets one of the statutory requirements established by § 69K'h.). Notably absent from these requirements is a condition that the Siting Board must have issued a final decision approving the applicant's petition to construct. Consistent with its jurisdictional statute, the Siting Board's regulations regarding the issuance of Certificates also do not contain any language stating that an applicant may initiate a Certificate .'' proceeding only if the Siting Board has previously issued a final decision approving the applicant's petition to construct. In addition, the Siting Board has produced a handbook providing an overview of the EFSB's review process ("EFSB Handbook") and posted it on its website See htt-o://www.mass.gov/eea/does/d-ou/siting/handbook.pdf(last visited August 9, 2013). The EFSB Handbook also discusses the Siting Board's jurisdiction in Certificate cases and states as follows: The Siting Board may also may[sic] issue a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest to any applicant that proposes to construct or operate a generation facility or to any electric, gas, or oil company that proposes to construct or operate jurisdictional facilities in Massachusetts. Such a Certificate, if granted, has the legal effect of granting the permit in question, and may grant additional project permits as well. Again, there is no language stating that in order to commence a Certificate proceeding, an .. applicant must first have obtained a final decision approving its petition to construct. 10 14023682 Thus, the issue is how to interpret the language in G.L. c. 164, § 69L%2 stating that an • application contain a copy of the petition to construct"approved under the provisions of section 69J'/<..." In its August 8, 2013 Determination, the Siting Board interpreted this language as effectively barring the commencement of a Certificate proceeding until and unless a final decision approving a petition to construct is obtained. In doing so, the Siting Board makes two related errors of law. First, as set forth above, the Siting Board treats G.L. c. 164, § 69L/2 as the statute that provides it with its jurisdiction even though G.L. c. 164, § 69L'/z does not contain the jurisdictional requirements for the Siting Board to hear a Certificate proceeding. The statute that does so is G.L. c. 164, § 69K'/2, and that statute does not contain any requirement that the applicant must wait until it has obtained a final decision on its petition to construct a generating facility. Second, the Siting Board reads language into G.L. c. 164, § 69L'/z (i.e., the Siting Board does not have jurisdiction to commence a Certificate proceeding until and unless it issues a final decision approving the applicant's petition to construct) that is simply not there in violation of the canons of statutory construction. See Hagen v. Commonwealth, 437 Mass. 374, 379 (2002) (statute must be construed as written and an event or contingency for which no provision is made does not justify judicial legislation);Joseph Gateley's Case, 415 Mass. 397, 399 (1993) (language of a statute is not to be enlarged or limited by construction unless its object and plain meaning require it);6 Commonwealth v. Gillis, 448 Mass. 354, 363 (2007) (where statutory text is clear, court is not free to simply add language to a statute for the purpose of interpreting the statute). Accordingly,under the applicable law governing the Siting Board's jurisdiction to hear Certificate proceedings, a final decision approving an applicant's petition to construct is not a 6 While it is true that the interpretation of a statute by the agency charged with primary responsibility for • administering it is entitled to substantial deference,an"incorrect interpretation of a statute by an administrative agency is not entitled to any deference." Thaddeus Kszepka's Case,408 Mass. 843, 847(1990). 11 14023682 J urisdictional requirement for the Siting Board to commence a Certificate proceeding requested ' by such applicant. If the Legislature had intended that the Siting Board could only commence a Certificate proceeding until and unless it has issued a final decision in the applicant's petition to construct proceeding the Legislature would have expressly done so. See Commissioner of Revenue v. Cargill, Inc., 429 Mass. 79, 82 (1999) (if the Legislature had intended otherwise, it could have done so). No such intent is evidenced in the governing statute. Instead, approval of a petition to construct is simply one of the numerous components of the Application, a document that can be amended during the course of the proceeding. Accordingly, given that (i) a copy of Footprint's petition to construct, which contains all the critical information required under the statute and regulations, will be attached to the application, and (ii)the hearings on Footprint's Petition to Construct have concluded and the Siting Board has already directed the EFSB Staff to draft a Decision approving Footprint's Petition to Construct,the Siting Board should reconsider PP g P g its August 8, 2013 Determination and find that there is no statutory or regulatory reason why the preliminary and discovery phases of the Certificate proceeding may not commence immediately, with the hearing on the Initial Petition and the Application only taking place if, and after, the Siting Board has issued a Final Decision approving Footprint's Petition to Construct under § 69J'/. C. The Siting Board should waive its requirement that an Application for a Certificate can only be filed after the facility at issue has been approved by the Siting Board. Even if G.L. c. 164, § 69L% can somehow be construed as requiring Footprint to delay filing its Application until the issuance of such Final Decision, that section provides explicit grounds for a waiver of such requirement "for emergency or unforeseen conditions which may jeopardize the health and safety of the public." If such conditions do not exist under the • 12 1402368_2 circumstances presented in this case, it is difficult to envision any circumstances where a waiver •' could be issued. As set forth above, Footprint's request for a waiver pursuant to G.L.c. 164, § 69LY2 may be filed at any time and can be addressed by the EFSB independent of its determinations relative to the Motion for Reconsideration. As a threshold matter, it is important to note precisely what Footprint is seeking to waive. Footprint is not seeking to waive the requirement that a copy of the petition to construct be attached to the Application, nor is Footprint seeking to waive any substantive requirement to provide factual information to the Siting Board that will enable the Siting Board to determine whether the issuance of a Certificate is appropriate. Footprint's Application will contain the same information regarding the Facility that it would have contained had a final decision already been issued. Instead, after the Siting Board has already directed the EFSB Staff to draft a Decision approving the construction and operation of the Facility, Footprint is merely seeking a lei waiver to be allowed to file its Application and commence the Certificate proceeding in advance of the issuance of a final decision approving the construction and operation of the Facility with the understanding that if no such final decision is issued, the Certificate proceeding will be dismissed. 1. If The Footprint Facility Does Not Come On-line By June 2016, There Will Be A Capacity Shortfall In NEMA. A Capacity Shortfall Constitutes An "Emergency" As That Term Is Used In G.L: c. 164, 69L'/z. In order to obtain such a waiver, G.L. c. 164, § 69L%2 requires Footprint to demonstrate an "emergency" condition. In interpreting provisions of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Legislature has directed that "[w]ords and phrases shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language..." See G.L. c. 4, §6. The meaning of words in a statute is derived from the words "usual and accepted meanings from sources presumably known to the • statute's enactors, such as their use in other legal contexts and dictionary definitions." See 13 1402368_2 'Commonwealth v. Robinson, 444 Mass. 102, 105 (2005), quoting Commonwealth v. Zone Book, Or Inc., 372 Mass. 366, 369 (1977). The word "emergency" in its "common and approved usage" refers to "a condition of urgent need for action or assistance."7 See American Heritage College Dictionary at 458 (4" ed. 2002). Thus, Footprint must demonstrate that a condition exists that requires urgent need for action. As more particularly set forth below, there is no dispute that such a condition exists now, even though its effect will not be felt until 2016 unless immediate action is taken. As described in the ISO-NE Letter, Footprint's bid in the FCA to supply capacity was "cleared" (i,e., accepted as needed) by ISO-NE for the NEMA load zone for the 2016/17 delivery year. After the FCA, ISO-NE filed materials at FERC seeking FERC's approval of the FCA 7 auction results. In testimony before FERC, ISO-NE's Vice President of System Planning explained in testimony: The capacity from Footprint is needed to meet NEMA/Boston's Local Sourcing Requirement . . . without the capacity from 5 Footprint,the zone would not have sufficient capacity to meet its Local Sourcing Requirement.8 FERC accepted the ISO-NE filing on June 11, 2013. Thus, ISO-NE and FERC have determined that unless the Facility is able to generate electricity on June 1, 2016, there will be a 7 The definition of"emergency" in 980 CMR 6.06 applies to a Certificate Application filed pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 69K and thus is not applicable to the instant case. In addition,this definition is inconsistent with the legislature's intent in G.L. c. 164, §69K'/z. The definition in 980 CMR 6.06 includes an "accident, act of God, or unforeseen condition." In the context of G.L. c. 164, § 69K''/,the Legislature could not have been limiting the definition of an emergency to those three situations. As discussed above,the sole purpose of the statute is to expedite the permitting process of a proposed generating facility so as to allow the facility to come on line sooner. The problem which the Legislature is addressing in this statute is delays in the permitting process brought about by either agency actions or appeals. Thus, in using the term"emergency,"the Legislature must have intended to address a situation where such a delay could constitute an emergency which jeopardizes the health and safety of the public. In this context,the only possible such emergency resulting from a delayed in- service date of a generating facility is a capacity shortage. There is no logical scenario in which a delay in the permitting process of a generating facility would cause an accident or an act of God. Thus, this definition of emergency would render the statutory language meaningless. Even assuming that this regulation is applicable . in this case, it is inconsistent with the statute and the statute prevails. Pinecrest Village, Inc. v. MacMillan,425 Mass. 70 (1997);Massachusetts Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co. v. Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Council, 411 Mass. 183 (1991)(because the statutory requirements differ from the regulatory requirements, statute must prevail over regulation). •. 8 ISO New England,Docket No.ER13-992 (Feb.26,2013),Testimony of Stephen J. Rourke at S. 14 1402368_2 shortage of capacity for the 2016-2017 commitment period, and therefore the NEMA/Boston • capacity zone will not meet reliability standards. See ISO-NE Letter at 4. The Massachusetts DPU has made a similar finding. Specifically, in D.P.U. 12-77, the DPU's review of the need for capacity in the NEMA/Boston load zone, the DPU determined that: The results of FCA 47 show that, absent Footprint, there is a need in NEMA/Boston for additional capacity resources beginning in the 2016/17 capacity year. D.P.U. 12-77, at 18. In its letter to the DEP last week, ISO-NE stated: The FCM is the primary means of ensuring that the region and local areas have resources to meet reliability standards. The auction is designed to send the appropriate price signals so that capacity is built where it is needed most. The process worked as intended by attracting a significant new resource in NEMA/Boston, an area that needed new resources to meet the reliability needs in the area. Without the capacity from Footprint,NEMA/Boston will be below the zone's Local Sourcing Requirement for the 2016 to 2017 commitment period. As such, Footprint is both the only choice and the best choice at this time. ISO-NE Letter at 4. The question then is whether the capacity shortage that will exist if the Facility is not available to generate electricity on June 1, 2016 constitutes an emergency consistent with how this term is used in G.L. c. 164, § 69LY2. That question is unequivocally answered in the affirmative. The Legislature clearly intended that a capacity shortage constitutes an "emergency" for purposes of this waiver. Indeed, it is all but impossible to imagine what else might constitute an emergency, other than a capacity shortage, in the context of this statutory provision related specifically to the construction of electric generating facilities after restructuring. Section 69L'/2establishes a process whereby a developer of a generating facility can seek a comprehensive and expedited process for securing all state and local permits necessary to begin construction. The purpose of the waiver is to expedite the process even more, • 15 14023682 thereby allowing the generating facility to commence construction even sooner. The only emergency that would be averted by an earlier commencement of construction, and commensurate earlier in-service date, is a shortage of capacity that would otherwise occur if the generating facility did not meet that earlier in-service date.9 The conclusion that a capacity shortage constitutes an emergency is also supported by the entity that is in the best position to assess whether such situation constitutes an emergency, ISO- NE, the Regional Transmission Organization that is responsible for the administration of the New England wholesale electricity and capacity markets. In the ISO-NE Letter, after explaining why Footprint's Facility is needed to meet the NEMA/Boston capacity deficiency, ISO-NE specifically states that a capacity shortage would be an "emergency" requiring the use of operational tools that could still result in interruptions of electric service to customers. See ISO-NE Letter at 5. The ISO-NE Letter also makes clear that no such "emergency" would occur •" if the Facility is online by June 16, 2016. See ISO-NE Letter at 5 ("Many of these tools would only be used in emergency situations in real-time operations, which is why the ISO first looks to the market to resolve reliability issues" Such tools are "backstop actions ... if the FCM does not produce sufficient resources.").10 Thus, if the.Facility is not online by June 1, 2016, then there will be a capacity shortage, which shortage will constitute an emergency as that term is used in Section 69L%. 9 Indeed,the General Court has declared that an adequate supply of electricity is essential to public health and safety and economic development. Section I(a)of the Restructuring Act of 1997 expressly provides that "electricity service is essential to the health and well-being of all residents of commonwealth,to public safety, and to.orderly and sustainable economic development." • 10 Clearly,these back-up actions could not include any kind of generating facility given permitting requirements and timelines. 16 1402368_2 2. A Capacity Shortfall Constitutes An Emergency That May Jeopardize Public Health And Safety. The next question is whether such emergency "may jeopardize the health and safety of the public." Here, all Footprint needs to demonstrate is the possibility of a public health and safety impact. As a threshold matter, Footprint assumes that the Siting Board would agree that interruption of electric service constitutes a threat to public health and safety -- in the context of Section 69LYz the Legislature could have intended nothing else. Given the vital role of electricity in our society, this conclusion seems indisputable. Thus, Footprint will have met its burden by demonstrating that possibility of a service interruption if its Facility does not come on line by June 2016. The ISO-NE letter definitively establishes the possibility of a service interruption (with its threat to public health and safety) if the Footprint Facility is not on-line by June 2016. In D.P.U. 12-77, the DPU specifically noted that it is ISO-NE that is tasked with the responsibility of insuring a reliable supply of electricity in New England. See D.P.U. 12-77, at 33 ("Even if the FCA process does not satisfy the need in NEMA/Boston, ISO-NE has other tools to assure the reliable operation of the electric grid in the area.") However, the ISO-NE Letter clearly indicates that ISO-NE is not as positive as the DPU that its tools will make up the capacity shortfall and avert the emergency without service interruptions. To the contrary, ISO- NE concedes that service interruptions, with their threat to public health and safety, are a real possibility. See ISO-NE Letter at 5 (such tools "may or not be available to the ISO..." and even if available "can include interruption of electric service to customers in certain areas.") The only thing that ISO-NE is positive about is that no capacity shortfall will occur (and therefore no emergency or threat to public health and public safety will occur) if the Facility is online by June • 17 1402368_2 2106. "Footprint is both the only choice and the best choice at this time." See ISO-NE Letter at 5. Accordingly,the facts clearly demonstrate that (i) there will be a capacity shortfall if the Facility is not constructed and online by June 2016; (ii) such capacity shortfall constitutes an emergency; and (iii) such capacity shortfall presents the real possibility of service interruptions that may jeopardize the health and welfare of the public. 3. Without The Waiver, Footprint Will Be Unable To Meet Its June 2016 In- service Date. Although the actual commencement of construction is not until June 2014, there are six months of pre-construction work that must be performed before that date. As shown in the schedule attached at Exhibit B, these tasks include substantial engineering, field work and procurement. What all of these activities have in common is that they cost quite a bit of money. This is especially true of procurement deposits that must be made at least six months in advance in order to insure the availability of equipment to support a June 2016 in-service date. The amounts necessary for these pre-construction activities far exceed development cost incurred thus far. For example, Footprint estimated that total development costs will be approximately $20 million through December of this year. The costs for these pre-construction activities: $150 million. Given the six-month duration of the pre-construction activities, Footprint must have financing in January 2014 in order to meet its schedule. However, financing cannot proceed with permit appeals outstanding. The issuance of a Certificate will moot such appeals. Unless the Siting Board waives the requirement it has found in G.L. c. 164, § 69LYz that Footprint cannot file its Application until and unless the Siting Board has approved Footprint's petition to construct, it will be virtually impossible for Footprint to meet a June 2016 in-service date. If 18 1402368_2 Footprint is not permitted to file its Application until after the anticipated October 11, 2013 EFSB Decision, the Certificate proceeding cannot even commence until sixty days later (December 11, 2013), at the earliest. Unless Footprint receives a Certificate by December 31, 2013 (just 20 days later in this example) financing will not be completed and pre-construction activities will not commence in January 2014. If that happens, construction will not begin in June 2014,jeopardizing Footprint's ability to bring the Facility online in June 2016. That will result in an emergency that may jeopardize public health and safety, and therefore a waiver is justified. CONCLUSION Footprint respectfully submits that it has presented a convincing legal case for the Siting Board to reconsider its decision to preclude the filing of an Application until after a decision is issued on the Petition to Construct. Footprint also has established that there are "emergency or :. unforeseen conditions which may jeopardize the health and safety of the public," such that it is appropriate for the Siting Board to grant a waiver permitting Footprint to file its Application immediately. In considering this matter, Footprint respectfully requests that the Siting Board also consider the implications for the successful operation of the FCM. If generators in NEMA are unable to meet the three-year FCA requirement because of the length of the permitting, process in Massachusetts, the efficacy of the FCM will be diminished with potentially adverse economic, environmental and public safety impacts. With this request, Footprint is seeking only the opportunity to make its case in a timely way that provides some hope of meeting its obligation to ISO-NE. Of course, Footprint must provide the substantive evidence to support its request for a Certificate. Footprint is not asking the Siting Board to waive any of the substantive requirements of the Certificate process. Rather, Footprint is asking the Siting Board to either 19 1402368_2 reconsider or waive a purely procedural requirement that can easily be cured in a manner which • will not impair a full and fair adjudication of Footprint's Application.,, FOOTPRINT SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP . By its attorneys, John . DeTore Robert D. Shapiro David C. Fixler RUBIN AND RUDMAN LLP 50 Rowes Wharf Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 330-7000 Dated: August 13, 2013 • Given the deadlines and time constraints detailed in this filing, Footprint respectfully requests that the Siting • Board rule on the Motion for Reconsideration and request for a waiver as expeditiously as possible. 20 14023682 Footprint Salem Harbor Development LP EFSB 13.1 • - .i's Attachment 1$Q �newenaland August 9,2013 Mr.Alex Strysky Environmental Analyst Waterways Regulation Program Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection . One Winter Street,5a'-Floor ----- - ___-- -. . __.__. .--------------._----_--_ _— _. _- --- Boston,MA 02108 RE: Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP Application and Variance Reouest Pursuant to M.G.L.Chapter 91 Waterways License Application Number W 13-3886-N Dear Mr.Strysky: • ISO New England Inc. (the"ISO")submits this letter to correct statements made in this proceeding by Conservation Law Foundation("CLF")pertaining to the reliability need for the Footprint Power facility("Footprint"). The ISO takes no position on whether the Department of Environmental Protection("DEP")should grant the variance requested by Footprint. Rather,the sole purpose of this letter is to correct the record with respect to the reliability need for Footprint in the Northeast Massachusetts/Boston(NEMA/Boston") capacity zone. The ISO is the private,non-profit entity that serves as the regional transmission organization("RTO")for New England. The ISO is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission("Commission"). The ISO has no shareholders and its employees are barred from being employed by or owning shares in companies that participate in the ISO's markets. The ISO operates the New England bulk power system and administers New • so New Engkw h= ore Sdhi Road,Holyolaa MA 01040.2841 www.isorp mm 74135404542 F4135354379 � tt • England's organized wholesale electricity market. In its capacity as an RTO,the ISO has the responsibility to protect the reliability of the New England Control Area and to operate the system according to reliability standards established by the Northeast Power Coordinating Council("NPCC")and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation("NERC'). Reliability requirements for the bulk power system are separated into two areas: resource adequacy and security. Resource adequacy is"the ability of the electric system to ---_-----_.---Supply the aggregate electric demand and energy_requirements at all times,taking into account scheduled and reasonably expected unscheduled outages of system elements."' Security is the ability of the system to withstand sudden disturbances such as electric short circuits or unanticipated loss of system elements such as generators or transmission.lines. A well- planned and adequate power system will lead to a secure system in day-today operations. • The primary means by which the ISO ensures sufficient resources to reliably serve demand is through the Forward Capacity Market(TCW'). The FCM is a three-year forward market for capacity to procure and retain the necessary resources to reliably serve demand both locally and system-wide in New England. The ISO purchases capacity resources in an annual auction("FCA"). In addition to ensuring that there is reliable capacity system-wide, the FCM is also designed to address locational capacity needs. Locational information is incorporated in the auction through the use of capacity zones,which are subregions of the New England system with specific locational characteristics. As pertinent to this proceeding, the NEMA/Boston capacity zone is an import-constrained capacity zone. Import-constrained zones are areas that may not have adequate internal resources and transmission import- 'Glossary of Terms,prepared by the Glossary of terms Task force(GOTTF)North American • Electric Reliability Council,GOTTF formed jointly by the NERC Engineering Committee(EC)and Operating Committee(OC),August 1996,www.nerc.com/glossary/glossary-body.htm] 2 • capability to meet reliability standards. As such,a minimum amount of capacity resources must be located within an import-constrained zone. The amount of capacity that must be located within an import-constrained zone is called the Local Sourcing Requirement 2 The FCM is designed to ensure there is sufficient capacity by promoting economic investment in supply and demand resources where they are needed most. To purchase enough qualified resources to satisfy the region's future needs and to allow enough time to construct new capacityresources, As are held_e_.-year for a delivery year approximately three_years in advance. Capacity resources compete in the annual FCA to obtain a commitment to supply capacity in exchange for a market-priced capacity payment If a new capacity resource clears in the FCA,it has approximately three years to build the infrastructure needed to fulfill its capacity obligation. "Clearing"in the FCA means that the resource was selected in the • auction,and then must assume a supply obligation for the commitment period in which the FCA corresponds. Last February,the seventh FCA was held for the June 1,2016 through May 31,2017 Capacity Commitment Period. The Local Sourcing Requirement for the NEMA/Boston capacity zone for FCA 7 was 3,209 MW. In other words,a minimum of 3,209 MW of capacity resources in the auction needed to be located within the NEMA/Boston capacity zone to meet the reliability standards. At the beginning of the auction,the NEMA zone had only 3,754 MW of capacity,including Footprint's 674 MW,which meant that the capacity from Footprint was needed to meet the Local Sourcing Requirement. As a result,Footprint cleared in the FCA and the ISO determined that without capacity from Footprint,there would be insufficient capacity in NEMA/Boston to meet the zone's Local Sourcing Requirement • x The Local Sourcing Requirement is based on the transmission security analysis,which is a basic security review set out in Section 5 of NPCC Directory#1. 3 • Specifically,in a filing with the Commission,the ISO reported to the Commission that without the capacity from Footprint,the[NEMA/Boston]zone would not have sufficient capacity to meet its Local Sourcing Requirement" The Commission accepted the ISO filing in an order issued on June 11,2013 3 On July 8,2013,CLF submitted comments to the DEP on Footprint's Chapter 91 variance request. Despite ISO's publically available statement to the contrary,CLF claims that Footprint"is not necessary to ensure the continued supply of electricity to the . NEMA/Boston area."A CLF is simply wrong. Without Footprint,there would be a shortage of capacity in the NEMA/Boston capacity zone for the 2016 through 2017 commitment period. In other words,without Footprint,the NEMA/Boston capacity zone would not meet reliability standards. • CLF also incorrectly claims that"[a]lthough ISO-New England found that additional capacity would be necessary to meet the NEMA/Boston supply requirements,Footprint Power is not the only choice or even the best choice to meet these needs for several reasons."5 The FCM is the primary means of ensuring that the region and local areas have resources to meet reliability standards. The auction is designed to send the appropriate price signals so that capacity is built where it is needed most The process worked as intended by attracting a significant new resource in NEMA/Boston, an area that needed new resources to meet the reliability needs in the area. Without the capacity from Footprint,NEMA/Boston will be below the zone's Local Sourcing Requirement for the 2016 to 2017 commitment period. As such,Footprint is both the only choice and the best choice at this time. a htto://www iso-ne.com/reLulatory/ferc/orders/2013/jun/er14-992-000 6-11- 13 hr ord accept 7th fca results pdf °CLF Comments at 8. 5 CLF Comments at 7. 4 • CLF also asserts that the ISO"has many tools to ensure that there is enough capacity in the system,including,implementing annual and monthly reconfiguration auctions,rejecting de-list bids,employing the Locational Forward Reserve Market,issuing a GAP RFP for any shortfall,or employing operational tools.."6 The ISO appreciates CLF's confidence and would of course take the necessary actions available to ensure the reliability of NEMA/Boston. However,the"tools"referred to above by CLF may or may not be available to the ISO depending on the circumstances_in NEMA/Boston. Many of these"tools"would only be used in emergency situations in real- time operations,which is why the ISO first looks to the market to resolve reliability issues. For example,depending on system conditions,the"tools"required to maintain overall reliability can include the interruption of electric service to customers in certain areas. More • importantly,the FCM is the primary"tool"at the ISO's disposal to ensure that there are adequate resources to reliably serve demand. The"tools"referenced by CLF are backstop actions that the ISO can take,if available,if the FCM does not produce sufficient resources. Relying on these tools in the first instance distorts the market signals and would produce a less secure system in the future. The ISO appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments on the reliability need for the Footprint facility. Should you have any additional questions please feel free to contact me. Respectfully submitted, By: By: 1 � Raymond W. e Kevin W.Flynn Vice President&General Counsel Senior Regulatory Counsel cc: Scott Silverstein • 6 id 5 Footprint Power'Salem Har illir Development LP Project 8/12/13 FW _ Project Activities Being Worked 1/1/14 to 6/1/14 _ ID Outline Task Name - Start Finish 2014 Number 20- - Oct Jan Apr Jul Oct Jan A r 175 1 2 Footprint Power LLC Salem Harbor Repow_ering Project 1/77/12 5/26/16 .-_. —_ _ _!.,, Debt anancmg - -- 6/12/13 12178/13 21 1 2.6_, 1, Financial close - -� 12/18/13 12/18/13 31 1:5 Permits -- -- -- a7 1. .2 . State -- ---- --__ ------ --------------i ------2 }------ 3 footprint Salem Harbor ___/1_ __ 2/24/12 12/78/13 - Development LP 50 7.5.2.2 ! Mass.Energy Facilities Siting Board Approval of Petition to —2/24/12-11/g/13 .Construct. _ - EFS613-1 59 7 5 2 2 9- ! Appeals Period 30 days_ Attachment B — _._ 48 1-.5.2 7 —� M_ ass Energy Facilities Siting Board ___j 7/17/13_ 72/5/13 49 1.5.2.1.1 Certficate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest I 7/17%13 12/5/13 - - - - 81 1.5.2.6 DEP Cha ter 91 Variance ! --__. --3 P _ -_—_— 2/27/12_ 12/3/13 _— _ 101 1.5.2 6 16 APpeal Period(21 Days)._— 10/9/73 10/31/13 v 100 1.5.2.6.15 � DEP Issues License(Assumes No Additional Information is � 70/31/73 12/3/13 Requested) ! 702 1.5.2.7 - DEP Major Comprehensive Plan Approval(BWP AO 03) 8/2/12 12/18/13 116 1.5.2.7.14 - DEP Issues Final Air Permit 1 11/27/13 11/_27/13 1.17 1 5 27 15 j Appeals Period 21 days _--_ 17/28/13 12/18/13 - ® - - 118 1528 j _ -DEP-Permit for Industrial Sewer D_s_e_(BWPIW38)__ 4/22/13 - 12/5/13 127 1 5.2.8.9 i DEP Public Comment Review 10/4/13 10/18/13 p , 128 1 5 2 8_10DEP Issues Approval_. ! __72/5/13 12/5/13 j 281 1.7 _ OEM&EPC Selection _� 9/17/12 9/6/13 285 1.7.4 i OEM Contractor Final Negotiations 6/5/13 8/23/13 292 1.7._11 EPC Contractor Negotiations 7/9/13 9/6/13 361 1.9 '_ New Plant Construction 2/1/12 5/26/16 370 1 94 _ OEM LNTP _ _ -__-__ ____,__—_ _.____-_, _ 8/26/13 12/26/13 379 7 9.6 � EPC LNTP Period_._ � ( 9/9/13__ _6/15/74 380 1 9 6.7 _! Engineering___ _ -- -----! 9/9/13 6/15/14 388 1.9.6.1.4 CIVIL ENGINEERING _ 13 .---_-___—__ __ 9/9/13 6/15/14 391 1.9_6.1.4.3 iBalance of civil engineering_ _ _ - I _ 9/9/13___6/15/14 389 1 9 6 1:4.1 Conceptual civil engineenng 10/7/13 1/7/14 390 1.9.6.1.4.2 Foundations STs _ 12/10/13 3/12/14 392 1.9.6.1.4.4 I_ _ ____ Piling ACC -_ -_ .___ ! 1.2/24/13 1/21/14 _- 393 1 9 6 7 4.5 - Design temporary installation/site preparation - 1/6/14_ 2/15/14 —:_ 394 19 61.4.6 i _ Foundations GTs ___ - 1/13/14 4/21/14 .-- __ --___ _--_. 396 1 96.1.4.8 - Piling STs foundations 1/13/14 2/27/14 I� 395 7961.4.7 397 1.9.6.7.4.9 - HRSG:final drawings,strength/stresses from PIE 1/19/14 1/19/14 398 1.9.6.1.4.9 1 Foundations HRSGs 2/14/14 5/31/14 __— Piling GTs foundations _------____ ------- 2/17/14 _ 4/2/14 399 1.9.6.1.4.111 Turbine bld s.final design for foundations and ilio___-___ 3/23/74 3/23/14 Task External Milestone 4 Manual Summary Rollup Split Inactive Task Manual Summary P®� Project:Footprint Power LLC Salem H Milestone ♦ Inactive Milestone ti' - Start-only Date:8/13/13 Summary Inactive Summary. _ � Finish-only ] Project Summary Manual Task 93031HE022= Progress External Tasks __ - Duration-only Deadline b Page 1 _ Footprint Power Salem HarTr Development LP Project _ _ 8/12/13 FirProject Activities,Being Worked 1/1/14 to 6/1/14 - ID Outline Task Name - Start - Finish 2014 20 . Number Oct Jan A r Jul Oct Jan Apr .400 1.9.6.1.4.12; Foundations turbine buildings 3/24/14' 5/26/14 401 1.9.6.1.4.131 Pilin HRSGs_ ' 4/4/14 5/8/14 Piling turbines buildings__ 4/29/14 6/15/14 381 1 9.6.1.1 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 11/5/13 3/26/14 402 1 9 6.1-.4.14 —_ 382 1 9V— .6.1.1.1-- __ Detaile_d_electncal engineering_________: _ 11/5/13 3/26/14 - 383 1.9.6.1.2 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING 11/13/13 1/2/14 384 1.6.61,2.1 Detailed mechanical_engmeenng___ _ I 11/13/13 1/2/14 385 19.6.1.3 CONTROL ENGINEERING - --I 1/6/74 6113/14 - 386 1.9.6.1.3_1_1 _ Conceptual control engineering_ __ _, j_. 1/6%14 3/2/14 387 1 9.6.1.3.2 Detailed control engineering _ 1 3/3/14 6/13/14 11111111111101 _._ 366 1_g.3_ j PROCUREMENT POWER ISLAND ____ 12/19/13 7/8/15 367 1.9.3.1 1 HRSG manufacturin -C- ___ _=t __- .. 9 _.. ._12/19/13 3/12115 368 1.9.3.2 L......_Steam turbine and generator manufacturing _ _i 12/19/13 __ 7/8/15 369 193.3_ j Gas turbine.andgengratormanufacturing___—_ _ 1/31/14 4/21/15 374 1 9 5 2MECHANICAL BOP -_-_--( ) —� 11/4/13 10/28/14 371 1 9 5 1 PROCUREMENT BALANCE OF PLANT BOP 1 11/4/13 5/26/15 �r 377 1.9.5.2.3 Procurement air cooled condensers 375 1.9.5.2.1 ! Procurement gas metering station and compressors 13/13/14 5/3/15 372 1.9_5.7 ___ ELECTRICAL BOP - - - - ------ -- I 12/16/13 3/31/15 373 7_95.1.1---a__ _Procurement transformers, isophase bus&breakers_ _ _12/16/13 _ 3/31/15 365 1.6.2. OEM/Construction Finance(NTP) ______ 12/19/13 12/19/13 j 404 1.9.8 EPC CONSTRUCTION - 2/1/14----------- /31/14 405 1.9.8.7 _� _ CIVIL WORKS - 2/1114..-V31/14 406 148:1.1 8.1.1 EPC Contractor Mobilization/Site Prep_ 2/1%14 4/11/114 407 1.9.8.1.2 1 : Piling ACC 3/3/14 _ 4/1/14 _------- 408 1.9.8.1.3 Temporay roads/Site Prep 3/18/14 6/16/14 409 11.9.8.1.4 Piling GT,GTG,HRSG 1 4/3/14 7/31/14 Task External Milestone 0 Manual Summary Rollup Split Inactive Task Manual Summary Project:Footprint Power LLC Salem H Milestone ♦ Inactive Milestone c1 Start-only [ :Date:8/13/13 Summary Vmmmmmmmmn�W Inactive Summary � Finish-only ] Project Summary �- Manual Task 12=2111111i Progress External Tasks - Duration-only zi '- -> Deadline b Page 2 ,r u RUBINAND • RUDMANLLP Attorneys at Law 1617.330.7000 F:617.330.7550 John A. DeTore 50 Rowes Wharf,Boston, MA 02110 Direct Dial:617-330-7144 E-mail:JDeTore@rubinrudman.com August 5, 2013 VIA HAND DELIVERY Andrew G. Greene, Director Energy Facilities Siting Board One South Station, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Re: Initial Petition of Footprint Salem Harbor Development LP for a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest, EFSB 13- Dear Mr. Greene: Enclosed for filing, please find an original and four(4) copies of the Initial Petition of • Footprint Salem Harbor Development LP for a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest. Please date-stamp the enclosed copy of this letter and return it in the enclosed self- addressed envelope for our files. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, John . D ore JAD/dm Enclosures cc: Richard A. Davey, Secretary of Transportation Kenneth Kimmell, Commissioner, DEP Eric Worrall, Acting Regional Director, DEP Northeast Regional Office Ben Lynch, Director, DEP Division of Wetlands and Waterways Kevin Brander, P.E., Section Chief, DEP Northeast Regional Office • James Belsky, Permit Chief, DEP Northeast Regional Office, Division of Air Quality Control 1400375_1 WWW.RUB[NRUDMAN.COM • Andrew G. Greene, Director August 5, 2013 Page 2 Rebecca Curran, Chair, City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals Charles Puleo, Chair, City of Salem Planning Board Julia Knisel, Chair, City of Salem Conservation Commission Jessica Herbert, Chair, City of Salem Historical Commission Thomas J. St. Pierre, Inspectional Services Director, City of Salem Inspectional Services Department Julie Rose, Business Manager, City of Salem Water Department Alan F. Taubert, Jr., P.E., Executive Director, South Essex Sewerage District David W. Cody, Fire Chief City of Salem Fire Department James Buckley, General Counsel M. Kathryn Sedor, Esq. Robert J. Shea, Esq. Service List, EFSB 12-2 I • • COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD Petition of Footprint Power ) Salem Harbor Development LP ) for Approval to Construct ) EFSB 12-2 and Operate a 630 MW Generating Facility ) Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, §§ 69H, 69J'/4 ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that,pursuant to 980 C.M.R. 1.03(4), I have on or before this day served a true copy of the enclosed documents upon all parties of record in this proceeding. Dated at Boston, Massachusetts this 5th day of August 2013. • John ore, Esq. Robert D. Shapiro, Esq. Rubin and Rudman LLP 50 Rowes Wharf Boston, MA 02110 Counsel for: Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LLC • 13549631 r - • COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ENERGY FACILITIES SITING BOARD Petition of Footprint Power Salem Harbor ) Development LP for a Certificate of ) EFSB 13- Environmental Impact and Public Interest ) • INITIAL PETITION OF FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP John A. DeTore Robert D. Shapiro David C. Fixler Rubin and Rudman LLP 50 Rowes Wharf Boston, MA 02110 (617) 330-7000 Dated: August 5, 2013 • 13963082 • INTRODUCTION Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP ("Footprint") files this Initial Petition for a Certificate of Environmental Impact and Public Interest with respect to a generating facility ("Certificate") representing a composite of all state and local permits, approvals or authorizations that would otherwise be necessary to construct and operate the Facility, as such term is defined below, pursuant to G.L. c. 164, §§ 69K'/z-690'/2 and 980 CMR 6.02. On August 3, 2012, Footprint filed with the Energy Facilities Siting Board ("Siting Board" or"EFSB") its Petition to Construct a 630 megawatt(MW) (692 MW with duct firing) natural gas-fired, quick-start, combined-cycle facility ("Facility") at the present location of the Salem Harbor Station in Salem, Massachusetts. Footprint also provided extensive information regarding its plans to demolish the existing coal- and oil-fired facility, remediate the site, and • make available for development approximately 45 acres of waterfront property in Salem. Construction of the proposed Facility is scheduled to commence in June 2014,1 with plans for the Facility to become operational in June 2016. The Siting Board docketed the Petition as EFSB 12-2. Over the course of the past year, the Siting Board: required Footprint to publish and provide extensive public notice of its proceeding; held a public hearing in the City of Salem; granted five petitions to intervene; issued three rounds of information requests to Footprint and allowed intervenors to issue two rounds of discovery to Footprint; held 10 days of evidentiary hearings during which 23 witnesses provided testimony; entered 775 exhibits into the evidentiary There are several critical prerequisites for the actual commencement of construction in June 2014, including substantial final engineering work,the ordering of hundreds of millions of dollars of equipment(with substantial monetary deposits)and extensive site preparation work. These activities must begin in January • 2014,which means that project financing must be completed by then. Financing cannot proceed with permit appeals outstanding. 1 1396308_2 • record; allowed Footprint and intervenors to submit initial and reply briefs; and reviewed an Issues Memorandum issued by EFSB Staff, as well as comments filed by parties in response to the Issues Memorandum. On July 11, 2013, the Siting Board held a public meeting regarding Footprint's Petition to Construct. After reviewing the Staff's Issues Memorandum, hearing comments from Footprint and intervenors, and thoroughly discussing numerous issues, the Siting Board voted to direct the EFSB Staff to draft a Decision approving Footprint's Petition to Construct its proposed Facility subject to conditions ("July 11 Vote"). See July 11, 2013 Transcript at 201-206. On June 28, 2013, the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals ("Zoning Board") unanimously issued a decision granting Footprint's Petition for(1) a Special Permit for an Essential Service use pursuant to Section 3.0 of the City of Salem's Use Regulations; and • (2) Variances from the City's Dimensional Requirements pursuant to Section 4.0 ("Zoning Board Decision"). Despite the Zoning Board Decision and the Siting Board's July 11 Vote, Footprint cannot construct its Facility because, on July 17, 2013, Michael Furlong and William Dearstyne, both residents of Salem, appealed the Zoning Board Decision pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, § 17 (the "Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal").2 It is essential that construction and operation of the Facility proceed without delay in order for Footprint to (1) help meet the demonstrated need for capacity in the NEMA/Boston load zone in June 2016, as recognized by Department of Public Utilities ("Department" or 2 The full record of the Zoning Board proceedings, including a copy of the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal, is provided as Appendices A through D. A copy of the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal is provided as Appendix A to • the Initial Petition. Pursuant to 980 CMR 6.02(3), in submitting an Initial Petition to the EFSB,"the petition shall include such attachments as the petitioning company deems useful" 2 1396308_2 , • "DPU") in D.P.U. 12-77 (2013); and (2) satisfy the requirement of ISO—New England ("ISO-NE") that the Facility be on line by June 2016. Pursuant to G.L. c. 164, §§ 69K'/2, the Siting Board shall consider a Petition for a Certificate if any of seven grounds are present. The sixth ground reads as follows: (vi)the facility cannot be constructed because of delays caused by the appeal of any approval, consent, permit, or certificate. Because the delay caused by the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal prevents Footprint from constructing the Facility, the EFSB should find that Footprint meets the statutory criteria for consideration of this Initial Petition. See G.L. c. 164, § 69K'/2 (vi). Accordingly, as more particularly set forth below, the Siting Board should (1) defer a decision on the merits of the Initial Petition, (2) consolidate the Initial Petition and the Application, (3) adjudicate the Initial Petition and the Application concurrently, and (4) grant the • Initial Petition at such time. DISCUSSION I. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR AN INITIAL PETITION Any person who proposes to construct or operate a generating facility in the Commonwealth may seek a Certificate from the Siting Board. G.L. c. 164, § 69K'/2; IDC Bellingham, LLC, 13 DOMSB 1, 10 (2001) ("IDC Bellingham Certificate Decision"). Such Certificate, if issued, "shall be in the form of a composite of all individual permits, approvals, or authorizations which would otherwise be necessary for the construction and operation of the generating facility." See G.L. c. 164, § 69K'/2. An applicant for a Certificate first must file an Initial Petition. Id. The Siting Board shall grant an Initial Petition if(1)the Applicant asserts one or more of the seven grounds for a Petition set forth in G.L. c. 164, § 69K'/2; and (2) the • 3 1396306_2 . Siting Board determines that, on the merits, at least one of the grounds asserted constitutes a valid basis for granting the Initial Petition. Id. Within seven days of the filing of an Initial Petition, the Siting Board must decide either to hold a hearing on the merits of the grounds asserted in the Initial Petition, or to accept an Application for Certificate and to defer a decision on the merits of the Initial Petition until the hearing on the Application. IDC Bellingham Certificate Decision at 10, n.5, citing 980 CMR 6.02(4). II. BACKGROUND In the sections that follow, Footprint summarizes (a)the proposed Facility; (b) Footprint's Petition to Construct filing and the status of the Siting Board's decision related thereto; (c) Footprint's Petition for a Special Permit and Variances and the Zoning Board's • Decision related thereto; and (d) the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal. A. FOOTPRINT'S PROPOSED FACILITY 1. The Generating Facility and Interconnections Footprint's proposed Facility is a state-of-the-art, nominal 630 MW natural gas-fired electric generation facility with"quick start" capability. With duct firing under summer conditions, the Facility will be capable of generating an additional 62 MW, for a total of 692 MW. The Facility will include a diesel-fueled emergency back-up generator. The exclusive fuel source for the Facility is natural gas. The Facility major components include: • two (2) quick-start natural gas combustion turbine generators ("CTG"); • two (2) steam turbine generators ("STG"); • two (2) heat recovery steam generators ("HRSG") including pollution control is equipment; 4 1396308_2 • • an administrative building with warehouse/shops space; and a service bay; • an auxiliary bay; • a water treatment facility; • transformers; • an ammonia storage tank; • two water tanks; • air-cooled condensers; and • a facility switchyard and other structures and infrastructure. The Facility will use highly efficient quick-start combustion turbines. Footprint has selected GE Energy 7F 5-Series Gas Turbines for its generating technology. Each power block can produce approximately 150 MW (300 MW total for the plant) of output within 10 minutes of startup and, • as such, can provide an economic, low emissions backup for intermittent wind generation. The Facility will include a 34,000 gallon, single-wall construction above-ground steel ammonia storage tank. The tank will contain 19 percent aqueous ammonia (NH3), which is used for pollution control processes. The tank, ammonia transfer pumps,.valves and piping, will be located within a concrete containment structure (dike). The diked area will be located within another enclosure. Additional equipment at the proposed Facility will include three fuel combustion emission units, as follows: • an 80 million Btu per hour natural gas fired auxiliary boiler equipped with ultra- low-NO,burners, • a 750 KW (standby rating) emergency generator firing 15 ppm ultra-low sulfur distillate (ULSD) oil, and • a 371 brake horsepower(BHP) fire pump engine firing ULSD oil. • 5 1396308_2 • The Facility will interconnect with the existing National Grid ("NGRID") switchyard located in the northeast portion of the Site. In order to interconnect with NGRID's switchyard, Footprint will construct the following ancillary facilities: 1 P g y O a new facility switchyard, (2) a 115 kilovolt ("kV") underground cable connection from each of the four generator step-up transformers to the new SHR Facility switchyard; and (3) underground 115 kV transmission lines from the two sets of gas-fired steam and combustion turbine generators to the existing substation. Natural gas will be delivered to the Site from the HubLine pipeline in Beverly Harbor via a new 16-inch pipeline that will enter the Site in the vicinity of Derby Street and Webb Street. The pipeline will be owned and operated by Spectra. 2. The Site The Facility will be constructed at the existing Salem Harbor power station—a four unit oil- and coal-fired electric generating facility - located at 24 Fort Avenue, Salem, Massachusetts. The existing site is a 65-acre parcel ("Property"), which has been used for power generation since 1951. The proposed Facility will be constructed on approximately 20 acres. The remainder of the Property will be available for future development. The Property is bordered by Fort Avenue and the South Essex Sewerage District ("SESD") wastewater treatment plant to the north; Salem Harbor and Cat Cove to the east and northeast; the City of Salem's Blaney Street Ferry terminal and several mixed-use buildings to the southeast; and by Derby Street and Fort Avenue to the west. Residential neighborhoods and the Bentley Elementary School are located to the west across Fort Avenue and Derby Street. The Property is located in an industrial zoning district and almost the entire parcel is within the • Salem Harbor Designated Port Area. 6 1396308_2 • A majority of the existing buildings and infrastructure of the existing facility will be demolished, with the exception of the existing Community Outreach Building and guardhouse, which will be renovated. Footprint will remediate the Property as may be required under Chapter 21 E and the Massachusetts Contingency Plan. B. FOOTPRINT'S PETITION TO CONSTRUCT AND THE STATUS OF THE EFSB'S DECISION RELATED THERETO 1. Footprint's Petition to Construct Filing On August 3, 2012, the same day it closed its transaction for the acquisition of the existing Salem Harbor facility from a subsidiary of Dominion Resources, Inc., Footprint filed with the EFSB a Petition to Construct its proposed Facility. Footprint filed its Environmental Notification Form under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act on the same day. The Siting Board docketed the case as EFSB 12-2 and conducted a public hearing in the City of • Salem on September 19, 2012. Intervention was granted to the following entities: the City of Salem; Salem State University; the North Shore Community Development Coalition;NGRID; IBEW Local 326; Salem Alliance for the Environment; the Conservation Law Foundation; and the Historic Derby Street Neighborhood Association/Point Neighborhood Association. In addition, Benjamin Pignatelli and Richard Kerver were granted limited participant status. Footprint responded to three sets of information requests issued by EFSB Staff, and to one or two sets of information requests from five of the intervenors. The Siting Board conducted 10 days of evidentiary hearings during which 23 witnesses (14 Footprint witnesses, 5 NGRID witnesses, and 4 City witnesses) provided testimony totaling 1,783 pages of hearing transcript. In all, 775 exhibits were entered into the evidentiary record of the proceeding, including Footprint's responses to 74 record requests from the EFSB Staff and intervenors. Footprint and a number of intervenors • submitted both initial and reply briefs. 7 1396308_2 • On July 2, 2013, the EFSB Staff issued its Issues Memorandum, and Footprint and a number of intervenors submitted written comments regarding the Issues Memorandum. 2. July 11, 2013 Siting Board Meeting On July 11, 2013, the Siting Board held a public meeting to consider the EFSB Staff s Issues Memorandum and comments submitted by the parties. In addition, parties were afforded an opportunity to address the Siting Board with respect to the Issues Memorandum. After extensive questioning and discussion, the Siting Board voted to direct the EFSB Staff to draft a Decision approving Footprint's Petition to Construct its proposed Facility subject to conditions. See July 11, 2013 Transcript at 201-206. Footprint anticipates that the Siting Board will issue a Final Decision approving the proposed Facility with conditions in October 2013. • C. FOOTPRINT'S PETITION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES AND THE ZONING BOARD'S DECISION APPROVING SAID PETITION 1. Footprint's Special Permit and Variances Application On May 29, 2013, Footprint filed with the Zoning Board its requests for (1) a Special Permit for an Essential Services use pursuant to the Section 3.0 Use Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Salem ("Zoning Ordinance"); and (2) Variances to exceed the maximum allowable height allowance of 45 feet in an Industrial Zoning District pursuant to Section 4.0 of the Zoning Ordinance.3 With respect to the Variances, Footprint sought height allowances for the vertical development of the following components of the proposed generating facility: Generator • 3 The Application to the Zoning Board is provided as Appendix B. 8 1396308_2 • Building Stack (230 feet(+/-)); Heat Recovery Steam Enclosure (125 feet (+/-)); Air Cooled Condenser Enclosure (120 feet(+/-)); Diesel Generator Stack (86 feet (+/-)); Gas Turbine 41 Building (76 feet (+/-)); Gas Turbine#2 Building (76 feet (+/-)); STG Building(76 feet and Ammonia Tank Enclosure (45 feet(+/-)). Notice of the time, place and subject matter of Footprint's Petition for a Special Permit and Variances was given as required by G.L. c. 40A. Pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, § 11, the Zoning Board conducted a public hearing on Footprint's Petition for a Special Permit and Variances on June 19, 2013.4 2. The Zoning Board Decision On June 28, 2013, the Zoning Board voted 5-to-0 to approve Footprint's requests for a Special Permit and Variances.5 In its Decision, the Zoning Board granted Footprint's request for • a Special Permit and Variances subject to certain terms, conditions and safeguards. Footprint is prepared and able to comply with all of these terms, conditions and safeguards. In particular, the Zoning Board found that: • The desired relief may be granted without detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. • A power plant use has occupied the site for over 60 years and the current buildings and stacks reach from 150+/- feet to 500+/- feet in height, making this site unlike any other in the District. • The size, location and layout of the site and its proximity to the natural gas pipeline and the adjoining National Grid switchyard make it unique to any other sites in the District. • The literal enforcement of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance's Table of Dimensional Requirements, specifically the maximum allowable building height requirement of 45-feet in an Industrial Zoning District, would render the • 4 The minutes of this meeting are included in Appendix C. 5 A copy of the Zoning Board Decision is included in Appendix D. 9 1396308_2 _ • construction of the buildings and structures that are needed to contain the power plant's equipment and operations impossible,thus causing a substantial hardship to Petitioner. • According to the visual comparisons of the existing and proposed power plants, the proposed facility's reduced building heights and smaller plant footprint bring it more in compliance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. • The facility is and has been an essential services use for the past 60 years that has provided power generation to the City of Salem and the surrounding region, the facility as proposed continues that essential services use to meet the needs of the community. • The redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station facility into a new combined-cycle, gas-fired electric generation facility is in accordance with the Salem Harbor Plan, and has been shown to meet the power generation needs of the community and the region at-large. • The facility, as proposed, does not change the traffic flow or safety of the neighborhood traffic flow of the neighborhood. • Through its reduced reliance on municipal services, especially its use of local potable water, the proposed facility will not adversely impact the public services • and has adequate access to utilities. • The facility will be an improvement to the neighborhood character by reducing the building and stack heights throughout the facility, and shrinking the necessary footprint of the plant. In addition, the facility's design provides improved visual and physical access to a portion of the Salem waterfront and allows for greater opportunities for future commercial and industrial development and an expanded harbor. • As designed, the facility represents a benefit to the natural environment and visually improves the neighborhood for residents. The conversion from a coal fired plant to a new combined-cycle, gas-fired electric generation facility will have a positive impact to the environment. • The development represents a great opportunity for positive impacts on the economic and fiscal situation of the city. See Zoning Board Decision at 2-3. • 10 1396308_2 • D. THE FURLONG/DEARSTYNE APPEAL On July 17, 2013, Michael Furlong and William Dearstyne (together "Plaintiffs"), both residents of Salem, appealed the Zoning Board Decision in Essex Superior Court pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, § 17.6 In the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal, among other matters, the Plaintiffs assert that the Zoning Board Decision failed to apply the appropriate standards of the Zoning Ordinance, and with respect to the Variances, that the Zoning Board Decision failed to include evidence or factual findings of a hardship, which Plaintiffs assert is necessary in order to obtain a variance. The Plaintiffs seek to have the Court annul the Zoning Board Decision. III. RELIEF SOUGHT A. FOOTPRINT MEETS THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR ` CONSIDERATION OF AN INITIAL PETITION Despite having sought and obtained the requested Special Permit and Variances from the • Zoning Board, Footprint cannot build its Facility while the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal is pending. Therefore, as shown below, Footprint meets the statutory requirements under G.L. c. 164, § 69K'/z to seek a Certificate. G.L. c. 164, § 69K'/z sets forth the grounds for proceeding with an Initial Petition for a Certificate. These grounds include: (i) The applicant is prevented from building a generating facility because it cannot meet standards imposed by a state or local agency with reasonable and commercially available equipment; or (ii) Because the processing or granting by a state or local agency of any approval, consent, permit or certificate has been unduly delayed for any reason, including the preparation and publication of any environmental impact report; or (iii) The applicant believes there are inconsistencies among resource use permits issued by state or local agencies; or • 6 A copy of the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal is included as Appendix A. Il 1396308_2 • (iv) The applicant believes that a non-regulatory issue or condition has been raised or imposed by a state or local agencies, such as, but not limited to, aesthetics and recreation; or (v) The generating facility cannot be constructed due to any disapprovals, conditions or denials by a state or local agency or body, except with respect to any lands or interests therein, excluding public ways, owned or managed by any state agency or local government; or (vi) The facility cannot be constructed because of delays caused by the appeal of any approval, consent, permit or certificate. See also 980 CMR 6.02(2). In addition to the foregoing, the Siting Board "shall . . . consider an application for a [Certificate] if it finds that any state or local agency has imposed a burdensome condition or limitation on any license or permit which has a substantial impact on the responsibilities of the • board as set forth pursuant to section 69H." G.L. c. 164, § 69K'/2 para. 2. B. THE PENDENCY OF THE FURLONG/DEARSTYNE APPEAL PRECLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITY The Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal precludes the construction of the proposed Facility. See G.L. c. 164, § 69K'/z (vi). Pursuant to G.L. c. 40A, § 11, the pendency of the Appeal precludes Footprint's Variances from taking effect until the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal has been dismissed or denied. Thus, until the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal is resolved in Footprint's favor, Footprint cannot construct the Facility. Indeed, it could take up to twenty-two months for the Court to resolve the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal.? Of course, that disposition, even if it actually occurs in 7 The following deadlines have been set by the Essex Superior Court in accordance with the Third Amended Standing Order 1-88: Time Standards: November 14,2013—answer due;December 14,2013 —amended pleadings and service of motions to dismiss under Rule 12; May 13,2014—complete discovery;July 12,2014—summary judgment motions;November 9, • 2014—pre-trial conference; May 8,2015—disposition. See Docket No. ESCV2-13-01130;see also Third Amended Standing Order 1-88 for general deadlines for fast track cases. 12 1396308_2 - • May 2015 and even if favorable to Footprint, would be subject to further appeal and thus further delay. Thus, pendency of the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal will cause substantial delay in the Project's schedule because in order to construct, Footprint requires a building permit which cannot be issued until the Court makes a final decision on the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal. Moreover, it is essential that construction and operation of the Facility proceed without delay in order for Footprint to (1) help meet the demonstrated need for capacity in the NEMA/Boston load zone in June 2016, as recognized by the Department in D.P.U. 12-77 (2013); and (2) satisfy the requirement of ISO-NE that the Facility be on line by June 2016. In D.P.U. 12-77, the Department's review of the need for capacity in the NEMA/Boston load zone, the DPU determined that: The results of FCA 47 show that, absent Footprint, there is a need in NEMA/Boston for additional capacity resources • beginning in the 2016/17 capacity year. D.P.U. 12-77, at 18. In addition, Footprint's bid to supply capacity in Forward Capacity Auction (or FCA) 7 was "cleared" (Le., accepted as needed) by ISO-NE for the NEMA load zone for the 2016/17 delivery year. As ISO-NE's Vice President of System Planning explained in testimony before the FERC included with ISO-NE's filing seeking approval of the FCA 7 auction results: The capacity from Footprint is needed to meet NEMA/Boston's Local Sourcing Requirement . . . without the capacity from Footprint, the zone would not have sufficient capacity to meet its Local Sourcing Requirement.$ In order for the Facility to begin generating electricity in June 2016, financing of the Facility must be completed in January 2014. The pendency of the Furlong/Dearstyne Appeal • Moreover, if the case is moved to Land Court,a similar schedule would ensue. 13 13963082 • prevents Footprint from constructing its Facility consistent with the tight schedule that must be met in order to provide critical capacity to the NEMA load zone in 2016. Accordingly, pursuant to G.L. c. 164, § 69K'/z (vi), the EFSB should consider Footprint's Petition for a Certificate.9 A full listing of the state and local permits required for and/or obtained by Footprint is provided in Appendix E. C. THE SITING BOARD SHOULD ACCEPT FOOTPRINT'S APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE AND ADJUDICATE THIS INITIAL PETITION AND THE APPLICATION CONCURRENTLY Pursuant to 980 CMR 6.02(4), upon receipt of this Initial Petition, the Siting Board or its Chairman shall: within seven days determine whether to hold a separate hearing on the grounds asserted in the petition or to accept an application pursuant to 980 CMR 6.03(1), and to defer decision on the merits of the grounds asserted in the initial petition until • the hearing on the application. As shown above, Footprint clearly has demonstrated that it meets the statutory requirements to submit an Application. Because the issues addressed in this Initial Petition and the Application are intimately related, the Siting Board should address the Petition and the Application together. This is particularly true because -- as contemplated by 980 CMR 6.03 -- Footprint intends its Application to further elaborate on many of the issues raised in this Initial Petition. Further, adjudicating the two matters concurrently will save resources and time. See Cape Wind Associates, LLC, EFSB 07-8 (November 28, 2007 Procedural Order); Colonial Gas 8 ISO New England,Docket No.ER13-992(Feb.26,2013),Testimony of Stephen J.Rourke at 8. 9 While Footprint recognizes that initial petitions for Certificates typically have been filed subsequent to a Siting Board final decision approving a Petitions to Construct filed under G.L. c. 164, § 69J'/4,nothing in the Siting Board's statute(G.L. c. 164, §§ 69K'/z-O%)or regulations(980 CMR 6.00 et seg.)governing Certificates • preclude the filing of an initial petition before the Siting Board issues a final decision approving a petition to construct. 14 1396308_2 • Company d'b/a KeySpan Energy Delivery New England, EFSB 06-1 (September 18, 2006 Procedural Order); IDC Bellingham Certificate Decision (February 15, 2001 Procedural Order). Thus, to prevent further delay and promote judicial economy, within seven days of filing of this Initial Petition, the Chairman of the Siting Board should decide to: (1) defer a decision on the merits of the Initial Petition, (2) consolidate the Initial Petition and the Application, and (3) adjudicate the Initial Petition and the Application concurrently. Moreover, upon review, the Siting Board should grant the Initial Petition. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, because Footprint meets the statutory requirements under G.L. c. 164, § 69K'/z to seek a Certificate, Footprint respectfully requests that the Siting Board defer a decision on the merits of the grounds asserted in this Initial Petition until the hearing on • Footprint's Application for a Certificate and adjudicate the Initial Petition and the Application concurrently. See 980 CMR 6.02(4). Consistent with 980 CMR 6.02(4), Footprint requests that the Siting Board's Chairman issue a decision on such consolidation within seven days. FOOTPRINT SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT LP By its attorneys, hn A. DeTore Robert D. Shapiro David C. Fixler RUBIN AND RUDMAN LLP 50 Rowes Wharf Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 330-7000 • Dated: August 5, 2013 15 13963082 ;is. OocKEr NO.(S) Trial Court of Massachusetts CIVIL ACTION - Superior Court Department 1 r COVER SHEET (� County: PLAINTIFFS) DEFENDANT(5) p 11 _I-sol' :nr, 1ov-�Cr.:�.�lr"� Q¢Vc�•(�PVi1a'��.Q. 1 A!✓l /�ic�lQG` vrjoA� ov� :Wt,1igr� �Ear.Sl ne ¢ c '-,.(✓rr . h 'annL NG n^ � ` ` r ATTORNEY FIRM NAME,ADDRESS ANDTELEPHONE : 1'1lCnj� jV rr tSl _(t1DN.4S c[ Klanay Soret vn;} , `t$ :Orr by Sfrrof '_St\tn^t MA S4tIM) Mh !>V�cA .: P�P�!`(..,PAA - .r,.¢S "1'S(�-S,AoS in "Imlr lCz RcjfieS Sclten 'brala rt ard of Bar Ovrsnum eeers tier aC,tA hOrigm'code and track designation RI a an x,In one box only ❑ 4 X0'4 Dlstnct"Court Appeal c 231 s 97 &104(After 1 F01O(ginal Complaint tial) (X) ` 2 F02Removaf to Sup Ct G 231 s 104 ❑ 5 FOS Reactivated after rescnpt relief from r (Before teal) '(F) Ju gmenUOtder(Mass:R CIS P 60) (X) 3 F03J3etransfer to Sup Ct.C231 s.1 02C(X)�EJ ,`= ' ❑ 6 X10 Summary Process Appeal{X) TYPE OFACTION AND TRACK DESIGNATION (See reverse side) ,L CODE No.. c TYPE OF:ACTION (specify) TRACK IS THIS A JURY CASE? ! Z 7Ma\ (�{ 4 z. ) ( j�es ) No... an w The following is a;full, rtemaed and detailed statement,-_1.of the#acts on whichYplamtlf#.relies to,detetmme , } a inoxiey damages F,orAhis,form,edisregard doubleror treble, datrlaIge claims, indicate single°damages only MV_;t TORT�, ""T (Attach add(fronal sheets as necessary) w <^ A Documented medical expensas,to date: T` „ I 4 44, > - 1 Total hospital expenses,� o ,r 2 Total Doer;�xpenses s 3 Total chiropractic expenses PY xP 4 4 Total physal hera a enses i , , r � "APM"t, 5 Total other expenses,(descnbe) t , ss ` I , anti'T, i = s t rF .iYLa r vl� 1l{tl.!*-, Subtotal $'tin -Z" I h i B Doculiented lostwages a(1d compensation to date � � r $ ' C Docu`men'ted property damae`s to datex s, ;x D Reasonably a�tapate'dtfutretmedlcaLt land hosp tai esenses ° 0lt '0; } $ r Ph2v',�� x *n E Reasonably antic(pated 1ost'wages r $ ,, FOtherdocumented dems of dditidges (describe) ram $w'. t G Brief descri tide of plaintiff s miury, including nature and iex tent of i�tJury escnbe) -`�' AN IL'J ,lar vJf A `Fka$ ' y'„ tin L,tx.fit, z W ,f E � .3,1n �' u�• l� Ti t 3t., a,�T� , F J+-} r ssY'�k�, ..y°N4 ) 4 � t i lav_ H � C errx'=• GONTRACTrCLA1MS ( SUPERIORG E SEX " 5 0 c s ,(Attach addihonai sheetsas-kpgluRT'f OF ` > �,', + a w m a t 1 Provide a detailed description of claims) r FO AUL"�7 2Qj3 - �` p e" W t ,,, ." . -^a - ...,fir F �., �. w - -,•: 1 _4.11'•••":"f_ RK.,ii;� , TOTAL`S sx PLEASE IDENTIFY, BY CASE NUMBER 'NAME AND COUNTY ANY RELATED ACTION PENDING IN THE SUPERIOR I` COURT DEPARTMENT , ,. I hereby certify that I have complied w he requirements of Rule.5 of the Supreme Judicial Court Uniform Rules on Dispute Resolution (SJC.Rule 1:18)� uiri g t'I`provide my clients with information about court-connected dispute- resolution services and discuss wii advantages and disadvantages of the arious methods: ):• Signature of Attorney of Record ' �^ DATE: d7 4 AOTC-6 mtc005-11199 "A.O.S.C.f2000 +!x} CIVIL ACTION COVER SHEET INSTRUCTIONS SELECT CATEGORY THAT BEST DESCRIBES YOUR CASE 5 CONTRACT REAL PROPERTY 'MISCELLANEOUS 01Services,labor and materials .(F) C01 Land taking(eminent domain) :,.(F) .EO2_ ;Appeal from administrative (X)•''.: : 0.2. Goods sold'and delivered . (F) CO2 :' onmg Appeal G L c40A AgencyG.L c 30A, 84 Commercial Paper '( CO3 Dispute conceming title ;.(O 'E03 Action against Commonwealth 8 ` Saie or lease of real estate (F) -•:C04: `Forectdau"re of mortgage ''(X) Municipality G.L.c258 (q) '12_ Const)uchon Urspute (A) Q()! Condominium lien-and charges (X) ED5 All Arbitration -:(X) r t 99 Other(Specify) r (fit C99 Oxher(Specgyt ,. , (r7 EOK rl.'1Jjs72S(Mary l•,+�' r ' x `S '?1n,T - F5 `, t , .>I ';[ _s ,� ,,,, l r11 1 E08 +Appointment of Receiver 2rx "y 'Aa t,• c > r g 9_ .� < EQUITABLE REMEDIES E09 General contractor bond D3. MotonU icle ne ri ante. s + va 1113, ypesona('tFl� /pefr�tydamaget i rr��: .r c,DO(, Spe��c PFfOm)ance of coptraclt (A)ai4'; �. 4 ' Lrc Y{�49 *-umernegrig rice ersonal ` ,riDp2 'Reachand Appty a� -� , u:(Fl + 'E71-+++Workmans Comperuatron,t e z '" dx'.s',NS• "�- J Jf�„^+ 1' E F. �ti•a, rsr uc1✓x;.3 Y,., r x rykre };' .1 Lair / r x 5 C 'k.-`�i f PrP.ert3'}Ear Ea9e ' 4��(� Dd6�Gp,(E d ion}or Indemnt on��. '�4 'rEiM hapter 23A Pefthon-SDPr7 a �A.`• w r 4 r .y,. z 'ak ettL"`rv� r,r zrr rr �Prod cfs U�tnlltytiy w „°�A�Tn +Do��'lmposrtloh(Of Trustr t, -"+' t �A) � �''�95 �Ab�iso Pebhon+/�1`cY209A ' sF ra�if`r��i'r`N a�'t�Uitie �'t s ; P lt:,ir at 1'u�r s x 3t}> I. •h. v-"r --00Dd6�r25C-t 4M�,aa�tlpp0.nrr;aaacdy8h>174!e,ee..�o"mlfiert>ltlertirScY�SaL�1p2cek-v.r p�l,,y+s1-y,,Fr�2,'xa�Ytj(fAAR�.'f)l)w'','.n-ryy�r�^k�Kcr.ry.��-0spD�,Y.�0•.��8l.��,,xMDfi�g"m,^+:r.soowv�on,.yu,l.ryrn/tPii$`�taF,�:�..{`'Cho'3lde�f�S,,_Jc.�S':'c�iu'•,Rr 5a1.Y�3't'.i.7Il�.rPY.tL?'at,((,AA))''r"J'�1.r-,_'iNfct£i �FHvSE„rl,rvA`'l*i]"r7JLc.t.-A 40 "- tt^$urchargeG.prrLp✓%s,"ecCtIa 4Y�+5 uhor d'r` D(scovery.�P`redin eYamao ulre`�,I �TM 1 A ', �DSs�'s+D,dei ,or ud"' "n3tG7Lfe29�Aa ( ;'�'�+1E9�'2n�, �Cs�•t-� r, '� �yyv"m r"'14 >r•.igr, F �' r eu3 D9� Q)he ei kY Ys"-r,•�9tir r a,.yW'E8 -� rp ,� -� p. '1G2+ oc. �- '� "`tt �Y.-�, u # .ti• � ,. x�� a � P{rsoner Habea#rCoo use ,� 20� "_`•s'.�ri.: A r `t5 'ra+x''..�} 4s• u.. fit^* l x Ri. �4tL2x L 5�.ra � 1.. P�ers na131 cr�Y,aS1�P8�F?�'crkJ s4.a(F.� u.� b� ,w�"`+s�';f+•�'r?�'�'siTo a= .h�'�� ''zE99�sr�SPecliy'�'�c ��.) 1� .Y t' "EnV r' �R F S}� o fA) � +'w sf �.�&� �K.r f.j•L— r�p'.to- tib. `vy 3�� "5: hT T rte` `f�,l�+Y�' y;�u afa, .�^�.« 1 t, tr ,A c r (5 s +� r � '� p t s *v m a•'C}tk .rr ,sv � `k' s .�y'�-,y. t s�'�A ,�i A x t I �z�e4 " 4.f5 ''J�y�,4.r��Y'S��t.e'1: r �% �.'Y ji•' r Y,Li.r. �fti e ��r}r�'M1.�.y ti f ��W ��'� 6�� lR`Y'e� Y✓` �t ��SF `�.�"pM i 3 .� 'Sue' � �SiI�`�sr��/iFi =t%r L �� '•^4f 4�x'i�e Ar U � � �qr- AWEM1 �� }� ' f a<- '' r s�-• � .�Sy vurr 3 e+��yy5 � cy4 � r �� sJ �- .:�� '.'E ,:;. ER9YO,URRaaEi3EC,' b_ i• A9 t t.4'" a,'� •,tra H�� w1. � v�v ��r "'r��•y � t�� 1 " D �r�M t Ve fble Il ei e, Q ,f. '•¢N ! rl .*-y'�(•4nc ''t t E ,.s.t O � 'I-� '�y 1�ff } . 4 � .- ,�'.. J• .zc �`''''�t.,rr �"J. - . _ ° � ,Is/�t r c s`9 as �� e1e e t r�atta�ia d,�tf•I,o„pal. � l= Ike etal t g a is �hic tl hen .I �zst �t ' et§*� t actio w eek c rpt tt to as • faeg �£e ,QN�€le a oge 'er e tnt to o a ajes �aeppr at dao L ,Oe rvla9lg e QR Ing r1�RUfe 6 r �� " ..f 'tiu1r ''crwF �, UvTY OF H DE k1N s gill �g'�21s pgn 1'.!;atem? , a ages,fie{d q�thelP? fi zln de u to g ehtsr s a�Rl�eviffi t erarsvpers§a�temratspeet�lp LR tea bhablg�jeatl tlae poter3tl ama i` n ✓iq.",L+rrFL','as •1'd•0js�'6-� �,ti 5++.'Y-`;P•'5�,.2 �`A+y + s'K".kk:2'�,q'ff"` .'` 'v' r�U- �I,�,�x�u �!y resu t��oultl�}jy'�ye lalhtfff p `tra, �ch+sX �e(r�e�t<If %�,shal{ bele a wrtbt e a sv✓�r � •'.cr¢ � Rvkvr'yr r5.tti 2�`vt � e, z •yfl 7 r t r ' r c+e''i'"^'} ti.ft >Fj "• "' t 1 ..r ik 1i'r U4a3 � 4.f�1'r+r,-�du -. s5�� !Yx n$.xE g tri'fq-9 ZUp�G�ION'COVEB-ZHEe=TrMUST"SE"FILEDWtTH,E Cy'FJ COMPLAIN ,�BUFFCOEOR Pj PE�t kp *MW t .14 [ ' > .< Yr +. _ r 4 ^sR•`1.c�iam is # 1 r FAILURE TO COOMPLEEff{IS COVERS EETTHO QUGHLYn4ND ACCURATELY r " per 3` ` ' ' `'MXa�"R� SUL"fxlN a�SMfSSAL'O'FYHOS^ACTION � � � .t�� ' r Yta�' ��'.. i t vv 11• 'l r 1.,. ' { hU� r y s t { a'.Lf4'" fttl u Es _ O,_ :. • COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ESSEX, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. /130 MICHAEL FURLONG and WILLIAM DEARSTYNE ) Plaintiffs ) VS. ) FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR ) DEVELOPMENT,LP. ) and ) REBECCA CURRAN, RICHARD DIONNE, ) MIKE DUFFY,ANNIE HARRIS, ) THOMAS WATKINS, DAVID EPPLEY ) & JAMES TSITSINOS in their capacities as members of ) the SALEM BOARD OF APPEAL ) Defendants ) AINT COMPL • INTRODUCTION This case is an appeal of the Decision of the City of Salem Board of Appeal(the `Board")attached as Exhibit"A"(the"Decision"). The Board's Decision was filed with the Salem City Clerk on June 28,2013. The Decision of the Board was made with respect to the Application of the Defendant,FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT,LP ("Footprint")for a variance and special permits(as defined under the Salem Zoning Ordinance) to demolish an existing power plant building and related facilities, construct a new power plant building and related facilities, and use the newly building and related facilities for purposes of power plant and electric power generation facility,among other uses. The Application relates to 24 Fort Avenue, Salem,MA(also known as the Salem Harbor Power Station Site at Derby Street) (the"Land"). The Application requested relief from the maximum allowable height(45') • • for a structure in an Industrial Zoning District as described in the Salem Zoning Ordinance ("Ordinance") to provide that Smokestacks, Building Heights and other facilities would exceed the maximum permitted in the District by as much as 185 feet. The application also requests a special permit for an`Essential Service Use' Pursuant to Section 3.0 of the Ordinance. The Board's Decision fails to apply the appropriate standards of the Ordinance and Zoning Act for zoning relief. The Board's Decision recognized that dimensional variances would be required to construct the proposed new structures but is devoid of any evidence ar rationale that would demonstrate a hardship-as defined under the G.L. ch 40A and the zoning ordinance- was actually present as required for the Board to grant the requested zoning relief. The Board's Decision utterly fails to make factual findings-as required by the Ordinance and by G.L. ch. 40A §10-which demonstrate that a hardship, arising from circumstances relating to • soil conditions, shape or topography of the lot, is present. Instead,the decision parrots the petition of the Applicant and states that the parcel's geographic proximity to other parcels of land gives rise to the hardship. The grant of the dimensional variance was arbitrary, capricious and in excess of the authority of the Board. With respect to the Special Permit granted by the Decision,the Board's determination that the Applicant's proposed power station is an"Essential Service"was made with factual foundation. The determination the proposed generation facility is"consistent with the Harbor Plan"was not based on evidence, was arbitrary and capricious inasmuch as an amendment to the Harbor Plan is required to permit the Power Station as currently proposed. At the time of granting the special permit,the Fire Department did not and could not develop a plan relative to smoke and fire safety at tyre proposed Power Plan. As a consequence • the reliance of the permit on non-existent Fire Department Requirements was beyond the authority of the Board. PARTTES 1. Plaintiff MICHAEL FURLONG resides at 4 Blaney Street,Unit#1, Salem MA Plaintiff MICHAEL FURLONG is an abutter to the Land. 2. Plaintiff WILLIAM DEARSTYNE resides at 48 Derby Street, Salem,MA. Plaintiff WILLIAM DEARSTYNE is an abutter to the Land. 3. Defendant FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT,LP is a foreign Limited Partnership with an office a usual place of business at 1140 Route 22 E., Suite 303, Bridgewater,NJ. 4. Defendant REBECCA CURRAN resides at 14 Clifton Avenue, Salem,MA and • has a mailing address c/o City Hall, 93 Washington Street, Salem, MA 01970 Defendant CURRAN is a member of the Board. 5. Defendant RICHARD DIONNE resides at 23 Gardner Street, Salem,MA and has a mailing address c/o City Hall, 93 Washington Street, Salem,MA 01970.. Defendant DIONNE is a member of the Board. 6. Defendant MIKE DUFFY resides at 1 Warren Court, Salem MA and has a mailing address c/o City Hall, 93 Washington Street, Salem,MA 01970. Defendant DUFFY is a member of the Board 7. Defendant ANNIE HARRIS resides at 28 Chestnut St, Salem,MA and has a mailing address c/o City Hall, 93 Washington Street, Salem,MA 01970. Defendant HARRIS is a member of the Board. • • 8. Defendant THOMAS Watkins resides at 76 Ocean Avenue, Salem, MA and has a mailing address c/o City Hall, 93 Washington Street, Salem,MA 01970. Defendant. WATKINS is a member of the Board. 9. Defendant DAVID EPPLY resides at 69 Boston Street#2, Salem, MA and has a mailing address c/o City Hall, 93 Washington Street, Salem,MA 01970. Defendant.EPPLY is an alternate member of the Board and voted on the Petition of Footprint. 10. Defendant, James Tsitsinos resides at 33 Bridge Street, Salem, MA and has a mailing address c/o City Hall, 93 Washington Street, Salem,MA 01970. Defendant.EPPLY is an alternate member of the Board and did not vote on the Petition of Footprint FACTS 11. On or about May 29,2013 Footprint filed an application requesting variances and • special permits with the Board. 12. The Board held public hearings on the application and rendered a Decision which, if effect, permits the Applicant's project to be constructed. A certified copy of the Decision is attached hereto as Exhibit"A." 13. The Decision grants dimensional variances without making the required findings of hardship based on the conditions required under the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 14. The Decision grants dimensional variances without making the required findings of hardship based on the conditions required under G.L. ch. 40A §10. 15. The Decision grants a dimensional variance for construction of new structures but fails to state any required factual or legal basis for the grant of such relief. 16. The Decision grants a Special Permit which is predicated on a factual finding that the use proposed by Footprint is an essential service. • a • 17. The Decision contains no factual or rational basis for the determination that the proposed Power Station Facility is an essential service. 18. The Decision makes a factual finding that the proposed Power Station Facility "has been shown to meet the power generation needs of the community and the region at large" without any factual or rational basis for making such a finding. 19. The Decision makes a factual finding that the facility, as proposed,"does not change the traffic flow or safety of the neighborhood traffic flow of the neighborhood"without any factual or rational basis for making such a finding. 20. The Decision makes a factual finding that the facility, as proposed"represents a benefit to the natural environment and visually improves the neighborhood for residents"and "will have a positive impact to the environment"without any factual or rational basis for making • such a finding. 21. The issuance of a special permit is an arbitrary, capricious, and untenable exercise of the Board's legal authority. 22. The Board impermissibly delegated authority to enforce conditions to the grant of the zoning relief to be created at a future date(a permit condition which is, in all events, subject to no objective standards,vague and unenforceable)to the Salem Fire Department. 23. The postponement to a future date of the application of"all requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety" is unlawful, and arbitrary,capricious and beyond the authority of the Board. 24. The construction of the proposed Power Station facility will change the bulk and height of the structure and will cast the Plaintiffs' property into a shadow for prolonged periods during the day. • • 25. The construction phase of the proposed Power Station facility will result in increased noise and traffic nuisance for an indefinite period of time 26. The construction of the proposed Power Station facility will change the traffic patterns during construction and afterwards and result in substantial difficulty for the Plaintiffs' entry to and exit from their homes. 27. The construction of the proposed Power Station Facility will materially and adversely affect the Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their homes. COUNT APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PURSUANT TO G.L.C. 40A.§ 17 28. The Plaintiffs restate and reallege paragraphs 1 through 25 as set forth above. 29. The Plaintiffs are abutters to the Project, are `parties in interest' and are presumed • to have standing to bring this action under G.L. ch. 40A §17. 30. The Board's Decision impermissibly permits construction,use and occupancy of a building will violate the zoning requirements of the Ordinance. 31. The Board's Decision fails to limit the height of the of the Applicant's building and smokestack and impermissibly permits construction above the maximum height as set forth in the ordinance. 32. The construction and operation of the Building,as proposed, will exacerbate existing parking,traffic and congestion in the neighborhood.. 33. The Decision and the Noise Condition impermissibly delegate to the Police Department the obligation to determine if noise emanating from the building is"too loud", provides no standard or basis for determining how much noise is"too loud"and whether the Plaintiffs' property is contaminated by noise pollution. • F 34. The construction and operation of the Power Station Facility, as proposed will subject the Plaintiffs to a noise nuisance and will not provide an adequate means to abate the nuisance other than to seek injunctive relief. 35. The construction and operation of the Building,as proposed,will cause deep shadowing of the Plaintiffs'property and decrease the light available to the Plaintiffs' land during the daylight hours. 36. The construction and operation of the proposed Building will cause a reduction in the market value of Plaintiffs' property. 37. Plaintiffs' harm will be materially different,than the hain suffered by other property owners in the neighborhood. ? r 38. The Decision exceeds the authority of the Board is'arbittaiy`hd capricious,is without basis in law or fact and in not consistent with the evidence at f?3e public hearing. • 39. The Decision must be annulled as it is inconsistent with the law. WHEREFORE,the Plaintiffs request that this court: 1. Issue an order annulling the Decision. 2. Issue an order requiring the Building Inspector to refrain from granting a Building Permit. 3. Award the Plaintiffs their costs of suit. 4. Grant such other relief to the Plaintiffs as maybe just and equitable. c j M lCf YAEL ON WILLIAM DE ST Pro Sc Dated: July /�2013 • 7 .'.t. --•.ti�J .. . ,;. i:., . , 'u.:..L i:, .. .. •:,i C :ii'JU'Jl:t;'G7;: ; ` � x � ..,,.n•�r, "-,iti vn�.l•t I'. ��;.It:'! I'::�, a, Ali! rna' til; !irPf /I .ltJl:!'�':'ji:'� I}�7��:':r� I. ) vQi � •l::I:`, hl r,..l'- . 'Inl'.I'.I �. . }�. ', +IGi Ali :�.� .•ir., i;_:a;, ;.I J. nt(, ,I. ._:dl �_.sl r .. , '.: i!(I.' iGfiJ i=T.1!Ji:'; �i(t •.tL, , 9t!. .aS1\1'�.'�Qi.��'(� I '.:II _nilit:n(!r -)blr, r:l iu,;i .I it Footprint Salem Harbor Development LP EFSB 13- Appendix B ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PETITION FORM C=OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETll3-HAT 29 `Xt 11: 39 (' ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 120 WASHINGTON STREET,31 FLOOR FILE # SALEM,MASSACHUSEM01970 OILY CLERK, SA LEI'I, AM�p-�A�'SS. y�y yppp gggq� Thomas St.Pierre,Director of Inspectional Services I e y - g V L978-619-5641/£978-740-9846 C e `fie+' 3 6m Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner t� t 4�978-619.5685/E 978-740-0404 HAY 2013 TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: DEPT,OF PLANNING& The Undersigned represent that he/she is/are the owners of a certain parcel of land located at: 00MMUNIIY DEVELOPME?r Address: 24 Fort Avenue Zoning District: I (Industrial) An application is being submitted to the Board of Appeal for the following reason(s): This statement must describe what you propose to build the dimensions,the zone property is in, and the zoning requirements. Eza I am proposing to construct a I O'x I0'one story addition to my home located at 3 Salem Lane, in the R-2 Zoning District. The Zoning Ordinance requires the minimum depth of the rear yard to be 30 feet. The current depth of my rear yard is 32 feet;the proposed addition would reduce the depth of the rear yard to 22 feet. See Statement attached hereto. For this reason I am requesting: *a)Variance(s)from provisions of Section 4.0 of the Zoning Ordinance,specifically from-maximum height of building ("feet") _(i.e. minimum depth ofrear yard). What is allowed is 45 feet (ft?sq ft?stories? %?),and what I ------------ am proposing is 125+ feet (ft?sgft?stories?%?). QQ(A Special Permit under Section 3.0 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit the Essential Services use of electric_g O Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector(described below): The Current Use of the Property Is: Are the lot dimensions included on the plan? (example: Two Family Home) Coal and oil f ired (x)Yes ( )No n/a because power plant The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and allow the project to be constructed as per the plans submitted,as the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws would involve • • ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FiE nTION FORM practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief mail be granted without substuntially derogating from the intent and pugwse of the Luning Ordinance. The fuilowing written statement his been submitted with this appnration: O For all variance requests a written Statement of Hardship demonstrating die following must be attached: a) Special condi lions and eireumsancts that especially atlect the land,building,or structure involved, generally not affecting oilier lands,buildings,and Savrumn;in tire same district: b) Literal enforcement of the provisions if the Ordinance would involved substantial hardship to the applicant;and c) subsantiilly may be inwitttenlofthe distrintialctorhett to the purpose oftileodinance.without Holli ymg or O For all Special Permit requests a Statement or Grounds must be attached. An application for a special permit for a noncooliornting use or s(jvctvre shall include a statement demonstrating how the proposed change shall not be subsanfrally more detrimental titan the existing nonconforming use to he neighborhood in accordance will'Art.V, §5-3. Such a statement should include relerence to the following criteria: a) Social,economic,or community needs served by the popos14 b) Traffic now and safety,including parting mid loading; C) Adequacy of utilities and Other public services; d) Impacts an the natural environment,including drainage; e) Neighborhood character,and 0 Potential fiscal impact,including impact on City tax base and employment. Previous appAcntians to the Board of Appeals involving this property have been submitted with tilts pethian foram The Building Conunissione'r curt provide dwuvientnrlon ojprevlow UPPlixamns to the petitioner or hir representative. {/rl ' rffererx from pelRou Footprint Power Sa7.etn Harbo Footpp rint Power Galata Harbor • Petilionen DevelopmenC IP Property Owner: ^^t £e-1P 1140 Route 22 East, Suite 303 1140 Route 22 East, Suite 3 Ad „a ArT HRA Address: i Talc➢limf� .+�0 0 S 'fetephone: . Ey S o6iyJrrsi v Eg raElo signature((Attached consertt letter pTessiaa�[ & C00 of C` Siivexstein, President Seotc G. Silverstein, General Partner Foot Tint 7?ow�r,$H .Rea1Co GP LLC ' of Owner & COO oP Footprint Power SYT P__ , . oto evo G .T , General Date:' Partner of Applicant Ifdjfftreinfronrpell lion er: Date: .5 Joseph C. Correnti, Rsquire A TRUE Representative: -L4, f n' Dar?dnz-& Correnti, LTB ATTEST 63 Federal .Street Address: moon Tel hone:, 97 744-0212 Si e ate DATE Si1BN91TED TO BOARD OF .APPEALS: • • STATEMENT The Applicant, Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP ("Footprint"), proposes to revitalize the Salem Harbor Station facility by demolishing the existing coal and oil-fired plant, along with the existing tanks, stacks and other unwanted components and related structures and to construct a new, state-of- the-art combined cycle gas-fired electric generation facility and related structures and infrastructures (the CCG Facility") on a 20+/- acre portion of the site. The site is unique to any in the City in that it sits as 65+/- acres of oceanfront and has housed a power plant that has served the region's electrical needs for the past 50+ years. The equipment and structures involved in the new construction exceed the 45 foot maximum height allowance in the Industrial District and, thus, a height variance is required for those buildings and structures. A cross-section plan is attached hereto listing the heights of the proposed structures. The main plant facility will have a height of 125+/- feet, with a stack reaching to 230+/- feet high, all as shown on the plan attached hereto. This one stack will replace the existing 3 stacks that range from 250 feet to 500 feet tall. Other proposed structures vary in height from 46 feet to 120 feet. The proposed stack and buildings are specifically designed around the necessary turbines and generating equipment required to operate the facility. These special conditions • and circumstances affecting the building and structures are unique to this use and property,. Literal enforcement of the 45 foot height requirement would prohibit the facility from being constructed. The requested relief is necessary so that this new clean and efficient plant can be constructed to service the public and replace the aging oil and coal-fired facility. The proposed project will help preserve jobs and taxes to the City, while serving the public's energy needs. Additionally, a Special Permit is requested to allow the essential services use as contemplated in Section 3.0 of the Ordinance. For over 50 years, this site has served as a power generating facility for the region and that use is proposed to continue. Because the existing facility will be decommissioned and demolished, the use special permit is requested to allow for the construction and use of the new facility on the site scheduled to come online 24 months after the existing plant shuts down. The Ordinance defines "essential services" as follows: "Essential Services: Services provided by a public service corporation or by governmental agencies through erection, construction, alteration, or maintenance of gas, electrical, steam, or water transmission or distribution systems and collection, communication, supply, or disposal systems whether underground or overhand, but not including wireless communications facilities. Facilities necessary for the provision of essential services include poles, wires, drains, sewers, pipes, conduits, cables, fire alarm 1 boxes, police call boxes, traffic signals, hydrants and other similar • equipment in connection therewith." Such essential services are specially permitted in the Industrial District. The proposed facility will eliminate the existing coal piles and deliveries, while dramatically improving the 65 acre site upon which the existing facility sits. The 3 existing stacks will be demolished, and one new stack will be erected in their place. The new facility will contribute to fulfilling the energy demands of the community, while creating jobs and taxes. An Environmental Site Assessment has been performed to address site conditions, while new storm water management systems are proposed to be constructed. Over 7 acres of landscaping and buffering are proposed for the 20+/- acre site. Impacts to the neighborhood are improved, as the facility's footprint is being reduced by more than 50%, all existing stacks and tanks are being removed, and the coal piles and deliveries of coal and oil to the site will be eliminated. Wherefore, the Petitioner respectfully requests that both the variance and special permit be granted. • 2 • Eagle - Tribune saiem News Newburyport Daily News Gloucester Times REQUEST FOR LEGAL NOTICE I understand that by signing this form i am agreeing to the cost of the legal notice to be published in t e newt spappapeer. Payment is required at the time of the legal notice received by the city. Please make checks pay that will be publishing the legal notice. —Average legal notice costs are estimated. published. —Customer will either be refunded or billed when the legal notice is Eagle Tribune Paper=$200.00 per day Essex County Papers =$250.00 per day _ • Check>f Credit Card(please call with the credit card information to the person receiving the legal notice at our paper) Footpriu Power SalemHarbDr DeveloPment LP By Date Ilighed Agent Scott`G Silverstein, President & Co0 of Footprint Power SH DevCo GP LLC, General Partner of Applicant Print Name Address c/o Joseph C. Correnti, Esq, -- Serafi.ni, Darling & Correnti, 132 —� 63 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Phone (97g) 744-0212 • ----------------------- q ._.-------.---.-- m ��101 wM19E/A110N COOKFa< ------------------ -------------------- /� W6fHA'A110N 02 w...v • II — 'CS s wom`� � m `, ' ® B•®•_,••�•�, •m••.�sa%eer xnxson Poxsx srarror- _� -_ A FORS'AFRNUR Atm RIl GnNDIfIONS PfAN aF MERIDIAN m� — anvam ASSOCIATES m""� �� ssr ua v-rm~ asoma x>'aa • \,IICC K/ 1.d51I MtUtlNl. dria i raCKing rorm Please complete form and make two copies. Date Received s -CL 1 3 • Amount Received �— X522 g Form of Payment Check ❑ Cash Client Information CASH PAYMENTS: client initials ❑ Sign Permit Application Fee ❑ Conservation Commission Fee Payment received for what apianning Board Fee/ ZBA service? ❑ SRA/DRB Fee ❑ Copies ❑ Other: Name of staff person receiving payment Additional Notes 6® r^ r ✓X.-- ef 5279 • Sovereign LAW OFFICE OF SERAFINI, DARLING &CORRENTI,LLP 63 FEDERAL STREET 5.761510110 5121/2013 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ORDER THE City of Salem $ °'2.00 Two and 00/100., ..:...........................«... �...... .....«....«<._....� ................. ..,...«...««...«.«..t. DOLLARS City of Salem (//�/ / c//'\/ Af YV L./ (� //V �f�a R, MEMO �4 M V005279n• 00 1 10 7 5 1 501: 398 305830208 Original Check and Form: DPCD Finance Copy 1: Client Copy 2: Application File • L neCK/Lasn Keceipc ana i raCKmg rorm Please complete form and make two copies. Date Received * 6/-,,? /3 • ma Amount Received � 500 -- 5 Z Form of Payment Check ❑ Cash Client Information S pG L-/.P CASH PAYMENTS: client initials ❑ Sign Permit Application Fee F] Conservation Commission Fee Payment received for what Planning Board Fee / ZBA service? SRA/DRB Fee Copies Other: Name of staff person receiving r\ c payment Additional Notes Notes �A ti 5 i T • bL (b r � saver LAW OFFICE OF SERAFINI, DARLING&CORRENTI,LLP 63 FEDERAL STREET 5-751510110 5/21/2013 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 ORDER The Salem News **500.00 Five Hundred and 00/100— ******" **********`****"`*** " ** * *.....*..* � **+ DOLLARS B The Salem News f tl !4 MEMO ��'005276�' I:0ii075L50i: 3980 30 58 30 21i' rrlpginal Check and Form: DPCD Finance oy 1: Client .opy 2: Application File • City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development Check/Cash Receipt and Tracking Form Please complete form and make two copies. Date Received Zct Amount Received 5u Form of Payment %Check Cash Client Information CASH PAYMENTS: client initials Ej Sign Permit Application Fee ❑ Conservation Commission Fee Payment received for what 9 Planning Board Fee/ ZBA service? F-1 SRA/DRB.Fee ❑ Copies Other: • Name of staff person receiving (� payment Additional Notes 646 l 5276 LAW OFFICE OF SoyeT21gll SERAFiNI, DARLING&CORRENTI,LLP 63 FEDERAL STREET 5-751K110 SALEM,MASSACHuSErrs 01970 5/21/2013 ORDER THE Registry of Deeds $ *`75.00 Seventy-Five and 00/100**'***"*«*•***«*************«***************« *«**««*«*..««««**+.««.«.««*«««««*««*«««««« «««««« « . DOLLARS Registry of Deeds MEMO LL W0 140 ------------ Il'0052781i' 1:011075i501: 39803 583021i' Original rneCK ann rorm: UYIU rin,,nce Copy 1: Client Copy 2: Application File 0 City of Salem Department of Planning & Community Development Check/Cash Receipt and Tracking Form Please complete form and make two copies. Date Received Zc'6 Amount Received 4# 7' 5� 52-77 Form of Payment del Check ❑ Cash Client Information CASH PAYMENTS: client initials Sign Permit Application Fee Conservation Commission Fee Payment received for what Planning Board Fee/ ZBA service? SRA/DRB Fee [] Copies • � Other: Name of staff person receiving payment oti Additional Notes oagiorx4o4c (1. Fee 5277 LAW OFFICE OF SOVf?Te1gT1 SERAFINI, DARLING&CORRENTI,LLP 63 FEDERAL STREET 5.7515/D110 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 5/21/2013 ORDER THE ORDER City of Salem s "75.00 Seventy-Five and 00/100""""**""'•'*`*"*«,«*«*.*..*.*««• *.«...*•**.*.....•••...+*««•*.««««...,.....«..««.............. DOLLARS City of Salem MEMO f r 4\ ` 0 11'00527711' 1:011075150I: 3980305830211' Copy 1: Client City of Salem, MA - Approved Minutes 6/19/2013 Page 1 of 6 Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street,Salem,MA 01970 • ph: 978-745-9595 Approved Minutes 6/19/2013 Footprint Salem Harbor Development LP City of Salem Board of Appeals EFSB 13- Meeting Minutes Appendix C Wednesday,June 19,2013 A meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals ("Salem BOA' was held on Wednesday,June 19,2013 in the third floor conference room at 120 Washington Street,Salem,Massachusetts at 6:30 p.m. Chairwomen,Ms. Curran, called the meeting to order at 6:48 p.m. • ROLL CALL Those present were: Rebecca Curran (Chair),Richard Dionne,Tom Watkins,and David Eppley (Alternate). Also present were Thomas St.Pierre,Director of Inspectional Services and Daniel Sexton,Staff Planner. Absent from the meeting were:Annie Harris and Jimmy Tsitsinos (Alternate) Ms. Curran: Explained to the board members and public in attendance that the meeting is being recorded. • APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES Ms. Curran asked if there was a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the May 15th meeting. Motion:Mr. Watkins made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 15rhryXular meeting of the Board WAPpeals, • seconded by Mr. Eppley and a unanimous vote was taken.All the members voted in favor, with a 4-0 vote in favor(Ms. Curran (Chair),Mr. Dionne,Mr. Watkins and Mc Eppley)and none opposed. The motion was accepted The derision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Mr.Duffy arrived at the meeting. • REGULAR AGENDA Petition of FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT, LP for a Special Permit for an Essential Services use pursuant to Sec.3.0 Use Regulations and Variances to exceed the maximum allowable height allowance of 45 feet in an Industrial Zoning District pursuant to Sec.4.0 Dimensional Requirements for the redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site for the property located at 24 FORT AVENUE (I Zoning District). Ms. Curran introduced the requested petitions and opened the public hearing for the applications. She then noted that Mayor Kimberley Driscoll was present,and she has asked to say few words. Mayor Kimberley Driscoll: Thank you. I had the opportunity to see much of the presentation you are about to see this evening a number of times. I appreciate the chance to comment on this project before you this evening. I spoke at the Salem Planning Board meeting where the discussion on this item was opened. In one way or another,this project will be reviewed by most of the City's regulatory boards and commissions,many of which have or are in the process of reviewing this project. Clearly this project has the potential to impact the community in many different ways, such as through the generation of tax revenue,jobs and the redevelopment opportunities for the remainder of the site. Most importantly,we are anxious to see a revived and expanded port facility of this site. In terms of vetting,many different state and federal agencies,in addition to our local processes, are reviewing this project. It stated with Stated Energy Siting Board and the regulatory processes associated with the Chapter 91 review. Each step of the way,there are different sets of eyes • reviewing this project to ensure it will be a good fit for the community and that ancillary impacts of the project are addressed. In effect,making sure the proposed project is a great benefit to the community that what is there now.The City has been part of every review process from the Energy Facility Sitting Board to the http://www.salem.com/Pages/SalemNIA_ZoningAppealsMin/10413 D230?textPage=1 8/5/2013 City of Salem, MA - Approved Minutes 6/19/2013 Page 2 of 6 MEPA process. Every step of the way, the developers have been conscious to the community's needs since • they began the permitting process. I'd like to take a moment to thank you for everything you do and your time as volunteer members of the Salem BOA.To support your reviews, the City has brought on board AECOM and Sasaki Associates,Inc. consultants to conduct peer reviews of this complex project for the City regulatory boards and commissions,and a stakeholder group.The City is also collaborating with Footprint to develop a Community Benefits Agreement for the project. So as you can see there is a lot going on that involves this project. We're really trying to think 20-30 years down the road, and ensure this project is developed as proposed.Are there any questions?We're excited Ms. Curran:Are there any questions for the Mayor? Mayor Kimberley Driscoll: Thank you again for your time. Ms. Curran: So the Salem BOA is looking at the Special Permit for the use on the site, as Essential Services, and Variances, for the height of the buildings. We are not looking at other items that are being reviewed by other city boards and commissions. If you have any comments,please keep them relevant to the applications at hand. Is the applicant or their representative present to speak on the requested petitions? Atty. Contend (63 Federal Street),representing the applicant Footprint Power Harbor Development,LP,noted that the City has been a good partner to this permitting process. This is a big project that has gone through a lot of process and continues to go through other review processes.As the Mayor indicated, Footprint Power has been in the community for a number of years. Scott Silverstein, COO of Footprint Power,will be before you shortly to discuss the history of the site the permitting process to date. We appreciate the Chair's statements.This is such a large project and it's hard to know how much information to give you. It's absolutely correct that we are requesting relief from two items in the City's Zoning Ordinance: a Variance from the height requirements of buildings and a Special Permit for an Essential Services use. I'm sure everyone is familiar with the property in questions,most importantly the existing stacks on the power plant and the impact those structure have on the community's skyline.Tonight we have with us Bob Fox, of CookFox Architects, and his, n associate Zack Crauwho will show you a comprehensive presentation on the project. During their presentation, they will discuss the thought that has gone into the facilities designs,and why a variance to the • 45-foot height limit is necessary.We'll also talk about the use.This is a unique site. In addition to local regulations, state regulations dictate what uses can and can't be on this site because it is a Designated Port Area (DPA).This site is the only property within the City of Salem that is designated as a DPA. We will also discuss how the proposed use is consistent with the Harbor Plan. Here is a copy of the presentation for the record. Scott Silverstein, COO of Footprint Thank you members of the Salem BOA for allowing us the opportunity this evening to come before you to describe our project. We've been working on this project over three years. We formed Footprint with the prospect of purchasing and redeveloping existing coal and oil power plants that were reaching the end of their useful fife expectancy.As such,this provided use with a unique opportunity to transition these facilities that benefits the communities they are operating in and the electric grid in the region. As owners,we've found that very clearly in Salem. The important this to recognize,is the story of the site. It has played a role in power generation from its beginning.The best way to understand this is by looking at the site over time. Mr. Silverstein began to discuss the histo of the site b way of discussing the slides in the g history Y Y g presentation, starting with an image of a map from the 1700's. Mr. Silverstein discussed the shipment of whale oil through the site to coal. This site has been used to power the north shore.As the region's energy needs grew, so too did the site. The largest expansions occurred to support an enlarging coal pile and oil storage.The site is 65-acres,of which 20-acres will be used for the power generation facility.This, then, opens up the remainder of the site for redevelopment and opportunities for expanding the harbor for other marine industrial uses.The reuse committee,in many ways, came to the same conclusion as us.The natural gas power generation facility has always been seen as a viable redevelopment option for the site, so that's what brings us here today. It is also important to remember when it comes to the development of any power facility that you need two things: a way to get fuel to the facility (Beverly Harbor pipeline) and a way to get power out (National Grid's switchyard). This site has both. Earlier this year, ISO New England held an auction for companies to bid supply power starting in 2016.Through that process,ISO New England determined that Footprint was essential to providing the Greater Boston region load zone with its power generation capacity • needs. Shortly thereafter,the State Department of Public Utilities determined that there would be a power generation deficiency if the proposed Footprint facility weren't operational.A slide was shown laying out the site. The location and accessed through the deep-water harbor,makes the redevelopment of this site unique. http://www.salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_ZoningAppealsMin/10413 D230?textPage=1 8/5/2013 City of Salem, MA -Approved Minutes 6/19/2013 Page 3 of 6 The City's Harbor plan calls th s site as a power generation facility,which is supported by the City and State. I • will now let Mr. Fox present the facility's design. Robert Fox,Principle at CookFox Architects: Back 80-years,architects designed power plants. Many of these old powers plants were developed with beautiful architectural detail. Now engineers design power plants. The goal of this facility is to understand the equipment and its interactions within the facility. From this examination of the facility,we were better able to design a facility that has a better relationship with the surrounding residential neighborhood,harbor and also makes it work.Without that we don't have a facility. So from a facility that uses the whole site,we designed a plant that used as little space as possible.To ensure the plant was a good neighbor to the rest of the neighborhood,we conscientiously placed the plant as far away from residences and shielded it with a vegetated berm, 25-feet high in places (visualizations were shown to present this). The plant functions by creating powers from two natural gas turbines and steam turbines,which is then sent to the switchyard. Mr. Fox then should the Salem BOA three different visual comparisons/perspectives of the proposed and existing facility (the visuals were shown from Bentley elementary School,Marblehead and Cat Cove).All these heights and perspectives were developed by using a project datum of 16 feet,which will require much of the site to be raised to achieve this. The height impacts of this facility were minimized as much as possible,keeping in mind that certain pieces of equipment within the facility need a certain sized enclosure.The facility is also shielded by a louver system that is designed and laid out in a manner to mimic the local clapboard building material. No chain link fence. Mr. Fox stated the facility's building heights. This is considerably shorter then the facility there now. A number of different visual perspectives were shown to describe these heights. I'd be willing to answer any questions the Salem BOA may have. Ms. Curran:Why the height Variances?What is in the facility that requires a building of this height? Mr. Fox: The building heights are needed to accommodate the equipment, such as the turbines,within the facility. Everything is shrunk down as much as possible.The engineers originally designed the facility with two big stacks and two box style buildings with plenty of room. Ms. Curran: So it is the equipment that is dictating the size of the building. • Mr. Fox: On the other hand, the height of the stack is dictated by emission requirements. Ms. Curran:What materials are used in the louver system? Mr. Fox: The louvers are made of a recycled product with wood as the primary component. The product is called"Woodn".The louvers will be installed as 15-foot strips that are 2-feet wide. Near the bottom of the buildings, the louvers will be closer together. As the height increases, the louvers will open up. Ms. Curran: What is the color of the stack? Mr. Fox: The stack-,,,U be made of concrete,and is unpainted.The exact design is still under development. Ms. Curran: Do other Salem BOA members have questions? Mr.Dionne: Does this facility generate much noise? Mr. Silverstein:The facility's noise generation has been modeled so we could determine ways to minimize the off site impacts.ADCO are our noise consultants. In collaboration with Mr. Fox,ADCO and the architects have developed an acoustic mitigation system to reduce noise emitted from the plant and to ensure it is architectural pleasing. In the end, the noise generated by the plant will be very similar the noise produced by the existing plant. Mr. Dionne: Is the stack painted or natural concrete? Mr. Fox/Mr. Silverstein: It will be natural concrete. When stacks are painted, they can cause more problems. Mr. Eppley: Will the proposed stack be able to accommodate the existing and future antenna for the City's Harbor Department?Also, there have been past discussion of placing a camera on top of the existing stack. Could the new stack be equipped with such a camera?It would provide great views of the City. Mr. Fox: I'm aware of a few existing antenna relays located on the roof of one building that will be demolished. We will work with those entities to make sure their equipment is removed properly, and to have space available for those pieces of equipment to be reinstalled once the new facility is constructed. However, there will be a gap of two years during construction. Ms. Curran: I'm trying to understand why a Special Permit is needed for the use. I feel as though it is an • existing essential services use. Since you're not requesting a substantial expansion of that use then a Special Pemvt is not really necessary.Are you just being cautious? Any. Correnti: Because we are going to discontinue this current use and demolish the existing plant.Although http://www.salem.com/Pages/SalemN4A—ZoningAppealsMin/10413D23 0?textPage=l 8/5/2013 City of Salem, MA -Approved Minutes 6/19/2013 Page 4 of 6 the new plant will be rebuilt in two years and we're not abandoning the use, the Salem Zoning Ordinance • doesn't specifically call-out a process for reviewing a facility of this nature. I agree, however, that a power plant facility is an essential services use. Before you open the meeting up for public comment,I'd like to comment on the Variance.We wanted to give you enough information so as not to bog down the process, and to ensure you could understand what the facility is going to look like and the uniqueness of the site. Ms. Curran:Please articulate the hardship. Arty. Correnti:Without the height Variances, there is no power plant. Why are we over 45-feet?The equipment used in the operation of the plant has dictated the roofline.This site has been identified as a power generation facility historically,by the State's DPA designation and the City's Harbor Plan.Thus the Variances are needed to allow the development of this site with a power generation facility. Technically speaking, the height of the stack is exempt within the Salem Zoning Ordinance. We thought it disingenuous to show you only the buildings and not the stack, because it is and will continue to be the most prominent feature of the facility. Across the board,the proposed facility we have shown you this evening is significantly shorter then the existing plant. Ms. Curran:Are there any further questions from the Salem BOA members before I open the public comment portion of the meeting?Seeing none the public hearing was opened. Linda Haley (43 Turner Street): I'm not excited about the project. I live in a historic neighborhood and don't think this is an appropriate use adjacent to residences. While its location on the harbor was important because coal was developed by ship and the existing plant used large amounts of water for cooling,this plant does not need to be located along one of Salem's most important assets...the waterfront. I don't necessarily know the difference between this stack and the one developed at the power plant in Weymouth, but the Weymouth stack is wide and ugly. Due to the proximity of this plant to residences, I feel its going to overwhelm the neighborhood. In addition, a higher stack would allow pollutants to be better dispersed. I don't understand why a 125-foot building is necessary. It too will impact the neighborhood.Why does the plant need to be so large?Is an approximately 600-megawatt plant needed?I don't buy the economic argument since the plant • only accounts for 2% of the tax base.Also,what is the Woodn product exactly made of and will it cause glare? With the transmission upgrades in the region, I don't buy the need for this plant on our historic harbor. Ms. Curran: Please respond to the resident's two questions: What is the width of the stack.What is the Woodn product made of,and will there be glare?Why is it a large plant? Mr. Fox: The louver material is made of a wood and plastic composite.There won't be glare. In terms of the plant's size,ISO builds into the auction inherent lumpiness. Economies of scale are needed to build a plant. Our configuration and size was based on the type of plant we looked to build. We don't want to have to come back to enlarge the facility after construction. Our stack is just shy of 56-feet in diameter and the outside edge. The Weymouth stack is slightly smaller.The existing 430-foot stack is about 40-feet in diameter. The size is dictated by air modeling and regulated by state and federal standards. Based on the modeling, there is no benefit to public health and the visual impact of the facility on the community to develop a taller stack. Ms. Curran: I assume the Planning Board, and their peer reviewers, are examining this aspect of the project. This issue is not within the purview of the petition before the Salem BOA this evening.Are there more comments? Robert DeRosia (9 Foster Court): I'm the 2013 Chamber of Commerce President and a current employee of the power plant. I support the plans present tonight. Footprint's designs exceed the industry norms for a power plant of this nature. This facility is the backbone for the future redevelopment of the larger site. We don't want this facility to become like other abandoned facilities in other communities.This site is a unique opportunity for the City of Salem. Rinus Oosthoek (Executive Director of the Salem Chamber of Commerce): We feel this proposed plant is a win win for the community. Footprint's design team has gone above and beyond the standard ideas for a power plant. I encourage the Salem BOA to grant the requested Special Permit and Variances. Ms. Curran paraphrased two letters that were submitted to staff before the meeting from Senator Lovely and Representative Keenan. Both letters spoke of support for the project. • Arthur C. Sargent III, Councilor At-Large: I am a current employee of the Salem Harbor Power Station. This project goes along with many of the issues I've raised in the past,regarding the impacts of new development on surrounding property owners and neighborhoods,and developer always asking for Variances and relief http://www.salem.com/Pages/SalemMA_ZoningAppealsMin/10413 D230?textPage=1 8/5/2013 City of Salem, MA -Approved Minutes 6/19/2013 Page 5 of 6 However,in a case like this, the facility is actually being reduced in size compared to the plant that exists on • the site today.At the same time, I will miss the stacks. I grew up in Salem and have enjoyed the amazing views from atop the stacks for many years. Councilor Sargent spoke comparatively of past proposals to expand and redevelop the plant,none of which compare to the proposal before you this evening. Ms. Curran: I'll open it up for discussion among the Salem BOA members. I feel this is a very difficult site to permit,especially in terms of the Planning Board. From the perspectives of the Salem BOA,it is a little easier. It appears that you are being cautious in submitting the application for the Special Permit to allow an Essential Services use. In terms of the Variance,I feel there is a quantifiable hardship. This hardship is due to the equipment that is being used on the site to generate power. Practically speaking,because the existing facility is much more out of conformance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance,it makes it easier to look at from the neighborhood perspective. I did have one outstanding question regarding the use of only 20-acres of the site. What is going to occur on the remaining 65-acres? Arty. Correnti: It is all staying as one parcel.The redevelopment of this site is permitted as a Planned Unit Development to allow greater flexibility for future uses.Additionally, the development of the plant will require that the remaining 65-acres be used as a lay down area for two years. Phase II can't really take place until the plant is built. Mr. Duffy: I would tend to agree with your comments madam Chair. Due to the limitations of the site and the building needs for the facilities equipment and operations, the plant could not be developed on this site without Variances to the building height requirements. Given the facts that have been presented, especially the visual profiles of the existing and proposed plants,there doesn't appear to be any detriment to the public good. In terms of nullifying the intent of the ordinance,it appears this proposed facility is coming more into conformity. It may be that there is more permission being requested here than is necessary,but there also is the request for a Special Permit. In consideration of the application before us and the testimony provided here this evening,it is clearly meeting the needs of community and the region at large.There doesn't appear to be any changes to the traffic flow or safety of the site. The design of the facility is attempting to m ligate its impacts on the surrounding neighborhood by installing the louver system and the landscaped berm.This • facility appears to provide benefits to the natural environment and visually improves the neighborhood for residents living in the area. There is no questions the conversation from a coal fired plant to a natural gas fired plant will be beneficial to the environment. It also has great potential for positive impacts on the economic and fiscal situation of the city. Based on the application,presentation and testimony,it appears the criteria that we typically review for a Special Permit have been met. Mr. Eppley: I would concur with Mr. Duffy's statements and go on to add that this facility,as proposed, provides the best of the past,present and future for Salem. Historically, this parcel has been used for power generation. Your plant is being a great steward to the neighborhood and community by applying for LEED Platinum status from the US Green Buildings Council. Mr. Fox briefly described the designations afforded by the US. Green Building Council and is working with the Council to develop a standard for power plants.This plant will take from and impact the surrounding environment as little as possible. Mr. Eppley: This facility is preparing Salem and New England with a responsible and thought full blend. Mr.Dionne: I would add that the developers will be remediating the site,which is a very expensive proposition. This will benefit the neighborhood and community. Mr.Watkins: Given that the heights proposed for the buildings are lower than the building heights for the existing plant, I don't see any detriments to the neighborhood or the public good in general.As many have already said, this is a good project for the community. Ms. Harris: While I know I can't vote, I would like to say a few words.The cleanup of the site, the reduced building heights,reduced footprint of the facility,reduced water consumption and the elimination of the coal pile is an improvement for the community and environment.They are also freeing up a large portion of the site for redevelopment and increased access to the harbor. Ms. Curran: Is there a motion?The applications will be written up under one decision. As part of Mr. Eppley's motion to approve the requested Special Permit for an essential services use and • Variances to the maximum allowable building height requirement,Mr. Eppley read the applicable standard conditions that will be incorporated into the decision. Ms. Curran: Are there any Special Conditions that anyone thinks should be added to the requested petitions? http://www.salem.com/Pages/SalemMA ZoningAppealsMin/I0413D230?textPage=1 8/5/2013 City of Salem, MA -Approved Minutes 6/19/2013 Page 6 of 6 Seeing none,Ms. Curran asked for a second. • Motion:Mr. Eppley made a motion to appmve the requested Special Permit for an Essential Servicer use pursuant to Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations and Variances to exceed the maximum allowable height allowance of45 feet in an Industrial Zonine District pursuant to Sec. 4.0 Dimensional Requirements for the redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site at the property located at 24 Fort Avenue as cone&ioned seconded by Mr. Dionne and a roll call vote was taken.All the members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote in favor(Ms Curran (Chair) Mr. Dionne,Mr. Watkins,Mr. Duffy and Mr. Ebbley)and none opposed The motion was accepted The decision is bemby incorporated as part of tbese minutes. Ms. Curran explained to the applicant and the public that the decision would be available within two weeks of the hearing and filed with the City Clerk. There is a twenty day appeal period. . OLD/NEW BUSINESS Board Elections Mr. Sexton: Explained that staff has not had the opportunity to examine possible Board of Appeals Rules and Regulations. We expect to bring revisions to this document before the board in the coming months. • ADJOURNMENT Ms. Harris motioned for adjournment of the June 19, 2013 regular meeting of the Salem Board of Appeals at 8:13 PM. Motion:Mr. Duffy made a motion to adjourn the lune 19°hre—oular meeting of the Salem Board oLAppeals, seconded by Mr. Watkins, and a unanimous vote was taken.All the members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote in favor(Ms. Curran (Chair) Mr. Dionne,Mr. Duffy,Mr. Watkins and Mr. Eppley)and none opposed. The motion was accepted The decision is hereby incorporated as part of these minutes. Respectfully submitted, • Daniel Sexton,Staff Planner • http://www.salem.con-l/Pages/SalemNIA ZoningAppealsMin/10413D230?textPage=I 8/5/2013 -e'_cu, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL .ya _Cz ��er4IIN6 DaNr 170 W',vnwc;tnv ti'tRr7:r ti:u.c.�4\LXY�rrI IJifR"t�f$9'I r� 4 51 978-745-9595 Pas:978-740-9846 til�II4I'.RJ.P:Y 1)RIS([ULi. 1t yolk FILE %I" CITY i LER)(, SALEM,MASS. June 28, 2013 Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of FOOTPRINT POWER SALEM HARBOR DEVELOPMENT, LP for a Special Permit for an Essential Services use pursuant to Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations and Variances to exceed the maximum allowable height allowance of 45 feet in an Industrial Zoning District pursuant to Sec. 4.0 Dimensional Requirements for the redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site to include the construction of a new state-of-the-art combined cycle gas fired electric generation facility on a 20+/- acre portion of the property located at 24 FORT AVE (I Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on June 19, 2013 pursuant to Nf.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on June 19, 2013 with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present %Is. Curran (Chair),Mr. Dionne,Mr. Duffy,Mr. Watkins,and Mr. Eppley(Alternate). The Petitioner seeks a Special Permit for an Essential Services use pursuant to Sec. 3.0 Use Regulations and Variances from Sec. 4.0 Dimennz nal Requirements of the Salem Zoning Ordinance. • Statements of fact: 1. Attorney Joseph Correnti, representing Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP, Scott Silverstein, COO of Footprint Power Salem Harbor Development LP, and Bob Fos, of Cook & Fos Architects presented the petitions for the property at 24 Fort Avenue (I Zoning District). 2. . In.the petition; dated May 29, 2013, the Petitioner requests a Special Permit for an Essential Services use and Variances to exceed the maximum allowable height in order to allow the redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station Site to include the construction of a new state-of-the-art combined cycle gas fired electric generation facility on a 20+/- acre portion of the site. 3. The requested Variance relief, if granted, would allow the vertical development of buildings and the stack proposed as part of the combined cycle gas fired electric generation facility to exceed the maximum allowable height allowance of 45 feet in an Industrial Zoning District. The Petitioner's requested height allowance for the buildings include: „e• ✓v, t a, Siidcfv es C n t , s_ IZeijuested,Eietght Generator Building Stack 230 feet Heat Recovery Stearn Enclosure 125 feet Air Cooled Condenser Enclosure 120 feet CA a Diesel Generator Stack 86 feet = Gas Turbine#1 Btuldin g 7G fret (., ) (m c Gas Turbine#2 Building 76 feet a c c ST(;,Building 76 feet LL c Ammonia Tank Enclosure 45 feet(+/-) LL O W Q l 1 i City of Salem Board of Appeals June 28.20 13 • Project:24 Fort Avenue Page 2 of 4. At rhe public hearing for these petitions numerous members of the public in attendance spoke in favor and in opposition to the petitions. Mayor Kimberley Driscoll spoke in favor of the proposed relief and recited the extensive permitting and regulatory process the Petitioner is undergoing at both the state and local levels. Also speaking in favor of the proposed petitions were Rinus Oosthock, Executive Director of the Chamber; Robert DeRosier, President of the Chamber of Commerce; and Arthur C. Sargent, III, Councilor At-large. Prior to the hearing,written comments from State Senator Lovely and State Representative Keenan were submitted in favor of the petitions. Linda Haley, 43 Turner Street, voiced opposition to the proposed petitions due to the potential glare created by the louvers, the proposed height and width of the stack, potential air pollutants and the need for another power plant. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petitions, including the application narrative and plans, and the Petitioner's presentation and public testimony, makes the following findings that the proposed project meets the provisions of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance: 9.3 Board of Appeals 9.3.2 Powers, Subsection 3 1. The desired relief may be granted without detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinances. 2. A power plant use has occupied the site for over 60 years and the current buildings and stacks reach from 150+/- feet to 500+/- feet in height,making this site unlike any other in the District. . 3. The size,location and layout of the site and its proximity to the natural gas pipeline and the adjoining National Grid switchyard make it unique to any other sites in the District. 4. The literal enforcement of the City of Salem Zoning Ordinance's Table of Dimensional Regvrremenis, specifically the maximum allowable building height requirement of 45-feet in an Industrial Zoning District, would render the construction of the buildings and structures that are needed to contain the power plants equipment and operations impossible, thus causing a substantial hardship to Petitioner. 5. The design of the facility, including its acoustic louvers and landscaped berm, both mitigate and reduce tine off-site impacts of the proposed development on the surrounding neighborhood and aid in the elimination of any detriments to the public good. 6. According to the visual comparisons of the existing and proposed power plants, the proposed facility's reduced building heights and smaller plant footprint bring it more in compliance with the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 9.4 Special Permits 9.4.2 Criteria, Subsections 1 through 6 1. The facility is and has been in essential services use for the past 60 tears that has provided power generation to tine City of Salem and the surrounding region, the facility as proposed continues thar essential services use to meet the needs of the community. 2. The redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Power Station facility into a new combined cycle ants-tired electric generation facilitc is in accordance with the Salem Harbor Plan, and has been shown to meet the power generation needs of the communin. and the region ar-!urge. • 3. The facilit, as proposed, does nor change the traffic flow or safer of the neighborhood traffic On.y of the neighborhood. .r Cih•of Salem Board of Appeals June 28,2013 • Project:24 Fort Avenue Page 3 of 3 -l. Through its reduced reliance on municipals services, especially its use of local potable water, the proposed facility will not adversely impact the public services and has adequate access to utilities. 5. The facility will be an improvement to the neighborhood character by reducing the building and stack heights throughout the facility, and shrinking the necessary footprint of the plant. In addition, the facility's design provides improved visual and physical access to a portion of the Salem waterfront and allows for greater opportunities for future commercial and industrial development and an expanded harbor. 6. As designed, the facility represents a benefit to the natural environment and visually improves the neighborhood for residents. The conversion from a coal fired plant to a new combined cycle gas-fired electric generation facility will have a positive impact to the environment. 7. The development represents a great opportunity for positive impacts on the economic and fiscal situation of the city. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the plans, documents and testimony, the Salem Board of Appeals concludes: 1. The petitioner's requested Special Permit for an essential services use and Variances to exceed the maximum allowable height allowance of 45 feet in an Industrial Zoning District is granted as conditioned. 2. In permitting the Special Permit for the essential services use and Variances to exceed the maximum allowable building height allowance, the Salem Board of.Appeals requires certain appropriate terms, • conditions and safeguards as noted below. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted to approve the Special Pernut and Variances requested. All the members voted in favor, with a 5-0 vote in favor (Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins and Mr. Eppley (Alternate)) and none opposed. The Salem Board of Appeals voted to grant petitioner's request for a Special Permit and Variances subject to the following terms, conditions, and safeguards: 1. The Petitioner shall comply with all city and state statutes, ordinances, codes and regulations. 2. All construction shall be done as per the plans and dimensions submitted to and approved by the Building Commissioner. 3. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to smoke and fire safety shall be strictly adhered to. 4. Petitioner shall obtain a building permit prior to beginning any construction. 5. A Certificate of Occupancy is to be obtained. 6. A Certificate of Inspection is to be obtained. 7. Petitioner is to obtain approval from am' City Board or Comnussion having jurisdiction including, butt not limited to, the Planting Board. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of:lppeals COM OF[I IIs I LAS 111t1:.`FnbU V I]I I ll n;1't..\\XI\G IH(%RD AM)'1'I IIi❑FY CI.ISRK • 'Ipped%moi Ilds doasion, i/,mp,shal/be nmde purmanl In serom I-of du ma,:miwn•//,r Cellerzd Lnps C kipin 40A.aad shall he/ilr,/rri:hirr 20 dap n/(i/iuv of/ILl eleaiion m IGe gfike of the C.Yty Clerk 1)/natant to/he Ilrro,r krat.;CenenJ Lina C beilver 40,I. Section 1 L the I ''aaaa:v ar .1'peia/Prnui/,;rmtire/Grain sha//no/tans rJ(rn mvi/.r"p) lhe der1.4ou h:oriq,/G,rn:riJir.:k n,'7/•CrP-(. 'lk haf I with Ili, 1 .;� faiun Regirh;nl leek. tT Footprint Salem Harbor Development LP EFSB 13 • Appendix E Appendix E Agency Permit Status State Energy Facilities Approval of Petition to Construct Application filed on Siting Board G.L. c. 164 §69H August 3,2012 Executive Office of Energy Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act and Environmental Affairs -Certificate Issued May 17,2013 -Public Benefits Determination Issued June 17,2013 G.L.c.30 § 61 et seq and 301 CMR 11.00 Department of Chapter 91 Waterways License Application filed on Environmental Protection G.L.c. 91 and 310 CMR 9.00 May 17,2013 Major Comprehensive Air Plan Approval and Application filed Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit December 12,2012 M.G.L.c. 142A- 142M,310 CMR 7.00, and 40 CFR Final Supplement 52.21 filed on June 18, 2013 Air Operating Permit To be filed/ 310 CMR 7.00 December 2015 Industrial Sewer User Permit Application filed on G.L. c.21, §43 and 314 CMR 7.00 June 24,2013 Department of Public Safety Aboveground Storage Tank Permit To be filed/ —State Fire Marshall G.L. c. 148, §37 February,2014 • Department of Transportation Consent to issuance of permit to build on lands Application filed on formerly used as a railroad right-of-way May 30,2013 G.L.c.40, § 54A LocaUSalem Zoning Board of Appeals Special Permit for an Essential Service Issued June 28,2013 Section 3.0 of the City of Salem's Zoning Ordinance Appealed July 17, and 2013 Variances from the City's Dimensional Requirements Section 4.0 of the Zoning Ordinance. Planning Board (1) Site Plan Review Issued August 1, (2)Planned Unit Development Special Permit 2013 (3) Special Permit for a Flood Hazard Overlay District G.L.c.40A and Sections 9.5,7.3 and 8.1, respectively,of the Salem Zoning Ordinance Conservation Commission Wetlands Order of Conditions Issued July 31,2013 G.L. c. 131, §30,310 CMR 10.00 and Chapters 37, 38, and 50 of the Salem Code of Ordinances. Water Department Connection Permit To be filed Chapter 46 of the Salem Code of Ordinances South Essex Sewerage Connection Permit To be filed District Chapter 46 of the Salem Code of Ordinances City Council Fuel Storage Tank Permit and Inflammables License To be Filed • G.L. c. 148, § 13 and Chapter 14 of the Salem Code of Ordinances. Historical Commission Waiver from Demolition Dela Permit Issued May 16,2013 14004641 Y • Chapters 2 and 30 of the Salem Code of Ordinances Inspectional Services Building Permit for New Construction To be filed/ Department Chapter 12 of the Salem Code of Ordinances March 2014 -Demolition Permit—Phase I Issued May 16,2013 -Demolition Permit Phase II To be filed Chapter 12 of the Salem Code of Ordinances • • 14004641 Salem Conservation Commission Minutes of Meeting Date and Time: Thursday,July 25, 2013, 6:00 p.m. Meeting Location: Third Floor Conference Room, City Hall Annex, 120 Washington Street Members Present: Chair Julia Knisel, Dan Ricciarelli,Amy Hamilton, David Pabich Members Absent: Bart Hoskins, Gregory St Louis Others Present: Tom Devine, Conservation Agent Recorder: Stacy Kilb Chair Knisel calls the meeting to order at 6:05PM 1. Salem Harbor Station at 24 Fort Avenue Continuation of Public Hearing—Notice of Intent— DEP #64-552—Footprint Power Salem Harbor Redevelopment LP, 1140 Route 22 East, Suite 303, Bridgewater, NJ. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed redevelopment of the Salem Harbor Station at 24 Fort Avenue,including demolition of the existing power station and associated structures, environmental remediation, and construction of a new power plant and appurtenances within an area subject to protection under the Wetlands Protection Act and Salem's Wetlands Protection & Conservation Ordinance. Documents: Letter from Linda Haley to Julia Knisel, 7/25/2013 Tetra Tech's Responses to Member St. Louis's Comments, 7/17/2013 Tetra Tech's supplemental information regarding geotechnical borings. 7/9/2013 Scott Silverstein,President and CEO of Footprint Power,presents. Mark Fobert, Brian Marchetti and Lisa Corrozza from TetraTech are present. All information requested at the last meeting has been submitted. Chair Knisel begins with responses to St. Louis' and the Commission's questions. Most are straightforward, but she is still concerned about the erosion and sediment control plan. They had said details would be provided later and she wonders why. Ms. Corrozza says they will be provided prior to construction but it is not done yet. The SWPPP (Stowmwatater Pollution Prevention Plan) is scheduled to be completed in two weeks and will be submitted then. Pabich thinks that submitting it for review rather than in a presentation is fine. Ms. Corrozza says the Planning Board's review consultant has requested a copy as well. Ms. Corrozza describes the seta of the barge;no equipment will be hanging over the barge and there will be a 45 lion P gg't'g g ;� stilling pan. At the last meeting,Linda Haley asked about the 500 year flood plain and was concerned about the level of development and phasing of the project. She has written a letter to that effect and Chair Knisel will give a copy to the Footprint applicants. Chair Knisel feels the information submitted addresses some of Ms. Haley's concerns. Chair Knisel opens to the public but there are no comments. 1 , Devine distributes draft standard and special conditions to the Commission and summarizes the proposed special conditions. Pabich suggests a condition requiring a letter verifying that the sormwater treatment system has been inspected and maintained per the Operation and Maintenance Plan. Hamilton would like the SWPPP submitted enough time before the start of the project, so that the Commission can review it if needed. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Ricciarelli, seconded by Hamilton,and all are in favor. Special conditions: • Monitoring Reports -The applicant or applicant's representative shall provide progress reports to the Agent during demolition and construction activities. Such reports shall be submitted electronically and contain the following information: summary of major activities performed to date;photographs of areas where major activities have been performed;a description of any impacts to resource areas not anticipated in the Notice of Intent and supplemental application materials and corrective actions taken;and a summary of activities expected to be performed prior to the next reporting period. Two reports shall be submitted during demolition and four reports shall be submitted during construction. Additional reports and or supplemental items in addition to those listed herein may be required at the discretion of the Agent and/or Commission as construction progresses. • Turbine Building Demolition -The applicant proposes to demolish the "Turbine Room" building. However, select portions of the building,including the steel frame, may be left for future redevelopment purposes. This Order allows for the demolition of the entire building or portions of the building as determined by the Applicant. The as-built plan to be submitted in conjunction with the Request for Certificate of Compliance shall show the extent of building remaining,if any. • Point of Contact—Prior to the commencement of demolition activities, the Applicant shall provide the Conservation Agent with the name and contact information of the person responsible for day to day activities at the site. • Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan-The Applicant shall provide a copy of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the Conservation Agent for review and approval at least thirty (30) days prior to earth disturbance activities at the site. • Material Stockpiles- Fill material may not be stockpiled within any resource area or 100 foot buffer zone to coastal bank with the following exceptions: o Because the existing coal pile area is surrounded by a concrete swale and contains a dust suppression system, this location may be used for the storage of uncovered fill material. The perimeter swale and dust suppression system shall be used during the temporary storage of material to prevent sediment transport from the area and minimize fugitive dust. o The use of additional areas for material storage must be reviewed and authorized by the Agent. In addition, the use of temporary sediment and erosion control measures must be reviewed and approved for the additional locations. 2 • . 48-inch City Drain Line—Prior to the relocation of the City's 48 inch drain line and construction of any supporting infrastructure, approval of the final location must be obtained from the Agent. • After completion of the project, the owner or owner's designee shall submit a letter annually to the Commission verifying that stormwater structures have been inspected and maintained per the approved Stormwater Operation and Maintenance plan included in the project's stormwater report. • Per Section 3.0 of Appendix G of the project's stormwater report, the owner, their successors, and assigns authorize the Agent to enter the premises to inspect the stormwater management system. A motion to issue the Order of Conditions,including standard conditions and special conditions as discussed, is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarel i, and passes unanimously. z. Witch Hill Subdivision Park at Martin Lane and Nurse Way—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Kenneth Steadman, 67 Village Street,Marblehead,MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a park including installation of play equipment within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area at the corner of Martin Lane and Nurse Way,within the Witch Hill Subdivision. Applicant Ken Steadman presents. He reviews the plans for the park in the subdivision. The Park has already been approved by the Planning Board. Usable area after including a 20'buffer to wetlands is 45' x 75'. Mr. Steadman describes the playground and its equipment. This will have much more pervious area than the originally proposed basketball court. There will be a low fence in one area by the sidewalk,but none is planned for the woods side. The area now is open soil. Devine clarifies that the proposed park was part of the subdivision, but was not specifically called out in the Order of Conditions. Devine felt that the order for the subdivision's roadway and utilities doesn't permit this park,just as it doesn't permit any individual house lots. Some lots abutting the resource area are required to have wetlands makers, and the Commission would like it here too. That will be added as a condition. Surface materials in different areas of the park are discussed. The Park and Recreation Department will maintain this park. Mr. Steadman says that erosion controls are still in place, but the Commission would like Devine to go out and check them. A motion to close the public hearing is made by Hamilton, seconded by Ricciarelli, and all are in favor. A motion to issue a Negative Three determination,with a requirement for wetlands signage and inspection of erosion'controls by the Conservation Agent,is made by Pabich, seconded by Ricciarelli, and passes unanimously. 3. Aggregate Industries on Swampscott Road—Public Hearing—Request for Determination of Applicability—Aggregate Industries, 1715 Broadway, Saugus, MA. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the proposed construction of a vegetated berm at 140 and 216-226 Swampscott Road (Aggregate Industries) within a buffer zone to a wetlands resource area. Jennifer Grawin and Steve Fox of Aggregate present. A site visit was conducted prior to this meeting. They have been before the Swampscott Conservation Commission and obtained a negative 3 determination,and are hoping for the same tonight. 3 • I l a £'14�:-' ''+^ -,•. -� I 1 r4:lr:,. Yl}4l<r 1, .� • �'-")� ,ry 1'TT-x07 &x02 •U1SFftA1 T , -�"•+ :,� i +, ' f, •, `„ uj ...��, .F� � ! J � � fuer `1 - , • 9.101 TP•x0!• lTR111 , i wE9T '.`.-..{ R I � pp S • tf £ .e'er ,btxl • t F v • 1 TT Id 0.102 MIN [ I TT H• OIdEa 1 �- - -� &115 • TT 117 �< y •jzs.-4 • ' ! }} 1 d t ,•TPM3 TP108 .11 !" n;f &1a1 • 'CC _." "€ e:2B3� 1sQiM NORTH a1,5 •"tT•k-�.1 r. TP10] TP-2a! �.22F, �$ t Ai•BF,RM90U7/1 ♦ +� ti y •• - C ra107 ! o-. TR1tT' ' TRT01 r • t`s "G2sEaM aNST -3 a „•� - ,.,, - &117 • ` &lo! ' iv-zB1-` - ,� ♦. •TP-110 - #'1 IF 0.3•"-'as< S'544" ~-.•Pt •e T.n. , •� - e lTP.103 ' ,ry ' S2.TRllf '11 or E { ��' r,' •1 .. 9f:B �` _. �y.�Y.i x �~ t• •.� Y ,. • : ,..x. s .• �• 'es nw �T '.`"`a x• ,''.�} ; ,9 1 ., a --� 4 � ., 4 -. . � Y>T:4 . ,.++ty, 1T•x01' es.a 5s+"' MaSwnsourH ,_ .,�.."yyyy,, d `} �-.�• I ht •TP.11a tit w.. i - •. J TP.,Oa " TP1 r Ti.112 4 , 31 a, � _ - •vy. T0.101 ob.1�oM • •T 9 eam WT it s • y -.c1.. n•,� _ i L � aas a,zs •tt 13M�1 Y ! y T• g y > �TRxOT d -- Tf.t10. { . .'E "S `•. � / 1 '+.' 2 I1, ^ "-MIN a�r t'T f Y �°i &,1: +' 91m *` y `ted. "rc i� • a 6101 TP,7 ._' yy, 1 i t TP-M,Pa az,1• sTPnn so! 1y{ { - „-•a? li/ti.._ _f 1 ?., � i -: 1 . 2� 1 � 1 !�'� 1P-Ooz i 1 € ; s P` • - &tIB Z s • ^r} .c'"`"'' #R .yT 1- v er c,.Tw ..ti:.-. • W 0.1U ' , if E } 1` �.as 0416 i a212 ':{{ x ', o -1 n.152 srP.fla srP.3o T1+3os � - rzas F5 sTpa6s r it0 Fs .nB + ( ..N''•... t 3 1-� I ,• ,! B `Y tl 8 ; tOt • TP Ila 9 .6^, x • + t t. j. w £ '� ...Na• 6110 6 / y • _ �- - tea !TV•30• ET 9• • 1 9208 . - - .. ,t.aY`•� &213 TT a+"~_ IiP12Jana a. �Tf.1fa '.8.1ID ,TT.115•- I c :}t-, ' •TRx,O T {4i>� +: • TP-1x0 95 S1 :t • rr 1 a ?P' „•Tr • N _ c f _; - TTIW - w. fi -' •1.7-113 i,R', ,'` F £ d� .. - • W IJ `i\h4. .rte• L T i k;.~ .} P z- ti 'l D • w LEGEND N HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP.A • HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP C H k • '_ HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP D x, SIR SOIL BORING • i - Salem Harm Station Redevelopment Project Pmjed No.: 127-62117-12001 o GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL — -- ---- -- -- '— --- ,� - ® lt'TRA TECH 24 Fort Avenue Date' April 4,2013 m � 2� - Salem,Massachuselts • c cZI TEST PIT B 125' 2W* _ wwIvAetratedl.mm Exist! Site Soils Map >aae"�BYFi Figure MwM One e CC • SCALE:,'=250' Framingham,Mascachuseat1501701 3 V Phone:506-903-2000 Fax:506803.2001 • �� Bar Measures 1 inch • Part PA211 At 274211242001IGISNNodantle NOIV!gure 10emc Plan mad >, + `. � ❑ 000 � � oQSae _ Legend o Q . N RIDSwitchyard '' _ ;'w„-� 0 n � t � x—*- Fence D-1 �y - Q .�_ D —Above Ground Pipes - i Structures Demolition Phase ,fit D 2 n 8.1 To Remain Phase 1 (8/1/2013- 1/14/14) If r �.0 8, • B 3 6i`q u'® Phase 2(1/15/14)-6/1/14) _ -3 } - ?� - - Phase 3(6/2/14)-9/30/14) / .. r D-6 _ .� S � - IiBASIN BASIN eASIN( - J '. r IZJ 64 • _ /�• 1 9 r, 0 1` Exrshng Builtlin9s 27 /bO O ID NAIDE PREA(sf) COAL PILE r .- _ _ �� r. µ • - 6 O 1 India St Water waning Bldg, 194 RUNOFF �♦^' 17. ��/ 2 Wastewater Treatment Pump House 1,240 POND C s c �• �_�� y `�= O a Q _ 3 Heat Trace Bldg. - - 1572 ,(`¢ • ® 25 4 Oil Trans.Pump House 2,731 5 Coal Pile Runoff Pond Pump House 6 Coal Tunnel Bldg. 262 COAL 7 S.Dock Wtar Control Cent.Bldg. 123 r PIL : } 3, _• I r.�. ++_ 1, 2 4 `� ' 1 a\-• f` B Bock Office 4 .. 9 Boat Storage 8 Machine Shoe 1,898 • _ _I .y �/ - f�JI^ 3D une.Huse T- House 5,340 e:4 . b1 '.iVJ/" Q _ ' r- 24 . .31 $ uric.House T-U - 501 _ r - Yard Office - 1,925 - ''- 1 - 1 23 �I - 13 Breaker House 1,497 14 G02 Storage BItl9.8 Hytlropen Storage Slab 330 •-'-� „r -- -- ) "' _ - - t5 Gate House - - 1.010 .�-,o�' .. a , \"�� - -_ a 41 ^• ._ - - - 16 Security.Bldg. - 654 --�,. - 39 4D 17 AshSluice Pump House 1,521 - 18"robins '1,610 19 Switchgear Bldg. 2,190 ' 20 Fans/Elec/Pmcip/Bldg. - - 25,053 - 21 Garage 1,019 22 SuRStatlon Bldg.. 902 23 Training Center&Warehouse 9,171 24 Power Plant 86,564 25 Fan House - -5,662 26 FAR.Bldg. 2,488 - 27 Warehouse 9,048 28 Fy-Ash Silo Bldg 1,984 29 Warehouse 8,967 30 Change House - - 5,761 31 Warehouse 5,901 - - 32 Storage. 170 33 storage 443 - M NGRID Relay House 1,038 y 35 U11 Pump House - -2,400 -' 36 Chlorine Malyner Bldg. 145 1 37 Derby St Water tveterin9 Bldg. 197 38 N Dock Motor Control Center Bldg. 135 39 Screen House Unit 1 and 2 7,900 40 Screen House Unit 3 3,100 r # 41 Screen House Uni14 3,100 ( - 42 NGRID Pump House 2,400 Total(sf) 207,043 - Total(ac) 4.75 - .. . . Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Project Salem, Massachusetts 0 125 250 O TETRA TECH � Feet Demolition Sequencing Plan Figure 14 Pat r,P.ii Al2]-6211]-12MIV3 Slwetlands NO Pi a urea Proposed CCG Facility ,•"y+ tr .r.*y .,1�le^<q.rr Jlx�.�+iif7r/l$r J.:,.../*!.n+(�'7sy•'(y�(�y yf-'2ruCtA;v 1+ t.. �.�.._ ��VyLyw±�.(�4'/-$r�',overv"=},iwv{fyEj^amu(>ite"tAr..�•n>y.ee-e?'-nr.l rr" Y trt• ^. t r t f744�j�'oy+tit��" •_.. h"vL, 1,`rma-m!t`vS'y.`...''tom LM,,...is.P. ' O�Legend 'otA. ;6 ;r F7 N � It 0 � " Proposed structure. < e �Acc Mach sled B u iltl ing Aux C n9 system Tulare Building.f Admin Building A Id 9. Cambusran TUNrye Gene tB Building day L . meat Recovery seam Generator ,• ., / �` c I ctor Bus Central Room " . ._ d ieM,v�3.s.v+./.•A. s - '�rtr„�t I.��4�'a.'�k�.i4 c t_,y i# - f//f F y ',.- ", / �} + `G(lTtS�— _ ti_;_„.."\i's�� . . �i '•.,Z.. flt+[?$ _ �9 r „ =1 Decriminalized W a e r Pum p Building�1 , £ Water Tanks Diesel Generator HQFre PuE cl s re Existing Gas Compressor Building ill, 4 L #G rare..9� L R ®Gas atANZ. = Aria MMain Power Distribution center �mcs - _ 1=Maintenance SM1 plControl Roam p Ammonia STG Else Srotcbgeer Air Inlet Filter Contlever 5 �_ P {[�NIT'F �. �'1f Icy .. �`U. �. Y4 ®n2 Trailer ENGRID xisting' r7�3C r' S#1 +11 acthty n Switchyard 0'try ',Cl .i. _ , Roads and Parking. Edeeepea 'Val t r sTG Ft_ ' �_' � Meter #2 � $•'' �.. ._ h't"t r i ��-J 7�`�� . Au-Caved. ♦. � '•c_�� '^.._'�°'r., R `�... L.,,� 6� - Pree151 r” I. `a Ct la�. �� a H�tUJ cvnd re �,, �y . 1' - .. ` " �'� �`.. [� -.w rt��a•� _�- A 4i;?+, �Y "s'c, }pkv � !. .-.-.• _ " ��! 1 Allot�i I 1 '•�_ 1$ t',�'+ �� `'.� , _ w r( y r'' � [ .r - ':.T•,�,. r � .. i `^`' F,ns8n9 Turbine.. d:9 L` ' � .eti"..+a.�.�._ __ I'.. .-r tr^ _ e. iv� a +. Wldtn9 �� ('�� ......r�.�•'^'y� 'r a -..+ � r..�_ 1 _fir-Y•� �- -yS i..i7�,i,. A% ;�T 'f� +" ..•>+'° Cal. T '$ l_ — F _ � . - Cove P o } v Sala ' ' 1-arbor ° up, r � W. - a . %v Notes: 7 Salem Harbor Station RedeVelOpme0i Project 1.See Figure 9 for Detailed Power Plant Layout Salem, Massachusetts O TETRA TECH 0 125 250 Proposed Facility Base Feet 2010 Aenal Overview of Equipment Arrangement Figure 8 Po1hP%11V1127 KY 9GI91We Be l tRAFIowe 9 PIoouo CCG FachN'DeMiW D--1 IPrmneememmNAll +x. ( S`. � t1t rfa, 011 A 90 ' S PATHS � . ,[� o s � !� s, •:"y„�"�- ""` SECURI FENCEI` VISITOR'S 13'° - � ADMINIOFFICE ;; �� CENTER �LOW,,I ANDSCAPE / '^.; INTEGRATED INTO a td WALL'> s LANDSCAPE BERM) s Y WA L /` CTGIAIR (CANTICEVERED)� le ABION- M J{ � GAS TURBINE i EXISTING CTG S EP�t P� GENERATOR )I a °PARKING: (GTG#1) * , r. AREA '..lA /.• .t fP L1 „'m",` 4.. ! I,(TO REMAIN) e- H2 � / _ r / '^' ��,, ` -�-• I HEAT RECOVERY /.r MAIN POWER STEAM AMMONIA STG ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION ;'r' "'GENERATOR STORAGE 'SWITCHGEAR CENTER (HRSG#1) TANK ' / STATIC'START ISOLATION r a. FIRE PUMP ra ! TRANSFORMERS EXCITATION > _ ! TRANSFORMER MAIN I s } ,, 1 a FIRE PROTECTION BUILDING t j SERVICEWATER, .. r�{ �St3� TANK Ilv T�J+++..•....�.tOEI h I (�...= NH31 �QEMINERALIZEE GAS TURBINE HEATRECOVERY pF' 4 ' "`I (7. a �. S ;fINATER,TANKr 1-1 GENERATOR STEAM GENERATOR z t fl' I (GTG#2) (HRSG'#2) l_ $ j tf \ STACKrt FLUE OPERATIONS } R "fes ' DEMINERALIZEDy.._ BUILDING k+. . „f .q) 'WATER PUMP r GAS COMPRESSORS ! y#` ' ` v t BULIDING OWER DISTRIBUTION' str r , ENTER(PDC) - --�_, _ -..� STG Al .EXISTING.. AIR•COOLED-CON ENSER� 1rtt �+ NGRIDRE HONG I J'(TO REMAIN) GAS r;OMP ESSO - STEAM TURBINE .i z, C COOLER t BUILDING SWITTCHHYARYAR D'. is t � STG :{ �- ,. GENERATOR GAS METER AIR_COOLED ` I - #2 1 '" LLLJJJ y*S-TUNIT P AREA+ CONDENSE i ,,.- E. p 7 DIESEL L ` :- . GAS y �•-GENERATOR~ 7 'METERING "��' --•'�+ " "'-_" SECURITY +� r GATE + ' �2 9 •* ,t AUX COOLING +a. f C - SYSTEM RT EM COOLuC-.T.O LA P - -BEFt,RM a _ _/ 1 PROPOSED GAS ,. -- - • + •+ r ,5 EASEMENT Y `- EXISTING DISCHARGE CHANNEL , rt a .. r SALEM HARBOR ® Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Project Salem, Massachusetts Proposed Facility O TETRATECH o 50 100 Detailed Drawing of Base Map:Bing Feel 2010 Aerial Equipment Arrangement Figure V (�J `I T � ( v of � - ( 0 STREET dscapedArea • � I �,;,. . 1 '3` 9F� 4 .-, Path`s O �O - - Admin Building Below ' C Reno ated Community Outreach4mlthnt - ` n r , .. _. Air Inlet Filter e _.. �',� _Access through existing _ -- .:� �F ` --`._ a Pa\9 pav d to i .• e t .i Gas Turbine Sound Attenuation Walls - H2 A/r*le Trailer _ ,Transformers SecuGate� 1`r^ 1/ Heat Recovery Steam Generator .;., ` - Renovated Gdhouse 25'Ht Acoustic Landscaped Berm - - Stack t,J:: o W Tani" ---- I� P clue • _ u Native Tree Plantingsi c i .. �� — —+ pldin _I tc� � " I d erations-andTvlain nance u g --- - l Gravel Areas(TYP) - � I � Svpltchyard a° ' - - - GasMeterArea - r Steam Turbine Generator O erator Hall ,=o Air Cooled Condensers Above I ' Access Road(TYP) - a Existing NGRID switchyard - _- Transition to 15'Ht AcousticY - - . tit to remain Landscaped Berm .. _ �.,, i 15'HtAcoustic Landscaped Berm Gas Pipeline Easement - D Existing Discharge Channel 0" 100' 200; 400' Landscape site plan - terrain 2013032 DD phase TERRAIN-NYC 200 Park Avenue South Suite 1401 New York NY 10003 USA C I 1 O t 212-537-6080 f 212-537-6079 e info@terrain-nyc.net www.terrain-nyc.net Footprint Power Salem Harbor Power Plant nts Site Plan f f • Power station enclosure - - - - Landscape Lighting - - - - Access Road - 25'High Landscape Berm Retaining Wall - GrovesofNativeTrees. - Path Property Line I i A - _ p • w.a e 0 25' 50' 75' 100' - SECTION A 1"_50,-0„ • - - I Property Line Lawn - Grove of Native Trees 25' Landsjcape Berm Retaining lWall Access Road - - LandscapeI Lighting _ IIE--Power Station Enclosure Beyond I s y �..,f+;: ,k- .'as,:. F •. ,-w }a: i. _� ; .. r ,° 3.,, . w.�a n„ ..,4 w .,�;...•' r. "3 � t.'3ar) � �; ��{,,„£-,; r t%,.'. ., p_".. f, �; ' . b 25' 3rO' 75' . 100' SECTION B • terrain - 20130312 DD phase? TERRAIN-NYC 200 Park Avenue South Suite 1401 New York NY 10003 USA w1213 FIG 11 t 212-537-6080 f 212-537-6079 e info@terrain-nyc.net ww .terrain-nyc.net Footprint Power Salem Harbor Power Plant nts Site Sections Property Line - Existing Steet TreesTo Remain - •.- Path ove of NativeTrees Administration Building 25' Landscape Berm - Retaining Wall " _ Access Road Landscape Lighting - - - - ,t,a - -Power.Station EnclosrE 0 _- 25' 50'. - 75' 100'. - SECTION C Salem Harbor .. .. Discharge Channel - Crushed Aggregate Surface --Low LandscapeWall - Groves of NativeTrees - 15' High Landscape Berm Retaining Nall .. .. Access Road " Landscape,Lighting -_ - Power Station Enclosure _ .. .. .. - .. S' .r ka z ra •r4 ,� '' r ^'" +t sf�"#"i4� zr+!.ea�F"k .x'�-.` "+.a at e R f �� r ^• -�' ` �a • ++� ti - .��'1 1� "'hsi7.,-Y 7� y _ tY vA.,d'+* ' ,s:G°.z,�°� ._.-� F�� t s y t#n` .t. % `�''� <MN'w� a '. x .j � .a �" ,f -• a. 4 �� ": � .'de'=s.* 57,"Cz`-.. � ... am .<-. '� � � � ,.�- . w a.: .�-�... F'a. x. 5 u ::i. 0 25' 50' 75' 100' SECTION D 1"=50'-0" �\ • terrain aLn 20130312 i. DD phase TERRAIN-NYC 200 PaWenue South Suite 1401 NevYork NY 10003 USA ^ 13 I L^ t 212-537-6080 f 212-537-6079 e info@terrain-nyc.netw.tvvain-nye,net Footprint Power Salem Harbor Power Plant nits Site Sections L I�(nur du� ' ' I I it III 'L I II I I I yLi 1 a r - - I I • i l l I � e3wa i I y r T • � 3 I� •^ —ieYY. --— —� i N y I /. • I u 'I ... L I Nt— — Yt —N2 1 _N� _} iy �� FI�='�i 4' �YsL= t yJ,J r ♦ 1 \\ y L � r � � � �� T � T +� 2 1 V ♦ \\ t rL r� t m r r l r l l r 1 r l r SITE PLAN KEY NOTES LY_MN3.f0MUMMEDLA—S 615BfllKlFOCPI1lfE. L1:3}33IIF83 FOCTU3♦E UC^Fafi71C3 ^ p14YYLTCA[I6m1[1YMWgiLmnTOatculL[0.lmim uart'l�tnml:JSNaLx. NST/LI.NfRpEll 6d a40P,L.Y.119�114YM: 7AG M/aAFACLUFER LINb YULTACF- LIVAP- USHTM FUCrL4W CISCA[MM 3� C. ( ya a341iY4-aY-'un�ormllL�mleYll - T3Yf1Y 6'FLaN31 pYWi3.p3[NOC6 IAv m lm�o3raawxnm Mw _ 4 apAGTI]Nal "•£[M[110P1arOl4l@Y®4 iGY lID .�g1{Qp C4�M.610Y 1L6 IDYA O lA[YrtGCTIim ILIifNYCfIYiY.t9Jd MIVIGfeVN4®lPNLL1.Y0LSImiRILLSEL COO@�IR1CY®1 +n pwmcom3:wocecso�ocrumaar mm- 4 GSApal3Yua3aLma4a¢ IAY LLa 91GALL YANd4ltdpoolNa41R law O L W4p4 YG YS I4GLYC21 LPm1 IAY lID. WLM.I®11Hl LCTiffi 6IDw 6 pi4YC[TBILPa.LY[IWjGIIQ16®6144?OLtl60[iC81O10�4YWRpRN4a7A5 LpIIlY1.pLiK1RRWLfLLOIRSC[4.111a4%.fMp4Ndt1GM. - (a) MWCLG44G[0611F1Lffi/L19M1®Ilp!]6RZYICCYa1H&LTI4IYCILLEIP.A`Ttllf 5RAWtl1 GalY.alO.i@lIS6 IAY lIDGTpBOp13NLaaYLitll4a[a7GiGLpp Y1ll 1�J� [OILL.FCQ MT3T/LLIGpGi 6a�(fI1LI1RJl.➢RWIO:41:071:BY 1 +.�.YLHIppIQ.Y1'J 1@Y®[l 'IAY 114 LLIpp tLblN4[@.LiMlp'l y}w (]y 6FR 1`S11a.'JY16aaiDKigA YMY11YfI IDKAYRFDal16LL81 W1®1.lROa6l YLTU43.i6�T /� " V �i rax�3aaacm33a3wiarmLp3an�rmonmlrai�Tmrmo - L "a1CIGR GLL11�1441W1N F08Y426 la"6Y Im SgLLLp ^^tee^��L.�..i uvlaLr IaVx 9.mrmrlm+ffi54)a [py Nloai'L[+IriTamGi¢rf�8mpc'•tneapFrtxr2maminl4r+L om4xn " _ tYN41ANa v aononNaOlmull�sm.n6�LA.ct�adtL9la»SmL�1.lDdnt[t4waIDl�aL..a3m fV➢pPGp0.B®9AYF� I0810VII2CIYP�IItVLaEEMIP II®OLIL0.mWC19®16 v16RIBPGI1��Wi1dl6 M]NIIG449 LLR.VLLI QIHYFYN.D2YYlY64V11•.[LYN¢vA4�NLladKTlaCfitN®44aaN4 Stt.1W0WN F�ld Y�lL^A�9H1C m4[�JN1U[L Y 9tp9[I �✓YBI QY®�!2'.N[Lilal]4: LAY 4a➢ lID aa3AmLrm 61N :SLG6O 911ApPY1 � t4�WLCY��ISMMiL03N] ��@W�4T'663Y�3^J'NNiOilOGl1V[�• tDWT� 1 • • I ` , L ,Y �S' 1 ♦7� J e � ♦ c1 �. YY tea,,,` '}"{,+, � v xA • �'3 lC- �♦ L �' l ( 1 f SIS DRA m � '�! 1 91r � _� - ` y�?4,1 e • �` �{ b♦ � .11,. �. r.,,1 1� �'c.. � I �1 s 1 ` Z `a � `�-�-.. 8 • � .,; `t� %_,- ,t r�C, ( O f. � A.. ly_ � t tl 'i se:-.- _ ��_ ,� �r jp • 2 e 1 rOTALAREA=] s ' Y 4r + ��1 S 5+ S '. T}T r �. ! • - v }3 N s . }' �,.- c z h :>ra' y. Tc - 4 \ - : i z `------— 1 4 • � � T � A; �v ♦ . c 1_ T _ " Tr^�r' �, ' t�" ♦ ' =1c` 9" ` � `� �r ° � _"..""c tom+/ jt • Slle 'I. � „� t� r S� - SSL r�rn 6 .*7-r e :� � v, t _ . o � } :i,� e��" � � ♦ ,j T � {` TALAREAb os1 1 --I r_.��'� _ �� -'��,t`. ` � 1 is/ + `�;� Z g as ♦.t k I t G � "`�. - � i d 1�t�'"'^ '�3�� t!n j��i�� ` I, - ❑ r/f '' r J , fy V �j,p IFi,11 °,' 4� 1 ,a 1 Atf 1 AREA.1 / W W I' _ ♦` a I r/ -� eL-i6'( 4. .._s. 6 �a ols .' o� MM�N�sz1 s Sc.T K _ I IX Y CHARGES io POI Z �� 1 ; { )\ ♦ � 1 i :. ,4 - NAGE' h+1 r"II- � e ....:`r F. �.� `SY 0 �o' '• V:"ar✓ - TO 1'AC�ES A ! 1 .. ,Fss m"` � _ '_ V '4: '...t , Q � 1=J z U _ INEIGHAREA=0318ACRE5 � W7EIGHI£D CN 75 • Ny " 'y —� =- — ��l s DESIGNPOINT4 —DFA— L DRAINAGE AREgd. • TOTALAREA=1.310 ACRES j' {moi '4 / T0TPLAREA=0.MACRES W WEIGHIEDCNcap. i('OV]I WEI EDCN-79 Tc=SA MIN =SOMIN • (), DISCHARGES TO PoINTI 11 �♦ f114 ISCHARGES TO MINT LL , • w ti ooa "cRr cocx., J w DESIGN POINT 1 • O` w LEGEND WATERSHED LINETOTAILAMA= • n - � It DRAINAGE AREM9 . • � — — —C— — — FLOW PATH yY.m�`w/ zasoACREs K 'v� Tc=SO MIN - 1 t, OlsawRGEsroPolNrt • * POINT OF ANALYSIS yf` a `1: Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Pmjeci Projed No.: 127-62117-12001 • N 1Q SUBCATCHMENT ® TETRA TECH 24 Fort Avenue Date: April 4.2013 1 Salem;Massachusetts • - Designed By: MWM u o ° 'F---�—�.j WWW.toValech.com Existing Conditions Watershed Plan Fgum • Q HYDROLOGIC REACH One GraN Street C SCALE 1"=250' Framingham,Massachusetls 01701 5 V • "' Phone:5G8-9032000 F.:508-90}2001 • _ Bar Measures 1 inch • • •� y �t� � 777 �q /�� ` •{ GJ, 3}+1 • ..` vtT>'3- •�. M' � A4ir3 - FORwy`SIF 11! � `L' �' (✓ _ - •' Y. MIN e-1oz �mtoeq _ m.35 y ,°,v,`.'H ': so •� - ,.,, t orn+oT M-200 .B-1W alre r �,. &103 r.l FITRMV .+� ..$AkZ-- Tip.++o ` i4 � //44 ' • Sr \ ,, ` ."}t«{yjjP - �� • •(5 1 s .f b €`.1Tk0+• Bit•• • ( /z T 0 t $ 3 W E r a :1 L 7 •'� _ � � Imp ` t „�` <+'� • : : ••tr TP+M Da.1 69.1.+ ) 7-103 �� yk' .�,>_� t '4.,�,•`" ! ��„! d '�` •� a - f t 4 1 3 ' i ^ Z . TP a01'-10> S 5 ;� ..�^ r �' &i�e• �� + .,�1 .. •1 } Tnxz sit— "Jo :a:, .� g TT-toz • .r ITP-t+e .. ., t i. ai Y f. !� Ttt _.. 4" 1'1' t &tzzY l I , ' �'S" - 3� •.-*, }. I121 '. .,1 3 \ ` _ .,+8.]IM.:F3 I� _ :3 , - .t ° �' �// \ •u .�,s4.r TP &tot - JPIla � �." $..' > , a _,// p .+ t•n a-tzo f t.> 13,121z' •.. - `c'\6 9.t0e ITPJ36 Ey E8 �.'� �.� 4 &218 n.2o5 • J �• a. ( y • �. _ 07 ; ° r .. 3 • F • W - �T.13B�.—�. _ PS B13p 3TP-12 •nom ra '� � � M�..� -. ¢ta. N • w LEGEND i LL HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP A 3 w HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP C Fn r( O�— HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP D • — — — — — — PROPOSED POWER PLANT LIMITS g F PROPOSED LANDSCAPED AREA LIMITS T a • SOIL BORING { • a ---3 Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Prplacl .Protect No.: 1262717-12001 r. a GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL ® TETRA TECH —�24 Fort Avenue Date: April4,2013 • Salem,Massachusetts • `•' 0 125' 250' ----_ Designed BY: MWM E TEST PIT ~v.letralach.com Proposed Site Soils Map • C 50' One Grant Street Figure SCALE:1'=2ri Framingham,Messachuseth,01701 d U Phone:508-901-2000 F":508-90:42001 I? • �Ponswool Bar Measures 1 inch • • • m`{ • �R,w'l �rJ�, P ��-�5 �--`- ivymu ��elya'p�\\ S�`// ..... ;tit t `—' e <� �{ . _ � ! �.. �ro--e..,Hl y�✓;..�.f $� —x�� I r L Y i Y =_ ` \� '1 -ate•fM, _-'_„'::. ` • -- q y�i}/' ky; �Y.. K`{ryr.e- � t / 1 l yl iM i O � �+.` e _ ,}- '�' 1 t �- " • yiL` / t x e � ` tia �3-- x A, • /i x t L i f< A r TOTAL � - 5 � J Y"3 p'�r i lr j 2 < DISCHARdE • a 4 c-\ INgGEgRFA-z L O g t, ( ro z1.anACREs t - o w`4 -- L71 "' d i Z �1 V/EI35.5d01- Bi -'4 i k DRAINAGEARFA.S -.i x - , �•.,,_e.--.d„� • j "ncsx DIS GE < r 1 l � ,` - _ 1YEIGHIID CNeg 1AGPF.S: i s�,t�"j � i 1 ~_ t '� , L O � 19 SOlBN �' '`tib F `t • � t � af/ t � ., x a �� DLSCIVRGE5 TO R08i[t `� t41�-k a A�'rs I_ < k,� �5/\ (� t M O _ t� r` rf� %1 r'�_`' � 1fl"T {"{`'1'-�tl�`F�-�t•' '�*!_ i ` S ` �r \ t. aQ e TOTALARE1S 6d*A� _ .: ( 1-1._"T�A • w D GN POINT 2A 3 % \ DISCHARGES TO POINr4 e�•y t <` DeJp� p01 J ` z t # > ` F O ORAItUGE ANEA-1 �' y+a+='- S • DESIGN POINT 3 U TOS'ALAREA-0318 ACRES Y W WEKIltED CN ]8 (C—.. • O oI5C5NFRGESTOPOI y L' Q t `` ss i ,i a� :; ® YDESIGNPOINT4 DRAINAGEAREAd ORAINgGE AREAd • rE _ TOTPIAREA=3.690 ACRES i TOTAL AREA=0.895 ACRES TOTAL AREA=0.610 ACRES w VIEIGHn3l eN=95 < : VlFJGH CN=]9 WEIGHIEDCN-a8 TC 5.0 MIN Tc=S.O MIN U, DISCHARGES TO POIN]1 - i< f� GES TO POINTt DISCHARGESTOMINr4 w XdHI�ON 1 "CAT Cap', • J • w DESIGN POINT 1 ,* w a • o LEGEND 0 WATERSHED LINE p `i;(` 1 • ro DRAINAGE AREA$ A. TDTALAREP=3.060 ACRFS • — — —C— — — FLOW PATH_ WEIGHTED CN=n � l Tc=5.0 MIN Y. DISCWGESTOMINr1 a * POINT OF ANALYSIS }`< a x1- Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment Pmject Project No.: 127-62117-12001 Ot SUBCATCHMENT ®TETRA TECH 24 Fort Avenue Dale: Apn14,2013 0 125 250' www.tetratech.com Salem,Massachusetts Designed Mm ~ 9 w ED HYDROLOGIC REACH Proposed Conditions Watershed Plan F9ure r • N One Granl SeeH n • NM SCALE:1•=250' UD m 1Masaxch 1]01 6 Phone:508903-2000 Fax: &903-2001 • Bar Measures 1 inch • • �4��^.�-Sts G :�3a' � �" __ _ _ -- ., � 5 • �� i �.�.n �x'i-- j _`�� .to- { ( > tm-1 ie-Aa .L �� 1,.�"'—.-n-.a_"'tz�.� h� r+`.- .'"j:>_.•-,.... ci • '`4 ' t F � � ,'1 1 -� "� v caze cazs t�n �- '•'� �'�� ` f � !..'.,..-o.�.t- CB,; Z I 4 f t (.'tit �.` 1.j I a euiLowc. }, i .d"nr• �'" '�'" ."�;` 7 a} > 7t t o ` •'Tf 1St ' h ce-1 p 1.; --s .�•U f , 4 1 t7 VIOSL l t _ v ,k -lww�: a." ht -r t'•«,a.. n" "- p z I• r Y J K — 3 r t t � ca .av' >"' a �iyP 1 a ✓ f �' ce-itcoa3 f "`"i=,_.- 'r'"• •L 't,..`-sem. 't r:.<,,,...,,, w r',. h.j, -- a E/: � a v +. 1z ` st src .u-" zs '1 a`•� ♦ "7 ...� euenmc t _x x;� x - y.-i\ti Via« Q \ l si L i'•_'�+L�__.--. "S- ynt..__; ,�• �L.—�^L o ��;�( r t /'1 cent ce-te rao> � jti'1 .r +. ...\�l\"� s f`�r«�t t�++•.�i�%'. U3 e i z- QD' ee-za ca-2s teat _ LB-23 "' y .t^'Vt a •t 'c 4 _ t 3. of w xr E - w i x j fi '. UW TT�.,� "- JfSGW6l.5 LJ.LYN L '.,-�•iri ./' to A4 Pp tEj %4 • N to C a `T�x Salem Harbor Station Redevebpment Project Project No-: 127.62117-12001 � LEGEND N TETRA TECH 24 Fort Avenue Date: Apri14,2013 ti t ® Salem,Massachusetts Designed By: MWM i f 0 too- 2W www.tetratech.wm Subcatchment Drainage Area Plan Fere r m WATERSHED LINE VFX L,.< One Grant Street V a / SCALE:1'=200' Framingham,Massachusees 01701 ' n Phone:508-903-2000 Fax:508-9032001 Bar Measures 1 inch StormCAD Report Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment 24 Fort Avenue,Salem,MA Hydraulic Hydraulic Upstream Downstream Invert Invert Velocity Capacity Grade Line Grade Line Upstream Downstream Upstream Rim Downstream Rim Length Diameter (Upstream) (Downstream) Slope (Average) Flow (Full Flow) (In) (Out) Cover Cover Label Structure (ft) Structure (ft) (ft) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) (ft/s) (ft3/s) (ft3/s) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) CO-1 CB-1 15.00 CB-2 14.00 53 12 11.30 11.00 0.006 4.16 2.50 2.90 12.02 11.78 2.70 2.00 CO-2 CB-2 14.00 CB-3 14.00 1 95 15 1 11.00 10.50 0.005 4.49 3.62 5.08 11.78 11.34 1.75 2.25 CO-3 CB-3 14.00 CB-4 13.75 70 15 10.50 10.00 . 0.007 5.25 4.27 5.91 11.34 10.95 2.25 2.50 CO-4 CB-5 14.00 CB-4 13.75 104 12 11.00 10.00 0.010 3.97 0.92 3.78 11.40 10.95 2.00 2.75 CO-5 CB-4 13.75 CB-6 13.75 66 18 10.00 9.60 0.006 5.38 5.99 8.86 10.95 10.63 2.25 2.65 CO-6 CB-6 13.75 CB-8 14.50 70 18 9.60 9.20 0.006 5.43 7.02 8.60 10.63 10.31 2.65 3.80 CO-7 CB-7 14.50 CB-8 14.50 103 12 11.50 10.90 0.006 4.06 2.08 2.95 12.12 11.52 2.00 2.60 + CO-8 CB-8 14.50 CB-9 13.75 142 24 9.20 1 8.50 0.005 5.64 9.71 17.21 10.31 10.01 3.30 3.25 CO-9 NOT USED CO-10 CB-10 14.00 CB-9 13.75 46 12 11.00 10.50 0.011 3.86 0.71 4.02 11.35 10.78 2.00 2.25 CO-11 CB-9 13.75 CB-11 14.00 144 24 8.50 7.70 0.006 6.25 12.45 18.27 10.01 9.78 3.25 4.30 CO-12 CB-12 14.00 CB-11 14.00 112 12 11.00 10.00 0.009 3.95 0.99 3.65 11.42 10.36 2.00 3.00 CO-13 CB-11 14.00 MH-2 16.00 76 24 7.70 7.30 0.005 4.54 14.27 17.78 9.78 9.52 4.30 6.70 CO-14 CB-13 14;00 MH-2 16.00 68 12 11.00 10.30 0.010 4.64 1.48 3.92 11.52 10.73 2.00 4.70 •. CO-15 MH-2 16.00 MH-3 16.00 148 24 7.30 6.50 0.005 4.94 15.52 18.02 9.52 8.92 6.70 7.50 CO 1.6 `CB=14' 14.00MH-3 16.00 1 68 12 11.00 10.30 0.010 4.76 1 1.63 3.92 11.54 10.75 1 2.00 4.70 C0=17 MW3 16.00 MH-4 16.00 102 30 6.50 6.00 0.005 6.46 16.77 31.11 8.92 8.78 7.00 7.50 CO-18 CB-15 14.00 CB-16 14.00 62 12 11.00 10.70 0.005 3.23 1.08 2.68 11.45 11.41 2.00 2.30 CO-19 CB-16 14.00 MH-4 16.00 74 12 10.70 10.30 0.005 4.05 2.41 2.84 11.41 10.96 2.30 4.70 CO-20 MH-4 16.00 MH-5 16.00 55 30 6.00 5.70 0.005 3.84 18.83 32.82 8.78 8.69 7.50 7.80 CO-21 CB-17 14.00 MH-5 16.00 15 12 11.00 10.90 0.007 3.30 0.76 3.15 11.36 11.24 2.00 4.10 • CO-22 MH-5 16.00 WQS-1 16.00 20 30 5.70 5.60 0.005 3.95 19.37 31.42 8.69 8.65 7.80 7.90 CO-23 WQS-1 16.00 MH-6 16.00 1 185 30 5.52 4.30 0.007 3.94 1 19.32 36.08 8.65 8.30 1 7.98 9.20 CO-24 CB-18 14.25 CB-19 13.25 108 12 11.20 10.60 0.006 2.71 0.48 2.88 11.49 11.30 2.05 1.65 CO-2-5 CB-19 13.25 CB-20 13.25 152 15 10.60 9.70 0.006 4.51 3.01 5.38 11.30 10.60 1.40 2.30 CO-26 CB-20 13.25 CB-24 13.25 136 18 9.70 8.90 0.006 5.22 5.48 8.73 10.60 10.06 2.05 2.85 CO-27 CB-23 13.25 CB-24 13.25 152 12 10.70 9.90 0.005 4.05 2.64 2.80 11.47 10.60 1.55 2.35 • CO-28 CB-24 13.25 WQS-2 15.40 '80 24 1 8.90 8.50 0.005 5.77 10.42 1 17.33 10.06 9.62 2.35 4.90 CO-29 WQS-2 15.40 MH-6 16.00 20 24 8.42 8.10 0.016 8.88 10.34 31.00 9.57 9.00 4.98 5.90 CO-30 CB-22 14.25 CB-21 13.25 1 108 12 11.20 10.60 0.006 2.70 0.47 2.88 11.48 11.15 1 2.05 1.65 CO-31 CB-21 13.25 CB-25 13.25 136 12 10.60 9.90 0.005 3.67 1.63 2.77 11.15 10.57 1.65 2.35 CO-32 CB-25 13.25 MH-9 16.00 100 15 9.90 9.40 0.005 4.14 2.76 4.95 10.57 10.07 2.10 5.35 CO-33 CB-26 13.50 CB-27 13.75 214 12 10.50 9.40 0.005 3.81 1.94 2.77 11.12 10.52 2.00 3.35 CO-34 CB-27 13.75 CB-28 13.75 80 15 9.40 9.00 0.005 4.42 3.72 4.95 10.52 10.33 3.10 3.50 C0-35 CB-28 13.75 CB-29 13.75 93 15 1 9.00 1 8.50 0.005 3.76 1 4.61 5.13 10.33 9.92 3.50 4.00 CO-36 CB-29 13.75 CB-32A 14.75 123 30 8.50 7.40 0.009 8.19 17.64 42.02 9.92 9.90 2.75 4.85 CO-37 CB-30 14.75 CB-32 14.25 57 12 10.70 10.40 0.005 3.10 0.82 2.80 11.08 10.99 1 3.05 2.85 CO-38 CB-31 14.25 CB-32 14.25 85 12 11.20 10.70 0.006 2.99 0.62 2.96 11.53 11.01 2.05 2.55 - _ P:\62117\127-62117-12001\SupportDocs\Calcs\Drainage\2013.03.28_SrormCAD_Report 3/29/2013 • • • Hydraulic Hydraulic • Upstream Downstream Invert Invert Velocity Capacity Grade Line . Grade Line Upstream Downstream • Upstream Rim Downstream Rim Length Diameter (Upstream) (Downstream) Slope (Average) Flow (Full Flow) (In) (Out) Cover Cover • Label Structure (ft) Structure (ft) (ft) (in) (ft) (ft) Wit) (ft/s) (ft3/s) (ft3/s) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) • CO-39 CB-32 14.25 CB-32A 14.75 65 15 10.40 10.00 0.006 4.23 2.22 5.49 10.99 10.55 2.60 3.50 • CO-40 CB-32A 14-75 CB-34 13.75 138 30 7.40 6.70 0.005 6.84 20.28 31.65 9.90 9.61 4.85 4.55 CO-41 CB-33 14.25 CB-34 13.75 38 12 10.30 10.00 0.008 3.43 0.70 3.43 10.65 10.31 2.95 2.75 • CO-42 CB-34 13.75 CB-36 13.75 _ 65 30 6.70 6.20 0.008 4.45 21.86 38.97 9.61 9.45 4.55 5.05 • CO-43 CB-35 14.25 CB-36 13.75 38 12 10.30 10.00 0.008 3.61 0.84 3.43 10.68 10.34 2.95 2.75 • CO-44 CB-36 13.75 MH-7 16.00 249 30 6.20 5.00 0.005 4.82 23.67 30.85 9.45 8.75 5.05 8.50 CO-45 CB-37 13.75 MH-7 16.00 48 12 10.70 10.40 0.006 3.96 1.65 3.05 11.25 10.92 2.05 4.60 • CO-46 CB-38 14.00 MH-7 16.00 15 12 10.00 9.90 0:007 3.94 1.46 3.15 10.51 10.38 3.00 5.10 • CO-47 MH-7 16.00 MH-9 16.00 72 30 5.00 4.60 0.006 5.26 25.81 33.12 8.75 8.50 8.50 8.90 • CO-48 MH-9 16.00 WQS-3 16.00 20 36 4.60 4.50 0.005 3.99 28.18 51.09 8.50 8.47 8.40 8.50 • CO-49 WQS-3 16.00 MH-6 16.00 115 36 4.42 3.60 0.007 3.98 28.10 61.01 8.47 8.30 8.58 9.40 • CO-50 CB-A 9.50 MH-B 12.30 42 24 5.50 5.10 0.010 4.08 12.81 23.92 8.32 8.20 2.00 5.20 • CO-51 CB-B 9.50 MH-B 12.30 71 24 5.50 5.10 0.006 4.08 12.81 18.39 8.40 8.20 2.00 5.20 CO-52 CB-C 9.90 MH-A 10.30 15 12 6.90 6.70 0.013 0.97 0.76 4.46 8.34 8.34 2.00 2.60 • CO-53 CB-D 9.90 MH-A 10.30 15 12 6.90 6.70 0.013 0.83 0.65 4.46 8.34 8.34 2.00 2.60 • CO-54 MH-A 10.30 MH-B 12.30 101 12 6.70 6.10 0.006 1.79 1.40 2.97 8.34 8.20 2.60 5.20 • CO-55 CB-E 9.50 MH-B 12.30 53 15 6.20 5.93 0.005 2.49 3.05 4.99 8.30 8.20 2.05 5.12 • CO-56 MH-B 12.30 WQS-A 12.40 47 36 5.10 4.58 0.011 4.20 29.68 76.00 8.20, 8.12 4.20 4.82 CO-57 WQS-A 12.40 MH-P 15.20 226 36 4.50 3.37 0.005 4.17 29.50 51.09 8.12 7.75 4.90 8.83 • CO-57A WQS-C 15.00 MH-P 15.20 14 12 11.00 10.93 0.005 2.34 0.33 2.73 11.24 11.16 3.00 3.27 • CO-58 MH-P 15.20 MH-C 16.30 64 36 3.37 3.00 0.006 4.10 28.97 50.71 7.75 7.63 8.83 1 10.30 • CO-58A MH-C 16.30 MH-D 15.80 59 36 3.00 2.70 0.005 4.06 28.72 51.52 7.63 7.53 10.30 10.10 • C0-59 MH-D 15.80 MH-E 15.80 191 36 2.70 1.70 0.005 4.03 28.50 48.26 7.53 7.18 10.10 11.10 CO-60 _MH-E 15.80 MH-F 15.50 71 36 -0.98 -1.33 0.005 3.93 27.75 50.73 7.18, 7.08 13.78 13.83 • CO-61 MH-F 15.50 MH-G 10.00 225 36 -1.33 -2.60 0.006 3.89 27.47 50.11 7.08 6.70 13.83 9.60 CO-62 CB-F 10.50 CB-G 10.50 54 15 7.20 6.90 0.006 2.95 3.62 5.22 10.64 10.50 2.05 2.35 . CO-63 CB-G 10.50 CB-I 10.50 162 18 6.90 6.10 0.005 3.46 6.11 8.00 10.97 10.50 2.10 2.90 CO-64 CB-H 10.50 CB-I 10.50 64 12 7.50 7.20 0.005 1.85 1.45 2.64 10.59 1050 2.00 2.30 CO-65 CB-I 10.50 CB-K 10.50 167 24 6.10 5.20 0.005 2.75 8.65 17.99 10.71 10.50 2.40 3.30 CO-66 CB-J 10.50 CB-K 10.50 80 12 7.50 7.00 0.006 0.97 0.76 3.05 10.53 10.50 2.00 2.50 • CO-67 CB-K 10.50 CB-L 11.50 261 24 5.20 3.90 am 3.38 10.63 17.30 10.92 10.42 3.30 5.60 • CO-68 CB-L 11.50 CB-M 12.50 137 24 3.90 3.20 0.005 3.80 11.92 17.52 10.42 10.10 5.60 7.30 • CO-69 CB-M 12.50 CB-N 12.50 137 24 3.20 2.50 0.005 3.86 12.14 17.52 10.10 9.76 7.30 8.00 . CO-70 CB-N 12.50 MH-H 12.20 159 24 2.50 1.70 0.005 3.95 12.42 17.38 9.76 9.36 8.00 8.50 CO-71 MH-H 12.20 MH-I 10.50 163 24 1.70 0.90 0.005 3.86 12.13 17.17 9.36 8.96 8.50 7.60 • CO-72 MH-I 10.50 MH-1 10.00 300 24 0.90 -0.60 0.005 4.05 12.72 16.00 8.96 8.01 7.60 8.60 • CO-73 MH-6 16.00 MH-1 10.00 110 42 3.60 3.00 0.005 5.82 56.03 80.49 8.30 8.01 8.90 3.50 • CO-74 MH-J 10.00 MH-K 10.00 198 42 -0.60 -1.60 0.005 6.48 62.37 77.45 8.01 7.36 7.10 8.10 • CO-75 MH-K 10.00 MH-G 10.00 198 42 1.60 2.60 0.005 6.55 63.00 77.45 7.36 6.70 8.10 9.10 CO-76 NOT USED • CO-77 MH-G 10.00 MH-L 10.00 35 48 -2.60 -2.80 0.006 6.79 85.36 108.58 6.70 6.57 8.60 8.80 • CO-78 MH-L 10.00 OF-1 10.00 21 48 -2.80 -3.00 0.010 6.77 85.07 140.17 6.57 6.50 8.80 9.00 • CO-79 CB-O 7.50 CB-P 9.00 255 30 1.29 -0.75 0.008 4.16 20.43 39.74 7.47 6.93 3.71 7.25 • P:\62117\127-62117-12001\SupportDocs\Calcs\Drainage\2013.03.28_StormCAD_Report • 3/29/2013 • • • Hydraulic Hydraulic Upstream Downstream Invert Invert Velocity Capacity Grade Line Grade Line Upstream Downstream • Upstream Rim Downstream Rim Length Diameter (Upstream) (Downstream) Slope (Average) Flow (Full Flow) (In) (Out) Cover Cover Label Structure (ft) Structure (ft) (ft) (in) (ft) (ft) (ft/ft) NO (ft3/s) (ft3/s) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) . CO-80 CB-P 9.00 MH-M 9.80 62 30 -0.75 -1.06 0.005 5.85 28.73 31.42 6.93 6.67 7.25 8.36 • CO-81 CB-Q 8.80 MH-M 9.80 157 18 3.80 2.23 0.010 4.07 7.19 11.38 7.30 6.67 3.50 6.07 CO-82 MH-M 9.80 WQS-B 9.80 18 36 -1.06 -1.15 0.005 5.02 35.50 51.09 6.67 6.63 7.86 7.95 • CO-83 WQS-B 9.80 MH-N 9.90 26 36 -1.23 -1.36 0.005 5.01 35.43 51.09 6.63 6.57 8.03 8.26 • CO-84 MH-N 9.90 OF-2 10.00 28 36 -1.36 -1.50 0.005 5.00 35.34 51.09 6.57 6.50 8.26 8.50 • Notes: 1. Pipes are sized to convey the 25 year storm event. • 2. The pipe system has been designed for a rainfall intensity of 6.0 inches per hour for a 5 minute duration for the 25 year storm frequency. 3. The pipe system has been designed for the spring high tide event with a tail water elevation of 6.5. • 4. The pipe system has been designed using a Manning's coefficient(n)of 0.012 for HDPE pipe. 5. The pipe system has been designed using a pipe flow velocity maximum of 10 feet per second. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e. P:\62117\127-62117-12001\SupportDocs\Calc\Drainage\2013.03.28_StormCAD_Report • 3/29/2013 v Previousl Closed Releases LL–MLL—H 1 2 13 1 < 1 5 1 a BLANEY S?. PARCEL _ k J 1 7 «1 r4 -\ mV OILER 9 �+TURBNE IR 1 �A 8, � n.• a � uxmrl uxrtu r wrwE.laxe ,� e - IRvoN moml ,V f. ;�. SECnON 9-8 Ehna@� rt — o-e \�—� Vii_a♦__� ` • 1 .¢.m.a rr'n 1� _E� CO a . .� W� (G.'lt I.O.F4V � I.POhO WAY 19.0E E1�1fi@ •. 91L@' ® ECGT.M SECTIO-Nt-A - NOiE_RTN 314683-0EP Infirmetim inmrrcJyafye_Wilh respect fo location. u...E° 5 T a 5 H-17188-11 SB HW -e _. _. _ Footprint Power I One Grant Street Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment roJ e ct Framingham, MA 01701 Phone: 508 903-2000 Fax: 508 903-2001 Notice of Intent Submission www.tetratech.com PROJECT LOCATION: 24 Fort Avenue Salem, MA 01970 Tt PROJECT No. : 127-62117-12001 Site Aerial : APPLICANT : c � _ `Y Footprint Power Salem Harbor j. c r.' ry +a 1 Development LP ISSUED: M i 1140 Route 22 East, Suite 303 June 13, 2013 rt .` ,. �_ July 24, 2013 - Conservation Commission & Planning Board Peer Review Comments A. `' o Bridgewater, NJ 08807 POWER PLANT ENGINEERS : i Bayshore Services , Inc. 22 Myrtle Avenue . . . . eypo rt " K NJ 07735 VICINITY MAP : �.� ,, � is s � i � i � t s. : syr. y■f, ,., 44 .1S ° u Burns and Roe Enterprises , Inc. Nb r r 800 Kinderkamack Road 0 0 k Par t , Oradell NJ 07649 x . 1 1, Ilk '. '\; � hhtii� `X :-: Hi ,, - 1 i ..'�.. .'<' • - k s+ ..¢...:Cp`y „' - �!yq,e y*j ` '` _,:. -tet,-. I • 'a}� > I / .. SURVEYOR : '`•^ - •J x ,us `i,l\ o�\ o /Y9Rp .0, r ?� Meridian Associates ' �� , 11 . . - � ' �i 1 o ?. m „ rld @ r° C°cemith ...: • \\ i ' • • 500 Cummings Center Suite 5950 • L J °°' N ; Beverly' MA 01915 . i LOCUS 'i ARCHITECT . Cookfox Architects , LLP _ ° y a . - 641 Avenue of the Americas #8 a r, New York, NY 10011 0 1000, 2000' 4000' �►SCALE: 1"=2,000' r LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT : Terrain-NYC 200 Park Avenue South , Suite 1401 New York, NY 10003 rr 0 100' 200' 400' SCALE: 1" = 200' Sheet No : Sheet Title : C- 100 Record Conditions Plan of Land C- 107 Planting Plan C- 101 Record Conditions Utility Plan C-108 Planting Schedule and Notes C-102 Wetland Resource Areas C- 109 Planting Details C-103 Layout and Materials Plan C-104 Grading , Drainage and Utility Plan U N O a C- 105 Civil Details 0 C- 106 Civil Details 0 0 E TEMPORARY BENCHMARK CHART.- � ELEVATION ELEVATION -COVES /P T.B.M.# DESCRIPTION (NAD83) (MLLW) (FEET) (FEET) %' v SQUARE CUT SET 2.4' A.G. �\ , C ` 0 OUTSIDE CORNER OF BRICK 15.45 BASE TO "FOOTPRINT" SIGN Baa 5 \ \ SQUARE CUT SET 0.2' A.Gy \ \ \ Q ON CONE. PAD S.W. CORNER 14.02 OF ELECTRIC TOWER ATLANTIC OCEAN RIGHT OUTSIDE CORNER y4t \ / 0 LOWEST CONC. STEP OF 10.78 - *R _ EW CONCRETE STEPS SAL HARBOR NOS DISK STAMPED 2045D 1992 FOUND AT CONCRETE CURBLOCUS MAP: 10.75 15.88 \ \ � NOS DISK STAMPED 2045C 1992 (NOT TO SCALE) \ FOUND AT FLAG POLE BASE 10.77 15.92 \\ \ \ \ PAT (SEE NOTE 6) !? '�y �, \\ w�° I LAND AREA NOTE.' TDEPICTS HE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS 32t °0 IN FOUNDC ACRES OF UPLAND AREA AND 34t tz PLANT CONTROL y ACRES FILLED AFTER 1923. O ! -e 6"x6" STONE H r POI T C001' ILLy V!@` m BOUND WITH PIN r I �+ AFPRoruarE ORTH 0 \P y�` FOUND SOLID 0.3' ® ®� _ ®� _ � + - /_ / z N.i N Py y yy 1.2'x7'.4'x3' STONE < B.G. ( ] I _ _ / a+ING BWrmARY POST FOUND A v` PFPROp1MA7E - ( J / + f �J `\ / s,/ / -'�� VAL ONE PLP �y��\PqF\GP$y PLUM OCA TED '�� a > WNG BWNo _ '�HN " H _. - - FORT AVER LIE ]� J�' y! INOUSIRIAL l NORTHWEST \ �� -- ~ - - +s=O -s IJ�1YL l STREET -��j \\_- ------(PURit ,APIABLE NDP) - _ O •\ \ 4,. !�� -+- SMH _ '- ,D%MH CC O G \L F CORNER 0.2'A.G. I� \ I Ti':aN /�v4H •'� �'-+„� o\ 's -�sMH UPN 1 ` J N Cr)_ pyyPGO\i�J� _- u�"ai 0Mir, +' JX3 vusuc VARIABLE wo H) aMM-CHH \ -- --- - =790.28' uPNSi , � ,/ �.42-52-� C 's \ < ` x -"�-`-iz"'� '�'r ,v4iL E'x6" CONCRETE �a ��C\0 P,\ l�Q, \ Ee ® e5 E296.31' - l 1I 6 $ I I D C �r -� �„ 1a }�•' BOUND KITH SESD / tAi MH 1 DISK FOUND 0.3' O _ vPrn; 4 se, a�7fMr' r-- ="-s---/ T f \ 4 - r� I I I fr AN MI5 I I F s Q TH i R ---u�-�=-a C a \ J ''�L-._--- MAP 4 / /7 \ SA •° OA9ISCF� /TO`'� 6B.00• ° \ \ {e \ \+� \ +J J \ a C9 \ BIC'FOST , 1 S\ \ Y 9 \ H ° - "o, �u.u..�s'- \ +as s-- -s ---.�mkR O z+ O pece„vc-rzJ�'-` ?. \ y„ c / B.G_ _ � 1 5069 P G 350* � ---.- ` LOT 377 ® r W / -12 �6,a 35.00 \ / w\ \ A + 8 \ 6"x6"STONE L _ 4i- /,.�.- \ ////� ROUNDSTONE / / 1 C -�\ 4 m\ \ v oo 1 w BOUND WITH DRILL HOLE VVr + '` 4. MH�'.1 �� - _ _ ///l /l \ �j. :\ 1 1 1_�' \\\ 9 a 'I \ .fO ----�-avw DRILL .HOLE FOUND SOLID J : ,= C=- �� Ji \ PARKfNC FOUND SOLID 0.3' B.G. /// 11 \\\I r _ .. _ \\�\ �JHyoN.G9 +; �MH 1.D•a.c. , .,. \ .� aGBA3 '°� 1 !�(�( \ \�\� \ll ! -, F,r"'� �\\ \ \\ \\\ .•---.\/ +, \ / SIT 1 1 1 - HH N �J s X11 1111 D-1 I )\�\\\\� \1\�\ \\ i poo \ \\ � \ � ` TRANSI+AJ� EV7 IU 11 l \x \ 99 c 115 \�\\\\\\\ \\ 1 GEED OOK� PALE 0*) l + \\ \ flow oR FOBMmLY +,. ;r'�"r.�� , �.\J, "'m I9 ✓ J \i\ �"f\ \\) ll� 3 1I+I \\\\\1\ i\�1\+-\ �\�.+ 1 i+ / fR\ / W o Ns ESSEX S£MERACE IXSRIOT STONE ,\ +\ 1\ 11A O O TANK CA 20. I s \\\\ 1 I\ t \ \\ \ 9 TANK /.l2 1 ! •tri, SJ G°� 1- + / , l pHCAINC 104 \ \ 1 1` \ \\\\ !'91P-i14 I STONE D-2 i.J�-v 1\� \\ 1 1\ \\\\\\\`\�\ l 42 ` 'r✓ @-aV�\\ d n \ I I �� / \ /m + \ dIWTT-1I9 \\ �- ' 4R\(BYE / +,A O BG' JJ VAIN: +, \ \" `\ / • / �`\ \ ( \\\\\\\\\\ `�. fL00A 6% \� +, _-�� +� =rs Mw,T_1,1 � ,- / .�-/ Jl \•\\\\ 1\ s+ FGRM D . + 5 Now GR I ( �V \n.; 4• / +� +) ) \ 11 +'. +` m« J'i/_ .tA' \\�\I�\\\\\ �/ ( "✓i_l/'' ./\ oy°- SAY.CKEY` 15.DO' o 'y, / 1 1 90F'NG10C � `, + J �/ G,YA55 J / •-\9 f f�r�p _,I pa. 1 \ \1J i i^\\ / SIN J '3 C \ + n 1�-__�• -1 _ - APPRO.eiMA rE P �m Ica ( l +w `` v, fa 1�\ -' 1 \ .urPewro \\\\\\ > +,• /iii% i�" 1 \ + 1\ o « *• :e \ I\ II j __ '� O�° BOuNO 'Th'sE D DROMNG 101 :J � 29m/09 I \L. 1 `` \ .. \ � a +.s \\\�\\\\\\\ J 1 `.� �- / +o i +.y \ "`(((iii➢➢ii/ ' / \ 1 +� �® /'' e,l \\ \/ \ / / ' FORMERLY H O /' / \/ \ i \ �° + \\ / r/ / * ®� .� Dl$K FOUND 3'B.G. I k. D '^+ .a / 9mrJ // / / \� \\\\\\\\�\\\\ + %i ce / %F \ \ % / *. _>r A ---111 \/Tq /j/i \ \\\ \ Jo ' NKSF 6"x6" CONCRETE s ` , _ \ +� \\ \ ///��/ j `\�\\ \ / /i+y/ji' + n� +e \ /v<.e%vc / / °•❑ BOUND :NM SESD 6„x6" CONCRETE mJ +s \ \ \ l i1 ` s u+ � ! : - \ + ✓ G s L_ \„ a:.\ �„ O15K FOUND 0.5' BOUND WITH SESD m s +o \ f 1 I \ / 7 �/ + • : OISK FOUND 2' B.C. it m >I> C TANKRALE£< p _-j''- J .SURGE +, T 7 ® B.G. TOOAL + \ + l +o �J rA,vX wau(TTP) \ `11 s'� +� \\\\ / /y \ , n1^s`- I)E ' ' mm ro> \- / 1 'v' %` 1 \=/ /� j I 's +' 9 .�£ `., # +p TGPKASNE G4 �s SG NS IA2 N PIV 28.66, /\\ / +o d ( J 1 \\h ri i� / . BASIN \ P /) L +, ^ s K- J /� I ❑ cEBms.lz - �ifNOU ZCME +_ +_.J rove \v/ d i-'-� o•. / L 1 \\ 1 ( e,� /- `'•°+ +?P \i�'� - DoCo r SUBS OI�EASEENT 'svH d® /'t" •---�.s r`INK 1-- � / \\ \ o� IS EE�869, PAGE 3.�0*) A m-no ce44 + \ � � a 1 `Z -�\ _f = gk - - EAR7}I P sErruNc �a ro ® \ a1ON£ t ` / i--- Wrea S EE em \ \ aLE \` m ® '1 ® SE WT N J J £ARIH _) � �,Ns-i14 \ � +s +. PL£ 11 1\\ r--.. ro ' `� \� + 1 - +;, / ;EE \ 3wuL mPj s7£a +� 11\11111 ) c.➢./D,sK FouND \\\\ �< .J BASIN J 4 +, �® / ^ O y j s CO.VTAMMfNT \ \ ,j/ CO4TAlNN£NT \ O y�� '4 I m+ � Flaw .P\+s \\ ,\ + PLANT CONTROL \ \ 9 NO.S 1 ' �\I Y �� 'a 1 { ® ✓ J \ �J �(!7((J/lMl\\\ +s .` +J 1\I� POINT "PM-3" \ < +�P .SE LING ) \ CBI \\ \ ,Y/ p urP) � / y BALKGRIP " +� 1 aWf b �®- s--' BIT. � �° _ \\ TANK �\\\ \ / � < \ � s-'+ �' ® �\ .,�\ U' / \\ �\ +o '" o ° i Ge �v •7 � Q J 5 7/ � � \ + r- .VW \�\�A/`III 111 HOA > �' 0 8 F✓'Nt �� a 1 COSI 4' J) +o TT_1G 1 'Ilk \1111 IJ ° / .J 8 j0p0.w \\ TAf IK S p 11 1 \C 1r '/ sravE \11\ : \ e? m ' . 1 \ of/�` ) E , (� \ \, l6c_ ) // ° +P a 'o+ -U � \ c m \./ / \ _S \ +P \\ \ T + / 4 �\ / \ ' 'NAIL SHAFT / � I f l r d 4'' (`\� ° R� a \ _ o �J C1 �� +{r I STOM1'E +' � ? �\` Ty, STONE 4 /% \ # + , ,'cGNcwnE /i- ,EF Cn s e• FOU,VD I / \ 1 N 3016464.55 .s TP-m sY®, 's �/ \ c 's / / \� c ✓ s HaGP 7 r peoaac-r2z I \II I i � � \� � e FWrINCs �/// � S 5 \ + / E 823103.54 d c 1\ + \ \ ) \ 'A ® O$TAGK '�' '� ,s \\ T' \ CON7R + \✓, \\\ 1 , o P Mw ,11 \II\ 11 0 ; + j ?��/ Bi. \ ) \ s Ji ( ) + Ti-201 / \\1; 11W TT-I12 /� // C� \ 1 1 \ J /.o \_-r- \\ARw /��--�.�/ s '7 I' NAD83 TT-ros ( ) +, / /i.� \ \_ ,. eox� mN+ -�,.__- \ 2w TAN / �+ lU� \\ { 2s .�/ %%� /// ?. [_ \ / ( e ': \ / 1 GEBR \\ \l TANK f + /1 RLE 1 1 /_ /�// 1 \ d +, +a 7 ! o to�/ w qN 4 N � •_ /��/ � \ + � / / // , 8-3 a FOAM ` EARM// P / +� / P PILE1)-V( r + O TA +-o +eNK + % I III / 5r EI B/(. \ CBio U� s '!�'� /ice/ pBSRINC \ yJ / `I .s 10KK rn NP \ STONES \ TR ATME PUMP G a \ �� l� ._- +11 m+ ", PPE RACK / F _14: +o �)) , . r('%,=\_--� \\+\\\ \�i/I/ sTwfE o _+9 cGB10 P l\ GvrLRHE GMH• / e +',> +.rA \�' j mcP +y «o \ \ °• / m a tfJv11TAT N EA l 1\ \"1 +m \\\ �/ B' j4' O / s IXT + 'o+o w SIGN �' ,},� * ss +Y + T l a t RrmAP -../ + 1 J \ E PLAfl,/C�OOKO,'� AN B7� ) « \�\\\�J �+ \ +a Y tf+ sS • \ a � SE 'g + / I�i!n,.i. 1 SLOPE \\ \I\\\ .o:J l� � Cg•^ � e �-I'J i E0.0° } o� \\\\ TANK \\\'� Jce'�5 STA C G c�Tl � ` / o ,�-'- \\ S-1 �j`\\� r I A 1 \ ®mr11 +0 / \� Q •\\` 1]� O '� p �- �I�jE / s peORINC'�3O _ / P V i/ .� -� +\� ® \ s1AVE +P 0 I sTLWE �\ SIVIC \i,\\\ STONE G Z Z Y \ NO +-0 + A(�E / STONE 1 G\ Blr. e, ��'� r \ \\\\ 4 c FPN / e sTo sravf \° +UM° TANK II -rGJg .� :� �-- _ /1.---- m + +a +e \\\ + \\\ G sGASRAGK + 9A^1� +. +- �• +'s \ / +Ps ^^. D-6 I +'. +d +a / �� \ o \ o %(� \\I\ \\VI RACK o $ Ol. SEE ov o K v) ).) / `F \ / /-S �R�1�/ �%\ -\�` f \ ''9 ^I \\\ TANK + \ I�\ _ ® DETAIL A ROAN p80.%NGt13 J •?tea /l 0 +e BiG .0 0 / \ ✓i \\� \ s ? J ] p err (SHEET 1 OF 2) R �3w "SLY I o r / \ I/ t� \ a01LE +J , ( \ J Lo I +s ( + +4,R / \`�\��iJ.#.•-�/ .i HTO] -+. - .'e �--' •s s \ / / ��`,r^ `.,�-�'Y-i\rnl HISTORIC 1 / I 2M r 1 /\ BCBJ1 LOCATION OF e � l �� + `° n -c?P "." _ vl L ( 1 ` 1 BA$lN NO.1 1 ) +, �� rx.� fl�l�r JIJ � IiII 1 e +1A srE¢ oN im ' _ OOMC.¢4TAlNMENT "Pr TANK // \l [��A �',' /--' \ .T a�35 � /"uAL CMH R� \ B-4 ) - �l / \ II 1i `�lll Ii��I I \r-tw._ / % '.r - 1voRi%9� e V \. IXr /�N 22 TURBINE ' Q? \-_ NYD1r I f i i IIrl Il ll)''r� I \ J" 1 ----_ --- `---- , + •xi' +- OR 'T r., +a / m LE �L 21 ? +J�- .. o ...00 .ws-- .,TONE I + 11. , + I. � [ .,Ji/1' � - � - +`a \ Io U`LCN, r J / D _ ' +P 1 ✓ / �+ [ I / /TI(I J f/I�JJ(�I I +11 L� (I�/ ) +.� _- / ca c. o� s v +o_�_ i�MNJG Baewc�n-11� �J + 11 \ ( a l �Tnra A J r-'��(\ \ l 7'� ro \ �' .s' ®oMH _. /� I +o o -a el%/ ' R o +9 +pd J � O % % ,T 11; i iJ� bY� \ 1 �,/ \ + o \ r � oo FOR RESOURCE AREAS SEE SHEET C- 902 {/ $rte (I[ // oMw�T�T- G/ ® + -�TT�JC� - +: f� a /\ \ '.• 4ECHANILAt SEA SRMP lr/ \\ ❑ \ •a / / /` / -J \,11 ()rJj L'i i ,l \ ) l (// -1^HpM®/T,• 'b+l O a, B`_� 9i�� +` HJSIVRIIi J' �/5 1 `P _ 1 +1 /� 20W GATES 14I (n l \ LB49 '�y `+/ / •p / I,i� o \ j \ // o yr�iER /II/ \ �[ ��$\ AGLr 1 �. I\ / + STONE +� / / �•.�IiAfER /(-L'L�E I �+`s-Q7` Ul,.((J)�y`) \• ,{J +`6,� //O + / sem' Q.4 SIN N0.3+; % P-HWR i i� ` \ OOM +9s +s LroNsra wENi /J / j / NI i '_ I \ +w 1% / + 1\0+ UM�N / + / / /I Yam 1 $� sMN EEN R Ij _ •y ' qI 11 /- 1� B 4 OPEN 67 'J 9Mw B-114 Ii� III \ {�/[` y/. i r /�( 1 �� I([�� ' ! J SOFA SG8 S 9MW n- HOG1G ' / '3 7 / 1/�lhlliil�lIiI + /J�j Ill! 111 J`., ®J \ '� I (� +,, / � - GAr1, s FLOOR EL=10.8 I �. 4o r ��r E COAL PILE ' / L t;J air 11 RUNOFF . ( \ / ____-- --.�-.�. ��i/"% \\\VA i / ' r %g/// 11 IIi//�( I )iJJJ P. A WA TER EL 6.st 1 + 11 l / / �I +� I l j l %// KIIII)) �1 + I/II ch vl tl ll IIII U (�/ �T o / �+ i� S 1 1 l J 1/ +� I 1 D \)/ri% -- - -�-- _/ (//I7 ( ( Jl� I//%iJf ll 1ygIlt/ EAR ' +, ROD FOUND I \` ( 1/03/12) JJJJ)1 \ I J//� / �,It 1 /" 4, a / F %� IN ROAD BON \ 1 � .� PLANT CONTROL �jl ` POINT "A" +`3(d/ ////lf m �JJ�� cnN { (l - \ �'� Pu7ra`:M i I RrFRAP N 7+99.76 N 3077168.77 II \\ I ^? IJ� j� �\ 1l( .H✓f ' L'r Ilj/Jjllr EV TCIP + \ _,0.� / i�o+ /' SLCPf /r _ }� ,p \ !/ E 0+00.00 E 824498.74 I / (((� _ t cN -\/ �/.��Ijl�lj./Y."� id S A \ �` ELEV=14.62 ELEV=8.98 LEGEND.' NO TES. i Aur yAutr I I I �� \��., :g`v ( � /'yrs_ !/' 1 ^=-- )J) -tG- \ / ' /./ (SEE NOTE 11) (NAD83) I Y ) 1. THE TOPOGRAPHY, SITE DETAIL & SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS DEPICTED HEREON WERE OBTAINED FROM \ \ ASPHA T lI SICNE 1 I + ( +- / - - j _ s _ \\ti /ti\„� /�i�i�1J l y - \ 1 J �� ---------ONE FOOT CONTOUR BK. BOOK o \ \ (INER J I \ \ 1 \ ^�/ GJ �/ ( \ +i ( ra'� =.N 3016984.71 AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAMMETRiC SURVEY PREPARED BY COL-EAST INC. FLOWN ON .SEPTEMBER 11, \J o mE STONE z ---10--FIVE FOOT CONTOUR PG. PAGE 2012 AND AN INSTRUMENT SURVEY CONDUCTED ON THE GROUND BY MERIDIAN ASSOCIATESINC. +� - fsT� n0N / 4 ,% \'- \\l \ `--_/ / %J C j `\ / j = f E 8244i8.6z SPOT GRADE EDP EDGE OF PAVEMENT 'c L l J./ (C ✓-•\�\-- / C 1Tr-2GJ 1 \ / NAD83 +zr.e BETWEEN OCTOBER 3 AND FEBRUARY 20, 2013 TO SUPPLEMENT THE AERIAL MAPPING. / ) `\\\ -_�// 1 ) 0 1I \ +% j / - - ZONING BOUNARY TYP. TYPICAL f�I (/ I \�� / / / / B \ ` \ 4 - FENCE CONC. CONCRETE r \ + `9ss \ \ \ '�\�/- /////••//�� ' l+, \` 'p BCRfNry✓R-rlJ is' / �_c. c o J/ L �) J / \fir --/��/ / y �/ ® I 1\ / / CC CONCRETE CURB 2. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE DEPICTED AS LOT 271 (ASSESSED AREA=63.4 ACRES), LOT 321 Ill//// r j//r -f / \\ v� -/ �� / o \II \�� J a+ // -� CHAINL/NK FENCE BB BI TUM/NOUS BERM (ASSESSED AREA=0.0 ACRES), AND LOT 273 (DEED PARCEL 12) (ASSESSED AREA=0.033 ACRES) ON ��\� / / l/EGETATlVE SCRUB LINE WW GRANITE WINDOW ARB TREE LINE NCE CLF CHAlNL1NK FE CITY OF SALEM ASSESSOR'S MAP 41. �Ya��; LY✓i> l'4. �� _ _ - / a �/ SALE ` RETAINING WALL 3. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES DEPICTED ARE LOCATED IN ZONE 1 INDUSTRIAL AND A PORTION OF THE -- // W P&R POST & RAIL (INDUSTRIAL) \ mss' HARBOR n DECIDUOUS TREE AC Alf? CON01770NlNG UNIT SITE /S LOCATED WITHIN ZONE R2 (RESIDENTIAL TWO FAMILY). MAP 41, LOT 273 /S LOCATED WITHIN + " GK '� Yl 11A�1> ®11 ELEV ELEVATION THE CiTY OF SALEM 'DERBY WATERFRONT" LOCAL HISTORIC DISTRICT. - - Hrri - PHONE -+1J "AT aGA' DO \ / ,9 9f O SHRUB THR THRESHOLD 0 +, + smw EMH '� °Dp1H _ -� BOpT +moo n5-� nE= +.,, /\ ,..,fl C" CAT (i 0 V� (R RECORD THE ZONING BOUNDARY LINES DEPICTED HEREON ARE COMPILED FROM THE CiTY OF SALEM ZONING M1SNpI{,T rr-ys_ � - �-�" n J--� / ,.,�' / EXPOSED LEDGE L� LIGHT POLE L euw Tr-r Bir. „ n - +, MAP FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH IN THE CITY OF SALEM ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION BOAT nE s <T \ \ ^/, 1 s # Brr -_�� DCG / S.F. SQUARE FOOT EMH eopr .a �{+` S/l '. CIONCRETE FFE FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION 2.3.4 'INTERPRETATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES') # LONG BnEr onE TW TOP OF WALL WA, ® \) B� o� BITUMINOUS BERM TO TOP OF CURB 4. THE LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE BASED ON THE DOC o°neT "£ ® `� /l1 CONCRETE CURB BC BOTTOM OF CURB COMPILATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES DEPICTED ON RECORD DRAWING SET PROVIDED TO MERIDIAN pODTITLED: `UNDER GROUND COMPOSITES, US GEN .NEW ENGLAND INC., SALEM HARBOR STATION'; DoT TL� DB OCK >O�T ® ® ` 'ef 1 l/ ",' / GRANITE CURB BIT. BITUMINOUS CONCRETE CABINET N 301606709 1 s SiGN CONC. CONCRETE PREPARED BY SARGENT & LUNDY, DATED OCTOBER 2002. LiMITED ADD177ONAL RECORD a (NAD8.4)716 I � FOD FULL OF DEBRIS ® HANDICAP RAMP UNDERGROUND UTILITY INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE CiTY OF SALEM AND VARIOUS PUBLIC J z MLLW MEAN LOWER LOW WATER ABOVE GROUND PIPELINES D/A. DIAMETER UTILITIES. MERIDIAN PERFORMED A LIMITED FIELD SURVEY TO SUPPLEMENT PLANS OF RECORD. OHW OVERHEAD WIRES MERIDIAN ASSOCIATES, INC. DOES NOT WARRANTY NOR GUARANTEE THE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES TERMINUS UNKNOWN DEPICTED OR NOT DEPICTED. THE CONTRACTOR, PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, SHALL GUY WIRE VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES AND CONTACT DIG SAFE AT 1-888-344-7233. = ® SMH SEWER MANHOLE [SEE SHEET C-101 FOR UTILITY LEGEND] w�L li nM (D� DRAIN MANHOLE 5. THIS PLAN DOES NOT SHOW ANY UNRECORDED OR UNWRITTEN EASEMENTS WHICH MAY EXIST. A �J Q MANHOLE REASONABLE AND DILIGENT ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE (O OBSERVE ANY APPARENT VISIBLE USES p D /� J Z ELECTRIC MANHOLE OF THE LAND; HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A GUARANTEE THAT NO SUCH EASEMENTS HARBOR J '` f Q TELEPHONE MANHOLE EXIST \ © WMH WATER MANHOLE 6. THE ELEVATIONS DEPICTED HEREON WERE BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM a ❑ CATCH BASIN r¢ L +�. O ROUND CATCH BASIN (N.A.V.D.) OF 1988 AS ESTABLISHED BY GPS OBSERVATIONS ON SEPTEMBER 14 & 15, 2012, MEAN V �D COMPILED DRAIN MANHOLE LOWER LOW WATER (MLLW) DATA TAKEN FROM NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERE ADMINISTRATION DMH* RECORD DRAiN MANHOLE NOT OBSERVED (NOAH) NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE STATION iD 8442645 DATA SHEET ❑ COMPILED CATCH BASIN y CB* RECORD CATCH BASIN NOT OBSERVED 7 PROPERTY LINES DEPICTED HEREON ARE BASED ON COMPILED DEEDS AND PLANS OF RECORD, P 1 o COMPILED SEWER MANHOLE PARTICULARLY PLAN BOOK 384, PLAN No. 2* ON FILE AT THE SOUTH ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS. 1 1 \\ \ SMH* RECORD SEWER MANHOLE NOT OBSERVE" THiS PLAN IS NOT TO BE USED FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF BOUNDARY LINES OR FOR TITLE =DS DOWNSPOUT INSURANCE PURPOSES. ALL BOUNDARY LINES DEPICTED ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. MAI DID NOT 1 PERFORM A BOUNDARY RETRACEMENT SURVEY. \ WATER GATE VALVE RETRACEMENT Z I o 11 C816 CONCRETE CURB WITH Q -FLUSH CONCRETE � WATER SERV CE (J � / � HYDRANT 8. REFERENCE IS MADE TO DOCUMENT TiTLED: "OWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE, POLICY NUMBER t\ \ J 0 EDGING ALONG 5312-996097" DATED JANUARY 3, 2005. PROVIDED TO MERIDIAN BY FOOTPRINT POWER. REFERENCE LL t \a 9+ DRIVEWAY (D GAS GA TEp UTILITY POLE /S MADE TO SCHEDULE A AND SCHEDULE B OF SAID DOCUMENT, SAID DOCUMENT FURTHER OUTLINES g \e I \\\ ME1PL5 0 C817 0 LIGHT POLE THE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND ENCUMBRANCES. a \ \ 51 PIR ® MONITORING WELL U) \ \� \ �p + (9) BOLLARD 9. A PORT70N OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN FLOOD ZONES AE (ELEVA770N=10.0 AND 6 TEST PIT ELEVATION 9.0), AREAS DETERMINED TO HAVE A BASE FLOOD ELEVATION, PER FEMA FLOOD F_ +s 1 PLANT LOCATED D U77LiTY BREAKS PLANE OF GROUND INSURANCE RATE .MAP NUMBER 25009CO419F DATED JULY 3, 2012. z 0 7 0 /_ABOVE DRIVEWAY p BORING oHH ELECTRIC HAND HOLE 10. REFERENCE IS MADE TO PLAN TITLED, "SERVICE-STORM SEWERS EXTENSION OF 48" CITY OF .SALEM Q \� \ o - TRAVEL FLOW .NORM SEWER, PLANT DRAWING H-14973**, v_ 11. REFERENCE iS PLAN TITLED "SURVEY MONUMENT LOCAT70N PLAN; PLANT SITE - SOUTH END" W \ \\\ +� PREPARED BY FLUOR POWER SERVICES, INC, AND PREPARED FOR NEW ENGLAND POWER SERVICE g COMPANY. 0 1\ I a + 12. STRUCTURES DEPICTED HEREON AS RECORD WERE NOT VISIBLE. A METAL DETECTOR WAS USED TO U REFERENCES: \ \�v r o CB18 DETECT A MAGNETIC RING WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT REPRESENT A BURIED U77LITY STRUCTURE. n o 0 z - DOCUMENT No. 449497* P ` 4 "SALEM HARBOR POWER STATION' in - DEED BOOK 31761, PAGE 231* 1 \ - DEED BOOK 23825, PAGE 102* +� \I V_ �� F - DEED BOOK 15069, PAGE 350* �� 24 FORT AVENUE W - DEED BOOK 3856, PAGE 129* + o +� ! <c CB 19 Lu - DEED BOOK 27327, PAGE Ill* RECORD CONDITIONS PLAN OF LAND cn - PLAN BOOK 390, PLAN 94* - PLAN BOOK 410, PLAN 87* LOCATED IN CQ7 - LAND COURT CASE #9885A* LAND COURT CASE ({25890* SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS o - LAND COURT CASE #13585A* CA - PLANS TiTLED: "UNDER GROUND COMPOSITES, US GEN NEW THESE CADD DOCUMENTS ARE RECORDED ON, OR CAN BE (ESSEX COUNTY) ENGLAND INC., SALEM HARBOR STATION'; PREPARED BY TRANSMITTED AS, ELECTRONIC MEDIA. THEY THEREFORE MAYBE S SMH N SARGENT & LUNDY, DATED OCTOBER 2002.** SUBJECT TO UNDETECTABLE ALTERAT70N OR ERASURE, EITHER PREPARED FOR LO - TITLED: A.L. TA./A.CSM LAND TITLE SURVEY, DOMINION INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL, DUE TO, AMONG OTHER C82 PLAN FOOTPRINT POWER LLC r CAUSES: TRANSMISSION, CONVERSION, MEDiA DEGRADATION, STEEL COLUMN ON o POWER PLANT SALEM HARBOR STATION, SALEM, MA'; SOFTWARE ERROR, OR HUMAN ALTERATION. ACCORDINGLY, CONC. F0077NG ® O PREPARED BY SURVEY AMERICA, INC., DATED 5/24/05** MERIDIAN ASSOCIATES, INC., SHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR o SCALE: I "= 80' DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2012 l ANY CLAIMS, !LOSSES, DAMAGES, OR COST ARISING OUT OF ANY o' * DENOTES DOCUMENTS RECORDED AT THE SOUTH SUCH ALTERAT70N OP, UNAUTHORIZED RE-USE OR MODIFICATION DETAIL A: BIT MERIDIAN p f, ESSEX REGISTRY OF DEEDS. OF THESE CADD DOCUMENTS. MERIDIAN ASSOCIATES, INC. WILL ACCESS TUNNEL BE ENTITLED TO FURTHER COMPENSATION FOR ANY FUTURE BELOW PLANT REVISIONS ASSOCIATE S ** DENOTES DOCUMENTS ON FILE AT SALEM HARBOR STATION USE OF THE INFORMATION REPRESENTED ON THIS DOCUMENT ENGINEERING SCALE 1"=40' BEYOND ITS IMMEDIATE PURPOSE. 4 4.02.13 ADD ZONING BOUNDARIES ACC PLP N 20 0 20 40 80 500 CUMMINGS CENTER,SUITE 5950 69 MILK STREET,SUITE 302 3 2.21.13 SUPPLEMENT DRAINAGE ACC PLP BEVERLY,MASSACHUSETTS 01915 WESTBOROUGH,MASSACHUSETTS 01581 ALL UNDERGROUND UTILI TY DATA REPRESENTS RECORD TELEPHONE: (978) 299-0447 TELEPHONE:(508)871-7030 INFORMATION RECOVERED THROUGH RESEARCH WiTHOUT 2 2.12.13 NAD83 COORDINATES ACC PLP WWW.MERIDIANASSOC.COM 04 SURFACE DEMARCATION NOR SUBSURFACE VERIFICATION. DWG. No. 5488-REc 1 11.30.12 SUPPLEMENT MAPPING ACC PLP SHEET No. C-100 PROJECT No. 5488 N - -- - BK. #544, PG. #27 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY CHK'D TEMPORARY BENCHMARK CHART: ELEVATION ELEVATION COLLINS OR\P TB.M.# DESCRIPTION (NAD83) (ML LW) COVE ��pp (FEET) (FEET) �[ SQUARE CUT SET 2.4' A.G. Qj OUTSIDE CORNER OF BRICK 15.45 - BASE TO 'FOOTPRINT" SIGN 0 U SQUARE CUT SET 0.2' A.G P N LOCUS Q ON CONC. PAD S.W. CORNER 14.02 OF ELECTRIC TOWER ATLANTIC OCEAN Qd - RIGHT OUTSIDE CORNER LOWEST CONC. STEP OF 10.78 SR SALEM / CONCRETE STEPS HARBOR QNOS DISK STAMPED 2045D 1992 10.75 15.88 4 FOUND AT CONCRETE CURB LOCUS MAP: Q NOS DISK STAMPED 2045C 1992 (NOT TO SCALE) 5 10.77 15.92 FOUND AT FLAG POLE BASE a (SEE NOTE 6) RA4 aN P "T 9 Y 00 1000 z S 0SeY�o\' E qa ka q�9��gy$gy,On� Q�AO 66119411 "�V2f L� u J� PIN FIX/ND ,.••� ]T�-� \ 6"x6• STONE "� / PLANT NO 1%1751 BOUND {NTH P/N ® \ POl T "C001' .Y I �+ �j\ - _ytt- AFrrtonun rE RTN �p \P 5�p FOUND A LL SOLID 0.3' " ® - + s ----�- I.fO y -( L2'xr'.4''3Y STONE B.G. 1dxNC BaTNBNrr T P Cj POST FOUND vp\1 A APPRa,MA1E MN + LP �/D C\ SOUD1 WG Ba RY -_ -- y' dw _ --*. - - - - - - W J a & \ m N F --FT- P \5��\ PC�\G9$ PLUMB/ATED � {- \ ys-----�- G J zaE ° +4 \ Hm �J (rrP) +� \ PUBLiC VARIABLE IMDIN) - + \P\'�\� p\\' �, \ NORTHWEST •S - - -*o D� yy��v- -------- \,DG p� P�QF 1 CORNER 0.2' A.G. wb "" v +q- -� --- - cY"ARIA - ------ -- UPN, 5 LLFN sa- ' ! 6x6" CONCRETE P p 5 (\F E 5 G 't J) p s,H EIAN FMN TAM s1 _ PNsr . - '•* 1 FOP a- Y NJ I I u r] /2 wAu BOUND W77H SESD P q $ r ® " ,.. uPNreo9 sel + TE✓11 - y¢_-_- -los�u_°-_- + MAP 41 1 -] A l l vn DISK c fouND 0.3' g- - +! \\+, \ - O ! c YST p K 75069 P GFa 350 68.00 m _ _ \ vt„ ? y= cea* \ �- \ 1 y\ �'\ w � -- \ LOT 321 H, w 6"x6" STONE --_- 8x8" STONE BOUND W77H 4r UFt o-M"I Mr, >E / _ _ \ BOUND W17H DRILL HOLE lalo \ a \ Q /// \ \ m- 1m 'I \ s 1 / '�� yw vumn °"T w DRILL HOLE FOUND SOLID FOUND SOLID 0.3'B.G. /' a `/' qJ /// �// \I \ \ ~ =$� \\\\ ", +Y \ 4///"`tri \\r• .Il, w c w D'B.G. \ / aT TANK \ \\\\� \I\ \II ( _ •" s-i`� _--- - a y h\\\\\\ \\\ - J \ 1\11 \\ \ \\ 4(v 1 sH +m NOW aT F°A my .J 144 6 - -� a i +m 111 11 + �y - _ / \ \ \ G FIIa / 9 \ ! ) / ' 1 q! SM/W E5 SE AGE aSMCT 5 Bl i. /� IOVE \'\�� / as �eAS, / �\ \ \\\\ t / g \\ +P / \ , * **m �;p� //� *A, a \\ \\\ � IIR.\ ' �` / ✓� S A'ey�r/ Y 20. \ ) `r \\ \ \+ 5 a TANK 1 <\ +' *i +i + ' • *�.-.� ylTj + Z + /'_1 1\ "\\ r V� + 4 / \\\\\\\ \ ( I B-1 I I 5 \ a 1� ( \ \\ e I TANK \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ I \ \ \i\\\\\\\�\\ u _ @ 1�7• /- � I / \ /+q 1 \ s rr-rro \ \ t ,mm-II+ / smK \\\\ \\ \1 \ J +a \ 44. TS U p i Q o `1 *Q J E EN IS �T Tm t_/-, ! , + \ \ , \ \\I . ii m SANGKEr2 5.JJJ " / I BfMINC106• \ +' (MASS • \'\ r`''- (1 [ �) 1 1 - \ // %//' \ \\\\\ \\\\\\ ✓%�%- /l / �/ // i \\ \ ' \ l 6"x6' CONCRETE / ( \ ARMONMAIE ! m a \ mm toe+' \ BOIR/OMY I // +, / \ BODNO WITH SESD GBCPoNG,01 +, J \ / ! a / '! //////�/ �' } �^ / ; 1 \ 11 \ \�\\ /i� I I \ I ) � DISK FOUND 3' B.G. SD A/t]KS� 6•x6" CONCRETE v8us - \\\ \\\\\ i////% + iD�E .� \ \ r / 6"x BOUND CONCRETE sww TT-,a \\ \ <\\ '/i�G J \ i �i eR /PAmrw° ✓ / ® BOUND WITH SESD O/W ' WITH ' B. '� m + + / \ 'J ( { / I,.• \ >`\\ /// \ - '+ \\\\\ j/j /� i *, + + \ '� I + D/SK FOUND 0.5' D/SK FOUND 2' B.C. 4 B.C. ,+ I RTM V IT m a + +' % - - ; *J WIE]!srEa ) \ \\ / \\\� -./ `• (_ ! \ L ' v / _ i+ nAL E IJ \�.__ a, / .`,1\ \ / 577. . \ /// BASIN /� *�r / +T ': FNN T� *: T.WKS +� (J LJ m TANK WAIL Pp 4 \�// /i // +\ ., tf ANF K J SURGE ' � " 28.56 '� / , � / \ `��1 \\ �/ � a sues Oly/EASE1yfENP "� =�J ''m '�� FAMK s1Rw'L 6 PIV 1\l \\\` // /�2+ +, � n l/ u �i m m o � EED B 1 6. 9, PAGE\��350* 4 *' 1 ' / d_ e � / ! _I TANK C a \� / ./ rec \\ o ct\ ® � � � �' E � rw *t a \ / \ \ \ 1 / ,wr,z4 EARm SETTLING �ourEYw srcn e+ sea 1 ) / \ m� // '+ No. I/ 1 J 's 1 '',l ® ✓ �J • T> +, ® % +a ! \ / m BASIN \ +� cavraNMENT \ \ PLANT CONTROL \ \ / (TM) POINT "PM-3" / ISET LING / _ Q aO • % PLBux +\+\ rt4cR \ \ 1 b\ / + / \ � \\ /: (rml / cBr t � i \ T.+�� *'7 . mSR, l ®I 4 � \1111 ;• g ) \ 1 / + \ \ \ // l TANK \\\\ \ +Y `� .;_ i s \ J„ iL �- G RA + \ / \\ B°WNG-I� srovE r D-4 �\\\\ \ 1 No.. nw \ u\ t v ., � i; �+ \ +t \ B•T. l_ � "\ \ aTwE \ I 1 , � \ / \ q . \ / 1 . *� II TANK 111 l ( l \ \, \ \ r C I ) / 0� 1 \/ iL-/' T STAVE •' +, / {, T� +T is 0 4a Q.. �l(\ °v '4 4 E 7 ✓ \ I B-✓�" � \ \ \ *:� \ � \ * \ � 1 \ \ J G7 / :� � Y I siCWE i 2' �'NAIL SHAFT lam m-r1r \\ .`cvNUEtE \ _/�. '. t*\ +P \ a t +Ys ; �- \ FWNO + ( ceC G-,z1 \ /� ! 1 ` \ Il _�� r> /`- \ em\ \ a NBQP r CON R / N J016464.55-11- 1 a II \\ 1 �P�aa• °f00 NG5 *:! a �� - +r m K \\ s Dolc / I E 823103.54 +! rr-ras 1 + // /ii \ \ / Bl r. \\� + \ \ :� ) A TA .p a s -� (NAD83) +am ; \ \I \ ' rJw rr-r1z ) � //i ii// '-� \ ( ® , �\ \ - �`, �'e-�---_.- \�P,q � _ / rANI� \ / /// 'o ! Y y q \yp (Irl \\ �IIJI + n-aoa \\ \ ) /' �6 Y 1- b w 1 I 1 Iw \ 1 \ a TANK rii 1 �\ J 1 +:! +-t' +QJ I \ *Q Qo sans e B-3 /JI \ a / \\ \ /� / .,+ v \ •MW iT-la0 roAM \ ^ / /i / \ \ . F \ E I / \ HID/) 5 MT. SIVA TEl�J I\ E ) *yJ / ik\ \ \�i�TACK \\\ { QJ I ANK m ) co PNCE 0 4 + \\\ +.,! \ m� ( --J MttJa \ FAG% VALYr CB 5 I gyL q`I7 �/ / NG a / / * g ✓\ _ __- Iw \ O' PUMP T \ \ \` /� + m w � / ✓ � A \/ o Nc-I1r M / ACT(UITYIAND F95L/ HOUSE ( //J- �\ `� \ /Ima \ / / �R * \ ! m ! " / 1� m � +4 �_ �\ �aJ_,JY/ NEP L'{MI TAT N AkEA *p 1\ \{ I / # \ \+\ .// + ®t. O -f\ \ / O / / I/ I /61T. ' +Q ✓_ N� o \ % kIP4AP +mss ,LET./ 1 J * m \ as \\\ + v 'R m I 'A -+ 4 RE +8/ P'" = sLc�c + \ \(SEE PLAy�OOK 10,QAN ) \\\\\N) \ \+ \\ m z v s* +. SE \ 'o + /• `/ TtnR NO \ J ry ' �' I m `� �U S Y 0.� STAG _ 'P II /{4 + ' �IP,22 / \\\ \ m r l- OL)5E III i % \ J °Baiwof?x SIONE +aJ BIL� / \ EB +. - \ \ ! �/ � F I m * \ + STaIF \ \ \ \\\ V gOinF+ I qJ ill' ❑ +®�� I TANK -rw rol // + 4J \ �' �/ +` \m 1 - 4" \ � /\�o ) * ar>r °( � I e $ tz ') I D-6 I 1 / \ J --/SHA Ea /e`�7� \gym \\ i / \\ �/ GB°%Na,i \\ TANK \\ +� a 4� CE I`AlL A ROOM '* *Q_ + /� ( J/. / �/n \ 5✓\�\N J \ J \ peER"q i OIIE \ "B/r F 'r a \\ s-2 / ) sh'F._ l 1 or e R �+ / L AT/ON OF • I f `f\ n + ir. %'�� T/ / OR w OM +. ////azo. �IL 1 I 1 SlN No.i -a� °✓" l \ Ra m cwrnwMFNr Ba + I I I *. ( (([ / �1 1 n //I \ I 1 1 +@\ J aooB B-4 J I ' 1 J l(/�i� ,I III)1�1 � +'��\� B J FOR RESOURCE AREAS SEE SHEET C-902 I SILNE /i=~=- + Il - I ( + / a l 1�1+'tee ^' rJ L /• ,9 I �. - I m m 61 r. +' %` ON AMI RNCfE59B:E) �,�.�0 °o �i e suw J \� + I / / % `\ t'i rIl/�/}i {/d� ( ) i Sa + m - _ *a Qq l MrEOwGA ANIr SEA t��/��ll \ ) / / J r' _ J �_i /r,� aaa\+.. +Nw m,� / S ' 7 r H/S�OR // \\\ •`�SICrlE\\ � /ii/ + / �SPOF BA IER / l `\` V/ )[I ALIT -� PIWP I ! a�PIPE M / + + sTm / J/ aJ• /� II� ) (,'\ ( .m IN No.3+$ \ q ( (srow g�,°ER RO0 o ! «/ B� SMH EN +,1 \�µ� y/ +� +aJ s +°� OMwD-11. \�-/ A SURE (II'r -` 5 FLOOR EL.=10.8 OUTFALL 014 DRAINAGE & SEWER RIM AND INVERT CHART' ARGE TO BE REUSED q• am+ r + BIT. + a //�%�`1 \.� '�\ \ { BIL ao AA. \ J i COAL PILE +v( L I�, ' '° _�_��' /i%inti\\ I'I sraen(s % Gx III RUNOFF POND (`1 ` -=-- /moi//�\\1\\ \ ( //I//Irl// II I III//(( I fl 1 m *a II �m ° / m y DIS + /~ 8� /� SMH3 CB6 CB16 DMH27 CB43 CB53 / 1 WATER ELEV=6.81 \y /' C - =_ _ / ) )))1)I) \) / r '//��/ /�(() III +tr -;r5) jl)\I 1 ( ( BI 11 *, / t ROD FOUND RIM=12.7 RIM=10.6 RIM-9.8 RIM=9.0 RIM=B.1 RIM=8.9 I SII �� {z 1111 fll aq<\ ( 11 / ///l r 1 ( it w"/ N ROAD BOX *ad J 1 \ (11/03/12) + IUllll \ 1�//�� y�//j 1 \�1 (�i(�f (1 ) °"�T �!+ /�/ PLANT CONTROL PONT "A" INV=O.9 NV 9.4 NV=6.3 INVa=4.0 INVa=6.2 INVa=5.3 l�/j� (Il/lll (1 1 l SUMP=9.1 SUMP 6.0 NVb=2.7 INVb 5.6 NVb=5.8 tI\1 i *j'r> /ir4!r ` /! I I'1\I I MJ� v ~ ( \ + i % alvBAv TN 1+99.76 N 3017168.17 OUTFALLS 005 8 007 SMHBINVc=5.7 a " / / ' 000.00 $T$$�� TO BE REMOVED AS PART RIM=i0.3 CB9 CB17 MH30 C844 wLEV14.s2EL£V=8.�AULT � � / � . /"V .a(1ablA iSEE NOTE 11) (NAD83) OF BUILDING DEMOLITION INV=6.1 RI M=9.9 RIM--9.4 RIM=11.0 RIM=8.2 DMH54 \ \ AmHar lsralE I \ I + I \ w /�'- J� �✓� �' ?�// % N 3016984.71 INVa=7.3 INVa=6.0 INVa=5.3 INVa=4.0± Ill M=93 ��f/ / �l '� /r --J s,. - E824418.62 SMH22 INVb=7.5 INVb=3.0± INVb=5.6 INVb=5.7 WL=0.7± \\\ v +,; \,KFC LdcAnd f/� ;�/ ///] ��- \c.\'V' __i�j Ir- \i� \ +' ' { - - T=_`� -'t _ _ ^ ) �.i (NAD83) Nron o \ \ / %�/ +% \\ \\` i // / 1 \ / / / RIM=9.5 INVc=8.3 NVc=3.0± (2/1512PM) y+ TIE \@ GaMN _ /7 / NV=INACC. SUMP 3.0± MH31 CB45 SUMP=-4.7t / v _ °}�� \ \ / /+ SMH56 RIM=9.5± C818 NV=4.29 NVa=48 (NVP) I +1t\ --� /� -' +, \�� -/� \\ 4+ l/ OUTFALL 001 \ \ �i/ q v Nro \ / / OUTFALL 006 * f \ --%° - ' TO BE REUSED RIM=13.9 RIM=9.3 INVb=5.4 DMH55 f� TO BE BLOCKED/CUT/CAPPED SALEM INV=INACC TD2 INV=3.0 CB32 RIM=10.8 RIM=9.4± SUMP--3.0 RIM=10.1 CB46 SUMP=-5.2 CB1 INVa=8.4 RIM=8.7 (NVP) i�IAI21J ®1 F Hrola s war �Ba r DOCK / HW e � - - 4+ \ , , � � � CO � 't RIM=10.1 CB10 + C619 INVb=4.7 INVa=3.3 + W EMH '• BOAT WpGB av /�� r,/\ a 6 / V NB K eww r 1 �- - -+ er n 15 // INVa=4.5 RIM=9.5- RIM= .5 INV6=4.2 L#w- _ - a Blc o POCK J/ \ �"i°vErF HEn°wnu INVb=4.3 INVa=7.1 INV=2.5± CB33 INVc=2.8 FMH wNa ewt �xT ® e+ oE,n) l SUMP 4.3 NVb=7.1 NV=8.9 RIM=10.6 m ® + ( / INVc=6.8 (3-R.D.) INVa=4.5 CB47 DOCK �Ar mET ® / 0/ 1<, " RIM=10.1 CB11 SUMP 2.5± INVb=4.7 NM 66 1 / INVa=4.3 RI M=9.9 CB20 CB34 INVb=5.8 DOCK ® ® cAaNEr E 82402.169 ) *� / + s INVb=4.3 INV=6.2 RIM=9.1 RIM=9.9 (NAD83) i INV�6.6 SUMP=5.9 INVa=3.4± INVa=4.3 CB48 OUTFALL 015 =J Jam/ SUMP=3.5 INVb=2.4± INVb=4.3 RIM�.6 Flo -- / CB12 INVc=2.4± INV=5.0 TO BE REUSED a a0 E CB3 RIM=9.6 SUMP--2.4± CB35 T �t a@A/ RIM=10.0 INV=7.9 RIM=10.4 CB49 w �JALl', M CITY DRAINAGE OUTFALL (DEBRIS) SUMP=7.9 CB21 INVa=3.7 RIM--9.2 Va4. F HARBOR JA D D 0 D ; �� TO REMAIN (DEBRIS) (FOD) RIM=9.2 INV =3.4 INVa=4. 11 1 bLl 1 b INVb=3.7 INV=5.2 INVb=6.4 SUMP--3.7 CB13 SUMP--4.2 CB36 INV[=4.0 Q RIM=9.2 RI M=9.8 L*� C64 INV=5.5 CB25 INVa=1.8± DMHSD g RIM=9.8 SUMP=4.1 RIM=8.7 INVb=UNDER RIM-9.4 UTILITY LEGEND: INVa=5.0 INVa=5.2 WATER INV=NVP > , INVb=4.9 CB14 INVb=4.8 ` J I SUMP=4.6 RIM=10.0 CB41 CB51 1 B B B FIELD LOCATED DRAIN LINES ACP ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE s s s FIELD LOCATED SEWER LINES BS BARE STEEL LAND AREA NOTE: SUMP4 RIM= INVRIMa=56 I = . o ABOVE GROUND PIPELINES C/ CAST IRON g I ° 5\ �� COMPILED DRAIN LINES CS CARBON STEEL CBS SUMP=4.3 RIM=9.2 INVa=5.3 INVa=6.0 I COMPILED SEWER LINES DI DUCTILE IRON PLAN BOOK 384, PLAN No.2* DEPICTS RIM=9.6 INVa=5.1 INVb 5.6 LL \\ *a I COMBINED SEWER FP FIRE PROTECTION THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS 321 INVa=3.9± CB15 NVb=5.3 CB42 O \ J / a� ACRES OF UPLAND AREA AND 341 INVb=4.0± RIM=9.7 RIM= .0 CB52 \ + COMPILED COMMUNICATION LINES FRP FIBERGLASS REINFORCED PLASATIC ACRES FILLED AFTER 1923. SUMP=2.1 INVa=3.7 C627 INV=5.0 RIM--9.2 g > a TELEPHONE, ELECTRIC, & CABLE GP GAL VANIZED PIPE ( ) INVb=3.6 RIM=9.3 INVa=4.9 \ COMPILED GROUNDING WIRES M/ MALLEABLE IRON INVc=4.8 NV=5.6± INVb 4.9 U) \\ ---- ---- - - COMPILED BURIED/ABANDONED LINES RCP REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE INVc=3.6 INVc=4.7 Z \ COMPILED GAS LINES POL POLYURETHENE O SUMP=2.7 ° COMPILED WATER (CIRCULATING) PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE o + +qJ 1 COMPILED WATER (CITY) SS SANITARY SEWER OU ° - - - - - - - COMPILED WATER (FIRE PROTECTION) A- - COMPILED WA TER (DISCHARGE) VITRIFIED TILE A UTILITY BREAKS PLANE OF GROUND 0 COMPILED WATER (POTABLE) ACP ASBESTOS CEMENT PIPE O \ 1 COMPILED WATER (SPRAY) HS HIGH SERA w \ICE C&L CLEANED & LINED l \+ aJ QD COMPILED DRAIN MANHOLE Y LS LOW SERV/ I DMH* RECORD DRAIN MANHOLE NOT OBSERVED F00 FULL OF DEBRIS ]SALEM HARBOR POWER STATION o \( DIA. DIAMETER I \ ❑ COMPILED CATCH BASIN NVP NO VIS/BLE PIPES 7 TTL T T �? \ CB* RECORD CATCH BASIN NOT OBSERVED R.D. ROOF DRAIN 24 FORT A V L'NV E O +s v QS COMP/LED SEWER MANHOLE (WL) WATER LEVEL LL \� �J��S� \/�� \/� ( \\� s© * RECORD EWER MANHOLE NOT OBSERVED INACC. INACCESSIBLE q \I TERMINUS UNKNOWN RECORD CONDITIONS F- TOP OF HEADWALL=+0.1 Q < 11 QS SMH SEWER MANHOLE TOP OF GATE FLAP=-2.9 - - a *>!) �D DRAIN MANHOLE UTILITY PLAN p • _ OD�� +aJ MANHOLE ELECTRIC MANHOLE COMPILED UTILITY DATA LOCATED IN (D TELEPHONE MANHOLE [FOR NOTES AND REFERENCES SEE SHEET C-1001 SALEM MASSACHUSETTS o \ �\ WMH WATER MANHOLE l \ WATER LEVEL (VARIABLE) CALCULATED 48- INVERT=--5.4 O ROUND CATCH BASIN COMPILED UTILITY DATA ❑ CATCH BASIN (SEE NOTE 4) (ESSEX COUNTY) [FOR NOTES AND REFERENCES SEE SHEET C-1001 GATE FLAPS ® WATER GATE VALVE PREPARED FOR WATER SERVICE 48" CITY OF SALEM_ THESE CADD DOCUMENTS ARE RECORDED ON, OR CAN BE STORM SEWER F TRANSMITTED AS, ELECTRONIC MEDIA. THEY THEREFORE MAYBE HYDRANT FOOTPRINT POWER LLC �\ l�I SUBJECT TO UNDETECTABLE ALTERATION OR ERASURE, EITHER ® GAS GATE INTENTIONAL OR UNINTENTIONAL, DUE TO, AMONG OTHER oHH ELECTRIC HAND HOLE SCALE: 1 "= 80' DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2012 CONCRETE HEADWALL OUTFALL CAUSES: TRANSMISSION, CONVERSION, MEDIA DEGRADATION, C, SOFTWARE ERROR, OR HUMAN ALTERATION. ACCORDINGLY, (48" CITY OF SALEM STORM SEWER) MERIDIAN ASSOCIATES, INC., SHALL NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR MERIDIAN Q (NOT TO SCALE) ANY CLAIMS, LOSSES, DAMAGES, OR COST ARISING OUT OF ANY REVISIONS ASSOCIATES c /� `� SUCH ALTERATION OR UNAUTHORIZED RE-USE OR MODIFICATION L7 J J O 117 1 E OF THESE CADD DOCUMENTS. MERIDIAN ASSOCIATES, INC. WILL 4 4.02.13 ADD ZONING BOUNDARIES ACC PLP 500 CUMMINGS CENTER,SUITE 5950 69 MILK STREET,SUITE 302 BE ENTITLED TO FURTHER COMPENSATION FOR ANY FUTURE 3 2.21.13 SUPPLEMENT DRAINAGE ACC PLP BEVERLY,MASSACHUSETTS 01915 WESTBOROUGH,MASSACHUSETTS 01581 oUSE OF THE INFORMATION REPRESENTED ON THIS DOCUMENT TELEPHONE: (978) 299-0447 TELEPHONE:(508)871-7030 ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITY DATA REPRESENTS RECORD BEYOND ITS IMMEDIATE PURPOSE. 2 2.12.13 NA083 COORDINATES A WWW.MEPMLALNASSOC.COM o INFORMATION RECOVERED THROUGH RESEARCH W/TROUT N SURFACE DEMARCATION NOR SUBSURFACE 1/ERIFICATION. DWG. No. 5488-REc 1 11.30.12 SUPPLEMENT MAPPING ACC PL BK. Jf544, PG. #27 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION 6Y CHK'D SHEET No. C-101 PROJECT No. 5488 N Copyright O by Me.&.A..idm Inc. All rights reserved. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ir LEGEND T 0 000 i V _ I_- o U rn O M COASTAL BEACH * W m m c7 ro 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN LIMITS BASED ON GROUND SURVEY ' c �o ( _ _ LAND SUBJECT TO COASTAL STORM FLOWAGE O m LL (ELEVATION = 10.0) E Cl To LAND SUBJECT TO TIDAL ACTION (BETWEEN SPRING `` u o HIGH TIDE 6.5'AND MEAN LOW WATER-5.2') r W 0 G \ \ \ LAND UNDER OCEAN (BELOW MEAN LOW WATER)*ELi o / nL \ / ROCKY INTERTIDAL SHORE * \ / ED COASTAL BANK DESIGNATED PORT AREA 100' BUFFER (TO TOP OF COASTAL BANK) 100' BUFFER SALEM BYLAW (TO 100 YEAR FLOOD) — — — — — — — MEAN HIGH WATER (ELEVATION =4.1) )- MEAN LOW WATER (ELEVATION = -5.2) kl= o _ - - — — — — — ZONEVEI2 PROPERTY LINE NGRID SWITCHYARD EASEMENT EM E w BMM R"e� THESE RESOURCE AREAS ARE COINCIDENTAL WITH / r µ \ w1L — .. •— �� y ,, ��- �� _ _ LAND CONTAINING SHELLFISH. G1n � wAJ `~ � "E - � G / - F VERTICAL DATUM NAVD88 1 - _ s PNtsfo fNH G r _� T \ r� _ C� n r _ 1 �" +�-- -+�� ,� o ., / - � 7 J �.. _ _'Q-� � k%r�i/' � - � �a _ �_ 1 �- _ - _ N, '�mctosvRe ter•.�'P � r R4 ER .o `. •, ' O^Dy' I I / +' c. DC9.a +�- - — // /i \ \\��\\11'a \' ♦ + \ _ UPN6A5 P UPN g, sw tN 1 H�� - Y - _ - _ • �-�F ' � '/ + _ - � � '�iA l � \\\ VIII�� ==_ 1� - 'vow � /S�cF� - ��P\Tta' VA q EB�� - T\ r � N/ e` BrHN,T _v- sANCYfY / - =' f � - I<=1 / r - I 1 ' C_� i '; 1111 n r� ___ __ _- ___ _ Bz+;B \4 ♦ RY EEWER ' ., ��2` - I � Now + n BaRcyc, I • rol �� / + ( I +o I I \\ � / b II\ i I � � _ _ _ �� \ HH \..:�+ � - _ 64F OJ � - J -wr I � / / l /1 + ( I '\ % I - 1\\\I \ r �- ° z' \ -HBr p,C• i °c \>•� T qRE MA '�O-YRVA �- HD - �' r • � ® -- J / l I � - / \l l 11 I I .� �_ ____�\ ♦` \ \ � I � �� p — v �/ � i ` 1 \(\ � �B_Jls ♦ � \ \`\\\I ', 'J O - p S NJ ,+ / I'l +' � /ems { I I _-R- -. i i - IY I\ \\ I 1 ♦ \\ \\\\ +.. + m � , ° w OK 1.5089 P G WAq I ®�'" � m • • rryRj �MARr � � J -"o-'I' I I'` 'r b.Prtr, / 1 I I \\ \ Nn' * _ I - \ I U \ ♦ 1\\ I ♦ L350 o y L + I� � pEBR/S RE9DEN11'OL �- \ / — I I'I -_\ , .I G-� n 1.1��1'' 1\\ \ d jR ♦ ♦ m / Q�FR t TAN( m III II 11 - � B/c r o�w C + . .� __ ° iII + _ - \ 1 ) 111111 VIII CAR PARKM I I_..- �_; 1 II 111 g_� I p 11 00 / ♦ � °HW I �' I,II \ I \I p 1 1 RA P o W ( BSE\ \11111\111 I € W 1 \ BEBR, f/ 1I _ i -i �P r� - - - - 111 \I\1111 I Q I1 11 11111\ >� + - _ +\ o ♦ _ ) f +` ��°" °�/ m o �r 11 _ � ARRIERS >z. i ♦ \_ /I E°, �__ . M WN (T� m 1 1 ' �\ �pl�llllljl - 1 / 1f\II\\\II\ MW R — r/ III I a X00 y� \ YP oH• ( v I NOW 1 1 ❑ 1 I / ! \\\ 1 (\ T _ BACRSRM _ C0.V>1/NMENT / _ I 1 i/ �\ 1 I \\1\\\ Aai_//'//�i'��C Jl��-��= /o R -T x��•1 \ l 0 0 o w f ,�' O O / SW ESSEX.gMfRgCF E — ► 1 I 1 t \\\� 4�1) mW DGR �__ I / I ,1111 ( \ YB,J 1 \ 1 \ € € T a o cT / ' / . I 1 BRr 11 1 � I � - � +_ � v, I �I I , �• ' � / ` - _-•'' � _�' I - � 1 0 VEEBESII\ —__' 11111\ 0 o U '�� // \ / V l � I Nm SURGE BAS/^' �'� 7 R + GABLE/ Ncl \ ` I sronz I AivhSETTL/NG I \ \ SE BAS/N 1 ' I \ — B /Nc / /�0.5 1 I � � � ,� + m / , P � ---__ I _ Q ��, \ j ISI I \1 N0.4 I w I1 ❑o ❑ (S SUBS TYON// I ' • ° �9e"0azoy-9N ❑ �� ' I \ ` J s sw� II c _i�� — — — ' — _ AEE© B EASE7yiEN a �S i f _ o . / \ 1 of ERL ( � - v 1 1 - Brr ACT/117i\ ANSFOR000 M (gry -- _ - + - �.__ _ � - _ - -�--— N�'� // ) � le - / a #► �^ �J+ + < � = L/ -_(\ t alvE B+ V+\NJ \\ /j I{L 1rx� /1 it /Wrr 60' m "RA J •( eMW — \ - - m " r- — — -�//� —,�\._� \ \ d w m - 1 ,1 \\\ \ i_. o '� - fTl A� �� - / � er - - �✓ / v+ 1 +o • .I .-. __ - - \ .. _. � � / — � J /yL ��n"llyjir�\\\\ \ � �H` - 1 � c.n.,g '� � TA + 11 ` / _ 1� � � SE + \' /' sTLyq +-` p \P / - '1 I P LA 1 j � _7//c _� ..+'� II -- ( / / / \ II(r /"��\\ `Vn p� i � 'I � ` 1 r� S— � 11\ 1� \^ � � ,. '4C/f � 'Ll ��' '� HSP 7 � � \ � \ +'"• /� 1 ___ o . �s x D /� �.. _ _ I i \ -_—�_ / /!r• � I\4Y `J��i^-I f1) YI � '`,". +-. i 1,�\\\ 1 � J7� l .; D a cs / 2, \ - co"u ALL � � m:..+ —7- 41* I ADL Or/ERNE .o /+ z > o oBBRMG_Jp K n ) /r� ANK cn I WLR ♦ +i T,. +\` _ /J / 100' BUFFER TO COAST) (TYP. ORA c \ _ y 1 TA lj /G�J / l U oll//� I ) '.,/ / — TAN <.. 1 \ / E / *'� (4 �— f f — l / 1005$UFFER AN °,, ,� 1 pLG � nrL s Cvv" - -_+ /J / / Ir /r ��, ^) l . _J \ ,/ \ \ �L �� r J u 11 L. - DON CHA \ sa 2 _ C 1 E� d 1 ✓ 11' TEF /On°lam z <NT \ _o�� III /// \/ ( / ,� yl l <, v l ° is` ( I .`__� �_ SSE SALIW BYLAW TO 100 YEAR FLOOD \ 1 1' / I -FR - y _�- B•sPRA R JI / ' L �J / \j . � A3K FAN NO — 'I� _0 PARR/ l - 1 ., L a " \v lNIl/� '/+ � f ° BP oNLEroR ceps B J1 Rc b Baz c tet.- o �i/ JI/4 ° --�— \ 1�1( \ /n((// /JIJII \ /II \�`////Nil, GJJII )CS.IL¢� \ -< o•FORCE — cavc { --:/To EN n.� ti �. ;l\ IE R00 .� AREHOU \.. \ J / r_ — ! — III / 1 f //�IJ \ \ Y !� Ir? � Ir / L' �� NAM/ 1 +' o. OAL O /ice CT Z7 ,.� BO / /�'�' Q rYr(`3I 11ROG m 1� 0,0 / I . 1 II I _ _ R .'.�'Ja.'--- `/ / /r ' JJ J l fo/ RE, /lJ `.. / _ r/�T 1 PPBR 'RCP /�� T --- / ---- 'V A'oi 1, ESs[D r,., �� > �/ STORAGE sr - •. • I P(l + ///ll l ( /l� //� PZ i _\ u< . Yi �wASiEwArER + e/T Nat / HF4/C' / -- / ! •.�� _ 00 i - e _ \ ( l <`\ • \ _ r / / /�/I 1/I /I/ IAI I Jim I IIIA / 1 a / °` 1 ° o ( BORNC- E RGGM LFc-' / / /1 l ` ( WOO* _ >/ TU -G `I I, I •`'. . Y'i�, � , , " OY- I ,. CL - ±'v \ \�\ \ •�bFrcxc / rl/ � I �/ \\ Jam,. 1_ \ - _ fl«, QNB /\ i / ' Fc_ /1 ��111 .". N MH Mme®' •�" / • .I.RBI � R �, Lf " \ , / +��,, .•r ' ° C, \\ / �\\11\ \ — � - - / ^ : I N \ / / / / — 4 G ♦� NEL BRE \ \ %/— \\\ \�_ / / /// 1 \ J - r. C$AN 1 \ \ \ GE * o0 4 Ilkmoi\ '` 'i � y_�\`� � La'. _ `I — D/gCHAR 4 / RGGM �\ _ _ — 1 /' �o T \ VEL E✓ J //j l —/ OINX S£R NCE + • / ` l l ° / SIiREEN ` — F[°W q�f5 SEA w � I I0 PUJEORM /✓ �lr F/oaR ec PLA _ 4 \ z / NRz n<T9i WA R / _ I n Ci ' .z/Jzo -, Nv_, Jr -I` i ICo MEAN LOW WATER t )?Bop \\ a \♦ S F v � CO MEQ HIGH WATER \ �uf°o`JrAL0) / j 0 O o ; F_ L) L) 0 \ / U) • \ / LLI ¢ ry UJ X A' 1 a 1 LU ♦ ` ? I z- Lu ♦ � L.``= I o U) ! (0 w ` E N Q . E O Q a m � a > � m CD -e O /�� 0 ` N > (W I ` i /) Q �+ Lu ! �, ++ dw O uj _ E O A N ♦ L_� Project No.: 127-62117-12001 Designed By: SJW Drawn By: SJW F a ` Checked By: LMC m o C- 102 0 40' 80' 160' °' SCALE: 1"=80' U N immommomommW Bar Measures 1 inch 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 1 7 8 LAYOUT AND MATERIALS NOTES: BUILDINGS,MAJOR EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURES LEGEND T E 1. CRUSHED STONE FOR SURFACING SHALL BE CLEAN, WASHED Z $ r- $ MANUFACTURED MATERIAL CONFORMING TO ASTM D448; LEGEND DESCRIPTION V N TYPE I - SIZE NO 57 (1 INCH TO NO 4 SIEVE) NO PROPOSED PAVEMENT < 12 TYPE 11 - SIZE NO 3 (2 INCH TO 1 INCH) 1 CTG#1 BUILDING W C7 E CO STABILIZED SURFACE TREATMENT m n 2. STABILIZED SURFACE TREATMENT TO BE APPLIED TO ALL 2 HRSG#1 BUILDING (LOAM AND SEED OR EQUIVALENT) O m DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN LIMIT OF WORK. 3 CTG#2 BUILDINGE CD u_ 3. REFER TO SHEET C-107 FOR PLANT TYPES. 4 HRSG#2 BUILDING 1}" CLEAN WASHED CRUSHED STONE H 9 LL N 0 5 STACK ® (6" DEPTH) m 0 4. THE ROW OF EXISTING HONEY LOCUSTS (GLEDITSIA 8 CTG STEP-UP TRANSFORMERT G TRIACANTHOS) AND EVERGREEN ARBORVITAE HEDGING 00o CRUSHED STONE AREA - TYPE I W o 7 AUXILIARY TRANSFORMER (SEE NOTE 1) L (THUJA OCCIDENTATLIS) GROWING ALONG DERBY STREET ARE ai TO REMAIN AND ARE TO BE PROTECTED DURING 8 MOTOR OPERATED DISCONNECT SWITCH CRUSHED STONE AREA-TYPE II a CONSTRUCTION. ALSO, THE SMALL ORNAMENTAL TREES EXCITATION TRANSFORMER ® (SEE NOTE 1) nL LOCATED AT THE ENTRANCE AREA AT WEBB STREET, WEST OF 9 9STEAM TURBINE GENERATOR BUILDING THE HONEY LOCUSTS ARE TO REMAIN. 10 STABILIZED SURFACE TREATMENT \ 11 19%AQUEOUS AMMONIA STORAGE TANK/UNLOADING AREA _ (PAVEMENT OR CRUSHED STONE) \ 5. THE DISPOSITION OF ALL EXISTING TREESNEGETATION ALONG 12 FIRE PUMP/SERVICE WATER PUMPS ENCLOSURE I I THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH \ THE CITY OF SALEM, "BLANEY STREET WHARF EXPANSION" 13 DEMINERALIZED WATER STORAGE TANK GRASS AREA \ PROJECT. UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY THE WHARF 14 COMBINED FIRE PROTECTION WATER/SERVICE I EXPANSION PROJECT, ALL TREES SHALL REMAIN. WATER STORAGE TANK CONCRETE AREA I 15 DEMINERALIZED WATER TRAILER PARKING \ 16 STG#1 GSU TRANSFORMER \ � LANDSCAPED PATH I 17 STG#2 GSU TRANSFORMER REMOVE EXISTING ASPHALT SIDEWALK, SALVAGE \ \ 18 DEMINERALIZED WATER PUMP BUILDING GRANITE CURB, AND PROVIDE NEW 5'-O" WIDE I EXISTING PAVEMENT TO REMAIN CONCRETE SIDEWALK AT PROJECT FRONTAGE \ \ 19 OPERATIONS BUILDING RBY STREET BEGIN TEMPORARY CHAIN LINK FENCE \ 20 MAIN POWER DISTRIBUTION CENTER(PDC) 21 115 KV GIS SWITCHING STATION EXISTING VEGETATION MEET EXISTING PERIMETER FENCE) \ EXISTING STONE TO REMAIN TO REMAIN (SEE NOTE 4) \ \ 22 STATIC START ISOLATION TRANSFORMERS EXISTING WATER \ 23 STG ELECTRICAL SWITCHGEAR/MCC PDC COASTAL BEACH ' / METER PIT \ 24 AUX COOLING SYSTEM COOLING TOWER/CHEM FEED _ 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN LIMITS BASED ON GROUND SURVEY 25 AIR COOLED CONDENSER#1 MECH/ELECT BLDG I I LAND SUBJECT TO COASTAL STORM FLOWAGE / EXISTING VEGETATION m � \ ` - - I (ELEVATION = 10.0) Y TO REMAIN 26 AIR COOLED CONDENSER#2 MECH/ELECT BLDG F i (SEE NOTE 4) I [rj I \ \ \ 27 AIR COOLED CONDENSER#1 LAND SUBJECT TO TIDAL ACTION (BETWEEN SPRING 28 AIR COOLED CONDENSER#2 HIGH TIDE 6.5' AND MEAN LOW WATER -52) aw a 29 GAS COMPRESSORS POWER DISTRIBUTION CENTER _ 30 GAS COMPRESSOR/COOLER LAND UNDER OCEAN (BELOW MEAN LOW WATER)" 31 GAS METERING STATION 32 DIESEL GENERATOR / _' � ' �� • . ,�„� - -- � _ — edsocw � ,� � ROCKY INTERTIDAL SHORE ' 33 ADMINISTRATION BIll DING i \ � � � \ \ 34 HYDROGEN TUBE TRAILER joo! 1 e . vq v COASTAL BANK L e /laI r I �_��` a s ` \ • \ �m 9L � �° / \ \ 35 COOLING TOWER CHEMICAL INJECTION ENCLOSURE ,• ` / a } c / l y .+ • _ • / \ \ \ 36 NATURAL GAS PRV STATION• \ y p 37 CONDENSATE RECEIVER TANK#1 POST CONSTRUCTION 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE / /` \ ` ` /.� ` TI�' +� y i ; , • fj�,R � �( 1P Ml HC RAMP \ \ I\ \ \ 38 CONDENSATE RECEIVER TANK#2 (ELEVATION 10.0) ` l 8y ,S' 1Yr v0� MEET AND MATCH . . . . . . . DESIGNATED PORT AREA _ _ ` � ° • I.1 L MEET AND MATCH � 94Rr � \I� HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE • ` �� ' y j° - EXISTING PAVEMENT \ ` � —_ —J o _ `� • � �'T\ EXISTING VERTICAL aJe,� � 100' BUFFER (TO TOP OF COASTAL BANK) 11 ` qw� ) , \ ` # PARKING SPACE GRANITE C`RB HC RAMP \ // `�I n 1 `/ \ ,\ w �, r,... ,i „Gsr fes, 4Y M a ' ® s • ` \, \ 100' BUFFER SALEM BYLAW (TO 100 YEAR FLOOD) r r = ® . ♦ MEET AND MATCH MEAN HIGH WATER (ELEVATION = 4.1) / i , � � \/ E.• •• ,,:;,;�. .,...•c.;yE„t•,,. � • \ � EXISTING VERTICAL / a/ / \ ,•:� ` "r' < > GRANITE CURB MEAN LOW WATER (ELEVATION = -5.2) / LIMIT OF WORK - - - - - - _ ZONE VE12 END VERTICAL / / C . I ''-�'• - " O 7.,%t � � GRANITE CURB � 1 "' • r.• ,,. �zi-,�r PROPERTY LINE / EXISTING VEGETATION TO / I / . p•i� ACOUSTIC WALL !•..xJ,,.+ r i, EXISTING WATER _ r••t ,,,•d • • T E / REMAIN (SEE NOTE 5) I /! METER PIT r �^- " h�Y. LOW LANDSCAPE z �v LIMIT OF WORK NGRID SWITCHYARD EASEMENT WALL • ,4aiABeeNrrL'' ��¢¢9 LIMIT OF WORK VISITORS AFF ;" 0 00 0 00 0 00 _ ;p • � � i ' THESE RESOURCE AREAS ARE COINCIDENTAL WITH 0°000000 s PARKING T i • , \. 0° n o°00000000 • ` , ` LAND CONTAINING SHELLFISH. ! ! 00 002 0 ° °no 000 °000 \ • + VERTICAL DATUM = NAVD88 EXISTING PERIMETER r I ACOUSTIC WALL o° °o / a / STORMWATER z o° o / FENCE TO REMAIN (TYP) / I °o° SEEDED LAWN 'i ! COLLECTION LOAM AND SEED•. r. °o° ° ' a squr 1 1: / -1 0 0 00 ops ♦ ♦ �e • // AREA I 000 000 0 GABION WALL °0000000g. 0 00000000°� _- _w DELIVERY ROUTE ♦ •,` • / / I // Js \ Y! .:;• 0 ////////// /\//i/)/u. / �` ■%/' 'y//■/�'� /// / `\I\\\ \ \ \ \ \\\\ i u (�/A\I I I II y1wIAi'i d;'.• ', `y«(�Ldi,r'Fz.Rf.- 'iYff,,v a1�.' .ji'" 000o°000000oo000oo000o00 p 0 0°O�°°0°oo ° 0 000o°00 000°°p0 0O _0�0��-of I t \CAPE COD CO0 o0 10, o BERMoo ° 0 °0°°o o0po o ° oo ° / o00poo0 STRIPED PEDESTRIAN o00 ° 0000000° o 0ACCESS 00 ° ¢' o O i EXISTING GATED ACCESS TO BE USED ED A S0000000 0 ° 1 f 00 ° ° 000 0°00000° 0 ° 00- ooo • • • 248 PARKING SPACES TO BE RETAINED SECONDARY EMERGENCY ACCESS. o00 0000 0000 _o_ pooopEXISTING PARKING LOT TO BE RESTRIPED AS pPROVIDE FIRE DEPARTMENT LOCK BOX ° ° °0 ° °00°00oREQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE PROPOSED PARKING AS REQUIRED BY CITY OF SALEM FIRE DE PARTMENT.00 °°000 °00000ACCESS ROAD AND PARKING V"0pp 00 O p REQUIREMENTS; MAINTAIN EXISTING SURFACE 0000000op tell p° 0 00 °0 TREATMENT(TYP) Ou0 000 ° 000 MAINTAIN EXISTING0010GRASS AREA o 0 ) 000 o , c EMENT WITHIN LIMITS EMERGENCY 0°0o o° AG ��D 0 °0OROAD SPILLWAY . p000o0000oc 000°00000 CRUSHED STONE TYPE I 00 Q 0 0o 00o0000 (TYP) °0000000 TEMPORARY CHAIN 00 0-0100-0 0 00 °0 °00 00000 0 0oop0 LINK FENCE v s u o I 61 ¢ ff / / \ o` 1 CRUSHED STONE TYPE II ZF t PROPOSED ACCESS °�,. .,° (TYP) e, ROAD STRIPING 10 00 / i O 1 o° � T LIMIT,OEW PAVEMENT (TYP) I t' o ° I ' o o°po°o° MEET AND MATCH ^ 9 0000, 00 I O °° 0000 EXISTING CHAIN 'ate s ' , 00oo0g°`1°000 ' '000 LINK FENCE / 1 000000'°000 -r °o I 1� PROPOSED CHAIN / 1 000°Qtls�b o0 Cl ):'• e °o I LINK FENCE r. ;c 0009�roFo"o 0 s ) i 00 I� a �n e STABILIZED SURFACE 0000 00000 0 00 I TREATMENT WITHIN LIMITS OF 1 STABILIZED SURFACE-///// URFACE 0 0 0 0- ) oo ° ` TREATMENT 1 0°00 0°0°8 °p � I � ;; �:�00° aa -a-a �■ -a -a -■-a ■-:-a-a- -a -a-a o ° ° ys ` BUILDING DEMOLITION (TYP) OUTFALL 015 w 2 00008100000�o ` ` i/ 0I�e�/ `II s rr♦ '`_' ` ._ ;w'r• n '� oo°°0r,bo00o°°p�°, oTO BE REUSED 00 1II .) o )' 7° t o 0 �° o 00 ° SEE SHEET C-107 FOR EXISTING VEGETATION TO 00°00 o0_ 6PLANTINGS (TYP) o �REMAIN (SEE NOTE 5) op 00 00a000 > ° O 00 O°00O C - �` `♦ ♦ `- `�. ` a �• : 4000 K ` g DOC ` _ _ � / • EXISTING BUILDING • _ .0000 SLAB TO REMAIN voc» sant - __ __..` � _ _ ._, .. �" ,. _.,_. `� i• f °.+e'we'r • . � _ -� -, , :; - ,C . ,- .. • _ ' 's�,.'. E . • Dr), EXISTING SURFACE \1 � . :• $ . _ � -- � � ,_(-..�� eL�. ` ,. r .a - �. •.' ti •` _+, y -.t1" _ ; /• / TREATMENT • . • �».,. mw .,, �'•.. �y ---� _ �.a �� . ,�_., >c�, �, EXISTING BUILDING ` TO REMAIN (TYP) E / -� s_ Ae,r SLAB TO REMAIN -� � '� '�"' -.-• , � a DISCHARGE CHANNEL . . . ' �. .� ' .G.. o �\ !� \ r o 1 t +smr:..w� -r aa:.r rs-.c-.sc.=.c-c.xss. •� — �. / J.`__-._. (\ — _ ZE -_- - - ` END TEMPORARY CHAIN I :t. O �� /: ( \ O o c LINK FENCE I ` i C _ a s o �� I /` ' �s a Via+■-�' =a °°�g �s - r-. � EXISTING BUILDING `z a SLA B �o -O _ , - - � U z TO REMAIN U) pQ � d GABION WALL p _ ` � OUTFALL 006 �� I \ EXISTING STONE i \ /C TAPPED 4 \ � REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK TO BE BLOCKED/CU � V�i � V OUTFALL 014 TO REMAIN (TYP) � O FOR LOADING/UNLOADING OPERATIONS / \ TO BE REUSED o B j I LOW LANDSCAPE \ z ■ WALL ■ OUTFALL 001 /// TO BE REUSED OUTFALLS 005 & 007 \\ TO BE REMOVED AS PART STABILIZED CRUSHED \ Ji OF BUILDING DEMOLITION \ wQ i /� /� ,• - ` • AGGREGATE SURFACE \ C z ` f ■ /` E / ua a n E 4 `� a I I �1 i CITY DRAINAGE OUTFALL o / 1 ■ co TO REMAIN o 0 1 1 a E a 1 .2 c N z 1 1 a m LLJ1 1 u, ru_ 0 a LU ■ o m 1 I � Lu " 1 1 � � `� P 1 I # a E a_ }, 2 �� ■ t 1 1 �� m O o t I 1 a J 04 A I 19 A 4 y ■ P N a � J v nProject No.:a ■ P CN ` • ` � " �� Designed By: 127-62117-12001MWM a ; Drawn By: SJW Checked By: LMC m N ` 1 •♦d fA a Cl) "_•_✓ 0 40' 80' 160' C- 1 03 m T 1 N SCALE: V=80' U r wmmmmmmmmmmm� Bar Measures 1 inch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 GRADING AND DRAINAGE NOTES: DRAIN MANHOLE SCHEDULE DRAIN MANHOLE SCHEDULE CATCH BASIN SCHEDULE PIPE SCHEDULE PIPE SCHEDULE LEGEND E 6 o 0 r o 1. SITE SURVEY AND TOPOGRAPHIC MAPPING ARE BASED ON A SURVEY PERFORMED BY MERIDIAN ASSOCIATES TITLED "SALEM HARBOR STATION POWER PLANT", DATED OCTOBER 17, 2012. LENGTH DIAMETER SLOPE LENGTH DIAMETER SLOPE / N RIM INVERT ELEVATIONS RIM INVERT ELEVATIONS RIM INVERT ELEVATIONS LABEL (FT) (IN) (FT/FT) LABEL (FT) (IN) (FT/FT) © CATCH BASIN (CB) V c Q o 2. ALL COORDINATES SHOWN ARE BASED ON PLANT GRID. ORIGIN OF PLANT GRID (N 0.0; E 0.0) CORRESPONDS TO COORDINATE (N 3,016,862.009; E 822,185.919) OF THE MASSACHUSETTS STRUCTURE ELEVATION STRUCTURE ELEVATION STRUCTURE ELEVATION W STATE PLANE COORDINATE SYSTEM, NORTH AMERICAN DATUM OF 1983 (NAD83). (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) CO-1 53 12 0.006 CO-44 249 30 0.005 O DROP INLET Q E CO-2 95 15 0.005 CO-45 48 12 0.006 u MH-I 10.5 INV IN = 0.90 (MH-L) MH-B 12.3 INV IN = 5.10 (CB-A) CB-A 9.5 INV OUT= 5.50 (MH-B) DRAIN MANHOLE (MH) Yl 3. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88). (8' DIA.) CO-3 70 15 0.007 CO 46 15 12 0.007 INV IN = 6.0 t (UNDERDRAIN) INV IN = 5.10 (CB-B) CB-B 9.5 INV OUT= 5.50 (MH-B) 4. ALL DIMENSIONS, COORDINATES AND ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET, CO-4 104 12 0.010 CO-47 72 30 0.006 was STORMCEPTOR (WQS) L o INV OUT = 0.90 (MH-J) INV IN = 5.93 (CB-E) CB-C 9.9 INV OUT= 6.90 (MH-A) � CO-5 66 18 0.006 CO 48 20 36 0.005 o DRAIN PIPE (CO-X) o 5. FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS AND PLANT ACCESS ROAD CENTERLINE HIGH POINT ELEVATION SHALL BE ELEVATION 16.0. EDGE OF SHOULDER SHALL BE ELEVATION 15.75. MH-J 10.0 INV IN = 3.00 (MHS) INV IN = 6.10 (MH-A) CB-D 9.9 INV OUT= 6.90 (MH-A) m Uj G 6. GRADE ELEVATIONS SHOWN REPRESENT THE TOP OF FINISH SURFACE (PAVEMENT, CRUSHED STONE OR GRASS). (8' DIA) INV IN = -0.60 (MH-1) INV OUT= 5.10 (WQS-A) CB-E 9,5 INV OUT= 6.20 (MH-B) CO-6 70 18 0.006 CO 49 115 36 0.007 UNDERDRAIN f CO-7 103 12 0.006 CO-50 42 24 0.010 INV OUT= -0.60 (MH-K) MH-C 16.3 INV IN = 3.00 (MH-P) CB-F* 10.5 INV OUT= 7.20 (CB-G) 7. IN CRUSHED STONE SURFACED AREAS, CATCH BASIN TOP OF GRATE ELEVATIONS ARE SET AT THE TOP OF SUBGRADE, COINCIDENT WITH THE BOTTOM OF CRUSHED STONE SURFACING. (5' DIA.) CO-8 142 24 0.005 CO-51 71 24 0.006 11 CONTOUR L° CRUSHED STONE SURFACING THICKNESS SHALL BE TAPERED AT THE CATCH BASIN GRATE. MH-K 10.0 INV IN = -1.60 (MH-J) INV OUT= 3.00 (MH-D) CB-G* 10.5 INV IN = 6.90 (CB-F) 0 (5' DIA) INV IN = 6.0 t (UNDERDRAIN) MH-P 15.2 INV IN = 3.37 (WQS-A) INV IN = 6.90 (UNDERDRAIN) CO-9 NOT USED CO-52 15 12 0.013 8. STORMWATER DISCHARGE FROM THE STG AND CTG BUILDING ROOFS SHALL BE COLLECTED IN A BURIED CONCRETE TANK FOR USE IN THE PERIMETER BERM IRRIGATION SYSTEM. AN (5' DIA.) CO-10 46 12 0.011 CO-53 15 12 0.013 OVERFLOW FROM THE BURIED COLLECTION TANK SHALL DRAIN TO THE PLANT STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM. THE BURIED COLLECTION TANK SHALL BE A "STORMTRAP HEAVY DUTY INV OUT = -1.60 (MH-G) INV IN x15.8 SPOT GRADE = 10.93 (WQS-C) INV OUT = 6.90 (CB-1) 2.3% ROAD SLOPE ( (MH-C) CB-H* 10.5 INV OUT= 7.50 (CB-I) SYSTEM", AS MANUFACTURED BY STORMTRAP, INC., MORRIS, IL, OR APPROVED EQUAL. THE TANK SHALL HAVE A 30,000 CUBIC-FOOT STORAGE CAPACITY, AND SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM MH-L 10.0 INV IN = -2.80 MH-G) INV OUT = 3.37 CO-11 144 24 0.006 CO-54 101 12 0.006 - EXTERIOR PLAN DIMENSION OF 80 FEET. THE TANK SHALL BE WATERTIGHT, AND DESIGNED TO SUPPORT BOTH AN AASHTO HL-93 WHEEL LOADING AND 2.5 FEET OF SOIL COVER. (8' DIA) CO-12 112 12 0.009 CO-55 53 15 0.005 GAS PIPE INV OUT= -2.80 (EXIST.TUNNEL) MH-A 10.3 INV IN= 6.70 (CB-C) CB-I* 10.5 INV IN = 6.10 (CB-G) G 9. PIPE LENGTHS AND INVERTS ARE MEASURED FROM CENTER OF STRUCTURE, SLOPE = FT/FT. MH-M 9.8 INV IN = -1.06 (CB-P) INV IN= 6.70 (CB-D) INV IN = 7.20 (CB-H) CO-13 76 24 0.005 CO-56 47 36 0.011 v WATER LINE (5' DIA) INV IN = 2.23 (CB-Q) INV OUT= 6.70 (MH-B) INV OUT= 6.10 (CB-K) CO-14 68 12 0.010 CO-57 226 36 0.005 s SEWER LINE 10. FOR WATER QUALITY STRUCTURE DETAILS, SEE SHEET C-106. CO-15 148 24 0.005 CO-57A 14 12 0.005 INV OUT= -1.06 (WQS-B) MH-D 15.8 INV IN = 2.70 (MH-C) CB-J* 10.5 INV OUT= 7.50 (MH-K) 11. THE PROPOSED MATERIAL COMPOSITION FOR THE FILL IMPORTED FOR THE FACILITY SHALL MEET MASSDOT STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRAVEL BORROW. (5' DIA) CO-16 68 12 0.010 CO-58 64 36 0.006 COASTAL BEACH MH-N 9.9 INV IN = -1.36 (WQS-B) INV OUT= 2.70 (MH-E) CB-K* 10.5 INV IN = 5.20 (CB-1) 12. DRAIN PIPE SHALL BE HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. (6' DIA) INV OUT = -1.36 (EXIST.CULVERT) MH-E 15.8 INV IN = 1.70 (MH-D) INV IN = 7.00 (CB-J) CO-17 102 30 0.005 CO-58A 59 36 0.005 (8' DIA) CO-18 62 12 0.005 CO-62 54 15 0.006 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN LIMITS BASED 4. IN MANHOLES SHALL BE 4' DIAMETER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. _ 13. STORM DRAIN STRUCTURES SHALL BE PRECAST AND DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND H-20-44 LOADING AND BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C (4,000 PSI). CO-19 74 12 0.005 CO-63 162 18 0.005 ON GROUND SURVEY INV OUT= -0.98 (MH-F) INV OUT = 5.20 (CB-L)-478 MH-F 15.5 INV IN = -1.33 (MH-E) CB-L* 11.5 INV IN = 3.90 (CB-K) _ _ LAND SUBJECT TO COASTAL STORM FLOWAGE (8' DIA) INV OUT= -1.33 (MH-G) INV OUT = 3.90 (CB-M) CO-20 55 30 0.005 CO-64 64 12 0.005 (ELEVATION = 10.0) 005 LAND SUBJECT TO TIDAL ACTION (BETWEEN CO-65 167 24 0. 15. THE MINIMUM DESIGN ELEVATION OF BUILDING GROUND FLOORS, ELEVATION OF EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT FOUNDATIONS MUST BE 16 FEET NAVD88. MH-G 10.0 INV IN = -2.60 (MH-F) CB-M* 12.5 INV IN = 3.20 (CB-L) CO-21 15 12 0. SPRING HIGH TIDE 6.5' AND MEAN LOW WATER-5.2') (10' DIA) CO-22 20 30 0.005 CO-66 80 12 0.006 INV IN = -2.60 (MH-K) INV OUT = 3.20 (CB-N) 16. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE POSITIVE DRAINAGE TOWARDS CATCH BASINS. CO-23 185 30 0.007 CO-67 261 24 0.005 \rj � INV OUT= -2.60 (MH-L) CB-N* 12.5 INV IN = 2.50 (CB-M) 17. CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE EXTRA PRECAUTION NOT TO OVER COMPACT STORMWATER COLLECTION AREA AND REDUCE THE INFILTRATION CAPACITY OF THE SOILS. a� I \ CO-24 108 12 0.006 CO-59 191 36 0.005 LAND UNDER OCEAN (BELOW MEAN LOW WATER)* MH-H 12.2 INV IN = 1.70 (CB-N) INV OUT = 2.50 (MH-L) m PROPOSED LEACHING \ \� UTILITY NOTES: CONNECT TO PROPOSED CATCH BASIN \ '4 INV OUT= 1.70 (MH-1) CB-0 7.5 INV OUT= 1.29 (CB-P) CO-25 152 15 0.006 CO-60 71 36 0.005 GAS LINE(BY OTHERS) I > RIM=8.7 CO-26 136 18 0.006 CO-61 225 36 0.006 ROCKY INTERTIDAL SHORE F a EXISTING 48"DRAINlr�b. 'Og, CB-P 9.0 INV IN = -0.75 (CB-O) t PROPOSED GAS SERVICE TO BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO SPECTRA/ALGONQUIN STANDARD DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS. m I CO-27 152 12 0.005 CO-68 137 24 0.005 _ - To REMAIN INV OUT= -0.75 (MH-M) / '`` • " �� % I h7 CO-28 80 24 0.005 CO-69 137 24 0.005 - ` • CP / • • (� CB-Q 8.8 = (MH-M) COASTAL BANK INV OUT 3 80 �" f� • . T ,_ _ Tom "�� CO-29 20 24 0.016 CO-70 159 24 0.005 / Df' -� r_ ? �""�,- " DENOTES DROP INLETS Em / I ' `^4 i �� ♦ . �'� :: amaf*,A. ,„o (TYP) N - - - ION 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE / _ w _ _ _ _ J 3G1.�. ♦� CO-310 136 12 0.005 CO 72 300 24 0.005 (E 108 12 0.006 CO-71 163 24 0.005 OLEVATST OION 10.0)T 8"UNDE '4F QP _ ." -i�y�(Z#_ • I Mm I/ /�N 'H�m�L{�fA4/(Y ) \ O�� - CO-32 100 15 0.005 CO-73 110 42 0.005 ;�- ? \ 9 \ �/ - - - - - - - DESIGNATED PORT AREA \ ? \ Ae9 CO-33 214 12 0.005 CO-74 198 42 0.005 / _. \ �• ti/ m o" ., Ic �I / ��+`:x-._. _ �' _ = `F / " 100' BUFFER CO-34 80 15 0.005 CO-75 198 42 0.005 - /'� / (TO TOP OF COASTAL BANK) _ v Nil / n . � "ib / CO-35 93 15 0.005 CO-76NOT USED - - 5:1 SLOPE I j�� .6Cg1 CO-36 123 30 0.009 .� 100' BUFFER SALEM BYLAW xHP1" ' s 14.0 i �"0t� / CO-77 35 48 0.006 - (TO 100 YEAR FLOOD) ♦ I 4- c no / a 12_ / ( / N / - `_ `��(1 /. - CO-37 57 12 0.005 CO-78 21 48 0.010 Asn/, 7 1 ) U • 7W1s.52-WATER SERVICE _ _ _ _ MEAN HIGH WATER JJJJ (ELEVATION =4.1) 9 eLc / , ♦ BW 12.5 ` GABION RETAINING CO-39 65 15 0.006 CO-80 62 30 0.005 i ♦ ` \ ^F \ ° )( \ f r / ,a ,. �`y " i r! ` v WALL(TYP) CO-38 85 12 0.006 CO-79 255 30 0.008 �4i"c, ( � / C F CO-62 I ,_ �� .uv1G / ( Ct, • „m„• \ a MEAN LOW WATER / W a xs.o / ( J'm ` ♦ ^ ♦ EL 14.5 T 40 5" CO 40 138 30 0.005 CO-81 157 18 0.010 ' ' ' ' (ELEVATION = -5.2) 9 Sm,o> \*u 9 \ice\ az° ♦� BW 15.017.9 ` /, >.>>> � CO 41 38 12 0.008 CO-82 18 36 0.005 - - - - - � ZONEVEI2 J a ° 4 ♦ 11.5 CO-42 65 30 0.008 CO-83 26 36 0.005 ( ll x9 - - \ b f w° / \� )CB H „ \ I \ 0 11.7 \ / 43 38 12 0.008 - - PROPERTY LINE R �� CO CO-84 28 36 0.005 / l (rD /�/ �,I ° _ I� 12z �v _ )iv 1 ,p II ) \ I I IIIII��//(I „/ // V \ \\ '/ � 'I �m CO 6 `�� r*K.no ` ♦♦ ��\\ �\ � - � � � NGRID SWITCHYARD EASEMENT E / I �H 5 1 �' 04, / \\ " BVv 15.0 +15.75 + .\ �\ l • ' DIRECTION OF STORMWATER 'I'0' ,f' l o / \\ / CO-64 CBt \�\ \ \rP�e� U ) o FLOW �\ w / 452 \ \✓AR'"B<e \ \. N c CB-I 16.0+ _- C0.53 s �°r-:_`'' x9.0 LT ti ° d - - - 15 0+ \ CB e v o3 p �y MFi A°sr \ �1 N\ THESE RESOURCE AREAS ARE COINCIDENTAL WITH LAND CONTAINING SHELLFISH. G ° ° OQ ( B `MEET EXISTING �\ GRADE \ \� VERTICAL DATUM = NAVD88 / I / 1\ O LI I ' i I wn. U 15.5 0 0 -B-A PROPOSED I6"GAS p Coso WATER QUALITY STRUCTURE SCHEDULE / N � / c9LJ ` M, x9.0 �) 9.8 ✓ \ /7 r> 1 I , . 16. + 16.0 a 1\ CO-50 . J `�°' �� N `- .\ / / //� `.♦ ♦ / �"''^. CBa CO-3 MH g. o " r w 7S ''iEl ♦ / " \"' RIM INVERT ELEVATIONS CB3 - 15.5 '� ) " *YN ( ) ( \ I CBK; - ■e °°° - 9 i ® _ STRUCTURE ELEVATION / 1 f wQs-A SVT a, p x FT xHP m\\ '° l -,r\ _ //-- 1 P 1 CO 66 i / O'� 15 16.0+ I 16.0 I I ,�a TW 24.0 pq r €.T, \NER qC w 's / (FT) BW 15.5 I MAINTAIN EXISTING / • ) / \ w wMs r`n - I w \�'�► GRADE WRHIN LIMITS • • / WQS-A 12.4 INV IN = 4.58 (MH-B ♦ /r 10.5 ° ." \ xs0 L1 \" ' + 755+ +15.5 / INV OUT = 4.50 (MH-P) ' ` ` - J I I I (S E NOTE 8;R VAULT�_ c• J \ / / STC 7200 ) w CB6 +76.0 a° I OF ACCESS ROAD / �/ ( ) F` \ 1 I z I I"- x STORAGE TANK �` r. "o - J � ]/ p \ / - Y/ S \ +15.5 g WQS-B 9.8 INV IN = -1.15 CB-H CB10 O --- - OUTFLOW JFR ARR�fRs v I ( ) ( ) CO-to 15 CO 7 CB7 O• CB28 C0-35 g ' I . 6"SANITARY SEWER \ \\ ,��h / "' / STC 7200 INV OUT = -1.23 (MH-N) LI ° 9 CO CB8 S S S w r� O �iep u{°€ / ♦ WQS-C 15.0 INV OUT= 11.00 F- n ABANDONED EXISTING 1 O I�-` M- MH-P `+.ra " \ o "• 1 ,\Y ` • \ (STC 4501) / 9 - "� /��/1 • 48"DRAIN LINE IN PLACE vI \ o° �. / �p . „ EL 15.0 +7s.0 I . = ° ( / WQS-1 16.0 INV IN = 5.60 (MH-5) 15.5+ / 15.5 I EXIST 10"WATER + ( ( " 16 CB30 - MAIN TO BE RELOCATED '� 'tw ( O� C' /I (STC 2400) q A J - �o ,,; INV OUT = 5.52 (MH-6) d AROUND WOS-C / Q / xs.5 5:1 SLOPE ( � �- I 1 I * ; " t, _ , \ WQS-2 15.4 INV IN = 8.50 CB-24 s Otx, r (STC 450) INV OUT= 8.42 (MH 6) CB-L \ I d cg32A O mss + ( ) / �:� \ U I / 00 0 D / / HP ` x9.o I 0 ARMO CABLf �F43 �S�CT / 1 ! x10.5 CO-68 n Hp +15.5 C631 + _ WQS-3 16.0 INV IN =4.50 (MH-9) y CO 120 EL 15.0 CB32 - of \ , ` n CBi1 I CB22 O WQS-C - \ A\` (STC 6000) INV OUT= 4.42 (MH-6) / HP ^" \, / B12 -12 L EL 15.7 I \ / ' CB1B _ 10.5 HP x9.0 / +1 I 6"WATER . �. / I x10.5 O C m.•'° z V V Id VO' I SERVICE m- �� i � � • B13 Q ra ----------- ---- 15. MHD - ■ MH-C �� SN©RI WIT a NGRID S CHYARD/ ' - 6'SEWER SERVICE EASEMENT . �I OU C834 i 3"WATER SERVICE 1 TO REMAIN yCF y+ , - ♦ '` +�. ` � * +15.5 d I I B C0-41 HP ` e„„ \° HP U I _ CB20 Ip S I C + L_ ♦ Pa �9'1/ ',• 10.5 ` ` ` CB-M EL 15.0 ■ I CB19 1 B2 +15.5 15.5+ 15.5 CO-42 4 ` S, N.." 1`� ■_ I O 12"FIRE PROTECTION a '� / HA ` ` •r ` RELOCATED 48"DRAIN , ■ a x 15.5+ I Cgg CB36 I SERVICE L1 0 I -MH3 I U 3"WASTE WATER MAINTAIN EXISTING (TO BE COORDINATED \ 7 " I I I CO-43 , �r SPILLWAY . 70 , )CO-69 CB CO-1 PROPOSED CONNECTION I + 5.5 S x �-x ->_x x -x-x . ■ -x . . x. x�■ ` WITH CITY ENGINEER • {A `O +1 ELEV=9.0 ' • , I ( TO GAS METER O I - 4 ` tr OUTFALL 015 • ' . / N I w 15. n I i fi.5+ I I S MH-E 0 COLO TO BE REUSED / 11 UNDERDRAIN N DRAINAGE DITCH ALL \\ as " I o MH-F f _�____________ / •t..; , CB-N ms �" ,-CO-19 I 824 F62 G J TW 30.5 10 °' '.,,\ I �, \ �a eq •� O L/ YP) 823 CO-27 xp L GABION WALL is° � I � + CB16 i -MH4 I I a / B BW 15.0 *i`J \ ea \ ` vem CO' B • Q cq HP ELEV I LOW LANDSCAPE Ix x -x MH5 OU 15.5+ I d CB37 ' j O 15.0 I 9 J Qmac- \ CO-22 I y J I 8 I 11 J sr\ \ P l s a o 1 WALL 24"HIGH FOLLOWING TW 40.5 ` y� U GABION RETAINING I I * V U` \avEqk FM'•,r �� "- PROPOSED GRADE BW 15.0 x 'J ---� O - -- WALL(TYP) CBA C .000 - Z x11.5 o d CO-21 HP ROAD m _ ♦ * \ _ ® / } ` 1ti C0.23 °MH#6 -� H9 0 -MH7 i 0(TMP) .n SEE NOTE 16 /4� '.,,`� U / i m vi `� n SCK ooAr` s� c HP _� ue -CB17 CO-06 '' L............. \� 1 ` ( O �. /X I 1 -♦_� n, 11.5 '�L' Q 7 u. x/1 ` _____ _ / \�• # \ mhn�, µ G/ a'HP` , �.° CB38 TW 14.0 CO-77 / ` / µ / .... ..` e 1ti TW 30.5 CO-08 BW 10.0 J 12. ( TW 14.0 TI i� Cu l / �1\ \ ^ `N (r " \ R„ ® 11 > BW 1 BW 10.0 b I TW 30.5 -WQS-3 I LOW LANDSCAPE MH-L n \ \ %AF • 0 eowr 10 G - BW 15.0 CO-49 CO-74 WALL(TYP) MH-G C0.72 p MHJ p o - WITH TIDEGATE - _ _ -•\ I / / .. \ D �f/rry! 0 �` -•..♦..` 'r` DOCK _,..� Y G MH-I _ - MH K _ CO-78 0 _ ^"��r �r _ ` \\ \- �E SEE NOTE 16 (1, �-�-♦ �',MVa` _r. �- , \ 10 _ meg-;"`. = t>". < - +/ o J _ \ o \�\xllr �� z• '_ m m fc w `- _ 9- . .- . ! ! • • . • ti.-+-+, Nsc ` �y �•^�_� �� -6"�P \ \ \ \ _ / � / - a o o - � �N.at?rr v'vrFc v _ � �� _ � - � s,� � -- - od , , r my • ♦ y y . CB - _, T /---- "o/ E 1_�--r f 0.80 CB-P ' \ - \ \ �z, '/ Z E E MH-1 / G / sr.,, . - U o \ r_ CO-82Dw< 'N _ // t1 U a r o .,., . �.♦' ._. _. + - - --- - - - SEE NOTE 16 \ \ I g � - e / ;. \ - tY 9 N / � _. Lu I 0_5v " ro;r Lu IL Lu .. OUTFALL 006 , r •� • H ` �',• "' TO BE BLOCKED/ OUTFALL 001 `" I - - - - - - - WQS-B N 3 , ate.•' .'.W CUT/CAPPED !�j-� TOB REUSED CO-83 o • . 4 � \ MH-N REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK `1 f' WITH TIDEGATE y U, I , ' r • ' OUTFALLS 005&007 \ FOR LOADING/UNLOADING OPERATIONS �� l Co CORE INTO EXISTING TO BE REMOVED AS PART CO-84 Q " INV._-3.0 OUTFALL 014 \ CORE INTO EXISTING •. • CULVERT WALL OF BUILDING DEMOLITION \ r) B - CITY DRAINAGE OUTFALL / TO REMAIN TO BE REUSED \ CULVERT WALL INV.=-1.5 ' Lu z DRAINAGE STRUCTURE SCHEDULE \ // DRAINAGE STRUCTURE SCHEDULE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE SCHEDULE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE SCHEDULE DRAINAGE STRUCTURE SCHEDULE Q \ / Q RIM / INVERT ELEVATIONS / • RIM RIM RIM RIM Z STRUCTURE ELEVATION TYPE I / STRUCTURE ELEVATION INVERT ELEVATIONS INVERT ELEVATIONS INVERT ELEVATIONS INVERT ELEVATIONS (FT) TYPE STRUCTURE ELEVATION TYPE STRUCTURE ELEVATION TYPE STRUCTURE ELEVATION (FT) / (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) TYPE a c Z r / (FT) (FT) (FT) (FT) c CB#1 15.00 INV OUT = 11.30 (CB#2) 2 l ^� CB#10 14.00 INV OUT = 11.00 (CB#9) 2 CB#16 14.00 INV IN = 10.70 (CB#15) 2 CB#22 14.25 INV OUT = 11.20 (CB#21) 2 CB#32 14.25 INV IN = 10.40 (CB#30) 2 0 0 Co a INV OUT = 10.70 (MH#4) INV IN = 10.70 (CB#31) ¢ > O I 1 1 INV OUT= 10.40 (CB#32A) CB#2 14.00 INV IN = 11.00 (CB#1) 2 1 a" INV IN = 7.70 (CB#9) INV IN = 5.70 (MH#4) INV IN = 10.60 (CB#22) 0 E (B Co Oj INV OUT= 11.00 (CB#3) 1 I , CB#11 14.00 INV IN = 10.00 (CB#12) 3 MH#5 16.00 INV IN = 10.90 (CB#17) 1 CB#21 13.25 INV OUT = 10.60 (CB#25) 2 -2 c% Q a CB#33 14.25 INV OUT= 10.30 (CB#34) 2 m c O a I �` ;o /1 INV OUT = 7.70 (MH#2) INV OUT= 5.70 (WQS-1) x .a ? INV IN = 10.50 (CB#2) 1 �1 E L U) CB#3 14.00 2 I 1 INV IN = 9.90 (CB#21) a° > .. Lu INV OUT = 10.50 (CB#4) / 1 CB#25 13.25 2 m ¢ (q � CB#12 14.00 INV OUT = 11.00 (CB#1 INV IN = 6.70 CB#32A 7S� 1 ( ) 2 CB#17 14.00 INV OUT = 11.00 (MH#5) 2 INV OUT = 9.90 (MH#9) CB#34 13.75 ( ) 1 `� r U_ 1 r / 1 INV IN = 10.00 (CB#33) `m ° o ILI INV IN = 10.00 (CB#3) INV OUT= 6.70 CB#36 o v a LU CB#4 13.75 2 1 y ( ) a s !` = INV IN = 10.00 (CB#5) \ INV IN = 7.30 (CB#1 1) CB#26 13.50 INV OUT = 10.50 (CB#27) 2 INV OUT = 10.00 (CB#6) 1� 0 1 / MH#2 16.00 INV IN = 10.30 (CB#13) 1 CB#18 14.25 INV OUT = 11.20 (CB#1 2 _ 0 1 1 CB#35 14.25 INV OUT = 10.30 (CB#36) 2 n E (0 \ INV OUT = 7.30 (MH#3) g N 1- U ■ 1 u ;1 ( INV IN = 9.40 (CB#26) w //nn CB#5 14.00 INV OUT = 11.00 (CB#4) 2 1 0 1 INV IN = 10.60 (CB#18) CB#27 13.75 INV OUT = 9.40 (CB#28) 3 U) V o CB#19 13.25 2 1 I\ 1 y CB#13 14.00 INV OUT = 11.00 (MH#2) 2 INV OUT= 10.60 (CB#20) INV IN = 6.20 (CB#34) INV IN = 9.60 (CB#4) j \ 1 INV IN = 9.00 (CB#27) CB#36 13.75 INV IN = 10.00 (CB#35) 1 CB#6 13.75 3 \ INV IN = 9.70 (CB#19) CB#28 13.75 3 INV OUT = 6.20 (MH#7) INV OUT = 9.00 CB#29) N INV OUT = 9.60 (CB#8) 1 INV IN = 6.50 (MH#2) CB#20 13.25 INV OUT= 9.70 CB#24 2 cq p �\ 1 MH#3 16.00 1 ( ) INV IN = 10.30 (CB#14) INV IN = 5.00 (CB#36) ■ � � INV OUT = 6.50 (MH#4) NV IN = 8.50 (CB#28) MH#7 16.00 INV IN = 10.40 (CB#37) 1 CB#7 14.50 INV OUT= 11.50 (CB#8) 2 a / I CB#24 13.25 INV IN = 8.90 (CB#20) 3 CB#29 13.75 INV OUT= 8.50 (CB#32A) 3 INV IN = 9.90 (CB#38) / INV IN = 9.90 (CB#23) INV OUT= 5.00 (MH#9) \ CB#14 14.00 INV OUT = 11.00 (MH#3) 2 INV OUT= 8.90 (WQS-2) INV IN = 7.40 (CB#29) Project No.: 127-62117-12001 INV IN = 9.20 (CB#6) t 1 a CB#8 14.50 3 ■ CB#32A 14.75 3 INV IN = 10.90 (CB#7) 1 ■ INV IN = 10.00 (CB#32) ■ CB#37 13.75 INV OUT= 10.70 (MH#7) 2 Designed By: MWM � INV OUT = 9.20 (CB#9) � � ♦ r a MH#4 16.00 INV IN = 6.00 (MH#3) 1 CB#23 13.25 INV OUT = 10.70 (CB#24) 2 INV OUT= 7.40 (CB#34) U t, [ INV IN = 10.30 (CB#16) Drawn By: SJW d INV IN = 8.50 (CB#8) a ' INV OUT= 6.00 (MH#5) INV IN = 4.30 (WQS-1) CB#30 14.75 INV OUT = 10.70 (CB#32) 2 CB#38 14.00 INV OUT= 10.00 (MH#7) 2 Checked By: LMC o CB#9 13.75 INV IN = 10.50 (CB#10) 3 MH#6 16.00 1 a) INV OUT = 8.50 (CB#1 1) 1 / INV IN = 8.10 (WQS-2) F 1 CB#15 14.00 INV OUT= 11.00 (CB#16) 2 INV IN = 3.60 (WQS-3)) ( ) C- 1 04 =INV OUT= 3.60 (MH-J CB#31 14.25 INV OUT = 11.20 CB#32 2 INV IN = 4.60 (MH#7) 0 40' 80' 160' m MH#9 16.00 NV IN = 9.40 CB#25 T 1 (SEE DWG C-108 FOR MH-J) ( ) ) SCALE: 1"=80' U N , INV OUT = 4.60 (WQS-3 moomw Bar Measures 1 inch 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NOTES: 0 a U E� O I ' U (n Q N v N CM O ROADWAY LU 00 00 1 . PERFORATED PIPE SHALL BE 6" DIAMETER SINGLE WALL HDPE PIPE AS MANUFACTURED BY ADS, INC., HILLIARD, OH, OR APPROVED EQUAL. PERFORATION I" 3 3 o E PATTERN SHALL BE TYPE B. PERFORATED PIPE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH AN INTEGRAL FILTER WRAP. PIPE INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE dQ E WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. SEE PLAN SEE PLAN FOR INV EL ` N 2'-0" 6" TYPE II GRAVEL SEE PLAN (SEE SHEET C- 103) ~ 2. GABION BASKETS SHALL BE MANUFACTURED FROM 8x10 DOUBLE TWISTED HEXAGONAL WOVEN STEEL WIRE MESH AS PER ASTM A975. THE ROCK FILL 6U co G FOR GABIONS SHALL BE HARD, ANGULAR TO ROUND, DURABLE AND OF SUCH QUALITY THAT IT SHALL NOT DISINTEGRATE ON EXPOSURE TO WATER OR to WEATHERING DURING THE LIFE OF THE STRUCTURE. GABION ROCKS SHALL RANGE BETWEEN 4 INCHES AND 8 INCHES. I EL SEE PLAN0 000 �00(�0 3. SECURITY MESH SHALL BE I-DECO-METAL MODEL NO. DE-14, AS MANUFACTURED BY ANPING HUILONG METAL & WIRE MESH PRODUCT CO. LTD., ANPING 2r° SLOPE 2% SLOPE 0 0 00� COUNTY, HENGSHUI CITY, CHINA, OR APPROVED EQUAL. WIRE MESH SHALL BE SECURELY ATTACHED TO THE GABION WALL. SLOPE �— SLOE %/� �oo�° 0� �//moi -0" i� COMPACTED i /i�� GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PLACED �� \i � �� 4. STORM DRAINAGE PIPE SHALL BE HDPE PIPE, WITH A SMOOTH INTERIOR SURFACE AND EXTERIOR CORRUGATIONS, CONFORMING TO ASTM F2648; PIPE /�/�//� �//� /� STRUCTURAL FILL //�/ / / O N COMPACTED SUBGRADE GASKETS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM F477. PIPE JOINTS SHALL BE WATERTIGHT AND SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM D3212. ASPHALT CONC SURFACE COURSE i SUB—BASE (THICKNESS = 1 1 /2") Soo GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 5. PRECAST CONCRETE CATCH BASIN/MANHOLE SHALL BE EITHER ROUND OR SQUARE, CONFORMING TO ASTM C478 AND C913, AS APPLICABLE. MINIMUM (THICKNESS = 8") ASPHALT CONC BASE COURSE °oo 000 (THICKNESS = 2 1 /2") �� °foo o� INSIDE DIMENSION SHALL BE 48 INCHES. IN ADDITION TO LATERAL LOADS DUE TO EARTH PRESSURE, CATCH BASIN/MANHOLE SHALL BE DESIGNED FOR GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PLACED ON AASHTO HL-93 TRUCK LOADING, INCLUDING IMPACT. COMPACTED SUBGRADE TYPE II CRUSHED STONE— 6" DIA PERFORATED 6. HEAVY DUTY FRAME AND GRATE/COVER SHALL BE AS MANUFACTURED BY NEENAH FOUNDRY CO. NEENAH, WI, OR APPROVED EQUAL. MH/CBDRAIN WITH SYNTHETIC PAVED ROAD WITHOUT SHOULDER COVER/GRATE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 1 '—6„ FILTER WRAP (SEE NOTE 1 ) CATCH BASIN TYPE 2 - NO. R-6114 CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 & 3 - No. R-1792-FG CROSS SECTION F MANHOLE - No. R-1792-FL TYP UNDERDRAIN D ETAI L 7. PIPE BEDDING MATERIAL SHALL BE WELL GRADED SAND WITH NO MORE THAN 15% PASSING THE NO. 200 SIEVE. TOP OF WALL FOR LANDSCAPED 8. RESILIENT CONNECTOR BETWEEN STORM SEWER STRUCTURE AND PIPE SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM C1478, LATEST EDITION. AS NOTED BERM SEE SHEET C- 107 TAPERED GABION BASKETS @ TOP TO It PROVIDE VERTICAL FACE FOR SECURITY MESH SECURITY MESH ATTACHED ATTACHMENT GABION WALLTAPERED GABION TOP OF WALL TO GABION WALL FOR LANDSCAPED BASKETS @ TOP TO AS NOTED BERM SEE SHEET C- 107 PROVIDE VERTICAL FACE SPECIFIED COMPACTED SECURITY MESH ATTACHED FOR SECURITY MESH y � TO GABION WALL ROAD SHOULDER 2'-0" 2'-0" 2'-0" i �� BACKFILL SPECIFIED COMPACTED ATTACHMENT 6^ \\>T\7 � 6 BACKFILL EL 5 Zz EL 15,-0„ EL 15'-0„ a 2 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC /\ W °o° o°� 0 1 SEE GABION WALLSEE GABION WALL / //�\j/�� GEOTEXTILE FABRIC o E ao o� DRAINAGE DITCH DRAINAGE DITCH P ° ° 0 (TYP) GABION (TYP) i 0 Oo 00 UNDERDRAIN GABION TYP UNDERDRAIN o °ooh GRATE EL 14.0 W o (TYP) L � ° W + 6" COMPACTED W C CRUSHED STONE / ,./i, /:�/% - ,,/,�/i�/i. o 0 III BASE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC O UNDERDRAIN 6" COMPACTED INV EL 11 .5 COMPACTED SUBGRADE BASE HED STONE Q GEOTEXTILE FABRICo 0 STORM DRAIN COMPACTED SUBGRADE z 5 GABION WALL UNDERDRAIN SECTION A—A (TOP OF WALL EL 40'-6") SECTION B — B (TOP OF WALL EL 30'-6" w ) m SECTION D — D (SIMILAR - TOP OF WALL VARIES SECTION C — C (SIMILAR - TOP OF WALL VARIES I GRAVEL SURFACING DEPTH FROM EL 401-611 TO 301-61)) FROM EL 40$-6)) TO 24 -0 ) E TYPE 1 = 6" (SHEET C- 104) (SHEET C- 104) D TYPE II = 12" :o:°•O:o:;'°O:o:° O�o9 o•Oo:o:°.•O:o:?'OO:o:°. O:oPo•Oo'o ��I �� i,H� • e:�O.GO O°O,°OO.00O.°°A•°°A.•O.q O.°°O•e°P�O.gO VO° • _f I � IIII Vpi�I MANHOLE _ MANHOLE/CATCH BASIN MH COVER GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PLACED TOP OF RIM ON COMPACTED SUBGRADE MH/CB COVER TOP OF RIM EL SEE SCHEDULE 2.0, 0 NOTE: FOR GRAVEL SURFACING SEE SCHEDULE AND NOTE 6 CONC FILL OPN'G REQUIREMENTS SEE SHEET C- 103 2.0 ALL AROUND FINISHED GRADE CONC FILL OPN'G MANHOLE/CATCH BASIN MANHOLE/CATCH BASIN ALL AROUND FINISHED GRADE COVER SOLID coNc BLOCK GRAVEL SURFACING ;,,,, \�; B B AS REQ'D CROSS SECTION SOLID CONC BLOCK FINISHED SHORTEST LENGTH AS REQ'D GRADE OF PIPE TO BE PLACED SHORTEST LENGTH UNDER CONE PRECAST REINFORCED OF PIPE TO BE PLACED - MANHOLE/CATCH BASIN ��" 7�\\SOLID CONC BLOCK GALV RUNGS CONCRETE MH UNDER CONE PRECAST CONC FLAT @12" OC PRECAST REINFORCED SLAB TOP MANHOLE CATCH BASIN COVER PRECAST >., AS REQ'D ;°.• a; GALV RUNGS CONC FLAT PRECAST REINFORCED � 4 —0 CONCRETE MH/CB MIN @12 OC SLAB TOP } 3 4 —0 — ,_ CONCRETE MH/CB m m MIN B BI LEAN CONC FILL FINISHED GRADE RUBBER GASKET �q LEAN CONC FILL JOINTS (TYP) . .co��o� RUBBER GASKET �A A RCP (TYP) RESILIENT 9F TF JOINTS (TYP) PRECAST REINFORCED '—' 77 CONNECTOR —71, TA (NP) A �� HDPE (TYP) RESILIENT F CONCRETE MH/CB ° y NACON(TYP)ECTOR A �I n A Al ° 0FOR PIPE SIZE AND ° ° 00° ° so0 ° ° ° ° O ° CONC BASE (OPTIONAL) z° ° 00 ° O o °0 o 00 0 o ° INVERT EL SEE PIPING DWGS 2 MAX E ° o o° 0 °0 ° o0 ° ° °° a = ° 0 0 o ° ° o ,o 0°o ° ° 03'RADIUS oO ° 0o INVERT EL SEE SCHEDULE o° o ° °°o ° ° °° CONC BASE (OPTIONAL) Ow ° o ° oo ° O o oo° 0 0o 0 ° O CONC BASE (OPTIONAL) 0 U2(TYP) 0 ° o ° 0 ° ° ° O ° ° 0CONBASE (OPTIONAL) E o oFORINFORMATION COMPACTED CRUSHED STONE NOTE: NOT SHOWN SEE TYPE 1 EMBEDDED LADDER RUNG COMPACTED CRUSHED STONE FOR INFORMATION s NOT SHOWN SEE TYPE 1 u (GALVANIZED) TYP E 3 Of Y B DETAIL 8 NTS TYPE 1 TYP E 2 CATCH BASIN 6'-0" RADIUS o CRUSHED STONE o SURFACING 0 _ MANHOLE CB , CRUSHED / TRENCH WALLS MANHOLE/CB a E m MAY BE SLOPED / / STONE E o o FROM TOP OF PIPE - STRUCTURAL OR > � m U)¢ a) to CONTROLLED FILL i s a _1 (AS APPLICABLE) w `o 0 x o ( ) 0I HDPE (TYP) PRECAST CONC ma RCP TYP TRENCH WALLS FLAT SLAB TOP TO BE VERTICAL ;p°; °a; COMPACTED 3LL w SUBGRADE aN V _ LOCATE MH/CB COVER _ o COMPACTEDOPENING ABOVE LADDER \ 8 GRANULAR FILL HAND PLACED CD AND HAND COMPACTED IN 6" LAYERS (SEE NOTE 7) \ / LADDER CN A FORMED CHANNEL PRECAST REINFORCED c° :�ZPRECAST REINFORCED RUNG CONCRETE MANHOLE/ 1 ,-0„ FORMED CHANNEL CONCRETE MANHOLE/ CN CATCH BASIN (MIN—TYP) CATCH BASIN Project No.: 127-62117-12001 C SECTION A—A Designed By. SJW CRUSHED STONE SURFACING Drawn By: s�W M NTS S T O R M DRAIN BEDDING DETAIL Checked By: LMC F M SECTION O N A— A SECTION O N B — B AT CATCH BASIN INLET LET C- 105 C _N C N Pz �d Bar Measures 1 inch 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 E m o E o 0 *TRANSITION Vo N LENGTH (Lfh) rn SEE LAYOUT AND MATERIALS PLAN 1 LU FOR MATERIAL AT BACK OF CURB E WHEELCHAIR RAMP NOTES: 3 c L 12"ASPHALT CONC SURFACE COURSE 3 O c U_ MassDOT VERTICAL o GRANITE CURB TYPE VB BIT CONC PAVEMENT 2t ASPHALT CONC BASE COURSE SIDEWALK 1:12 CROSSWALK 1. THE SIDEWALK CROSS MUST NOT EXCEED 2/o FOR BRICK AND CEMENT m o �" SLOPE o CONCRETE AND 2% FOR BITUMINOUS CONCRETE. (REFER TO STANDARD � o li 9 Cl) RAMP OPENING SPECIFICATIONS FOR HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES SECTION 700) IN NO ` `� INSTANCE SHALL THE SIDEWALK CROSS SLOPE EXCEED 2% EXCEPT THE I- C. rn RAMP AREA PROPER WHICH IS EXEMPT. LLJ G DENSE GRADED o 6" REVEAL TRANSITION n CRUSHED STONE 1; CLEAN WASHED STONE Zi i a' CURB 2. AN UNOBSTRUCTED PATH OF TRAVEL WITH A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 36"SHALL 2% SLOPE � SUB-BASE WHEELCHAIR RAMP �� c 0 .• ,, �o o BE MAINTAINED. t 0 , 1'-0" ° oobot�oo° as o o a p > o0 2:1 SLOPE VERTICAL GRANITE 3. THE WHEELCHAIR RAMP SLOPE AND SIDE SLOPES (TRANSITIONS), MUST A 00 (MAX.) 8„ FOR TRANSITION LENGTH CURB NOT EXCEED 1:12 WHEN WARRANTED BY SURROUNDING CONDITIONS. _ 000 O� t ° d ];x> < 4. WHERE THE ROAD PROFILE EXCEEDS 5/o THE HIGH SIDE TRANSITION n n t -y / t dx t (Lfh) SEE TABLE I. o TOP COURSE CAPE COD BERM "Co {> n %? + ua�-* t-,t LENGTH (LFH) SHALL BE FIFTEEN FEET (15.0). BINDER COURSE �'il�% �/�{ifti/��/�V/! �/ 5. IN NO CASE, WHERE A STOP LINE IS WARRANTED, SHALL A RAMP BE PLACED 3,000 PSI CEM CONC ANCHOR COMPACTED GRAVEL BASE LEGEND BEHIND THE STOP LINE. °�o6yy8 000 ° ° g o GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PLACED ON GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PLACED ON R= CURB REVEAL(INCHES) 6" COMPACTED w%i: >v i> jr > COMPACTED SUBGRADE UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE G= ROAD PROFILE FEET/FEET 6. FIXED OBJECTS-UTILITY POLES, HYDRANTS ETC.-MUST NOT ENCROACH ON SCREENED GRAVEL T=TRANSITION SLOPE(INCHES/FEET) WHEELCHAIR RAMPS. L= LOW SIDE TRANSITION LENGTH (FEET) VERTICAL GRANITE CURB DETAIL STORMWATER COLLECTION AREA SECTION S =WHEELCHAIR RAMP SLOPE (INCHES/FEET) 7. AT NO TIME IS ANY PART OF THE WHEELCHAIR RAMP TO BE LOCATED CAPE COD BERM DETAIL PAVEMENT SECTION OUTSIDE OF THE CROSSWALK AND IT IS TO BE CENTERED WHENEVER NTS NTS NTS NTS CEMENT, BRICK& BITUMINOUS WHEELCHAIR RAMPS POSSIBLE. 8. CATCH BASINS WHICH ARE TO BE LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF A TABLE L WHEELCHAIR RAMP SHOULD BE LOCATED UP-GRADE WHENEVER POSSIBLE. HIGH SIDE FRONT TRANSITION LENGTH (Lfh).THE FOLLOWING 72"0 FIGURES ARE BASED UPON A SIX INCH CURB REVEAL AND 1:12 9. THE ENTRANCE OF THE WHEELCHAIR RAMP SHALL BE WITHIN 1/2"WITH THE 7 TRANSITION SLOPE: R�",Ts=1"/1' ROADWAY. WIDTH AS PER PLANS 6" DIA. INLET PROFILE TRANSITION 10. TESTING SURFACE, WHEN TESTING WITH A STRAIGHTEDGE PLACED 6" X 6" W.W.F. (1.4 X 1.4) DROP PIPE 6" DIA. GRADE LENGTH O PARALLEL TO THE LINE SLOPE, THERE SHALL BE NO DEVIATION FROM A 2., OIL PORT % G (FT.) TRUE SURFACE IN EXCESS OF 1/4 OF AN INCH. F ORIFICE PLATE •. . .. . d PER UNIT SIZE 11. 2„ ,,' �4 0 0 6:0 A MIDBLOCK TYPE WHEELCHAIR RAMP WILL NOT BE s 3 .03 8.0 5 BRIDGES DUE TO THE REQUIRED 12 CURB REVEAL BUT ACCESSIBILITY 0 0 • o 0 ,- WILL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE BRIDGE SIDEWALK B CONSTRUCTED ON ' 0 0 5 .05 15.0 a a a o a a vvelR „ 12. WHEN IT IS TECHNOLOGICALLY UNFEASIBLE TO CONSTRUCT WHEELCHAIR 4"DENSE GRADED CRUSHED STONE INLET OUTLET RAMPS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL ACCESS BOARD'S (MassDOT SPEC M2.01.7) �'�i^ i' ' �' '�i' `i'ii' ' i' ' i' '" '' i` i' NOTES: REGULATIONS,ALVARIANCE WILL NEED TO BE SUBMITTED. THE 3,000 PSI CONCRETE " 1. WHERE THE ROAD PROFILE EXCEEDS 5%, THE DEPARTMENT'S HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBILITY SECTION SHOULD BE COMPACTED SUBGRADE (SEE NOTE 1) .. " ' ' TRANSITION LENGTH SHALL BE FIFTEEN FT. (15.0') CONTACTED UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. " EQUATION: Lfh FT.) = R 8" GRAVEL BASE T-0" ( Ts-12G (MassDOT SPEC M1.03.0 TYPE C) -_ 2. THE FIGURES IN THE TABLE WERE ROUNDED UP TO THE NEAREST HALF FOOT. NOTES: � 1. FIBERMESH FIBERS (100%VIRGIN POLYPROPYLENE, COLLATED, FIBRILLATED FIBERS) AT A RATE OF 1.5 LB/CY OF CONCRETE SHALL BE ADDED FOR REINFORCEMENT. 24" DIA. DROP TEE < DROP OUTLET „ CONCRETE SIDEWALK INLET PIPE PIPE NTS ° " ACCESS RAMP - TYPE A ::. ,.• NTS a WIND SCREEN ^ SURFACE TREATMENT c E SEE PLANS UNDISTURBED EARTH 6"DIA. OIL PORT GRAVEL BORROW TYPE C OR NOTES: FINAL BACKFILL APPROVED MATERIAL COMPACT IN 1. THE TOP OF THE 6"0 INLET DROP PIPE TO BE SET AT ELEVATION OF THE ANCHOR BASE I I- 81N. LIFTS WATER LEVEL. (SEE NOTE 2) 2. THE TOP OF THE WEIR TO BE LOCATED 9"ABOVE THE TOP OF 6"INLET DROP COVER 6"-12" IT III INITIAL SELECT GRAVEL BORROW PIPE. j BACKFILL COMPACT IN 8 IN. LIFTS 3. THE STORMCEPTOR SYSTEM IS PROTECTED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE DRIVEN POST PIPE ZONE VARIES I I O HAUNCHING SELECT GRAVEL BORROW HAND TAMPED FOLLOWING U.S. PATENTS: 94985148, #5498331, #5725760, #5753115,#5849181, (SEE NOTE 2) #6068765, #6371690. NOTES: i BEDDING 6" (MIN) BEDDING COMPACTED 1/2"-3/4"CRUSHED STONE, 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A 6'HIGH TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FENCE WITH SAND OR SELECT GRAVEL BORROW STORMCEPTOR SUBMERGED DISC DETAIL DUST SCREEN THAT IS NON-TRANSPARENT AND TIGHTLY FASTENED TO THE FENCE. Stormceptor NTS 2. THE FENCE SHALL BE POST DRIVEN OR ANCHOR BASE AND CAPABLE OF WITHSTANDING Frame and Cover UNDISTURBED EARTH FILTER FABRIC TO BE INSTALLED HIGH WINDS WITHOUT MOVEMENT. OR COMPACTED WHEN CONDUIT IS AT OR BELOW 31 1 SUBGRADE GROUNDWATER TEMPORARY CHAIN LINK FENCE Grade Adjusters To f I Stormceptor NTS + Suit Finished Grade 5" Frame and Cover NOTES: 6"0 Oil 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT PIPE CLASS SCHEDULE TO 8' , • 30"0 Port 24"0 Outlet 3, 2"0 10"0 Orifice Pie Grade Adjusters To f �I ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL. Plate Stonnceptor Frame and " p Suit Finished Grade 2. TRENCH WIDTH AT CROWN =2.5 x PIPE DIAMETER. caSton Coverceptor 6 5" Cover/Grate 72"0 " , P 0 Oil 12"0 Office 24'0 Outlet 3. TRENCH SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITH CLEAN MATERIAL. L Frame and Cover ] , 32"0 Varies Stormceptor 0 8" 30"0 • Plate Pipe DRAIN PIPE BEDDING " Grade Adjusters to , 5 Grade Adjusters 7o � � Insert 8• Suit Finished Grade 72"0 NTS Suit Finished Grade 5" T F. Inlet Weir Outlet Vades TO 24"00utlet Stonnce for „ • • a " Fort Plate Orifice Insert • • 24 8 8 30 Port Plate Pipe 21" Inlet Outlet • r ( D 6„ 72"0 6' Inlet Weir Outlet r • ]" , ' Inlet Outlet 4"0 PVC Pipe 21" Min.15"High Varies To Varies Stormceptor® 17" • • a, • `w/4"Cap Match Grade Insert •n ; , 4 Inlet Weir Outlet TOP OF BERM WIDTH a Stonnceptor� Orifice •, 17" , •. • EL=10.0 9' Insert (SEE PLANS) 21• Plate MEET EXIST SPILLWAY 4'0 Oil Port Inlet outlet Access opening TOP OF SPILLWAY • Inlet4 T I EL=9.5 Outlet See Note 2 6 0 Oil Access opening 6"0 Oil -f- 13" Drop Tee 24"0 Drop (See note#2) Port I T • Inlet Outlet Pipe 24"0 Drop + (See note#2) Port :: : ::::::;•::. 4"0 Outlet 112^ PLAN VIEW Drop Tee Outlet Pipe PLAN VIEW 17" 16" 18• Riser Pipe 8"0 + Min. 96. Inlet Pipe SEE PLANS FOR SIDEjr _ EXIST. ASPHALT J_ SLOPE - I=I Plate 6"0 Oil I SPILLWAY 60' Drop Tee 24"0 Drop Access opening Port 120"0 Min. 144"0 - I-III Min. Inlet Pipe Outlet Pi See note#2 ° 10" 12" ( ) 8p^ 96"0 • 12"0 Inlet + Inlet Outlet ll 4'OOuUet Min. 9" Down Pipe Riser Pipe PLAN VIEW 12"MATTE CONSISTING OF MODIFIED (Removable) a 10" � ,• 12" P " • • ROCK FILL(M2.02.4). SMALLER STONES 48"0 • If Required 14" .b ,,. •• i l 1I SHALL BE "CHINKED" INTO PLACE 5" SECTION THRU CHAMBER SECTION THRU CHAMBER BETWEEN LARGER STONES. 8' SECTION THRU CHAMBER IL-III'-I UNDISTURBED • 6" GRAVEL FILTER BLANKET g" Insert Tee Here SUBGRADE OR CONSISTING OF GRAVEL (Tee Opening to Face Side Wall) COMPACTED ORDINARY BORROW(M1.03.0-TYPE C) SECTION THRU CHAMBER PLAN VIEW STC 2400 PRECAST CONCRETE STORMCEPTOR STC 6000 PRECAST CONCRETE STORMCEPTOR STC 7200 PRECAST CONCRETE STORMCEPTOR BORROW(M1.01.0) (2400 U.S. GALLON CAPACITY) (6000 U.S. GALLON CAPACITY) (7200 U.S. GALLON CAPACITY) BOTTOM OF GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOR I STORMWATER SEPARATION (M9.50.0) STC 450/4501 PRECAST CONCRETE STORMCEPTOR C COLLECTION AREA (450 U.S. GALLON CAPACITY) Co 3 U) EMERGENCY SPILLWAY DETAIL STORMCEPTOR NOTES: STRUCTURE MODEL 1• THE USE OF FLEXIBLE CONNECTION IS RECOMMENDED AT THE INLET AND OUTLET NTS WHERE APPLICABLE. WQS-1 STC 2400 2. THE COVER SHOULD BE POSITIONED OVER THE INLET DROP PIPE AND THE OIL PORT. WQS-2 STC 450 3. THE STORMCEPTOR SYSTEM IS PROTECTED BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING U.S. PATENTS: #4985148, #5498331, #5725760, #5753115, #5849181,#6068765,#6371690. WQS-3 STC 6000 4. CONTACT A RINKER MATERIALS, CONCRETE PIPE DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE FOR NEENAH FRAME AND COVER SET IN MORTAR SET WQS-A STC 7200 FURTHER DETAILS NOT LISTED ON THIS DRAWING. ON RED BRICK(4 COURSES MAX) SET IN FULL BED WQS-B STC 7200 STORMCEPTOR DETAILS OF MORTAR AND CONCRETE COLLAR. COVER TO a BE SUPPLIED WITH 3" LETTERING TO READ"DRAIN". WQS-C STC 4501 NTS O N N � Z E E FINISH GRADE O o E PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE F U U CONCENTRIC CONE SECTION ai v n n MANHOLE FRAME AND v a GRADE ADJUSTMENTS TO BE ° � 24"ta a w MADE WITH COURSES OF RED oo c COVER M BRICK(2 MIN -5 MAX) PLACED ° MANHOLE STEPS @ 12" O.C. (TYP.) < RADIALLY AND UNIFORMLY WITH n HEAVY DUTY CAST IRON o n FRAME AND COVER BRICK LEVELING COURSE AS STAGGERED 1/2" MORTAR JOINTS o REMOVABLE ROOF SLAB TO BE Y USED AS ACCESS POINT FOR FRAME TO BE SET IN REQUIRED FOR GRADE Q Le BARON HEAVY DUTY FRAME AND GRATE TIDEGATE REPLACEMENT FULL BED OF MORTAR ADJUSTMENT (2 MIN.-5 MAX.) B FILL MORTARED JOINTS o o LF-246 SET IN FULL MORTAR BED SEE NOTES 1 AND 2 INSIDE AND OUT WITH v FINISH GRADE ( ) FINISH GRADE C7 HYDRAULIC CEMENT `\\ LIN R: (NON-SHRINK) MORTAR ° PRECAST CONICAL SECTION a ° 1'-0" MIN OR BATTER BLOCKS _ w A GRADE ADJUSTMENTS TO BE MADE PROP TIDE GATE � I MULTIPLES OF 1' 2' (18"-24") ¢ a (SEE NOTES 1 AND 2) 24" R PRECAST DROP FRONT WITH COURSES OF RED BRICK(2 MIN 2q"(� w ° ° 3', 4' OR 5' LENGTHS • ' CONNECTION OF PIPES TO DIA. > o STEEL REINFORCED -5 MAX) PLACED RADIALLY AND 1'-0" o "D" MANHOLE WALL TO BE MADE PRECAST RISER RINGS OR = OUTLET PIPE COPOLYMER POLY- n UNIFORMLY WITH MIN MH-L= 8'-0" p PRECAST REINFORCED • '•ate WITH KOR-N-SEAL SS FLEXIBLE BARREL BLOCKS FOR O F PROPYLENE RUNG AT 12" CONCRETE BARREL STAGGERED 1/2" MORTAR JOINTS � MH-N = 6'-0" w 2" OF 1/8"-1/2" n- \:4 � O.C. o° ° SECTION �', CONNECTORS(TYP) ADJUSTMENT TO FINISH GRADE 4'-V' 6"MIN. _ STONE FILTER LAYER c - p (MORTAR ALL JOINTS) DIA. E CL 0 RCP OUTLET WITH - n z SECTION JOINTS SHALL o o CONNECTION OF PIPES TO r •• : •.; •: o O BE SEALED WITH BUTYL DIA. 19 MANHOLE WALL TO BE MADE PRECAST REINFORCED CONCRETE LEBARON L 202 CATCH (q U o o INVERT TO BE CONSTRUCTED OF N CONCENTRIC CONE SECTION.WHERE BASIN HOOD OR 'j`; o a RUBBER GASKETS WITH KOR-N-SEAL SS FLEXIBLE ❑ = = O O \\\ / CLASS D CEMENT CONCRETE E CONFORMING TO ASTM ° W cu ° CONNECTORS(TYP) DEPTH "D"IS LESS THAN 30"CONTRACTOR y. APPROVED EQUAL l/j `o 5\ ❑ = = O = ❑ \ MASONRY -2 U C443 a v SHALL USE A PRECAST REINFORCED REMOVABLE STAINLESS a \/, j! = m o p CONCRETE TOP SLAB DESIGNED ° SECTION JOINTS SHALL BE STEEL BAR SCREEN ® j ❑ _ _ _ _ _ = O E c' ❑ Z 5"MIN. o HDPE PIPE FOR H2O LOADING TSEALED WITH BUTYL RUBBER °' Yj\ 4" PROP. OUTLET \�' 3/4- 1-1/2" n -t o � � ° ° `�\ ❑ = O O = _ _ ❑ w CLASS D CEMENT CONCRETE OR M < to w o GASKETS CONFORMING TO PROP INLET / L � o �/\ PRECAST CONCRETE SECTIONAL o I PRECAST 1"FT SLOPE ° SEE PLANS U_ ASTM C443 ( ) (SEE PLANS) /�� ❑ _ _ = O = _ ❑ PLATES 3 .n � REINFORCED PRECAST REINFORCED i\�j DIAM. PRECAST O -4 w 0 4'SUMP j/\' ❑ _ = = = = _ ❑ a t° w CONCRETE BASE 12„ CONCRETE RISER SECTION 8'-0" �\ CRUSHED o o 2 � SECTION � LEACHING CATCH BASIN STONE ❑ _ _ _ _ _ _ ❑ STANDARD CATCH BASIN GRATE o E (WASHED) (H-20 LOADING) S T MIN. 5" MIN. 48"0 PRECAST REINFORCED ¢ MIN. 12" ❑ _ _ _ _ = O �(TYP•) m ❑ ° L 6 MIN' a CONCRETE BASE SECTION O LL U 1 CD COMPACTED GRAVEL I o n ° ° n n ° n ° a 11 UNDISTURBED EARTH ` 6A MIN a.. ❑ _ _ _ _ = O ❑ N I UNDISTURBED EARTH OR `SLOE o 0 BORROW MassDOT SPEC �j -j I OR COMPACTED CLEAN 1=T I ❑ _ = = = = = ❑ FRAME CASTING SET IN FULL M1.03.0 TYPE C AT BASE - - - - - - - �TT� ORDINARY FILL I - COMPACTED CLEAN A AND ALL SIDES �P�F�II� yII, ISIII=III- T �- - - T - - - - - ORDINARY FILL 6 MIN O O BED OF MORTAR El El E:I `� NOTES: 12"MIN. DEPTH 'v/` �/�%�%�� T% T �T />/�/� /�� i`i 7 % / `% `iv> y `ice j 'may`/�`i i�/v/ jai COMPACTED GRAVEL BORROW <O\ \�CV�,jvA�VA .A� A��A��A� Av �AA�AA�yA s`� `O z 1. MANHOLE SHALL BE PRECAST CEMENT CONCRETE MANUFACTURED IN in 2 MassDOT SPEC M1.03.0 TYPE C N ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C-478 (4,000 psi) DESIGNED FOR H-20-44 4'-0" 8'-0" DIA. -- 4'-0" OUTLET PIPE Project No.. 127-62117-12001 j AT BASE AND ALL SIDES NOTES: LOADING. MANHOLES SHALL BE 48" DIA. UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED NOTES: CL 1. MH-L: TIDE GATE SHALL BE RODNEY HUNT SERIES FV-AC 48"TIDE GATE. Designed By: SJW ON PLANS. 1. CATCH BASINS SHALL BE PRECAST CEMENT CONCRETE MANUFACTURED IN ' • -"' ' r l 2. SEE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS FOR PIPE SIZE, LINE AND GRADE. 2. MH-N:TIDE GATE SHALL BE RODNEY HUNT SERIES FV-AC 36"TIDE GATE. 16'-0"DIA. Drawn By: SJW `a j^ ¢ ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C 478 (4,000 PSI) DESIGNED FOR H-20-04 LOADING. •. F g Checked By: LMC L' PRECAST CONCRETE DRAIN MANHOLE 48" PRECAST CONCRETE CATCH BASIN TIDE GATE MANHOLE DETAIL NTS NTS NTS LEACHING CATCH BA DROP INLET C, NTS NTS C 10 6 e (V knimmimmmmmmmil Bar Measures 1 inch i i i I SALEM HARBOR STATION PLANTING SCHEDULE GENERAL NOTES REDEVELOPMENT 04 PLANT LIST : Upland Meadow TREES- DECIDUOUS 1 . ALL CONTRACTORS SHALL INSPECT THE SITE PRIOR TO BIDDING TO VERIFY TREE SYM BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MIX % / MIX NATIVE HABITAT FN SIZE/HT QTY SIZE ROOT SPACING LIGHT/SOIL REQ CHARACTERISTICS IN EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THEMSELVES. Ar Acer rubrum Red Maple X 40' Ht 11 2.5-3" Cal B&B As Noted MATURE As Acer Saccharum Suciar Maple I X 50'-60'Ht 5 2.5-3" Cal B&B As Noted Fall color BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME HEIGHT Bp Betula i rifera Canoe Birch X X H: 20 ' : 1312.5-3" Cal B&B As Noted white bark 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY ALL PLANT MATERIAL IN SIZES AND QUANTITIES Bn Betula nigra River Birch X X H: 20'/W: 12' 44 12'-14' Ht B&B As Noted Multi-stem/ min three leaders CV Cratae us viridis Winter King Hawthorn X X H:16-40' Ht 11 12'-14' Ht B&B As Noted HERBACEOUS PERENNIALS SUFFICIENT TO COMPLETE THE PLANTING SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. THE Rt Rhus typhina Sta horn Sumac X X 10'-30' Ht 4 12'-14' Ht B&B As Noted Ac Amalanchier canadensis Serviceber X x 6'-24' Ht 22 12'-14' Ht B&B As Noted Ammo hila breviligulata American beach rass 1-2' LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT HAS THE RIGHT TO REJECT INJURED, DISEASED, DESSICATED Ms Magnolia xsoulan iana Saucer Ma nolia X X 12'-30'Ht 5 12'-14' Ht B&B As Noted Ana halis margaritacea Pearly Everlasting 3' OR INCORRECT SPECIES AT ANY TIME. Ns Nyssa s Ivatica Black Tupelo X X H: 35'/W: 20' 19 2.5-3" Cal B&B As Noted Ac Amelanchier arborea Serviceber X X H: 207W: 16' 2 10'-12' Ht B&B As Noted Andro ogon gerardii Big Bluestem 5-8' Ca Cornus alternaifolia Pagoda dogwood X 15'=20' Ht 2 10'=12' Ht B&B As Noted AndrO ogon virginicus Broomsedge 4' 24 FORT AVENUE 3. ALL PLANTER MATERIAL SHALL CONFORM TO THE GUIDELINES ESTABLISHED BY Cc Cercis canadensis Eastern redbud x x 20'-30' Ht 3 10'-12' Ht B&B As Noted Asclepias tuberosa Buttertlyweed 2-3' THE "AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK," PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN SALEM MA Cf Cornus Florida FloweringDogwood X X 15'-30' Ht 7 10'-12' R B&B As Noted Aster ericoides Heath Aster 1-3' ' My Magnolia Nr iniana Sweetba Magnolia X X 40'-60' Ht 11 10'-12' Ht B&B As Noted ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN INC. ANSI Z60.1-2004. Qa Quercus alba White Oak X 65'-85' Ht 3 2.5-3" Cal I B&B As Noted Aster laevis Smooth Aster 14 Qc Quercus coccinea Red Oak X 60'-80' Ht 8 2.5-3" Cal B&B As Noted Aster spectabilis Showy Aster 2' Qp Quercus palustris Pin Oak X 60'-70' Ht 3 2.5-3" Cal B&B As Noted Ls I Li uidambar styraciflua American Sweet um X 50'-60' Ht 3 2.5-3" Cal B&B As Noted Baptisia tinctoria Lesser Yellow False Indigo 1-2' 4. ALL PLANTS TO BE BALLED IN BURLAP OR CONTAINER GROWN. NO PLASTIC Gt Gleditsia triacanthos Honey locust X 60'-80' Ht 3 2.5-3" Cal B&B As Noted Multi-stem/ min three leaders Carex brevior Plains Oval Sedge 14 BURLAP. ALL STOCK SHALL BE NURSERY GROWN. Fq Fa us grandifolia American Beech X 60'-80' Ht 1 3.54" Cal B&B As Noted Carex eburnea Bristleleaf Sedge 6" terrain TR = EVERGREEN , SYM BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MIX % / MIX NATIVE HABITAT FN SZJHT QTY SIZE ROOT SPACING LIGHT/SOIL CHARACTERISTICS Carex muhlenbergii Sand Bracted Sedge 1-3 JV Juni eros vir iniana Eastern red cedar X X 15'-60' Ht 13 8'-10' Ht B&B As Noted Carex normalis SpreadingOval Sedge 2-4 5. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE FIELD SELECTED IN NURSERIES BY THE LANDSCAPE 9 Landscape Architecture To Thuya occidentalis White Cedar x x 30'-60' Ht 7 8'-10' Ht B&B As Noted Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea 14 ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF PLANTING. Tc Tsu a canadensis Canadian Hemlock X X 60'-100'Ht 3 8'-10' Ht B&B As NotedConstructed Ecologies P Pinus arviflora Japanese White Pine X 30'-50" Ht 26 8'-10' Ht B&B As Noted Danthonia spicata Poverty grass 2' Pt Pinus thunber ii Japanese Black Pine 30'-50" Ht 15 8'-10' 1-ft B&B As Noted Elymus canadensis Canada Wild Rye 3-6' 6. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE ALL PLANT MATERIALS FOR (1) 3 Ps Pinus strobes Eastern White Pine x X " 12' 5 8'-10' R B&B As Noted Eragrostis s ectabilis Purple Lovegrass 1-2' FULL YEAR FROM DATE OF ACCEPTANCE. Pb Pinus bun eana Lace Bark X 30'-50-50" Ht 5 8'-10' Ht B&B As Noted Pq Picea glauca White Spruce X X 30'-50" Ht 2 8'-10' Ht B&B As Noted Erigeron pulchellus Robins Plantain 1' 1p Ilexo aca American Holly X X H: 407W: 18' 59-194 B&B As Noted I well drained/shd EU atOrium h SSO If01iUm Hyssop Leaved Boneset 1-3' l� IM Ilex x meserveae Meserve Holl X X H:12'-18' 12 8'-10' Ht B&B As Noted sun/shade Blooms ins rin -small white flowers p y TERRAIN-NYC, INC. I' Iv Ilexverticillata Common Winteber X X H:6'-10' 13 8'-10' Ht B&B As Noted Blooms in earl summer-female red fruit Lathyrus japonicus var. maritimus Beach Pea 1-2 7. ANY PROPOSED SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT SPECIES SHALL BE MADE ON WITH SHRUBS - DECIDUOUS Liatris scariosa Northern Blazing Star 1-2' PLANTS OF EQUIVALENT OVERALL FORM, HEIGHT, BRANCHING HABIT, FLOWER, LEAF, 200 Park Avenue South Suite # 1401 SYM BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MIX % / MIX NATIVE HABITAT FN SZJHT QTY SIZE ROOT SPACING LIGHT/SOIL LOCATION LupinuS perennis Perennial Lupine 1' COLOR, FRUIT, CULTURE AND ONLY AS APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. New York, New York 10009 USA Am Aronia melancar a Black Chokeberry X X 15 5 Gal 36" OC Overplant thru-out ribbon/locate in field Monarda fistulosa Wild Bergamot 4-5' O FG Fother ills ardenii Dwarf Fother Lila X X 15 5 Gal 36" OC shade Ove lant thru-out ribbon/locate in t 212-537-6080 f 212-537-6079 CA Clethra alnifolia Summersweet Clethra X X 3'x4' 15 5 Gal 36" OC shade Overplant thru-out ribbon/locate in field Mondarda punctata Horsemint 2-3' 8. HEAL ALL CONSTRUCTION SCARS WITH NATURALIZED GRASS LAWN OR MULCH AS CAS Cornus alba "elegantssima' Tatarian Dogwood X X 8'x5' 15 5 Gal W OC Overplant thru-out ribboNlocate in field Panicum amarum Atlantic Coastal Panic Grass 3-6' Ch Cotoneaster horizontalis Rockspray cotoneaster X X 15 5 Gal 24" OC Over lantthru-out ribbon/locate in field INDICATED BY DRAWINGS AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. www . terrain-nyc. net Hq Hydrangea uercifolia Oakleaf Hydrangea X X H:4-6'/W:6-8' 15 7 Gal 36" CC art-full shade Overplant thru-out ribbon/locate in field Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 4-8' Cs Cornus sericea Redosier Dogwood X X H:6-10'/W:6-12 21 5 Gal 36" OC Overplant thru-out ribbon/locate in field -611 SubUlata MOSS Ink 2-6" Hca Hamamelis x intermedia 'Arnold Promise' Witch Hazel X X 15 7 Gal 36" OC Overplant thru-out ribbon/locate in field cnanthemum incanum Mountain Mint 3-4' Pm Prunus maritima Beach Plum X X 5 Gal 36" OC P y 9. ALL TREES SHALL BE SURROUNDED WITH 6 FOOT DIAMETER MULCH BED. © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED La Leucothoe a)dllaris Coastal Do hobble X X 15 5 Gal 36" OC Overplant thru-out ribbon/locate in field Pycnanthemum virginianum Mountain Mint 34 This drawing and all graphic and written material PV Prunus vir iniana Chokeberry X X 1 15 5 Gal 36" OC Overplant thru-out ribbon/locate in fieldcontained herein,constitutes the original and Rr Rosa ruclosa Japanese rose X 5 Gal 42" OC Rudbeckia hirta Black Eyed Susan 2-3 unpublished work of terrain-nyc and may not be copied, Sc Sambucas canadensis Elderberry X X 15 5 Gal 36" OC Overplant thru-out ribbon/locate in field Schizachyrium scoparium Little Bluestem 24 10. LOAM DEPTHS SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: distributed, or used in whole or in part,without Vc Vaccinium corymbosum Hi hbush Blueberry X X 15 5 Gal 36" OC Overplant thru-out ribbon/locate in field Solidago bicolor Silverrod 24 A. LAWN AREAS - 6" ROLLED THICKNESS expressed written permission. Iv Itea vir inica Sweets ire X X 15 5 Gal 36" OC Overplant thru-out ribbon/locate in field -SOlidag0 nemOrallS Gray Goldenrod 1-2' B. PLANT BEDS 12" LOAM DEPTH IN THE PLANTED AREA WITH 3" MULCH SHRUBS - EVERGREEN BROADLEAFSOIIdagO OdOra Sweet Goldenrod 2_5 C. NATURALIZED GRASS AREAS - 6" ROLLED THICKNESS SYM BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MIX % I MIX NATIVE HABITAT FN SZ/HT QTY SIZE ROOT SPACING LIGHT LOCATION I q Ilex labra 'shamrock' I nkberry X 41x4' 9 5 Gal 36" OC sun/ rt shade Over lantthru-out ribboNlocate in field Solidago tenuifolia Grass leaved goldenrod .1-2' Ma Mahonia a uifolium'ma onica' Oregon Grape Holl X 4'x4' 12 5 Gal 36" OC prt shade Overplant thru-out ribbon/locate in field Sor hastrum nutans Indian Grass 5' Ic Ilexcrenata 's pencil' Japanese Holl X 8'x18" 12 4'-5' Ht B&B As Noted It shade/acid. Ove lant thru-out ribbon/locate in field 11 . TREE STAKING AND TREE WRAPPING ONLY TO BE INSTALLED AS DIRECTED AND Vx Viburnum ra ense Par ue Viburnum X 8' 1214'-5- Ht B&B As Noted rt/full shade Overplant thru-out ribbon/locate in field S orobolus cryptandrus Sand Dropseed 3' APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. f Vd Viburnum dentatum Southern Arrowwood X X 12 4'-5' H B&B As Noted Overplant thru-out ribbon/locate in field Tradescantia ohioensis Ohio Spiderwort 24 i Pk Pieris 'a onica "mountain fire" Japanese Pieris 3'x3' 15 4'-5' R B&B As Noted full shade/neut Ove lant thru-out ribbon/locate in field Viola edata Bird's foot Violet 4-10" i Vr Viburnum rh tido h Ilum Leatherleaf Viburnum X 8'x8' 18 4'-5' F-ft B&B As Noted full shade/neut Overplant thru-out ribbon/locate in field j Ch Cotoneaster horizontalis Rockspray X 2'x6' 21 5 Gal 36" OC It shade Overplant thru-out ribbon/locate in field 12. TREE STAKING AND TREE WRAPPING ONLY TO BE REMOVED AT THE END OF THE Cd Cotoneaster dammed Bearber cotoneaster X X 21 5 Gal 36" OC Ove lantthru-out ribbon/locate in field MAINTENANCE PERIOD UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE M M rica enns Ivanica Northern Bayberry X X 5 Gal 36" oc ARCHITECT. Bd Buddlea s ButterflyBush X X 12 4'-5' HT 36" OC Ove lant thru-out ribbon/locate in field SHRUBS - EVERGREEN NEEDLE SYM BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MIX % / MIX NATIVE HABITAT FN SZ/HT QTY SIZE ROOT SPACING LIGHT/SOIL CHARACTERISTICS Jc Juni erus communis Common Juniper J-1 60% X 5 Gal 36" OC 13. TREE AND SHRUB PLANTING SEASON: Jc Juni erus conferta Shore Junipe J-2 60% X 5 Gal 36" OC A. DECIDUOUS PLANTINGS: Jh Juni erus horizontalis ' Bar harbor' Creeping Juniper J-3 60% X X 5 Gal 36" CC SPRING: MARCH 21ST- MAY 1ST Jh Juni erus horizontalis ' Blue Rug' Creeping Juniper J-1 40% X 5 Gal 36" OC J Juni erus vir inina 'Gre Owl' J-2 40% x 5 Gal 36" OC FALL: OCTOBER 1 ST - DECEMBER 1 ST J I Juni erus vir inina 'Glauca" J-3 40% X 5 Gal 36" OC B. EVERGREEN PLANTINGS: GRASSES SPRING: APRIL 15TH - JUNE 1ST SYM BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MIX % / MIX NATIVE HABITAT FN SZ/HT QTY SIZE ROOT SPACING LIGHT/SOIL CHARACTERISTICS FALL: AUGUST 15TH - OCTOBER 15TH. Ss Schizach rium sco arium Little bluestem GP-1 20% X X 5 Gal 24" OC Df Descham sia flexuosa Tufted Hairgrass GP-1 20% X X 5 Gal 24" OC C Carex ens Ivanica Pennsylvania sedge GP-1 20% X X 5 Gal 24" OC ` Nt Nassella tenuissima Mexican Feather Grass GP-1 20% X 5 Gal 24" OC 14. ALL PLANTED AREAS SHALL RECEIVE A 3" LAYER OF DARK SHREDDED PINE BARK Pe Pennisetum alo ecuroides Chinese Fountain Grass GP-1 20% 3 Gal 15" OC MULCH OVER A 10 MM WEED MAT EQUAL TO WEEDBLOCK BY 'EASY GARDENER' OR Pv Panicum vir atum'Hea metal' S\Mth rass GP-2 50% X X 5 Gal 24" OC 'DEWITT WEED BARRIER.' PV Panicum vir atum'Dallas blue' S\Mth rass GP-2 30% X X 5 Gat 24" OC Sri Sor hastrum nutans Yellow Indian Grass GP-2 20% X X 5 Gal 24" OC Sa S artina alternifolia Smooth Cord rass GP-3 20% X X 5 Gal 24" OC f Ab Andro 0 on erardii Bi Bluestem Grass GP-3 20% X X 5 Gal 24" OC 15. ALL EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN SHALL BE PROPERLY PROTECTED AND Sh S orobolus heterole sis Prarie oro seed GP-3 20% X X 5 Gal 24" OC PRUNED AS PER THE SPECIFICATIONS. Ms Miscanthus sinensis "morninglight' Chinese silvergrass GP-3 20% 5 Gal 36" OC E Era ostis s . Purple Lovegrass PG-3 20% X X 2 Gal 24" OC Ca Calama rostis acutiflora Feather Reed Grass GP-4 60% X 5 Gal 36" OC S Stipa i antes Giant Feather Grass GP-4 40% X 5 Gal 24° oc 16. FINAL LOCATION FOR SHRUBS, GRASSES, PERENNIALS AND BULBS SHALL BE LAID PERENNIALS OUT IN THE FIELD DURING CONSTRUCTION BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. SYM BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MIX % / MIX NATIVE HABITAT FN SZ/HT QTY SIZE ROOT SPACING LIGHT/SOIL CHARACTERISTICS Sna S m h otrichum novae-an liae New En land Aster PGA 4% X X 2 Gal 18" OC surdrtshade Blooms Sept-Oct/Light blue flowers Ba Ba tisia australis Wild Indio PGA 4% X X 2 Gal 18" OC full sun Blooms May-June/Light Blue Flowers A A uile is Red Columbine PGA 4% X X 2 Gal 18" OC full sun Blooms May / Red and Orange flwr 17. GENERAL SEEDING NOTES: Es Eu bias ectabilis Eastern ShowyAster PGA 10% X X 2 Gal 18" OC rt shade Blooms Au -Se /White/ ellowflwr SEEDING IS TO OCCUR FROM EITHER APRIL 1 ST TO JUNE 1 ST OR FROM AUGUST Er Echino s s haeroce halus L. Veitch's Blue Globe Thistle PGA 10% X H:3-4'/W:2-3' 2 Gal 18" OC full sun Blooms June-se t/ metallic flwrs STH IN SEPTEMBER 30TH. He Hemerocallis "ha returns" Da lil PGA 4% 2 Gal 18" OC full sun Blooms June-Se t/ Dee yellow CV Coreo sis verticallata Threadleaf Coreo sis PGA 4% X X 2 Gal 18" OC full sun Blooms Aug-Sept/ Light Yellow flwr Ls Liatris s icata Dense BlazingStar PGA 10% X X H:1'-3' 2 Gal 24" OC full sun Blooms July-Aug / Purple flowers Ss Solidago speciosa Showyoldenrod PGA 10% X X H:2'-5' 2 Gal 18" OC sun/ art sun Blooms July-Aug /Yellow Flowers 18. SEED MIXTURE SPECIFICATIONS: So Solidago odora Sweet Goldenrod PGA 4% x X 2 Gal 18" OC sun/ art sun Blooms July-Aug /Yellow Flowers A. GENERAL SEEDED LAWN - AREAS AS SHOWN ON PLANTING PLAN: Li Lavandula x intermedia Lavender PGA 4% X HT:1-2' 2 Gal 18" OC full sun Blooms June-Sept-Oct/ Purple flwrs Cc Ca o teris x clandonensis Bluebeard PGA 10% X X HT:2-4' 2 Gal 24" OC sun/ art sun Blooms Aug-Sept/ Light Blue flowers Am Achillea millefolium Yarrow PGA 4% X X 2 Gal 18" OC sun/ art sun Blooms Jun-Jul /Yellow flowers SEED MIXTURE COMPOSITION Sb Stach s b zantina Bi Ears PGA 4% X 2 Gal 12" OC full sun Blooms Jun-Jul / coral small flwrs Ts Thymus ser llum Creeping Thyme PGA 2% HT:6" 2 Gal 18" OC full sun Blooms May-June/ Lilac flowers S Santolina chamaec arissus Lavender Cotton PGA 4% X X HT:8-12" 2 Gal 18" OC full sun Blooms June-Jul COMMON NAME PROPORTION % BY WEIGHT Cnr Calamintha ne eta Lesser Calamint PGA 4% X X HT:2' 2 Gal 18" OC full sun Blooms June-Jul REBEL SENTRY TALL FESCUE 60% Am Alchemilla Mollis Lady's Mantle PGA 4% X X 2 Gal 12"O.0 suntrtshade Blooms Ma -June/ yellow flwrs MORNING STAR PERENNIAL GRASS 20% Mf Monarda fistulosa Wild Ber amot PG-2 10% X X HT:2-4' 2 Gal 18" OC sun/ rt shade Blooms July-Aug/ Red flowers Lil Lilium s . LilyPG-2 3% X X 2 Gal 18" OC sun/ rt shade Blooms July-Aug / Cream flowers JAMESTOWN II CHEWING FESCUE 10% As Astilbe Asti The PG-2 10% X 2 Gal 18" OC rt shade Blooms Jun-Jul /white each firs NASSAU KENTUCKY BLUEGRASS 10% Ld Li ularia desdemona Golden roundsel PG-2 3% X X 2 Gal 18" OC rt shade Blooms June-July-Aug / olden flwr H Heuchera ' ewter veil' Coral Bells PG-2 10% X X 2 Gal 18" OC sun/ rtshade Blooms Sept-Oct/ sm ale creamflwr Conservation Commission & Hv Heuchera 'villosa' Maple Leaf Alumroot PG-2 3% x x 2 Gal 18" OC sun/ rtshade Blooms Se t-Oct/sm ale cream flwrs BLUEGRASS AND RYE GRASS VARIETIES SHALL BE WITHIN THE TOP 50% Planning Board Peer Review Es E imedium sul hureum Barrenwort PG-2 3% X x 2 Gal 18" OC rt shade Blooms A r-Ma /Pale Yellow fWr AND 25% RESPECTIVELY OF VARIETIES TESTED IN NATIONAL TURFGRASS I Comments 7-24-13 My Mertensia vir iniana Virginia Bluebells PG-2 3% X X 2 Gal 18" OC rt shade Blooms Apr-May /Pale blue flowers VALUATION PROGRAM OR CURRENTLY RECOMMENDED AS LOW Go Galium odoratum Sweet Woodruff PG-2 3% X X 2 Gal 18" OC rt/full shade Blooms Ma -J une Ism white flowers MAINTENANCE VARIETIES BY UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS. No. Issue Date � ¢ H Heuchera micrantha 'pewter veil' Coral Bells PG-2 3% X X 50 2 Gal 18" OC art shade Blooms Sept-Oct/ Foliage: Silver/Gra - ¢ T Trillium randiflorum Great While Trillium PG-2 3% X X H:18"/W:24" 2 Gal 18" OC rt/full shade Blooms A r-Ma /Dk green leaves U) Cm Convallaria ma'alis Lilyof the Valle PG-2 3% X X 2 Gal 18" OC rt/full shade Blooms Apr-May / Bell-shaped fragrant SEEDING RATE FOR THE GENERAL LAWN SEED MIX SHALL BE 6 POUNDS Lj Mr Mitchella re ens Partrid a BerryPG-2 3% X X 2 Gal 18" OC rt/full shade Blooms Apr-may / small red berries PER 1 ,000 SQUARE FEET. PHASE: � Gh Gaultheria his idula Creeping Snowber PG-2 3% X X H:1%2" 2 Gal 18" OC art sun/shade Blooms Apr-May /flowers white Lc Lobelia cardinalis Cardinal Flower PG-2 10% X X H:1'-3' 2 Gal 18" CC art shade Blooms Aug-Sept/ summer-red flowers _ (D Vv Veratrum vi ride Green False Hellebore PG-2 3% X X H:2'-4' 2 Gal 24" OC art sun/shade Blooms ins rin -flowers chartreuse ❑ Conceptual Design o Ct Caulo h llum thalictroides Blue Cohosh PG-2 3% x x H:2'-3' 2 Gal 18" OC shade Blooms Apr-May/spring-flwrs white B. EROSION CONTROL SEEDING - AREAS AS SHOWN ON PLANTING PLAN: w Cr Cimifu a racemosa Black Snakeroot PG-2 3% X X H:3'-5' 2 Gal 18" OC art sun/shade Blooms June-Jul / -flowers white ❑ Schematic Design o Cru Cimicifu a rubifolia Appalachian Bu bane PG-2 3% X X H:3' 2 Gal 18" OC art sun/shade Blooms in fall-flowers white "NEW ENGLAND EROSION CONTROURESTORATION MIX (FOR DRY SITES)" AS g Z Fr Fili endula rubra Queen-of-the-Prairie PG-2 3% X X H:3'-7' 2 Gal 18" OC sun/part sun Blooms in summer-flowers ink MANUFACTURED BY NEW ENGLAND WETLAND PLANTS INC. OR AN Design Development Z C Camassia uamash Common Camas PG-2 3% X X H:12"-16" 2 Gal 18" CC sun/ art sun Blooms spring-flowers blue-violet APPROVED EQUAL. SEED VARIETY AND PERCENT OF TOTAL MIXTURE PER Lu CV Calluna vulgaris Heather PG-2 10% X HT:8-12" 2 Gal 18" OC sun/part sun Blooms June-Jul r E Echinacea ur urea Purple Coneflower PG-3 20% X X H:2-5'/W:1-2' 2 Gal 18" OC suN rtshade Blooms June-July-Aug / magenta flowers MANUFACTURERS SPECIFIC PRODUCT. APPLICATION RATE OF 25 POUNDS ❑ Bid Documents Vv Veronicastrum vir inicum Culver's Root PG-3 10% X X HT:4-7' 2 Gal 18" OC art sun/shade Blooms June-Au / White flowers PER ACRE. Hm Hibiscus moscheutos Rose Mellow PG-3 10% X X 2 Gal 18" OC art sun/shade Blooms June-Jul / White - dee rose ❑ Construction Documents 0 Eu Eu atodum s . Joe P e Weed PG-3 20% X X 2 Gal 36" OC partsun/shade Blooms Jul -Au / deep russet colored 19. SOD SPECIFICATION: Z Rm Rudbeckia maxima Giant Coneflower PG-3 10% X X H:3'-4' 2Gal 1s" oc sun/part sun Blooms Aug-Sept/ summer-flowers A. SOD SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PERCENTAGES AND AS SPECIFIED: 2 al s Blooms Aug-Sept/ russet colored Ss Sedum s ectabile Showy Stonecro PG-3 10% X X G 15" OC un/ art sun Bloo a Pa Perovskia atri licifolia Russian sae PG-3 10% X 2 Gal 24" OC sun/part sun Blooms July-Aug / Purple flowers TUCKAHOE FESCUE TURF AS PROVIDED BY TUCKAHOE TURF FARMS CANTON, Date: 2013.06.13 Scale: NTS La Lavandula an ustifolia En lisp Lavender PG-3 10% X HT:12-18" 2 Gal 18" OC sun/ art sun Blooms June-Jul / White = dee rose MA 02021 , OR APPROVED EQUAL. p GROUND COVER- EVERGREEN Original Size: ? SYM BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MIX % / MIX NATIVE HABITAT FN SZ/HT QTY SIZE ROOT SPACING LIGHT/SOIL CHARACTERISTICS B. COMMON NAME PROPORTION % BY WEIGHT J Ac Asarum canadensis Wild Ginger PG-3 X X H.6%8" 2 Gal 18" OC shade Blooms inspring-flowers ellow-brownish REBEL EXEDA TURF TYPE TALL FESCUE 45% MIN Drawn By: KLM Checked by: ST Cc Cornus canadensis Bunchber Dogwood PG-2 X 4"-6" 44 4" of 4"-8"0C REBEL SENTRY TURF TYPE TALL FESCUE 45% MIN W W G Gautheria rocumbens Winter reen Evergreen PG-2 4" of 10" oc Sheet Title: Auu Arctosta h los uva-ursi Bearber PG-1 X 10" CC TUCKAHOE TURF BLUEGRASS BLEND 10% MIN a P Pachysandra rocumbens Native pachysandra PG-1 X 18" OC PLANTING FERNS C> SYM BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MIX % / MIX NATIVE HABITAT FN SZ/HT QTY SIZE ROOT SPACING LIGHT/SOIL CHARACTERISTICS IOc Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon Fern PG-2 X 2 Gal 24" OC SCHEDULE Pa Pol stichum acrostichoides Christmas Fern PG-2 X H:12-24" 2 Gal 18" OC Oc Osmunda cinnamomea Cinnamon Fern PG-3 X H:4'/W:3' 2 Gal 24" OC Slow growing-Hardy N Ms Matteuccia struthio teris Ostrich Fern PG-3 X H:3'-6' 2 Gal 24" OC art sun/shade AND NOTES r- Dfm D o teris filix-mas Male Fern Fern PG-3 X 2 Gat 12"0C C\1 VINES a: SYM BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MIX % / MIX NATIVE HABITAT FN SZ/HT QTY SIZE ROOT SPACING LIGHT/SOIL CHARACTERISTICS Sheet No.: HH Hedra Helix English I 2 Gal 24" OC sun/ full shade Min. 3 runners ¢ HP Hydrangea anomala petiolaris Climbing dran ea X 5 Gal part shade on 4' x 4' frames o PT Parthenocissus tricus idata Boston ivy X 3 Gal 24" OC sun/full shade m Pq Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper X 3 Gal 24" OC sun/full shade M 0 0 04 r I w - i SALEM HARBOR STATION REDEVELOPMENT I i 24 FORT AVENUE NOTE: SHRUB SHALL BE SET WIDTH OF PLANTING HOLE IS 3 TIMES ROOT SALEM, MA PLUMB BALL DIAMETER IN HIGHLY COMPACTED SOILS; 2 TIMES THE ROOT BALL DIAMETER (MINIMUM) PRUNE TOP AND SIDES OF IN ALL OTHERS. SHRUB TO AN AVERAGE URFACE AGGREGATE ROLLED INTO HEIGHT, RETAINING EMULSION ■ `-\ 2:1 SLOPE NATURAL SHAPE SINGLE TREE PLANTING , 5D terrain KEEP MULCH AWAY FROM ASPHALT EMULSION AGGREGATE BINER SHRUB BASE.TOP OF ROOT ASPHALT TOP LAYER BALL SHOULD BE AT Landscape Architecture 2"ORGANIC MULCH BED OVER ENTIRE GRADE 4 ASPHALTBASELAYER Constructed Ecologies 2'MULCH BED PLANTING P BED 1:1 SLOPE �� CRUSHED STONE BASE FINISHED GRADE LAWN AREA CID I FINISH GRADE - - - BACKFILL W - :. /TOP SOIL — — — — — — — — - I I� .- - — — — — — — COMPACTED - - _tel-II TERRAIN-NYC, INC. . . ... ,.. .� — =1 ., ,...,, TOPSOIL MIX AS SPECIFIED � � I 2:1 SLOPE REMovEY,oFBURLAP TJ =III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III _ ENCOURAGE ROOT 1ZI� 1�1�1 -�-II-III- II-III-11 =11 _ 00 Park Avenue South Suite # 14 — — — — ., . ., _ _ �� - I- 1 X111= `_ - -' =11_ ❑-I III-1 - UNDISTURBED SOIL I—III- I GROWTH New York, New York 10009 USA SUBGRADE TOPSOIL J ISI�I I I T H I T TI 1 I I I I ml III I — 4'0 PERFORATED PIPE WITH FILTER FABRIC t 212-537-6080 f 212-537-6079 = = BALL BALL BALL SOCK. PERFORATED SIDE DOWN. - WIDTH WIDTH WIDTH www . terrain nyc. net -3 SHRUB PLANTING ON SLOPE =3 EXPOSED AGGREGATE ASPHALT PATH = TREE PLANTING BED/GROVE © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - This drawing and all graphic and written material contained herein, constitutes the original and NOTES: unpublished work of terrain-nyc and may not be copied, distributed, or used in whole or in part,without 1. MO OFHOLE ME expressed written permission. MOTH 0 PLANTING O IS 311 -._S , NOTE, REMOVE PLASTIC TAGS OR AL IDT ROOT BALL DIAMETER IN HIGHLY 2 B. L W OTHER SYNTHETIC MATERIAL FROM TREE COMPACTED SOILS; 2 TIMES THE ROOT PRIOR TO PLANTING BALL DIAMETER(MINIMUM) IN ALL NOTE: i OTHERS FINISHED GRADE/GARDEN EDGE OF TREE PIT REMOVE ALL WIRE, PLASTIC, SHRUB SHALL BE SET PLUMB I 2. TREE SET VERTICALLY NOT 3 „ TAGS OR OTHER SYNTHETIC THICK X 5 DEEP X 16 LENGTH STEEL WIRE WITH TREE GUARDS TO HOLD STEMS PRUNE TOP AND SIDES OF SHRUB TO AN PERPENDICULAR TO SLOPE MATERIAL FROM SHRUB PRIOR EDGING TOGETHER AVERAGE HEIGHT,RETAINING NATURAL SHAPE '. EXPOSED AGGREGATE PAVING SURFACE TO PLANTING. 12 GA.WIRE W URNBUCKLE AND REINS KEEP MULCH AWAY FROM SHRUB BASE.TOP 3 I WI TURNBUCKLE 16 LENGTH STEEL OF ROOT BALL SHOULD BE AT GRADE. THICK X 10'DE HOSE TREE GUARD I -S EDGING SINGLE TEM TREE PLANTING T 3 HEIGHT501L5AUGERTDDIRECTWA ER ' FINISHED GRADE(SEE GRADING PLAN) 2'x 2'SQ.WOOD STAKES(3 PER TREE).DRIVE INTO ROOTBALL TREE STAKES ORIENTED PARALLEL WICONTOUR THRU TO SUBGRADE , n " ' " 2 MULCH BED 2,1 SLOPE 2 ORGANIC MULCH BED OVER ENTIRE ` FILTER FABRIC 2 MULCH LAYER. �" . PLANTING BED , 6 HT. SOIL SAUCER FINISH GRADE LAWN AREA ' > REMOVEYOFBURLAP TOENCOURAGE ROOT o 1:1 SLOPE GROWTH COMPACTED BROKEN STONE BASE COURSE FINISH GRADE LAWN AREA PLAN a ., 00 _ I I — — — — — — COMPACTED SUBGRADE -_ ,, _ ,;:,: ,I _ �;> � ,.,, ,,,, •�; . „,. BACKFILLWlPLANTINGSOILMIXASSPECIFlED 4x� — _ - ROOTBALL.REMOVE BURLAP DOWN FROM --SCARIFY DEEP IIII—III I I I I III I —I I— T�THI I HI I I — — —III— — %"THICK X 15'LENGTH STEEL STAKE PER ,�,; a. I TOP 113 OF BALL o ROOTBALL IF BALLED AND BURLAPPED,CUT I1–III I 1—I I a� COMPACTED TOP SOIL AS BACKFILL III—III- -III—III—III— III—III—III a I T� Tf- —1 I -1 I I III —III— s - BURLAP FROM T IDE OF -FINISHED GRADE 16'LENGTH} Hl, TOPSOIL MIX R00 GALL VE B OP&S - '>: - , :" __ COMPACTED TOPSOIL BELOW ROOTBALL ;,. TOPSOIL MIX AS SPECIFIED �., r, - = BUNDISTURBED IL R I _I SCARIFY PIT WALLS WITH SHARP SPADE TO 8" PLANTING a PREVENT SET ALL ON S _ 'k � COMPACTED G MI}Q TO P EVE i 1=_ , . , J=1 I� - •" ,' .:' UNDISTURBED SOIL OR COMPACTED � \ I - - h DEEP BALL WIDTH H BALLWIDTH SUBGRADE �I I=1 i 1- I I -I I I I lll= SETTLING. HALL, IDTH �` I I T� I1=11 I I- I I- I1=11I " "'- SUBGRADE COMPACTED TOP SOIL TO AVOID SETTLEMENT = IVIIIHI -I I II _I ri 11 D_2 TREE PLANTING ON SLOPE C_2 STEEL EDGE DETAIL _3 MULTI-STEM TREE A-3 SHRUB PLANTING NOTE OTE: MULCH SEEDED LAWN AREAS AS SPECIFIED. REMOVE ALL WIRE AND PLASTIC TAGS OR SYNTHETIC MATERIAL FROM TREE PRIOR TO PLANTING, REINFORCED HOSETREE GUARD SEEDED LAWN,TYP. OR TREE STRAP I ` 12 E GA.WIRE WITURNBUCKL , 3 PER TREE @ 120°APART, ATTACH WARNING FLAGS TO ` INCREASE VISIBILITY,TYP, \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ 2 MULCH LAYER a , 12 BALL WIDTH 12 0 \ \� \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ NEW TDPSOIL,TYP. CM 'HT. 541E SAUCER LW—L /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ / / \//\//\//\//\//\//\//\��\//\//\// AMEND AS SPECIFIED = w \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ NOTE w \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ PRIOR TO SEEDING C3_ 1.PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANYCONSTRUCTION A PROTECTIVE TREE FENCE SHALL BE c WOOD STAKE cNra \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ INSTALLED AROUND THE DRIP LINE OF ALL TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ON SITE.THE TREE // PROTECTION FENCE SHALL REMAIN IN GOOD REPAIR AND MAINTAINED UNTIL THE r \ \\ \\ EXISTING SUBGRADE SCARIFIED AS SPECIFIED COMPLETION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION - _ / / / / AND ROUGH GRADED TO SAME PROFILE AS SCARIFY PIT WALLS WITH _ — _ — _ — 2,TREE FENCE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OUT OF 2x4"WOOD RAILS AND ATTACHED TOA _ , h - — — FINISH GRADE LESS DEPTH REQUIRED FOR SHARP SPADE TO 8 DEEP _ — — — — — B'-0"HT WOOD POST - z — — TOPSOIL. „ ROOTBALL REMOVE BURLAP I =I'I I=I I I=I I I=I II=I I I— I I=I I —I I I — ra '`< ' FROM TDP 1J3 OF BALL =I I I—I I 1-1 I F9 I I=III III=I I I= ¢ PLANTING SOIL MIX — — — - -1 I I1 11=1 11=1 11= I = I 1 COMPACTED SUBGRADE —IIII EXISTING SUBGRADE,AERATED AS REQUIRED AND ROUGH GRADED TO 3X BALL WIDTH GUYING PLAN SEAMEPROFILE AS FINISH GRADE DEPTHREflUREDFORSOILLAYERS Conservation Commission & sEcnaN Planning Board Peer Review DRIP LINE e LARGE EVERGREEN SHRUB PLANTING SEEDED LAWN 1 Comments Date 3 No. Issue Date PHASE: PROTECTED TREE NOTE REMOVE ALL WIRE, NOTE: PLASTIC TAGS OR ❑ Conceptual Design a I I WIDTH OF PLANTING HOLE IS 3 TIMES ROOT ® SYNTHETIC MATERIAL FROM PLANTS PRIOR p g I � TO PIANTDdG. u; BALL DIAMETER IN HIGHLY COMPACTED SOILS; ❑ Schematic Design ~ 2 TIMES THE ROOT BALL DIAMETER(MINIMUM) po IN ALL OTHERS. PLANT CENTER,TYR d1 a 2 Design Development 2"X4'TIMBER RAIL � a o � � �� INDICATED IN THE PLANT LIST SPACING AS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SINGLE-STEM TREE PLANTING ❑ Bid Documents ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ® m o a ; ❑ Construction Documents 0 2'MULCH ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ±1 j z Z ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 2X4'TIMBER POSTS REMOVEY OF BURLAP TO ENCOURAGE ROOT PLAN 'D' FINISH GRADE,PLANTING BED. j M 1 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ GROWTH Date: 2013.06.13 Scale: NTS °O 64'WOVEN ORANGE POLYETHYLENE FENCE 2'DEPTH MULCH OVER ENTIRE PLANTING BED 2.ORGANIC MULCH BED OVER ENTIRE ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ E FABRIC,ATTACH TO POSTS AND RAIL WITH s AREA Original Size: b PLANTING BED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ZIP-TIES W r FINISHED GRADE LAM AREA Drawn By: KLM Checked by: ST ILLJ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ COMPACTED SUBGRADE �'f - W 1=I I– I TOPSOIL MIX AS SPECIFIED PRIOR TO PLANTING, REMOVE PLANT FROM Sheet Title: III CARIFY PIT WALLS WRIT SHARP SPADE TO 8 CONTAINER AND GENTLY COMB OUT ROOTS. DEEP _ PLANTING �] �➢_ UNDISTURBED SOIL OR COMPACTED TOPSOIL MIX N - - II ffi� I HIT= -II I III I I-III- SUBGRADE SUBGRADE. DET =111=1� = — COMPACTED TOPSOIL TO AVOID SETTLEMENT AILS N B0.1%VfN BPllB1"➢i dNLAORI n Cq ® TREE PROTECTION B-� TREE PLANTING BED PERENNIAL/GRASS PLANTING sheet No.: C '� '� N N N LEGEND SALEM HARBOR STATION PGPERENNIAL & GROUNDCOVER 1 REDEVELOPMENT PERENNIAL & GROUNDCOVER 2 Ing PG-2 I PERENNIAL & GROUNDCOVER 3 I I PG-3 I I GRASS & PERENNIAL 1 ago GP-1 GRASS & PERENNIAL 2 24 FORT AV E N U E I GP-2 SALEM, MA GRASS & PERENNIAL 3 GP3 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ GRASS & PERENNIAL 4 \ � ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ GP-4 terrain ❑ 1C 3❑C JUNIPER Landscape Architecture Constructed Ecologies a JUNIPER 2 c - I EXISTING SHRUB TO REMAIN(TYP) SERB F EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN(TYP) R l :) IC ST E - - JUNIPER 3 - A T • [E IH Irr TERRAIN-NYC, INC. i 200 Park Avenue So LOW LANDSCAPE WALL u South Suite # 14 New York New York 10009 USA 3 Ii \ \ \ a ( ' St OOSF)PG-2 ' LIQ t 212-537-6080 f 212-537-6079 ( DS��`i-2 \ - - yl`� � �a� '�'.. ' ,�, 1rrJ�� J��/��/� �b\ 51�MEAa (v VV VV VV . terrain-n c. net \ \ \ ; .- v � � f- � LOW LANDSCAPE WALL Ow _ ARCHITECTURAL WALL \ f © ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 1 \ \ \ This drawing and all graphic and written material contained herein, constitutes the original and LANDSCAPE PATH (W/SEEL EDGE unpublished work of terrain-nyc and may not be copied, distributed or used in whole or in art,without 1 (?)h1v (8)Bn �(3),Rt (3)IV ,500 GP_1 7 ON BOTH SIDES) P 1 PG - expressed written permission. 300 §� / (400 So PG-3 SEEOm LRV{N �� (1,500 SF)PG-3 1 ` \ ` (600 SF)PG-2 (2,200 SO GP-3 0 SFl GP-1 (8'� � ' ° V) (a)Oc (1 400 SFl GP-1 (800 SFl GP-2 � - 9 q EXISTING TREE ci �F (1)CV IS 0 S (1,000 SFl GP-3 (1)GI SEEDED LAWN (3,400 SFl GP•3 (3)CV (1,200 SO PG-2 \ (1)Rt (2,800 SFl GP- EXISTING SHRUB T t3 (3)Bn / 2,200 SO GP-3 a (1,100 SO PG-1 (2,700 SO GP-2 (7)Cv �yy J (1,300 SO PG-1 1 (800 SF)J-2 (3,800 SFl GP-2 /a (1,000 SO PG-3 (2,300 SFl J-1 (1)P9 - +O GABION WALL "o°rwr�p R)Ac (111)Mp. (7)Bn (6)Bn EXIS7jNG 11LIA SP \ �) IM TO REMAIN(5)I ( -. , 1o�E � ADMINISTRATION BUILDING (2,000SF)PG-2 � v vi OUTLINE (3)Ac _X OI I SEEDED LAWN . . (13,ODO SF) (3)Bn �' . T-T / f� J'� • • (2,000 SFJ PG-1 0 (2,000 SO J-, (1,700 SFO)PG-3 ,!' (5)ty (1,400 SF)GP-1 " ° o (5)Im (1,600 S9GP-2 (3)Bn (1,800 SF)GP-3 / (1,000 So PG-2 1 (1,000 SFJ PG-1 I � e (7)Ns l i (1,000 SFl J-2 SEEDED LAWN I L] r - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - X- X- XI K (5)Ac I I (3,000 sFl J-1 (1,500 SO GP-1 a \ (1,800$Fl GP-3 (1,500 SO GP-2 S s°z„ (1,200 SO J-2 ( -` I X i n I (5)Ns I I `uJ"'_% % _ x - % - % - X - X - x - % - x - X _ % -% -X _ % - x -% -Y ' (139)MP Is (70)RrI (3,800 SFl J-1 I � Ci (150) ® 1 I I I I o ° o (10)Jv ° (1,700 SO J-2 (5)On (288)MP l (900 SFlMp ° - - - �__� L - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 P)BP (1,000 SO GP-1 (66)Ci > ' (100)Rr 2,100$ GP•2 Fl ® s° �\ -�� 199 M 1500 5 GP-1 600 S GP-3 nEJ (800)SO GP-1 V)Pt (14)Pp (166)Pm goo SFl GP-3 �12)Pp 930 SFl P (500 SFl J-3 (1J-2 (900 SO J-2 (1,200 SO J-2 ,000 SO J 2 - - _ (266 SFl Mp 1,200 S GP-1 8n 1,200 SO GP-2 _�- _ Far," (400 SFJ GP-1 (66)Rr (100)CI o y (1,000 SO GP-3L Pt - s� i (199)Pm , (1,400 sFl J-2 . Conservation Commission & (1400 SFl J3 Planning Board Peer Review (1 ,600 SFGP-2 (210)Rr (100)cl + , �� ,-4. _ ,Fo 0 0 (j w 1 Comments 7-24-13 y ®� = 0 �J No. Issue Date PHASE: ❑ Conceptual Design �� ❑ Schematic Design 2 Design Development o s Z / ❑ Bid Documents g V ElConstruction Documents Z Z Ii Date: 2013.06. 13 Scale: 1 =80' Z j I Original Size: COD J Lu � I Drawn By: KLM Checked by: ST W Sheet Title: z J ° j PLANTING 1 I } PLAN to { a I Sheet No.: Co m <D 0 40' 80' 160' 0 N C � l 07 N SCALE: 1"=80' � RpSPGpppp � ,,.R .�,• / P8 P�6�pPP��POB nye ^,esr \A p Nin / A-71 rlwu »' - ac a,P 0 a. sV a a` mm O � -� � - �` � �5 6.00 O er \• n.vr °xPq V' d o+> a ® A1f.6 evz a o O� 1 pp�J iP< ®Nt TRxm ® L-. 159 SBO' ro+zt I TANK t, _ f^+cr P'sutr m/ _- FlFl NMW of ly ' B G O x asa n TVA •+ts ss,s Oy UZ a n.1a 0 ®II e-1m mloe 0 • -� I ss M M t ® mao; Tv-1m 1 rr�t D- t mr °m TR •'.' 7(c. as °"was +v TANK • E •. •g C ..66' roA1c o-1m p rn101 Hba9 • ssN C //�� P L `f N7�— r 1 !-^^it 1,3 �t] l e • mA4w � ® -it ••l•w Tf tf ° ` • cwt e I ex • _ • - _ o •ew ®q + • I TAN I K .,m n�a:e I ] esa f O-,J a0 ��' ® B 3K • iP-rt� Trot Q • • • B_'S BFtit �. - ceyy 6-fN _ Vn m ^40 3 exx+ •>fi 101 �' • b"Ati.r• ,� BASyN ' I J e 0 nw O O qK BAS/NC N • • 1 ® ro No.B l - e1� r � ID-tR � Tl vx 8 AN g aaa 10.1 a•a ® -� Tx ' - AL t O+ 1 B D • I. ¢rte•. O btb^ _J �N9gf, • rorgyo y� tla.t -`- -�.ss. 3 30 �� a�i • a•a ` II . '� :,,, mrm SEA•q,OTFW TEa « � • •rt N '' - � � LSF O r� � �xm • o �u (S �ANrT TrW,RUSE O sE • i 1 w-1 •' A\1tltl1� 1 x AN H l H \ N EA t 3 y am s4 - 1 R PUN B . \ a Ona >es ' Q ' �a '•w -• ss_:e TANK rom +aav 7V B_ i Bm • �. I S-1 I _ 4 7\ • � Twm eaa+ s+1.} .1131 st .Pam o • a1 I} VERHEAo 1 'A AD 744, 1 .... C � • t � SANK� mt cOAc R x 'm + + - N N°.l • S- � - TANK � . i Pa TAN 1 1t _ . 1 y- _ ... yy _ L AN moos (11/03/1 Bt •e ve ®(f j'IL TIM • } 1 " ..ws t_.ess: FAN H L 1 F e w+ s e 10+a a E •x x S . TPaorz I.K r ♦ + ® .: .,, Bd ROOM • WAREHOU iP3A- E] iIL Y TSA TO • w— _ NA' M6]n• ® Mx eAm+ e+ae+ eat • • ` BAS' ry� *.. - , , • —,a TU eINE ROOM +eaxz ,R ,.. d ]1•NS ry/1R &tm • ' e. I SL EN ROOM „n'•w�;c M • • J • i x1 1' w � a oa • o • OOCX r W B o S EM ALE& CAT Co VE A ARBOR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 b• ` N SS-24 e LEGEND • 5 TP 1 e��y m PROPERTY BOUNDARY d, 3 141, 1 • SOIL BORING / ® TP-710 ss- GROUND WATER MONITORING WELL 65-9 B-5-3/102 s., TEST PIT • • N � w LIMIT OF FORMER OIL ASH BLENDING AREA 85-1 B-5-21101 o PROPOSED SOIL BORING — 2 • Tp-11111 B-5-0 TA��K wO ®" O • 6_5 B-5-1/1 13 S o 'a PROPOSED MONITORING WELL 4 ® 861 5 PROPOSED TEST PIT TT-201 • TT-20 w OY ' 1 MARK DATE DESCRIPTION BY Proled Na.: 14}6211]-13001 V G� ` Salem Harbor ower Station B BCP Salem Harbor Station Redevelopment 5 TP-172 TETRA TECH � tts ' DmIp1eE g Salem,Massachusetts Chex•d NSite Plan with cne w• BY BLP e eAo� wO, Gr1tSV.m 80' Sampling Location 3 One Gen($1701 F 50&Wf Maeax 5MEW01]01 W U � PMne:51)}90}2000 Fax 508-9032001 SCALE;1'=W. �� Bar Measures l in&