Loading...
72 FLINT STREET - ZONING (2) • Riverview Place • Salem, MA w • Expanded Environmental Notification Form • 17 • • • • • • t� • • • Prepared for: In Association With: Riverview Place LLC , Salem, MA O'Sullivan Architects,INC Williams & Sparages LLC • Prepared by: james k. emmanuel I Associates • - Tech Environmental • Susan St. Pierre Consulting Services AECOM Tinti, Quinn, Grover & Frey, P.C. • • • December 2014 • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • Table of Contents • • • Chapter 1 Project Summary • 1.1 Project Site ............................................................................................................................1-1 • 1.2 Project Summary ...................................................................................................................1-1 • 1.3 EIR Waiver Request.......................... ........ ................. ...................... ........................ ............... 1-5 • 1.3.1 Waiver Standards........................................................................................................1-5 1.3.2 Waiver Rationale.........................................................................................................1-8 • 1.3.3 Single EIR and Phase 1 Waiver ....................................................................................1-9 1.4 Project Permits/Approvals and Agency Coordination...........................................................1-9 1.4.1 Local..........................................................................................................................1-10 • 1.4.2 State..........................................................................................................................1-10 . 1.4.3 Federal......................................................................................................................1-11 1.5 Project Team ....................................................................................................................1-12 • • Chapter 2 Project Description • 2.1 Existing Site Conditions .........................................................................................................2-1 • 2.2 Site Remediation....................................................................................................................2-1 . 2.3 Neighborhood Context...........................................................................................................2-2 • 2.4 Transportation and Infrastructure ......................................................................................2-10 2.5 Historical Resources.............................................................................................................2-11 2.6 Wetland and Waterways Resources ...................................................................................2-11 2.6.1 Wetlands Resources.................................................................................................2-12 • 2.6.2 Waterways Resources...............................................................................................2-13 • 2.6.3 Floodplain and Sea Level Rise .................................................................................2-17 • 2.7 Project Alternatives..............................................................................................................2-18 . 2.7.1 No Build Alternative ..................................................................................................2-21 • 2.7.2 Office Alternative.......................................................................................................2-21 2.7.3 Mixed Use Alternative 1 ...........................................................................................2-22 • 2.7.4 Mixed Use Alternatives .............................................................................................2-22 2.7.5 Mixed Use Alternative 3 ...........................................................................................2-22 • 2.7.6 City Approved Alternative ........................................................................................2-19 • 2.7.7 Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................2-29 . 2.7.8 Summary of Alternative Impacts...............................................................................2-31 • Chapter 3 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures 3.1 Housing...................................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Transportation .......................................................................................................................3-1 • 3.3 Infrastructure .........................................................................................................................3-5 • 3.4 Energy ....................................................................................................................................3-6 • • Page li • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • 3.5 Noise.......................................................................................................................................3-7 • 3.6 Air Quality...............................................................................................................................3-8 • 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Analysis.......................................................................................................3-8 • 3.8 Solid and Hazardous Wastes................................................................................................3-10 • 3.9 Historical Resources.............................................................................................................3-10 • 3.10 Wetlands and Waterways....................................................................................................3-11 3.10.1 Wetlands Resources ......................................................................................................3-12 • 3.10.2 Waterways Resources....................................................................................................3-12 • 3.10.3 Floodplain and Sea Level Rise........................................................................................3-15 • 3.11 Construction ........................................................................................................................3-20 • 3.12 Consistency with Coastal Zone Management Policies.........................................................3-21 . Chapter 4 Public Benefits • • 4.1 Public Benefits .......................................................................................................................4-1 . • • • Appendices • • Appendix 1 Mass Historical Commission Determination • Appendix 2 2007 Riverview Plan Traffic Impact Assessment Study(updated 2009) and Excerpts from • 2012 Transportation Plan North River Canal Corridor • Appendix 3 North River Flood Study for Riverview Place Appendix 4 Green House Gas Analysis Appendix 5 Stormwater and Drainage Analysis Appendix 6 Draft Section 61 Findings • Appendix 7 Distribution List • List of Tables • Table 1 Required Permits and Approvals • Table Waterways Authorizations Table 3 Preferred Alternative Building Program • Table 4 Project Alternatives Impact Summary • Table 5 Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekday Morning Peak Hour Table 6 Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekday Afternoon Peak Hour • Table 7 Total Peak Rate of Runoff Comparison • Table 8 Greenhouse Gas CO2 Emissions Summary • Table 9 Motor Vehicle CO2 Emissions Summary • • • Page iii • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • List of Figures • Figure 1 Project Locus Plan • Figure 2 Aerial View • Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan • Figure 4 2010 Existing Conditions Plan Figure 5 2010 Aerial View • Figure 6 2014 Existing Conditions Plan • Figure 7 North River Canal Master Plan - Figure 8 Local Street Network • Figure 9 1855 U.S. Coast Chart Figure 10 Wetlands and Waterways Resource Areas Figure 11 FEMA 2012 and Preliminary 2013 100 Year Flood Lines • Figure 12 Site Development Constraints Map • Figure 13 Office Alternative • Figure 14 Mixed use Alternative 1 • Figure 15 Mixed Use Alternative 2 • Figure 16 Mixed Use Alternative 3 Figure 17 City Approved Development Alternative • Figure 18 Preferred Alternative • Figure 19 Site Generated Project Trips • Figure 20 Building 1 Elevation • Figure 21 Building 1 Elevation • Figure 22 Building 2 Elevation • Figure 23 Building 3 Elevation Figure 24 Concept Plan Walkway Connection to City Walkway • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Page viii • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Page Intentionally Blank • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Page div • • Commonwealth of Massachusetts r Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office Environmental Notification Form • For Office Use Only EEA#: MEPA Analyst: r The information requested on this form must be completed in order to submit a document electronically for review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, 301 CMR 11.00. = Project Name: Riverview Place Street Address: 72 Flint Street Municipality: Salem Watershed: Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: Latitude: 42031'18" Longitude: -70054'.13" w Estimated commencement date: Spring 2014 Estimated completion date: Winter 2014 Project Type: Mixed Use Development Status of project design: 75%complete Proponent: Riverview Place, LLC Street Address: 5 Broadmoor Lane Municipality: Peabody State: MA Zip Code: 01960 • Name of Contact Person: Susan St. Pierre • Firm/Agency: Susan St. Pierre Consulting Street Address: 74 Bay View Avenue Services Municipality: Salem State: MA Zip Code: 01970 Phone: 781-439-2461 Fax: I E-mail:sst.pierre@comcast.net Does this project meet or exceed a mandatory EIR threshold (see 301 CMR 11.03)? ®Yes ❑No If this is an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) (see 301 CMR 11.05(7)) or a Notice of Project Change (NPC), are you requesting: • a Single EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.06(8)) ❑Yes ❑No a Special Review Procedure? (see301CMR 11.09) ❑Yes ❑No a Waiver of mandatory EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.11) ®Yes ❑No • a Phase I Waiver? (see 301 CMR 11.11) ❑Yes' [-]No - (Note: Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis must be included in the Expanded ENF.) Which MEPA review threshold(s) does the project meet or exceed (see 301 CMR 11.03)? 301 CMR 11.03 (3)(a)(5) • Which State Agency Permits will the project require? MADEP Waterways Ch. 91 License Identify any financial assistance or land transfer from an Agency of the Commonwealth, - including the Agency name and the amount of funding or land area in acres: Mass Development Brownfields Remediation Loan. Funding Amount $500,000 • Effective January 2011 • r • • • Summary of Project Size Existing Change Total 8& Environmental Impacts Total site acreage 4_3 . New acres of land altered 0 . Acres of impervious area 3.7 -0.9 z.a Square feet of new bordering 0 vegetated wetlands alteration Square feet of new other wetland 60,400(previously alteration altered and subject to coastal storm flowage) - Acres of new non-water dependent 2.35(note:site • use of tidelands or waterways previously used fornonwater dependent use) Gross square footage 0(Buildings 216,019 216,019 • Demolished) • Number of housing units 0 130 130 Maximum feet height o 49'2" 49'2" 9 (feet) TRANSPORTATION - Vehicle trips per day 0 8/1 - Parking spaces 0 282 za2 • WASTEWATER Water Use (Gallons per day) o z5,a5o 25,850 Water withdrawal (GPD) 0 0 0 , Wastewater generation/treatment 0 23,500 23,500 (GPD) . Length of water mains (miles) Length of sewer mains (miles) Has this project been filed with MEPA before? ❑ Yes (EEA# ) ®No Has any project on this site been filed with MEPA before? ❑ Yes (EEA# ) ®No • • _2- • • • • • • _GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION — all proponents must FII out this section PROJECT DESCRIPTION: • • Describe the existing conditions and land uses on the project site: • The Project involves the redevelopment of a 4.3 acre former industrial site into a mixed use development. • The site is located in Salem, Massachusetts east of Flint Street between Mason Street and the North River canal (see Figure 1, Locus Plan and Figure 6, Existing Conditions Plan in the attached EENF document). The site was . previously developed with two leather manufacturing buildings-the Bonfanti Building located on Mason Street which was demolished in 2012 and the Salem Suede Building which comprised the bulk of the site development • located off Flint Street.The Salem Suede Building experience significant fire damage and was demolished by . order of the City in the fall of 2009. • Describe the proposed project and its programmatic and physical elements: • NOTE: The project description should summarize both the project's direct and indirect impacts (including construction period impacts) in terms of their magnitude, geographic extent, duration • and frequency, and reversibility, as applicable. It should also discuss the infrastructure requirements • of the project and the capacity of the municipal and/or regional infrastructure to sustain these • requirements into the future. The Project involves the redevelopment of the site into a mixed use complex consisting of 130 residential • units and approximately 5,000 square feet (sf) of commercial space. Three buildings are proposed . (see Figure 3, Proposed Site Plan in attached EENF document). Two of the Buildings, Building 1 and 2, contain residential units and interior parking and the third Building, Building 3, contains residential uses in the upper floors and commercial uses and 5 parking spaces on the lower level. The site has been designed with two site entrances; one off of Mason Street and one off of Flint Street. The development includes 282 parking spaces • of which 86 are located on the ground floor of Buildings 1, 2 and 3; 92 are located under and on a parking deck • and 104 are located in surface parking lots of which 12 will be designated for use by existing Flint Street • residents only.The Project conforms to the City of Salem's North River Canal Corridor Master Plan and is . supported by the City of Salem. • Describe the on-site project alternatives (and alternative off-site locations, if applicable), considered • by the proponent, including at least one feasible alternative that is allowed under current zoning, • and the reasons(s) that they were not selected as the preferred alternative: • Various alternative design scenarios were reviewed as part of the local Planning Board and Zoning Board review • processes and are described in the attached EENF document. There are no offsite Alternatives. • NOTE: The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to consider what effect changing the parameters - and/or siting of a project, or components thereof, will have on the environment, keeping in mind that - the objective of the MEPA review process is to avoid or minimize damage to the environment to the greatest extent feasible. Examples of alternative projects include alternative site locations, • alternative site uses, and alternative site configurations. Summarize the mitigation measures proposed to offset the impacts of the preferred alternative: • The Project will not result in any long term adverse impacts to local infrastructure,traffic or state • • -3 • • • historic, wetlands or tidelands resources. The Project provides many program benefits including the • introduction of public access to the site, parking for nearby residents,affordable housing units and • traffic improvements. The site plan was developed in conjunction with the goals outlined for the area in the 2003 Neighborhood Master Plan for the North River Canal Corridor. • • The Project will redevelop an existing 4.3 acre site and create public access to and along the North River . Canal. A walkway will extend from Flint Street into the site to a green space being created between the • North River Canal and the proposed Building 1.The green space will include public walkways along the Canal • that extend to interior sidewalks. A view corridor will be created from Macon Street through the site toward the North River Canal. Pedestrian access will be provided from Mason Street through the site to the North • River Canal and Flint Street. The site plan also includes a 30-foot wide easement through the southern • portion of the site to allow for a potential future City-sponsored extension of Commercial Street to Flint Street. • A connection from the proposed site walkway along the North River to an existing City walkway that - Connects to Leslie's Retreat Park and the MBTA commuter rail system to the east will also be created. • The Proponent has also committed to implement energy efficiency measures that will reduce overall Project • energy use (stationary sources) by 12.7%and will reduce CO2 emissions by 12.6%, compared to the Base Case. • In accordance with the MEPA"Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol," the proponent will provide • a certification to the MEPA Office signed by an appropriate professional stating that all transportation and • non-transportation greenhouse gas mitigation measures described in this EENF, or measures providing • comparable mitigation, have been incorporated into the Project. • If the project is proposed to be constructed in phases, please describe each phase: - N/A • AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN: Is the project within or adjacent to an Area of Critical Environmental Concern? ❑Yes (Specify ) • ®No if yes, does the ACEC have an approved Resource Management Plan?_Yes _No; • If yes, describe how the project complies with this plan. - Will there be stormwater runoff or discharge to the designated ACEC?_Yes _No; • If yes, describe and assess the potential impacts of such stormwater runoff/discharge to the designated ACEC. . RARE SPECIES: Does the project site include Estimated and/or Priority Habitat of State-Listed Rare Species? (see • http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/regulatory_review/priority_habitat/priority_habitat_home.htm) • ❑Yes (Specify ) ®No • HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES: • Does the project site include any structure, site or district listed in the State Register of Historic Place or the inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? • ❑Yes (Specify ) ®No • If yes, does the project involve any demolition or destruction of any listed or inventoried historic or archaeological resources? ❑Yes (Specify ) ❑No • WATER RESOURCES: • Is there an Outstanding Resource Water(ORW)on or within a half-mile radius of the project site? _Yes_X_Ncw -4- • • • • • • if yes, identify the ORW and its location. • (NOTE: Outstanding Resource Waters include Class A public water supplies, their tributaries, and bordering wetlands; active and inactive reservoirs approved by MassDEP, certain waters within Areas of Critical w Environmental Concern, and certified vernal pools. Outstanding resource waters are listed in the • Surface Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR 4.00.) w Are there any impaired water bodies on or within a half-mile radius of the project site? _Yes_X—No; if yes, . identify the water body and pollutant(s) causing the impairment: Is the project within a medium or high stress basin, as established by the Massachusetts • Water Resources Commission?_Yes _X—No • STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: • Generally describe the project's stormwater impacts and measures that the project will take to comply • with the standards found in MassDEP's Stormwater Management Regulations: • The Project is considered a redevelopment,and stormwater management systems will be used to the • maximum extent practicable. This redevelopment project will incorporate deep sump catch basins and other . mitigative measures,to improve the water quality from existing conditions. Post construction the peak storm runoff will be reduced. • . MASSACHUSETTS CONTINGENCY PLAN: Has the project site been, or is it currently being, regulated under M.G.L.c.21 E or the Massachusetts Contingency Plan? Yes X_ No —_; if yes, please describe the current status of the site (including Release Tracking . Number(RTN), cleanup phase, and Response Action Outcome classification): • The Project RTN is 3-30380. Project filed a Voluntary Release Abatement Measure Plan with the state which • was approved by the MADEP Northeast Region. Metal waste materials associated with former tannery on the • site have been and are being removed in accordance with the RAM. • Is there an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) on any portion of the project site?Yes_X_No • if yes, describe which portion of the site and how the project will be consistent with the AUL: • Are you aware of any Reportable Conditions at the property that have not yet been assigned an RTN? • Yes _No X; if yes, please describe: . SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE: • If the project will generate solid waste during demolition or construction, describe alternatives considered • for re-use, recycling, and disposal of, e.g., asphalt, brick, concrete, gypsum, metal, wood: (NOTE.Asphalt pavement, brick, concrete and metal are banned from disposal at Massachusetts landfills and waste combustion facilities and wood is banned from disposal at Massachusetts landfills. See 310 CMR 19.017 for the complete list of banned materials.) • • The Project Proponents are considering the feasibility of construction waste recycling for wood,gypsum, • carpet and pavement and are also considering the use of recycled materials for new construction such as structural steel,concrete, steel studs, steel doors,gypsum, act, carpet,and composite wood products. All • construction debris that is not re-used/re-cycled will be properly disposed of in accordance with state regulations. Will your project disturb asbestos containing materials?Yes _ No _X_ • if yes, please consult state asbestos requirements at http://mass.gov/Ma;sDEP/air/asbhom0l.htm Describe anti-idling and other measures to limit emissions from construction equipment: • • . -5- • • The Project Proponent will encourage contractors not to idle construction equipment during the construction Phase. • DESIGNATED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER: Is this project site located wholly or partially within a defined river corridor of a federally • designated Wild and Scenic River or a state designated Scenic River? Yes_No if yes, specify name of river and designation: • If yes, does the project have the potential to impact any of the 'outstandingly remarkable' resources of a federally Wild and Scenic River or the stated purpose of a state designated Scenic River? • Yes _No _; if yes, specify name of river and designation: • if yes, will the project will result in any impacts to any of the designated "outstandingly remarkable" resources of the Wild and Scenic River or the stated purposes of a Scenic River. - Yes No _ ; . if yes,describe the potential impacts to one or more of the "outstandingly remarkable' resources or stated purposes and mitigation measures proposed. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • _6_ • • • • • i ATTACHMENTS: • 1. List of all attachments to this document. 2. U.S.G.S. map (good quality color copy, 8-1/2x 11 inches or larger, at a scale of 1:24,000) indicating the project location and boundaries. • 3.. Plan, at an appropriate scale, of existing conditions on the project site and its immediate environs, showing all known structures, roadways and parking lots, railroad rights-of-way, • wetlands and water bodies, wooded areas, farmland, steep slopes, public open spaces, and major utilities. i 4 Plan, at an appropriate scale, depicting environmental constraints on or adjacent to the • project site such as Priority and/or Estimated Habitat of state-listed rare species, Areas of . Critical Environmental Concern, Chapter 91 jurisdictional areas, Article 97 lands, wetland resource area delineations, water supply protection areas, and historic resources i and/or districts. 5. Plan, at an appropriate scale, of proposed conditions upon completion of project(if construction of the project is proposed to be phased, there should be a site plan showing • conditions upon the completion of each phase). 6. List of all agencies and persons to whom the proponent circulated the ENF, in accordance • with 301 CMR 11.16(2). i 7. List of municipal and federal permits and reviews required by the project, as applicable. • • • • • • • • • • i • • • • • • -7_ • • • • • LAND SECTION — all proponents must fill out this section • I. Thresholds I Permits A. Does the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to land (see 301 CMR 11.03(1) _Yes_No; if yes, specify each threshold: II. Impacts and Permits A. Describe, in acres, the current and proposed character of the project site, as follows: Existing Change Total Footprint of buildings 1.29 (slabs) -0.14 1.07 Internal roadways 0 +0.43 0.43 • Parking and other paved areas 0.12 - 0.94 0.06 `Other altered areas 2.8 -1.3 1.5 Undeveloped areas 0.24 0 0.24 - Total: Project Site Acreage 4.3 0 4.3 (Parking deck=.36ac Open space=landscaped areas=1.14ac) • B. Has any part of the project site been in active agricultural use in the last five years? _Yes_X_ No; if yes, how many acres of land in agricultural use (with prime state or - locally important agricultural soils)will be converted to nonagricultural use? - C. Is any part of the project site currently or proposed to be in active forestry use? - _Yes_X_ No; if yes, please describe current and proposed forestry activities and indicate whether any part of the site is the subject of a forest management plan approved by • the Department of Conservation and Recreation: - D. Does any part of the project involve conversion of land held for natural resources purposes in • accordance with Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth to • any purpose not in accordance with Article 97?_Yes_X_ No; if yes, describe: E. Is any part of the project site currently subject to a conservation restriction, preservation . restriction, agricultural preservation restriction or watershed preservation restriction? Yes X_ No; if yes, does the project involve the release or modification of such restriction?_ Yes_ No, if yes, describe: - F. Does the project require approval of a new urban redevelopment project or a fundamental change . in an existing urban redevelopment project under M.G.L.c.121A? Yes_X_No; if yes, - describe: G. Does the project require approval of a new urban renewal plan or a major modification of an existing urban renewal plan under M.G.L.c.121 B? Yes_No_X_; if yes, describe: III. Consistency - A. Identify the current municipal comprehensive land use plan Title: North River Canal Master Plan Date: 2003 B. Describe the project's consistency with that plan with regard to: • 1) economic development complies . 2) adequacy of infrastructure complies 3) open space impacts complies 4) compatibility with adjacent land uses_ complies - C. Identify the current Regional Policy Plan of the applicable Regional Planning Agency (RPA) RPA: The Metropolitan Area Planning Council - Title:_Metro Future Date-2008 • • • i • • D. Describe the project's consistency with that plan with regard to: • 1) economic development: complies Goal 43 More people will take advantage of the region's artistic and cultural resources 2) adequacy of infrastructure: complies Goal 2 suggest that throughout the region most new growth will occur through reuse of previously developed land and buildings • 3) open space impacts: complies Goal 65 recommends the development of a robust network of protected open spaces farms parks and greenways will provide wildlife habitat • ecological benefits, recreational opportunities and scenic beauty • • • i • • • • • -9- • • • • RARE SPECIES SECTION • I. Thresholds/ Permits • A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to rare species or habitat (see 301 CMR 11.03(2))? _Yes_X_ No, if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: (NOTE. If you are uncertain, it is recommended that you consult with the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP)prior to submitting the ENF.) • B. Does the project require any state permits related to rare species or habitat? —Yes _X_ No • C. Does the project site fall within mapped rare species habitat(Priority or Estimated Habitat?) in the current Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? _Yes_X_ No. D. If you answered "No"to all questions A, B and C, proceed to the Wetlands, Waterways, and • Tidelands Section. If you answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the • remainder of the Rare Species section below. . II. Impacts and Permits A. Does the project site fall within Priority or Estimated Habitat in the current Massachusetts Natural . Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? _Yes_No. If yes, 1. Have you consulted with the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage and - Endangered Species Program (NHESP)? _Yes_No, if yes, have you received a • determination as to whether the project will result in the"take"of a rare species? Yes_No, if yes, attach the letter of determination to this submission. • 2. Will the project"take"an endangered, threatened, and/or species of special concern in • accordance with M.G.L. c.131A(see also 321 CMR 10.04)? _Yes_No, if yes, provide • a summary of proposed measures to minimize and mitigate rare species impacts • 3. Which rare species are known to occur within the Priority or Estimated Habitat? • 4. Has the site been surveyed for rare species in accordance with the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act? _Yes_No • 4. If your project is within Estimated Habitat, have you filed a Notice of Intent or received an . Order of Conditions for this project? _Yes_No; if yes, did you send a copy of the • Notice of Intent to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act regulations? _Yes_ No - • B. Will the project"take" an endangered, threatened, and/or species of special concern in - accordance with M.G.L. c.131A(see also 321 CMR 10.04)? _Yes _No; if yes, provide a summary of proposed measures to minimize and mitigate impacts to significant • habitat: - • • • • • • • - to- • • w • • • WETLANDS. WATERWAYS, AND TIDELANDS SECTION • . I. Thresholds/ Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wetlands,waterways, and • tidelands (see 301 CMR 11.03(3))? —X_Yes—No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: - Nonwater dependent use proposed on more than one acre of filled tidelands. • B. Does the project require any state permits (or a local Order of Conditions) related to wetlands, • waterways, or tidelands? –x_Yes— No, if yes, specify which permit: Chapter 91 License and Order of Conditions. C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Water Supply Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Wetlands, Waterways, • and Tidelands Section below. • II.Wetlands Impacts and Permits ! A. Does the project require a new or amended Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c.131A)? _x_Yes_No; if yes, has a Notice of Intent been filed? Yes x_No; if yes, list the date and MassDEP file number: , if yes, has a local Order of_Conditions been • issued? —Yes_No; Was the Order of Conditions appealed? _Yes— No. Will the project require a Variance from the Wetlands regulations? Yes x No. - B. Describe any proposed permanent or temporary impacts to wetland resource areas located on the project site: Existing developed land located in Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and Coastal • Bank resource areas will be redeveloped with landscaping and walkways. A portion of the internal roadway and a very small portions of two buildings are also located in Land Subject to Coastal Storm • Flowage resource area. • C. Estimate the extent and type of impact that the project will have on wetland resources, and indicate • whether the impacts are temporary or permanent: - Coastal Wetlands Area (square feet) or Temporary or • Length (linear feet) Permanent Impact? • Land Under the Ocean . Designated Port Areas . Coastal Beaches Coastal Dunes • Barrier Beaches Coastal Banks 5 I.f. +/-(storm drain) Permanent but no adverse impact • Rocky Intertidal Shores . Salt Marshes Land Under Salt Ponds • Land Containing Shellfish • Fish Runs • Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 80.400 s.f. Permanent but no adverse impact Inland Wetlands Bank (If) • Bordering Vegetated Wetlands . Isolated Vegetated Wetlands Land under Water Isolated Land Subject to Flooding • Borden ng Land Subject to Flooding Riverfront Area • • • • • • • D. Is any part of the project: • 1. proposed as a limited project? _Yes_X No; if yes, what is the area (in sf)? • 2. the construction or alteration of a dam? _Yes_X_ No; if yes, describe: 3. fill or structure in a velocity zone or regulatory floodway? _Yes_X No • 4. dredging or disposal of dredged material? _Yes_X_No; if yes, describe the volume - of dredged material and the proposed disposal site: 5. a discharge to an Outstanding Resource Water(ORW) or an Area of Critical 40Environmental Concern (ACEC)? _Yes_X_No 6. subject to a wetlands restriction order? _Yes_X_ No; if yes, identify the area (in sf): • 7. located in buffer zones? _X_Yes No, if yes, how much (in sf) 35,645 • • E. Will the project: • 1. be subject to a local wetlands ordinance or bylaw? _Yes_X_ No 2. alter any federally-protected wetlands not regulated under state law? _Yes_X_No, if - yes, what is the area (sf)? • III.Waterways and Tidelands Impacts and Permits A. Does the project site contain waterways or tidelands (including filled former tidelands)that are subject to the Waterways Act, M.G.L.c.91? _X Yes_No, if yes, is there a current Chapter 91 • License or Permit affecting the project site? _X_Yes_ No; if yes, list the date and license or permit number and provide a copy of the historic map used to determine extent of filled • tidelands: Please refer to Section 3.11 of the EENF. The MADEP Presumed historic shoreline • map was used in coordination with MADEP Waterways staff. • B. Does the project require a new or modified license or permit under M.G.L.c.91?_X_Yes No; if • yes, how many acres of the project site subject to M.G.L.c.91 will be for non-water-dependent use? Current 2.35 Change 0. Total 2.35 If yes, how many square feet of solid fill or pile-supported structures (in sf)? 0 - C. For non-water-dependent use projects, indicate the following: • Area of filled tidelands on the site: 2.35 • Area of filled tidelands covered by buildings: 36.840 sf For portions of site on filled tidelands, list ground floor uses and area of each use: - Building 1: residential uses: 3.113 sf(including common areas) and parking uses: 9 1975 sf Building 2: residential uses: 704 sf(including common areas) and parking uses: 13,714 sf • • Does the project include new non-water-dependent uses located over flowed tidelands? • YesNo_X_ - Height_of building on filled tidelands maximum of 50 feet - Also show the following on a site plan: Mean High Water, Mean Low Water, Water- • dependent Use Zone, location of uses within buildings on tidelands, and interior and exterior areas and facilities dedicated for public use, and historic high and historic low • water marks. Please refer to Figure 10 in the attached EENF document. - D. Is the project located on landlocked tidelands? —Yes _X_No, if yes, describe the project's • impact on the public's right to access, use and enjoy jurisdictional tidelands and describe • measures the project will implement to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impact: • E. Is the project located in an area where low groundwater levels have been identified by a • municipality or by a state or federal agency as a threat to building foundations?_Yes _X No, if yes, describe the project's impact on groundwater levels and describe • measures the project will implement to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impact: - - 12- • • • • • • • • F. Is the project non-water-dependent and located on landlocked tidelands or waterways or tidelands subject to the Waterways Act and subject to a mandatory EIR?_X_Yes • No; • (NOTE: If yes, then the project will be subject to Public Benefit Review and Determination.) • • G. Does the project include dredging?_Yes_X No; if yes, answer the following questions: What type of dredging? Improvement Maintenance_ Both_ • What is the proposed dredge volume, in—cubic yards (cys) • What is the proposed dredge footprint_length (ft)_width (ft)_depth (ft); Will dredging impact the following resource areas? • Intertidal Yes_ No_; if yes, _sq ft Outstanding Resource Waters Yes_ No_; if yes, _sq ft • Other resource area (i.e. shellfish beds, eel grass beds) Yes_ No_; if yes_sq • ft If yes to any of the above, have you evaluated appropriate and practicable steps • to: 1) avoidance; 2) if avoidance is not possible, minimization; 3) if either • avoidance or minimize is not possible, mitigation? If no to any of the above, what information or documentation was used to support • this determination? • Provide a comprehensive analysis of practicable alternatives for improvement dredging in accordance with 314 CMR 9.07(1)(b). Physical and chemical data of the sediment shall be included in the comprehensive analysis. - Sediment Characterization Existing gradation analysis results? _Yes_No: if yes, provide results. • Existing chemical results for parameters listed in 314 CMR 9.07(2)(b)6?_Yes No; if yes, provide results. • Do you have sufficient information to evaluate feasibility of the following management • options for dredged sediment? If yes, check the appropriate option. • Beach Nourishment_ • Unconfined Ocean Disposal Confined Disposal: Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD)_ • Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) Landfill Reuse in accordance with COMM-97-001 _ • Shoreline Placement_ • Upland Material Reuse In-State landfill disposal_ Out-of-state landfill disposal • (NOTE: This information is required for a 401 Water Quality Certification.) . IV. Consistency: A. Does the project have effects on the coastal resources or uses, and/or is the project located within • the Coastal Zone?_X Yes_ No; if yes, describe these effects and the projects consistency with - the policies of the Office of Coastal Zone Management: Please refer to Section 3.12 of the EENF. • B. Is the project located within an area subject to a Municipal Harbor Plan? Yes_X_No; if yes, . identify the Municipal Harbor Plan and describe the project's consistency with that plan: • • • • • • - 13- • • • • WATER SUPPLY SECTION • I. Thresholds/Permits • A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to water supply (see 301 CMR • 11.03(4))? _Yes_X_ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: • B. Does the project require any state permits related to water supply? _Yes_X_ No, if yes, • specify which permit: • C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Wastewater Section. If you • answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Water Supply Section below. • II. Impacts and Permits • A. Describe, in gallons per day (gpd), the volume and source of water use for existing and proposed • activities at the project site: • Existing Change Total Municipal or regional water supply . Withdrawal from groundwater • Withdrawal from surface water Interbasin transfer • (NOTE:Interbasin Transfer approval will be required if the basin and community where the proposed water supply source is • located is different from the basin and community where the wastewater from the source will be discharged.) • B. If the source is a municipal or regional supply, has the municipality or region indicated that there • is adequate capacity in the system to accommodate the project?_Yes No C. If the project involves a new or expanded withdrawal from a groundwater or surface water • source, has a pumping test been conducted? IYes_ No, if yes, attach a map of the drilling sites and a summary of the alternatives considered and the results. • D. What is the currently permitted withdrawal at the proposed water supply source (in gallons per • day)? Will the project require an increase in that withdrawal? _Yes _No, if yes, then how • much of an increase (gpd)? • E. Does the project site currently contain a water supply well, a drinking water treatment facility, • water main, or other water supply facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility? - Yes_No. If yes, describe existing and proposed water supply facilities at the project site: Permitted Existing Avg Project Flow Total • Flow Dailv Flow Capacity of water supply well(s) (gpd) • Capacity of water treatment plant (gpd) - F. If the project involves a new interbasin transfer of water, which basins are involved, what is the • direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or proposed? • G. Does the project involve: • 1. new water service by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority or other agency of • the Commonwealth to a municipality or water district? _Yes No 2. a Watershed Protection Act variance? _Yes_No; if yes-,-how many acres of • alteration? • 3. a non-bridged stream crossing 1,000 or less feet upstream of a public surface drinking water supply for purpose of forest harvesting activities? _Yes_No • III. Consistency • Describe the project's consistency with water conservation plans or other plans to enhance water • resources, quality, facilities and services: - 14- • • • • • • • WASTEWATER SECTION • • I. Thresholds/ Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wastewater(see 301 CMR • 11.03(5))? _Yes_X_No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: • B. Does the project require any state permits related to wastewater? _Yes_X_ No; if yes, • specify which permit: • C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Transportation --Traffic • Generation Section. If you answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Wastewater Section below. • • It. Impacts and Permits A. Describe the volume (in gallons per day) and type of disposal of wastewater generation for • existing and proposed activities at the project site(calculate according to 310 CMR 15.00 for septic • systems or 314 CMR 7.00 for sewer systems): • • Existing Change Total • Discharge of sanitary wastewater Discharge of industrial wastewater • TOTAL • Existing Change Total • Discharge to groundwater . Discharge to outstanding resource water Discharge to surface water • Discharge to municipal or regional wastewater • TOTAL facility B. Is the existing collection system at or near its capacity? _Yes_No; if yes, then describe - the measures to be undertaken to accommodate the project's wastewater flows: • li • C. Is the existing wastewater disposal facility at or near its permitted capacity?_Yes_No; if • yes, then describe the measures to be undertaken to accommodate the project's wastewater flows: • D. Does the project site currently contain a wastewater treatment facility, sewer main, or other • wastewater disposal facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility? _Yes • _No; if yes, describe as follows: • Permitted Existing Avg Project Flow Total • Daily Flow Wastewater treatment plant capacity (in gallons per day) • • E. If the project requires an interbasin transfer of wastewater, which basins are involved, what is the - direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or new? • (NOTE: Interbasin Transfer approval may be needed if the basin and community where wastewater • will be discharged is different from the basin and community where the source of water supply is - 15- • • • • • located.) • • F. Does the project involve new sewer service by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority • (MWRA) or other Agency of the Commonwealth to a municipality or sewer district? _Yes_ No • • G. Is there an existing facility, or is a new facility proposed at the project site for the storage, • treatment, processing, combustion or disposal of sewage sludge, sludge ash, grit, screenings, wastewater reuse (gray water) or other sewage residual materials? _Yes_ No, if yes, what is • the capacity (tons per day): • Existing Change Total • Storage Treatment Processing • Combustion Disposal • H. Describe the water conservation measures to be undertaken by the project, and other • wastewater mitigation, such as infiltration and inflow removal. w III. Consistency • A. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with applicable state, regional, and w local plans and policies related to wastewater management: • B. If the project requires a sewer extension permit, is that extension included in a comprehensive • wastewater management plan? _Yes_ No; if yes, indicate the EEA number for the plan and whether the project site is within a sewer service area recommended or approved in that • plan: w • • w • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TRANSPORTATION SECTION (TRAFFIC GENERATION) • I. Thresholds/ Permit • A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to traffic generation (see 301 CMR 11.03(6))? _Yes_X_ No, if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: • B. Does the project require any state permits related to state-controlled roadways?_Yes_X_ No; if yes, specify which permit: • C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Roadways and Other Transportation Facilities Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out • the remainder of the Traffic Generation Section below. • II. Traffic Impacts and Permits • A. Describe existing and proposed vehicular traffic generated by activities at the project site: • Existing Change Total Number of parking spaces • Number of vehicle trips per day • ITE Land Use Code(s): • B. What is the estimated average daily traffic on roadways serving the site? Roadway Existing Change Total • 1. • 2. . 3. • C. If applicable, describe proposed mitigation measures on state-controlled roadways that the • project proponent will implement: • D. How will the project implement and/or promote the use of transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and services to provide access to and from the project site? • C. Is there a Transportation Management Association (TMA)that provides transportation demand • management(TDM) services in the area of the project site? _Yes No; if yes, describe • if and how will the project will participate in the TMA: • D. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water, rail, or air transportation • facilities?_Yes_ No; if yes, generally describe: E. If the project will penetrate approach airspace of a nearby airport, has the proponent filed a Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission Airspace Review Form (780 CMR 111.7) and a Notice • of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) • (CFR Title 14 Part 77.13, forms 7460-1 and 7460-2)? • • III. Consistency Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with municipal, regional, state, and federal • plans and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and • services: • • • i - ,7- • • • s • • • TRANSPORTATION SECTION (ROADWAYS AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION • FACILITIES) , I. Thresholds • A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to roadways or other - transportation facilities (see 301 CMR 11.03(6))? _Yes_X_ No, if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to roadways or other transportation • facilities? _Yes_X_ No; if yes, specify which permit: • C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Energy Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Roadways Section • below. II.Transportation Facility Impacts • A. Describe existing and proposed transportation facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project . site: B. Will the project involve any • 1. Alteration of bank or terrain (in linear feet)? - 2. Cutting of living public shade trees (number)? 3. Elimination of stone wall (in linear feet)? III. Consistency-- Describe the project's consistency with other federal, state, regional, and local plans • and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and services, . including consistency with the applicable regional transportation plan and the Transportation • Improvements Plan (TIP), the State Bicycle Plan, and the State Pedestrian Plan: • • • • • • • • • • • - 18- • • • a • • i • ENERGY SECTION • I. Thresholds I Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to energy(see 301 CMR 11.03(7))? • _Yes_X_No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: . B. Does the project require any state permits related to energy? _Yes_X_ No; if yes, specify • which permit: • C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Air Quality Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Energy Section • below. • II. Impacts and Permits • A. Describe existing and proposed energy generation and transmission facilities at the project site: ExistingChange Total Capacity of electric generating facility (megawatts) • Length of fuel line (in miles) Length of transmission lines (in miles) • Capacity of transmission lines (in kilovolts) • B. If the project involves construction or expansion of an electric generating facility, what are: • 1. the facility's current and proposed fuel source(s)? • 2. the facility's current and proposed cooling source(s)? • C. If the project involves construction of an electrical transmission line, will it be located on a new, unused, or abandoned right of way?_Yes_No; if yes, please describe: • • D. Describe the project's other impacts on energy facilities and services: • III. Consistency Describe the project's consistency with state, municipal, regional, and federal plans and policies for enhancing energy facilities and services: i • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • AIR QUALITY SECTION 40 • I. Thresholds • A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to air quality (see 301 CMR 11.03(8))? Yes_X_ No, if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: - B. Does the project require any state permits related to air quality? Yes_X_No, if yes, • specify which permit: . C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Solid and Hazardous Waste • Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Air • Quality Section below. • II. Impacts and Permits • A. Does the project involve construction or modification of a major stationary source (see 310 CMR 7.00, Appendix A)?_Yes_No; if yes, describe existing and proposed emissions (in tons • per day) of: • Existing Change Total • Particulate matter • Carbon monoxide • Sulfur dioxide Volatile organic compounds • Oxides of nitrogen • Lead Any hazardous air pollutant • Carbon dioxide • B. Describe the project's other impacts on air resources and air quality, including noise impacts: • III. Consistency • A. Describe the project's consistency with the State Implementation Plan: • B. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with other federal, state, regional, and • local plans and policies related to air resources and air quality: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 20 • • • • • SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION • I. Thresholds I Permits • A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to solid or hazardous waste (see ! 301 CMR 11.03(9))? _Yes_X_ No; if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to solid and hazardous waste? —Yes • _X_ No; if yes, specify which permit: • C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Historical and Archaeological • Resources Section. If you answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Section below. • II. Impacts and Permits A. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, treatment, processing, • combustion or disposal of solid waste?_Yes_ No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons per day) of the capacity: • Existing Change Total . Storage Treatment, processing • Combustion Disposal • B. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, recycling, treatment or • disposal of hazardous waste?_Yes_No; if yes, what is the volume (in tons or gallons per day) of the capacity: • Existing Change Total a Storage • Recycling Treatment Disposal • C. If the project will generate solid waste (for example, during demolition or construction), describe • alternatives considered for re-use, recycling, and disposal: • D. If the project involves demolition, do any buildings to be demolished contain asbestos? Yes_ No E. Describe the project's other solid and hazardous waste impacts (including indirect impacts): • III. Consistency • Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with the State Solid Waste Master Plan: • • s a • • • S 21 • • • • • • HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SECTION • I. Thresholds I Impacts • A. Have you consulted with the Massachusetts Historical Commission? _X_Yes No, if yes, • attach correspondence. See Appendix 1 in attached EENF document. For project sites involving , lands under water, have you consulted with the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources?_Yes_No; if yes, attach correspondence • B. Is any part of the project site a historic structure, or a structure within a historic district, in either • case listed in the State Register of Historic Places or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological • Assets of the Commonwealth? _Yes_X_ No; if yes, does the project involve the demolition of A all or any exterior part of such historic structure? _Yes_ No; if yes, please describe: C. Is any part of the project site an archaeological site listed in the State Register of Historic Places • or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? _Yes_X_ No, if yes, does the project involve the destruction of all or any part of such archaeological site? _Yes • No; if yes, please describe: • D. If you answered "No" to all parts of both questions A, B and C, proceed to the Attachments and Certifications Sections. If you answered "Yes"to any part of either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Historical and Archaeological Resources Section below. - s II. Impacts • Describe and assess the project's impacts, direct and indirect, on listed or inventoried historical and • archaeological resources: III. Consistency • Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with federal, state, regional, and local • plans and policies related to preserving historical and archaeological resources: • s • • • • • • • s • • s w • 22 • • • • • • I • • CERTIFI;MONS: • • 1. The Public Notice of Environmental Review has been/will be published in the following • newspapers in accordance with 301 CMR 11.15(1): • (Name)_Salem Evening News (Date) 11//28/14 • 2. This form has been circulated to Agencies and Persons in accordance with 301 CMR 11.16(2). = Signatures: • �"P �/� �'�/�3lll�� 1 �C�ic/l 11/24/14 • Date SignaCie of Responsible Officer Date Signature of person preparing • or Proponent NPC (if different from above) • • Michael O'Brien Susan St. Pierre • Name (print or type) Name (print or type) • Riverview Place, LLC Susan St Pierre Consulting Services • Firm/Agency Firm/Agency • 6 Broadmoor Lane 74 Bay View Avenue j • Street Street = Peabody MA 01960 Salem, MA 01970 Municipality/State/Zip Municipality/State/Zip • • (978) 531-3179 781-439-2461 Phone Phone • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 23 • • • • • j • I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Chapter 1 • Project Summary • • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • • • • • • • • • • w • • • • • Page Intentionally Blank • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form 1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY 1.1 Project Site Riverview Place is a proposed mixed-use redevelopment project (hereinafter referred to as the . "Project") located on land under the control of Riverview LLC (hereinafter referred to as the • "Proponent") in Salem, MA. The 4.3 acre site is bounded on the north by Mason Street, on the west by Flint Street, on the south by the North River, and on the east by commercial and industrial properties (See Figure 1, Project Locus Plan and Figure 2, Aerial View). The property was formerly developed with industrial leather manufacturing facilities including the Salem Suede Company and Bonfanti • Leather Company and is currently vacant. The northern portion of the site, where Building 3 is . proposed, is elevated ten to fifteen feet higher than most of the property which is fairly level sloping southerly toward the North River. >♦ The Project site is well situated within walking distance of downtown Salem. The Massachusetts S Bay Transportation Authority Salem Commuter Rail station is located about % mile east of the • site. Abutting land uses include residential neighborhoods and commercial facilities. Two parks • are located in close proximity to the property including the City-owned Mack Park located to the north of the property across Mason Street and Leslie's Retreat Park located to the south of property on the south side of the North River. 40 1.2 Project Summary in The Project involves the redevelopment of the former leather manufacturing complex into a mixed use development consisting of 130 residential apartments and approximately 5,000 square feet (sf) of commercial space. Three buildings are proposed on the site (see Figure 3, Proposed a♦ Site Plan). Two of the Buildings (Buildings 1 and 2) contain residential units and parking on the ground floors and the third Building (Building 3) contains residential uses in the upper floors and • commercial uses and 5 enclosed parking spaces on the lower level. There is also a parking deck • with surface parking underneath, located on the north side of Building 1 that provides 92 spaces. The site has been designed with two site entrances; one off of Mason Street and one off of Flint w Street. 40 The development includes 282 parking spaces that are located in surface parking lots, the ground - floor of each building and under and on the parking deck. Twelve of the at-grade spaces in the • lot near Flint Street have been provided for use by existing residents of Flint Street. Ten spaces in the Project are allotted for commercial use. The Project conforms to the City of Salem's North River Can Corridor Master Plan. 0 Page 11-1 w MOOR Zvi1PV ,(~r ` �r\ \�;�•=cam ��� ,r'`� '�� +•�`�:'%" .'. 'ice `• ►; ��® W',�='� t�' ��,ii�� � its �' ������►� AT 5,���. Ip 6 WA �_jh L WE pig MAR 62 A der" Alpo VP VW r�+ ill ` Im �i�I •ri. iV�� P,4 74 fiN ffil ON) PAM lips WIN ga ®, _ � , -1011-1-11011 MY III g�li : 1 �y y AA th r RV, -o �• Flint`St, Salem i` p• ;'tI/ 3811 / .{- /�• ,. 1 .. - Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form aTLjEKT- - {�y� B!DG @3 ' U e FFA 16.0 . , v 8.0 r , {I �fW3ii69�� ,tlljJ M1 1. 1 Parking Deck BLDG #2 a1� 11iiiil � ( Id � t _ rF_U Oz BLDG ,y1 OF�10.0 rFa21.0 v (.r=10.0 i ' lil IF LL Ci"N Ili" a Source: james k. emmanuel Associates and O'Sullivan Architects, Inc. PROPOSED SITE PLAN Figure 3 Page 11-4 • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • 1.3 EIR Waiver Request • The Project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts to the environment and proposed • mitigation measures address all potential Project related impacts. The Project Proponent is • requesting a full waiver from the requirements to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) • for the Riverview Place Project. The Project previously received funding from Mass Development • for brownfields remediation and thus, MEPA has full scope jurisdiction. The Project also • comprises a nonwater-dependent use on over one acre filled tidelands which requires the filing of • an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) pursuant to 301 CMR 11.03(3)(a)(5). The Project has been designed to meet the use and dimensional requirements of the state tidelands regulations and • provides public benefits that protect the public interest in said tidelands. No other MEPA EIR • thresholds are exceeded. • The Project impacts and proposed mitigation measures are fully analyzed and described herein. • The Project Proponent respectfully requests the Secretary grant a full waiver from the requirements of preparing an EIR pursuant to 310 CMR 11.11 as the Project impacts on land use, • traffic, urban design, and infrastructure described herein were previously reviewed by the City of • Salem as part of the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board Special Permit processes • (changes to the 2007 design to address sea level rise and Ch. 91 requirements were recently • approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals and are under review by the Planning Board); Project • impacts on state wetland resource areas described herein will be further reviewed under the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) wetlands regulations through • the Salem Conservation Commission pursuant to 310 CMR 10.00; and Project impacts on state • tidelands resources described herein will be further reviewed under the MADEP waterways • licensing program pursuant to 310 CMR 9.00. • • Should the Secretary determine that an EIR waiver will not be granted, the Project Proponent requests that the Secretary allow a Single EIR filing pursuant to 301 CMR 11.06(8) and that the • Secretary also grant a Phase 1 full EIR waiver for Building 3 which is proposed along Mason Street. • Building 3 is located outside of state tidelands jurisdiction and is located within the footprint of a • previously existing leather factory that was demolished in 2012. • • 1.3.1 EIR Waiver Rationale • According to Section 11.11(1) of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), the Secretary may waive • any requirement of the regulations upon a finding that strict compliance with the regulations will • result in undue hardship and will not serve to minimize or avoid damage to the environment. In • the case of categorically included projects such as the Riverview Place Project, this finding is • based on the following circumstances: 1) the Project is likely to cause no damage to the environment; and 2) ample and unconstrained infrastructure exists to support the project. • • • • • Page 11-5 • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • EIR Waiver Findings Requirement • Requiring the preparation of an EIR for the proposed Riverview Place Project will result in • hardship for the Proponent and would not serve to avoid or minimize damage to the • environment. There are several site constraints that limit the development options for the site including city zoning requirements, state Chapter 91 use and dimensional restrictions and the 100 • year flood zone. • • The Project underwent extensive review of potential project impacts through the local Zoning and • Planning Board approval process that occurred over a two year period from 2007-2009 which was • followed by a lengthy court case that eventually found in favor of the Proponent. Many alternatives were evaluated in terms of impacts on traffic, infrastructure, historic resources, • neighborhood context, urban design and economic development. The local review process • resulted in reducing the number of buildings from four to three and the number of housing units • from 184 to 130. The process also created an improved public realm along the North River, • imposed several traffic related improvements, created 12 parking spaces for residents of the • adjacent Flint Street, and set aside 13 units of affordable housing (see Section 2.6). • Additionally, the Project is considered a nonwater dependent project, is partially located in filled • private tidelands, and will require authorization under the state waterways (Chapter 91) program. • The Chapter 91 regulations at 310 CMR 9.00 contain specific provisions regarding land use, • dimensional requirements, and public benefits in order to avoid or minimize damage to tideland A resource areas. The Project has been designed to comply with the provisions of the Chapter 91 regulations. The regulations require a lengthy and thorough public review process for nonwater • dependent projects. As part of this review process, impacts to tideland resource areas will be • identified and analyzed and any additional appropriate offsetting mitigation measures will be • required. • As requested by MEPA at a pre application meeting held in December 2010, a Green House Gas Analysis was conducted and is included herein. The analysis determined that the Proposed Project would have a net reduction in CO2 emissions as compared to the base case. A Flood Study • was also conducted to determine the coastal and riverine flood potential on the Project Site with • consideration of predicted sea level rise. A detailed traffic analysis was conducted as part of the • local review process which found the traffic impacts to be minimal and well below MEPA EIR • thresholds. Several mitigation measures were required as part of local permitting decisions to • offset traffic impacts and improve traffic circulation and safety in the neighborhood. • In conclusion, the Project will require additional environmental permitting through federal, state • and local agencies that will include further review of project impacts and the imposition of • required permit conditions as needed. The potential cost and time involved in preparing and • filing an EIR for the Project will increase the overall Project costs, result in further delay of this City • supported economic development project and is not expected to result in corresponding • environmental benefits. • • Page 11-6 • • • • • i Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • EIR Waiver Findings Circumstances Requirement • As noted, the Project is categorically included for the submittal of an EIR pursuant to 301 CMR • 11.03(a)(5) as more than one acre of nonwater-dependent uses are proposed on filled tidelands. The Proponent is seeking a full EIR Waiver pursuant to 310 CMR 11.1(1) because the Project is i likely to cause no damage to the environment and ample and unconstrained infrastructure exists • to support the Project. • • This EENF document fully describes and analyzes all aspects of the Project including existing . baseline conditions, identifies Project alternatives, and proposes appropriate measures to avoid and/or minimize potential environmental impacts. The Project is located in the City of Salem in • close proximity to the downtown area and the MBTA commuter rail station and there is ample • infrastructure to support the Project. • • The Project does impact private filled tidelands but improves the land use quality and public i benefits within said tidelands compared to the previous existing industrial leather manufacturing uses. The Project will create public access that had not previously existed on the site. The i Project has been designed to meet the use and dimensional requirements of the state Chapter 91 i program and Project impacts on filled tideland resources are identified and analyzed herein and i will be fully analyzed through the state Waterways Division Chapter 91 licensing process. • Appropriate mitigation measures are proposed to offset impacts to tideland resource areas. The i Project generates other impacts including traffic generation but through the local review process adequate mitigation has been identified to offset these impacts. • • The Project qualifies for the granting of a waiver from the requirements to file an EIR pursuant to i 310 CMR 11.1(1) as outlined below. • • 1. The Project is not likely to cause damage to the environment. • The Project site was filled for industrial purposes in the 1600's and used for nonwater- • dependent uses since that time. The Project site historically contained large manufacturing • buildings some of which were located directly along the North River. The site included • extensive paved surfaces that occupied land subject to coastal storm flowage, the 100 foot i buffer zone and over one acre of filled tidelands. • Minor alterations are proposed to the Coastal Bank resource area through the installation of a • storm drain outfall and site development activities are proposed in land subject to coastal i storm flowage and areas within the 100 foot buffer zone to the coastal bank. However, the i alterations will improve the environment by reducing impervious areas from the previously • existing leather manufacturing use and replacing existing disturbed areas along the North • River with lawn and public walkways. • The Project also proposes re-development activities in filled tideland resources including • buildings, parking areas, vehicular circulation, lawn and public walkways. These impacts will • i Page 11-7 • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • be subject to review and authorization as part of the MADEP Chapter 91 Waterways Licensing • process and public benefits are proposed to offset these impacts. Proposed public benefits • include: introducing public access to a site where such access has not existed; creation of • public pathways to and along the North River; creation of a view corridor from Mason Street to the North River; creation of pedestrian access from Mason and Flint Streets to the North • River; creation of 13 units of affordable housing and neighborhood benefits including off • street parking areas and traffic improvements. The proposed uses and the public access • improvements are an improvement over the previous private leather manufacturing facilities • that occupied this site for the past century. Additionally, the Project received local Zoning and Site Plan review approvals from the City of • Salem in 2007 and design changes to address Chapter 91 requirements and sea level rives are • (currently before the Planning Board. The Conservation Commission is also currently • reviewing the Project. Some of the 2007 decisions were appealed and after several years of • litigation, the Massachusetts Superior Court found in favor of the Proponent. Through those • permitting processes, the City required traffic mitigation; the reservation of a an easement adjacent to the North River for the City of Salem to construct a future connector road; a view • corridor from Mason Street to the North River; and specific building design and orientation • requirements and architectural design standards. • Due to the presence of historic structures in the area and the proximity to a local historic district, a Project Notification Form was submitted to the Massachusetts Historical Commission which issued a Determination of No Adverse impact in January of 2011 (see • Appendix 1).The Project will be required to obtain a NPDES General Permit, a MADEP sanitary • sewer discharge compliance certificate and a local Conservation Commission approve for site • development. During construction a Licensed Site Professional will monitor construction • activities to ensure compliance with the Project Release Abatement Measures Plan (RAM) • Plan (see section 2.2). • 2. Ample and unconstrained infrastructure facilities and services exist to support those • aspects of the project within subject matter jurisdiction. • • The Project does not require any new infrastructure. The site was previously developed and • is adequately serviced by public water and sewer. The existing curb cut on Flint Street will be • used for site access from the west and an existing driveway on Mason Street will be widened and improved to provide access to the site from the north. The Project will implement traffic • improvements required as part of the Planning Board Special Permit that will improve existing • transportation infrastructure in the area and will provide 12 on-site parking spaces for Flint • Street residents to alleviate congestion and parking demand on that street. The Project will • be served by municipal water and sewer. • • • • Page 11-8 • • • w w w Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • w 1.3.2 Single EIR and Phase 1 Waiver w Should the Secretary determine that an EIR is required, the Project Proponent requests that the w Secretary allow a Single EIR filing in accordance with 301 CMR 11.06(8) and that the Secretary w grant a Phase 1 full EIR waiver for Building 3 which is proposed along Mason Street. Building 3 is w located outside of state tidelands jurisdiction and is located within the footprint of a previous w existing leather factory. w Single EIR w As described in the above paragraphs the analyses included within this EENF comprehensively • asses the existing conditions and potential impacts of the proposed Project and demonstrate w that any damage to the environment will be avoided and/or minimized to the extent feasible. • Project alternatives have been evaluated including an alternative that would develop the site as an Office complex(see Section 2.7, Project Alternatives). • w Phase 1 Waiver w The Phase 1 waiver request to allow the Proponent to proceed with construction of Building 3 w is based on the following considerations pursuant to 301 CMR 11.11(1)(b): w (a) the potential environmental impacts of Phase 1,taken alone,are insignificant. w The proposed Building 3 is not located within state Chapter 91 jurisdiction and does not by w itself exceed any EIR or ENF thresholds. The Mass Development Brownfields grant did not • include this parcel. Considered alone Building 3 does not create any significant w environmental impacts. (b) ample and unconstrained infrastructure facilities and services exist to support Phase 1. The proposed Building 3 is being constructed within the footprint of a previously w developed leather manufacturing building. There is an existing curb cut on Mason Street w and adequate and unconstrained infrastructure and services exist to support the w redevelopment of this parcel. - (c) the Project is severable, such that Phase 1 does not require the implementation of any other future phase of the Project or restrict the means by which potential environmental w impacts from any other phase of the Project may be avoided, minimized or mitigated. w Building 3 can be constructed as a single project and will have no impact on the w avoidance, minimization or mitigation of Project impacts related to the future w construction of Buildings 1 and 2. = (d) the Agency Action on Phase 1 will contain terms such as a condition or restriction in a Permit, contract or other relevant document approving or allowing the Agency Action, or w other evidence satisfactory to the Secretary, so as to ensure due compliance with MEPA w and 301 CMR 11.00 prior to Commencement of any other phase of the Project. • • w Page 11-9 L - • w Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • The proposed Building 3 is not located within state Chapter 91 jurisdiction so no state • permit is required. Conditions as determined necessary will be included in appropriate • documents. • 1.4 Project Permits/Approvals and Agency Coordination w • The Project requires several local permits as well as a state Chapter 91 License, a state sewer • discharge compliance certificate and a federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System • (NPDES) construction stormwater permit(see Table 1). • 1.4.1 Local Approvals • The Project received permits and approvals from the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals • (zoning variances), the Planning Board (Special Permit/Site Plan Approval), the Design Review • Board (Design Review), and the Salem Conservation Commission (for building demolition and • stabilization following the fire) in 2007 through 2009. The project design was later modified in • order to comply with the state Chapter 91 regulations and to address predicted Sea Level Rise and coastal storm flooding. These changes affected the building layout and number of parking spaced • located in surface versus structured parking and are currently before the City of Salem Planning • Board and Design Review Board with approval expected by the end of 2014. A recent request to w the Salem Zoning Board of Appeal to allow a reduction in the required number of parking spaces • from 2 per dwelling unit to 1.5 per dwelling unit was denied. A Notice of Intent was recently filed w with the Salem Conservation Commission for work within coastal bank, land subject to coastal storm flowage and 100 feet of resources areas. The Notice of Intent is currently pending by the w Conservation Commission and an Order of Conditions is expected to be issued shortly. Local building permits from the Inspectional Services Department will be sought once other project • approvals have been secured. 1.4.2 State Approval/Permits The Project site contains more than one acre of filled tidelands and is comprised of nonwater- • dependent use and thus, pursuant to the state MEPA regulations at 301 CMR 11.03(a)(5), an EIR • filing is required and, pursuant to the state Chapter 91 waterways program regulations at 310 • CMR 9.00,the Project also requires Chapter 91 authorization. • EIR Waiver Request w Because the only MEPA EIR threshold that the Project exceeds is the nonwater-dependent use of • one acre or more of filled tidelands, and because the state Chapter 91 Licensing process will w comprehensively address all the environmental issues associated with such use, an EIR waiver • request is proposed herein (please see Section 1.3 above). • MEPA/Chapter 91 Coordination • Representatives of the Project Proponent held a pre-application meeting with MEPA and MADEP • Waterways staff in December of 2010 to discuss the requirements for filing an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) and Request for EIR waiver. At that meeting, MEPA • • Page 11-10 • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • requested that the EENF/EIR waiver request include detailed information of the Project • compliance with the state Chapter 91 program as well as a discussion of Public Benefits and a Green House Gas analysis. These analyses are provided in the following chapters. A second • meeting was held with DEP waterways staff in February of 2011 to review the historic shoreline • documentation and methodology used to establish the water-dependent use zone on the site. • Agreement was reached on the location of both of these jurisdictional areas (see Chapter 3, • Section 3.10, Wetland and Waterways Resource Areas). Additional Coordination with MA Office • of Coastal Zone Management, MA DEP Northeast Region and the MEPA office occurred in the late • fall of 2013 regarding the delineation of state wetland resource areas; coastal and riverine flooding impacts and sea level rise; and Green House Gas analysis. These environmental issues • have been addressed within this EENF document. • • Massachusetts Historic Commission • Subsequent to the MEPA pre-application meeting, a Project Notification Form was filed with the Massachusetts Historic Commission and in January 2011 and a determination was made that the • Project is unlikely to affect significant historical or archeological resources (see Appendix 1, • Massachusetts Historical Commission Determination). • MADEP Sewer Discharge Certificate Sanitary Sewer Connections • The Project will generate sanitary sewage and will be required to file a one-time sewer discharge certifications statement within 60 days following the use of the sewer connection. - 1.4.3 Federal Permits • A federal NPDES stormwater permit will be required during construction. This permit requires the • filing of a Stormwater Management Plan. • Table 1 • Required Permits and Approvals • Agency Permit/Approval Status • City of Salem • Conservation Commission Order of Conditions Issued for Demolition • Pending for Construction Building Department Building Permits To be Filed • State • Department of Environmental Chapter 91 License for Nonwater- To be Filed • Protection dependent Project • Coastal Zone Management Federal Consistency Determination Part of Chapter 91 Licensing • Mass Historic Project Notification Form Filed & Determination of No Impact issued January 2011 • Department of Environmental Sanitary Sewer discharge compliance To be Filed • Protection certificate • Federal Environmental Protection Agency NPDES General Permit To be Filed w • • Page I1-11 • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • 1.5 Project Team • • Project Proponent Surveyor • Riverview Place LLC Eastern Land Survey • 5 Broadmoor Lane Lowell Street • Peabody, MA 01960 Peabody, MA 01960 - (978) 531-8121 Permitting/Approvals Contact: Chris Mello • Susan St. Pierre Consulting Services • 74 Bay View Ave Transportation • Salem, MA 01970 AECOM • (781)439-2461 300 Baker Avenue • Contact: Susan St. Pierre,AICP Suite 290 Concord, MA 01742 • Architect (978) 371-4356 • O'Sullivan Architects Contact: Jeff Maxtutis, Senior • 580 Main Street,Suite 204 Planner • Reading, MA 01867 (781)439-6166 Legal Counsel • Contact: Jonathan Stone Tinti, Quinn, Grover& Frey, P.C. • Congress St#414 • Landscape Architect Salem, MA 01970-5591 • james k. emmanuel I associates (978) 745-8065 • 22 Carlton Rd. Contact: Scott Grover, Esq. • Marblehead, MA 01945 (781) 622-7487 Environmental (Flood/Sea Level Rise) • The Bioengineering Group • Engineer 18 Commercial Street • Williams&Sparages LLC Salem, MA 01970 • 189 North Main Street, Suite 101 (978) 224-3109 Middleton, MA 01949 Contact: Lori Kennedy, Project • (978) 539-8088 • Engineer Contact: Richard Williams • Environmental (Site Remediation) • Green House Gas Tech Environmental Bruce Poole, President •_ 45 Congress Street 1601Trapelo Road Salem, MA 01940 Waltham, MA 02451 Sale , MA019 • (781) 890-2220 bruce000leso@aol.com • Contact: Peter Guldberg David Bramley, PE, LSP, LEP • dlbramlev@aol.com • (860) 966-2911 • • Page 11-12 • • • • i • I • • • • • • i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Chapter 2 • onti Project Description � 1 p • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Page Intentionally Blank • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION • The Riverview Place Project is located along the North River in the North Salem section of the City of Salem (see Figure 1, Locus Plan in Chapter 1). This part of North Salem is a mixed use neighborhood that contains residential, commercial and industrial uses. 45 2.1 Existing Site Conditions The Property, which is partially comprised of filled tidelands, has been significantly altered by more than a century of industrial use. The site was previously developed as industrial leather manufacturing operations and contained two separate companies, Bonfanti Leather which was a single building sited on a small parcel along Mason Street and the Salem Suede Leather Factory i which was a larger, multi building facility located on a larger parcel off of Flint Street. The Salem Suede facility was destroyed by fire in the fall of 2010 and subsequently demolished and the Bonfanti building was demolished in October 2012. Figure 4, 2010 Existing Conditions Plan, Figure 5, 2010 Aerial View, and the photos on the following pages show the location of 49 these former facilities and the North River. As shown on the figures, the property was densely developed and the Salem Suede complex included structures in close proximity to the water's edge and the adjacent residential uses. The site is currently vacant and contains remnants of the demolished building foundations and former parking lots and paved surfaces. Due to active site remediation activities, the existing site grades are in a state of flux resulting from foundation 41 removal, excavation and stockpiling activities (see Figure 6, 2014 Existing Conditions Plan). 0 a 2.2 Site Remediation = As noted, the site was previously used for industrial leather manufacturing. The site surficial material is mapped as Urban Land. The site was filled successively in the 19th and 20th centuries with materials commonly used at the time including included leather scraps, buffing dust, coal ash, and tanning barks with the most prevalent fill material being red fiber, which is spent hemlock, mimosa, quabracco, and wattle barks that were used before chromium to dye the - leather red and brown without chemicals (vegetable tanning). In the mid-1920s, tanning • operations at the site included leather beaming, tanning, coloring, and finishing operations. In 1978 the tannery was purchased by Salem Suede Inc. and an entrance from Mason Street was created. The company ceased all operations in 2007 and removed all chemicals and tanks. As noted, the buildings have been demolished and the site is currently vacant with some remnant . floor slabs and foundations remaining. Due to its previous leather manufacturing uses, a Release Abatement Measurement Plan (RAM) was prepared with input from the state Department of Environmental Protection for the site in 49 2011 and updated in 2013 (RTN 3-0380). The site does not currently have an Activity and Use Limitation as site remediation activities are not complete. Page 12-1 • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form The RAM Plan incorporates many of the provisions developed in a Phase II Comprehensive Site - Assessment Plan prepared under a brownfields assessment program. The site assessment - identified constituents of concern including arsenic, chromium, lead, petroleum, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins, and furans and, to a lesser extent cadmium and nickel. Site remediation activities have been occurring at the site in compliance with the RAM plan over the past year. The activities have been undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the plan • including extraction methods, air quality monitoring and recording, groundwater management, soil confirmation sampling and analyses, soil transportation and disposal and documentation. An Order of Conditions was issued by the Salem Conservation Commission authorizing this work. Monthly summary reports have been prepared including atmospheric monitoring, dust monitoring and a compilation of remediation activities. Data collected from groundwater - sampling are currently being complied for use in a risk characterization in support of a Response - Action Outcome Report. No Volatile organic contaminants (VOCs) from buried waste and/or 49contaminated groundwater or soil have been detected at the Site and they are not considered as constituents of concern. Thus, VOCs are not included in the assessment of risk and are not considered as potential indoor air quality impacts. The 2013 site remediation activities included excavation and removal of approximately 1,600 cubic yards of material and stockpiling of approximately 378 cubic yards that may be suitable for • site re-use. The RAM Plan outlines the potential reuse of some of the excavated material at the site. Granular soil that may be suitable for stabilization to prevent the migration of metals constituents may be incorporated into the development project. In general, the stabilized soil would be used under the parking area where and not under residential portions of the project. - In addition, "clean corridors" will be created to allow unrestricted activity during installation or repair activities. Some additional soils need to be excavated and evaluation to determine - remediation needs which is expected to be completed by the end of 2014. Finally, the , remediation that has been conducted and the proposed redevelopment of the site are not considered a Land Use with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads LUHPPL. 2.3 Neighborhood Context The site is bounded on the south by the North River and on the north and west by the - predominantly residentially developed portions of Mason Street and Flint Street. Industrial and commercial uses are located to the east between Mason Street and the North River. Mack Park, a large city-owned recreational area is located north of the site on Mason Street. Along the south side of the River lies the Leslie's Retreat Park, a linear passive recreational area developed as mitigation for the Salem/Beverly By-Pass Road project. In 2005, the City of Salem adopted • the North River Canal District Master Plan. See Figure 7, North River Canal Master Plan. The goals of the Master Plan are outlined in the 2003 vision statement and include: i a Page 12-2 , 8 w Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • Create appropriate development while preserving our historic neighborhood character • • Address transportation issues for existing and new developments • Enhance the public realm in keeping with our unique neighborhood character A To implement the goals and vision outlined in the Master Plan, the City of Salem adopted the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed use District as Section 8.4.1 of the City of Salem zoning code. The overlay district allows many different types of uses including manufacturing, single and multi-family residential, retail and office and prohibits services stations, car washes, • drug stores, supermarkets and drive through restaurants among others. Development projects proposed in the zoning district must meet certain standards outlined in the code such as # compatibility with the Master Plan, designed to complement the scale and context of the ' neighborhood, encourage pedestrian use and access, and include water dependent uses adjacent # to the North River including parks, open space and pedestrian facilities. The ordinance requires two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Density bonuses are provided for projects that preserve • National Register eligible structures or provide affordable housing. The Project received a density bonus for setting aside 13 units of affordable housing. The zoning also requires Planning Board site plan review including review by the Design Review Board for projects proposed in this a district. 'I W IN - ON -M View of Site from Flint Street entrance looking east View toward Site from Mason Street • • View toward Mason Street from Site interior View wall and foundation remnants from North River P a g e 12-3 Lil— AL View of former Salem Suede Plant looking northwest h View of formerSuede Plant looking d kv ..F - � 4 • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • \ l • • • • w � - Residences along Flint Street abutting • /" _ - ■ % Project Site. Note corner of former Salem Suede Building to the left and behind the • � _ �" residence in the photo to the left. • • • SIP . • • J • • • •. Mason Street residences and former Bonfanti Building looking east • Page 12-5 • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form l I In m+' n �i Ea snN, i•iDuc;HnL 'Ay_ -'� SUIJ anc 1) TI 1 '0 2 STONIP.S Iil HJGH� Z--�II r i � ) Cenlomi � � jr'� i _ i • las iL :' Lf I�w='•7: � _ 1 1 Y �_ T--.—�:�� e "I -r�Ofr�yy �._,H r-lT_"__ II ,F, ka+nm 'E- I� '` Uy �/ Ir ri lel L.F_-t..._-• �W+ y it i _- +( 'V ra e�r'p✓t! '�ji�,1 tNr SNp SGla. � .. ` res \\4 l }I 1iN\ � F�`.1 . ._ II'�N Irr `lS .aha StOo.'..5 os t -/• ' ; I ��� \ ay i ru A ��t� tC I �' .y ft>yncdl ��.� C'v i `t } - ♦�rl i � __ /� '"� _�-.]�Y �� j '1 Flo ��Q�o° " 1 � � •{33' 11O— rn ,- � ]j1tQ[y' .tl _- IS )f•-�-r'-- .-__ 1 — ' ,.- ( Ods .. t1 + �5 {`ta � 4�1r " 11 "t frr'' ,... —"\5� .�(L• 1 .^'�`� � PJ- str \ r i' NOR H ° Source: Eastern Land Survey and Patrowicz Land Development Engineering 2010 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN Figure 6 Page 12-6 r Cornpljx .40 jIF� -..f'\. .!'` "�' �,V kit ''�' � !$ii:• _'�, �.� '� �FSu\ • ..� / ;.elf.may'.. �• I ley VA :. 1 `• . �P Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form wr �` - Im /n Rsm�n RIMaE•E� �F� 0 \ \ y amort•.R \ r—•mss.— .1{� `oEP Hlsmmc \ EI __ ❑ �---- � \ a, • �'• �i.v INSlIYL `� 1•ILIWC �-------- UMM OF ZOO FOOT IRFA /O In ppp������'' •q ��1Y� • n ,•1 1.4 y tl 5p y In 6 4 \ \ I FA(1W E Df ET —MOM n1E EM"NC MHW) Is g(( • I .�-•— vaz(me mor o T �/HOM 1NF Fa5nN0 MN1ry iEYA ZONE A GENA VM Eo�r1012) Im 1 n p _ : a• y � � •�%tl��i'� � �� z90oxNta oAl ��z( • I V l `•, / _ ___ % .�. � y, MM uw4 aX MgN q M RENSED J Ly 18.2014 \ Etl311XG MEAN HW WAIFA(MNYJ(EL-A4 NLY➢1 .a oo10 C -c- � RIN R - ^'ORTg 0 , Source: Williams&Sparages, LLC 2014 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN Figure 4 Page 12-8 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form NEIGHBORHOOD MASTER PLAN FOR THE NORTH RIVER CANAL CORRIDOR ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN NOAIN NOAINSASI " NORIMNO1 p(arpmlmtlobltrmlbRpMtpwl— bAm mrPaWloro,pbp[ar9 NIy1G61mntu].tlalmm unboXrClmabprRM—IbrNof (wu•M V•rwn JUeel roigmormm bpbX ✓nmmptbl¢abrry inntllntUkIMSq M1 Rr1OJetlmt •tlNWMraveArmYaN yriyNM •q{erb«weNm[owaMelarywlbbmy r«N4✓rbNarlpwlArr« ys4rrwmwlams tlbNMwM .a.�blY�bMMNbw -LYN 4PraW.Mb�� WYbw«4V.Ywwep NAfMM • 4yY•M.YraO maeYPfYbsw bl^NrFnr^bMM W«MWMwMAblrb'wsa.+«Mlmb •Clb11m�MYllrw.4bM0 •NIbMMgIMF NIMIOn ArbyMMVOASM Irfa)Ia.MlraPbl•IfEbaaO .iy 1 a -bgaYmAgAnwqb«mltl rmmmbpwmi✓ MwPomuaM -�YmAblrrwoaNVAW .. nA ✓AynnA✓Aw.Aw b.M�iear.rmm.a .Irk«14«arwlmi.wbwmn�MrbnwspN[nnn:e -wa.Ymermw�Amt '�^.TLA:r - ka nrr.alwlYN •.ommn.mNMlbAIIalYaer. Ya.waa «✓Jay Amlw.b n✓�.frpbl'1"ni«le✓An.nna-eY4Yan.r nfaNn Nra.vbYlMwA«rwn. aM..II4.4ew MPwaNgMw, {atlN u�b rr JlYafYbwll±Ym.w.uwmswm .w..AmnnmrYYN»iL.Wbl++rn rwwaurYn-ymMart .YpwrwgYG«gw ��Y��m« mM RUMA 10 AhtRU mbriA[ V OWRa Lwg neEY MWO M��W14AW-beb bnm ap •piwbraapwa«abnnsrbe«V XmX Rff.WRJ.mo XwIn RM Cmf C✓AOR aIYI[aUwtlEAln •ae.w fMN..bm.lrsllA -oNwPbps[YMWsw✓:fMYa.bre.M Nwm9J«rwm[m 9w LMbaM.M .[rl71SXNY Mgwbab.leatle IWORA.wgftl f.laORlb.MllRIIIWWatfbM1lo bftl 6Mos«Cw6 .AfeMpAYM1rglpfw yuIN.V4Yab9M44'.f .q«pyMetlmbaaN Mama)*6t1Wd r.M[Ir[p"t01Ri[X9trorlNn✓ .Ma Imll Monatll)mp mllfmYlgaWjlobeOWMtwn Npwl1Y,IM rt EJi Jsv$ S /A�(.�A tlt pp � oAV`� Ilrf.mrbNm�•r11nRr91bEMtpmtnMR4tlaUaea 1prm 1`g• •lll j��b �i�• fy�S��etaaa�,��jy' �..,.- /f'- boAumn.rwuawplvRa9lurcnrt m[sR.mrsalm. ,fC �, '. j� V!_N �.s $ �/ jaw a ma0rrgrytlpb lsntlr tplpipmmms�m•mlortQ$u r .�� ia� A 9aylpltAMma•R In AFpJAUNrytoIMIAW 1MaM0 mgroR. R Af {� r p✓' Qf • 4mi11YANW101 fEtWaNYlbjaofrm aelYN mlMpAp3 .10 � wtm NatuNWa4fuMbn.mrafnmism.mr t1 /+ xrpwaxtsa111rrbtMyrWONNOP OVrUINUMMRmlgl• YYv�MXayifrMyYibab wa r f ♦ Frt 'tl. Vraaaaa� w •Y•• NMARHr pwm9na]nmor:al uxrrr.owaM.wNlawl t"� � � ►,/1 I � m..ae a la a.a.>V g .� .'. a #fid.. al., f • e/ j j�fv CS Y pt o V7�J 341s• it �,a�cY� _.r p1 ���1 ✓ ��J�`J" i ®,.8 '_,.,rt .fn qu+•X = 14 ♦ �•nr'RFH'•J..•a's ry�1T�.1vt9A.A�tif� —1 � cal •� �� _9..-.-.--...r • • '�i �'4 � »MVNw r�w.N✓w�..ww.smr.e»w.r�..,d�e A�wA}wnrawab.nbM1 OUINWFSI LISll[S R;T*IA11AIR MU1N SOUINGSI Mu1raMNNMynr.nrmiq ClenaanN9an Y0YgM'alb^OnMa]' Stta101 [IbY Ramlt hrt llanglMn mintlbof hdltr enMu®PRXV IM rJ• arl.r#ra "' "iev0i mO(Ivrntoam✓NrmyeStmtalw batonauaal osrs4nmrlvbRmnl! S AreM4 prop itMaler111llB .10.mlMmgntro •ee«�Vmawp-«CNq'fnllswbea Rbybeawb«IbOy.rN1aA«rm«- Wrt Em. [ lbn[Iw emama qy vub mAMmnJPwmamnpM»u •AwNananA+wM9n Iln[uatwah119M aOJa . j •bprwJ.m«MIrW.IYMIebrNbf«eI •m1�11ganN4 M11d •Ignwn[OYe«Iggew ~ NO«aaNbrb R4«✓YyNmb✓Ify -YaWpIW4WMaYiw. anMnMalmns.r« .m1o1.YNMaNN9fbsms✓alO.«Ybe rbYpnwM 4YMN(nrMAYrr y�4a�J46MtlNA1M IYNMranbimawl4 � /�h� f ..�� ��i�yt. � �. uMp¢•/MYfMN«s CrrtltY«.Na.AI -PMJrAPWf OnM.JMartA1«aMrM nMIF>.ObPgM V IK• .IwtwYa«bNl«N«NSAIaIffryY tlelaM� -Mbb4YpaYAbtl -4umlrmllvllJwl«M1Yr -Mwf YY40.RW..wItlY 4. W,' dMM.wNMYwabrW sJNPYNN .NMrIAMaN .by �Mba«w mtlbbMw \lam � �1 i - -�wnyeyb •Ie1wnMY«req .mpwpmbaaeweY«w a mww wtlneN ._ � �� ti. ��� : t�`N I YLMYYIw -AaY«erfpMlb a.NpMNrltllw YWII.4bMhn IT�IVYNM N4nbMw •MnarYrtN✓HYMN «I✓arupNrm.nNwabw as aYmnAS}urw✓tlNNAJ w �-r1"� i"r y� i��. �+ ,/� •.wXmwM1.la..wro wJb IwrImIAWSA -,4roNMeY..«Yn..M .NMa.Aw Namo.Jny '�—.t' .YpwaR.4.aJMPomawAAMra +J+AWAYMG'\fwuN satlb •rlYewmamnYlMAmAlmw �CrIMNMaNtla aouw � �1 •MMIf«YN.nw0111.Xr1.«YmYMawnlaYyl MAaNnewlOnlYl «Ga.bmNXAalvnglYNb MIMYIMarmMnafa .. •bewmwemwMgr .blrnrm«n gb+Mlrq .wNwIrXA.aX4. ,i✓ - -(pmrmaNarbwbnrNMtlN✓w1 -NYMaW}Pflblr -HMhPoAIyrYRNr .NbtmbYNbrnMM /� �AY 1 M1.iwvsnr✓mym✓m.M .pm.M✓rawalnabl me -Imy�m.wa4J.q«abbalmawf •pnA1MwY.46lMpwM. w✓.44«4pYAY.i.w, b.Ma..y✓uYMlywr.[rn.NrnMw.N nrNJ.Nyav4myY yye]nyYawn.wnmNxpa{v0 mAINYpmYAA MAYNmw Y,ybugbinbNpag«pvi -✓J.f pfM«YfbYl1f41M bbppa evUx NLn NWr.NW xaarM1wyYMNa. 4W nlm bps.Nllnn4✓n. .Alrw«nMmYWaOJYIW NyrY{MaanCMgn«AO4N) •pW.NbIMMbbIgfN •«abYryMl\f atlrarfn M4Y«NwrM✓O.Y NfN. -teytAlwaMM.tlAfJY.MVmIrtlM4pP -MYyp.MfV(b.nM✓Itl Yi.NaN blllMsrA .Me.AJplbnbmmN.MRY9Y JrmAf m4.mgaM ��� AYrobywr wrt�mammonnNn.ramm«onpNa rY.mawbNNrybMAwr leN Source:2003 North River Canal MasterPlan NORTH RIVER CANAL MASTER PLAN Figure 7 Page 12-9 • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form - • 2.4 Transportation and Infrastructure • Local Street Network ! The site is well serviced by a local street network. To alleviate existing traffic problems, the Project • is required to implement several traffic improvements in accordance with the Planning Board • Special Permit (see Chapter 3, Section 3.2). • The site is directly serviced by Mason and Flint Streets and indirectly by Tremont and Bridge Streets • (see Figure 8, Local Street Network below) which were all included in the Traffic Study prepared as • part of the City of Salem Planning Board filings in October of 2007 and found in Appendix 2. • �;,� ., y \ l .�: �� ��`,� 4 �) fag �,,.,�; t� �,� • tfst � t T, 114 � ! ,r c \ • B�aioro sti��4 \5, .SCb� -\ �\ kiddeKoopChild.UmCtr �i t list.. • /ry�iitT�P��^�,O '$a 1\lvvv u �V� BRIDGE%\. 'STREET NECK/, • Mack Perk i� /G�—,.BIJd 25��•leameng p d1 5dam o ,ri g. u ,C] r {I� CMrritOn 1.!c° • <� PrOec Eases Cc law�6rsy 1 _j 4r V �L✓_�--. �.I PaaW Essxs�--=DERR ,W �'t S e J" Nokh Shore �° Muuum Aran FsSexS • 107 ir•---a��j1� Oddrens_"'�� Yldcb Hino 1�1�1 ����� '. =K9laeum�j-1'n +M�scunry ESSEX IN5T�J'R - ��\� �i'„ �1 _ i�SEutYf.L\k • \'V 'S�� '�)//��}�IS�✓�� 1{� I - � �� ;,J3a4m WitchN,IIJ1ageJ-1�� �� • la\S` ` anae0m— \rte lL Nr++ a a 3 1r/ /r. 27 CDesaO M�IrinR7C-E all?^Sc�� 11 ��'^� LOCAL STREET NETWORK Figure 8 • • • Mason Street(which is one point of access to the Project site) is a local roadway that runs in an east- west direction between Grove Street and North Street (Route 114). Mason Street provides one • travel lane in each direction. Sidewalks are located on both sides of Mason Street to the east of Tremont Street, and along the south side of the roadway to the west of Tremont Street. On-street parking is permitted along various portions of Mason Street, although in the vicinity of the Project • site, between Flint Street and Tremont Street, on-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the • Mason Street. Flint Street (which is another point of access to the Project site) is a local roadway • that runs in a north-south direction between Mason Street and Bridge Street in the Project vicinity. • Flint Street generally provides constrained one travel lane in each direction. In the vicinity of the Project site, sidewalks are provided along both sides of the roadway and on-street parking is permitted only on the west side. • • Page 12-10 • • 0 a r Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form Tremont Street is a local roadway that runs in a north-south direction between Mason Street and the Peabody city line.Tremont Street provides one travel lane in each direction. In the vicinity of the - Project site, a sidewalk is provided along the east side of Tremont Street. Bridge Street (Route 107) • is an urban arterial roadway that generally runs in an east-west direction through the City of Salem. To the west of Flint Street, Bridge Street provides two travel lanes in each direction. To the east of Flint Street, Bridge Street generally provides one travel lane in each direction. In the vicinity of the Project site, sidewalks are provided along both sides of Bridge Street west of Flint Street, and on the a south side only east of Flint Street. 0 • The City of Salem has recently undertaken transportation upgrades in proximity to the project site under a MassWorks Infrastructure Grant including intersection and roadway improvements such as 40 paving, streetscape amenities, bike lanes, sidewalks and crosswalks. According to the City, the infrastructure improvements will directly support the proposed redevelopment of five 46 developments within the North River Canal Corridor including the Riverview Project which will help i revitalize the blighted, former industrial area into a mixed-use neighborhood consistent with the 40 goals of the City's North River Canal Corridor Master Plan (personal communication June 4, 2014). '' Public Transportation a As noted the MBTA commuter rail line is located about %: mile east of the Project site. The Leslie's Retreat Park is located across the North River from the Project site. Project residents could walk through the park walkways to the MBTA commuter rail station. Mason and Flint Streets which abut - the site are not directly serviced by MBTA public transportation service. The closest bus stop is on • Boston Street at Nichols and Federal Street which is within reasonable walking distance. • 2.5 Historical Resources The Project site is located north of and across the North River from the McIntire Historic District which is listed in the State Register of Historic Places. There are also buildings located on Mason • and Flint Street and other nearby streets associated with the City's industrial worker housing that are listed on the state Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. However neither the Bonfanti Building, the Salem Suede Building nor other buildings or structures previously located on the Project site were included in this list. a 2.6 Wetland and Waterways Resources The property abuts the North River and includes wetland and waterways resources including coastal 4111 bank and land subject to coastal storm flowage and filled tidelands. The North River was once a 40 large tidal estuary with extensive salt marshes and mudflats that extended inland from Salem and i Beverly Harbors to the neighboring community of Peabody (see 1855 Coast Chart in Figure 9 below). During the nineteenth century the North River was filled to accommodate railroads, mills and 40 industrial uses including several leather tanning factories that were developed along the banks. Flint Street, located just west of the Project site, as well as the adjacent Oak and Friend Streets were residentially developed around the same time period with the worker housing while Mason Street . Page 12-11 a • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form located north of the site was developed with a mix of residential and industrial uses. The wetland • and waterways resource areas are described in more detail below. • • Project Site y�;� : h y\,;;` • . r Y :. ,.: MUM • 14 l ��� � /� � �. '•? c:4 1855 US COAST CHART Fi ure 9 2.6.1 Wetland Resources The Project site abuts the North River which is a tidally influenced water body. The North River was historically a large tidal embayment area that contained salt marsh and tidal flats (see Figure 9). The site is located about 1,800 feet upstream of the North Street Bridge (Route 114) which was designed i with large box culverts to allow ocean tidal flow into the North River. These 11 foot by 7 foot 3 inch i double barrel concrete box culverts are equipped with tide gates that have not functioned for , several years allowing free flow of tidal water in and out of this portion of the North River. The North River in the Project vicinity between Flint Street and the North Street Bridge varies in width from approximately 40 to 117 feet. As part of the state Highway Department Salem/Beverly ByPass project, portions of the North River between Flint Street and the North River bridge were widened and dredged to improve flow, a park was created on the south side of the River and a pedestrian bridge was constructed to connect Commercial Street on the north to the park in the later 1990's early 2000. Further upstream towards the City of Peabody, the River becomes more channelized and more influenced by upstream riverine factors (see aerial view below). Due to its coastal location, the North River in the vicinity of the Project site experiences diurnal high and low tides (see site photographs taken at high and low tide respectively in August of 2013 on the following page) that mix with upstream fresh water during flood events. The North River in this location falls under the state wetland regulation definition of estuary: "any area where fresh and Page 12-12 . • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • salt water mix and tidal effects are evident; or any partially enclosed coastal body of water where • the tide meets the current of any stream or river". Based on several factors including the site • status as filled tidelands; the proximity of the site to Beverly Harbor; the presence of diurnal high • and low tides; the unrestricted tidal flow through the North Street bridge culverts; and the FEMA • flood studies showing the presence of coastal storm flowage in this area; the wetland resources areas have been determined to be comprised of coastal resource areas. • • v • • • v wr ' �'N • o'f 1 • • v • a 1 • y i.TM v • The state Wetlands Protection Act (M. G. L. Ch. 131, Section 40, paragraph 6) defines coastal • wetlands as follows: The term "coastal wetlands", as used in this section, shall mean any bank, • marsh, swamp, meadow, flat or other lowland subject to tidal action or coastal storm flowage."The • definition of coastal wetlands in the state wetland regulations(310 CMR 10.04) refers readers to the • above referenced section of the Wetlands Protection Act. The state wetland regulations define Land • Subject to Tidal Action as "land subject to the periodic rise and fall of a coastal water body, including • spring tides." The regulations, in the definition of Land Under Waterways, specifically refers to the • coastal section of the regulations for Land Under Ocean and estuaries. • The North River in the Project vicinity also falls within the federal definition of estuaries as defined • by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services Center Shoreline • website glossary: htto://shoreline.noaa.gov/glossary.htmi which defines estuaries as follows: • • • Page 12-13 • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • "estuary: An embayment of the coast in which fresh river water entering at its head mixes with the • relatively saline ocean water. When tidal action is the dominant mixing agent it is usually termed a tidal • estuary. Also, the lower reaches and mouth of a river emptying directly into the sea where tidal mixing • takes place.The latter is sometimes called a river estuary." • The agency also defines freshwaters as: • "Waters that do not ebb and flow with the tide.The determinative factor is that the water body does not • ebb and flow with the tide, not the salt content of the water. (Coastal States Organization 1997)". • • Further research reveals that the U.S. EPA classifies this portion of the North River (named on the • web site as Proctor Brook) as an estuary. See link (select Massachusetts and Proctor Brook). • Additionally, a Flood Study was performed for the Project which determined that the North River in the Project vicinity is dominated by coastal rather than inland flooding (see Section 2.53 below). • • In summary, the North River in the Project vicinity falls under both the state and federal definitions • of a coastal resource area and, based on a review of these definitions and the fact that the North • River in the vicinity of Project site is very much influenced by diurnal tides and as a result is tidally • dominant, the wetland resources are considered coastal resource areas. Coastal Resources located on the Project site include Coastal Bank and Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage (see Figure 10, • Wetlands and Waterways Resource Areas). The site also contains a Riverfront Area however • because the Project requires a Chapter 91 license, the Riverfront provisions do not apply. It should • be noted that the Project previously filed Notice of Intent applications and plans with the Salem • Conservation Commission for site demolition and remediation work that identified the wetland • resource areas as coastal resources. Other nearby properties and projects (including the • Massachusetts Highway Department Salem/Beverly Bypass Road project) also filed Notices of Intent that delineated the resource areas as coastal. To our knowledge the delineation of the resource • areas as coastal versus inland in all of these filings was not raised as an issue of concern (see DEP File • #'s 64-197; 64-337; 064-0492 and 064-0518). Finally, the flood study prepared as part of this report • concludes that flooding in this portion of the North River is primarily affected by coastal rather than • riverine influences(see Section 3.10.3 in Chapter 3 and Appendix 3). • Fisheries and wildlife • According to various reports of Salem Sound Coastwatch, the North River provides habitat for the • migration and spawning of rainbow smelt, American eel and white perch. Rainbow smelt begin • migration in March and complete spawning during the second or third week of May with the last • hatching of eggs occurring near the end of May. Salem Sound Coastwatch with other partners has • spearheaded a multi-year project to restore a healthy population of Rainbow Smelt in the North • River. According to the "Final Pathogen TDML North Coastal Watershed March 2012 report prepared by MADEP and U.S. EPA Region 1, the Division of Marine Fisheries does not manage this • portion of the North River as a shellfish management area in accordance with the requirement of • the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. According to the MASS GIS Oliver on line mapping tool • there are no estimated habitats of Rare Wildlife or Rare Species in the Project vicinity. • • Page 12-14 • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • � �..."" , ..fix r..;r : • 1 _' - Rte- _.•�W � 1 = Looking northwesterly toward site at high and low tide o � . f • �d a • Looking northeasterly toward site at high and low tide • • i • Looking northeasterly of site at high and low tide • • • Page 2-15 • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • • 1.f:l� ':��� ii •, vhr. .i • • Above and Below: Views Looking east from the Above: Looking east toward North Street Bridge and • Commercial Street walkway toward North Street the box culverts Bridge and the box culverts at low tide Below:Older view of former North Street Bridge prior • to culverts from old post card • i ti ffr!u�,L�°x�i .'1 x,L, b.. .:+s4 .�•?+tyv, __. `�. • • • • • • Page 12-16 • • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • 2.6.2 Waterways Resources • • The Project site abuts the North River and is partially comprised of filled private tidelands and non- jurisdictional uplands. While the North River was formerly navigable by vessels at high tide to Salem • and Beverly Harbors in the Project vicinity, this access was restricted to small vessels such as canoes • and kayaks as a result of filling activities in the 1800's and the construction of the North Street • Bridge. The area is still tidally dominant with large areas of mudflats exposed at low tide. • • Chapter 91 Jurisdiction Approximately 2.3 acres of the 4.3 acre site is comprised of filled tidelands and the remainder is • non-jurisdictional uplands. The Proponent coordinated with the MADEP Waterways Division to • determine the extent of historic tidelands on the site and to delineate the Water-dependent Use • Zone. The Department's presumed historic high tide line was used to delineate the extent of filled • tidelands on the site and the Water-Dependent Use Zone (WDUZ) calculations resulted in a zone • that extends inland 88.5 feet from the shoreline (mean high water). The location of the historic high • water line, the agreed upon WDUZ and the 100 foot limit of ground plane Facility of Public Accommodation requirement are shown on Figure 10, Wetlands and Waterways Resource Areas. • The North River was a large tidal estuary with extensive mudflats and areas of salt marsh (see Figure 9). The historic low water mark is riverward of the property line and, thus the site is comprised of j • private filled tidelands. = Water-dependent Use Zone For nonwater-dependent projects, the Chapter 91 regulations establish Water-Dependent Use • Zones (WDUZ) within which new or expanded buildings for non-water-dependent use and parking at • or above grade are prohibited. As shown on Figure 10, the WDUZ on the Property generally extends • inland 88.5 feet from the current high water mark, which represents 25 percent of the weighted - average distance from the high water mark to the landward property line. The methodology and • results of the WDUZ calculations were reviewed with Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP) Waterways staff at the meetings held in the spring of 2011. • • 100 Foot Ground Level Facility of Public Accommodation Zone • The Chapter 91 regulations prohibit the placement of Facilities of Private Tenancy (FPTs) at the • ground level within 100 feet of the shoreline for nonwater-dependent projects. This 100 Facility of • Public Accommodation setback (denoted as "FPA") is shown on Figure 10, Wetlands and Waterways • Resource Areas. • Chapter 91 Authorizations • Portions of the site were originally comprised mudflats and tidal waters of the historic North River - that were filled over time for industrial uses. Waterways licenses were issued for filling and rail - transportation activities on the Project site as listed in Table 2 below. • • • - Page 12- 17 • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • Table 2 • Waterways Authorizations • License Number Date Issuing Authority Purpose • Chapter 185 1883 Mass.State Legislature Taking of Flats for Filling/Build Canal • 748 1884 Harbor&Land Commissioners Building Canal in North River • 3493 1910 Harbor& Land Commissioners Proposed Pile Trestle • • 2.6.3 Floodplain and Sea Level Rise • As noted in Section 2.5.1 above, the Project site is located adjacent to the North River, a tidally • dominant water body. The North River in the vicinity of the Project site experiences diurnal high • and low tides that mix with upstream fresh water during rain events.The North Street Bridge (Route • 114), located east of the Project site, was designed with large box culverts to allow tidal flow into • the portion of the North River west of the bridge and to convey North River flows to the harbor. - While the North Street culverts were originally designed with tide gates, these gates are locked • permanently in an open position; therefore tidal flow through the culverts is unrestricted into the North River upstream of North Street. The tidal range between mean low water and mean high • water is 8.93 feet. The official June 2012 FEMA mapping for the site delineates the lateral extent of • the 100 year coastal storm flooding without a specific elevation. That delineation was digitized and • is shown on Figure 11. In June of 2013, FEMA issued new, preliminary 100 year flood maps for • Massachusetts which were adopted in July of 2014. The new July 2014 mapping (also shown on • Figure 11) shows the 100 year flood extending to elevation 10.3 (NAVD) on the Project site further inland than the current 2012 FEMA 100 year flood zone. • • As noted, the North River in the vicinity of the Project site is affected by riverine and coastal flows. • In late 2013, a Flood Study for the Project was prepared by the Bioengineering Group, a • multidisciplinary firm headquartered in Salem, MA involved in the field of climate change resilience • and the application of sustainability principles to site planning, development, and infrastructure. The • study evaluated riverine and coastal flooding separately and then applied a worst case scenario to determine the flood risk for the Project. The study concluded that an estimated a 1.98 foot sea level • rise was as an appropriate predictor for this area and that the site is predominantly affected by • coastal flooding. The study further found that the calculated head loss of flow due to the North • Street bridge and Flint Street culverts could increase the existing 7.96 foot water surface elevation • (NAVD88) by 0.65 feet resulting in a water surface elevation during a 100-year flood at the Project site of approximately 8.6 feet which is lower than the 100 year flood coastal storm elevation of 10.3 • feet. Furthermore, head loss through the North Street culverts (the change in water surface from • upstream to downstream) will not change as a result of the predicted sea level rise of 1.8 feet • because the tops of the culverts are at elevation 2.75 NAVD88 and are already submerged at the • mean higher high water elevation of 4.76 feet. Hence, increasing the depth at which the culverts • are submerged will not cause any change in flow conditions in the culverts. The report concluded • that the Project is dominated by coastal rather than inland flooding (see Section 3.10.2 below and Appendix 3). • • Page 12-18 • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form 0 ° ,n b xeoa s a Upland Limit of Filled Tidelands chum o — a i h 4 Limit of 200 foot Riverfront Area . � CQ trpr I � y I ro5 E. inS I 100 foot FPA _ - Water-Dependent Use Zone 88.5' P ( 1 aq \ �� y,/ ,;^ '.a Q (" Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage(2014) N ` i 1 Mean High Water � r \ Ot 1 1 '•w "� Coasta\gankl\o�atedalongtop X an+,Mentl emb o a o 0 �1 I 100 foot Buffer zone(from top of coastal bank) Source: Potrowicz Land Development and Williams&Sparages, LLC WETLAND AND WATERWAYS RESOURCE AREAS Figure 10 Page 12-19 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form j 4 eLoc183 q E�rFa?fias yg Ps(F IT <P � _ 7m, � giiQary I � I Lw z�rvrc L4 J d��I4 -�— L== ITIT ae _ IT IIJI � � � l BLDG �2- I —�j � u .I e BLDG $,V j -cv100- —j F1=21 1r=z.a y=10.0 — l�J FEMA Zone A(FEMA MA!!!-ms 0419 dated July 3,2012) l FEMA 100 Year Flood Level(EL=10.81 NGVD)FEMA MAP 25009C 04196 III Imo•\\ �;� J oma..>� Revised July 16,2014 WI At, .it0r�T .. - -L_� ME.V,G Source: Potrowicz Land Development and Williams&Sparages, LLC 2012 and 2014 FEMA 100 YEAR FLOOD LINES Figure 11 Page 12-20 • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • 2.7 Project Alternatives • The Project site is located in the North River Canal neighborhood district and is subject to the use 4W and dimensional requirements of the zoning for the area. The site is also located adjacent to the North River and contains wetland resource areas and is partially comprised of filled tidelands. • Combined these factors place development constraints on the site and limit the ability to site a structures on the site in order to comply with the regulations (see Figure 12, Site Development Constraints Map). • S The Project underwent more than a year and a half of local site plan and design review prior to receiving permits in 2009. As a result of these reviews, several changes were made to the Project layout and design. More recently, further refinements to the plan have been made in order to 49 comply with the state Chapter 91 regulations and to address predicted Sea Level Rise and coastal • storm flooding. These considerations have resulted in an updated site plan that was recently approved by the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals and is currently before the Planning Board for approval (see Preferred Alternative, Figure 18). A discussion of the alternatives evaluated as • part of the planning and regulatory review process and a No Build Alternative are provided below. • 2.7.1 No Build Alternative • Under the No Build Alternative, the Property would remain in its undeveloped state. Public access • to and along the North River Canal would be nonexistent. Several proposed Project benefits would • not occur including: • Redevelopment of a vacant, underutilized and blighted site • Creation of a waterfront public realm • Traffic improvements • • Improved site stormwater management and decrease in impervious surfaces and storm • water runoff as compared to previously developed leather manufacturing complex • • Creation of 13 units of affordable housing • Allowance of an easement for the future construction of a roadway by the City of Salem • Economic benefits including real estate investment,jobs and local tax revenues • Provision of 12 parking spaces for Flint Street residents 2.7.2 Office Alternative As previously noted, the Project Site is located in the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood • Mixed Use zoning district. This overlay district allows many different types of uses including manufacturing, single and multi-family residential, retail and office, and prohibits services stations, car washes, drug stores, supermarkets and drive through restaurants among others. The Project - Proponents first considered constructing an office building on the site which is allowed in the zoning district by Special Permit. Projects proposed in the district are allowed a maximum 50% lot coverage and a building height of 50 feet. In those portions of the site that abut residential areas (along Flint and Mason Streets), a 50 foot no build zone is required. For the office use, a building with a 93,000 square foot(sf)footprint would be allowed (50%of the 187,308 sf parcel). • Page 12-21 • 41 • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • Several office alternatives were considered ranging in size from 130,000 to 195,000 square feet (sf). a Figure 13 shows the 195,000 sf alternative which was proposed as a 4 story structure occupying • 48,691 sf with 487 parking spaces of which 400 were located in a four story parking garage and 87 - were located in surface parking lots. Traffic circulation included site access from Mason and Flint Streets similar to the Preferred Alternative. This alternative was removed from consideration due • to a lack of market demand for office space in the City at the time. 2.7.3 Mixed Use Alternative 1 In 2007, the Project conceptual design was developed for consideration by the City. The conceptual • design originally included 184 units of housing located in four buildings with 108 exterior and no interior parking spaces. This alternative required variances in the required number of parking spaces, the lot area per dwelling unit, the 50 foot no disturb zone along Mason Street and common . building entrance provisions of the North River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use District zoning code. In preparation of filing permit documents with the City of Salem, the Project Proponents held a • neighborhood meeting which resulted in project changes including reducing the number of units from 184 to 160 in the four buildings. The new design, Mixed Use Alternative 1, was submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) in August of 2007 and was accompanied by a request for the • aforementioned variances (see Figure 14, Mixed Use Alternative 1). The City did not support the • parking variance and requested additional parking be provided and also requested a reduction in the • number of housing units. - 2.7.4 Mixed Use Alternative 2 • Based on comments received at the ZBA hearings, a second Mixed Use Alternative was developed • which further reduced the number of units to 148; reduced the number of buildings from four to three; and increased the surface parking from 108 to 168 spaces (see Figure 15, Mixed Use • Alternative 2). The ZBA review of the Mixed Use Alternative 3 resulted in further refinements to the plans which are described in Mixed Use Alternative 3 below. • 2.7.5 Mixed Use Alternative 3 A third alternative was developed that retained the three buildings proposed in Mixed Use Alternative 2 but reduced the number of housing units from 148 to 130 and increased the number of parking spaces from 168 to 305 to comply with the zoning requirement of 2 spaces per residential unit and to provide additional parking for the commercial uses proposed in Building 3 along Mason Street. The parking was comprised of 82 exterior spaces and 223 spaces in Buildings 1 and 2 (see • Figure 16, Mixed Use Alternative 3). In October of 2007 the ZBA voted to approve the Project. The w decision imposed several conditions including the set aside of 13 units as affordable, creation of 12 • parking spaces for use by nearby residents of Flint Street, and creation of a 30 foot easement along the North River to allow for the future extension of Commercial Street to Flint Street. 1 • 'This Zoning Board of Appeals decision was appealed and the court eventually found in favor of the Project Proponents. • Page 12-22 - • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form Mason Sueet "Is R - --50 foot set ack ^';•........ --from-residential - Y,.. i, • .............. • ....... 50 foot setback L.... _100 foot FPA setback from residential _ }.. � ••-88.5 foot WDUZ Zone 1 + �,���, �••� _ �'..: �_ " - --FEMA 100 year flood level (2012) ? egnefi i r" .3 toot eas..+ '\A Bit ..•• .. ova coral raw ne' Nan _ ❑ Site Plar (Scheme °IO) DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS MAP Figure 12 Page 12-23 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form r Scheme 4-Summery Office Spam=100 sq.A.total o space }v (44 Stories Fes x 48,891 Footprint) "O Parking= 487 spaces required 484 spaces provided 3 space defecit (4 story structured parking in gia `0 addition to on grade parking.) / 00 o° 1e CP ' If O u Salem Suede Concept Study _ Flint(Mason Streets,Salem,MA OFFICE ALTERNATIVE Figure 13 Page 12-24 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form MASON STRFE— im II i1 r� �I N,F I i '� MESSING'�R NF 3lO � F R=ALAN _ _ __ DELIGIAN'iU15 1 I� r 5338 1 : L6]1]� i. 5056' JI JTM- I T ,- �y I I I II I I°�#- 1 1 1 1 11 1 F _-5 1 1i- -1 1_I TTl_I-f- �1 GUIL84pL` r F-7\ 7 - -- _ ._.. tu' N/F �u��l In j �� `cASON JI REALT" TRJST NAN N/F 7, no- ml 1 1 �m 1 1 � I I to \ J� \9d- Lq ...... U-\ �\ j \� � �t,:3' RNG Gard \ $ Norio \ \ N� MIXED USE ALTERNATIVE 1 Figure 14 o0 M.B.T.4 Page 12-25 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form MA8✓IV J I TcNo!�Se�_ �I II M�SSINGF_R 1 B REAGAN DELXdhNldS I N. - I CosB 1� I N/p I eo^+aN�W I M1 LLLN/F Ir i i 1 F_ I N/F I 1 I it I N�RVEy� 1 W� w — - N/F N/: 1 MASON R--4LTY TRUST N/F I NIF o2c. Genal p r s MIXED USE ALTERNATIVE 2 Figure 15 Page 12-26 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form a Cason Street 0 1 7Jb�•3 Bueemp aB.z+umu i r � Commertlall 1 I I I I I `j �li—puiryiterc Lxnon W Is I I � I �' 5��� 303 Ge-ece Bpeca rtou cn 2.goals) j I _ I � a ))` i Building I2- I IFl +z uNla n$paces r �^- I aulldflq n-ea W. ' P I Soecant ill LI J rI — �1 Page 12-27 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form I"ason Stree: _ En4er I I I 6N1®np 09 In • / Pbk Gb I I _ ll)II � I I 1 I , IM1 1 251 Game 9peeee(T_e.on 3 Ratte: 1 — __ 1 I I 1_l — 12 N. I JI i r P2 UbtP I �' I I 6uIIBlp AI-BP Unllc 1 I I IL �1 1 ❑Ep � I j' s ®® gTq ##A> CITY APPROVED ALTERNATIVE Figure 17 Page 12-28 • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • 2.7.6 City Approved Project Alternative • Following the ZBA approval, the Project Proponent filed a Special Permit for Site Plan Review with • the Planning Board in February of 2008. That process, which was concluded in April of 2009, • resulted in several refinements to the architectural design and layout of the proposed development • as a result of several meetings with the Salem Redevelopment Authority (SRA), the Salem Design • Review Board (DRB) and the Planning Board. The site plan included in the original Planning Board • application was Mixed Use Alternative 3 shown of Figure 16. Comments from the SRA/DRB process resulted in several changes to the project design and layout. These changes included placing the • majority of the parking into Buildings 1 and 2; a re-designed internal circulation pattern; provision • of pedestrian access and a view corridor from Mason Street through the site to the North River; • changes to the pavement materials, introduction of curb lines, and street lights to define pedestrian • areas along the internal roadway; provision of an open space/terrace area along the North River • with interconnecting walkways; reduction of surface parking to 38 spaces; and changes to the architectural design of the buildings. These changes are reflected in the 2007 City Approved • Development Alternative shown on Figure 17. = 2.7.7 Preferred Alternative • Following the issuance of the City approvals, the Proponents became aware that the site was • partially comprised of filled tidelands and an analysis of Chapter 91 requirements was performed. • This analysis resulted in establishing a water-dependent use zone of 88.5 feet and delineated the - 100 foot zone measure from mean high water within which facilities of public accommodation must be located on the ground plane. The layout of Building 1 was altered to set the structure back 100 • from mean high water and outside the water dependent use zone reducing the building footprint by • approximately 2,700 square feet. A Flood Study of the Project site was conducted in December of 2013 which suggested that the Project design take into consideration the preliminary 2013 FEMA • flood elevation of 10.3 and a predicted 1.8 foot increase in sea level rise over the next century. As a • result, the Project proponents revised the design by replacing the residential units formerly proposed on the ground floor within the 100 year flood plain with parking uses and relocating the • residential units to locations with a first floor elevation of 12.3 feet NAVD88. Additional changes • included reducing the number of parking spaces from 309 to 282; replacing the 271 space parking • garage with a 92 spaces on and under the parking deck and increasing the number of surface • parking from 38 to 104 spaces. = The proposed design changes were presented to the City ZBA in 2014 with a request to allow further encroachment into the 50 foot buffer and a reduction in the number of parking spaces required for • the commercial uses from 37 to 10 (reducing the overall parking requirements from 309 spaces to • 282). The plans were then submitted to the Planning Board and Design Review Board for approval. • During that process, the Design Review Board asked if the number of parking spaces could be • further reduced. In response, the Project submitted a request to the ZBA to reduce the number of • parking spaces for residential uses from 2 per unit to 1.5 per unit. The ZBA approved the encroachment into the 50 foot buffer and the reduction in the number of parking spaces for • commercial uses but did not allow the change in the required parking spaces for residential uses. • • Page 12-29 • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • The Planning Board and Design Review Board are currently in the process of reviewing modifications • to the existing Site Plan Review Special Permit. Approval of such modification is expected by the • end of 2014. The final plan pending before the City is represented on Figure 18, the Preferred • Alternative. • The proposed development program includes mixed uses including residences and commercial • space. Two of the Buildings (Buildings 1 and 2) contain residential units and ground floor parking • while the third building on Mason Street (Building 3) contains residential uses in the upper floors • and commercial uses on the lower level. There is also a parking deck with surface parking • underneath that provides 92 parking spaces. The deck is located on the north side of Building 1. • The site has been designed with two site entrances; one off of Mason Street restricted to • automobile traffic only, and one off of Flint Street. The proposed Building Program includes 130 units including 50 one bedroom units and 80 two bedroom units as well as approximately 5,000 • square feet of commercial space as outlined in Table 3 below. • • Table 3 • Preferred Alternative Building Program • • Building Total »of Height Residential Bedrooms Commercial Ground • Number Area Stories Units (sf) Floor (sf) Parking • Spaces • Building 1 82,536 4 49' 2" 70 32-1BR/38-2BR 0 49 • Building 2 42,921 4 38'3" 36 9-1BR/27-2BR 0 32 • Building 3 33,555 3 41'7" 24 9-1BR/15-2BR 5,000+/- 5 • • • Site Access,Circulation and Parking • Based on the proposed building locations and the parking layout, the Flint Street site access will be • the primary site entrance. The interior roadway will be 24 feet wide, open to the public and provide access to the residential buildings and commercial uses within the development as well as the public • walkway along the North River. The roadway has sufficient width and turning radii to accommodate • trucks and other large vehicles and contains curbs, sidewalks and lighting for pedestrian access. A • total of 282 parking spaces will be provided of which 86 are located on the ground floor of Buildings - 1, 2 and 3; 92 are located under and on the parking deck and 104 are located in surface parking lots • of which 12 will be designated for use by existing Flint Street residents only. • Storm Drainage • The proposed surface parking areas and walkways will discharge to deep-sump catch basins which • will then convey the runoff via closed-pipe to a stormceptor unit for final treatment prior to - discharge to the North River Canal via a 24 inch outfall. The discharge pipe to the North River canal • • Page 12-30 • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form 49 49 will be equipped with a Tide-Flex Valve or approved equivalent to prevent any backwater condition A from the Canal into the proposed drainage system. 40 w The proposed development includes the use of two bio-retention cells to promote infiltration as • well as some runoff mitigation. The bioretention cells will include underdrains and emergency outflow pipes that will be connected to the proposed site stormwater system. One cell will be located west of and will receive runoff from the area in the front half of Building 3 and the second cell will be located south of and receive runoff from the entire roof area of Building 1. - Water and Sanitary Sewer • The site will be serviced by the City of Salem public water systems in Flint and Mason Street and a sanitary sewer system located in Flint Street. The Project has been reviewed various Boards and Departments of the City of Salem including the Engineering Department. 2.7.8 Summary of Project Alternative Impacts A summary of Project Alternatives (excluding No Build) impacts on public infrastructure, stormwater,and land use and tideland resources is provided in Table 4 below. . As the Summary Table indicates, the Preferred Alternative and the Mixed Use Alternatives consume • more water and generate more sanitary sewer than the Office Alternative. The Preferred Alternative consumes the same amount of water and generates the same amount of sewer as the 2007 Approved project and Mixed Use Alternative 3 but less than Mixed Use Alternatives 1 and 2. Similarly, the Preferred Alternative generates the same amount of traffic as the City Approved 40 Project and Mixed Use Alternative 3 but less traffic than Mixed Use Alternatives 1 and 2 and significantly less than the Office Alternative. The Preferred Alternative includes more surface parking than the 2007 Approved Plan but includes - less parking spaces overall. The Preferred Alternative also occupies more of the site area than all but the Office Alternative but only 1,940 sf more than the 2007 City Approved Plan. Although the Preferred Alternative occupies more of the site than the 2007 City Approved Project, the coverage by buildings is less under the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative has the least impact in the filled tidelands adjacent to the North i River. The Office Alternative places a large massive building parallel to the River essentially blocking views and public access to the River. Mixed Use Alternatives 1 and 2 placed large amounts of parking along the River. Mixed Use Alternative 3 placed a small parking area along the River. The • 2007 Approved Plan had a portion of Building 1 extended into the water-dependent use zone and the 100 foot facility of public accommodation zone adjacent to the North River. The Preferred Alternative is set back from the WDUZ zone and the 100 foot facility of public • accommodation zone and does not include any parking along the river. The Preferred Alternative, . unlike the other alternatives, includes a connection to the City's walkway access to Leslies Retreat Page 12-31 • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form - Park located across the North River. The connection is being made through the west end of the Project walkway located along the North River to an existing area used for parking owned by the w City that connects to Leslie's Retreat Park. This connection will allow access to the park and - provide a pedestrian/bicycle link to the MBTA commuter rail station located to the east of Leslie's Retreat Park. A more detailed analysis of the Preferred Alternative Project Impacts is provided in Chapter 3. Table 4 Summary of Project Alternatives Alternative # Office/ Sewer Water Estimated Av. Combined # #Surface • Housing Generation Consum. Daily Traffic Building Parking Units Commercial _gpol'I Generation Footprint Spaces Parking gpd Spaces - Use(sf) Office Alternative n/a 130,000 9,750 10,725 1633 78,370 484 484 • [A Mixed Use 160 5,540 26,400 Res. 29,040 1072 63,450 160 160 • Alternative 1 400 Comm. 440 Mixed Use 148 5,540 24,420 Res. 26,862 992 58,320 168 Alternative 2 400 Comm. 440 - Mixed Use 130 5,540 23,100 Res. 23,595 871 67,390 309 86 Alternative 3 • 400 Comm. 440 • 2007 Approved 130 5,540 23,100 Res. 25,850 871 67,570 309 38 . Project - 400 Comm. 440 Preferred 130 5,000+/' 23,100 Res. 25,850 871 69,510 282 94 - Alternative 400 Comm. 440 Calculated based on average of 1.5 br/unit. fi[Note that for the purpose of the traffic analysis,the office alternative considered was 130,000 sf which is smaller than the 195,000 sf office alternative discussed in the above paragraphs and thus generates less impact than would the 195,000 sf office - building. Page 12-32 i 0 0 • ,R*rJl'ewww�lat • • , • • Fxp d E irohmt ntaTNoTificStiov F�• 16 I 6�DG I ! i o FF 2111% t �•-� 11 q2r.cWaultlr !!! t- y� 4 r Parking Deck BLOC #2 .._A 1 1 ti 1i _ .4C. BLDG R7 OF-10.0 0 ' ani oo W I r" Approximate location of 2,728+/- sf •� area of building included in 2007 City approved plan subsequently removed _ ✓.J - �21N(r,'� from Ch.91 WDUZ and 100'FPA one. Source: O'Sullivan Architects INC and james k. emmanuel Associates PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Figure 18 Page 12-33 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form Page Intentionally Blank Page 12-34 fir • � i � � • • • • i � ! • r • i • M • fi � • ! r � • r * � • • � i • � • +� • � • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Chapter 3 • • Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures • • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Page Intentionally Blank • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • 3.0 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES = 3.1 Housing • The current site does not contain any housing units. The Project is proposing to construct 130 • housing units comprised of one and two bedrooms. Thirteen of these units will be set aside as • affordable housing. The Planning Board Special Permit requires that these units be subject to a 99 • year Affordable Housing Restriction in accordance with the eligibility criteria for the Commonwealth Department of Housing and Community Development's Subsidized Housing Inventory for • households whose annual incomes are 80%or less of area median income. • • 3.2 Transportation A traffic study was prepared by AECOM in October of 2007 for the Project and updated during the Special Permit appeals process (see Appendix 2, Traffic Impact Assessment Study). The study • projected estimated vehicular trips and trip distribution and evaluated level of service impacts of the • Project. In 2012, Fay Spofford and Thorndike (FST) prepared the Transportation Plan, North River • Canal Corridor for the City of Salem (see excerpts in Appendix 2 and City Web Site for full report). • The 2012 evaluated traffic impacts through the year 2016 based on existing traffic counts and future • development projects approved by the City including, among others, the Riverview Project. The study found that the 2007 traffic counts undertaken by AECOM for the Riverview Place project at • the Flint/Mason Street and Mason/Tremont Streets intersections were still valid based on a • comparison with FST's automated traffic recorder counts on Mason Street between the two • intersection and manual counts performed at Harmony Grove/Grove/Mason Streets and • Flint/Bridge Street counts performed by the consultants for the 2012 study (see page 18 of said • traffic report). • Trip Generation • At present, the site is vacant and does not generate any daily vehicular trips. The proposed mixed • use Project is expected to generate 56 new vehicle trips during the weekday morning peak hour and • 87 new vehicle trips during the afternoon peak hour. This equates to around one new vehicle trip • per minute during the weekday commuter peak hours and approximately 871 new vehicle trips on a • daily basis. A comparison of the as of right office build out of the site versus the proposed build out shows that the proposed build out result in significantly less (87%) daily vehicle trips than the as • of right office build out (871 versus 1,633 average daily trips). • • Trip Distribution and Intersection Capacity • As part of the traffic study prepared for the Project, an overall trip distribution was developed for the new Project trips as shown on Figure 19. Capacity analyses were conducted to assess the quality • of traffic flow at each of the study intersections. This was performed for the 2007 Existing • conditions, the 2012 Future No-Build conditions, and 2012 Future Build conditions. The results of • the traffic capacity analysis are shown in Tables 5 and 6 and the complete analyses are contained in • • • Page 13-1 • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form - • Appendix 2. As shown on the tables, the future operating conditions are not expected to change • under the Future Build condition, when compared to the Future No-Build scenario. • • The Flint Street and Tremont Street approaches to Mason Street operate at LOS F under the existing • conditions (in both the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours). The operating conditions at • these side street approaches to Mason Street are not expected to change under either future condition. Based on these capacity analyses, the site driveways are expected to operate at an • acceptable level of service. • • Site Driveways • As indicated on the current site plan, the Project site will be served by two existing driveways, one on Flint Street and one on Mason Street. Both driveways will provide two-way circulation through • the site allowing motorists two points to enter and leave the site. • • Traffic Improvements - The Project will implement several traffic improvements in accordance with the Special Permit • issued by the City of Salem Planning Board as described below. • 1. Install an electronic speed monitor on Mason Street 2. Install signage and pavement markings • 3. Place "No Parking — Tow Zone' signage on Mason Street on both sides of the site • driveway • 4. Install signage at the Mason St. driveway prohibiting the entrance and exit of trucks - 5. Install a yellow flashing beacon at the intersection of Flint Street and Mason Street, with • the type and exact location to be approved by the Traffic Division Commander • 6. Complete plans and specifications for the design of a traffic signal to be built at the • intersection of Mason Street, Tremont Street and the site's Mason Street driveway prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 7. The Planning Department shall determine whether a traffic island is required at the base • of Oak Street within six (6) months following the last Certificate of Occupancy issued in • connection with the Project. During the interim, the developer shall be responsible for • installing signage and pavement markings at the intersection of Oak Street and Flint • 8. Reserve 12 at grade parking spaces for current residents of Flint Street in perpetuity • 9. Grant an easement to the City of Salem to construct a future extension of Commercial • Street through the property from Flint Street along the North River Canal.The easement • shall be valid for a 15 year period from the time the firs certificate of Occupancy is issued for the Project and shall expire after said 15 year period if the road is not • constructed. • • • • • Page 13-2 • • • Project Trips AM PM Daily [ Entering 13 51 435 NORTH Exiting 43 36 436 Total 56 87 871 G [87] SVeat r7 Ce)[65] MSO [85]Ce)27 1 r e' m g. SITE r (m r(ra] oak Strae� r0 N� W e' �SEE B11d0e StreetlReuro 107) J 1 4 t2 (7)[85] [85](10) 2� 1 m Legend uXX(XIX)POq=AM(PM)(Dally)Peak Hour Volumes iq O Traffic Signal Source: AECOM SITE GENERATED TRIPS Figure 19 Page 13-3 Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form Table 5 Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekday Morning Peak Hour Summary of Intersection Capacity Analysis—Weekday Morning Peak Hour 2012 Future Build 2007 Existing 2012 Future No-Build with Mitigation Queue Length Queue Length Queue Length LOS Delay° 50th" 95th' LOS Delay' 50th" 95th` LOS Delay' 5010 95th` Bridge Street at Flint Street Badge Street EB L A 8 4 13 A 8 4 14 A 9 4 17 Badge Street EB TR B 14 100 177 B 14 ill 196 B 15 117 206 Bridge Street WB LTR C 20 149 318 C 27 182 387 C 34 196 409 Flint Street NB LTR B 14 34 51 B 17 38 56 B 16 37 54 Flint Street SB L D 35 96 224 D 49 105 244 D 45 104 242 Flint Street SB TR C 31 127 284 D 37 137 306 D 35 138 306 Overall Intersection C 23 C 28 C 30 Mason Street at Tremont Street and Site Driveway Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized Mason Street EB LTR A 3 - 7 A 3 - 7 B 20 62 145 Mason Street WB LTR A 0 - 0 A 0 - 0 B 19 84 257 Site Driveway NB LTR D 28 - 6 E 39 - 15 B 18 4 24 Tremont Street SB LTR F >120 - 622 F > 120 - 799 C 24 123 412 Overall Intersection n/a n/a n/a n/a C 22 Mason Street at Flint Street Mason Street WB LT B 10 - 72 B 11 - 82 B 11 - 83 Flint Street NB LR F > 120 - 291 F > 120 - 374 F > 120 - 378 Flint Street at Site Driveway Site Driveway WB LR n/a n/a n/a n/a Ivan/a n/a n/a C 19 - 7 °measured in(seconds per vehicle) °5d"percentile queue measured in(feet) `9S°perrentile queue measured in(feet) Page 13-4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form Table 6 Intersection Capacity Analysis Weekday Afternoon Peak Hour Summary of Intersection Capacity Analysis—Weekday Afternoon Peak Hour 2012 Future Build 2007 Existing 2012 Future No-Build with Mitigation Queue Length Queue Length Queue Length LOS Delay' 50th" 95thLOS Delay' 50th" 95th` LOS Delay' 5Orb° 95th` Bridge Street at Flint Street Bridge Street EB L A 5 3 10 A 5 3 11 A 7 4 15 Bridge Street EB TR A 7 60 106 A 8 76 133 A 9 81 142 Bridge Street WB LTR B 15 153 278 B 17 174 410 B 20 189 429 Flint Street NB LTR B 18 30 68 B 19 35 73 B 18 36 74 Flint Street SB L C 20 32 74 C 21 36 79 C 21 37 80 Flint Street SB TR C 30 77 201 C 34 88 215 C 31 89 214 Overall Intersection B 16 B 18 B 19 Mason Street at Tremont Street and Site Driveway Unsignalized Unsignalized Signalized Mason Street EB LTR A 5 - 11 A 5 - 12 C 21 71 207 Mason Street WB LTR A 0 - 0 A 0 - 0 B 16 87 239 Site Driveway NB LTR A 0 - 0 A 0 - 0 C 24 4 25 Tremont Street SB LTR F 59 - 264 F 97 - 362 C 25 93 290 Overall Intersection n/a n/a n/a n/a C 20 Mason Street at Flint Street Mason Street WB LT A 7 - 25 A 7 - 28 A 7 - 28 Flint Street NB LR F 107 - 320 F > 120 - 424 F > 120 - 438 Flint Street at Site Driveway Site Driveway WB LR Iva n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a C 15 - 4 a measured in(seconds per vehicle) 5ff percentile queue mean red in(feet) `9?pencemile queue measured in(feet) Page 13-5 • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • 3.3 Infrastructure • • The Project will not adversely impact existing infrastructure serving the site. The estimated Project • generated stormwater runoff, water consumption and sanitary sewage discharges are described • below. • 3.3.1 stormwater • • The Project site was previously developed and is considered a `redevelopment' Project as defined in • the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) and MassDEP Stormwater Management Policy • and Handbook (MASWMP). A stormwater and drainage analysis was prepared for the Project and is included in Appendix 5. The analysis evaluated pre (previous site development prior to building • demolition and site remediation), current, and post stormwater runoff from the site. As previously • noted, portions the site formerly contained buildings and parking areas. The buildings were • demolished and some of the building slabs were removed as part of site remediation activities • undertaken in 2013 to prepare the site for the redevelopment project. • The proposed Project will result in a net decrease in impervious cover compared to the pre and • current site conditions. Post development, the peak stormwater discharge rates will be reduced as • compared to the pre- and current site conditions discharge rates. Stormwater rates for the 2, 10 • and 100 year storm events were calculated. In all cases, the stormwater peak runoff rates to the North River are decreased post construction. See Table 7 below, Total Peak Rate of Runoff • Comparison. • • Table 7 • Total Peak Rate of Runoff Comparison • • • Predevelopment Post Development • Description 24 hour Type III Pre-Existing Present Proposed Peak • Storm Event Peak Rate of Condition Peak Rate of Runoff • (year) Runoff Rate of Runoff • Q(cfs) Q(cfs) Q(cfs) • Flow entering 2 (3.1 inch) 13.3 12.7 11.9 • the North River 10 (4.5 inch) 20.7 20.2 18.1 • Canal Link 87 100(6.5 inch) 31.3 30.9 26.9 - • The proposed project will utilize deep-sump hooded to collect stormwater runoff that will be • discharged to a Stormceptor unit for a presumptive TSS removal rate of 82.75%. The Stormceptor - STC 4800 Unit has been sized to accommodate the first flush (0.5") of rainfall over the total • • Page 13-6 • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form - impervious area using the sizing program provided by the manufacturer. Pre-treatment is provided j by the deep sump hooded catch basins. 49 Periodic sweeping of roads/parking lots and routine maintenance of drainage structures will improve stormwater quality, which in turn will improve water quality in the North River Canal over existing conditions. 49 3.3.2 Water and Sanitary Sewer As part of the local Planning Board review process in the City of Salem, various City agencies 40 including the Engineering and Public Works Departments reviewed the Project plans to ensure that 4D the public infrastructure is adequate to support the proposed project. As noted, the proposed Project was approved by the City of Salem Planning Board in April of 2009, To provide water service to the Project, a new eight inch cement line ductile iron water main will be i installed and connected to the exiting City system on Flint and Mason Street. Two new hydrants will be installed on the site as determined by the Salem Fire Department. Water demand for the Project is estimate to be approximately 25,850 gallons per day (gpd). There is adequate capacity in the City water system to service the Project. Project generated sanitary sewage will be collected into a system of eight inch gravity sewer lines that will lead from Mason Street to an existing sewer manhole located in the south side of the Flint Street entrance to the site. Wastewater discharges into the South Essex Sewage District interceptor 4D which runs parallel to the rail road line along the south side of the North River Canal. Sanitary 0 sewage generation is expected to total approximately 23,500 gpd. The proposed sewer generation flows were estimated using the sewage generation rates as published in the Massachusetts • Department of Environmental Protection Sewer Connection regulations 314 CMR 7.15 (110 • gallons/day/bedroom for residential uses =23,100 gpd (50 one bedroom and 80 two bedroom) and • 75 gallons/day/1000 square feet for commercial uses=400 gpd). 3.4 Energy i Increased electric and gas energy will be required to support the proposed mixed use development project. Natural gas will be extended into the site by the local utility and will be used for heating, - cooling and clothes drying appliances. Electric service will be distributed to a transformer for each building installed in an underground conduit. The anticipated electric demand is 100,000 kWh per month. The anticipated natural gas demand is 90,000 therms per year. 3.5 Noise 40 • Ambient daytime noise levels will increase during construction. The City of Salem requirements for work days and hours will be adhered to. Post construction the Project is not expected to significantly increase noise generation at the site. Some noise increase will occur resulting from automobile traffic and building mechanical systems. • Page 13-7 4D • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • 3.6 Air Quality • The Project is not expected to create adverse impacts to air quality post construction. The construction of the Project will generate some airborne particulate matter and other air pollutants, • particularly during the construction phase when the Property is being excavated for building • foundations, driveways, and parking areas. Mitigation measures such as wheel washing will be • used, as necessary,to minimize the air quality impacts from construction on the local air quality. • 3.7 Greenhouse Gas • • A greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis was performed consistent with the Executive Office of • Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol" (May 5, • 2010; the "Policy") and was updated to address the changes in the February 2013 CO2 emissions • conversion factor. Please refer to Appendix 4 for the full report. The City of Salem was designated a Green Community in 2010. As part of that process, the City adopted the state Stretch Energy Code • that was added to the state Building Code as Appendix 115AA in 2009. The Stretch Energy Code is • designed to achieve a 20% improvement in energy efficiency as compared to the base state Building - Code. The Project falls under and complies with the prescriptive requirements of the Stretch Code • contained in Section 501.1.4. Please refer to Table 4 of the full GHG report in Appendix 4 for • Project compliance with the prescriptive requirements. • The Project's GHG emissions will include: 1) direct emissions of CO2 from natural gas combustion for • space heating and hot water; 2) indirect emissions of CO2 from electricity generated off-site and • used on-site for lighting, building cooling and ventilation, and the operation of other equipment; and • 3) transportation emissions of CO2 from Project traffic. CO2 emissions were quantified for: (1) the • Base Case corresponding to the 8th Edition of the MA Building Code that includes the 2009 IECC • with MA amendments, and (2) the Mitigation Alternative, which includes all energy saving measures, detailed in Section 3 of the full GHG report found in Appendix 4. • • The Energy use and CO2 emissions and energy mitigation measures were evaluated using the eQuest - model which included the proposed Building 2 parking garage lighting! The results of the eQuest - modeling determined that the Mitigation Alternative (with all energy saving measures) will reduce • overall Project energy use stationary sources) by 12.7% and will reduce CO2 emissions by 12.6% compared to the Base Case (buildings that comply with MA Building Code) as shown in Table 8 below. The eQUEST model input files have been provided to the Massachusetts Department of • Energy Resources. • The transportation emission calculations are provided in Appendix B of the full GHG report and - Appendix C of the report provides a cost analysis for a photo-voltaic (PV) system which was • determined financially infeasible for the proposed Project. The transportation portion of the GHG • analysis calculated emissions of CO2 for the traffic study area for three traffic analysis scenarios: 'It should be that the parking garage is open on three sides and will use natural ventilation,not fan ventilation. • Page 13-8 - • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form 2017 No-Build; 2017 Build without TDMs; and 2017 Build with TDMs. Average daily traffic volumes • were provided in a 2007 traffic study prepared by Earth Tech, Inc. (AECOM). The 2012 No-Build traffic volumes presented in the traffic report were used to represent existing conditions and a one percent per year growth factor referenced in the traffic report was used to project the 2017 No- Build case. The emissions listed for the 2017 No- Build and Build cases include both existing volumes on the roadway network and new Project-generated trips. The 2017 Build case includes roadway mitigation measures, but not TDMs. The Project's transportation emissions are calculated by subtracting the 2017 No-Build values from those for the 2017 Build cases. The Build with TDMs case results in CO2 emissions (60.4 tons/year) which are 2%less than those for the 2017 Build case (59.2 tons/year) as shown in Table 8 below. The proposed Transportation Demand Management(TDM) measures for the Project reduce Project- related motor vehicle CO2 emissions by 2.0%. These measures include proximity to the Salem Commuter Rail station and the provision of bicycle racks. The Project is within walking distance of a the MBTA commuter rail station which is expected to reduce vehicle trips by 1% (Turnbull, K. and Pratt, R., "Transit Information and Promotion: Traveler Response to Transport System Changes," TCRP Report 95, Transportation Research Board, 2003). The provision of secure bike racks is expected to reduce vehicle trips 2% (Ewing, R., "TDM, Growth Management, and the Other Four Out of Five Trips," Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 47, No. 3, 1993, pp. 343-366). An assumed reduction of 2% is reasonable. Based on the above analyses, the net reduction of the Project's total CO2 49 emissions (stationary sources plus transportation) is 11.9%compared to the Base Case. Table 8 Greenhouse Gas(CO2)Emissions Summary(Tons/Year) Source Base Case Mitigation Change in GHG Alternative Emissions 40 Direct Emissions 159.5 138.5 -13.2% i Indirect Emissions 660.7 578.2 -12.5% Subtotal Direct and 820.2 716.6 -12.6% Indirect Emissions i Transportation 60.4 59.2 -2.0% • Emissions r Total CO2 Emissions 880.6 775.8 -11.9% I i Page 13-9 I� 4D a • A Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • Table 9 . Motor Vehicle CO2 Emissions Summary • Total Predicted CO2 Emissions Burden 2017 2017 2017 No-Build Build without Build with TDMs TDMs • 6,642.7 kg/day 6.639.7 kg/day 6,492.5 kg/day • Project: 150.2 Project: 147.2 kg/day • 2,670.2 tons/year 2,669.0 tons/year 2,609.9 tons/yr Project:60.4 Project:59.2 tons/year tons/year • • • 3.8 Solid and Hazardous Waste ; The Project will generate solid wastes associated with the mix of uses proposed for the Project 40 including residential trash and solid waste from the commercial use in the ground floor of Building 3. • Hazardous wastes will not be generated. During construction, and demolition waste will be • generated and properly disposed. 3.9 Historical During the Site Plan and Design Review process undertaken by the City, the architecture style and Ila siting of the buildings in relationship to the adjacent neighborhoods and land uses were taken into consideration. The Project filed a Project Notification Form with the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) in 2010 and held meetings with the Salem Historical Commission to describe the . proposed Project and the proposed demolition of the Bonfanti Building. The MHC subsequently determined that the Project would have "no effect' on the character and setting of the State Register-listed Historic District (See Appendix 1, Letter from Massachusetts Historic District). • �r �r • Page 13-10 • • 0 • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • 3.10 Wetland and Waterways • 3.10.1 Wetlands • • The Project site was previously developed for a variety of industrial uses dating back to the 1800s. • Until recently,the majority of the site was is impervious (3 out of 4.3 acres) and there are no natural • vegetated wetlands present. Coastal wetland resources on the site are limited to Land Subject to • Coastal Storm Flowage and Coastal Bank. The Project proposes activities in Land Subject to Coastal • Storm Flowage and Coastal Bank wetland resources as well as within the 100 foot Buffer Zone of the Coastal Bank located along the property shoreline. No activities are proposed within the North • River. • • The proposed activities in wetland resource areas will provide pervious areas through the creation • of a lawn area and the site conditions will be improved through removal of existing foundations, • paved areas and other debris. • Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage • The site contains Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage which is currently altered as a result of • prior site uses and site remediation activities. Proposed activities in Land Subject to Coastal Storm • Flowage include removal of paved areas and foundations and installation of landscaping, walkways, • and a portion of the interior roadway. There are no performance standards for Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage in the state wetland regulations however the Project has been designed to • situate the first floor of habitable space well above elevation 12.3 (NAVD88) which is 2 feet above • the 100 year FEMA flood elevation of 10.3 to account for predicted sea level rise (see Section 3. 10.3 • below). • • Coastal Bank • The site contains a rip rapped wall along the North River Canal which is subject to tidal action. Therefore this wall falls under the definition of Coastal Bank. The limited work taking place within • the bank resource area is for the installation of the outlet from the proposed stormwater drainage • system.A small portion of the bank(five feet+/-) will be temporarily disturbed to install the pipe but • will be reconstructed with the existing rip rap material. The limit of Coastal Bank is delineated in . accordance with MADEP Wetland Policy 92-1. As noted,the Project does not propose any activities • on the rip rapped portion of the Coastal Bank that will affect the stability of the bank or its storm damage control functions. • • 100 Foot Buffer Zone • The 100 Foot Buffer zone extends inland from the top of Coastal Bank. The Buffer Zone is currently • altered with buildings remnants and paved surfaces. Proposed activities include removal of • remaining paved areas and foundations and installation of landscaping, walkways, a portion of the • interior roadway,very small portions of two buildings and stormwater management. • • Page 13-11 'L • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form - • 3.10.2 Waterways . The proposed Project is located on a 4.3 acre site located along the North River and is partially = comprised of private filled tideland (approximately 2.3 acres). The site has been significantly altered by more than a century of industrial use and was previously developed as industrial leather • manufacturing operations. • The Project proposes structural alterations and changes of use on previously filled, private tidelands • and therefore requires a new Chapter 91 license. Activities proposed within tidelands resource - areas include the construction of portions of Buildings 1 and 2, interior circulation, walkways, parking and landscaping. The proposed Project is a nonwater-dependent use pursuant to 310 CMR • 9.12(1)of the waterways regulations. • • The Project has been designed to conform to the Chapter 91 regulations. No work is proposed • below mean high water or on Commonwealth tidelands. The proposed buildings have been set back from the 88.5 foot water-dependent use zone and the 100 foot zone for facilities of public • accommodation. Uses within 100 feet of the shoreline include public walkways, lawns and portions • of a roadway open to the public. • • The Project has been designed to encourage public access to and through the site and creates - publicly accessible open space including landscaped areas and walkways to and along the North • River. The site has been designed to provide views toward the North River from Mason Street and from the waterfront walkway. The site is located across the North River from the Leslie's Retreat Park which can be accessed from Flint Street. • A publicly accessible walkway will extend from Flint Street into the site to a green space being • r c Bated between the North River and the proposed Building 1. The green space will include public walkways along the River that extend to interior sidewalks. The walkway along the North River will • Y g Y g be connected to City Property along Flint Street that extends to the walkway system within Leslies' • Retreat Park. A view corridor will be created from Mason Street through the site toward the North • River. Pedestrian access will be provided from Mason Street through the site to the North River and - Flint Street. The site plan also includes a 30-foot wide easement through the southern portion of - the Project site as requested by the City of Salem to allow for a potential future extension of Commercial Street to Flint Street. • • The Project complies with the following applicable standards of the Chapter 91 regulations. • 310 CMR 9.31:Categorical Restrictions on Fill and Structures • The proposed landside uses are allowed under the provisions of 310 CMR 9.32(a)(1) as they • constitute "fill or structures for any use on previously filled tidelands." The Project is not located in nor proposed any activities within flowed tidelands, a Designated Port Area or an Area of Critical • Environmental Concern. • • • Page 13-12 • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • 310 CMR 9.33:Environmental Protection Standards • The Project will comply with the state's applicable environmental regulatory programs including: • • MEPA • • Wetlands Protection Act • • Massachusetts Historical Commission Act • • Coastal Zone Management Consistency Review = 310 CMR 9.34:Conformance with Municipal Zoning Law and Harbor Plans In 2005, the City of Salem adopted the North River Canal District Master Plan. The goals of the L • Master Plan are outlined in the 2003 vision statement and include: w • • Create appropriate development while preserving our historic neighborhood character • • Address transportation issues for existing and new developments • Enhance the public realm in keeping with our unique neighborhood character • • To implement the goals and vision outlined in the Master Plan, the City of Salem adopted the North • River Canal Corridor Neighborhood Mixed use District as Section 8.4.1 of the City of Salem zoning • code. The Project as permitted by the City of Salem is in compliance with the North River Canal • Corridor Neighborhood Mixed Use zoning requirements. • The North River was not included in the geographic boundary of the City of Salem Harbor Plan. • • 310 CMR 9.35:Standards to Preserve Water-Related Public Rights • The Project consists of private tidelands and uplands. In accordance with 310 CMR 9.35(2)(a), the • Project preserves the rights held by the Commonwealth for public use to tidelands including any rights of access associated with such use, as it does not significantly interfere with public rights of • navigation or free passage over and through the water. There are not any existing public landings or • existing public access points to the water existing at the Property. The Project includes public access • along the North River and does not propose any activities in the North River. • • 310 CMR 9.36:Standards to Protect Water-Dependent Uses There are not any water-dependent uses on the Project site and thus the Project will not displace • any existing water dependent uses. The Project is not located in a state Designated Port Area. • • 310 CMR 9.37 Engineering Construction Standards • Proposed Project buildings will be structurally sound and designed to conform to the requirements • of the State Building Code. • 310 CMR 9.51:Conservation of Capacity for Water-Dependent Use • The Project includes nonwater-dependent facilities of private tenancy that are set back from the • 88.5 foot deep water dependent use zone (WDUZ) and 100 feet from the Project shoreline. There • Project does not contain any"at or above grade" parking facilities within the WDUZ. The Project has • • Page 13-13 • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • been designed to encourage public access and provides open space including landscaped areas and • walkways to and along the North River portions of which are located in the WDUZ. • 310 CMR 9.51(3)(b)—Facilities of Public Accommodation • The Project does not propose any new facilities of private tenancy at the ground level of any • filled tidelands within 100 feet of the Project shoreline. Portions of the site roadway and the • sidewalk extending between Flint and Mason Streets are located within 100 feet of the • Project shoreline. However, the roadway/sidewalk will be open to the public and is not • considered a facility of private tenancy. • The ground floor of Building 1 adjacent to the zone located within 100 feet of the Project • shoreline has been programmed for parking in response to the flood study and predicted sea • level rise. The fagade of the building where the parking is located has been designed to - screen the parking use with the use of similar sized openings as the windows above as well as • infilling the openings with open grates to match the window mullion patterns above. • 310 CMR 9.51(3)(c) Water-Dependent Use Zone • The WDUZ for the Project site, which was calculated in accordance with the Chapter 91 • regulations, extends 88.5 feet from the Project Shoreline and is shown on Figure 10. Uses • proposed within the WDUZ include lawn areas and walkways. The Project does not include any new nonwater-dependent buildings or parking for any use within the water dependent use zone(WDUZ). • • 310 CMR 9.51(3)(d) Open Space • The Project provides more than one square foot of open space for every square foot of • nonwater-dependent building footprint located within filled tidelands. The estimated - nonwater-dependent building footprint within Chapter 91 jurisdiction is 3 6,840 square feet (sf) (including the parking deck adjacent to Building 1) and the estimated area of open space is • 65,670 sf. The building footprint occupies 36% and open space occupies 64% of the filled • tidelands on the site. • 310 CMR 9.51(3)(E) Building Height The Project will comply with the height restrictions that limit building heights for new or • expanded nonwater-dependent buildings within Chapter 91 jurisdiction to 55 feet within 100 • feet of mean high water plus one half foot for every one foot further from mean high water • (see Figures 20 through 23 for Building Elevations). • • 310 CMR 9.52:Utilization of Shoreline for Water-Dependent Purposes • The Property does include a WDUZ and includes one or more facilities that generate water- • dependent activities, namely public access along the North River. • • • • Page 13-14 • • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • 310 CMR 9.53:Activation of Commonwealth Tidelands for Public Use • The upland portion of the Property within Chapter 91 jurisdiction is comprised entirely of private filled tidelands and thus the provisions of this section do not apply. • • 310 CMR 9.54:Consistency with Coastal Zone Management Policies • The Project is nonwater-dependent and is located within the Coastal Zone of Massachusetts. The • Project will be designed to be in compliance with all Office of Coastal Zone Management Policies • (see Section 3.12 below). • 3.10.3 Flood Plain and Sea Level Rise • • A Flood Study was prepared for the Project which concluded that coastal rather than riverine • flooding produces the deepest flooding on the Project site and should be used to determine the finished floor elevations for the Project. The study concluded that the design 100-year coastal storm • level based on existing flood and sea levels is 10.3 feet (NAVD 88) and the predicted Sea Level Rise is • 1.98 feet (NAVD). Adding the 1.98 feet Sea Level Rise projected for the year 2100 to the 100 year • coastal flood elevation of 10.3 results in a recommended coastal flood design 100-year water • surface elevation of 12.3 feet(NAVD 88). • The Flood Study also suggested that design strategies could be employed to improve the Project's • resilience to potential flooding and storm damage such as site grading techniques, elevating key • utilities above the flood level, selecting water resistant finishes, and designing the structure's lowest • level to allow flooding without serious damage to the structure (the "safe to fail" concept) such as • using the ground floor for parking or storage space that allows water to flow through it during large • flood events. Elevating the lowest habitable floor to this elevation, along with other protections • such as elevated building utilities will improve the resilience of the proposed Project to predicted future flood impacts. • • The State Building Code 780 CMR 120 in Appendix G, Flood Resistant Construction, requires that • buildings located within a flood-hazard zone elevate the lowest floor at or above the base flood - elevation. Uses excluded from this requirement include means of building egress, incidental storage • garage and parking.The Project will meet these requirements. • Based on the Study, the Project design was modified to program those portions of the lowest floors • located below elevation 12.3 for parking uses and the first habitable floor elevations for Buildings 1 • and 2, portions of which are located in the 100 year flood zone, have been set at 21 feet (NAVD 88) • which is 8.7 feet above the 12.3 coastal flood design goal. • • • • • • • Page 13-15 • • Expanded-7 Riverview Place iu ii t a Ci6i ui o I t Vtg gg�1 ngg pgg nn nnsett un.'<yn�1 =t c�® nn ' nn��nn t 4 11111q Pn d t uo un. uu tou= u 1 n� nn xoo ou ; 1hill.46 t� r '� , '. yy*• t8 i ,: . � , i .s n:s. x- s+.'� L s.1 s.a.1 s n •11.xa 3 �,xk t .- . Y.i s�. c ':,l nn nn nn t011 n Dn �O oa n nn nn BO ou un no tut o uu n u u nn nn ua y � u n n nn nn n nn o nu no 1 n°a o li �a e�n on un n� nu n� uu IU nn �1� e Source: O'Sullivan1ELEVATIONS • 20 ExpandedRiverview Place Environmental Notification Form �' 'mm � o � 00 0o eoeu Aotla aQeo u000` ooeo• o m so ootlo QQm- ;mm eaoo- v o �I m m iaoan aeoA �nuoa -0000 - _ n I Qo ao Doan oaoo Dom oAtln 0 II m m0 000o a0m` aaaa OmaO - - Otl� r n I nn 00 OAnO Qa 00 QQnO QO 00 " DO a ■ o a .�i .�u �I nu un nano u000 oaoo uoen _ _ µo0 'Aaoa mem . nnno ini oomQ `'Qooa meo Dose anmo'. Wena nam eoaQ aaoo oaou oo• IA oa =o"o•�yo n6an 80m ;`AOAm CI ' 00 m0 m0A ' mon Amm� BAtlO ` -AOCA OAm., tlOAm , !BAAO-' AQma r 0 OA '� as ae�� omoo , ooue: o00o IBI - oomQ nano nnno onou neo® - 000n Donn oono - neo •°�' IB oa oo `ae" nnoo Dem moP %I 'Yoom moue mao ' omoo ououJ oeoo 0000 moon , Fmo Qtlm oaoo aaoo Qaaa aoaa - aaA� � oomo aoem masa unan mon - mao memo nuoa mu onoa 000a oeoo 000a AQQo.�. 091p a AIIOa ill Aa 0000 D000 a000 if CB IIa DO aam,._000 mm Dasa 00 aQ °� some Deep aaaa eaou •'Sullivan Architects, INC BUILDING 1 ELEVATIONSNORTH ExpandedRiverview Place Environmental Notification Form a 'v+ Ineoi noon Hoo ®oo n000 Done onno nn� onnn on® o00 00® noon noon �� � � 000a meo mno a� is 99 AI aeoe sem moo moa nano eo ao Dam mm Dona Dasa nn oe nom 000a i �-'- 0000 WWm omo x 'a a IAOeI nnm nano man nnm nnm Ca Oa Dom nom Dom oo oe sem Dam o00o I n P `� �' a ao oo a1M men '. a n �n�n� e000 ooeo mna ones meo Aoeo oaaA Does moo Hann aoeo ooeo mm ' ® s oaao �� Doan �� " e ''� _ acso AAeo mno Dose cavo exon oauo Does 0008 BA C9 Dam' sem mm sees 0000 ll an na DO CO DO nem eO BA mna nnm DA ne man AAne nO An meA mn0 AAAA AAAA a� An 6a me9 seen aoeo flCOI Ao ooeo 000a mm ooeo ooeo Dom 000a eaoa oaeA Dose eeoa mos BAAn Dam n as ao odea aeon eaoo a tl ` eC - BO nO Dom mm An AA ones Som Ba De enAA ooeo Dom moo mm BAAA nnm A BD ea - mm Dana anm AI �.. _`_.__._m..._-_,,,( 9a Ca eam aAm Bn AO CABs Dom Ca CO oaoa eanA oeao moa mm 000a Com A an ea moa oo Ca Cam L ... 8 A ea eons anm eom mae mm 000a Dom aoeo Dona moo 0000 meo 000a Dam i� as ao moa Doan Aom - nA � ease Dom mea Duna avm esus oaon nvnv oovv moa ovno moo ooaA sem ao os moa Dose nem ■ n e . F flfi.• e. 6t + I[ a 6.5. •'Sullivan Architects, INC BUILDING 2 ELEVATIONS Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form amn !imJ, li�nnmioma�l iii ii� ® Mm'unimus:ul mrn, ,vic, it ,�;: ' ; r nu,: neem._ � ' ,� n I— ••n nen �� nm,, nen u� n n, � U�unui•u�mq i mi. mi n� nuns m a , n nnn nn; nn n m n - ami mn n nnn umu, �m nl nlrn an; nni 'u: :ui n Cm �n� unn 11u um ,Inln „ ' �iim Ali �ii' ���9 IM- k!I �F� Wil. nnn n m•,� � � X90'' ��' Eif� ii°mi iii � '1 . n nu i nu m, u. •'Sullivan Architects, INC BUILDING 3 ELEVATIONS • NORTH Figure23 • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • 3.11 Construction Impacts • Project construction is estimated to occur over a twelve month period and will likely be phased with Building 3 located along Mason Street being constructed first followed by the construction of Buildings 1 and 2. The Project involves utility work, site grading, paving, building construction and • landscaping. No buildings currently exist on the site however there are some remnants of building • slabs and foundations that will be removed. Temporary construction impacts will include noise, • dust and stormwater runoff. • Excavated materials will be re-used on site to the extent feasible and any excess materials temporarily • stockpiled. Foundation and slab demolition debris will be stockpiled for recycling, or for transport for • off-site disposal. During construction a Licensed Site Professional will monitor construction activities to • ensure compliance with the Project Release Abatement Measures Plan (RAM) Plan (see section 2.2). • Noise • During construction, noise will be generated from site excavation and grading, pile driving, and building • construction activities. No blasting is proposed. Construction related noise will be generated but such • noise will be temporary and will occur during normal work day hours. The hours of construction will be • restricted to 7:00 AM through 6:00 PM. Noise generating construction equipment will be maintained in • proper working order. Back-up alarms on vehicles and equipment will be adjusted as low as possible to • reduce noise,without compromising safety and,when feasible,equipment that is not being used will be turned off. The Project will abide by the City of Salem Noise Control Ordinance governing noise • generating construction tools, equipment and activities found in Section 22 of Part III Code of • Ordinances. • Dust • Construction related dust will be generated during site excavation and grading activities and will be • controlled. Mitigation measures such as wheel washing will be used, as necessary, to minimize the air • quality impacts from construction on the local air quality. • • Stormwater Management • The Project construction does not anticipate the need for any dewatering activities but should • dewatering be needed, the activity will be performed in accordance with the Project' NPDES General Permit. During construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented to ensure that • construction activities do not result in adverse water quality impacts to the adjacent North River. These • practices will include the placement of hay bales along the shoreline. A NPDES General Permit will be • prepared and filed for construction term activities. • Site Remediation • As noted previously, a Release Abatement Measure Plan has been developed for the site. A Licensed • Site Professional will be on site to monitor construction activities and ensure compliance with that Plan. • • • • Page 13-20 • • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • - 3.12 CONSISTENCY WITH MASSACHUSETTS COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT POLICIES The Project is consistent with the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program Policies. The Massachusetts CZM Program was established to protect and manage the development and use • of the coastal zone under the provisions of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. This • is accomplished by reviewing proposed developments in the coastal zone in terms of consistency • with the CZM Coastal Policies and Management Principles. The Project's consistency with relevant • policies/principles is described below. • Stormwater Management • Water Quality Policy 1 • "Ensure that nonpoint pollution controls promote the attainment of state surface water quality - standards in the coastal zone." Water Quality Policy 2 . "Ensure those point-source discharges in or affecting the coastal zone are consistent with federally - approved state effluent limitations and water quality standards • The Project stormwater management system will comply with the DEP Stormwater Design • Standards. • • Coastal Hazards Coastal Hazard Policy 1 • "Preserve, protect restore, and enhance the beneficial functions of storm damage prevention and • flood control provided by natural coastal landforms,such as dunes, beaches, barrier beaches, coastal • banks, land subject to coastal storm flow, salt marshes, and land under the ocean." • • The site does not contain any natural coastal landforms. The site does contain land subject to • coastal storm flowage. As discussed in previously, a Flood Study was performed for the Project to determine the coastal and riverine flood potential on the Project Site with consideration of • predicted sea level rise. The report considered the riverine and coastal flooding factors affecting the • Project site and took into consideration predicted sea level rise using best available data (see • Appendix 3). The Flood Study suggested that the Project design take into consideration the • preliminary 2013 FEMA flood elevation of 10.3 and a predicted 1.8 foot increase in sea level rise • over the next century. As a result, the Project proponents revised the design to program those portions of the lowest floors located below elevation 12.3 for parking uses and the first habitable • floor elevations for Buildings 1 and 2, portions of which are located in the 100 year flood zone, have • been set at 21 feet(NAVD 88)which is 8.7 feet above the 12.3 coastal flood design goal. • • Furthermore, the Project will be designed in accordance with the state building code requirement for construction in flood zones. • • • • Page 13-21 • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • Energy . Energy Policy#2 • Encourage energy conservation and the use of renewable sources such as solar and wind power in order to assist in meeting the energy needs of the Commonwealth - The project has been designed to meet the state Stretch Energy Code which the City of Salem = adopted. The street lights within the development will be equipped with LED lighting. Public Access • Public Access Policy 1 • "Ensure that developments proposed near existing public recreation sites minimize their adverse effects." • • Public Access Management Principle 1 . Improve public access to coastal recreation facilities and alleviate auto traffic and parking problems • through improvements in public transportation. Link existing coastal recreation sites to each other or to nearby coastal inland facilities via trails for bicyclists, hikers, and equestrians, and via rivers for • boaters. • Public Access Management Principle 1 Increase capacity of existing recreation areas by facilitating multiple use and by improving management, maintenance and public support facilities. Resolve conflicting uses whenever possible • through improved management rather than through exclusion of uses. • • The Project will provide a view corridor from Mason Street, directly across from Mack Park, through • the site to the North River. Pedestrian access from Mason Street to the North River will be provided - through the Project site. Public access along the North River will be provided from Flint Street through the Project Site. The site is located across the North River from the Leslie's Retreat Park • which can be accessed from Flint Street. A connection has been included in the Project design that • would extend from the proposed Project walkway along the North River to a City-owned connection - to Leslie's Retreat Park. In addition to creating a more direct route to the park, this connection will . also create a walkway connection to the MBTA commuter rail station. The Project also includes a • 425 sf patio area on the riverside of Building 1. • Growth Management Growth Management Principal - "Encourage the revitalization and enhancement of existing development centers in the coastal zone • through technical assistance and federal and state financial support for residential, commercial and industrial development." The Project is consistent with the stated management principles as the Project site is located in an existing urban neighborhood located in close proximity to the downtown and the MBTA commuter rail station. The Project will convert a large expanse of currently vacant paved areas into new • residential housing and commercial uses with public access along the North River. • • • Page 13-22 • • • ! • i ! I ! • i i • i • Ii • III ! • # i • • ! • • • i • • • • Chapter 4 i • Public Benefits • ! • • • • i • • • • i • i i A • • s • ! Page Intentional Blank • • • ! • ! • ! • ! • • • • a • • • • • • • • i • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form 4.0 PUBLIC BENEFITS 4.1 Public Benefits s The Project proposes several public benefits including the introduction of public access to the site, parking for nearby residents, affordable housing units and traffic improvements. According to section 18B of the state Chapter 91 law (M.G.L. c. 91), a public benefit determination must be made by the Secretary of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs for projects that file an environmental notification form after November 15, 2007; are required to file an environmental impact report; and are completely or in part located in tidelands or landlocked tidelands. The • Project falls under this requirement for a public benefit review. • ' As noted in Chapter 2, the Project site is comprised in part of formerly flowed filled private tidelands. The site abuts the North River which is non navigable at low tide. The Project proposes to redevelop the site as a mixed use development that is primarily residential. The Project will convert a large expanse of currently vacant into new residential housing including 13 affordable w units and commercial uses with public access along the North River. Portions of the development 1� will occur within filled private tidelands. The Project will introduce public access to the site for the first time and will create a public realm along the North River. The site was previously developed with industrial leather manufacturing 40 facilities as described in Chapter 2. The Project complies with the local Master Plan for the area • and has received approvals from the City of Salem. As previously mentioned, the site plan was developed in conjunction with the goals outlined for the area in the 2003 Neighborhood Master Plan for the North River Canal Corridor. • • The local review process imposed several conditions to minimize impacts to abutting properties and the surrounding community including the items listed below which are described in more detail on 40 the following pages. • • • Public access and views to the North River • Provision of 130 units of much needed housing i • Set aside of 13 units of affordable housing • Economic Development benefits to the City • Reduced Energy Use and GHG emissions • Traffic mitigation measures • Set aside of 12 parking spaces for existing resident on the adjacent Flint Street • Compatible design standards • Public Access and View Corridor • The Project will redevelop an existing 4.3 acre industrial site and create public access to and along the North River Canal. A walkway will extend from Flint Street into the site to a green space being • Page 14-1 ' • • s s Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • s created between the North River and the proposed Building 1. The green space will include public walkways along the River that extend to interior sidewalks. , A view corridor will be created from Mason Street through the site toward the North River. Pedestrian access will be provided from Mason Street through the site to the North River and Flint Street. The site plan also includes a 30-foot wide easement through the southern portion of the s Project site to allow for a potential future extension of Commercial Street to Flint Street. . s The site walkway along the North River will be extended to a City-owned walkway connection to S Leslie's Retreat Park located off an existing public parking lot on Flint Street (see concept plan on Figure 24). In addition to creating a more direct route to the park, this connection will also create a s walkway connection to the MBTA commuter rail station. s Housing The Project will create 130 units of much needed new housing on the site. Of that total, 13 units will i be set aside as affordable units. Economic Development s The Project will redevelop an existing, blighted site along the North River in Salem into a new mixed use development. Approximately 30 million will be invested into the project. Temporary construction jobs will be generated from the construction. The property value of the site and • surrounding neighborhood is expected to increase is a result of the proposed redevelopment. New local and state taxes will be generated. The value of the project will be increased as compared to the previous leather manufacturing uses on the site and as a result increased state and local tax revenues will be generated. Approximately $250,000 to $300,000 in annual local real estate taxes are expected to be generated by the project. Energy Use and Green House Gas Emissions The Proponent has committed to implement energy efficiency measures that will reduce overall Project energy use (stationary sources) by 12.7% and will reduce CO2 emissions by 12.6%, compared s to the Base Case. In accordance with the MEPA "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol," s the proponent will provide a certification to the MEPA Office signed by an appropriate professional stating that all transportation and non-transportation greenhouse gas mitigation measures S described in this EENF, or measures providing comparable mitigation, have been incorporated into , the Project. s • s s s s s Page 14-2 • s • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • Traffic and Transportation • Riverview Place is ideally suited in relation to the public transportation facility on Bridge Street at • the MBTA Commuter Rail Station one-half a mile from project site. The Proponent is committed to a program of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to reduce residential and • customer vehicle trips, listed below, and which in aggregate it is estimated will reduce CO2 • transportation emissions by 2%. The TDM measures include: • • • Locate New Buildings Near Transit— The project is one-half mile from the MBTA Station, • providing commuter rail service on the Newburyport/Rockport commuter rail line. • • Develop Multi-Use Paths To and Through Site—A walkway is proposed along the south side of • the site along the North River from Flint Street and pedestrian access will be provided between • Mason Street to the north and the North River to the south. • • • Provide Bicycle Storage—Secure, weather-protected bicycle racks will be provided at locations within the site with signs directing bicyclists to the bike storage facilities. • • • Roadway and Signalization Improvements to Improve Traffic Flow—Roadway and traffic signal • improvements are proposed along Mason,Tremont and Flint Streets. • • Parking • To alleviate the parking needs of existing residents on Flint Street, the Project is providing 12 parking spaces in the lot adjacent to Flint Street for use by existing residents of that street. • • Project Design • The Project underwent significant design review to ensure that the proposed building architectural • design and site layout was compatible with the existing neighborhood context and setting. Other Benefits • The site plan also includes a 30-foot wide easement through the southern portion of the Project site to • allow for a potential future extension of Commercial Street to Flint Street. • • • • • • • • • • • • Page 14 3 • • ExpandedRiverview Place TIL IL ���,,., .rz� .S•:.���i �I..Oma, . 'v. h< i xs.y x.. •� .... ..ier cw4r.• "� U i m P �yn �.n••.'. '��Ry t51,i# • james k. emmanuel • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • II • • • • • • • • • • Appendix 1 • • MASS HISTORICAL COMMISSION DETERMINATION • • • • • • • RE,+ CEIVEs 46 1.N 1 l �n2• 950 CMR: OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH APPENDIX A MASS, HIST. CO: MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION • 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD • BOSTON, MASS. 02125 617-727-8470, FAX: 617-727-5128 • PROJECT NOTIFICATION F review of MHC files and the materials - you submitted, it has been determined that Project Name: Riverview.Place this project is unlikely to affect significant • historic or archaeological resources, • Location/Address: 72 Flint Street City/Town: Salem • S %/ • Project Proponent 2achuUHistocalCoIo Loughlin � • tion Planner Y��� Name: Riverview Place, LLC setrilel Address: c/o Michael O'Brien,6 Cider Mill Road • Cityfrown/Zipfrelephone: Peabody, MA 01960 • Agency license or funding for the project(list all licenses,permits,approvals,grants or other entitlements being • sought.from state and federal agencies). • Agency Name, Type of License or funding ecifvl • i • I MA DEP Division of Waterways Chapter 91 License • i Project Description(narrative): See Attached Project Description • • • Does:the project include demolition? YES • If so,specify nature of.demolition and describe the.building(s)which are proposed for demolition. The site.previously contained 2buildings,one,The Bonfanti Builidng on Mason Street, still exists and will be demolished; • the second building,Salem Suede was ordered to be demolished by the City of Salem following_a fire inthe fall of 2009• • Does the project include rebabilitation of any existing buildings? NO • If so,specify nature of rehabilitation and 'describe the building(s)which are proposed for.rehabilitation. • • Does.the•projectinclude new construction?If so,describe(attach plans and elevations if necessary): YES. See Attached • • (Effective 7/1(93)-corrected 950 CMR-275 • • • i RECEIVE® • MAR 0 7 2011 • DEPT OF PLA�,01Nn S. COM"lr'f LE • The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth • Massachusetts Historical Commission • March 4,2011 • • Hannah Diozzi Chair, Salem Historical Commission • 120 Washington Street • Salem,MA 01970 • RE: Riverview Place,72 Flint Street,Salem. MA; MHC# 50041 • Dear Ms. Diozzi: y In response to your recent submissions to our office regarding the Riverview Place project at 72 Flint Street in Salem, Massachusetts,the Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC)offers the following comments. The project site is located north of and across the canal from the McIntire Historic District,which is listed in • the State Register of Historic Places. After review of project elevations and drawings, the MHC has - determined that the project would have"no effect"(950 CMR 71.07(2)(b)(1))on the character and setting of the State Register-listed Historic District. • The Bonifante and Salem Suede buildings are not included in MHC's Inventory of Historic and • Archaeological Assets ofthe Commonwealth. Because the proposed project did not include the demolition of • any properties that are included in MHC's Inventory, the categorical threshold for filing an Environmental Notification Form(ENF)with MEPA does not apply(see 301 CMR 11.03(10)). • • The MHC is aware of the numerous inventoried properties located on Mason, Flint, Tremont and other streets near the project site. However,because the project only requires a permit from a state agency(DEP), • the MHC's review is limited to determining whether the project will affect any historic properties that are • listed in the State Register of Historic Places(see M.G.L.Chapter 9,Section 27C and 950 CMR 71.00). • These comments are offered to assist in compliance with M.G.L. Chapter 9, Section 26-27C, (950 CMR • 71.00). Please do not hesitate to contact Brandee Loughlin of my staff if you have any questions. • Sincerely, • i, ,,,� Sty--�--- - Brona Simon • State Historic Preservation Officer • Executive Director Massachusetts Historical Commission • • xc: Michael O'Brien, Riverview Place, LLC Lynn Goonin Duncan,City of Salem Department of Planning&Community Development • Rose Mary O'Connor,Chairperson,Mack Park Neighborhood Association • Lorene T. Scanlon, Mack Park Condominiums Meg Twohey,Chair,Federal Street Neighborhood Association,Inc. Mary Whitney&Nick Nowak • Representative John D. Keenan • 220 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts 02125 • (617) 727-8470 • Fax: (617) 727-5128 www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i Appendix 2 • ! TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT STUDY • • • • • w • • • • • TRAFFIC IMPACT & ASSESSMENT • STUDY • Riverview Place ! • Proposed Residential Development Project • Salem, MA • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Prepared for: • Riverview Place,LLC • • Prepared by: • Earth Tech,Inc. 300 Baker Avenue • Concord,MA 01742 - October 2007 • ! • ! • • ! • ! • • • i • • Executive Summary w This Traffic Impact and Assessment Study has been prepared to evaluate the proposed Riverview 49 Place development project. Riverview Place, LLC proposes to redevelop the parcels of land - located at 72 Flint Street and 69 Mason Street in the City of Salem, MA. The development project calls for the demolition of the existing buildings located on the project site (formerly the Salem Suede, Inc. and the L. Bonfanti, Inc. leather factories) and the construction of 130 - residential apartment units and 5,540 SF of commercial space. New traffic volume data were • collected for this study and was used to perform intersection capacity analyses. The findings of this study indicate that: i • Both of the site driveways will operate adequately and meet the minimum stopping sight distance requirements. • The intersections of Mason Street / Tremont Street and Mason Street / Flint Street experienced crash rates higher than the MFID District 4 average. • The proposed development project is expected to generate 56 new vehicle trips during the morning peak hour and 87 new vehicle trips during the afternoon peak hour. This equates to just under to just over one vehicle trip per minute during the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. On a daily basis, approximately 870 new vehicle trips are anticipated. • The addition of project-generated vehicles to the roadway network is not expected to - significantly change traffic operations at the study intersections. The following improvements have been incorporated into the proposed project: • • The proposed project will not preclude the long-term measures outlined in the Neighborhood Master Plan. A 30-foot wide roadway easement has been included into the project in anticipation of a future extension of Commercial Street to Flint Street. - • As part of the project, 12 parking spaces have been designated on-site for Flint Street residents. The following measures should be considered to improve operations and safety in the study area: • • A flashing beacon at the intersection of Mason Street/Flint Street should be considered to increase awareness and safety. i • At the intersection of Mason Street / Tremont Street, widening the Tremont Street i southbound approach should be considered to accommodate an exclusive left-turn lane to improve traffic operations at this location. In summary, the local roadway network in the vicinity of the project site can accommodate the • proposed development project. Suggested transportation enhancements would improve existing deficiencies and future operations. • • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS ! Page ! • 1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................1-1 • 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS........................................................................2-1 2.1 Study Roadways..............................................................................2-1 2.2 Intersection Characteristics.............................................................2-2 ! 2.3 Existing Traffic Volume Data.........................................................2-4 ! 2.4 Accident Data..................................................................................2-7 • 3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES.........................3-1 ! 3.1 Future No-Build Conditions............................................................3-1 • 3.2 Future Build Conditions..................................................................3-6 • 4.0 TRAFFIC CAPACITY ANALYSIS.........................................................4-1 ! 4.1 Level of Service Criteria.................................................................4-1 4.2 Operating Conditions......................................................................4-2 ! • 5.0 SITE CIRCULATION/ACCESS & PARKING......................................5-1 5.1 Site Access......................................................................................5-1 • 5.2 Internal Site Circulation..................................................................5-2 5.3 Parking............................................................................................5-3 ! ! 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................6-1 ! 6.1 Neighborhood Master Plan..............................................................6-1 ! 6.2 Safety Improvements.......................................................................6-1 ! 6.3 Intersection Capacity Improvements...............................................6-2 ! 7.0 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................:......................7-1 • APPENDICES • • APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNT DATA • APPENDIX B CRASH RATE WORKSHEETS • • APPENDIX C BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS i APPENDIX D TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS • A APPENDIX E INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS - • Table of Contents Page i L:I work11019791PROJIET Internal Records I TIASI101979-TIAS.doc ! ! • LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP.....................................................1-2 FIGURE 2: 2007 EXISTING PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES...........2-6 iFIGURE 3: 2012 FUTURE NO-BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES.....................................................................................3-5 FIGURE 4: DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT TRIPS....................................3-8 FIGURE 5: SITE-GENERATED VEHICLE TRIPS.....................................3-9 FIGURE 6: 2012 FUTURE BUILD PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES3-10 i FIGURE 7: PROPOSED SITE PLAN.............................................................5-4 f LIST OF TABLES Page ' TABLE 1: AVERAGE WEEKDAY DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES— . FLINT STREET............................................................................2-4 S TABLE 2: HISTORICAL TRAFFIC VOLUME COMPARISON.............2-5 4D TABLE 3: ACCIDENT SUMMARY(2003—2005)......................................2-8 TABLE 4: BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.....................3-4 TABLE 5: TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY.............................................3-7 TABLE 6: LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA—INTERSECTIONS........4-1 TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS— WEEKDAY MORNING PEAK HOUR......................................4-2 TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS— WEEKDAY AFTERNOON PEAK HOUR................................4-3 0 TABLE 9: SIGHT DISTANCE SUMMARY................................................5-2 M Table of Contents Page ii L:4ork11019791PR0JIET1nternal Records lTIASI101979-TIAS.doe 40 0 s w 1.0 INTRODUCTION Riverview Place, LLC proposes to redevelop a parcel of land located at 72 Flint Street and 69 Mason Street in the City of Salem, Massachusetts. The project site is bound by Flint Street to the west, Mason Street to the north, the North River Canal to the south, and an adjacent parcel to the east. The development project calls for the construction of 130 residential apartment units, including 81 two-bedroom units and 49 one-bedroom units, and 5,540 SF of commercial space. The project site has i previously been used as the Salem Suede, Inc. and the L. Bonfanti, Inc. leather factories. Under the proposed plan, all of the existing buildings located on the project site will be demolished. A total of 309 on-site parking spaces are proposed, including twelve spaces designated for existing residents of Flint Street. The site development plan was developed in conjunction with the goals outlined for the area in the Neighborhood Master Plan for the North River Canal Corridor . (prepared by Goody, Clancy & Associates, Earth Tech, Inc., and FXM Associates in September 2003). On the southern edge of the project site, a walkway is proposed along the North River Canal. The site plan also includes a 30-foot wide easement through the southern portion of the project site to allow for a potential future r extension of Commercial Street to Flint Street. These attributes of the proposed site plan are consistent with the objectives and recommendations contained in the Neighborhood Master Plan, and do not preclude any of the long-term transportation - improvements recommended for the area. Figure I shows the project site location. This study includes a review of the existing traffic and roadway conditions, a review of accident history at study area intersections, forecasts background traffic growth within the study area, estimates the additional traffic generated by the proposed development project, and evaluates the potential impacts on the local transportation network associated with this development project. i Introduction Page 1-1 L:Iwork11019791PR0JIETInternal Records WAS1 10 1979-TIAS.doc w � 'I•a T3.. a �'! �r ,t`� r ��a0 �''. �� '��V? ♦i\��Z Fi f�' �t.,� S � p� 4 tiC;,, t � � `I 7 �'s�'7 qq '✓` i5`\' / 1 nn� ? [�h �O•JYr rte..{' P`" � . ., � {� °4 P ' '"key tii n �. 6./ .. 1 Y ✓d �� r � �� l .� � - t•- i \�,C ' • ,hk al�,<ra�',. �� :A,/q � q� ® L� �:n' �� l;�u ipy W � Q °�,a� ! � ; 7A,:\ "+ "✓S'� + �J �� '!7" n xt"/ kd�r`�'� ¢� ��`�Iy✓ .r Rte'\ 'R 4J . bi �+� , .F .✓., w1 o.r ..7 �. �?✓�F'"✓ �+/�'v }� - � r t ice: � �r `•, x` \ jj,�-'"�,'` � �•�",..F�,'� G�4 �,� t\pryv p,,ry. +`'' 5� ,Pr '_t rt �"`'� j �• e'� "I� ��d `".. 'Q,�/.�/`. � ��_•, �,�\' �4. � ^�s to � ( ^�I�}`�� J 40 , li ' ,, - Wit' � ♦ y .�" � / � �I q � .r<`'�►r���'^., � � I �"SJ�r.ti'' ' Jtit P ,A. ,. -, .. '� ®� �� `tet r••,Nt .. ! a G�� ilTin�y�.«. ... • °Q .;`.`a. � 4 � `1 �r �1' /nr _� i,'Ysr I )" i � .. ,�,«�«�.}�.n� � .1< - r-J w: '� e. '` �4 '! \q J+l. .111 Yl•!' l' ✓d ci. c� aii +Cd�gr. ,�+�'� e + �._� �Eh� Al `,� ♦ 'x a'.P . r b,F �4 m d '�' T - Jtif� �,iqY' � � . 1G n w � �i y 9�'�• � ,_ '� :a •, •-: .� t C�.��,.a -r r_�ja� "lip i1 t , Y `y4RY,._ •; _ Y e f' �._. \ `^,r i- �` • Y"' G e x°Y; r�vq 9�! "l ip t �w�!" ♦e _/.d `+ �F'4�:�I� <A • ,. Y �•u.. ....J�"X Vr y "! B�fi I:�/ \� •\��� � �'�y-Jy w.cy �*�,. � t®es �'� $t`{p�*, �t "� '..ai� � '.'�' � �Iti�`' y J• r'x$" ` ' J� o�`�,;�S t � • 'YI ' c... f t, jikb'.W!- 10 ';��' ' � .. �y � ti v9+ � ,. � ?A w `•c v��...r/�'�a �. � b .t�,�•r_ W' �`•.di nF�a� � t�1 r � ��ani�,�, • • • • 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS • Afield inventory of the study area was conducted during September 2007. The inventory included collection of existing roadway geometry, traffic control, traffic volumes, and general observations of roadway operating characteristics. The study • area intersections evaluated for this study are: • • • Bridge Street(Route 107)at Flint Street • • Mason Street at Flint Street • • Mason Street at Tremont Street • Existing site driveways on Flint Street and on Mason Street • • The findings of the field inventory are summarized below. • • 2.1 Study Roadways • • Bridge Street(Route 107) • Bridge Street(Route 107) is an urban arterial roadway that generally runs in an east- = west direction through the City of Salem. To the west of Flint Street, Bridge Street provides two travel lanes in each direction. To the east of Flint Street, Bridge Street • generally provides one travel lane in each direction. In the vicinity of the project site, • sidewalks are provided along both sides of Bridge Street to the west of Flint Street, • and along the south side of Bridge Street to the east of Flint Street. There are no • posted speed limit signs on Bridge Street in the vicinity of the study area. On-street • parking on Bridge Street is prohibited within the study area of this report. • Flint Street • • Flint Street is a local roadway that runs in a north-south direction between Mason • Street and Broad Street. Flint Street generally provides one travel lane in each • direction. In the vicinity of the project site, sidewalks are provided along both sides of the roadway, and on-street parking is permitted on both sides of Flint Street. • • Mason Street • • Mason Street is a local roadway that generally runs in an east-west direction between • Grove Street and North Street (Route 114). Mason Street provides one travel lane in • each direction. Sidewalks are located on both sides of Mason Street to the east of Tremont Street, and along the south side of the roadway to the west of Tremont • Street. The posted speed limit on Mason Street is 30 MPH to the east of Flint Street; • to the west of Flint Street the posted speed limit on Mason Street is 20 MPH in both • Existing Conditions Page 2-1 • L:4ork11019791PROJIET Internal Records WASV 01979-TIAS.doc • • • • • • • • directions. On-street parking is permitted along various portions of Mason Street, • although in the vicinity of the project site, between Flint Street and Tremont Street, • on-street parking is prohibited on both sides of the roadway. • Tremont Street • • Tremont Street is a local roadway that runs in a north-south direction between Mason • Street and the Peabody city line. Tremont Street provides one travel lane in each • direction. In the vicinity of the project site, the posted speed limit on Tremont Street is 25 MPH. In the area of the project site, a sidewalk is provided along the east side • of Tremont Street. • • 2.2 Intersection Characteristics • Bridge Street(Route 107)at Flint Street • • The signalized intersection of Bridge Street / Flint Street is located approximately • 100 feet south of an at-grade railroad crossing. At the intersection of Bridge Street/ • Flint Street, the Bridge Street eastbound approach provides two 13-foot wide travel • lanes. These two eastbound travel lanes on Bridge Street are provided for the entire length between Boston Street and Flint Street, or approximately 1,200 feet. At the • intersection of Bridge Street / Flint Street, the eastbound travel lanes are marked as • an exclusive left-turn lane and a shared through and right-turn lane. East of Flint • Street, Bridge Street currently provides one eastbound travel lane. The Bridge Street • westbound approach to this intersection consists of one 15-foot wide travel lane. The • Flint Street northbound approach provides one 20-foot wide travel lane. This is sufficient width for vehicles traveling through or right to bypass vehicles waiting to • turn left, though vehicles generally queue in one lane on the northbound approach • while waiting for the green light. The Flint Street southbound approach provides one • 12-foot wide exclusive left-turn lane and one 13-foot wide shared through and right- turn lane. The left-turn lane is provided for approximately 150 feet. Painted • pedestrian crosswalks are provided across each leg of this intersection and an • exclusive pedestrian signal phase is activated with pedestrian push buttons. • Mason Street at Flint Street • • Flint Street intersects Mason Street to form an unsignalized T-intersection. The Flint • Street northbound approach is approximately 11-feet wide and vehicular traffic is • under STOP sign control. The Mason Street eastbound approach provides one • general purpose travel lane. The lane width is 17-feet wide, which includes space for on-street parking on the south side of Mason Street. The Mason Street westbound • approach provides one 11-foot wide general purpose travel lane. There is a striped • crosswalk across the west leg of Mason Street. Although there is no sidewalk along • Existing Conditions Page 2-2 • L:1work I01979WROJIET Internal RecordslTMS1101979-TIAS.doc • • • • • the north side of Mason Street, this crosswalk leads to a path and staircase that leads • into Mack Park. On the north side of Mason Street, slightly offset from the Flint • Street intersection, there is a small informal parking lot for Mack Park. This parking • area has approximately seven parking spaces. • Mason Street at Tremont Street and Site Drivewav • • Tremont Street and the existing site driveway intersect Mason Street to form an off- • set unsignalized intersection. The Tremont Street southbound approach provides one • 15-foot wide travel lane, and vehicular traffic is under STOP sign control. The Mason Street eastbound approach provides one 16-foot wide travel lane, while the • westbound approach provides one 18-foot wide travel lane. The Mason Street • westbound lane also provides width for on-street parking on the north side of Mason • Street(to the east of Tremont Street only). The site driveway northbound approach is • approximately 24-feet wide and provides one travel lane in each direction. Striped • crosswalks are provided across the east leg of Mason Street and across Tremont Street. • • Flint Street at Site Drivewav • • The existing site driveway intersects Flint Street slightly offset from the Oak Street/ • Flint Street intersection. This site driveway currently has a gate; this gate is opened • intermittently as needed by the existing uses on the project site. Under the future conditions, the gate will be removed and this driveway will remain open. This site • driveway is approximately 24-feet wide and allows for two-way vehicular operation. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Existing Conditions Page 2-3 • L:I work11019791PRO.AET Internal Records I TIAS11 0 1979-TIAS.doc • • • • • • • 2.3 Existing Traffic Volume Data • Traffic volume data were collected to assess the operational characteristics within the - study area. The existing daily two-way traffic volumes on Flint Street were obtained • through the placement of an Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) machine. The ATR - count was conducted over a 48-hour period on Monday September 10 and Tuesday September 11,2007. The ATR data are summarized in Table 1. • • Table 1: Average Weekday Daily Traffic Volumes—Flint Street • • Morning Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour Average • Daily Traffic Peak Traffic K- Dir. Peak Traffic K- Dir. • Location Volume Hour Volume Factor° Dist.° Hour Volume Factor° Dist.° • Flint Street,south 6,635 7'30 765 12 81"x°SB 4:30- 663 10 56%SB of Mason Street 8:30am 5:30pm • "Percentage of daily traffic during the peak hour • b Directional Distribution • • • As indicated in Table 1, during the weekday morning peak hour traffic volumes on • Flint Street were much heavier in the southbound direction. During the afternoon peak hour, the southbound direction on Flint Street still experienced more traffic but • the directional distribution was considerably more balanced. • • In addition to the ATR count on Flint Street, manual Turning Movement Counts • (TMC's) were conducted at study area intersections during the peak weekday • commuting hours. The TMC's were collected on Tuesday September 11, 2007 • between the hours of 7:00-9:00 AM and 4:00-6:00 PM. Based on the ATR and TMC's, it was determined that the morning peak hour generally occurs from 7:30- 8:30 AM and the afternoon peak hour generally occurs from 4:30-5:30 PM. To • determine if any of the data needed to be adjusted to account for seasonal fluctuation • within the area, MassHighway seasonal data were researched. The MassHighway • seasonal data revealed that traffic volume data collected during the month of • September are generally nine percent higher than average month conditions. Based • on this, the observed volumes were not adjusted; this provides a conservative (or above average)2007 analysis condition. • • The most recent traffic volume data were also compared to historical traffic volume • data to gain an understanding of traffic growth in recent years. Year 2003 traffic data • were available from the Neighborhood Master Plan for the North River Canal • Corridor, prepared by Goody, Clancy & Associates, Earth Tech, Inc., and FXM • Existing Conditions Page 2-4 • L:Iwork11019MPROJETInternal RecordslTIAS1101979-TIAS.doc • • • • • • Associates in September 2003, and year 2005 traffic data were available from the • Functional Design Report—Proposed Trial Court Expansion, prepared by Edwards • and Kelcey, Inc. in June 2006. Table 2 summarizes the results of this comparison. • Table 2: Historical Traffic Volume Comparison • • 2003 Traffic 2005 Traffic 2007 Traffic Annual • Location VolumesVolumes Volumes Change Growth Rate Mason Street at Tremont Street • Morning Peak Hour 1,118 - 1,188 70 1.5% • Afternoon Peak Hour 1,176 - 1,053 -123 -2.7% Mason Street at Flint Street Morning Peak Hour 1,028 - 1,101 73 1.7% • Afternoon Peak Hour 1,058 - 941 -117 -2.9% • Bridge Street at Flint Street • Morning Peak Hour - 1,980 2,017 37 0.9% • Afternoon Peak Hour - 2,073 1,780 -293 -7.3% Note: Trak volumes represent the total number of vehicles entering each intersection. • • As indicated in Table 2, traffic volumes generally increased during the weekday • morning peak hour and generally decreased during the weekday afternoon peak hour. • The 2007 existing weekday morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes are • displayed on Figure 2. The complete traffic count data are contained in Appendix A. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Existing Conditions Page 2-5 • L:Iwork11019791PROXET Internal Records 1TIAS1101979-TIAS.doc • • • 3 U1 NORTH m A N tT on 5213) x201 .-113 14) Mason Street C521((2az) (i • • • • • 2.4 Accident Data • Accident reports were obtained from MassHighway for each of the study • intersections for the three most recent years on record (2003-2005). These data are • summarized in Table 3. Crash rates were calculated per MassHighway methodology • at each study intersection. The crash rate worksheets are contained in Appendix B. • The most recent statewide and district averages published by MassHighway indicate • the statewide average crash rate is 0.66 for unsignalized intersections and 0.87 for signalized intersections. The District 4 (which includes the City of Salem) average • crash rate is 0.63 for unsignalized intersections and 0.88 for signalized intersections. • • As shown in Table 3, the two intersections of Mason Street / Tremont Street and • Mason Street / Flint Street experienced a crash rate higher than the MassHighway • District 4 average of 0.63. At both of these locations, the majority of crashes were angle type crashes, likely because of the large number of conflicting turning • movements at these unsignalized intersections and restricted sight distance. Most • crashes occurred during the midday period. Safety related improvements are • suggested, and detailed in Chapter 6 of this report. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Existing Conditions Page 2-7 • L:4ork11019791PROJIETInternal RecordSITIAS1101979-TIAS.doc • • • • • • • • • • Table 3: Accident Summary(2003—2005) • Mason Street at Mason Street at Bridge Street(Route 107) • Tremont Street Flint Street at Flint Street • 2003 2004 2005 2003 1 2004 2005 2003 2004 2005 • Severity Property Damage 4 3 5 __6__F 3 2 3 2 4 • Injury ] 2 2 Hit and Run Fatality • Unknown 1 I - Crash Type Rear End 1 2 1 l 2 I 2 • Angle 3 1 3 6 4 3 1 2 - Head-On I Other/Unknown I 1 1 1 1 • Time of Day 6AM-10AM 2 1 1 1 10AM-4PM 1 3 2 1 3 32 1 • 4PM-7PM 2 1 3 1 2 • 7PM-6AM 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 - Roadway Condition Dry 4 2 2 3 2 2 I 2 1 Wet 2 1 3 3 3 2 2 Snow/Ice 1 2 1 Other/Unknown • Season • Dee—Feb 2 2 1 2 2 Mar—May I 3 1 3 2 1 1 Jun—Aug 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 • Sep—Nov I 1 1 1 2 Light Conditions Daylight 3 3 3 6 4 4 2 2 1 • Dawn/Dusk 1 Dark(unlit) Dark(lit) 2 1 2 1 1 3 Unknown - LAverage al 5 4 5 6 5 5 3 2 4 4.67 5.33 3.00 - D Crash Rate 1.21 1.55 0.46 • • • • • - Existing Conditions Page 2-8 • L:Iwork11019791PROAETInternal Records WAY I01979-TIAS.doc • • • • • • 3.0 FUTURE CONDITIONS AND TRAFFIC VOLUMES • Future traffic volumes were projected within the study area in order to evaluate the i effect of the proposed residential development project on the local roadway network. Two future scenarios were analyzed, a "Future No-Build" and a "Future Build" • condition. The No-Build scenario examines projects traffic volumes assuming that • the proposed development project does not occur. The Future Build scenario then • adds vehicle-trips generated by the development project to the roadway network. • The Future No-Build scenario provides a baseline comparison to see the effects of the • development project. The future conditions were projected five years, to the year 2012. This five-year planning projection is consistent with the state guidelines for • traffic impact assessments (Executive Office of Environmental Affairs/Executive • Office of Transportation and Construction — Guidelines for Traffic Impact • Assessments). • 3.1 Future No-Build Conditions • Future Roadway Conditions • • North River Canal Neighborhood Master Plan • The North River Canal Neighborhood Master Plan was completed in September • 2003. The Master Plan provides a framework for new growth and development in • the North River area, while preserving and enhancing the quality of life in the • adjacent residential neighborhoods. The project is consistent with the general vision • of Master Plan by proposing to redevelop parcels of land to create a mix of uses that • can be served by the nearby MBTA train station. This proposed transit-oriented development would reduce the reliance on single-occupant automobiles and promote • transit usage. • • The proposed project conforms to urban design recommendations outlined in the • Master Plan by seeking to redevelop the Salem Suede site for housing and • commercial uses. In the project study area, a long-term recommendation in the i Master Plan calls for extending Commercial Street west to Flint Street and Mason Street. The proposed project includes a 30-foot wide easement that can be used to • accommodate a future extension of Commercial Street along the project boundary. • Some on-site project parking spaces would need to be relocated or replaced when • Commercial Street is extended. The project site plan does not preclude other long- , term circulation options discussed in the Master Plan such as designating Flint Street • and a Commercial Street extension to Mason Street as a one-way pair. • It was assumed that extending Commercial Street to the west would not be • implemented within the year 2012 analysis time frame for the proposed project. • Future Traffic Volume Projections and Conditions Page 3-1 L:I work11019791PROJIET Internal RecordsITIAS1101979-TIAS.doe • • • • i i i - Therefore, year 2012 scenario analysis results do not include a westerly extension of Commercial Street. However, the project has been designed so as not to prevent an extension of Commercial Street in the future. North Street The proposed North Street (Route 114) Improvement Project, which is currently under construction, begins at the Salem/Peabody City Line and extends southeasterly approximately one mile to Federal Street. This project's objectives are to improve the safety, operations and capacity of the roadway, including pedestrian safety. The rehabilitation of this roadway corridor includes cold planning and overlay, removing and resetting granite curb, installing new sidewalks and grass strips, and upgrading the existing traffic signals. Traffic/pedestrian signal upgrades are proposed at the intersections of North Street/School Street/Orne Street and North Street/Mason i Street. There are minor modifications proposed to the existing roadway geometrics to provide a uniform cross-section width and composition. In addition, the work includes the adjustment of drainage structure castings and the replacement of pavement markings, as needed. These improvements, while outside the immediate a study area of the Riverview project, are expected to be completed by the 2012 i analysis year. DCAM Courthouse North Street/Bridge Street Interchange DCAM has proposed constructing a new Judicial Center to be located on Federal Street at the North Street intersection. The project includes roadway operations, circulation, and safety improvements at the intersection of North Street with Bridge Street consisting of reconfiguring ramp geometry and the installation of new traffic signals. The project involves the removal of the easterly ramps between North Street and Bridge Street and the installation of fully actuated traffic signals at the intersection of North Street/Federal Street/West Ramps and at the intersection of the West Ramps and Bridge Street. The new signals are proposed to mitigate the impacted traffic between North Street and Bridge Street due to the removal of the east ramps. Other features of the project include signal coordination along North • Street between Federal Street and Essex Street; pedestrian accommodations across North Street; textured paved islands; and new green space. These improvements, while outside the immediate study area of the Riverview project, are expected to be completed by the 2012 analysis year. • Bridge Street(Route 107) iMassHighway is planning to reconstruct Bridge Street (Route 107) between Washington Street and Flint Street. This project is currently at the 25%design stage. The project includes widening Bridge Street to provide two travel lanes in each Future Traffic Volume Projections and Conditions Page 3-2 L:4ork11019791PROJIET Internal RecordslTIAS1101979-TIASdoc i i i i i A direction and signalizing both the Bridge Street at MBTA Drive and West Ramps i intersections. Increased capacity and upgraded signal operations are also proposed for the Bridge Street and Flint Street intersection. Although this project is currently being designed, construction will likely not be completed within the 5 year planning horizon of this report. For this reason, the Bridge Street / Flint Street intersection S was analyzed with the existing geometry and signal control under the Future No- Build and Build conditions. This assumption provides for a conservative analysis, i because the completion of the Bridge Street construction is expected to improve traffic operations under all future conditions. i Future No-Build Traffic Volumes i Future No-Build traffic volume projections typically consist of a general background growth factor, and traffic generated from other known specific development projects a within the study area. Background growth is typically a function of unspecified development projects, increased economic activity, and population growth. i To develop an appropriate background growth rate, the recent traffic volume data i were compared to historical traffic data. This comparison has been summarized in i Section 2.3 of this report. Based on the varying growth and decline of weekday peak hour traffic volumes over the past several years, a 1.0% annual growth rate was assumed for the future background traffic growth. This annual growth rate is consistent with several other recent studies conducted in the area, including the Neighborhood Master Plan for the North River Canal Corridor, the Functional i Design Report—Proposed Trial Court Expansion, and Transportation Improvement Study for Routes IA, 114, and 107, and Other Major Roadways in Downtown Salem, prepared by the Central Transportation Planning Staff in November 2005. The existing 2007 weekday peak hour traffic volumes were therefore adjusted upward by a factor of 5.1% to account for the background traffic growth between 2007 and 2012. i i Based on discussions with the City's Planning and Community Development Department, several potential development projects in the area were identified. Table • 4 identifies and summarizes the status of each of the background development projects. r 0 Future Traffic Volume Projections and Conditions Page 3-3 - I-lwork11019MPROJIETInternal Records lTIAS1101979-TIAS.doc r • • • w = Table 4: Background Development Projects • Location Proposed Build-Out Status 28 Goodhue Street 44 condominium units • 6;000 SF of commercial space Approved • 401 Bridge Street • (former Sylvania site) 78,000 SF of office space Approved 70—92 Boston Street • (former FlynnTan site) n/a Potential development project • • North Street/Franklin Street CVS(assumed 11,000 SF) Proposed • Source:City of Salem • = As shown in Table 4, four sites for potential development projects were identified in the study area. Of these projects, trip generation calculations and trip distribution • assumption were made for 28 Goodhue Street, 401 Bridge Street, and the proposed • CVS at North Street / Franklin Street. Vehicle-trips from these three specific • development projects were estimated with the Institute of Transportation Engineers • (ITE) Trip Generation manual (7°ed., 2003). For the proposed CVS at the corner of • North Street/Franklin Street, detailed information was not available to Earth Tech at the time of this report; a floor area of 11,000 square feet was assumed for the • background trip generation calculations. The vehicle trips associated with these • projects were then distributed and assigned to the roadway network. The distribution • patterns for these background development projects were developed with the year • 2000 U.S. Census Journey-to-Work data and with existing traffic pattern information. • The former FlynnTan site has recently been sold by the City of Salem for a potential redevelopment project, although no specific plans for that site have been made at this • time. It is expected that future traffic from that site(in the Riverview study area)will • be captured by the annual background growth rate. The complete background project • trip generation calculations and vehicular distribution patterns are contained in • Appendix C. The assigned traffic volumes from the specific background • development projects were added to the adjusted 2007 traffic volumes to create the 2012 No-Build peak hour traffic volumes. • • Figure 3 displays the 2012 Future No-Build traffic volumes for the weekday morning • and afternoon peak hours. • • • • • • Future Traffic Volume Projections and Conditions Page 3-4 • L:Iworkl1019791PROJIETInternal Records ITIAS1101979-TIAS.doe • • 3 N NORTH 4 m m N m 1 21 5231)2) `2 (0) .-12, (162) Mason Street C54811(2697) (1_0,s__7 1 ( (o) (,2,) 126- 1 r (105) 205- '�n AN N SITE Oak Street x-76 (171) Bridge Street(Route 107) ✓1 4 `40 (17)0) S (4s1))49i� Nt r ,r^ 2''i mm T Legend 3 XX(XX)=AM(PM)Peak Hour Volumes N m O Traffic Signal Figure 3 EelrthTCCh 2012 No—Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Riverview Place — Salem, MA sees *ATF&I 6 6 6 6 6 9 6 6 5 9 9 6 a 9 9 9 6 9 6 9 6 9 9 a 9 9 9 9 9 a WWWO • • • • • • • 3.2 Future Build Conditions • In order to assess the potential impact of the project on traffic conditions in the study • area, vehicle trips associated with the proposed residential development project were • estimated and distributed onto the roadway network. These vehicle trips were then • added to the Future No-Build traffic volumes to form the Future Build traffic volume • projections for the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. • Project-Generated Traffic • • The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual (7`h ed., • 2003) was used to estimate the trip generation characteristics of the proposed • apartment units and commercial use. ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 220 — Apartments was used to estimate the residential trips associated with the project, and ITE LUC • 814 — Specialty Retail was considered the most appropriate land use to estimate the • retail component vehicle trips. • • The ITE land use codes provide a baseline for the vehicular trip generation of the • project site; however, given the specific nature of this transit-oriented development project, adjustments were applied to both the residential and retail trips associated • with this project. The project site is located within walking distance (approximately • one-half mile) of the Salem MBTA Commuter Rail Station, and it is expected that • many residents will make use of the available public transportation. Based on the • 2000 US Census data for the City of Salem, 23% of workers who live in Salem use • alternate (non-single occupant automobile) forms of transportation. Furthermore, • based on the nature of mixed-use development project, it can reasonably be assumed that internal site trips will account for a portion of the total trip generation • characteristics of a project site. In this case, it is likely that some of the trips going to • and from the retail portion of the project site will be made by residents of the project • site. These are considered as "internal' trips and will not generate additional • vehicular traffic on the surrounding roadway network. The Trip Generation • Handbook, An ITE Recommended Practice (Institute of Transportation Engineers, March 2001) contains data and guidelines for the assessment of internal site trips. • The"Internal Capture Rate" contained in the Trip Generation Handbook ranges from • 28% to 41%. For this analysis, the lower 28% figure was used to account for the • internal trips of the retail component of the project site. The trip generation • calculations were computed for the project site on a daily basis, and the weekday • morning and afternoon peak hours. The weekday morning and afternoon peak hours • are the most critical periods for trip generation for the proposed land uses, and also represent the highest hourly vehicular volume on the surrounding roadway network • during a typical weekday. The weekend trip generation characteristics are • significantly lower, and thus, were not evaluated. The complete trip generation • Future Traffic Volume Projections and Conditions Page 3-6 • L:4ork17079791PROAET Internal Records WAS1I01979-TIASdoc • • • • • • calculations are contained in the attached Appendix D. Table 5 provides a complete • summary of the trip generation analysis. • Table 5: Trip Generation Summary • Weekday Morning Peak Hour Weekday Afternoon Peak Hour Daily • (vehicle-trips) (vehicle-trips) Trips • Entering Exitin Total Entering Exiting Total Total • 130 Apartment Units(Total Trips)° 13 53 66 52 29 81 874 • Non Vehicular Site-Trips 3 12 15 12 7 19 201 • (23%of Residential Trips) a - • New Residential Vehicle-Trips 10 41 51 40 22 62 673 • ------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5,540 SF of Specialty Retail(Total Trips)° 4 3 7 15 20 35 275 • • Internal Trips(28%of Retail Trips) 1 1 2 4 6 10 77 New Retail Vehicle-Trips 3 2 5 11 14 25 198 • --------------------------------'..---_"_'-----------------------------------------------------'_-'-" ------ Nm ---New Site-Generated Vehicle-Trips 13 43 56 51 36 87 871 • Based on ITE L UC 220—Apartments Based on ITE L UC 814—Specialty Retail • • As shown on Table 5, the proposed project is expected to generate 56 new vehicle • trips during the weekday morning peak hour and 87 new vehicle trips during the • afternoon peak hour. This equates to between just under and just over one new • vehicle trip per minute during the weekday commuter peak hours. On a daily basis, • approximately 871 new vehicle trips are anticipated. • Trip Distribution and Assignment • • In order to evaluate the potential impacts related to the incremental traffic volumes • associated with the development project, the new vehicle-trips must be distributed • onto the local roadway network. U.S. Census 2000 Journey-to-Work data were • consulted to develop the proposed trip distribution patterns. Journey-to-Work data are developed from the latest US Census data, and indicates where the residents of • Salem work and where workers in Salem live. It was assumed that the • residents/visitors of the proposed project would exhibit similar travel patterns. Based • on these data, an overall trip distribution was developed for the new project trips. • The trip distribution patterns are displayed on Figure 4. The new project-generated trips were then distributed accordingly, and are displayed on Figure 5. These incremental vehicle-trips were then added to the Future No-Build traffic volume • network to form the 2012 Future Build Traffic Volumes and displayed on Figure 6. • Future Traffic Volume Projections and Conditions Page 3-7 • L:lworkl 101 9791PRO.AET Internal Records WAS1 I 01979-TIAS.doc • • • 3 da dft �2 (P N NORTH O 4 m 20% N .-5% (loss) Mason Street �0% r10% ' ' 10%-7 107.-7 N -n SITE Naos i 20%) r�459. Dap street (� 15% 4000, Bridge Street(Route 107) as�+ 15%, t in as Legend XX%=Entering Trip Distribution N (XX%)=Exiting Trip Distribution al og fDm, O Traffic Signal Figure 4 EarDistribution of Project Trips 1111 11 Riverview Place — Salem, MA ATnlMlmd WL CMM 3 N NORTH iQ Jt r2 ()) r 2 Ca) Mason Street , (. 5 N m SITE w t9 9(7) Oak street (� N u Bridge Street(Route 107) S (5) ZJ T N Legend w XX(XX)=AM(PM)Peak Hour Volumes a m O Traffic Signal Figure 5 EclrthTCCh Site—Generated Vehicle Trips Riverview Place — Salem, MA sodas 0 a N NORTH m N O+ J _ �23¢ .c t25 (t66) Mason Street , F x550 (302) (142)(156) -) r (5) 142)(156)(5) 1—� (132) 127—' r (11 0) �m .wi N T s SITE —9 (7) 1 4 r19 (1 6) Oak Street 1 r J N N� N J N w w —78 (tab) Bridge Street(Route 107) 40 (31)426 N 92 Legend '- XX(XX)=AM(PM)Peak Hour Volumes N m O Traffic Signal Figure 6 EclrthTeCh 2012 Build Peak Hour Traffic Volumes Riverview Place — Salem, MA 11" I LbLlkoM • • • 4.0 TRAFFIC CAPACITY ANALYSIS • Capacity analyses were conducted to assess the quality of traffic flow at each of the study intersections. This was performed for the 2007 Existing conditions, the 2012 Future No-Build conditions, and 2012 Future Build conditions. • • 4.1 Level of Service Criteria The capacity analysis was conducted using the procedures of the 2000 Highway • Capacity Manual (HCM) using the Synchro/SimTraffic (version 7) software • package. The capacity analysis utilizes traffic volumes, geometries, and traffic controls at an intersection to determine a Level of Service (LOS) rating from A • through F indicating how the intersection is expected to operate, or the quality of the - driving conditions. LOS A represents the best operating conditions or little to no - delay, while LOS F represents the worst operating conditions or very high delay. LOS E represents an intersection operating at capacity or at the limit of acceptable • delay. • • Level of service for signalized intersections is based on the average control delay in • seconds per vehicle approaching the intersection. The methodology takes into - consideration the effects of signal type, timing and phasing, and geometries when determining the delay for the intersection approaches and the intersection as a whole. • • Level of service at an unsignalized intersection is defined as the delay experienced by • each minor movement, since the major movements are considered to be - uninterrupted. The LOS for unsignalized intersections is not defined for the • intersection as a whole. Table 6 provides the level of service and the delay threshold criteria for both • signalized and unsignalized intersections. • • Table 6: Level of Service Criteria—Intersections • Delay(seconds per vehicle) • Category Unsignalized Intersections Si¢nalized Intersections A 0.0-10.0 0.0-10.0 • B 10.1—15.0 10.1 —20.0 C 15.1-25.0 20.1-35.0 D 25.1 -35.0 35.1-55.0 • E 35.1 -50.0 55.1-80.0 • F >50 >80 • source:Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC,2000 • • • Traffic Capacity Analysis Page 4-1 • 1:Iworkll019791proj 1 et internal records Itias V 01979-tial.doc • • • ! • • . 4.2 Operating Conditions • ! The traffic capacity results are shown in Tables 7 and 8 and the complete analyses are contained in the Appendix E. The results also provide the queue lengths for each • approach movement. The reported queue is the 95`h percentile queue, which is ! considered the maximum expected backing of vehicles. • Table 7: Summary of Intersection Capacity Analysis-Weekday Morning Peak Hour • 2007 Existing 2012 Future No-Build 2012 Future Build ! Queue Queue Queue LOS Delay° Length° LOS Delay" Length° LOS Delay" Length Signalized Intersections Bridge Street at Flint Street Bridge Street EB L A 8.0 13 A 8.3 14 A 8.5 16 . Bridge Street EB TR B 13.5 177 B 14.0 196 B 14.0 196 Bridge Street WB LTR C 20.0 318 C 26.5 387 C 26.8 389 ,. Flint Street NB LTR B 14.3 51 B 16.7 56 B 17.8 58 Flint Street SB L D 35.4 224 D 48.6 244 D 52.2 250 Flint Street SB TR C 30.6 284 D 37.3 306 D 409 316 • Overall Intersection C 22.7 C 28.4 C 30.0 • Unsignalized Intersections Mason Street at Flint Street . Mason Street WB LT B 10.1 72 B 10.8 82 B 10.8 83 Flint Street NB LR F > 120 291 F > 120 374 F > 120 417 • Mason Street at Tremont Street and Site Driveway ! Mason Street EB LTR A 3.4 7 A 3.1 7 A 3.5 7 Mason Street WB LTR A 0.0 0 A 0.1 0 A 0.1 0 • Site Driveway NB LTR D 28.3 6 E 39.3 15 E 35.7 10 - Tremont Street SB LTA F > 120 622 F > 120 799 F > 120 808 Flint Street at Site Driveway • Site Driveway WB LR C 16.4 7 Flint Street SB LT A 0.1 0 • ! °measured in(seconds per vehicle) °95'percentile queue measured in(feet) • • • • ! ! ! ! Traffic Capacity Analysis Page 4-2 ! I:IworkV019791pro&tinternal records ltias1101979-tias.nice • • • • • • Table 8: Summary of Intersection Capacity Analysis-Weekday Afternoon Peak Hour • 2007 Existing 2012 Future No-Build 2012 Future Build • Queue Queue Queue LOS Delay° Length° LOS Delay' Length° LOS Delay° Length° • Signalized Intersections • Bridge Street at Flint Street Bridge Street EB L A 5.3 10 A 5.4 11 A 5.8 13 • Bridge Street EB TR A 7.4 106 A 8.1 133 A 8.2 133 Bridge Street WB LTR B 14.7 278 B 17.3 410 B 18.1 416 Flint Street NB LTR B 17.7 68 B 19.2 73 B 19.6 77 Flint Street SB L C 20.1 74 C 21.4 79 C 22.1 83 • Flint Street SB TR C 29.6 201 C 34.1 215 D 36.0 225 • Overall Intersection B 16.1 B 18.1 B 18.9 Unshumlized Intersections • Mason Street at Flint Street • Mason Street WB LT A 6.5 25 A 6.6 28 A 6.7 29 Flint Street NB LR F 107.4 320 F > 120 424 F > 120 468 • Mason Street at Tremont • Street and Site Driveway , Mason Street EB LTR A 4.9 11 A 4.9 12 A 4.9 13 Mason Street WB LTR A 0.0 0 A 0.0 0 A 0.2 0 Site Driveway NB LTR A 0.0 0 A 0.0 0 C 23.8 5 Tremont Street SB LTR F 58.6 264 F 96.6 362 F > 120 426 • Flint Street at • Site Driveway • Site Driveway WB LR B 14.1 5 • Flint Street SB LT A 0.3 1 °measured in(seconds per vehicle) • "95'"percentile queue measured in(feet) • As shown on Table 7 and Table 8,the future operating conditions are not expected to • change under the Future Build condition, when compared to the Future No-Build scenario. The Flint Street and Tremont Street approaches to Mason Street operate at • LOS F under the existing conditions (in both the weekday morning and afternoon • peak hours). The operating conditions at these side street approaches to Mason Street • are not expected to change under either future condition. Based on these capacity - analyses, the site driveways are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service. • It is noted that, under existing conditions, the intersection of Mason Street/ Tremont Street meets the conditions for Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume and Warrant • 3: Peak Hour contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices • (MUTCD), 2003 Edition, published by the Federal Highway Administration. - However, consideration of a traffic signal should include other factors such as off- peak periods, weekends, and inducement of greater traffic volumes. Therefore, • alternate improvements should also be considered. The intersection of Mason Street/ Flint Street was also examined relative to the traffic signal warrants contained in the • MUTCD. The Mason Street / Flint Street did not meet the signal warrant standards, • thus a traffic signal should not be considered at this location. • Traffic Capacity Analysis Page 4-3 • 1:'work 7019791pro&t internal recordsltias1101979-tias.doc • • • • • • • 5.0 SITE CIRCULATION/ACCESS & PARKING • 5.1 Site Access • Existing Sight Distance = The existing available sight distance at the site driveways was measured to determine whether vehicles would be able to safely exit the project site onto Flint Street and • Mason Street. The available sight distance was measured based on the procedures in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) • A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (5'" ed., 2004). The ' measured available sight distance was compared to the minimum requirements for two sight distance criteria: Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) and Intersection Sight Distance (ISD). SSD is the required distance for vehicles traveling on the major • roadway (Flint Street or Mason Street) to stop in time to avoid a collision with a • stationary object. ISD is the distance needed for motorists on the minor roadway to • enter the major roadway without interfering with traffic operations on the major ! roadway. ISD is desirable to improve traffic operations for vehicles entering the • major roadway, but it is not required. As detailed in the AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, the ISD was recorded 15 feet back from the edge of the travel way on Flint Street and Mason Street. This point is one comer • of the "clear sight triangle" that must be clear from obstructions to provide sufficient ISD. The posted speed on Mason Street (west of Flint Street) is 20 MPH in both directions. The posted speed limit on Mason Street east of Flint Street is 30 MPH. These speeds were used to evaluate sight distance. Because there is no posted speed • limit on Flint Street, a 30 MPH operating speed was assumed for this roadway. Tahle 9 compares the available sight distance to the minimum requirements for SSD and • ISD. The available stopping sight distance at both site driveways exceeds the minimum required distances specified by AASHTO. At the driveway along Flint Street, the • available sight distance to the north of the driveway assumes that an existing wooden • fence will be removed during construction. The available intersection sight distance • does not meet the desirable distance at either driveway. At the Mason Street • driveway, the ISD is limited in both directions by existing houses adjacent to the • driveway. At the Flint Street driveway, the ISD looking to the north is limited by a horizontal curve in the roadway. Looking to the south, the available ISD is to the 40 Bridge Street/Flint Street intersection and slightly beyond. • • • Traffic Capacity Analysis Page 5-1 • I:IworkV019791pro&tinternal recordsltias1101979-tias.doc • • • • • • Table 9: Sight Distance Summary • • Flint Street at Site Driveway • Minimum • Stopping Sight Distance Measured Required Meets Standard Vehicles on Flint Street,traveling northbound 215 ft" 200 ft Yes • Vehicles on Flint Street,traveling southbound 285 ft e 200 ft Yes • Intersection Sight Distance Measured Desirable • Vehicles exiting the project site,looking to the south 215 ft' 335 ft Acceptable` • Vehicles exiting the project site,looking to the north 255 ft° 335 ft No • Mason Street at Site Driveway • Minimum Stopping Sight Distance Measured Required • Vehicles on Mason Street,traveling eastbound 575 ft 200 ft Yes , Vehicles on Mason Street,traveling westbound 490 ft 200 ft Yes Intersection Sight Distance Measured Desirable • Vehicles exiting the project site,looking to the west 315 ft 335 ft Borderline • Vehicles exiting the project site,looking to the east 225 ft 335 ft No °distance to Bridge Street/Flint Street intersection • assumes existing wooden fence at back of sidewalk is removed • °when exiting the project site onto Flint Street and looking to the south, the available sight distance is clear through the intersection of Bridge Street/Flint Street • • • Site Driveways - As indicated on the current site plan, the project site will be served by two existing • driveways, one on Flint Street and one on Mason Street. Both driveways will • provide two-way circulation which allows motorists two points to enter and leave the • site. Each driveway is a minimum of 24-feet wide and provides a turning radius that • is expected to accommodate all entering and exiting vehicles. • • 5.2 Internal Site Circulation • • Based on the proposed building locations and the parking layout, the Flint Street • driveway will be the primary driveway. The existing intemal roadways appear to • have sufficient width and turning radii to accommodate trucks and other large • vehicles. Consideration should be given to one-way operation (counter-clockwise) on the roadways surrounding the "court yard" area of the project site. One-way • operation could reduce the number of conflict point on the internal roadways. The • Traffic Capacity Analysis Page 5-2 I:Iworkll0]9791projlet internal records Was 1I0/979-tias.doc • • • • i i i • site plan should be reviewed by the Salem Fire Department to ensure safe and efficient operations of emergency vehicles on the project site. 5.3 Parking A total of 309 parking spaces will be provided on the project site. Of these, 170 outdoor parking spaces will be provided and 139 parking spaces will be provided inside three parking structures. Twelve outdoor spaces will be designated for existing Flint Street residents only. 40 41 For reference, the proposed site plan is shown here on Figure 7. 45 is 48 40i 49 i • s s i • w i i • • • Traffic Capacity Analysis Page 5-3 40 l:4orkWl9791pro&t internal recordsWas1 101979-tias.doe i 40 MACK PARK MASON STREET S --------------—`� I LI PfiOPOSEO BUILDING 3STORES 5540tCOMMEROAL SPACE ON IIRST FLCOR ` lb '(!/ h � , 1 Tr _ _._.rte. ,. .—'t , PROPOSED WILDING PROPOSED BUILD s` 58 :.Paces m Gc-age ! 50 Spaces in Cara F !, rr 1 1 '• E 1 ! ( STOR' TOE'.a ._�' .i € 3 ..._ r L � � Imo✓ �\ � � A{ t 1 ,nij - - (� _ # 5 _ ry ! 1 � + I n15. Ws'J. • I t ��....��\.,__•Y � l� L `.a6 'Rc tt r ls,f �� _ �. s"yc• cl '�� t � u�ojyserlc l 5' R»�•' ��� ISR • l _ Pm� -- ' _ BRIDGE STREET HARRIIVGTON COURT - Fx. -- GIFFORB CT. 40 0 • wr s �y n ,i . r-1j g .{ 6 �•7.Ia <G$OM1 O U bm PARKING CALCULATION $ 'g 'aSEe'k-x !lecuifad PcrYieg : `5^Units o, = SFace6 Pu UM = 266 Spaces w AL °wpvaed Vun.!np b99 >Facea n. Spocev pe. JnR C. '3"s Careye Spaces: ':-r0 Cu!.ide Soecas J 17_ U1 SECTION 7-21(K) DENSITY REGULATIONS W W Z U w J ..,.deed cr P...c,,l d J T Q. l. . tro 15,090 SF 117,i d_ Sf Q.Q F wo: Arae ow D'OP g t'-':t JS 95.4 1440 `• W W to 0- J = t:y R.:.Ld,r,ya 9U 1'Y Y!2 1.11% O W UJ ::nm.ra. Viid'h m i.:r. Yn:.i iycn; 2'. %T W > • > IxW � Ninim,lm P:i6tt•• Frog[ YJ:d FT W `` Hr•rsc 't.dtl: u. n_ar Yac% fYarlb 2f! F? In wJ` .i TIT e!fht 9 `..':!r.l.'I.. W� _ '. "itiand 2onr hC FT +difT (n i Sto'ie6 t. YF r.�n 3 :ewes s 5 Lles 9 .dory 'i=ecce & 3'u:a 'l I . f9Fcr area Fa!Ic. 2 : S[xeiutlin93osemcati 095: ! F 13866 (Inc11.11nC-'.losilT2^i% 12. . C^.rotes 'lzm for »heC. v Var;anee is Reay:esleu w SHEET MO- 3OF5 • • • • • • 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS • Potential transportation improvements have been identified within the study area. - These improvements address existing deficiencies as well as diminish the impacts of the proposed development project on the roadway network. The suggested • improvements generally fall within three types of improvements: Consistency with • the Neighborhood Master Plan, Safety Improvements, and Intersection Capacity • Improvements. These are summarized below. • • 6.1 Neighborhood Master Plan • • On-site facilities have been proposed as part of this project in consideration of • measures identified in the Neighborhood Master Plan for the North River Canal - Corridor. These include the construction of a pedestrian walkway along the southern side of the project site and a 30-foot wide easement for the potential future extension • of Commercial Street to Flint Street. These two features are consistent with the • Neighborhood Master Plan by improving pedestrian accommodations and by • allowing for the implementation of the long-term transportation recommendation of • extending Commercial Street to Flint Street. - • 6.2 Safety Improvements • Based on the existing above-average crash rate at the intersection of Mason Street/ Flint Street, and the less than desirable intersection sight distance at this location, a flashing beacon should be considered. The flashing beacon would be located directly • above the intersection, and would have a flashing yellow circular signal indication • facing both approaches on Mason Street, and a flashing red circular signal indication • facing the Flint Street approach. The flashing beacon would complement the existing • warning signs on Mason Street and would provide supplemental emphasis to drivers • on Mason Street by warning them to proceed with caution. Additionally, on-street parking should be restricted on both Mason Street and Flint Street in the vicinity of • this intersection to improve the available sight distance. Twelve parking spaces on • the project site will be designated for Flint Street residents. • • • • • • • • Recommendations and Improvements Page 6-1 • 1:4ork11019791pro&t internal recordsltias1101979-tias.doc • • • • • • • = 6.3 Intersection Capacity Improvements • At the intersection of Mason Street/ Tremont Street, the Tremont Street southbound • approach currently operates at LOS F during both the weekday morning and • afternoon peak hours, and is expected to continue to do so in the future. During both • peak hours, the southbound right turning movement is heavier than the left-turning movement. However, many right-turning vehicles are delayed while vehicles wait to • turn left onto Mason Street. Consideration should be given to providing an additional • southbound travel lane on the Tremont Street approach, in order to accommodate an • exclusive left-turn storage bay. Based on the capacity analysis, a left-turn storage • bay provided for approximately 140 feet should be sufficient to allow right-turning • vehicles to bypass the entire queue of vehicles waiting to turn left. The existing pavement width of Tremont Street is approximately 30 feet. To accommodate two • southbound travel lanes, Tremont Street would have to be widened approximately 4 • feet on the western side of the roadway. These improvements are expected to • improve operations on the Tremont Street southbound approach to LOS E and LOS C • for the left-turning and right-turning movements, respectively, during the morning • peak hour, and to LOS F and LOS B for the left-turning and right-turning • movements, respectively, during the afternoon peak hour. In both cases, the average delay per vehicle is significantly reduced for both left-turning and right-turning • vehicles. The intersection capacity analyses for this scenario are contained in • Appendix E. • • It is noted that, under existing conditions, the intersection of Mason Street/ Tremont • Street meets the conditions for Warrant 2: Four-Hour Vehicular Volume and Warrant 3: Peak Hour contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices • (MUTCD), 2003 Edition, published by the Federal Highway Administration. • However, at this time, a traffic signal is not recommended because the intersection j • operations are expected to be sufficient with a two-lane southbound approach on • Tremont Street. A traffic signal at this location may be considered in the future if • additional development occurs in conjunction with an extension of Commercial Street north to Mason Street. • • • • • • • • • • Recommendations and Improvements Page 6-2 • I:Iwork11019MprojW internal records4ias1 101979-tias.doc • • • • • • 7.0 CONCLUSIONS • Earth Tech, Inc. has reviewed the proposed redevelopment project at 72 Flint Street - and 69 Mason Street. The proposed build conditions calls for the demolition all of existing buildings on the project site (previously the Salem Suede, Inc. and the L. • Bonfanti, Inc. leather factories) and for the construction of 130 residential apartment • units (including 81 two-bedroom units and 49 one-bedroom units), and 5,540 SF of • commercial space. A total of 309 on-site parking spaces are proposed, including • twelve spaces designated for existing residents of Flint Street. This Traffic Impact • and Assessment Study has: • • Reviewed existing traffic volumes, roadway characteristics, and intersection • operating conditions in the vicinity of the project site; • • • Projected background traffic volume growth within the study area between • 2007 and 2012; • • Estimated the incremental traffic volumes associated with the proposed • development project; • • • Presented an assessment of the potential impacts on traffic operations • associated with the proposed development project; • • Recommended transportation improvements to effectively mitigate existing • transportation deficiencies and to minimize the impacts of the proposed • development project. • The results of this study indicate that: • Both of the site driveways will operate adequately and meet the minimum • stopping sight distance requirements. • • • The intersections of Mason Street / Tremont Street and Mason Street/ Flint • Street experienced crash rates higher than the MHD District 4 average. • • The proposed development project is expected to generate 56 new vehicle • trips during the morning peak hour (13 entering, 43 exiting) and 87 new • vehicle trips during the afternoon peak hour (51 entering, 36 exiting). This • equates to just under to just over one vehicle trip per minute during the • weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. On a daily basis, approximately • 871 new vehicle trips are anticipated. • • Estimated Quantities and Costs Page 7-1 • k4orW019791pro&t internal records Was 1101979-tias.doc • • DP- � A.- t =u. Excerpts on Riverview Project. For Full Report See http://www.salem.com/pages/salemma_dpcd/studiesreports/nrccfinaIstudy.pa Transportation Plan North River Canal Corridor City of Salem, Massachusetts Mayor Kimberley Driscoll Office of Planning and Community Development t u.�4,Y•t I SW '—k- . T U� ♦� Ii F ENGINEERS FAY SPOFFORD & THORNDIKE FST June 2012 Since 1914 \ � • • Excerpts on Riverview Project. For Full Report See June 2012 - http://www.salem.com/pages/salemma_dpcd/studiesreports/nrccfinalstudy.pdf • TABLE OF CONTENTS • 51 110 k I lie]BUM • L1 I • 1.1 OVERVIEW 1 • 1.2 PURPOSE AND KEY INTERSECTIONS EVALUATED 5 • 2.1 GEOMETRICS AND LAND USE 6 • 2.2 DATA COLLECTION 18 • 2.3 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 21 2.4 CRASH HISTORY 24 • • 3.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND GROWTH RATE 26 • 3.2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 26 • • 4.1 STATUS REVIEW OF PRIOR TRAFFIC MITIGATION PROPOSALS 36 - 4.1.1 NRCC NEIGHBORHOOD MASTER PLAN (2003) 36 • 4.1.2 CTPS TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS STUDY(2005) 38 4.1.3 FUNCTIONAL DESIGN REPORT—COURTHOUSE (2006) 38 • 4.1.4 28 GOODHUE STREET RECORD OF DECISION (2007) 39 • 4.1.5 RIVERVIEW AT MASON/FLINT RECORD OF DECISION (2007) 39 4.1.6 GATEWAY TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY (2009) 40 • 4.1.7 LEGACY PARK APARTMENTS AT HARMONY GROVE (2011) 40 • 4.2 EVALUATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC MITIGATION PROPOSALS 40 • 4.2.1 MASON STREET TRAFFIC CALMING 41 • 4.2.2 TREMONT STREET AT MASON STREET TRAFFIC CONTROL • OPTIONS 42 - 4.2.3 COMMERCIAL STREET EXTENSION TO MASON STREET 44 4.2.4 COMMERCIAL STREET EXTENSION TO FLINT STREET 45 • 4.2.5 MAKE FLINT STREET ONE-WAY EASTBOUND FROM • MASON TO BRIDGE STREETS 46 4.2.6 MASON STREET/FLINT STREET INTERSECTION CONTROL • OPTIONS 48 4.2.7 HARMONY GROVE/GROVE STREET/MASON STREET • MINI-ROUNDABOUT 50 • 4.2.8 BEAVER/GROVE/GOODHUE STREETS MINI-ROUNDABOUT 51 4.2.9 GOODHUE STREET TO BRIDGE STREET ROADWAY • CONNECTOR 52 • 4.2.10 TWO-WAY GOODHUE STREET AT BRIDGE STREET 54 4.2.11 HANSON STREET/GOODHUE STREET CONNECTOR 55 • 4.2.12 BRIDGE STREET AT BOSTON STREET RECONFIGURATION 56 - 4.2.13 ABORN STREET AT BOSTON STREET OPTIONS 59 • • • i • • • • • • June 2012 • • 2.2 DATA COLLECTION • Traffic Volumes • • In order to evaluate traffic operating conditions at the study area intersections in Salem, a • traffic count program was conducted on June 23, 2011. This traffic count program consisted of new manual turning-movement counts (TMCs) at six (6) of the eight evaluated intersections in • the study area. New TMC's were performed at the following study area intersections: • • • Boston Street/Bridge Street/Goodhue Street/Proctor Street • • Bridge Street/Flint Street • Grove Street/Mason Street/Harmony Grove Road • • Aborn Street/Boston Street • • Grove Street/Nichols Street/Boston Street • • Goodhue Street/Grove Street/Beaver Street • Counts from the Flint/Mason Streets and Mason/Tremont Streets were performed by • EarthTech(now AEComm) during 2007 and were found to balance well with a new automatic • traffic recorder counts on Mason Street between the two intersections as well as manual counts • performed at Harmony Grove/Grove/Mason Streets and Flint/Bridge Streets counts performed by • FST. Counts were balanced as necessary for assessing the AM and PM peak hour traffic operations. Pedestrians and bikes were also counted during the TMC's. • • TMCs were taken at all six intersections for two hours during the AM peak period (7-9 • AM) and two hours during the PM peak period (4-6 PM). From the data, peak-hour traffic volumes for the study area intersections were determined. Peak hours varied somewhat, but were • typically 7:30-8:30 AM and 4:45-5:45 PM within the study area. • • Traffic counts were also performed by Vanasse and Associates, Inc. (VAI) during March • 2011 in the following locations: • • Grove Street/Mason Street/Harmony Grove Road • • Goodhue Street/Grove Street/Beaver Street • • Boston Street/Grove Street/Nichols Street • The VAI recorded traffic volumes were compared to June 2011 counts. Although the • June 2011 FST counts were used for compatibility to the rest of the volumes network, the March • 2011 VAI data collected by VAI was reasonably comparable to the data collected by FST during June, either slightly higher or slightly lower. Both the Marchand June 2011 count data was • consistent with earlier counts performed by others in the area(refer back to Figure 2 for an • illustration of the counts performed in the study area during the past 10 years. • • • • • • 18 • • Table 4 NRCC Study Area - 2011 Existing AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS AM PEAK PM PEAK Intersection and Movements Delavi LOS' ueue3 V/C" Dela LOS ueue Vic Beaver Street EB Right/Through 0 A 0 0.03 0 A 0 0.03 Beaver Street WB Left/Through 7 A 7 0.09 7 A 8 0.10 Beaver Street EB Left 11 B 6 0.07 12 B 7 0.08 Goodhue Street NB Through/Left <1 A 0 0.00 <1 A 1 0.01 Grove Street SS Right 0 A 0 0.11 0 A 0 0.10 Harmony Grove EB Left/Through/Right 15 C N/A 0.56 32 D N/A 0.82 Mason Street WB Left/Through/Right 11 B N/A 0.28 19 C N/A 0.59 Grove St NB Left/Through/Right 12 B N/A 0.46 21 C N/A 0.68 Grove St SB LeftlThrough/Right 11 B N/A 0.27 13 B N/A 0.28 Tremont Street SE Left/Right 91 F 489 1.09_ 47 E_ __ 229 0.87 Mason Street NB Left/Through 3 A 0 0.07 5 A 11 0.13 Mason Street SB Right/Through 0 A <1 0.24 0 A 0 0.27 Boston Street EB Through/Right 0 A 0 0.51 0 A 0 0.54 Boston Street WB Through/Left 3 A 9 0.11 4 A 14 0.16 Abom Street NB Left/Right 153 F 263 1.12 256 F _ 259 1.31 Flint Street NW Left/Right 358 F 321 1.56_ 59 F 220 0.89 Mason Street NE Through/Right 0 A 0 0.20 0 A 0 0.14 Mason Street SW Left/Through 10 A 63 0.46 6 A 22 0.23 1 -Delay-Average control delay to nearest second,peak 15 minute period of the peak hour. 2-LOS-Level of Service from A to F,where A is best,F is worst. 3-Queue-is 95th percentile queue in feet behind the slop line;Le,95%of the time queue does not exceed. A+sign means analysis indicates it can be longer than shown. 4-V/C-Volume/Capacity is measured or estimated volume to calculated capacity ratio. t • . . • . • . . . • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • ! • 1 • • • • • • • Table 4 (Continued) NRCC Study Area - 2011 Existing AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Operations SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS AM PEAK PM PEAK Intersection and Movements Dela ' LOS ueue3 VIC° Dela LOS ueue V/C :. . -- : ..- -• - . - i r :. EIRE] Boston Street EB Through/Left/Right 40 D 292+ 1.05 16 B 279+ 0.72 Boston Street WB Through/Right 30 C 291+ 0.73 33 C 342+ 0.80 Bridge Street SB Leff/Through/Right 24 C 246 0.65 33 C 298+ 0.81 MMTUWIIR� -. . i . Flint Street EB Leftlrhrough/Right 59 E 217+ _1.07 _ 20 B 202+ 0.75 Flint Street WB LeR/rhrough/Right 13 B 32 0.12 14 B 53 0.27 Bridge Street NB Left/rhrough/Right 14 B 203 0.65 9 A 143 0.48 Bridge Street SB LefUrhrough/Right 19 B 321+ 0.79 47 D 485+ 1.01' :. 1 . Boston Street EB Throughs 33 C 842 1.03 10 B 688+ 0.87 Boston Street WB Throughs 18 B 334 0.59 29 C 669+ 0.85 Grove Street SB Left/Right 40 D 132 0.53 37 D 167 0.47 :. i . . . . Boston Street EB Through 29 C 746+ 0.86 23 C 553 0.76 Boston Street WB Through 4 A 47 0.55 6 A 70 metered 0.80 Nichols Street NB Leff/Right 31 C 46 0.13 32 C 257 0.09 1 -Delay-Average control delay to nearest second, peak 15 minute period of the peak hour. 2-LOS-Level of Service from A to F,where A is best, F is worst. 3-Queue-is 95th percentile queue in feet behind the stop line; i.e, 95%of the time queue does not exceed. A+sign means analysis indicates it can be longer than shown. 4-V/C-Volume/Capacity is measured or estimated volume to calculated capacity ratio. • • June 2012 • • 3. FUTURE CONDITIONS • To assess future year conditions, an analysis was conducted to review full build out • conditions with the five proposed developments in the NRCC. To do this, a 5-year future year • condition was selected. The time frame is consistent with Environmental Impact Reports • submitted to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Unit. The 5-year time frame • is outlined in the Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessments, produced by the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and Executive Office of Transportation and Public Works. A • future year condition network is essentially comprised of two components: Normal or general • background growth and site-specific development. 3.1 GENERAL BACKGROUND GROWTH RATE • In recent years, traffic volumes in the City of Salem and the surrounding communities • have generally been declining or holding steady, probably mainly due to the current long-lasting • economic downturn. To be conservative, however, `background' traffic unrelated to the five • assumed NRCC development sites was assumed to increase by 1% annually. Therefore, a 5% • increase in volumes was assumed between 2011 and 2016. • 3.2 PLANNED NRCC DEVELOPMENTS The City of Salem provided detailed traffic analysis data for three of the five NRCC development sites (refer back to Figure 3 in Section 1) expected to be redeveloped by the year • 2016. They include: • Riverview Place with access from Mason and Flint Streets = • Gateway Center with access from Boston and Bridge Streets • North River (28 Goodhue Street) Condominiums with two accesses on Goodhue Street • • Legacy Park Apartments (Salem Oil and Grease site) with three accesses on Grove Street • and one on Harmony Grove Street • • Flynntan development site with presumed access on Boston and Goodhue Streets • Three of the five sites have been fully permitted and the Legacy Park Apartments site is currently under review by the City. For a conservative analysis, this study assumes that all five of • these projects will be constructed and fully occupied by the target year 2016. Additionally, FST contacted the owner of the Flynntan redevelopment site to obtain conceptual data on potential • development plans for the site, the only one of the five sites that has not yet prepared a detailed plan for submission to the City. Accordingly,Flynntan redevelopment data evaluated in • this study is preliminary and subject to change. • Table 6 summarizes development quantity assumptions and AM, PM, and daily traffic • generated from the five development projects. Development project trip generation quantities were estimated using information contained in the various site-specific studies, where available • and checked against the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation report(8`" Edition, 2008). • • Personal communication,John Penni,June 2011. - • 26 - • • Table 6 North River Canal Corridor New DevelopmentsITrips Summary AWDT Sub- AWDT Assumed Development Development Site/Components AM In AM Out AM Total PM In PM Out PM Total AWDT In AWDT Out totals Quantities Riverview Place Apartments Component' 10 41 51 40 22 62 337 337 674 130 Apartments' Retail Component' 3 2 5 11 14 25 99 99 198 872 5,540 SF Specialty Retail' Subtotals 13 43 56 51 36 87 436 436 872 Gateway Center Health Club Component' 14 16 30 45 34 79 362 362 724 22,000 SF Health Club' Recreational Community Center Component' 12 20 32 11 18 29 272 273 545 0,000 SF Community Centei" MedlcalDente/Office Building Component' 153 41 194 97 146 243 1527 1526 3053 4322 84,500 SF Med(Denlal Subtotals 179 77 256 153 198 351 2161 2161 4322 28 Goodhue Silo Condominium Component 5 22 27 21 10 31 158 158 316 44 Condominiums' Retail Component 20 21 41 16 20 36 147 147 294 610 8,000 SF Commercial' Subtotals 25 43 68 37 30 67 305 305 610 Legacy Apts.At Hannony Grove Apartments Component4 15 58 73 62 33 95 499 499 998 141 Apartments Office Component" 20 3 23 4 19 23 83 83 166 1,164 15,000 SF Subtotals 61 98 66 52 118 582 582 1184 Fortner Flynntan SiteRetail ComponentU35 , 150 33 42 75 472 472 944 22,000 SF Retail' OISce Component19 3 15 18 88 6612,000 SF General OMM5 Apartment Component3 2 0 2 17 17 34 1110 5Apartments" Subtotals172 38 57 95 555555Grand Total -NRCC 648 345 373 718 4039 4038 8078 8078 Unless otherwise noted,ITE Trip Generation is the source for trip generation of developments. 1-Souice: Traffic Impact and Assessment Study,Earth Tech,Inc.,October 2007. 2-Source:Tic Impact and Access Study,Hayes Engineering,October 21,2009. 3-Source:28 Goodhue Site Development Permit Plan,rev.March 22,2006. 4-Source:Traffic Impact and Access Study,Proposed Legacy Apartments at Harmony Grove,December 2011. 5-Source: Early preliminary estimate only,John Penni,January 5,2012. • June 2012 • Trip generation estimates shown on Table 6 were added to the existing volumes grown by - 5% to arrive at the 2016 Build peak hour traffic volumes. Trip distribution patterns were based • on the published studies. From Table 6, in aggregate, the five new developments are expected to add approximately 650 AM peak hour trips, 720 PM peak hour trips and approximately 8,100 trips on a daily basis. Daily trip quantities estimated for each of the five development sites are • shown below. - Comparison of • 4,322 24-hour Trip • s,00o Generation • 4,000 at NRCC Sites - 3,000 0 Gateway Center • 2,000 1 164 ■Legacy Apts.At Harmony 872 610 Grove 1,000 a Former Flynntan Site - 0 • Estimated Vehicle Trips per Weekday « Flynntan estimates only,subject to change, as not programmed at this time. 40 Figure 12 illustrates the combined year 2016 projected traffic volumes for the AM and PM peak hours, while Figures 13 and 14 graphically illustrate numerical differences between • 2011 and 2016 projected AM and PM peak hour volumes. Analysis • Procedures used for traffic analysis for year 2016 projected future traffic conditions were the same that were utilized for existing conditions that are outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) using the Synchro® software version 7 (Build 773, revision 8).. AM and PM peak hour trips from the potential build out of the parcels were determined 4Dusing the trip estimating procedures outlined in Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trips were then assigned onto the 2016 No Build traffic network using 40 existing and future traffic patterns presented in prior studies to create the AM and PM peak hour • 2016 Build traffic networks. Analysis procedures used previously were then undertaken and the i results are summarized in Table 7 for full build out of the area. Table 7 assumes that the following mitigation measures are implemented: • Signal timing of existing signalized intersections of Boston/Bridge/Goodhue, Boston/Flint, and Boston/Grove are optimized. • The intersection of Tremont at Mason Street is controlled under three different S conditions—two-way stop (existing), all-way stop (to resolve sight line issue), and signal control (funded). - 49 0 28 • i 0 s • • • s • • yrs • � tts • � • � tr � � • s � � � a • � � � • � � • +� s • s • � ia � Table 8 NRCC Study Area - 2016 Base Traffic Operations UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS AM PEAK PM PEAK Intersection and Movements Dela LOS ueue V/C Dela LOS 4eue2 V/Cz lork Beaver Street EB Right/Through 0 A 0 0.05 0 A 0 0.05 Beaver Street WB Left/Through 8 A 12 0.14 7 A 8 0.15 Beaver Street EB Left 14 B 16 0.18 13 8 12 0.14 Goodhue Street NB Through/Left <1 A 2 0.03 <1 A 2 0.03 Grove Street SB Right 0 A 0 0.19 0 A 0 0.13 Harmony Grove EB Left/Through/Right , 26 D N/A 0.76 95 F N/A 1.08 Mason Street WB Left/Through/Right 13 B N/A 0.33 82 F N/A 1.04 Grove St NB Leftlrhrough/Right 19 C N/A 0.65 67 F N/A 1.03 Grove St SB Left/Through/Right 14 B N/A 0.37 21 C N/A 0.47 :. .. Boston Street EB Through/Right 0 A 0 0.59 0 A 0 0.63 Boston Street WB Through/Left 3 A 9 0.12 6 A 17 0.19 Aborn Street NB Left/Right 340 F 263 1.56 603 F 370 2.06 Flint Street NW Left/Right 763 F _ 477 2.44 149 F 380 1.18 Mason Street NE Through/Right 0 A 0 0.23 0 A 0 0.16 Mason Street SW Left/Through 11 A 63 0.53 6 A 22 0.27 Table 7 (Continued) NRCC Study Area - 2016 Base Traffic Operations SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (OPTIMIZED) AM PEAK PM PEAK Intersection and Movements Dela I LOS2 Queue VIC° Dela LOS ueue V/C =77 =77 Boston Street EB Through/Left/Right 37 D 365+ 1.03 37 D 384+ 1.07 Boston Street WB Through/Right 32 C 320+ 0.75 31 C 379+ 0.77 Bridge Street SB Left/Through/Right 25 C 214 0.86 28 C 236 metered 0.90 I (WIN Flint Street EB LeftlThrough/Right 43 D 305+ 0.96 49 D 358 metered 0.94 Flint Street WB Left(rhrough/Right 17 B 47 0.12 30 C 112 0.56 Bridge Street NB Left/Through/Right 17 B 165 metered 0.72 8 A 98 metered 0.45 Bridge Street SB Left/Through/Right 36 D 572+ 0.92 26 C 728+ 0.90 :. 6111 " 1, i Boston Street EB Throughs 42 D 699+ 1.06 12 Br--737+ 0.92 Boston Street WB Throughs 16 B 335 0.61 30 C 733+ 0.90 Grove Street SB Left/Right 78 E 227+ 0.97 56 E 266+ 0.83 Boston Street EB Through 28 C 789+ 0.89 21 C 584 0.80 Boston Street WB Through 4 A 61 metered 0.58 6 A 77 metered 0.85 Nichols Street NB Left/Right 32 C 47 0.15 32 C 44 0.10 III liclill Laii Tremont Street SE Left/Right 23 C 448 0.71 23 C 264 0.54 Mason Street NB Left/Through 55 D 344+ 0.88 46 D 369+ 0.90 Mason Street SB Rightrrhrough 31 C 346 0.68 20 B 298 0.57 1 -Delay-Average control delay to nearest second, peak 15 minute period of the peak hour. 2-LOS-Level of Service from A to F,where A is best, F is worst. 3-Queue-is 95th percentile queue in feet behind the stop line; i.e, 95%of the time queue does not exceed. A+sign means analysis indicates it can be longer than shown. 4-V/C-Volume/Capacity is measured or estimated volume to calculated capacity ratio. • t�•�ts•�t�•=t=•�t=•=•=t=•=• •=t=t�t=t=•�t=•=tsts•st=•st�t�t=t�•=•st�•�t�•s•�NT• • • LQ r N S� 611P �9 Harmony Grove Rd .1 j �. 132(246 `ey, J 2 3 (61) > r 18 (35) f y69`Sgll9y%IN 78 (( 2) R r �ds, p '�6'b w l @rStr to 2�9 / grol 8oB(9p? Bs s9J 19" (14J >00000, (11JJ h�J4J r ^� S ?��' /7j l pborn St 6515931 �`�°1 yw�4s�e ��B/>; jJ S (B ✓ A 6J' ,z 1 sBJ� S S Bea ,w J9e 515 `1e�"„ (91SJ 0 SAO' . ' f AGN �rypL y6, e t S�Qof tP 1 j�� y ae�e`y�t e ?p t 24g 29 pJ �e S�p(3(41J. ! S r 1 j(4g4)) Schematic Ae(1 12 � (11 J ti e0 L Diagram: 8J StOh ,�� Not to Scale l street OSignalized Intersection City of Salem, Massachusetts North River Canal Corridor Transportation Study Kimberley Driscoll,Mayor /-.""j'°p PROJECTED 2016 AM (PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES k4� City of Salem FIGURE 12 Department of Planning&Community Development • • June 2012 • • 4.1.1 NRCC Neighborhood Master Plan (Continued): • Long Term • a. Extend Commercial Street to Mason Street(status: not done) or • • b. Extend Commercial Street west to Flint Street (status: not done, but partial right- • of-way in reserved i.e., Riverview Place south edge). • c. Extend Commercial Street west along rail right of way to Grove Street(status: not • done). d. Extend Commercial Street south to Bridge Street (status: not done). • e. Connect Goodhue Street to Boston Street via a new road opposite Hanson Street • (status: not done). • f. Make Flint Street one-way southbound between Bridge and Mason Streets (status: • not done, but tested and removed when too many negative impacts occurred on • Oak and Flint Streets). • 4.1.2 Transportation Improvement Study for Routes ]A, 114, and 107, and Other Major • Roadways in Downtown Salem (Central Transportation Planning Staff, 2005), that • recommended the following traffic improvements within the NRCC study area as • defined on Figure 1 previously: Short Term • a. Enhance pedestrian access to the MBTA Commuter Rail Station from all = directions (status: partially done with completion of Bridge Street/North Street interchange). • b. North Street improvement project including Mason Street signal upgrade between • the Peabody Line and Bridge Street overpass (status: done). • Long Term • a. Relocate Guildford rail tracks northerly and widen Bridge Street to atypical four- • lane cross-section between Washington and Flint Streets (status: not done yet). • b. Install a new sidewalk replacing the narrow one on the north side of Bridge Street • to the MBTA Commuter Rail Station(status: done with Bridge Street signal). • 4.1.3 Functional Design Report—Proposed Construction of a New Trial Court Facility J. • Michael Ruane Judicial Center, Salem, MA (Earth Tech, Inc.,November 2006), that • recommended the following traffic improvements within the NRCC study area as • defined on Figure 1 previously: Short Term • a. Remove east ramps of Bridge Street/Route 114 Interchange and create two new • signalized intersections, one at a new re-aligned Federal Street/Route 114 • signalized intersection and other at the Bridge Street ramps terminal (status: • done). • • 38 • • • • • • • June 2012 • • 4.1.4 Record of Decision—Site Plan Review/Wetlands and Flood Hazard Special Permit, • North River Canal, LLC, 28 Goodhue Street (City of Salem Planning Board, February 2007) recommended the following traffic improvements: • • a. Provide $20,000 for traffic mitigation in the immediate area or a study of the • immediate area(status: reserved). • 4.1.5 Record of Decision - Traffic Impact and Assessment Study of Riverview Place • Proposed Residential Development Project, Salem, MA (Earth Tech, Inc., October • 2007) recommended the following traffic improvements: • Short Term a. The following traffic calming measures provided that any required City Council • approvals are granted: • i. Installation of an electronic speed monitor on Mason Street, with the location • to be determined by the Traffic Division Commander (status: done opposite • Flint Street); • ii. Installation of signage and pavement markings as shown on the submitted • plans (status: not done yet); • iii. Placement of"No Parking—Tow Zone" signage on Mason Street on both • sides of the site driveway,to be approved by the Traffic Division Commander(status: not done yet); iv. Signage at the Mason St. driveway prohibiting the entrance and exit of trucks to be added to a revised signage plan(status: not done yet); • v. Installation of a yellow flashing beacon at the intersection of Flint Street and Mason Street, with the type and exact location to be approved by the Traffic • Division Commander(status: not done yet); • vi. Complete plans and specifications for the design of a traffic signal to be built • at the intersection of Mason Street, Tremont Street and the site's Mason • Street driveway prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy(status: not done yet); = vii. The Planning Department shall determine whether a traffic island is required at the base of Oak Street within six (6) months following the last Certificate • of Occupancy issued in connection with the project. Should the Planning • Department determine that a traffic island is necessary, the developer shall • cause the same to be installed at its sole cost and expense within the timeframe determined by the Planning Department. During the interim, the • developer shall be responsible for installing signage and pavement markings • at the intersection of Oak Street and Flint Street as directed by the Planning - Department on the basis of recommendations made by the City Engineer • and/or Traffic Division Commander(status: not done yet). • • • 39 • • • • June 2012 • • / Should improve Mason Street safety compared to the `do-nothing' • alternative. • ► Causes all traffic to slow, thereby reduces fuel consumption and air pollution compared to the all-way stop options. • / Can be tested using temporary speed humps • Cons w / Costs to implement are greater than with new crosswalks or signs and • markings alone. Involves underground utility adjustment expenses and • potential drainage impacts. • / Need to consider impacts fire emergency response times. • ► Directly affects Mason Street direct abutters who should be canvassed to prior to installation (if less than 80% approve, consider either high • visibility crosswalks alone or alternate side parking). • A pro/con summary of converting Mason Street to alternate side parking with • chicanes (i.e., street curb extensions) on parking ends is given below: w w Pros • ► Reduces Mason Street speeds in affected area by forcing through motorists • to alter their alignment back and forth thereby helping reduce difficulty of motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists accessing Mason Street. w ► Should improve safety compared to the `do-nothing' alternative. • / Does not cause all traffic to stop, thereby reduces fuel consumption and air • pollution compared to the all-way stop option. / Relatively low costs for signs and markings w • Cons • ► Need to make sure parked vehicles do not encroach on ability of motorists on the west side of Mason Street to exit their driveways. • / Affected Mason Street abutters should be canvassed prior to (if less than • 80% approve, consider either high visibility crosswalks alone). • 4.2.2 Tremont Street at Mason Street traffic control options Signalization. Even though design of this mitigation measure is already funded under - the Riverview Place Record of Decision, the feasibility of its implementation should be re-considered. First of all, the signal concept plan calls for widening on the south • side of Tremont Street into the Mack Park (we understand this is into restricted w Section 4F parklands). The estimated 9-10% downgrade of the Tremont Street • approach to Mason Street is such that allowing Tremont Street traffic to enter the w intersection without stopping first will potentially create a new hazard at the intersection from left and right turns potentially moving at speeds in excess of 15 w miles per hour as well as a higher potential for rear-end collisions. Guardrail damage • on the south side of Mason Street opposite Tremont Street is evidence that in the past w this has occurred even with the existing stop sign requiring all Tremont Street vehicles approaching the intersection to stop. Additionally, residents along both Tremont and • • 42 • • • • to - June 2012 - Mason Streets do not want increase through traffic and make it easier for traffic to use the Tremont Street corridor that serves as an alternative for North Street(Route 114) via the City of Peabody. A pro/con summary of signalizing the Tremont/Mason Street intersection is given • below: Pros Reduces peak hour congestion for Tremont Street approach. . / Addresses poor sight line from Tremont Street. • / Volumes meet warrants for signalization. / Signal construction funding is in place with Record of Decision. Cons • / May encourage greater use of Tremont Street as cut through route. Proposed widening into park would increase pedestrian crossing distance of Tremont Street intersection toward Mack Park. ► Increases maintenance costs. - ► May increase rear-end crashes on all approaches. . ► May increase guard rail crashes as the steep downgrade on Tremont Street is greater than 9%, with no leveling area. . An alternative to a traffic signal would be to create an all-way (3-way) stop, as • evaluated with the Mason Street Traffic Calming study, or possibly a raised intersection while retaining the existing stop control on Tremont Street only. A pro/con summary of creating an all-way (3-way) stop at the Tremont/Mason • Street intersection is given below: Pros / Reduces peak hour congestion for Tremont Street approach. Addresses poor sight line from Tremont Street looking to the north on • Mason Street. ► Makes pedestrian crossings of Mason Street easier than today near Mack Park, as all traffic must stop prior to entering the intersection from any direction. • / Relatively low cost involving a few signs and markings. Cons ► Requires new round-the-clock stops on the Mason Street approaches. where none are required today, adversely affecting nearly 8,000 motorists • who use Mason Street. ► Produces queuing on the Mason Street approaches to Tremont Street that does not exist today. - / Results in LOS F peak hour congestion on the Tremont Street approach . during the AM peak hour. 43 • • June 2012 • • ► Increases fuel consumption/worsens localized air quality. • / With new stops, may produce rear-end crashes on Mason Street north and • southbound approaches. • A pro/con summary of raising the intersection of Tremont/Mason Streets • approximately 2-3 inches with `speed hump' transition markings on Mason • Street and emphasizing the crosswalks on the south and west sides while retaining the existing two-way stop condition is given below: • Pros • ► Reduces Mason Street speeds traversing the intersection thereby helping reduce congestion on Tremont Street stop controlled approach. ► Slightly reduces the downgrade on Tremont Street approaching the • intersection. • ► Addresses poor sight line from Tremont Street looking to the north on Mason Street by reducing Mason Street approach speeds. ► Makes pedestrian crossings of Mason Street easier than today near Mack • Park.by slowing all movements traversing the intersection. / Does not cause all Mason Street traffic to stop, thereby reduces fuel • consumption and air pollution compared to all-way stop option. • Cons • / Retains LOS F peak hour congestion on the Tremont Street approach • during the AM peak hour. • / Involves underground utility expenses and potential drainage impacts and costs to implement are greater than signs/markings alone. • / May adversely affect fire emergency response times. • / Affects abutters and may be unpopular. • 4.2.3 Commercial Street Extension to Mason Street • The 2003 NRCC Master plan proposed connecting Commercial Street to Mason Street approximately opposite Tremont Street (see above discussion regarding potential Tremont Street at Mason Street and Mason Street traffic calming options). • The viability of this connection is tied directly to how the Tremont/Mason Streets intersection will operate if the connection is made. - A pro/con summary of extending Commercial Street northerly to Mason Street • opposite Tremont Street is given below: Pros • / Reduces westbound traffic on Mason Street approaching Flint Street. • • • Cons • ► Has challenging grades, drainage, and sight lines that affect feasibility. • 44 - • • • • 'I June 2012 - ► Adds a new leg to the Mason at Tremont Streets intersection and - potentially increases crash rates, as the viability of intersection signalization is questionable due to the steep grades on Tremont and Connector approaches. • / Requires right of way takings • / Adversely affects abutting residences. 4.2.4 Commercial Street Extension to Flint Street - As envisioned in the 2003 NRCC Master plan, Commercial Street was not only - proposed to connect to Mason Street approximately opposite Tremont Street, but also to Flint Street in the vicinity of the low-volume Pan Am/Guilford railroad crossing. The viability of this connection is tied directly to how its intersection with Flint Street • will operate if the connection is made as well as Flint Street's directionality. Based on the potential Flint Street southbound only option discussed below, the southwest-bound connection of Commercial Street to Flint Street would assist in . reducing southwest-bound Mason Street traffic and would reduce conflicts at the - Flint/Mason Street intersection. Ideally, the Riverview Place Driveway would merge with the Commercial Street connector prior to its connection with Flint Street. A pro/con summary of creating a connection of Commercial to Flint Streets in the • vicinity of the Riverview Place primary driveway is given below: Pros / Reduces Mason Street SB traffic approaching Flint Street and Flint Street - traffic southbound and northbound between Mason Street and the new Connector / May enhance safety if Flint Street is made one-way southbound between Mason and Bridge Streets ► Provides alternative Commercial Street egress to Flint Street for all . developments adjacent to Commercial Street. . / Reduces trucks on Mason and Flint Streets near adjacent homes. Cons . / Requires adverse takings to fill in missing right of way links. Though - Riverview Place has retained an easement, private and public layout rights of way are needed including takings of parking and buildings. / Has potential safety issues with close spacing to Bridge/Flint signal and with difficult North Street approach for any added northbound traffic. ► Increases traffic near Leslie's Retreat Park and adds through traffic to . Commercial Street that may divert from North Street to Bridge Street to avoid North Street bridge signals. 4.2.5 Make Flint Street one-way eastbound from Mason to Bridge Streets. 45 • • June 2012 • • Flint Street at Mason Street has the highest crash rate of any intersections in the study = area and, as such, addressing its operational issues should be a high priority. • At its narrowest point, Flint Street is only 20 feet wide just south of its intersection • with Mason Streets. Adjacent residences are located right up against the intersection • sidewalks creating poor sight lines for opposing stop-controlled traffic emerging from • Flint Street. Additionally, cars or large trucks (even though restricted) turn left into cars parked on the south side of Flint Street. The Flint/Mason Streets intersection has • tight geometry coupled with high volumes of conflicting traffic movements. Flint • Street is a narrow local street with on-street parking that sometimes encroaches on the • sidewalk on the south side that can reduce two-way Flint Street traffic to a single lane. Historic count data indicates that 2/3 of Flint Street traffic travels eastbound • toward Bridge Street, while 1/3 travels westbound. The most difficult conflicting • traffic movements occur at the intersection of Flint and Mason Streets between • uncontrolled traffic turning left from Mason Street vs. a high number of left turns from the stop sign on Flint Street approaching Mason Street and the through traffic • traveling eastbound on Mason Street. The 2003 NRCC study recommended that Flint Street be one-way eastbound between • Mason and Bridge Streets. It is our understanding a test was made of making Flint • Street one-way, but during the test, traffic diverted to Oak Street and the test was cancelled within a couple of days, as the adverse traffic impacts were too severe. Oak • Street, with its steep grades, was clearly not designed to accommodate high volumes • of traffic. • On top of Flint Street's existing safety issues,the Riverview Place development will • have a future access drive on the east side of Flint Street, which could exacerbate its • safety issues if left unaddressed. • The relatively heavy volume of Mason Street traffic turning left at its intersection • onto Flint Street cannot see traffic turning out of Mason Street until it is in the • intersection. On-street parking on Flint Street restricts sidewalk access and can limit • Flint Street to a single lane that is used for two-way traffic. As indicated in the crash analysis, the Flint/Mason intersection is the most critical `hot spot' in the study area. • Its crash rate of 1.4 crashes per million entering vehicles, more than double the statewide and MassDOT District 4 crash rate average for unsignalized intersections. • Altering the Flint Street traffic flow will not be easy. A test conversion of Flint Street to one-way operation was undertaken many years ago. Apparently this situation • resulted in very poor traffic conditions. • If Flint Street's operation were to be changed, logically it would be directed as one- way away eastbound from Mason Street toward Bridge Street, as counts indicate approximately 2/3 of its volume is eastbound. Ideally, an access,perhaps permitting • lefts and rights would be provided into the Riverview Place by reconfiguring the Flint • Street at Bridge Street intersection. At minimum, a left turn out from either the 46 • • • • • • • June 2012 • • Riverview Place development or a potential Commercial Street Extension would be • provided at least 200 feet west of Bridge Street. A left turn out from a Riverview Place driveway would operate equivalent to a right turn operationally, as it would be • opposing only southbound Flint Street traffic. Such a Riverview Place access would • provide ingress to the Riverview Place other than via Mason Street to Flint Street or • via the steep entrance off Mason Street near Tremont Street. • Any potential test of the Flint Street one way conversion concept would require • advance publicity as well as signal, sign, and marking modifications at the Bridge • Street intersection with Flint Street and strict adherence to the Manual on Uniform • Traffic Control Devices, as amended. Great attention to providing public information prior to and during the test would be essential. Regular users would need to be warned prior to and during the test. • • While the Flint Street eastbound signals could remain, street markings and the Bridge Street solid green and yellow signals would have to be converted to green and yellow • arrows only with no solid green indications. Similarly, the westbound Flint Street • approach would need to be converted to left and right turn arrows only, a solid green • ball would be unacceptable. Pavement markings delineating through traffic only southbound on Bridge Street would be needed, and the eastbound Flint Street • departure lane would need to be restriped with transverse markings to identify its closure to traffic. Northbound on Bridge Street, the left turn lane would need to be • replaced, at least temporarily, with transverse yellow pavement markings. Again, • solid green and yellow indications must be replaced by straight ahead and right turn arrows on the Bridge Street northbound approach. Northbound Bridge Street through • and right movements from the right lane and no left turns both overhead and from new signs. A minimum 8-foot wide parking lane would be demarcated on the • southbound side of Flint Street adjacent to residences, such that motorists would no • longer need to park on the Flint Street sidewalk. The westbound Flint Street approach would need to show left and right out arrows only, consistent with the new signal heads facing westbound motorists. = A pro/con summary of converting Flint Street to one-way eastbound operation is given below: • • Pros • / Reduces Flint Street traffic by about a third. • / Reduces Mason Street traffic volumes east of Flint Street coupled with Street left-turn out only onto Flint Street from Riverview Place. / Should improve safety at the Mason Street/Flint Street intersection. • 1 Allows parking on one side of Flint Street to remain and placed off the . sidewalk, rather than on as today. ► Flint Street pedestrian crossings will be easier, as they will be opposing only one lane of oncoming traffic. • / Does not affect Oak or Friend Street traffic volumes. • • • 47 • • • June 2012 • • Priority 2-2—Bridge Street at Boston, Goodhue, and Proctor Streets • (Continued) • which results in long queues and inefficient traffic movements, especially • during peak hours. As envisioned, pedestrian crossings would occur under an • exclusive phase with countdown pedestrian signals and ADA-compliant • corner landings. • While not absolutely required, Option 1 would work most effectively if • implemented with a Bridge Street/Goodhue Street Connector, discussed - further on. Otherwise, most motorists would have to continue westbound on • Boston Street, and access Harmony Grove Road via Howley Street in Peabody. Without the Goodhue-Bridge Streets Connector, residents who live • in the Beaver Street neighborhood would need to use local streets like Watson • or Safford Streets, rather than Goodhue Street. • Traffic and pedestrian/bike safety benefits of Option 2 are even more • significant than those associated with Option 1. Under Option 2, the portion • of Goodhue Street between the west end of the Goodhue-Bridge Connector • and Bridge would be reclaimed as green space, a portion of which possibly to • be used as a land swap with the Public Storage, Inc. for the potential Goodhue Connector. We assume utility easements on Goodhue Street would be • retained. With Option 2,efficient traffic operations would be maximized, as • would pedestrian and bike accommodations. The Goodhue-Bridge Connector • would eliminate accommodate movements of traffic from Boston Street westbound that normally traverse Bridge Street directly to Goodhue Street, • thereby eliminating potential traffic diversions to Howley Street in Peabody, • or local streets like Watson to Beaver Streets that are necessary without the • Goodhue-Bridge Street Connector. • 1 Priority 2-3—Phase 2 modifications of Flint/Mason Street intersection • Recommendation: Flint Street Phase 2- With Riverview Place, either make = Flint Street one-way eastbound between Mason and Riverview Place Main entrance or relocate on-street parking on the narrowest segment of Flint • Street near Mason Street to an off-street location at Riverview Place Drive. • This assumes that Riverview Place has been fully constructed and that a Phase • 1 all-way stop is installed at the intersection of Flint and Mason Streets to • permit relocated parkers controlled access to and from their vehicles. • Motorists directly affected are those who would have to move their parked - vehicles from the current on-street locations (parking on City of Salem right • of way) to a new location that requires them to walk an additional couple of hundred feet plus cross Mason Street, instead of parking in front of their homes. While this is clearly an inconvenience for the residents few affected • homes, converting Flint Street to a one-way operation will inconvenience • 72 • • • • June 2012 • • thousands of motorists each day and waste thousands of gallons of fuel • annually. • Observations indicate that vehicles are parked on the west sidewalk of Flint • Street close to its intersection with Mason Street creates a hazard for two-way • traffic and pedestrians who may be walking on the south side of Flint Street. • The alternative of ��rM letting vehicles remain parked on Flint Street t ' • with the one-way • operation is • recommended only if • the City concludes this potential relocation is • too much of a hardship s � • on affected users. • Only those residences on the northernmost `� 't�" ' 's • portion of Flint Street • narrower than 30 feet • (FST observed fewer Concept for Riverview Access with Flint Street than six vehicles at assumed one-way between Mason and Riverview Flint any given time) need Street access driveway. Note bike access to Leslie's Retreat Park as an alternative to use of narrow Bridge • to be relocated. Street segmentprior to its programmed widening. Vehicles parked on • the south side of Flint Street where it widens out need not be relocated. 1 Priority 2-4—Mason Street Traffic Calming—Phase 2 • • Recommendation: Implement new concrete sidewalks to augment and • reinforce the Phase I Mason Street Traffic Calming program. • Proposed Phase 2 traffic calming involves necessary, but more costly • sidewalk and drainage and street lighting (not traffic signalization) • improvements to augment Phase 1 signage and marking alterations. • 1 Priority 2-5— Goodhue Street between Beaver and Bridge Streets • • Recommendation: Modify Goodhue Streets between Beaver and Bridge • Streets to create either a `T'intersection or a mini-roundabout similar to that proposed for the intersection of Harmony Grove Road at Mason and Grove Streets. • • • • 73 • • • • • • • • • • • • I • i • • • • • • ! • i • • • • i • • • Appendix 3 • • NORTH RIVER FLOOD STUDY FOR RIVERVIEW PLACE • • • • • • • North River Flood Study for Riverview Place • Salem, Massachusetts (FINAL) - January 6, 2014 • • • Bioengineering Group performed a flood study for the proposed Riverview Place development located • along the north side of the North River,just downstream of the Flint Street Bridge in Salem, - Massachusetts (see Figure 1).The North Street Bridge (Route 114), located east of the Project site,was - designed with large box culverts to allow tidal flow into the portion of the North River west of the bridge • and to convey North River flows to the harbor.The North River in the vicinity of the Project site experiences diurnal high and low tides that mix with upstream fresh water during rain events. While the • North Street culverts were originally designed with tide gates, these gates are locked permanently in an • open position; therefore tidal flow through the culverts is unrestricted into the North River upstream of • North Street. MassDOT recently initiated a study to repair and/or modify the structure which is • recognized to be in poor structural condition. The tidal range between mean low water and mean high - water is 8.93 feet. • The latest available data were used in this analysis to determine the impacts of riverine and coastal • flooding. Riverine and coastal flooding were evaluated separately and the worst case was used in • determining the flood risk for the Riverview Place site.The impact of future anticipated sea level rise • was also considered.The results of this analysis are presented below. References are listed at the end of • the report. • °n A, ` o '�°rc/ ,,eta .F°ec • ti.:.- Harmony Grove i erc�°� y' '.+ • 8 `7r,,lyar kCemetery . •.,/ of r a �o I mo?yG�ove Rtl iNt .� Project e Selem' t • ��-. f S'I� - ��^ Mack Aa Irk site °s1)o y park • Community •�• 1m ( � -d �^Y 6ostort Street amGarden / - - ""! •�-i y•®�Chddren's \Iu+ `� o `�:• The itch 5� • St— „`• � �` � ;! House t r -Y • �� a � gb } �” `�., .!QOstorr'. . � �itid9e r.%� y5yy,5i`t ' t • StJames'- st= S • `aye Parish "/ cnentnOk nd6t •. r`: 5� �o �� s}.,, T r;6osio / •,<�.� Broad Street t.. • h �cp Cemetery n %.r'Zf i. .�' ~ �'r' :. .c.A�L�� • Figure 1. Project locus map • • Riverine Flooding • A flood analysis was performed in 1995 by the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD, now • MassDOT)for channel and park improvements proposed in and along the North River in the vicinity of • • • • • • • • the Riverview Place project as part of the Salem/Beverly Transportation Project.The MHD flood analysis used a peak flow rate of 2360 cubic feet per second (cfs)'for the North River at North Street.This flow • rate was obtained from an earlier(1979) hydrologic/hydraulic study of the North River that was - prepared for MHD in conjunction with the proposed Salem-Peabody Connector.The area upstream from • the North Street Bridge has since been restudied by AECOM, a multidisciplinary engineering firm, as a part of the City of Peabody's Peabody Square Flood Mitigation Project'.AECOM estimated the 100-year • peak flow at the North Street Bridge to be 1674 cfs. The flood flows for various return intervals'from the • flood studies reviewed as a part of this analysis are shown in Table 1. Table 1.Comparison of North River Peak Flows for Various Studies at Various Locations. Flow values are in cfs. A Location North Street Flint St Howley St/Salem Boundary* • 2010 • Return 1995 2010 FEMA 1995 2010 FEMA 1995 AECOM FEMA Interval MHD(NR) (NR)MHD Salem (years)' MHD AECOM (NR)* AECOM IN Howley Boundary • 2 567 461 404 10 1250 949 861 751 640 25 1640 50 1425 1392 1197 990 40 100 2360 1674 1682 1436 1140 • 500 1640 NR= No Flow Data Reported * City of Salem Boundary is roughly 450 ft downstream of Howley Street in Peabody and 3,900 ft upstream of the project site • • After a review of the data from the aformentioned studies it was determined that the AECOM flow • estimates would be conservative enough to use for this study since they are higher than FEMA's • estimated peak flow' but not as high as those used in the 1995 MHD study.Additionally,the AECOM flows are available for the North Street Bridge while the FEMA values are not reported for that location. • Consequently this evaluation will use a 100-year(1%chance)flood flow of 1674 cfs for flow through the - North Street Bridge culverts for the baseline conditions. • Culvert Backwater One of the primary drivers of riverine flooding at the project site is the downstream North Street Bridge culverts.These culverts restrict flow for the 100-year riverine flood and cause backwater effects • reaching up the North River beyond the Flint Street Bridge.As discussed above, a flow rate of 1674 cfs • Return intervals represent the probability of a flood event occurring in a given year;for example,a 100-year • return interval flood has a 1 percent(1 in 100)chance of occurring each year,while a 2-year return interval flood • has a 50 percent(1 in 2)chance of occurring each year. • • North River Flood Evaluation Report Page 2 • • • • • w was selected for the current study to calculate the backwater from the culvert and the flood elevation • resulting from riverine flooding at the Riverview Place site. • To calculate culvert flows through the North Street culverts,the culvert dimensions were input into the • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) program HY-8 and a series of flows were used to calculate the • upstream water surface elevation (WSE)for the culverts (shown in Figure 2).The program yielded very • similar results to those presented in the MHD report, as can be seen in Figure 2. w • 12 • D z10 001 • � 9 Oor • m 8 _ ♦ 1979BW-MHD • 7 • E —*--HY8-4.76 TW � 6 • j 5 • 4 • 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Peak Flow(cfs) • • j Figure 2.Comparison of Upstream Head Calculations for North Street Culverts from MHD(1995)and HY-8 results • • • While there are some differences at the 1400 to 1500 cfs level, overall the values are close enough that • the HY-8 values can be used to determine the upstream head on the North Street culverts for use in this • flood analysis. The analysis of the data shows that head loss through the culverts(the change in water • surface from upstream to downstream) will not change as a result of the sea level rise assumed for this study. The tops of the culverts (Elev 2.75 NAVD88) are already submerged at the mean higher high • water(MHHW) of 4.76 ft NAVD88. Increasing the depth at which the culverts are submerged will not cause any change in flow conditions in the culverts. • This study used the head loss of 3.2 ft calculated within HY-8 for a river flow of 1674 cfs as shown in • Table 2.The calculated head loss of 3.2 ft added to the MHHW value of 4.76 ft results in a water surface , elevation (WSE) on the upstream side of the North Street Culverts of 7.96 ft NAVD88 . • • • • • • North River Flood Evaluation Report Page 3 • • • r A Table 2.Backwater Rise for North River Culverts for Various Flow Rates from HY-8 Flow Backwater Upstream (cfs) Rise(ft) WSE(ft- NAVD88) 50 0.00 4.76 281 0.09 4.85 41 512 0.3 5.06 743 0.63 5.39 974 1.08 5.84 1205 1.66 6.42 • 1436 2.35 7.11 1667 3.17 7.93 1674 3.20 7.96 • 1682 3.23 7.99 2062 4.85 9.61 2129 5.07 9.83 2360 5.64 10.4 In order to estimate the head loss due to flow along the North River between Flint Street and North Street, the water surface elevation (WSE) slope obtained from the 1995 MHD study was used.This slope is higher than that expected from the current 100-year flow since the updated flow is lower.The slope calculated by the MHD study was 0.0003.This results in a head increase of 0.65 ft between North St and Flint St.This head increase was added to the WSE calculated for the area directly upstream of the North Street culvert (7.96 ft), resulting in a WSE during a 100-year flood at the project site of approximately 8.6 ft (NAVD88). Storm Surge The MHD report used a 100-year storm surge of 10.1 ft(NGVD29)", or 9.3 ft(NAVD88), as the tidal elevation for a storm surge. A review of the 2013 FEMA report shows a 100-year stillwater storm surge elevation of 10.3 ft (NAVD88)for Transect 31 (to the east of North Street).This higher value of 10.3 ft • will be used for the 100-year storm surge elevation.The 100-year value for the maximum wave crest is • 14.1 ft at Transect 31 in the FEMA study.Since the project area is protected from the open sea by the w North Street culverts and roadway,the wave amplitude is not a factor west of the culverts; therefore the 100-year flood elevation due to storm surge is anticipated to be approximately 10.3 ft (NAVD 88). The 2013 Preliminary FEMA map shows the project area subject to an AE zone with a 100-yr flood i To convert from an elevation referencing NGVD29 datum to an elevation referencing NAVD88 datum,subtract 0.8 feet. North River Flood Evaluation Report Page 4 w • • elevation of 10.0 ft NAVD88, which was rounded to a whole number from the 10.3 ft storm surge value in the FEMA report. This study evaluated the impact of riverine and coastal flooding on the project site. The probability of w having a 100-year storm surge occurring at the same moment as a 100-year flood is very low. The two w events are normally approached as independent, unrelated events even though they are sometimes • related"' FEMA guidance" notes that the assumption of independence may not always be appropriate, but admits that there are usually no practical methods to account for interdependence. Given the size of the 100-year storm surge, it is unlikely(although possible)that the 100-year peak riverine flow will occur at the same moment as the 100-year storm surge. This analysis has assumed that the events are independent, but the potential for interdependence may be considered an uncertainty in the analysis. • Since no data have been located linking the timing of the storm surge to flood peaks, the higher of the two conditions(10.3 ft)will be used to evaluate flooding on the Riverview site. Impacts of Sea Level Rise • Current estimates of possible sea level rise (SLR) between now and 2100 vary significantly. Sea level rise • is affected by many factors, including thermal expansion of the oceans, melting of land-based glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, changes in ocean currents, and land subsidence.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its 2007 reports estimated a potential increase in global sea level of up to 3.93 ft.The US National Climate Assessment' put the number closer to 6.6 ft.The Massachusetts Climate Change Adaptation Report'found that SLR in Massachusetts could range from 11 inches to 6.6 • ft by 2100. The City of Salem commissioned CDM Smith to conduct a Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment for • Salem. A recent memo8 presented five SLR projections for Salem for the year 2100.These estimates, • ranging from 0.94 to 6.90 feet, are summarized in Table 3.The lowest estimate assumes a continuation of historically observed rate of SLR for Boston (from 1921 to 2012),while the highest uses the IPCC AR4 • estimates of ocean warming and the maximum possible glacier and ice sheet loss by 2100. Table 3. Coastal Inundation Levels with US Army Corps of Engineers(USACE) and NOAA Sea Level Rise w Scenarios 1998 USACE/NOAA USACE NOAA USACE NOAA Intermediate/NOAH Intermediate Tidal Datum Baseline Low Intermediate Low High High High • (feet) • MHHW 4.76 5.70 6.74 9.03 10.02 11.66 • Change from 1998 Baseline n/a 0.94 1.98 4.27 5.26 6.90 Source: CDM Smith (Oct 2013) Salem Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, Revised Technical Memorandum on Potential Climate Change Impacts in Salem, Massachusetts. w • See MHD Report(1995) i North River Flood Evaluation Report Page 5 s • • • • Overall,there remains uncertainty about how much SLR will be experienced between now and 2100. • Based on our review of current projections,we generally recommend designing for a SLR range of 1.98 to 4.27 feet. However,given the protection provided by the North Street culverts and roadway,the SLR • estimate of 1.98 ft appears to be reasonable for determining elevations of proposed structures. • • Additional design strategies can further improve the proposed development's resilience to potential • flooding and storm damage.Such strategies could include site grading techniques, elevating key utilities • above the flood level, selecting water resistant finishes, and designing the structure's lowest level to allow flooding without serious damage to the structure (the "safe to fail" concept). For example,the • ground floor could be used as parking or storage space that allows water to flow through it during large • flood events. • • Conclusion • • Our analysis has shown that coastal rather than riverine flooding produces the deepest flooding on the • Riverview Place site and should be used to determine the finished floor elevations for the project. The • design 100-year storm level based on existing flood and sea levels would be 10.3 ft NAVD88.With the addition of 2 feet to account for sea level rise projected by year 2100,the design 100-year water surface • elevation would be 12.3 feet(NAVD88). Elevating the lowest floor to this elevation, along with other • protections such as elevated building utilities, will improve the resilience of the proposed Riverview • Place development to predicted future flood impacts.Adopting such measures at the outset is • anticipated to greatly improve project life cycle value due to considerable savings in avoided cost related • to insurance premiums, repairs, and replacement/modification in the future. • • • References • ' MHD (1995) Floodplain Recalculation Report, Salem North River Canal. Prepared by Edwards and • Kelcey. Submitted to address Chapter 91 License—Special Condition 24 • Z AECOM and City of Peabody(2010) Notice of Project Change, EEA No. 14251, Flood Mitigation Facilities • for Peabody Square Area, Peabody, Massachusetts • 3 FEMA(2013) Preliminary Flood Insurance Study: Essex County, Massachusetts. Number 25009CV001B • ' FEMA(2005) Storm Meteorology, FEMA Coastal Flood Hazard Analysis and Mapping Guidelines, • Focused Study Report • 5 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report(AR4): Climate Change 2007 • 6 US National Climate Assessment,Jan 2013 Draft for Public Comment • ' Massachusetts Climate Change Adaptation Report, September 2011 • s CDM Smith (Oct 2013)Salem Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment, Revised Technical • Memorandum on Potential Climate Change Impacts in Salem, Massachusetts. • • • North River Flood Evaluation Report Page 6 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Appendix 4 • • • GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS • • • • • • • • • • • • GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS FOR • RIVERVIEW PLACE • • SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • • • • • • January 2013 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • TeCH environmenraL • FOCUSED KNOWLEDGE. REAL SOLUTIONS. • • • • • • • • • • GREENHOUSE GAS ANALYSIS • FOR RIVERVIEW PLACE • • SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS • • • Prepared for: • • Susan St. Pierre Consulting Services • 74 Bay View Avenue • Salem, MA 01970 • • • • • • • • • Prepared by: • Tech Environmental, Inc. • 303 Wyman Street, Suite 295 • Waltham, Massachusetts 02451 • • • • • • • • • • • January 30, 2013 - Revised • • • • • • w • TABLE OF CONTENTS • Section Contents Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY....................................................................1 • 1.1 Methodology....................................................................................................1 1.2 Summary of Results.........................................................................................3 • 2.0 TRANSPORTATION GHG EMISSIONS..............................................................7 • 3.0 GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) MITIGATION ANALYSIS....................................9 w • 3.1 Site Design Mitigation Measures.....................................................................9 • 3.2 Building Design and Operation Mitigation Measures.....................................9 • 3.3 Transportation Mitigation Measures..............................................................13 • • • w APPENDIX A - EQUEST MODEL OUTPUT • APPENDIX B - TRANSPORTATION WORKSHEET FOR VMT AND CO2 EMISSIONS • APPENDIX C - PV COST CALCULATION SPREADSHEETS w • • • • • • • • • • • • w • • • • • ii • • • • • • • • LIST OF TABLES • • Table Description page • 1 Energy and CO2 Modeling......................................................................................... 4 to 5 • • 2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary................................................................................6 3 Motor Vehicle CO2 Emissions Summary...........................................................................8 • • 4 Summary of eQUEST Model Assumptions......................................................14 5 Project Site Design Mitigation Measures.........................................................................15 • • 6 Building Design and Operation Mitigation Measures......................................................16 = 7 Transportation Demand Mitigation Measures..................................................................17 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • iii • • • • • • 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY • • 1.1 Methodology • • A greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions analysis was performed for Riverview Place(the"Project') in • Salem, Massachusetts, consistent with the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs • (EOEEA) "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol' (May 5, 2010; the "Policy"). The • Project involves the redevelopment of a 4.14 acre former industrial site into a mixed use • development. The site is located in Salem,Massachusetts east of Flint Street between Mason Street • and the North River canal. The site was previously developed with two leather manufacturing - buildings: the Bonfanti Building located on Mason Street(which will be demolished)and the Salem • Suede Building which comprised the bulk of the site development located off Flint Street.The Salem • Suede Building experienced significant fire damage and was demolished by the order of the City in • the fall of 2009. • • The development includes three(3),four to five-story buildings containing a total of 130 residential - units of which 49 are one bedroom and 81 are two bedroom units as well as 5,540 square feet(sfl of • commercial space in the lower level of the building proposed along Mason Street. A total of 309 • parking spaces are provided of which 271 are located in parking structures(252 spaces in Building • 41 and 19 spaces in Building#2)and 38 are located in at grade lots. Twelve of the outdoor spaces • are reserved for existing residents of Flint Street. The site will be accessed from Mason Street and Flint Street and trucks will be prohibited from using the Mason Street Driveway. A walkway is • proposed along the south side of the parcel along the North River. The project will increase the • amount of open space and the setback from the North River from the previously developed buildings • on the site. The City of Salem has adopted the Massachusetts Stretch Energy Code,which requires • higher levels of energy efficiency. Since all proposed residential buildings are over three stories in • height,they are regulated as commercial buildings under the Stretch Code. Since all building have - less than 100,000 sf, Riverview Place is only subject to Section 501.1.4 of the Stretch Code, and • the 20% energy reduction requirement in Section 501.1.1 does not apply. The GHG analysis • assumed energy mitigation measures consistent with, and beyond, the prescriptive option of the • Stretch Code (Section 501.1.4) in modeling energy use. • • • 1 • • • • • • • • The GHG Policy requires a project to quantify carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and identify • measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate such emissions, quantifying the effect of proposed • mitigation in terms of emissions reduction and energy savings. The GHG Emissions Policy and • Protocol requires quantification of GHG emissions from three sources: direct emissions from on-site stationary sources, indirect emissions from energy generated off-site (electricity), and traffic - generated by the Project. The Project's GHG emissions will include: 1) direct emissions of CO2 • from natural gas combustion for space heating and hot water; 2) indirect emissions of CO2 from • electricity generated off-site and used on-site for lighting,building cooling and ventilation,and the • operation of other equipment; and 3) transportation emissions of CO2 from Project traffic. CO2 • emissions were quantified for: (1) the Base Case corresponding to the 8th Edition of the MA = Building Code that includes the 2009 IECC with MA amendments, and (2) the Mitigation • Alternative, which includes all energy saving measures, detailed in Section 3. • • This analysis uses the eQUEST energy design software(version 3.63),which incorporates the U.S. • Department of Energy's DOE-2 building energy use model,and CO2 emission rates of 120.6 lb/103 • cubic feet of natural gas] and 829 lb/MWhr.2 The eQUEST model inputs are summarized in Table 4. CO2 emissions produced by project motor vehicle trips were calculated by multiplying the daily • VMT by the MOBILE6.2 predicted CO2 emission factor of 561.3 grams per mile in 2012 and 566.9 • in 2017. Appendix B contains the transportation-related CO2 emission calculations. Energy use • and CO2 emissions are detailed for each building in Tables lA through ID,and the eQUEST model • output is provided in Appendix A. Table 2 summarizes total CO2 emissions for the Project,for the = Base Case(buildings that comply with the Code),and the Mitigation Alternative(includes all energy • saving measures). The eQUEST model input files have been provided to the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (DOER). • • • • • • • 'U.S.Department of Energy,Energy Information Administration. - 'ISO New England Inc.,2010 New England Electric Generator Air Emissions Report,Annual Average Emission • Rate,Table 5.3,March 2012. 2 • • • • • 1.2 Summary of Results • • Energy use and CO2 emissions are detailed for each building in Tables IA through 1D, and the • eQUEST model output is provided in Appendix A. Table IE reveals that the energy mitigation • measures proposed for the Mitigation Alternative will reduce overall Project energy use(stationary • sources) by 12.7% and will reduce CO2 emissions by 12.6%, compared to the Base Case. Table 2 • summarizes total CO2 emissions for the Project, for the Base Case(buildings that comply with MA = Building Code),and the Mitigation Alternative(includes all energy saving measures). The eQUEST • model input files have been provided to the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources • (MassDOER) on a CD-ROM disk. Transportation emission calculations are given in Appendix B, • and Appendix C provides a cost analysis for a photo-voltaic (PV) system. • • As discussed in Section 2.0,Transportation Demand Management(TDM)measures for this project = will reduce Project-related motor vehicle CO2 emissions by 2.0%. The net reduction of the Project's • total CO2 emissions (stationary sources plus transportation) is 11.9% compared to the Base Case. • Section 61 Findings • • The Proponent has committed to implement energy efficiency measures that will reduce overall • Project energy use (stationary sources) by 12.7% and will reduce CO2 emissions by 12.6%, compared to the Base Case. In accordance with the MEPA"Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and • Protocol,"the proponent will provide a certification to the MEPA Office signed by an appropriate • professional stating that all transportation and non-transportation greenhouse gas mitigation measures described in this EENF, or measures providing comparable mitigation, have been • incorporated into the project. • • • • • • • • • • 3 • • TABLE 1A ENERGY AND CO2 MODELING FOR RIVERVIEW PLACE-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING#1 Effects of Individual Mitigation Measures Electrical Heating CO2 Electrical Total CO2 Energy Mitigation Measures-eQUEST Model Run GLA(so Usage Electrical Gas Usage Gas Change Emissions CO2 CO2 Emissions Use (MWh/yr) Change(/°) (Mcf/yr) M) (tons/yr) Emissions Emissions Change(%) Change (tans/yr) (tonsiyr) (%) Base Case 81,312 720.86 924.78 55.8 298.8 354.6 Higher Heating Efficiency 720.86 0.0% 870.38 -5.9% 52.5 298.8 351.3 -0.9% Reflective Cool Roof 719.89 -0.1% 936.56 1.3% 56.5 298.4 354.9 0.1 Lower Light Power Density 661.89 -8.2% 1040.70 12.5% 62.8 274.4 337.1 A.9% Higher Cooling Efficiency 714.96 -0.8% 924.78 0.0% 55.8 296.4 352.1 -0.7% Increased Roof Insulation 720.59 0.0% 887.72 -4.0% 53.5 298.7 352.2 -0.7% Lower U Value Glass Type 720.23 -0.1% 688.09 -25.6% 41.5 298.5 340.0 -4.1% Energy STAR Kitchen Appliances 686.88 -4.7% 996.45 7.7% 60.1 284.7 344.8 -2.8% Slab Insulation 721.46 0.1% 887.65 -4.0°/ 53.5 299.0 352.6 -0.6 Mitigation Alternative-All Measures Listed Above 623.01 -13.6% 734.44 -20.6% 44.3 258.2 302.5 -14.7% -15.5°/ TABLE 1B ENERGY AND CO2 MODELING FOR RIVERVIEW PLACE-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING#2 Effects of Individual Mitigation Measures Electrical Heating CO2 CO2 Electrical Total Energy Electrical Gas Usage Gas Change CO2 CO2 Use Mitigation Measures-eQUEST Model Run GLA(so Usage Change(%) (Mcf/yr) N Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Change (MWhryr) (tons/yr) Change(%) ° (tons/yr) (tonsryr) (/o) Base Case 46,552 454.21 1006.10 60.7 188.3 248.9 Higher Heating Efficiency 454.21 0.0% 981.19 -2.5% 59.2 188.3 247.4 -0.6% Reflective Cool Roof 454.18 0.0% 1006.40 0.0% 60.7 188.3 248.9 0.0% Lower Light Power Density 443.42 -2.4% 1025.30 1.9% 61.8 183.8 245.6 -1.3% Increased Wall Insulation 453.58 -0.1% 973.33 -3.3% 58.7 188.0 246.7 -0.9% Higher Cooling Efficiency 450.67 -0.8% 1006.10 0.0% 60.7 186.8 247.5 -0.6% Increased Roof Insulation 454.20 0.0% 1006.10 0.0% 60.7 188.3 248.9 0.0% Lower U Value Glass Type 451.89 -0.5% 887.36 -11.8% 53.5 187.3 240.8 -3.3% Energy STAR Kitchen Appliances 424.20 -6.6% 1060.80 5.4% 64.0 175.8 239.8 -3.7% Slab Insulation 454.63 0.1°/ 992.23 -1.4% 59.8 188.4 248.3 -0.3 Mitigation Alternative-All Measures Listed Above 409.53 -9.8% 915.49 -9.0% 55.2 169.8 225.0 4 TABLE 1C ENERGY AND CO2 MODELING FOR RIVERVIEW PLACE-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING#3 Effects of Individual Mitigation Measures Electrical Total Energy Electrical Electrical Gas Usage Gas Change Heating CO2 CO2 CO2 Co2 Use Mitigation Measures-eQUEST Model Run GLA(sf) Usage Change(%) (Mcf/yr) (%) Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Change (MWh/yr) (tons/yr) Change(%) (tons/yr) (fonstyr) (%) Base Case 32,428 315.72 714.50 43.1 130.9 174.0 Higher Heating Efficiency 315.72 0.0% 696.33 -2.5% 42.0 130.9 172.9 -0.6% Reflective Cool Roof 315.71 0.0% 714.66 0.0% 43.1 130.9 174.0 0.0% Lower Light Power Density 308.20 -2A 727.74 1.9% 43.9 127.7 171.6 -1.3% Increased Wall Insulation 315.37 -0.1% 689.10 -3.6% 41.6 130.7 172.3 -1.0% Higher Cooling Efficiency 313.32 -0.8% 714.50 0.0% 43.1 129.9 173.0 -0.6% Increased Roof Insulation 315.71 0.0% 714.48 0.0% 43.1 130.9 173.9 0.0% Lower U Value Glass Type 314.30 -0.4% 627.11 -12.2% 37.8 130.3 168.1 -3.4% Energy STAR Kitchen Appliances 294.83 -6.6% 752.30 5.3% 45.4 122.2 167.6 -3.7% Slab Insulation 316.03 0.1% 704.24 -1.4% 42.5 Ill.0 173.1 -0.3% Mitigation Alternative-All Measures Listed Above 284.90 -9.8% 646.17 -9.6°/ 39.0 8.1 157.1 -9.7% TABLE 1D ENERGY AND CO2 MODELING FOR RIVERVIEW PLACE Outdoor Lighting for Parking Lot Electrical Total Energy Electrical Heating CO2 CO2 CO2 CO2 Use Usage Electrical Gas Usage Gas Change Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Change Mitigation Measures (MWh/yr) Change I%) (Mcftyr) (%) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) Change(%) (%) Base Case 103.3 0.0 0.0 42.8 42.8 Mitigation Alternative-LED Lights 77.5 -25.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 32.1 32.1 -25.0% -25.0% TABLE 1E ENERGY AND CO2 MODELING FOR RIVERVIEW PLACE Totals Electrical Total Electrical Heating CO2 CO2 All Buildings -Combined Mitigation Usa a Electrical Gas Usage Gas Change CO2 CO2 Energy Use gg Change(%) (Mcf/yr) N Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Change(%) (MWh/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) Change(%) Base Case 1,594.1 2,645.4 159.5 660.7 820.2 Mitigation Case 1,394.9 -12.5% 2,296.1 -13.2% 138.5 578.2 716.6 -12.6% -12.7% 5 • • • w w TABLE 2 w GREENHOUSE GAS (CO2) EMISSIONS SUMMARY ! RIVERVIEW PLACE • (TONS/YEAR) • Source Base Case Mitigation Alternative Change in GHG Emissions • Direct Emissions 159.5 138.5 -13.2% ! Indirect Emissions 660.7 578.2 -12.5% • Subtotal Direct and 820.2 716.6 -12.6% Indirect Emissions • Transportation Emissions 60.4 59.2 -2.0% • • • Total CO2 Emissions 880.6 775.8 -11.9% w • • ! i • • • • • • • w • • • • • • 6 • • i • i w 2.0 TRANSPORTATION GHG EMISSIONS i • The transportation portion of the GHG analysis calculated emissions of CO2 for the traffic study area • for three traffic analysis scenarios: • i • 2017 No-Build i • 2017 Build without TDMs i • 2017 Build with TDMs • • The vehicle miles traveled(VMT)for the four major roadway segments in the traffic study area was w calculated by multiplying the length of each road segment by the average daily traffic(ADT)volume i on the segment. The CO2 emissions for each roadway segment were calculated by multiplying the i daily VMT by the CO2 emission factors of 561.3 grams per mile in 2012 and 566.9 in 2017. i Average daily traffic volumes were provided in a 2007 traffic study prepared by Earth Tech, Inc. - The 2012 No-Build traffic volumes presented in the traffic report were used to represent existing i conditions and a one percent per year growth factor referenced in the traffic report was used to w project the 2017 No-Build case. Appendix B presents the VMT and emission calculations. i i Transportation CO2 emissions are summarized in Table 3. The emissions listed for the 2017 No- Build and Build cases include both existing volumes on the roadway network and new project- • generated trips. The 2017 Build case includes roadway mitigation measures, but not TDMs. The project's transportation emissions are calculated by subtracting the 2017 No-Build values from those i for the 2017 Build cases. • • The Build with TDMs case includes the effects of the Transportation Demand Management(TDM) • measures, detailed in Section 3.4, and Table 3 reveals the 2017 Build with TDMs CO2 emissions i (60.4 tons/year) will be 2% less than those for the 2017 Build case (59.2 tons/year). • i • • i • 7 • i • • • A I � • TABLE 3 MOTOR VEHICLE CO2 EMISSIONS SUMMARY • RIVERVIEW PLACE 41 49 Total Predicted CO2 Emissions Burden • 2017 2017 2017 No-Build Build without TDMs Build with TDMs 6,642.7 kg/day 6.639.7 kg/day 6,492.5 kg/day • Project: 150.2 kg/day Project: 147.2 kg/day • i • 2,670.2 tons/year 2,669.0tons/year 2,609.9 tons/yr Project: 60.4 tons/year Project: 59.2 tons/year • • • a� • • • • • • • • s i • • • • w 3.0 GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) MITIGATION ANALYSIS • The GHG Policy requires the Project to identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate GHG • emissions. The following sections discuss the measures Riverview Place will implement,and these are summarized in Tables 4 through 7. ; 3.1 Site Design Mitigation Measures S w • Sustainable Development Principles — The Project conserves land by reusing a previously • developed industrial and commercial site.The green space will increase by approximately 3,300 • s£ • Design Project to Support Alternative Transportation to the Site—The project is one-half mile away from a MBTA Commuter Rail Station. A walkway is also proposed along the south side • of the site along the North River. • Minimize Energy Use Through Building Orientation—Due to the shape and orientation of the site, Building 41 will face east and south, Building #2 will face east and Building #3 will have one side of the building facing east. Windows facing east and south will get natural lighting • reducing electrical energy demand of the buildings. • • Best Practices for Stormwater Design—To the extent possible, the stormwater management system will utilize Best Management Practices (BMP) including stormceptor and bioretention basins. 3.2 Building Design and Operation Mitigation Measures i The eQUEST energy model inputs are summarized in Table 4. • Energy Efficient Windows and Building Envelope—Building envelope insulation will exceed MA Building Code for the roof with insulation at R-38 for Building #1, wood frame wall M insulation at R-20 for Buildings#2 and#3 and slab foundation at R-10. Window glass type will be better than MA Building Code for all buildings: double-pane, low-e glass with a lower U value = 0.35. a • • Use of Cool Roofing Materials—A reflective cool roof will be installed on all three buildings. • Install High-Efficiency HVAC Systems—Energy-STAR rated HVAC units will be used and Energy Efficiency Ratios (EER) will be 10% above MA Building Code. w • High-Efficiency Heating Systems— Heating systems will be 5% more efficient than MA Building Code. • 9 • • • • • • • • Seal, Test and Insulate HVACSupply Ducts—HVAC supply ducts will be sealed, leak tested, • and insulated to reduce energy losses. • • Energy Efficient Interior Lighting—Interior Light Power Density (LPD) will be at least 10% • below MA Building Code and consistent with the requirements of the Stretch Code for • residential and retail spaces in all buildings. • • Energy Efficient Exterior Lighting—Energy efficient Metal Halide fixtures will be used to light • the parking lots. • • • Energy STAR Appliances — Energy STAR appliances will be used in residential units and • associated laundry rooms to reduce plug load. Consistent with DOER policy, the plug load values used in the eQUEST model are are COMNET average values for all buildings. The plug • loads with Energy Star appliances are assumed to be at least 10%below MA Building Code for • residential buildings. • Provide storage and collection of recyclables—The proponent will set side space for recyclables per the requirements of the local ordinance. • • Other building design and operation mitigation measures were considered for the Project,but were rejected because they are either technically/financially infeasible or inappropriate for the Project: • • • Reduce Energy Demand by Using Peak Shaving or Load Shifting Strategies—These measures • are not appropriate for buildings that must use power during peak periods. • • • Incorporate Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Technologies into Project—CHP requires a • host for the constant (year-round) and substantial steam load (waste heat) generated as part of the process. The project's thermal loads are seasonal only, making CHP economically • infeasible. • • • Construct Green Roof--The proponent does not consider it economically feasible to construct • and maintain a green roof. Green roofs, which consist of layers of gravel, soil and vegetation atop a rubberized water-proof membrane,are expensive to install and maintain. They typically • require a steel-reinforced concrete roof that can support a dead weight of 35 lb/sf and the • installation cost exclusive of roof redesign is $30/s£3 While green roof technology has the • potential to improve stormwater management on the Project and reduce overall energy costs,the • significant additional costs (over $4 million for the proposed development) related to the required engineering,construction and installation of the green roof is not economically feasible. • • On-Site Renewable Energy—The proponent affirms its commitment to set aside space on the • flat roof garage for a possible third-party photo-voltaic (PV) installation and make those roofs • solar-ready. • • s Obemdorfer,Erica, et al.,"Green Roofs as Urban Ecosystems: Ecological Structures,Functions and Services," BioScience,Vol. 57,No. 10,November 2007. • 10 • • • • • The PV cost feasibility analysis presented below estimates the cost of a 200-kW system installed = in a single block on a commercial building roof. To obtain the most accurate installed-cost for a commercial-size PV system,data were obtained from the most recent installed-cost report on the • MassCEC website for Commercial solar installations of 100+ MW over the last two reporting • years (application years 2010 and 2009)4 Those data are provided in Appendix C. The data • were sorted by Owner-Installed and 3`d-Party-Installed projects and then by year within those • categories. The results are as follows. • For Owner-Installed Commercial PV,costs for the 2009-projects ranged from$4.34 to$6.66 per • Watt, and averaged $5.60/W, while costs for the 2010-projects ranged from $4.95 to $7.23 per • Watt, and averaged$5.96/W. The average cost actually increased for the more recent projects. The overall two-year average for 23 Owner-Installed Commercial PV projects was • $5.74/W. • For 3`d-Party-Installation Commercial PV, costs for the 2009-projects ranged from $4.79 to $8.21 per Watt, and averaged $5.65/W, while costs for the 2010-projects ranged from$4.68 to $9.60 per Watt,and averaged$6.44/W. The average cost actually increased for the more recent • projects. The overall two-year average for 21 3rd-Party-Installation Commercial PV • projects was $5.99/W. The 3`d-Party installation projects were 4.4% more expensive than • Owner-Installed projects, consistent with the fact the 3`d-Party Installer charges a fee for his work. • • For this PV cost analysis, two scenarios were examined: (1) Owner-Installed 200-kW system • with a cost of$5.74/W, and (2) 3`d-Party-Installation 200-kW system with a cost of$5.99/W. • The following facts were obtained from MassDOER: (1) SRECs are market-based incentives • and should sell today between $300 and $550 per MWh, less broker fees; (2) An owner can • place excess SRECs into an auction account and receive $285 per MWh($300 minus 5% fee); • (3)The Alterantive Compliance Payment(ACP)cap that is$550 today declines to only$365 in • the future on a schedule set by DOER. Since there are no firm estimates of the future value of SRECs,this analysis assumed the guaranteed floor price of$285,the most realistic assumption. • • For the alternative analysis, a 200 kW system was assumed; this is generally considered the • minimum size for a financially feasible third-party vendor PPA.S In Massachusetts, a 200 kW PV system,flat-mounted,is projected to generate 206,528 kWh per year,6 which equates to 85.5 • tons per year in GHG emissions reductions. A 200 kW PV system would reduce the annual • Mitigation Case CO2 emissions (Table 2) by 1.5% = 100% * 85.5 /5,735.3. • • • 4 MassCEC,"PV Installers Costs,"May 30,2012. The two most recent years of data in the report are"dates of • Application"in 2009 and 2010. Public projects were not included because costs often do not reflect the market cost for a Commercial installation. • s Personal communication, Dave Hebert,Gloria Spire Solar,March 3,2009. • 6 Personal communication,Natalie Howlett,Renewable Energy Project Coordinator,Massachusetts DOER, December 18,2008. This figure is 4 times 51,632 kWh/year for a 50 kW system. • Annual PV system electrical generation is 206.5 MWh. Multiplying by the ISO New England emission factor of 828 Ib • CO2 per MWh and dividing by 2,000 lb/ton yields an annual CO2 emission reduction of 85.5 tons/year. 11 • • • • • • • • The economics of a PV installation were calculated using the DOER Commercial Solar • Financial Model updated to reflect the above assumptions. Model output is provided in Appendix C. The cost calculator inputs are as follows: • • • PV system size of 200 kW • • System cost of$5.74/Watt (Owner Installed) or $5.99/W(3`d Party Installation) • Annual capacity factor of 11.8% (flush mounted on roof)$ • SREC value of$285 /MWh and revenue term 10 years • An inverter replacement frequency of once every 10 years • Customer discount rate of 7% The default customer discount rate in the CS Financial Model is 3%, which is incorrect. The • customer discount rate is defined as the interest rate of return that could be earned in an • investment in the financial markets with similar risk. At present,a 20-year U.S. Treasury bond • pays just below 3%;that is the lowest risk investment possible and is not comparable to the risk • of investing in a PV system. Corporate bond rates are 4%to 8%,depending on their investment grade. This analysis assumed a reasonable customer discount rate of 7%. The calculations • assume all current financial incentives: federal tax credits, State tax deductions and SREC • values. • For the 200-kW system,the calculated Net Present Value of the PV system is-$33,681 (Owner- Installed) and -$52,812 (3`d-Party Installation). The internal rates of return (IRR) are 6.0% • (Owner Installed) and 5.5% (3`d-Party Installation). The Simple Payback Period is 8 years for • both scenarios. Based on market research,almost 90 percent of strong prospects would consider • a payback of four years,but acceptance begins to drop rapidly once paybacks reach five years.10 The Simple Payback also has serious limitations as a measure of cost feasibility and is not used • in making business decisions because it ignores inflation, the time value of money and • investment risk. Net Present Value(NPV) is the standard financial method for using the time value of money to appraise long-term projects. Used for capital budgeting,and widely throughout economics,NPV • measures the excess or shortfall of cash flows,in present value terms,once financing charges are met. If the NPV is positive,an investment may be accepted since it would add value to a project • over the long-term. If the NPV is negative, as is the case here, the investment should be rejected. The IRR is the annualized effective compound return rate that can be earned on the • invested capital, i.e. the yield on the investment. A project is a good investment if its IRR is • greater than the rate of return that could be earned by alternate investments of equal risk;in this • case the alternate rate of return is the 7% discount rate in the financial model. • • • • s Personal communication,Natalie Howlett,Renewable Energy Project Coordinator,Massachusetts DOER, December 18,2008. • 9 Personal communication, Dave Hebert,Gloria Spire Solar,March 3,2009. • 0 Assessment ofCalifornia CHP Market andPolicy OptionsforincreasedPenetration,Final Report,Cosponsors Public Interest Energy Research Program(PIER)and California Energy Commission,July 2005. • 12 • • • • • Given the negative NPV and longer than acceptable payback period, a PV system is not • financially feasible for the project at this time. The proponent will set aside space on the roof of • the two large buildings with a flat roof as "solar ready" to accommodate flat-mounted PV systems for a possible third-parry provider PV installation in the future. • • 3.3 Transportation Mitigation Measures • Riverview Place is ideally suited in relation to the public transportation facility on Bridge Street at • the MBTA Commuter Rail Station one-half a mile from project site. The Proponent is committed to = a program of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies (see Table 7) to reduce • residential and customer vehicle trips, listed below, and which in aggregate it is estimated will • reduce CO2 transportation emissions by 2%. • • • Locate New Buildings Near Transit— The project is one-half mile from the MBTA Station, • providing commuter rail service on the Newburyport/Rockport commuter rail line. • • • Develop Multi-Use Paths To and Through Site—A walkway is proposed along the south side • of the site along the North River from Flint Street and pedestrian access will be provided • between Mason Street to the north and the North River to the south. • • Provide Bicycle Storage—Secure,weather-protected bicycle racks will be provided at locations • within the site with signs directing bicyclists to the bike storage facilities. • • Roadway and Signalization Improvements to Improve Traffic Flow— Roadway and traffic • signal improvements are proposed along Mason, Tremont and Flint Streets. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 13 • • • • w • • • TABLE 4 • SUMMARY OF ENERGY MODELING ASSUMPTIONS RIVERVIEW PLACE • • Energy Efficiency Measure • (EEM) Base Case(Code)1 Mitigation Case • - Cool Roof No Yes Metal Roof Deck R20 Roof R38 • Building Envelope Wood Attic Joist Roof R38 Same • Metal Frame Walls R13+R7ci Walls = R20 w Wood Frame Walls R13+R3.4 Walls = R20 Slab Insulation (NA) R-10 (2 ft) • • Window Glass U=0.55, U=0.35, • (Metal Frame) DOE Type 2000 DOE Type 2611 • HVAC Cooling Efficiency for • Typical 15-ton Unit EER 11.0 EER 12.1 • • Heating System Efficiency 80% 85% • • Parking Lots Parking Lots Parking Lot Lighting • 150 W/1,000 SF Metal Halide 112 W/1,000 SF • • Light Power Density Retail 1.5 W/SF Retail 1.2 W/SF • (Whole Building Method) MF Residential 0.7 W/SF MF Residential 0.6 W/SF • Retail 0.86 W/SF Same as Base Case w Electric Plug Load Residential 1.44 W/SF Residential 1.3 W/SF w (COMNET Value) • • Energy STAR Appliances No Residential Buildings: Yes • 1 IECC, 2009. • • • • • • • 14 • • • • • • • TABLE 5 • • PROJECT SITE DESIGN MITIGATION MEASURES • RIVERVIEW PLACE • Part of Project Technically/ Inappropriate • Suggested Mitigation Measure Design Economically to Project Type Infeasible • Sustainable development principles ✓ Locate new buildings near transit—site is one-half mile from - the MBTA Commuter Rail Station. A walkway is also ✓ • proposed along the south side of the site along the North River. • Use Best Management Practices for stormwater design ✓ • • Minimize energy use through building orientation ✓ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 15 • • • • • • • • TABLE 6 • BUILDING DESIGN AND OPERATION MITIGATION MEASURES • RIVERVIEW PLACE • • Part of Project Technically/ Inappropriate Design to Project Suggested Mitigation Measure Economically ect Type • Infeasible • Green roofs ✓ • Cool roofs ✓ • Higher roof, wall and slab insulation than MA Building • Code, lower U value than MA Building Code for ✓ window glass. • Interior lighting, lower Light Power Density ✓ • HVAC Cooling Efficiency- 10% more efficient than MA ✓ • Building Code • Heating System Efficiency-5% more efficient than MA ✓ Building Code • • Peak shaving or load shifting strategies ✓ Exterior lighting, energy efficient metal halide fixtures ✓ • Electric plug load—10%below MA Building Code for ✓ • residential buildings • Combined heat and power(CHP) ✓ • Water conserving bathroom fixtures ✓ • Energy STAR appliances ✓ • • Provide storage and collection of recyclables ✓ • The proponent does not consider PV to be economically feasible at this time; however the project will set • aside space on the garage roof for a possible third-party PV installation, should it become economically • feasible in the future. i • • • • • • 16 • • • • • • • TABLE 7 • i TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MITIGATION MEASURES • RIVERVIEW PLACE • • Technically/ • Part of Project Economically Inappropriate Suggested Mitigation Measure Design Infeasible to Project Type • Locate new buildings near transit ✓ Develop multi-use paths to and through site ✓ • • Roadway and traffic signal improvements ✓ • • Bicycle rack storage ✓ i • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 17 • • • • • • APPENDIX A • • • • EQUEST MODEL OUTPUT • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • A-1 • • • • • • • • • Project/Run: Building 1- Baseline Design Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 11:17 - • • (x0o0) Electric Consumption (kWh) (X000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) I • 80 300 • 70 • 60 • 50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 200 - + • 40 - - - - - - - - - - - • 30 100. _ _ _ i._ • 20' • 10 i- - - - - - x • I 0 0 ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • • ® Area Lighting E Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water Heating 0 Space Heat& Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage 0 Ventilation Fans E Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeratils • Electric Consumption (kWh x000) • • J. _an Feb . Mar Apr. May lun. _ul _ _Aug - SepOct N_o_v _D.e._c_ _.T. otal Space Cool - - 0.12_ 3.49 16.26' 20.78 15.56 5.97 0.05 - - 56.25 Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - • HP Supp. _ _ - Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vent. Fans 7.88 7.10 7.83 7.49 7.80 7.60 7.80 7.75 7.64 7.80 7.67 7.88 92.24 • ,Pumps&Aux. 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.02 - - - 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.65 - Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - Misc. Equip. 25.50 22.98 25.39 24.34 25.31 24.61 25.31 25.19 24.73 25.31 24.81 25.50 298.98 • Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - Area Lights 23.24 20.95 23.15 22.30 23.13 22.42 23.14 23.03 22.51 23.14 22.51 23.24 272.74 • �7otal 56.73 51.13 56.47 54.34 59.74 64.88 77.03 y 71.54 60.86 56.36- 55.08 _56.72..J20.85 • Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total - .. -_ _. Space Cool Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Space Heat 270.16 208.96 138.70 16.76 0.05 0.02 - - 0.03 0.08 80.03 210.00 924.78 • HP Supp _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - e__._ _ _ -_. - - �. - -0.03--0.08--80-.0-210.00 - - - ___ ' `Total 270.16-208.96--138.70 �_ _16.76 _0.05 0.02' -_ s 0.03` 0.08�_80.03_210.00 924.78 • • eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • • i •Project/Run: Building 1-Cool Roof EEM J 9 Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 11:17 • • 41(x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) i • 80 300 70 j 60 50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 200 - • 40 - - - - - - - - - - - . ;r. 30 100 L i 20 i i 10 i 0 _ 1 0 wJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec i ® Area Lighting Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water Heating 0 Space Heatin( i Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage 0 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. Refrigeration • +Electric Consumption (kWh x000) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Space Cool - - - 0.12 3.35 10.05 20.54 15.30 5.85 0.08 - - 55.28 iHeat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ -Refrigeration Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - iHP Supp - - - - - - - - - - - - - Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ Vent. Fans 7.88 7.10 7.83 7.49 7.80 7.60 7.80 7.75 7.64 7.80 7.67 7.88 92.24 iPumps&Aux. 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.02 - - - 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.65 Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - iMisc. Equip. 25.50 22.98 25.39 24.34 25.31 24.61 25.31 25.19 24.73 25.31 24.81 25.50 298.98 Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Area Lights 23.24 20.95 23.15 22.30 23.13 22.42 23.14 23.03 22.51 23.14 22.51 23.24 272.74 _ - .. _ Total 56.73 51.13 56.47 54.33 59.60 64.67 76.79 71.28 60.74 56.36 55.06 56.72 719.89 • �as Consumption (Btu x000,000) Jan A Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Space Cool - iHeat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration •Space Heat 271.77 210.91 141.40 18.99 0.07 0.02 - - 0.03 0.09 81.75 211.53 936.56 HP Supp. - - - - •Hot Water - - - - - - wVent. Fans - - - - - - Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - •Ext. Usage - - - - - - Misc. Equip. - - - - - - •Task Lights - - - - - - Area Lights - - - - - - - - _ yTotal __� __271!77__ 271.77 210.91 141.40 18.99__0.07 0.02 - - 0.03 ___0.6_9_8175'_21f.53'__ 936.5fi • • • QUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • Project/Run: Building 1- Equipment Power EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 11:18 • • • (xooO) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) I • • 80 300 • 70 60 • 50 - - - - - - - - - 200. • 40 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • 30 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • 100 20 �_ • 10 • 0 0 - c • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jule Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • Area Lighting Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. Water Heating ® Space HeaS Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage © Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeratice Electric Consumption (kWh x000) • -�T Tan--FebMar-Apr-May-Ju-n-316 les_ Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total • Space Cool - - - 0.11 3.34 9.99 20.28 15.11 5.74 0.07 - - 54.64 Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - • .HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • 'Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vent. Fans 7.78 7.01 7.74 7.40 7.71 7.51 7.71 7.66 7.55 7.71 7.58 7.78 91.13 • Pumps&Aux. 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.02 - - - 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.65 • ,Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - �Misc. Equip. 22.84 20.58 22.73 21.79 22.66 22.04 22.66 22.56 22.14 22.66 22.21 22.84 267.71 • Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Area Lights 23.24 20.95 23.15 22.30 23.13 22.42 23.14 23.03 22.51 23.14 22.51 23.24 272.74 • [Total 53.97 48.64 53.72 51.69 56.85_ _61.94 _ 73.79_ 68.35 57.95 53.61 52.39 53.96 686.88, • Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) • Jae-�_- Feb _ Mar w Apr � May. - Jun _ Jul- - Aug _ sep _ Oct _ Nov Dec Total Space Cool Cool :Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Space Heat 284.06 221.44 151.05 23.14 0.20 0.02 - 0.06 0.02 0.18 92.44 223.84 996.45 • HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - • jPumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,Misc. Equip. _ _ _ _ _ _ Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - `Total - -284.b6 221.44 151.05 '23.14 _ 0.200.02 __ 0.06 _ _0.02 _0_.I8___92.'44'_223._84_ 996.45 • w • eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • • • lProject/Run: Building 1 -Heating Eff EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 11:18 �(x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x0oo,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) 80 300 ! 70 60 40 50 - - - - - - - - - - - 200 3. - ! 40 - 30 100 - - ! 20 10 ! 01 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 4 ❑ Area Lighting Misc. Equipment ll® Pumps &Aux. E3Water Heating 0 Space Heatin{ 4MTask Lighting ® Exterior Usage 13 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ❑ Refrigeration ! Electric Consumption (kWh x000) _ Tan Feb Mar Apr May ]un ]ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Space Cool - - - 0.12 3.49 10.26 20.78 15.56 5.97 0.08 - - 56.25 lHeat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ Refrigeration - - -Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - 4HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hot Water - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ !Vent. Fans 7.88 7.10 7.83 7.49 7.80 7.60 7.80 7.75 7.64 7.80 7.67 7.88 92.24 •Pumps&Aux. 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.02 - - - 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.65 Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ Wisc. Equip. 25.50 22.98 25.39 24.34 25.31 24.61 25.31 25.19 24.73 25.31 24.81 25.50 298.98 ask Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - _ !Area Lights 23.24 20.95 23.15 22.30 23.13 22.42 23.14 23.03 22.51 23.14 22.51 23.24 272.74 �Total 3 56.751.13`56.47 54.34 59.74 64.88__77.03 71.54 - 60.86 56.36 55.08 56.72 720.85 l •Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) W __ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov ec DTotal _ SPace Cool^ Heat Reject. _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ _ _ Refrigeration - - - - - - - _ _ _ !Space Heat 254.26 196.67 130.54 15.77 0.04 0.02 - - 0.03 0.07 75.32 197.65 870.38 HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ •Hot Water - - - - - - !Vent. Fans - - - - - - Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - !Ext. Usage - - - - - - Misc. Equip. - - - - - - ,Task Lights - - - - - - l�Total � 254.26 _196.67 _13054-'}5.77 0.04 �0.02 - -� � 0.03 0.07 75.32--197.-65­ 870 38 ! QUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 ! • • Project/Run: Building 1 - Pkg HVAC Eff EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 11:17 • • • (X000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x0oo,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) I • • 80 300 • 70 60 - • 50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 200 40 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • 30 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 100 - - - • 20 • 10 9 • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • Area Lighting Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water Heating ® Space HeaS Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage ® Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeratigr Electric Consumption (kWh x000) • ���� - lan Feb_ .Mar Apr _ _May Jun_ Jul Aug - ep__ SOct Nov _ Dec Total Space Cool - - - 0.11 3.12 9.18 18.60 13.93 5.34 0.07 - - 50.35 Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - -,Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - • HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vent. Fans 7.88 7.10 7.83 7.49 7.80 7.60 7.80 7.75 7.64 7.80 7.67 7.88 92.24 • Pumps&Aux. 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.02 - - - 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.65 • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - :Misc. Equip. 25.50 22.98 25.39 24.34 25.31 24.61 25.31 25.19 24.73 25.31 24.81 25.50 298.98 • Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Area Lights 23.24 20.95 23.15 22.30 23.13 22.42 23.14 23.03 22.51 23.14 22.51 23.24 272.74 • �tal 56.73 51.13 56.47 54.33 59.38 63.80 74.85 69.90 60.23 56.35 55.08 56.72 714.96 Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) -Jan-Feb-Mar-Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct ec Nov DTotal Space Cool _. ._� __ Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat 270.16 208.96 138.70 16.76 0.05 0.02 - - 0.03 0.08 80.03 210.00 924.78 - HP Supp _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ext. Usage - - - - - - Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - `To611 _ X270.16'-208.96 138.70 16.76' 0.05 0.02 - :----0.03 0.08 a80.03 210.00'924:78 • • • eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 - • • • • •Project/Run: Building 1- Lighting Power EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 11:18 w • *(x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) I (xooD,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) w so 300 70 60 50 200 • 40 , A 30 - - - - - - - - - l00 zo 10 48 ° ° � • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • ® Area Lighting Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water Heating C3 Space Heatin( 4 Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage E3 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. Refrigeration • *Electric Consumption (kWh x000) ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Space Cool - - - 0.11 3.27 9.81 19.90 14.78 5.60 0.07 - - 53.53 ,Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ Refrigeration - - - 40ISpace Heat - - - - - - - - - �HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hot Water - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ ,Vent. Fans 7.73 6.96 7.69 7.35 7.66 7.46 7.66 7.61 7.50 7.66 7.53 7.73 90.54 •-Pumps&Aux. 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.02 - - - 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.65 Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - _ - _ Misc. Equip. 25.50 22.98 25.39 24.34 25.31 24.61 25.31 25.19 24.73 25.31 24.81 25.50 298.98 Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ .Area Lights 18.59 16.76 18.52 17.84 18.50 17.93 18.51 18.43 18.01 18.51 18.00 18.59 218.19 ��.Total 51.93 +46.81 51.70 49.72 54.76 59.81 71.37 66.01 55.84 51.58 50.43 51.93 661.89, aGas Consumption (Btu x000,000) M __ Jan Feb-Ma --Apr-Mayr Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total SPace Cool � - - - - - - - - - _ _ Heat Reject. _ _ - - - - - - - - _ Refrigeration - - - - - - - _ _ Space Heat 292.1 228.9 158.1 28.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 - 0.2 100.6 232.0 1,040.7 HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ •Hot Water - - - - - - - - Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - SExt. Usage - - - - - - - !Misc. Equip. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Task Lights - - - - - - - - �To[al- _ 292.1 _228.9 158.1 28.2 _ 03 0.0 �0.0 f0.1 0.2100.6_232.0_1,040.7j • • QUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • f • • Project/Run: Building 1-Roof Insul EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 11:17 w w • (x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (X000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) 80 300 • 70 60 • 50 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 200 40 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • 30 - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - 100 20 100 ' I- - - - - - - - - 0i -. • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ll Area Lighting E Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water HeatingC3 Space Heat Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage E3 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeratit Electric Consumption (kWh x000) w _�_,�__ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 7ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totai Space Cool - - - 0.12 3.46 10.18 20.70 15.48 5.96 0.08 - - 55.98 Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - w Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - '.Space Heat HP Supp. 'Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vent. Fans 7.88 7.10 7.83 7.49 7.80 7.60 7.80 7.75 7.64 7.80 7.67 7.88 92.24 • Pumps&Aux. 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.02 - - - 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.65 • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - Misc. Equip. 25.50 22.98 25.39 24.34 25.31 24.61 25.31 25.19 24.73 25.31 24.81 25.50 298.98 Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - Area Lights 23.24 20.95 23.15 22.30 23.13 22.42 23.14 23.03 22.51 23.14 22.51 23.24 272.74 Total _ 56.73 _51.13 56.47_54.34 _59.72 64.81 76.94 71.46 60.85 56.36 55.08 56.72 720.59, 40 Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) Jan Feb Mar-Apr-May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total' Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - - iHeat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat 262.02 202.12 133.09 13.78 0.04 0.02 - - 0.03 - 74.09 202.51 887.72 w HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ext. Usage - - - - - - Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - _ __ _ . __13_ - `Totah �' 262.07 202.12 133.09 .78 0.04_ _0.02= 0.- - 0.03 �� � .,�74.09 2N.51 _887.72 • • eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 a w • •Project/Run: Building 1- Slab Insul EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13@11:17 • • •(x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) • • 80 300 70 • 60 • 50. - - - - - - - - - 200 - • 40 - - - - - - - - - - - 30 100 • 20 `ry 10 i - 0 0 • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec. • Area Lighting Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. E3 Water Heating 0 Space Heating • Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage E3 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. 0 Refrigeration • Ghlectric Consumption (kWh x000) OF- - -� ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Space Cool - - 0.13 3.56 10.41 20.89 15.71 6.07 0.08 - - 56.85 •Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - SHP Supp. _ Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Vent. Fans 7.88 7.10 7.83 7.49 7.80 7.60 7.80 7.75 7.64 7.80 7.67 7.88 92.24 •Pumps&Aux. 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.02 - - - 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.65 Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - •Misc. Equip. 25.50 22.98 25.39 24.34 25.31 24.61 25.31 25.19 24.73 25.31 24.81 25.50 298.98 Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Area Lights 23.24 20.95 23.15 22.30 23.13 22.42 23.14 23.03 22.51 23.14 22.51 23.24 272.74 •Total 56.73 51.13 56.47 54.34 59.82 65.04 77.14 71.68 60.96 56.36 55.08- 56.72 721.46' GGas Consumption (Btu x000,000) lan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Space Cool - •Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Space Heat 263.19 201.91 131.07 11.83 - 0.02 - 0.02 - 0.08 75.36 204.18 887.65 HP Supp. - - - - - •Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - Area Lights - - - - - - - _- - - - - - iTotal _�_ ._ ___ _. _._ -_ _ .. _-_.. _ __ __ Notal 263.19 201.91 13107 =11:83���� � 0.02�F+� � 0.02�i---0.08 75.36 204.18 887.65 • • • •eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • • ProjecVRun: Building 1 -Window Glass Type EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 11:18 • • • (xo00) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) I • • so 250 • 70 60 _ _ _ _ 200 "; . • k•., • 50 - - - - - - - - - - 150 40 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • 30 - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ 100 - - _ - • 20 - - - - - 50 04 - _. 0 a ,, • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • LJ Area Lighting N Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water Heating 0 Space HeatO Task Lighting 0 Exterior Usage 0 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeratice • Electric Consumption (kWh x000) • Jan Feb Mar ApiMMayun]uI J -Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total, • Space Cool - - - 0.13 3.68 10.46 20.92 15.91 6.20 0.08 - - 57.39 • Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - -Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vent. Fans 7.73 6.96 7.68 7.34 7.65 7.45 7.65 7.60 7.50 7.65 7.53 7.73 90.47 • ,Pumps&Aux. 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.02 - - - 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.65 • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - iMisc. Equip. 25.50 22.98 25.39 24.34 25.31 24.61 25.31 25.19 24.73 25.31 24.81 25.50 298.98 • Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - Area Lights 23.24 20.95 23.15 22.30 23.13 22.42 23.14 23.03 22.51 23.14 22.51 23.24 272.74 • Total 56.58 50.99 56.32 54.20 59.79 64.94 77.02, 71.74 60.95 56.21 54.93 56.57_720.23 1. , • Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) • Jan Feb Mar Apr May lin Jul_ Aug _ Sep_ Oct _ Nov Dec Total __ • Space Cool _.--.. __,_ __.._ Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat 216.51 161.02 98.54 4.07 - 0.04 - - - - 46.05 161.87 688.09 • HP Supp. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - ,Total ' _ 216.51 161.02' _98.54 - 4.07 - 0.04 _ _� -- _46.05 161.87_68_8.09, • • • eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • • • *Project/Run: Building 1-Cumulative EEM Run Date/Time: 01/15/13 @ 11:05 I • ------------------------------ • •(x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) • • 70 250 • 60 _ _ 200 - 50 • 40 150 • 30 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 100 20 50 • 10 • 0 .__. 0 • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • ® Area Lighting E Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water Heating ® Space Heatin( • Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage C3 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeration • ftlectric Consumption (kWh x000) •a Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun ]ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec_ Total Space Cool - - - 0.11 2.97 8.66 17.46 13.03 5.08 0.07 - -- 47.37 •Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - •Refrigeration Space Heat •HP Supp. Hot Water - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ Vent. Fans 7.49 6.75 7.45 7.12 7.42 7.22 7.42 7.37 7.27 7.42 7.30 7.49 87.71 .Pumps&Aux. 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.02 - - - 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.10 0.65 Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - _ _ _ •Misc. Equip. 22.95 20.69 22.85 21.90 22.78 22.15 22.78 22.67 22.26 22.78 22.33 22.95 269.08 Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ •Area Lights 18.59 16.76 18.52 17.84 18.50 17.93 18.51 18.43 18.01 18.51 18.00 18.59 218.19 =Total 49.14 44.29 48.92 47.06 51.69 55.97 66.16. 61.50 52.62 48.80 .47.72 49.14 623.01 •Cas Consumption (Btu x000,000) Tan Feb Mar Apr May ]un Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Space Cool _ _ _ _ _ _ --"_e _ _7-�___- _ •Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - •space Heat 219.99 167.35 107.84 7.75 - 0.14 - 0.09 0.02 - 60.46 170.80 734.44 HP Supp. - - - - - •Hot Water - - - - •Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pumps&Aux. - - - - •Ext. Usage - - - - Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - •Task Lights - - - - Area Lights - _ , - - -107.84­-7.75-- - - p7otaly ��219.99167.35 "�0.14�- � 0.09 0.02'���60.46�170.8Q 734.441 • • •eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • • Project/Run: Building 2- Baseline Design Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:29 • • • (X000) Electric Consumption (kWh) I (x0o0,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) I • • 50 200 • 40 • lso - 30 100 • 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - • 50 • 10 - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • TP00000 0 0 - Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • ® Area Lighting E Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water Heating 0 Space Heat Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage 0 Ventilation Fans E Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeratice • Electric Consumption (kWh x000) • -�ug � • Flan Feb Mar Apr May ]un ]ul Aug Sep Oct Nov-Dec Total Space Cool - - 0.01 0.16 2.44 6.27 11.67 9.02 3.91 0.24 - - 33.73 • S Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - • `Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - :.HP Supp _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - 'Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vent. Fans 5.80 5.22 5.76 5.51 5.74 5.59 5.74 5.71 5.63 5.74 5.65 5.80 67.90 • 'Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - iMisc. Equip. 23.78 21.43 23.67 22.69 23.59 22.94 23.59 23.49 23.05 23.59 23.13 23.78 278.73 • Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Area Lights 6.02 5.42 5.99 5.77 5.99 5.80 5.99 5.96 5.83 5.99 5.83 6.02 70.60 • �7ota1 36.14 32.58 35.96 34.56 37.86 40.61 46.99_ 44.17 38.44 35.74 35.06 36.11 454.21! • Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) • len - Feb ` Mar Apr May Jun ]ulAug Sep Oct Nov_Dec Total • Space Cool . '.Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat 127.4 95.7 63.9 8.8 0.1 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.2 33.1 94.7 423.8 • HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • 'Hot Water 57.2 53.8 59.4 55.4 51.6 44.8 41.7 39.1 38.3 42.4 45.9 52.6 582.3 Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - • IPumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - • !Mist. Equip. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Area Lights - - - - - - Total - - 184.6-= 149.6--123.2 64.3 51744.8 - -41.7-39.1-38.3- -- '- j • _ _ 42 5 _ _79.0 147.3 .1,006.1 • • • eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • • •Project/Run: Building 2-Cool Roof EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:29 • • •(x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) iX000,000j Gas Consumption (Btu) • • so zoo - • 40 Iso r M �4r- r'ef 30 100 20 -_ • • - - - - - - - - - EM • 10 - 50 i • I + • 0 - 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • • ® Area Lighting Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water Heating 0 Space Heating • Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage ® Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. C Refrigeration • Wlectric Consumption (kWh x000) i-Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep O'cI Nov Dec Total Space Cool - - 0.01 0.16 2.44 6.27 11.66 9.01 3.91 0.24 - - 33.71 •Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration •Space Heat - - - - - - - •HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - _ event. Fans 5.80 5.22 5.76 5.51 5.74 5.59 5.74 5.71 5.63 5.74 5.65 5.80 67.90 Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 •Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - _ •Misc. Equip. 23.78 21.43 23.67 22.69 23.59 22.94 23.59 23.49 23.05 23.59 23.13 23.78 278.73 Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Area Lights_ 6.02 5.42 5.99 5.77 5.99 5.80 5.99 5.96 5.83 5.99 5.83 6.02 70.60 =Total 36.14 32.58 J35.96 34.56 37.85 40.60 46.99 44.16 38.43 35.74 35.06 36.11 454.18 Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) M Jan Feb Mar Apr -May Tun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total SPace Cool •Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ •Space Heat 127.4 95.8 63.9 8.9 0.1 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.2 33.1 94.7 424.1 HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ •Hot Water 57.2 53.8 59.4 55.4 51.6 44.8 41.7 39.1 38.3 42.4 45.9 52.6 582.3 •Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ •Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - Area Lights � - - - - - - - - - - - ___.._ _- - ._- - - -64. - ----- - -__ tTotal _ _ 184.77 149.6 1233.33 3 51.7 44.8 41.7T�3-9.1 - 38.3 ' 42.S�u 79.1 =147.3 1 006.4 • • • QUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • • Project/Run: Building 2- Equipment Power EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:30 • • • (x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) I • • so zoa • 40 - • lso - 30 _ �' • 100 $ • 20 - - - - - - - - - - - - • 10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 50 - - • P • D J D Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec = ® Area Lighting Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. ❑ Water Heating ❑ Space HeaS Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage EI Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeratiqo • Electric Consumption (kWh x000) • ---- Jan Feb Mar Apr May ]un Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total • _. _. - - - _ _ _ _ -1-1.26 _.. . . -. - -Space Cool - - 0.01 0.15 2.35 6.05 11.26 8.69 3.73 0.22 - - 32.46 Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - • HP Supp. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vent. Fans 5.73 5.16 5.69 5.44 5.67 5.52 5.67 5.63 5.55 5.67 5.58 5.73 67.04 • Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - Misc. Equip. 21.40 19.28 21.30 20.42 21.23 20.65 21.23 21.14 20.75 21.23 20.81 21.40 250.85 • Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - Area Lights 6.02 5.42 5.99 5.77 5.99 5.80 5.99 5.96 5.83 5.99 5.83 6.02 70.60 • Total 33.69 30.37 33.52 32.21 35.33 38.02 44.15 41.42 35.88 33.29 32.67 33.66 424.20 • Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Ott Nov Det Total Space Cool ..,_- Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat 138.3 105.6 73.8 14.0 0.3 - - 0.0 0.0 0.5 41.3 104.8 478.6 • HP Supp _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 'Hot Water 57.2 53.8 59.4 55.4 51.6 44.8 41.7 39.1 38.3 42.4 45.9 52.6 582.3 • Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Misc. Equip. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - _ `Total 195.5 '159.4 133.1 69.4 51.9 44.8 41.7 3- 1 38.3 42.8 87.2 157.5 1,060.8 • • • eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • • • -Project/Run: Building 2- Ext Wall Insul EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:29 • •(x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) • 50 200 • • 40 150 3077• • 100 �4 • 20 y • 10 50 • • 0 ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • • rl Area Lighting N Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 13 Water Heating 0 Space Heating • Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. r-I Refrigeration •Electric consumption (kWh x000) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Space 90 3.92 0 Cool - - 0 Ol 0.17 2.44 6.25 11.63 .0 .25 - - 33.67 •Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ Refrigeration - - - - - - - •Space Heat •HP Supp Hot Water - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ •Vent. Fans 5.75 5.18 5.72 5.47 5.69 5.55 5.69 5.66 5.58 5.69 5.60 5.75 67.33 Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 •Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ 4DMisc. Equip. 23.78 21.43 23.67 22.69 23.59 22.94 23.59 23.49 23.05 23.59 23.13 23.78 278.73 Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ •Area Lights 6.02 5.42 5.99 5.77 5.99 5.80 5.99 5.96 5.83 5.99 5.83 6.02 70.60 Total 36.09 32.53 35.91 34.53 37.80 ' 40.54 46.91 44.10 38.40 35.70 35.01 36.06 453.58 •�- •Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Tota Space Cool �_ •Heat Reject. Refrigeration - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ •Space Heat 120.05 89.22 58.37 6.43 0.05 0.00 - - 0.01 0.08 28.65 88.18 391.05 HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ •Hot Water 57.23 53.81 59.36 55.44 51.59 44.83 41.67 39.14 38.31 42.36 45.92 52.63 582.28 •Vent. Fans Pumps &Aux. - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ •Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ •Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ �Total�' 177.28'143.03 117.73 61.87 51.64 44.84 41.67 39.14 38.32 42.44 74:0­140.81 973.33 • • • •eQU EST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • • Project/Run: Building 2- Higher Cooling Efficiency Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:29 • • • (xooO) Electric Consumption (kWh) (xoo0,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) I • so 200 - • • 40 • Iso - 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 100 • 20 - - - - - - - - - - - • 10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 50 _ _ _ _ • 0 r - - o _U0 _ _ • ]an Feb Mar Apr May ]un Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ]an Feb Mar Apr May ]un Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • ® Area Lighting Misc. Equipment E Pumps &Aux. E3 Water Heating ® Space HeaS Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage 0 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeratis • Electric Consumption (kWh x000) • Jan _ _Fe_b _ M_ a_r _ A_pr May Jun J61_ Aug Sep_ O_ct-_ Nov_ D_e_c _Total Space Cool w - �- 0.01 0.14 2.19 5.61 10.45 8.07 3.50 0.22 - 30.19 • Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - • HP Supp _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vent. Fans 5.80 5.22 5.76 5.51 5.74 5.59 5.74 5.71 5.63 5.74 5.65 5.80 67.90 • 'Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - IMisc. Equip. 23.78 21.43 23.67 22.69 23.59 22.94 23.59 23.49 23.05 23.59 23.13 23.78 278.73 • Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - Area Lights 6.02 5.42 5.99 5.77 5.99 5.80 5.99 5.96 5.83 5.99 5.83 6.02 70.60 - �Total 36.14 ' 32.5835.95 34.55 37.60_ 39.95_ 45.77 43.22 38.03 35.72 35.06 36.11 450.6! Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul AugSep Oct Nov Det Total3 Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - - Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Space Heat 127.4 95.7 63.9 8.8 0.1 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.2 33.1 94.7 423.8 • HP Supp. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hot Water 57.2 53.8 59.4 55.4 51.6 44.8 41.7 39.1 38.3 42.4 45.9 52.6 582.3 • Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Misc. Equip. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - LTot'al - '-� 184.6!149.6 123.2'"64.351 7- -44.8 Y41.7�39.1�-'-38.3--4--2'.-5 '79.0147.3_1,006.Sj • • • eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 , • • • • •ProjecVRun: Building 2-Higher Heating Efficiency Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:29 • • •(x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (xoo0,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) 50 200 • 40 lso 30 - - - • 100 20 - - - - - - - - - - - • 10 - - - - - - - - - - - 50 - - - - - - I-� J 1I D Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • ® Area Lighting E Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 13 Water Heating ® Space Heatiru • Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage 0 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeration • .Electric Consumption (kWh x000) Jan Feb Mar Apr May ]un lul - Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Space Cool - - 0.01 0.16 2.44 6.27 11.67 9.02 3.91 0.24 - - 33.73 •Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ Refrigeration - - eSpace Heat - - - - - - - - - •HP Supp. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ Vent. Fans 5.80 5.22 5.76 5.51 5.74 5.59 5.74 5.71 5.63 5.74 5.65 5.80 67.90 Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 •Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Misc. Equip. 23.78 21.43 23.67 22.69 23.59 22.94 23.59 23.49 23.05 23.59 23.13 23.78 278.73 Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Area Lights 6.02 5.42 5.99 5.77 5.99 5.80 5.99 5.96 5.83 5.99 5.83 6.02 70.60 .Total 36.14 32.58 35.96 34.56 37.86 40.61 46.99 44.17 38.44 35.74 35.06 36.11 454.211 • •Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) �_ __ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun-Jul Aug Sep _Oct _ Nov Dec Total Space Cool Heat Reject. - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ •Space Heat 119.88 90.11 60.10 8.30 0.09 0.00 - 0.00 0.01 0.18 31.16 89.09 398.91 HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ Hot Water 57.23 53.81 59.36 55.44 51.59 44.83 41.67 39.14 38.31 42.36 45.92 52.63 582.28 vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - _ Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - •Ext. Usage - - - - - - Misc. Equip. - - - - - - ,Task Lights - - - - - -yT4--38.32- _otal 177.11 143.92 119 4663.74 51.68' 44.84-�41.67 42.54 �77.0814-1.-7-1­98-1:19 , • • •eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • 40 • • Project/Run: Building 2 -Lighting Power EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:29 • is • (X000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (X000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) • • so zoo - • 40 - - 150 - - - - _- 30 loo s: • 20 • so fl000nor 10 • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • ® Area Lighting 0 Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water Heating [3 Space Hea* Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage D Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigerati(o • Electric Consumption (kWh x000) • Jan Feb Mar Apr_ May.Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Space Cool - - 0.01 0.16 2.41 6.19 11.52 8.90 3.85 0.24 - - 33.28 !Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - .Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - • HP Supp. _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vent. Fans 5.78 5.20 5.74 5.49 5.72 5.57 5.72 5.69 5.61 5.72 5.63 5.78 67.65 • Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - Misc. Equip. 23.78 21.43 23.67 22.69 23.59 22.94 23.59 23.49 23.05 23.59 23.13 23.78 278.73 Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - .Area Lights 5.16 4.65 5.14 4.94 5.13 4.97 5.13 5.11 5.00 5.13 5.00 5.16 60.52 . Total 35.26 31.78 35.08 _ 33.71 36.95 _39.68 _ 45.97 43.18 _ 37.52 34.86 34.20 35.23 443.42' - Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) - ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total- • Space Cool _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ �.._�- Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat 131.3 99.2 67.5 10.5 0.2 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.2 35.9 98.2 443.0 • HP Supp _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .Hot Water 57.2 53.8 59.4 55.4 51.6 44.8 41.7 39.1 38.3 42.4 45.9 52.6 582.3 • Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - 188.5"153.0 126.8- 65.9�517�44.8 41.7 39.1�38.3'- --426* M81.8-' 150.8_1,0253, • • • eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • w WIIjeet/Run: Building 2- Roof insul EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:29 40(x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) so zoo ' 40 150 yz- 30 100 t 20 SO Ono 10 • D D Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ® Area Lighting Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water Heating E3 Space Heatin( Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage E3 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. CI Refrigeration • Wectric Consumption (kWh x000) • Jan Feb Mar Apr May_-` Jun 'Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total _._ __-..-2. _ _ 2 _ Space Cool - - 0.01 0.16 2.44 6.27 11.67 9.02 3.91 0.24 - - 33.72 *Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - 40Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - *HP Supp. Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40 Vent. Fans 5.80 5.22 5.76 5.51 5.74 5.59 5.74 5.71 5.63 5.74 5.65 5.80 67.90 •Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - _ - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 Ext. Usage - Misc. Equip. 23.78 21.43 23.67 22.69 23.59 22.94 23.59 23.49 23.05 23.59 23.13 23.78 278.73 Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.Area Lights 6.02 5.42 5.99 5.77 _ 5.99 5.80 5.99 5.96 5.83 5.99 5.83 6.02 70.60 •IT6tal 36.14 32.58 35.96 34.56 37.86 40.61 46.99 44.17 38.43 35.74 35.06_36.11 454:20 �as Consumption (Btu x000,000) __ Jan Feb Mir-Apr-Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Space Co_ol � - - - - - - - - -Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - IS Space Heat 127.4 95.7 63.9 8.8 0.1 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.2 33.1 94.6 423.8 HP Supp. - •Hot Water 57.2 53.8 59.4 55.4 51.6 44.8 41.7 39.1 38.3 42.4 45.9 52.6 582.3 Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - - �Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - Area Lights _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -.7 - ___ `Total184.6 149.5 1232 64.3'-��51.7- 44.8'-��4139.1"' 6.3 42.5--79 .0-147.3-9 1,006ai • • •eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • Project/Run: Building 2- Slab Insul EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:30 • to (x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) w 50 200 40 • 150 30 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 100 20 _ _ 10 _ _ _ _ _ 50 0 r 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ® Area Lighting E Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. E3 Water Heating E3 Space Heat Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage 0 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. CJ Refrigeraticw Electric Consumption (kWh x000) Jan Feb Mar Apr May_ lun Jul Aug - Sep Oct Nov Dec Total - Space Cool - - 0.01 0.17 2.48 6.34 11.75 9.08 3.96 0.25 - - 34.03 Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - HP Supp. ,Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vent. Fans 5.81 5.23 5.78 5.52 5.75 5.60 5.75 5.72 5.64 5.75 5.66 5.81 68.02 Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 . Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Misc. Equip. 23.78 21.43 23.67 22.69 23.59 22.94 23.59 23.49 23.05 23.59 23.13 23.78 278.73 , Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - Area Lights 6.02 5.42 5.99 5.77 5.99 5.80 5.99 5.96 5.83 5.99 5.83 6.02 70.60 Total__ 36.15_ 32.59 _ 35.97 34.58 37.90 40.69 47.09 _ 44.24_ _36.49_ 35.76 35.07 _ 36.12 454.63 Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) i Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun -Jul-Aug-Sep-Oct-Nov-Dec Total a .��. _ .__ ._._ Space Cool _ _ .Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat 124.62 92.91 61.04 7.11 0.05 - - 0.00 0.02 0.13 31.55 92.52 409.96 4& HP Supp _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hot Water 57.23 53.81 59.36 55.44 51.59 44.83 41.67 39.14 38.31 42.36 45.92 52.63 582.28 Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - Misc. Equip. _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - . [Total-- 181.85 146.72 120.39 62.54 -51.64-44.83-41.67 39.14 38.33 342.49--77.47`14515 992.23, eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 - • • •Project/Run: Building 2-Window Glass Type EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:30 • • •(x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x0oo,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) • 50 160 - • 140 :,!r • 40 120 w - • 30 100 • 80 • 20 - - - - - - - - - - - 6010 • 40 - - - - _-- - - • 20 - - - - - - - - - - - • 0 0 ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • • ® Area Lighting E Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water Heating C3 Space Heatini • Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage 13 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeration • SElectric Consumption (kWh x000) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun ]'ul Aug 3.Sep_ Oct Nov Dec Total Space Cool - 0.01 0.19 2.45 6.22 11.57 8.97 96 0.26 - - 33.63 •Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - •HP Supp - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - event. Fans 5.61 5.05 5.58 5.33 5.55 5.41 5.55 5.52 5.44 5.55 5.46 5.61 65.67 Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 •Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Misc. Equip. 23.78 21.43 23.67 22.69 23.59 22.94 23.59 23.49 23.05 23.59 23.13 23.78 278.73 Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Area Lights 6.02 5.42 5.99 5.77 5.99 5.80 5.99 5.96 5.83 5.99 5.83 6.02 70.60 :Total 35.95 32.41 35.77 34.41 37.68 40.38 46.70 43.93 38.30 35.57 a 34.87 35.92 451.89 �as umption (Btu x000,000) h - _ Jan Feb Mar _ Apr May-Jun-Jul-Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total •Space Cool •Heat Reject. _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - •Space Heat 98.77 71.64 42.95 2.59 0.03 - - - 0.00 0.02 18.49 70.59 305.08 •HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hot Water 57.23 53.81 59.36 55.44 51.59 44.83 41.67 39.14 38.31 42.36 45.92 52.63 582.28 Vent. Fans - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - •Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - Total 156 00 125 45 102 30 58 03 -51'62l4483 4167 3139 14 -38.31--42.38-64.-41 ­123.21 887 3fi • • • &QUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • 49 • • Project/Run: Building 2- Cumulative EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:30 • • • (xooO) Electric Consumption (kWh) (X000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) I • • so zoo - 40 - -30 • 150 • 100 • 20 - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • 50 • • ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ® Area Lighting Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water Heating ® Space Heat Task Lighting Exterior Usage 0 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ® RefrigeraticM • Electric Consumption (kWh x000) • -:-��- � ]an Feb Mar Apr _ .May Jun Jul .7Aug 4 _Sep Oct Nov Dec To[alI • Space Cool - - 0.01 0.16 2.12 5.38 9.97 71 3.37 0.22 - - 28.94 ,Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - • HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vent. Fans 5.57 5.02 5.54 5.29 5.51 5.37 5.51 5.48 5.40 5.51 5.43 5.57 65.20 • Pumps &Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - Misc. Equip. 21.46 19.34 21.36 20.48 21.30 20.71 21.30 21.20 20.81 21.30 20.88 21.46 251.62 • Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - Area Lights 5.16 4.65 5.14 4.94 5.13 4.97 5.13 5.11 5.00 5.13 5.00 5.16 60.52 • Total 32.74 29.51 32.57 _31.31 -34.16 _ 36.44 41.92 _ 39.50 34.59 32.34_ 31.75- 32.71 409.53 • Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) • LJan -Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct-Nov _ -Dec Total Space Cool - - - - - - - - - - - - - Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - • ,Space Heat 103.52 76.13 49.52 4.36 0.04 0.00 - - 0.01 0.02 23.58 76.02 333.22 - HP Supp _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hot Water 57.23 53.81 59.36 55.44 51.59 44.83 41.67 39.14 38.31 42.36 45.92 52.63 582.28 • Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Misc. Equip. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Area lights - - - - - - - - - - __ _.. . 1.. - .-._ Total- 160.75129.94,108.88 J59 �9�5.1.63`44.84 41.67- 39.14,38.32 42.38--69.501128.65_915.49 • • • eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • 0 • • Wroject/Run: Building 3- Baseline Design Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:52 • • •(x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x0o0,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) • 40 140 • • 120 30 100 z - og - - - - - 80 20 • 60 4 • 10 40 • 20 • 0 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • • it Area Lighting E Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 13 Water Heating io Space Heating . Task Lighting iI Exterior Usage io Ventilation Fans 0 Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeration • .Electric Consumption (kWh x000) _ Jan Febv Mar Apr _ May Jun Jul Aug Sep_ _Oct Nov Dec Total •Space Cool - - 0.00 0.11 1.59 4.21 7.94 6.15 2.71 0.18 - - -H-8 9 •Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ •Refrigeration - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Space Heat _ _ _ _ •HP Supp - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Hot Water - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ •Vent. Fans 3.95 3.56 3.92 3.75 3.91 3.81 3.91 3.89 3.83 3.91 3.85 3.95 46.22 Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 •Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ •Misc. Equip. 16.56 14.93 16.49 15.81 16.44 15.98 16.44 16.36 16.06 16.44 16.11 16.56 194.18 Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ •Area Lights 4.19 3.78 4.17 4.02 4.17 4.04 4.17 4.15 4.06 4.17 4.06 4.19 49.18 •Total 25.25 22.76 25.11 24.12 26.20 28.04 32.45 -30.55 26.67 24.88 24.47 25.22 315.72 •Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) Ill---- --3anFeb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Space Cool _ Heat Reject. •Refrigeration - - - - - - - - •Space Heat 90.50 69.05 48.26 8.47 0.13 - 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.09 24.87 67.50 308.89 HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ •Hot Water 39.87 37.48 41.35 38.62 35.94 31.23 29.02 27.26 26.69 29.51 31.99 36.66 405.61 •Vent. Fans Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ •Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ •Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ kTotal - _ 130.37_ 106.54 89.60 47.08 36.07 "3L23 29 03' 27.26 26.70 29.60 56.86-IM.-115- 714.5q • • • •eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • • Project/Run: Building 3-Cool Roof EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:52 • • • (x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) I • ao- 140 • • 120 • 30 - 100 - • 80 • 60 • 10 - _ _ _ _ 40 _ _ _ _ _ • 20 - - - • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • ® Area Lighting Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water Heating 13 Space Heat♦ E Task Lighting Exterior Usage [3 Ventilation Fans 0 Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeratice • Electric Consumption (kWh x000) • ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep-Oct-Nov Dec Total • a_ - 'Space Cool - - 0.00o 0.11 1.59 4.20 7.93 6.15 2.71 0.18 - - 22.88 Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - • HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vent. Fans 3.95 3.56 3.92 3.75 3.91 3.81 3.91 3.89 3.83 3.91 3.85 3.95 46.22 • Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - Misc. Equip. 16.56 14.93 16.49 15.81 16.44 15.98 16.44 16.36 16.06 16.44 16.11 16.56 194.18 • Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - Area Lights 4.19 3.78 4.17 4.02 4.17 4.04 4.17 4.15 4.06 4.17 4.06 4.19 49.18 • Total 25.25 22.76 25.11 24.12 26.20 28.04 32.45 30.54 26.67 24.88 24.47 25.22 315.711 • Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SeD Oct Nov'Dec Total • Space Cool _ - �_.- Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat 90.51 69.08 48.31 8.50 0.14 - 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.09 24.89 67.53 309.06 • HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . Hot Water 39.87 37.48 41.35 38.62 35.94 31.23 29.02 27.26 26.69 29.51 31.99 36.66 405.61 Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - • LTOtal '__'_130.38-166.57 89.65 47.12 36.07 31.23 29.03' 27.26 26 69 29.60 56.88�104.18� 714.6fi • • eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • • • •Project/Run: Budding 3- Equipment Power EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:53 • • •(x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) • 40 140 • a • 120 30 100T • w�l • - - - - - - - - 80 20 4 • 60 r€ • 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - 40 - • 20 ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • • Area Lighting E Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water Heating C3 Space Heatin( • Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage [3 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeration • •Electric Consumption (kWh x000) Jan Feb Mar ,Apr -May ]un ]ul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Space Cool - - 0.00 0.10 1.53 4.05 7.65 5.92 2.59 0.17 - - 22.01 •Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - •Space Heat - - •HP Supp. - _ Hot Water - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ •Vent. Fans 3.90 3.51 3.87 3.70 3.86 3.76 3.86 3.84 3.78 3.86 3.80 3.90 45.64 Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 •Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ -Misc. Equip. 14.91 13.43 14.84 14.23 14.79 14.39 14.79 14.73 14.45 14.79 14.50 14.91 174.76 Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ •Area Lights 4.19 3.78 4.17 4.02 4.17 4.04 4.17 4.15 4.06 4.17 4.06 4.19 49.18 N 3 atal 23.54 21.23 23.41 22.48 24.44 26.24 30.47 28.63 24.90 23.17 22.81 _23.51 294.8 • •Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) Jan Feb Mar-Apr-May Jun Jul Aug Sep OCE Nov Dec Total Space Cool •Heat Reject. Refrigeration •Space Heat 97.89 75.71 55.20 12.31 0.30 0.00 - 0.00 - 0.57 30.38 74.32 346.69 HP Supp _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ •Hot Water 39.87 37.48 41.35 38.62 35.94 31.23 29.02 27.26 26.69 29.51 31.99 36.66 405.61 •Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ •Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ _ •Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - 4To[al 137.76'-.113.19 96 55 _ 50.93 36.24 31.24 29.02 626.69 30.07 62.377110.98-752.3 • • • •eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • Project/Run: Building 3- Ext Wall Insul EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 Co) 10:53 • • • (x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (XOOO,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) I • • 40 140 • 120 • 30 100 _ - • 2080 • 60 • 10120 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 40 - - - - - • •- Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • • 0 Area Lighting E Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water Heating E3 Space Heal!0 E Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage 0 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeratiro • Electric Consumption (kWh x000) • -�:� Jan Feb Mar Apr May ]un Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total • Space Cool - - 0.00 0.11 1.59 4.20 7.92 6.14 2.72 0.19 - - 22.88 'Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - 'Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - • AHP Su PP. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • i Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vent. Fans 3.92 3.53 3.90 3.72 3.88 3.78 3.88 3.86 3.80 3.88 3.82 3.92 45.89 • I Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - ]Misc. Equip. 16.56 14.93 16.49 15.81 16.44 15.98 16.44 16.36 16.06 16.44 16.11 16.56 194.18 • Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - fArea Lights 4.19 3.78 4.17 4.02 4.17 4.04 4.17 4.15 4.06 4.17 4.06 4.19 49.18 • kTotal _ 25.22 _22.74 _ 25.08 24.09 26.17 _28.00 .32.41 30.51 26.66 _24.85 _24.44 25.19 _315.37, • Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) • ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug-. Sep Oct Nov Dec_ Total _�. Space Cool _ ,Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - • ;Space Heat 84.74 64.06 43.89 6.56 0.09 - - 0.00 0.01 0.02 21.59 62.54 283.49 • HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ iHot Water 39.87 37.48 41.35 38.62 35.94 31.23 29.02 27.26 26.69 29.51 31.99 36.66 405.61 • Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - • ,Misc. Equip. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ -._. _ - _ - ' _ - - . _ - - - .- Total _ 124.61' 101.5585.24 -4517 _ 36.02 _31.23 29.02 27.27 26.70 29.5353.58 99.19 689.10, • • eQU EST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • • • •Project/Run: Building 3- Higher Cooling Efficiency Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:53 • • •(x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (X000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) • • 40 - -- 140 • 120 5: 30 - 100 80 20 • 60 - 4 iM1 • 10. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 40 • 20 - - - - - - - - • 0 0 • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • ® Area Lighting E Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. C3 Water Heating ® Space Heatirn • Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage 13 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeration • •Electric Consumption (kWh x000) Jan Feb-Mar-AF-May_ _ n_ _ JuJul _ Aug Se_p _ O_ct_ Nov Space Cool _ - - 0.00 0.10 1.42 3.76 7.10 5.51 _ 2.43 0.16 v 20.49 •Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ •Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ Space Heat - - - - - •HP Supp _ _ _ _ _ Hot Water - - - - - - - - - _ _ •Vent. Fans 3.95 3.56 3.92 3.75 3.91 3.81 3.91 3.89 3.83 3.91 3.85 3.95 46.22 •Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ • Misc. Equip. 16.56 14.93 16.49 15.81 16.44 15.98 16.44 16.36 16.06 16.44 16.11 16.56 194.18 Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - _ •.Area Lights 4.19 3.78 4.17 4.02 4.17 4.04 4.17 4.15 4.06 4.17 4.06 4.19 49.18 •hTotal _ 25.25 22.76 25.11 _24.11 26.03 27.60 31.62 29.90 26.39 24.86 24.47 25.22 313.32 •Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug sep Oct Nov Dec Total •Space Cool • Heat Reject. Refrigeration • Space Heat 90.50 69.05 48.26 8.47 0.13 - 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.09 24.87 67.50 308.89 HP Supp. • Hot Water 39.87 37.48 41.35 38.62 35.94 31.23 29.02 27.26 26.69 29.51 31.99 36.66 405.61 • Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - • Task Lights - - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ .Area Lights - - - - - - - - - _ _ - - -31.23-29.63 -'27.26- _ . _29,60--5"15-104.'16--7-14.5d _ Total _ _ 1303T-106.54--89.6-0- 47.08' 36.07 31.23 _ 29.03-�27.26 26.70 '29.60 56.86 104.16_f714 50 • • • •eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • Project/Run: Building 3-Higher Heating Efficiency Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:52 • • • (X000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) I • • ao 14o • 120 • 30 - 100 - _ - • 80. _ • 60 - • 10 _ _ 40 _ _ _ _ • 20 PRO- Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • ® Area Lighting E Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. [3 Water Heating ® Space Heat E Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage 0 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. 0 Refrigeratice • Electric Consumption (kWh x000) • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total • Space Cool - - 0.00 0.11 1.59 4.21 7.94 6.15 2.71 0.18 - - 22.89 Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - • HP Supp. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vent. Fans 3.95 3.56 3.92 3.75 3.91 3.81 3.91 3.89 3.83 3.91 3.85 3.95 46.22 • Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - Misc. Equip. 16.56 14.93 16.49 15.81 16.44 15.98 16.44 16.36 16.06 16.44 16.11 16.56 194.18 • Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - Area Lights 4.19 3.78 4.17 4.02 4.17 4.04 4.17 4.15 4.06 4.17 4.06 4.19 49.18 • Total 25.25 22.76 _ 25.11 _24.12 26.20 28.04 32.45 30.55 26.67 24.88 24.47 25.22 315.72 L • Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun iu-1-Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total • Space Cool Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat 85.18 64.99 45.42 7.97 0.13 - 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.09 23.41 63.53 290.72 • HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • Hot Water 39.87 37.48 41.35 38.62 35.94 31.23 29.02 27.26 26.69 29.51 31.99 36.66 405.61 Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Misc. Equip. _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Area Lights - - - - - - _ - _ - - - - __ - • _ . _ _ . . _ _.. _ . _. _ �Total� v '125.05�102.48�86.77 46.59 36.06' 31.23- 29.03 27.26 26.70 29.59 55.40 - 100.19 696.33. • • eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • -Project/Run: Building 3-Lighting Power EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:53 I �(X000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x0o0,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) • ao lao • 120 30 - 100 • - - - - - - - BO fr 20 - - • 60 - - g 10 _ _ _ _ _ _ 40 20 0 1 0 - Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ® Area Lighting E Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. ❑ Water Heating 0 Space Heating • Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage ❑ Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeration .Electric Consumption (kWh x000) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Totat Space Cool - - 0.00 0.11 1.57 4.15 7.83 6.07 2.66 0.18 - - 22.58 -Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ Refrigeration -.Space Heat - - - - - - - - - _ •HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 'Hot Water - - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ .Vent. Fans 3.93 3.54 3.91 3.74 3.89 3.79 3.89 3.87 3.82 3.89 3.83 3.93 46.04 -Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ • Misc. Equip. 16.56 14.93 16.49 15.81 16.44 15.98 16.44 16.36 16.06 16.44 16.11 16.56 194.18 Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ •Area Lights 3.59 3.24 3.58 3.44 3.57 3.46 3.57 3.56 3.48 3.57 3.48 3.59 42.15 -Total 24.63 22.21 24.50 23.53 25.57 27.39 31.74 29.86 26.03 24.26 23.87 24.60 308.20 *Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) _ JanFeb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total . Space Cool ` - _ ---- _ . Heat Reject. Refrigeration - Space Heat 93.20 71.46 50.77 9.71 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.19 26.69 69.90 322.13 HP Supp _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -,Hot Water 39.87 37.48 41.35 38.62 35.94 31.23 29.02 27.26 26.69 29.51 31.99 36.66 405.61 • Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ - Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - • Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ Area Lights - - - - _- - _. _. -_ - . LTotel�-�"133.06- 108.95.i 92.12 '48.32'36.13 31.23 =29.03_ 27.26_"26.69�29.70'-58.68 106.56 727.74 •eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • Project/Run: Building 3-Roof Insul EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 Co) 10:53 • • • (Xo0o) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) • • 40 140 • 120 • 30 100 .3 _ ''20 • 80 • 60 • 10 - - - - - _ 40 _ _ _ _ _ • d 0 - 0 ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec C Area Lighting E Misc. Equipment E Pumps &Aux. E3 Water Heating m Space Heat E Task Lighting 0 Exterior Usage [3 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeratim • Electric Consumption (kWh xOOO) • Jan Feb Mar Apr May-Juin-Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total 1 Space Cool - - 0.00 0.11 1.59 4.20 7.94 6.15 2.71 0.18 - - 22.88 Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - • rSpace Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - �HP Supp _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vent. Fans 3.95 3.56 3.92 3.75 3.91 3.81 3.91 3.89 3.83 3.91 3.85 3.95 46.22 • Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - iMisc. Equip. 16.56 14.93 16.49 15.81 16.44 15.98 16.44 16.36 16.06 16.44 16.11 16.56 194.18 • Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - hArea Lights 4.19 3.78 4.17 4.02 4.17 4.04 4.17 4.15 4.06 4.17 4.06 4.19 49.18 • Total 25.25 22.76 - 25.11 24.12- _26.20 28.04 32.45 30.55 _ 26.67 24.88 24.47 25.22 315.711 • Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) • Tan Feb Mar pr AMay�Jun _Jul Aug_ - Sep _ Oct _ Nov_ Dec _Total Space Cool _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat 90.48 69.05 48.26 8.48 0.14 - 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.09 24.87 67.49 308.87 • HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • Hot Water 39.87 37.48 41.35 38.62 35.94 31.23 29.02 27.26 26.69 29.51 31.99 36.66 405.61 Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - • !Misc. Equip. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Area Lights - - - - - - - _ _ - • [Total �� 130.35 106.54 � 89.61- 47.69--36.07 31.23-29.03-.-2T26 26.69 29.60= 56.86 104.15�' 714.48 • • • eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • • • 4wroject/Run: Building 3-Slab Insul EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:53 • •. •(x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) I (x000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) • • 40 140 120 30 100 • �s • 80 20 _ _ _ _ _ • 60 n • 10 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 40 - - - - 20 Mao • 0 • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec • M Area Lighting N Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water Heating 0 Space Heatinc E Task Lighting ll Exterior Usage 13 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeration • •Electric Consumption (kWh x000) • e _ _ Jan Feb __ Mar, _ Apr _ _May Jun_^ Jul Aug _ Sep Oct - Nov Dec Tota Space Cool - --- -- r 00 0.11 1.62 4.25 8.00 6.20 2.74 0.19 - - 23.12 •Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ •Refrigeration - - - - - - - Space Heat •HP Supp. Hot Water - - - - - - _ _ •Vent. Fans 3.96 3.56 3.93 3.76 3.92 3.81 3.92 3.89 3.84 3.92 3.85 3.96 46.31 -Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ •Misc. Equip. 16.56 14.93 16.49 15.81 16.44 15.98 16.44 16.36 16.06 16.44 16.11 16.56 194.18 Task Lights - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ •Area Lights 4.19 3.78 4.17 4.02 4.17 4.04 4.17 4.15 4.06 4.17 4.06 4.19 49.18 •Total _ 25.26 22.77 25.12 24.13 26.23 28.0932.53- 30.60 26.71 24.89 24.47 25.23 316.03' •Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) Jan Feb Mar Apr May ]un 7u1 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Space Cool - • Heat Reject. - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ _ • Space Heat 88.49 66.93 46.09 7.20 0.09 0.00 - - 0.01 0.05 23.84 65.92 298.64 HP Supp. • Hot Water 39.87 37.48 41.35 38.62 35.94 31.23 29.02 27.26 26.69 29.51 31.99 36.66 405.61 - Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ Misc. Equip. - - - • Task Lights - - - - - - - - - _ - _ _ • Area Lights - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ Total 128.35_104.42--87.44 45.82 -36.03--31.23 _ 29.0227.26 26.69'� 29 56 L55.83-10258 704241 • • • •eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • Project/Run: Building 3 -Window Glass Type EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:53 • • • (x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) I (X000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) I • • 40 120 • 100 ;'v*: • 30 - 80 • 20 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - 60 - - • 40 • 10 20 - - - - - - - - - - - • 0 . 0 - Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec = Area Lighting E Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water Heating M Space Heat Task Lighting 0 Exterior Usage 0 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. ® Refrigeratice • Electric Consumption (kWh x000) • -- lan Feb Mar Apr May ]un ]ul Aug Sep Oct Nov De_c Total _ _. . _. .__ _ _ _. _ - ._- _ ___ -__. . _- Space Cool - - 0.01 0.12 1.60 4.19 7.89 6.12 2.75 0.20 - - 22.88 'Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - Vent. Fans 3.83 3.45 3.80 3.64 3.79 3.69 3.79 3.77 3.71 3.79 3.73 3.83 44.81 • Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 • Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - Misc. Equip. 16.56 14.93 16.49 15.81 16.44 15.98 16.44 16.36 16.06 16.44 16.11 16.56 194.18 Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - Area Lights 4.19 3.78 4.17 4.02 4.17 4.04 4.17 4.15 4.06 4.17 4.06 4.19 49.18 Total _ 25.13_22.66 25.00_ _24.02 26.09 27.91 32.28 30.40 26.60_ 24.78 24.35 25.10 314.30 - Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) • Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct ta Nov Dec Tol • Space Cool - _ Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat 69.80 51.60 32.90 2.94 0.03 0.00 - - 0.01 0.01 14.16 50.05 221.51 - HP Supp. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,Hot Water 39.87 37.48 41.35 38.62 35.94 31.23 29.02 27.26 26.69 29.51 31.99 36.66 405.61 Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - , Misc. Equip. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Area Lights_ __ - - _ - - _ - - - _ - - - �Total` ` , 109.67 89.09 74.25 41'.55 i 35.96- 31.23 29.02 _27.26 _ 26.69 29.52 46.14 86.71 627.111 • • eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 • • • • aroject/Run: Building 3-Cumulative EEM Run Date/Time: 01/11/13 @ 10:54 • w(x000) Electric Consumption (kWh) (x000,000) Gas Consumption (Btu) • 30 120 100 °'h 20 - - - - - - - - 80 60 • 10 - - - - - - - - - - - 40 - - - - • 20 - 0 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec w ® Area Lighting E Misc. Equipment ® Pumps &Aux. 0 Water Heating 0 Space Heatin( E Task Lighting ® Exterior Usage 0 Ventilation Fans Ht Pump Supp. Refrigeration • *Electric Consumption (kWh x000) ��- Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Space Cool - - 0.00 0.10 1.39 3.62 6.79 5.27 2.34 0.17 - - 19.69 *Heat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Space Heat - - - - - - - - - - - - - *HP Supp. Hot Water - - - - - - - - - - - - - *Vent. Fans 3.80 3.42 3.78 3.61 3.76 3.67 3.76 3.74 3.69 3.76 3.70 3.80 44.51 Pumps&Aux. 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.43 0.09 - - - 0.01 0.18 0.45 0.52 3.25 •Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - w Misc. Equip. 14.95 13.48 14.88 14.27 14.84 14.43 14.84 14.77 14.50 14.84 14.54 14.95 175.29 Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - •Area Lights 3.59 3.24 3.58 3.44 3.57 3.46 3.57 3.56 3.48 3.57 3.48 3.59 42.15 `Total - - 22.89 20.64 22.7721.86 23.66 25.18 28.97 27.34 24.02 22.53- 22.18 22.86 284.90 w - - *Gas Consumption (Btu x000,000) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jill- Aug Sep _ .Oct Nov Dec Total Space Cool wHeat Reject. - - - - - - - - - - - - - Refrigeration - - - - - - - - - - - - - Space Heat 72.89 54.50 37.22 4.54 0.03 0.00 - 0.00 0.01 0.01 17.72 53.64 240.56 HP Supp _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ w Hot Water 39.87 37.48 41.35 38.62 35.94 31.23 29.02 27.26 26.69 29.51 31.99 36.66 405.61 • Vent. Fans - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pumps&Aux. - - - - - - - - - - - - - * Ext. Usage - - - - - - - - - - - - - Misc. Equip. - - - - - - - - - - - - - • Task Lights - - - - - - - - - - - - - Area Lights - - - - - - - - - - - _ ----_._--_ _ . -_ - 112.75-91-.96-x7857 43.1fi 35.97_ � -31.23----29.6i, 27.26"26.69 29.52 49.71 -90.30-646.171 • • • w eQUEST 3.63.6510 Monthly Energy Consumption by Enduse Page 1 * w • • • EXTERNAL LIGHTING RIVERVIEW PLACE • Parking lots sum to 117,928 SF. • Outdoor lighting electricity use assuming Metal Halide: this area x 0.15 W/SF= 17,689 W • • Code for efficiency is a minimum of 60 lumens/W. • Set Base Case= 80/60 x MH Est. Electricity Use of 17,689 W =23,586 W Mitigation is therefore a 25% reduction to 17,689 W • • Outdoor lighting is left on all night. 4,380 hours. • Base Case = 23,586 W x 4,380 hours = 103.3 MWh • Mitigation= 17,689 W x 4,380 hours = 77.5 MWh • • • A • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • w • ! • # • w APPENDIX B • i ! 0 TRANSPORTATION WORKSHEET FOR 0 a VMT AND CO2 EMISSIONS # # • • ! ! ! i # i i ! ! • w • B-1 • • i *MOBILE6.2.03(24-5ep-2003) ` • *Input file:3449_12.INP(file 1,run 1). ` `***Summer 2012*** *Reading Registration Distributions from the following external *data file:2005 REG.D M 49 Warning: S 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 0.998 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 0.998 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 0.998 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) - M 49 Warning: 1.00 MVR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 1.00 MYR sum not 1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 0.999 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 0.998 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 0.999 MVR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: s 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) - `Reading I/M program description records from the following external *data file:09NEWIM.D *15 Year Exemption Age *New Annual OBD Exhaust I/M program for Light Duty MY 1996 through 2007 vehicles<=8,500 lb GVWR *New Annual OBD Exhaust I/M program for Light Duty and Medium duty MY 2008 and later<=14,000 Ib GVWR *New Annual OBD Evap I/M program for Light Duty MY 1996 through 2007 vehicles<4,500 lb GVWR - *New Annual OBD Evap I/M program for for Light Duty and Medium duty MY 2008 and later<=14,000 lb GVWR M601 Comment: User has enabled STAGE 11 REFUELING. `Reading 94+LEV IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE from the following external *data file:MA_LEV2.13 Reading User Supplied Tier2 Exhaust bin phase-infractions Data read from file:LEV2EXH.D Reading User Supplied Tier2 EVAP phase-in fractions Data read from file:LEV2EVAP.D Reading User Supplied Tier2 50K certification standards R Data read from file:LEV2CERT.D M616 Comment • • • • • User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels. M614 Comment: • User supplied diesel sale fractions. • *###it##################### `2012-Summer at 15 mph • `File 1,Run 1,Scenario 1. *######################### • M583 Warning: • The user supplied arterial average speed of 15.0 will be used for all hours of the day. 100%of VMT • has been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway type for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. • ***I/M credits for Techl&2 vehicles were read from the following external data file:TECH32.D • M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class H DGV8b • LEV phase-in data read from file MA_LEV2.D • Calendar Year: 2012 • Month: July Altitude: Low • Minimum Temperature: 70.4(F) Maximum Temperature: 93.7(F) • Absolute Humidity: 75.grains/Ib Fuel Sulfur Content: 30.ppm • Exhaust I/M Program: Yes • Evap I/M Program: Yes ATP Program: No • Reformulated Gas: Yes • Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh • GVWR: -<6000 >6000 (All) • VMT Distribution: 0.3070 0.4054 0.1595 0.0368 0.0002 0.0015 0.0858 0.0038 1.0000 Fuel Economy(mpg): 24.1 18.5 14.2 17.1 9.9 32.3 18.4 7.3 50.0 16.3 I,, • ___--------____________________--___________________________________________________-_____________ Composite Emission Factors(g/mi): • Composite CO2: 368.0 478.9 623.9 519.9 895.1 314.7 554.3 1400.6 177.4 561.31 ___________-__________________________________________________________________________________________ *######################### • *2012-Summer at 20 mph • *File 1,Run 1,Scenario 2. *#######JJ################# • M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 20.0 • will be used for all hours of the day. 100%of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway • type for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. • M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b • LEV phase-in data read from file MA_LEV2.D • Calendar Year: 2012 Month: July • Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 70.4(F) • Maximum Temperature: 93.7(F) • Absolute Humidity: 75.grains/Ib Fuel Sulfur Content: 30.ppm • Exhaust I/M Program: Yes • Evap I/M Program: Yes ATP Program: No • • • • • • • • Reformulated Gas: yes • Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC AIIVeh • GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) VMT Distribution: 0.3070 0.4 05 4 0.1595 0.0368 0.0002 0.0015 0.0858 0.0038 1.0000 • Fuel Economy(mpg): 24.1 18.5 14.2 17.1 9.9 32.3 18.4 7.3 50.0 16.3 • ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Composite Emission Factors(g/mi): • Composite CO2: 368.0 478.9 623.9 519.9 895.1 314.7 554.3 1400.6 177.4 561.31 • ____ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ ######################### • 2012-Summer at 25 mph • File 1,Run 1,Scenario 3. •#######a##aa#######aaaa## • M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 25.0 • will be used for all hours of the day. 100%of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway • type for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: • there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b • LEV phase-in data read from file MA_LEV2.D • Calendar year: 2012 Month: July • Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 70.4(F) • Maximum Temperature: 93.7(F) Absolute Humidity: 75.grains/Ib • Fuel Sulfur Content: 30.ppm • Exhaust I/M Program: yes Evap I/M Program: yes • ATP Program: No • Reformulated Gas: yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC AIIVeh • GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) • VMT Distribution: 0.3070 0.4054 0.1595 0.0368 0.0002 0.0015 0.0858 0.0038 1.0000 • Fuel Economy(mpg): 24.1 18.5 14.2 17.1 9.9 32.3 18.4 7.3 50.0 16.3 • ---------------_--------------------------------------------------------____________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors(g/mi): • Composite CO2: 368.0 478.9 623.9 519.9 895.1 314.7 554.3 1400.6 177.4 561.31 • -######################### • 2012-Summer at 30 mph 'File 1,Run 1,Scenario 4. • M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 30.0 • will be used for all hours of the day. 100%of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway • type for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: • there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b • LEV phase-in data read from file MA_LEV2.D Calendar year: 2012 • Month: July Altitude: Low • Minimum Temperature: 70.4(F) • Maximum Temperature: 93.7(F) • • • • • • • Absolute Humidity: 75.grains/Ib • Fuel Sulfur Content: 30.ppm • Exhaust I/M Program: Yes • Evap I/M Program: Yes ATP Program: No • Reformulated Gas: Yes . • Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh • GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) • VMT Distribution: 0.3070 0.4054 0.1595 0.0368 0.0002 0.0015 0.0858 0.0038 1.0000 Fuel Economy(mpg): 24.1 18.5 14.2 17.1 9.9 32.3 18.4 7.3 50.0 16.3 ------- Composite Emission Factors(g/m i): • Composite CO2: 368.0 478.9 623.9 519.9 895.1 314.7 554.3 1400.6 177.4 561.31 _______ _____________________________ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ####kk####+######++++#####+444###4#off YYYYY#kh##fff+#Sf Yff YYYf YYYYikkiiYYYY 'MOBILE6.2.03(24-Sep-2003) * • 'Input file:3449 17.INP(file 1,run 1). * • Summer 2017"' • *Reading Registration Distributions from the following external • *data file:2005 REG.D M 49 Warning: • 1.00 MVR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: • 0.998 MVR sum not=1.(will normalize) • M 49 Warning: 0.998 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) • M 49 Warning: 0.998 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) • M 49 Warning: 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) • M 49 Warning: 1.00 MVR sum not=1.(will normalize) • M 49 Warning: 0.999 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) • M 49 Warning: • 0.998 MVR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: • 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: • 0.999 MVR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: • 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) M 49 Warning: • 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) • M 49 Warning: 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) • M 49 Warning: 1.00 MYR sum not=1.(will normalize) • *Reading I/M program description records from the following external • *data file:09NEWIM.D *15 Year Exemption Age • *New Annual OBD Exhaust I/M program for Light Duty MY 1996 through 2007 vehicles<=8,50016 GVWR 'New Annual OBD Exhaust I/M program for Light Duty and Medium duty MY 2008 and later<=14,000 Ib GVWR • 'New Annual OBD Evap I/M program for Light Duty MY 1996 through 2007 vehicles<=8,500 lb GVWR • *New Annual OBD Evap I/M program for for Light Duty and Medium duty MY 2008 and later<=14,000 Ib GVWR M601 Comment: User has enabled STAGE II REFUELING. • *Reading 94+LEV IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE from the following external • *data file:MA LEV2.D Reading User Supplied Tie2 Exhaust bin phase-in fractions • Data read from file:LEV2EXH.D • Reading User Supplied Tier2 EVAP phase-in fractions • Data read from file:LEV2EVAP.D • • Reading User Supplied Tie2 50K certification standards • Data read from file:LEV2CERT.D • M616 Comment: • • • • • • • • • • User has supplied post-1999 sulfur levels. M614 Comment: • User supplied diesel sale fractions. • *######################### *2017-Summer at 15 mph • `File 1,Run 1,Scenario 1. *######################### • M583 Warning: • The user supplied arterial average speed of 15.0 will be used for all hours of the day. 100%of VMT • has been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway type for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. • ***I/M credits for Techl&2 vehicles were read from the following external data file:TECH32.D • M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b • LEV phase-in data read from file MA_LEV2.D • Calendar Year: 2017 • Month: July Altitude: Low • Minimum Temperature: 70.4(F) Maximum Temperature: 93.7(F) • Absolute Humidity: 75.grains/Ib Fuel Sulfur Content: 30.ppm • Exhaust I/M Program: Yes • Evap I/M Program: Yes ATP Program: No • Reformulated Gas: Yes • Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh • GVWR: -<6000 >6000 (All) • VMT Distribution: 0.2723 0.4300 0.1692 0.0369 0.0002 0.0016 0.0861 0.0037 1.0000 Fuel Economy(mpg): 24.1 18.5 14.2 17.0 9.9 32.4 18.4 7.3 50.0 16.1 • -______ _ _- ________________________ __- -_ - ___________________________________-___________________________ Composite Emission Factors(g/mi): • Composite CO2: 368.0 479.3 624.4 520.3 894.1 314.1 554.0 1398.0 177.4 566.90 ____ ____________-________________________________________-___________________________-_ *2017-Summer at 20 mph • 'File 1,Run 1,Scenario 2. *######################### • M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 20.0 • will be used for all hours of the day. 100%of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway • type for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. • M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b • LEV phase-in data read from file MA_LEV2.D • Calendar Year: 2017 Month: July • Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 70.4(F) • Maximum Temperature: 93.7(F) Absolute Humidity: 75.grains/Ib • Fuel Sulfur Content: 30.ppm • Exhaust I/M Program: Yes • Evap I/M Program: Yes ATP Program: No i • • • • • Reformulated Gas: Yes • Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh • GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) VMT Distribution: 0.2723 0.4 30 0 0.1692 0.0369 0.0002 0.0016 0.0861 0.0037 1.0000 • Fuel Economy(mpg): 24.1 18.5 14.2 17.0 9.9 32.4 18.4 7.3 50.0 16.1 • ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Composite Emission Factors(g/mi): • Composite CO2: 368.0 479.3 624.4 520.3 894.1 314.1 554.0 1398.0 177.4 566.90 • ---' -'-'-"'--__________________________________________- *######################### • *2017-Summer at 25 mph • *File 1,Run 1,Scenario 3. M583 Warning: The user supplied arterial average speed of 25.0 • will be used for all hours of the day. 100%of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway • type for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. • M 48 Warning: there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b • LEV phase-in data read from file MA_LEV2.D • Calendar Year: 2017 Month: July • Altitude: Low Minimum Temperature: 70.4(F) • Maximum Temperature: 93.7(F) Absolute Humidity: 75.grains/Ib • Fuel Sulfur Content: 30.ppm • Exhaust I/M Program: Yes • Evap I/M Program: Yes ATP Program: No • Reformulated Gas: Yes Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh • GVWR: <6000 >6000 (All) • VMT Distribution: 0.2723 0.4300 0.1692 0.0369 0.0002 0.0016 0.0861 0.0037 1.0000 • Fuel Economy(mpg): 24.1 18.5 14.2 17.0 9.9 32.4 18.4 7.3 50.0 16.1 • _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Composite Emission Factors(g/mi): • Composite CO2: 368.0 479.3 624.4 520.3 894.1 314.1 554.0 1398.0 177.4 566.90 • `######################### • *2017-Summer at 30 mph *File 1,Run 1,Scenario 4. • M583 Warning: • The user supplied arterial average speed of 30.0 • will be used for all hours of the day. 100%of VMT has been assigned to the arterial/collector roadway • type for all hours of the day and all vehicle types. M 48 Warning: • there are no sales for vehicle class HDGV8b LEV phase-in data read from file MA_LEV2.D • Calendar Year: 2017 • Month: July Altitude: Law • Minimum Temperature: 70.4(F) • Maximum Temperature: 93.7(F) • • • • TABLE B-1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the Mesoscale Study Area Riverview Place Project, Salem, Massachusetts Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) (vehicles/day)* (miles/day) Link Link Length Link Descriptor 2017 2017 2017 2017 2012 2017 Full Build Full Build 2012 2017 Full Build Full Build I.D. (feet) Existing No-Build w/o mitigation w/miti ation** Existing No-Build w/o mitigation w/miti atior 1 585 Tremont Street 7,400 7,777 7,927 7,924 820 862 878 878 2 1,050 Mason Street(East of Flint St.) 7,530 7,914 8,134 8,130 1,497 1,574 1,618 1,617 3 500 Mason aon Street(West of Flint 5,480 5,759 5,929 5,926 519 545 562 561 4 690 St Flintt Street(North of Bridge 7,780 8,177 8,407 8,402 1,017 1,069 1,099 1,098 5 440 3t)t Street(South of Bridge 3,870 4,067 4,207 4,205 323 339 351 350 6 2,160 Bridge Street(Route 107) 16,430 17,268 17,518 17,513 6,721 7,064 7,166 7,164 7 250 Site North Access Road 0 0 560 549 0 0 27 26 8 250 Site West Access Road 0 0 380 372 0 0 18 18 VMT miles/da 10,897 11,453 11,718 11,712 *Used the 2012 No-Build traffic volumes to represent existing conditions and applied a one percent per year growth rate on the 2012 no-build traffic volumes presented in the Earth Tech, Inc.,Traffic Impact&Assessement Study Riverview Place Proposed Residential Development,October 2007 to calculate the 2017 No-Build Traffic Volume. **A two percent reduction in traffic volumes and vehicles traveled was assumed for the proposed Traffic Demand Measures. Tech Environmental,Inc. 3449 Meso,VMT 1/15/2013 TABLE B-2 Mesoscale Study Area Total Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emissions Riverview Place Project, Salem, Massachusetts MOBILE6.2 CO2 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Mesoscale CO2 Emissions Emission Rate (miles/day) (kg/day) (gra /mile) Link Speed 2017 2017 2017 2017 2012 2017 Full Build Full Build 2012 2017 Full Build Full Build I.D. (mph) 2012 2017 Existin No-Build w/o mitigation w/miti ation* Existing No-Build w/o mitigation w/miti ation* 1 25 561.31 566.90 820 862 878 878 460.2 488.5 497.9 497.7 2 30 561.31 566.90 1,497 1,574 1,618 1,617 840.5 892.2 917.0 916.5 3 20 561.31 566.90 519 545 562 561 291.3 309.2 318.3 318.1 4 25 561.31 566.90 1,017 1,069 1,099 1,098 570.7 605.8 622.8 622.5 5 25 561.31 566.90 323 339 351 350 181.0 1 192.1 198.8 198.6 6 30 561.31 566.90 6,721 7,064 7,166 7,164 3,772.8 4,004.7 4,062.6 4,061.5 7 15 561.31 566.90 0 0 27 26 0.0 0.0 15.0 14.7 8 15 561.31 566.90 0 0 18 18 0.0 0.0 10.2 10.0 Total Daily CO2 Emissions k /da : 6,116.5 6,492.5 6,642.7 6,639.7 Tech Environmental, Inc. 3449 Meso,CO2 1/15/2013 0 • 0 . . . 0 . 0 • 9 0 • 0 . 0 9 0 0 , 9 0 0 0 . / 9 • , 1811116 • • • ! Absolute Humidity: 75.grains/Ib Fuel Sulfur Content: 30.ppm • Exhaust I/M Program: yes • Evap I/M Program: yes ATP Program: No wReformulated Gas: yes • Vehicle Type: LDGV LDGT12 LDGT34 LDGT HDGV LDDV LDDT HDDV MC All Veh • GVWR: _<6000 >6000 (All) - - ----- ------ _____ w VMT Distribution: 0.2723 0.4300 0.1692 0.0369 0.0002 0.0016 0.0861 0.0037 1.0000 Fuel Economy(mpg): 24.1 18.514.2 17.0 9.9 32.4 18.4 7.3 50.0 16.1 • ----__- ------------------- - - Composite Emission Factors(g/mi): • Composite CO2: 368.0 479.3 624.4 520.3 894.1 314.1 554.0 1398.0 177.4 566.90 _______________________________________________________________________________________________ • • ! ! • • • • • • • w w • • • 'I • • • • • w • • • • • • • • APPENDIX C • • ' • • PV COST CALCULATIONS • • SPREADSHEETS • i I, • • • • 0 • • • • • • w • • • • • • • • • • • • C-1 • • • • • Date of Primary Installer Electric System Size Total Installation InstallationCost Program Applicat Building Type city Third Party Owner (a.k.a Applicant ion Utility in PowerClerk) (kW) Costs per Watt r Commonwealth Solar 12/8/08 NSTAR Commercial Watertown Crimson Solar,LLC SunPower Corporatic 500.960 $2,920,300.00 $5.83 Commonwealth Solar 9/8/08 GRID Commercial Dracut Constellation Energy Projects Constellation Energy 411.264 $2,385,609.00 $5.80 Commonwealth Solar 9/10/08 GRID Public Newburyport Ameresco Ameresco 391.690 $2,506,000.00 $6.40 Commonwealth Solar 4/21/09 GRID Commercial Attleboro Tioga Energy,LLC Spire Solar 343.850 $1,961,055.00 $5.70 Commonwealth Solar 4/21/09 GRID Commercial Leominster Tioga Energy,LLC Spire Solar 307.970 $1,707,265.00 $5.54 Commonwealth Solar 9/9/09 NSTAR Commercial Waltham ECS Project Berkshire Bundle Alteris Renewables 277.000 $1,431,469.00 $5.17 Commonwealth Solar 6/16/09 NSTAR Commercial Barnstable Alteris Renewables 258.300 $1,336,200.00 $5.17 Commonwealth Solar 12/8/08 NSTAR Commercial Waltham John A Penny Co. 224.480 $1,785,829.00 $7.96 Commonwealth Solar 7/1/09 GRID Commercial Harvard Lighthouse Electrical 220.500 $1,277,000.00 $5.79 Commonwealth Solar 9/16/09 NSTAR Commercial Dartmouth Solar Installation,LLC 201.600 $874,944.00 $4.34 Commonwealth Solar 9/10/08 GRID Commercial Westford Alteris Renewables 200.200 $1,544,322.00 $7.71 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial Boston Broadway Electrical Compan Broadway Electrical C 199.650 $1,917,192.00 $9.60 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial Boston Broadway Electrical Compan Broadway Electrical C 199.650 $1,917,192.00 $9.60 Commonwealth Stimulus 1/27/30 NSTAR Commercial Boston BCC SEA CALlC13 I,LLC Nexamp,Inc 198.450 $1,099,735.55 $5.54 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/30 MLP Commercial Plymouth Cotuit Solar 198.440 $1,012,175.00 $5.10 Commonwealth Solar 7/31/09 NSTAR Commercial Somerville Alteris Renewables __198.440 $1,156,823.45 $5.83 Commonwealth Stimulus 1/27/10 NSTAR Commercial Boston Borrego Solar Borrego Solar 197.340 $978,833.00 $4.96 Commonwealth Stimulus 1/27/10 NSTAR Commercial Chelsea Borrego Solar 197.340 - $1,094,778.00 _ __ $5.55 Commonwealth Stimulus 1/27/10 NSTAR Commercial Lowell Solventerra,LLC. Fall River Electrical A 197.340 $923,157.00 $4.68 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial New Bedford Munro Electric 194.350 $961,369.00 $4.95 Commonwealth Solar 10/29/08 NSTAR Public Hopkinton Boston Community Capital,Ir Borrego Solar 193.375 $1,377,976.00 $7.13 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial Yarmouth - Beaumont Sign Co. 183.610 $1,285,270.00 $7.00 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial Mashpee Unutility Electric My Generation Energ 181.470 $1,301,164.37 $7.17 Commonwealth Solar 7/31/09 NSTAR Commercial Boston Alteris Renewables 170.405 $1,129,707.00 $6.63 Commonwealth Solar 10/7/09 GRID Commercial Orange Pete's Tire Barns,Inc. Nexamp,Inc 170.100 $814,240.50 $4.79 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial Boston Broadway Electrical Compan Broadway Electrical C 169.400 $1,285,577.00 $7.59 Commonwealth Solar 7/31/09 NSTAR Commercial Dedham Alteris Renewables 166.870 $1,111,471.11 $6.66 Commonwealth Solar 12/10/08 GRID Commercial Billerica _ Borrego Solar 155.904 $838,770.00 $5.38 Commonwealth Solar 10/8/09 NSTAR Commercial Canton GRE 104 Sika LLC Greenskies Renewab 154.700 $1,269,491.30 $8.21 Commonwealth Solar 12/10/08 NSTAR Commercial Bedford Borrego Solar 153.216 $993,530.00 $6.48 Commonwealth Solar 9/3/09 NSTAR Public Bourne Con Edison Solutions Alteris Renewables 142.560 $716,042.83 $5.02 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial Mashpee Unutility Electric My Generation Enero 140.7601 $988,000.00 $7.02 • • • • • • • • • . • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ! • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Commonwealth Solar 9/24/09 WMECO Commercial Pittsfield 0 Alteris Renewables 140.000 $687,104.00 $4.91 Commonwealth Solar 8/27/09 GRID Commercial Lee Alteris Renewables 140.000 $835,519.00 $5.97 Commonwealth Solar 9/2/08 GRID Commercial Oxford Borrego Solar 139.230 $1,193,054.68 $8.57 Commonwealth Solar 9/10/08 NSTAR Commercial Natick Alteris Renewables 139.080 $1,056,209.00 $7.59 Commonwealth Solar 12/30/08 NSTAR Public Medway Broadway Electrical Compami Broadway Electrical 132.000 $914,309.00 $6.93 Commonwealth Solar 9/2/09 NSTAR Public Barnstable Con Edison Solutions Alteris Renewables 130.680 $666,488.78 $5.10 Commonwealth Solar 10/8/09 GRID Public Lowell Ameresco Ameresco 128.800 $660,265.60 $5.13 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial Fairhaven _ Beaumont Sign Co. 121.275 $787,758.00 $6.50 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 GRID Commercial Hanover Beard Lincoln LLC Coneco Energy 116.090 $536,300.00 $4.62 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/20/10 WMEC0 Commercial Springfield Absolute Green Enerl 111.370 $805,000.00 $7.23 Commonwealth Solar 9/24/09 GRID Commercial Methuen Nexamp,Inc 110.700 $566,500.00 $5.12 Commonwealth Solar 9/10/08 GRID Public Newburyport Ameresco Ameresco 110.630 $810,000.00 $7.32 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 GRID Commercial Beverly Nexamp,Inc 110.250 $562,276.00 $5.10 Commonwealth Stimulus 1/27/10 NSTAR Commercial Framingham SolarFlair Energy,Inc 110.250 _ $703,738.00 $6.38 Commonwealth Stimulus 1/27/10 GRID Public Warren BCC Solar Energy Advantage, Nexamp,Inc 110.250 $570,515.00 $5.17 Commonwealth Stimulus 1/27/30 GRID Public Warren BCC Solar Energy Advantage, Nexamp,Inc 110.250 $638,165.00 $5.79 Commonwealth Solar 9/16/09 NSTAR Commercial Weston Nexamp Capital Nexamp,Inc 110.250 $651,887.87 $5.91 Commonwealth Solar 7/6/09 GRID Commercial Orange Nexamp,Inc 110.250 $616,000.00 $5.59 Commonwealth Solar 7/6/09 GRID Commercial Orange Nexamp,Inc 110.250 $616,000.00 $5.59 Commonwealth Solar 9/25/09 GRID Commercial Attleboro Nexamp Capital Nexamp,Inc 110.000 $550,000.00 $5.00 Commonwealth Solar 9/24/09 WMECO Commercial Hancock EOS Project Berkshire Bundle Alteris Renewables 109.200 $566,135.00 $5.18 Commonwealth Solar 10/7/09 NSTAR Commercial Brockton Borrego Solar 108.870 $579,351.00 $5.32 Commonwealth Solar 8/8/08 NSTAR Commercial Boston Nexamp,Inc 108.580 $787,996.00 $7.26 Commonwealth Stimulus 1/27/10 GRID Public West Brookfield BCC Solar Energy Advantage, Nexamp,Inc 107.100 $575,025.00 $5.37 Commonwealth Solar 2/8/10 GRID Public Beverly Green Schools Initiati 106.000 $218,750.00 $2.06 Commonwealth Solar 8/6/08 NSTAR Commercial Arlington Nexamp,Inc 105.875 $742,368.00 $7.01 Commonwealth Solar 9/2/09 NSTAR Public Harwich Con Edison Solutions Alteris Renewables 103.950 $537,656.24 $5.17 Commonwealth Solar 10/6/09 NSTAR Public Acton Nexamp Capital Nexamp,Inc 103.730 $558,692.00 $5.39 Commonwealth Solar 10/6/09 NSTAR Public Acton Nexamp Capital Nexamp,Inc 103.730 $579,198.00 $5.58 Commonwealth Solar 4/22/09 GRID Commercial Tewksbury Nexamp,Inc 103.155 $649,845.00 $6.30 Commonwealth Solar 8/19/09 GRID Public Westford Nexamp Capital Nexamp,Inc 101.200 $602,140.00 $5.95 Commonwealth Solar 7/22/09 GRID Commercial Shirley Phoenix Finance LLC Alteris Renewables 101.200 $546,800.00 $5.40 Commonwealth Solar 7/22/09 GRID Commercial Shirley Phoenix Finance LLC Alteris Renewables 101.200 $546,800.00 $5.40 Commonwealth Solar 7/22/09 GRID Commercial Shirley Phoenix Finance LLC Alteris Renewables 101.200 $546,800.00 $5.40 Commonwealth Solar 7/22/09 GRID Commercial Shirley Phoenix Finance LLC Alteris Renewables 101.200 $546,800.00 $5.40 Commonwealth Solar 7/22/09 GRID Commercial Shirley Phoenix Finance LLC Alteris Renewables 101.200 $546,800.00 $5.40 Commonwealth Solar 9/2/09 NSTAR Public Brewster Con Edison Solutions Alteris Renewables 100.980 $510,040.17 $5.05 Commonwealth Solar 9/2/09 NSTAR Public Brewster Con Edison Solutions Alteris Renewables 100.980 $SO4,970.86 $5.00 Commonwealth Solar 8/19/09 GRID Commercial Seekonk EOS Project Berkshire Bundle Alteris Renewables 100.800 $674,618.00 $6.69 Commonwealth Solar 12/22/08 NSTAR Commercial Woburn Cummings Propertie 100.800 $841,394.00 $8.35 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial Plymouth Beaumont Sign Co. 100.776 $507,000.00 $5.03 Commonwealth Solar 9/2/09 NSTAR Public Eastham Con Edison Solutions Alteris Renewables 100.440 $521,533.64 $5.19 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 NSTAR Commercial Falmouth Beaumont Sign Co. 100.320 $601,010.00 $5.99 Commonwealth Stimulus 4/9/10 GRID lCommercial Fall River I Alteris Renewables 100.100 $680,938.00 $6.80 Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Project Sionime Financial Model(posted 4106109)-SREC Guaranteed Price DATA ENTRY AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY-M-ICEC Avg.Installed Cost for Commercial 1[m+MW Projects(Owner Installed) w,.W.e.ho..'snad 77 ,e.r..d abeam, .v vness sea _ mrw �..nn � .k r_m d,m _ . — — — — — ssurds .� aes o. vas m nW— n..a '— nsmm..ed. m. l u.":. rtrmn —� IIss ease— n�.w.11.d.du,ea Myrtl_uuaw�mm.mwmM. mW.TW. rm.ada d.nmgranuuwnavrve.N..em "" `awv:"�fted—ryqulp.bn;oronr"m."n" ` ors Ilmpte MdAYrA —1 armed aenmepv +uweurmteammmuan.-n,umer, ss,I mQsser.dun.aelaq wmwI.-wane mrrlw.arndnrrn sellers need.th,In Issed as Isomers, roman.avaunass d.- tlyd ulryury gadssgywlnelmq muurymn.m ecu,uglnennanbnvmn.ImuwdlnbimnbnvenuliN,bcnot4 ela.bew,mrdeneemmaft undrbulnm Flw PRO FORMA AND PRODUCTION wfr:uav mf t wo v 1 ere t ,t t - iwiwnnuarnwra<ml v Wrm t ., v m 1_ ,z11 M _t ,ear n. _ _ e t o,[s p,n f i gWerZ.e e'. .� C T a-nt ass, S% -Tin ,R tFd o, t. h[T w der, 1 m[ast m WAIT " mI t m nu1 n 1 1 1 1 r 1 t 1 1 1 r 1 1 r r 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 rr�....r. mwMT 1 lr..rn 1 a1+.I:n nm.an 1 „-m 1 p.wT 1 W.r-1 ..nM 1 .Aw 1 wM1 1 oo.m 1 ,n.[, r ,sato t ,xta 1 ,Iaaa 1 moo, t [nm, t a,.Im 1 ,ams. nnmo t :we 1 .11.1 mIm 1 lam, P. ...r ..., ._ ...r ...r I., In, ..., ,.., ,aa, ...r ..r _r ,d. on Y. ,aa, ,.r ,_ Is., ..r Clxhm-:This material drum des,Moral b lmenaea m Proven ooh.ew.reMl.mm..,w.w.a,,.leen„p lld p,.[I,.t.am pool” lmwww¢y.w,lp,,.m.nx.ae,tr.rumtrmmlrlaorpo[[algin,1.wlmgl[.Iu,n.mw[nwdl,e.o.,,emmmlm.mna..mnln.lm.wnwml..,nlry ,rad mpknl W N kM "puNu energl r[ eM at.ellelbn of whr ery1,1 en urged mW lo[ [ 1.11 mm Ia1 aN....I..'a..Tlumbmulkn t..p.In Ne IMdlklel.,I Ron R .Wel III,nW In.1.-Ey.,he any WPo reen Fuels.lM 1...o thisndod.1 nN mttmrlly..Ne..1 Ne yandeauwX.♦whnead,CdkEorzllve.11.Ccmu—..1 Mmewl,vulLL I...—b..''ge mma"o tree.e"n....selW or ev,..rcmmeMallm Is I,eemml d lL In..Mueslamand. tshsbgytspeave.—t.tmnnouelm m Metewhuulb nuts my nsuMke or replu.n,.eoy-sad um,g41 IN 10 lM uwNLws.cml{Mlenme,or ss hey olany orrcetwv.ndlMN or all lmommlbn wmLnM,desrlhad.dlrbuq q,eMrM to In AN,nvM1l. FIruM.aser.rIMMav"mu....TwMva Insists,ConmWs[ e nm Ne Con—ash Me1In.dme le etr,Noncorrosive IM m IM use 0 any pSry oa,rtl,vyryrmand-N.dMor dlNI arlmomNbn I.InMd pgan rgn polvanyo eaedy her, d--cont no lhEiw sed y tor rales for any lo-,1;Iq.or dented,steady w IMIMry N-ltIM M1aA Of Myseeg In[armxtlen MM.IMo-.1lnbrvem.caaamM.Oesrlbd.doter,or Memd to in INt U.Cuh F.MWeI. ! • itM0900tt800tr0900 " 00r9000 • • tttti • tttf • • ge @see 771 ,_ el R. — twmw.w ... mxw.w mmewbperl,mm..Mmww.w.�wwT..p.brenl.x..Pm.�mme,mwelred PRO FORMA AND PRODUCTION mqq� ,.pxnXw ,M.mW�wn.,. wnryrmdNe qnn dl+v Mvwnuvm�iwmiucgvem mmlluwu.ew.n.....Ym wrawmmme.me nlwewemmywcXk mgxef axurcrnuxxww WPuwwerpewmrwnvmvmnneneaumm an.r wr•pnaerevni. wlmglµvmm•uvluleeumnpmmuwemrvydd vXwwamdltvmwmvr�enu+�.nen,ww.u,muneq,elwmw,o,rdemebm W mwq.FFary,mlNnXv etegnwkQy Ce] mppNutepp• nalmxgeamneM1wnee pnwMrgxlemf Xm'IMd uM1eury.wam�gelwMnlneuaryrmm:vl�iq Mqv asunYq naamrtYan MN,4vvxdFlwmdkncwnum4e•uneu.munue.wraemery in W.Man.m4N M4eeq. aout b'� pa mf T.. . [f a n u — nwt a+Hn f wv+• aeu pwp f Ie,vT[ e,n.nwmm *ev q1. t AVNf 11112 1 I'm L9 ivig i pa eq t 12: IZI.11 ea+. mr Xxonl a r+Mi u'9 t xxiwmr f - • pwT• +v�ul t Inrul• In uT s In.ul a nm a aaw [ d,ffo♦ e;w [ #r-[I[ m!a[ men[ t;.n ♦ a;m• n+n • 1 e2 • n,w[ alv [ n.nv f Ivaep[ aana• avr• w,�er• arua t ns� [axttwlmncwmm� • a ++v en• +mmr• ne,fv• wm t weu s tVn t nav f IIm[ ryw f p2-1 .1.f mage r xun • nii a rz 1• awo f aw f a.+v f yve t y,wlf zs,en a xs+a a er+m f nwf[ -1 uercN tanvewl n.nsm me mnla.rmnmane t pnYgf f t t a a • • • - t - [ - [ - f t [ a a • - [ + t • f a f - xFmmmm wr.m[ I...>m f rm.a[n: mu.n[ nMdT t P...n i mom: a;=n• ..+w• Pw f eo.mo r ++;m+ [ +Pw f +MIIe[ .mw. • n,w.• mvm a le;w f :lado f mne f n.m• mo,w•a >A_dl DEBT SCHEDULES M w ..., .n. Y., Y.. mm. .., .a, . Y., Y., .a, .a, Y., Y., Y... Ya, ..., Y., Y.., w, Y., ... Y.., Y., gsslaYm:Txl[IImTrcItl GN Flan MOCeIY x+4n6EbpwWrgnvetlM1gWegM•tlulert conSMn tMWbxe[e eXE InOMIonWtdd neryy qulprcM Mlx a gnImgerNnelrgolpveeWemw.MFigkaXemdw[x Purtllem eMlnLelMlbn TmumlXk•InwetlaJFwmirp nuniEaN lM MercMlhrylkellma o111xpurtxuemtlhnrellelbnal edvmmgYqulpm+ImugeEb wnwXNehmm4ierq llnmMel e•pritl iM MlamelYn cmlaNe01n11m YIwIMkIEe9l Fb M[Eel nleyndbrtllMmEYenywielw enY puryee•. FMlemmrt.IMMbmWkn esury}reXM lMvlm'eollMMefee[xuMlt TeNMagy CdlbaaYwwtlnCvwmvNxol MeuexuuX•.eM rtenmbmypcXk im11ro1 Me Mcentltlulem brylM geiPaeM reevnreMallm meigauivde111.wXlurtlu Mene[Ilueell[ Tadlnol;y Eolk W tlWe rvt Ne CvnrwiwiXx nl Mee•egnreMli mets enY+Ymrentlu er reprexgelbr4 eIIPIoeM a bnplkE,a[to IM ueel W Ivfa cmglelmnee,d ecclvcY of enY Pue[m,mellv]•w db InNmdbn wxelnN,M•cnMe,eI¢bwE,a rekrrol b In IN[no]et Inv.y mMmIM Mea•eWeXeTulmdty1 EOlkbellvanar111eEammn,I In dMeffa'K"mvM•mYrFruu+MllonININeuu oln+y pm0itl,epryrM•,prce••,nelxwYerdxerinbmWY.n MIInW NhM1pe Plvtlelya'.neE PopMyrlpxbaMu•umem NMXY eleny Yhtlorntlun Iw anY bu.IN+IrY.w Emiupe YIm1ry u IMIrxtlY muting Iwn,w awrgnP In cmnec+bx w11M IM uee of IMammlkn nnMMtl.Eef crl6tl.Ubebrol,m rekne0 b In Ixla NwflYJel CeN Fbw MNN. Commercial Solar Photovoltaic Protect Simple Finameral Model(posted 4106p9)-SREC Guaranteed Price DATA ENTRY AND FINANCIAL SUMMARY-MmasCEC Avg.Installed Cost for Commercial 1K+MVV Projects 3mi Rally Installation) Par I— rc...e.....a rem ova" m.w..ga. „ m ,, awawmn. �,m.m,am n_am Wim. „m. oA„ ,_" ,a, ;,e4 :.a—, — pm.—am.--px4�e mm.. .n.Y. — Yeal� w�.— A 9--r.. IUdin nnaanh Won nrvlyrvumra4evk, can,mvieXl,aual�exmnuµunean.Pam,nenayoPYn.pamuPee.p.mMn ,.nn..,PI,mmamwmaanAenamNalXam,Y uImpnewm ~ _ _ngW_ mM —Yesmm geassalm mwuarvmmmenaperom nimmi n "" ne,nazemag Ianp4e-aseare,x—Ivewumsters M1 aNmAgYCWaonnMm,MCmmmmwMNYutaXuubmAemY�^^^m4.owvveaw, ImgM aanpameenwe<swna.,,Ypmeeeess.manor.veunrmmrmwenemmama,eeesnm.euamue.0 Mmwminmu mNn.Flmry,muherme em P^,w,.eFovnun pveu.,vinm.v qne. vers—.mmNvmnsers.n—Inalee.wmee Is. nU,Yiaw Meny�eu 1puy.w renVvwuenMnaminenwn.er emmgln n,mmm Am.meuugl,xmmem,aamama,eeurmee.a4s4ue.wrae,vemmal.ummeulumFm.Ymel. PRO FORMA AND PRODUCTION e- sPGX S Won s Is M 5 Nons e, , 1111 5 lass ..s .a, v v,_, _,_• s r s. __ .mil - — enmx ams m s tal -- eoe s mm se, v "sery ;w A.. son o.n n,v I'll ` _ -_—...-T _ _ e _ _ - m . na..0 m xm a x —elnne s a m. a xzar,maon. DEBT SCHEDULES gxlaMr:ihlsVmllkW CeN FIw Mc4l blMeMelepmNJe mnrealUeKlaIeKM1MSMW enanelMa.. Pntluu IalbnoranbeneryYRUlp,enl,MlragenenluNeNeNlrgelpwtldf llica l"Incabmplsuth partNttsat InCelWM.vToumllXealMmegMMMmanB rv, von rm rv, ry neOwnMB,lemYlFpllulkne NM WrtXvusN IntleNlbn of sear meryY4WlpreN m urged IotonalN U,eh ormxamM nnenthl etpeae.Te INwmlMn tmYMM InU<U,wBbMIGN FIw Mehl aaYnW W rclYl en EYmyun IamY W,poxi FurlMessa IMln vee,."" uuellYreM]Ihevlern W IM Messethuxlla TVJ,noMgy CaMporMMa,lle Can,wroatllh MMawNuwU;eM,ekrcnubmy apttlk melXN dreaM tmnhuM1m XnpPoE weaPeauJ rxvmv,WllmermdvmreMNl1.NeNM1M rs— m rusa yY And COIIINuraUoris is themmm Cneal ahhMasndstre s,msome ese say nemka a representation.esPNwnglM, eee ees to lM.11ral4auTWm -..'.Is.1 pm[esxs.nelhWs aaXV lnbnentiveV . ..0.s<,IMd.or-. w sa.b In a,,n , Ina",mhXn Mnse e Mtheadc i¢MokgCOGy Fes nor the Idles aM af sple—huWs mares airy rtprtaeMabn ga11M ux cases nsl appernPolls, MB ans InMpeP sses,anmM pmpnrkMse w ty a sseason, InWIly of,gas or issue, Man,arse.Injury,or Emile Elnvily or re'resyrewMq Ill wwxurMg In tonmsllon all the uu of Inlemnlbn contained,dearrinns,real w nnrM m In Nla pool Cash Flan Model. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Appendix 5 • • • STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE ANALYSIS • • • • • • • • Project No. SALE-0024 • Prepared for: Riverview Place LLC • . 5 Broadmoor Lane Salem, MA 0160 . .` • 508-954-0073 • • • Stormwater Report • Riverview Place • • • 72 Flint Street, #67 & #71 Mason Street • • Salem, Massachusetts • • • September 21, 2014 • • • • -W,C(- WI LiAMS • SPARAGFS • 1 - s � 189 N.Main street,Suite 101 - Middleton,MA 01949 • Office Tel:978-539-8088 Fax:978-539-8200 - www.wsengineers.com • • • • • • • • • • • • • STORMWATER REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS • • Section • 1. Checklist for Stormwater Report • 2. Checklist for Redevelopment Projects • 3. Operation & Maintenance Plan 4. Erosion & Sediment Control • 5. Snow Disposal Guidance • 6. Guidelines on Deicing Chemical (Road Salt) Storage • 7. DEP Compliance Calculations • TSS Removal Excel Spreadsheets Stormceptor Sizing (See Drainage Analysis) Groundwater Recharge (See Drainage Analysis) 8. Comparative Drainage Analysis (See Separate Report) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i i • • i • Checklist for Stormwater Report • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection • Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands Program • Checklist for Stormwater Report • A. Introduction • Important:When A Stormwater Report must be submitted with the Notice of Intent permit application to document • filling out forms compliance with the Stormwater Management Standards. The following checklist is NOT a substitute for on the computer, use only the tab the Stormwater Report(which should provide more substantive and detailed information) but is offered key to move your here as a tool to help the applicant organize their Stormwater Management documentation for their • cursor-do not Report and for the reviewer to assess this information in a consistent format.As noted in the Checklist, use the return the Stormwater Report must contain the engineering computations and supporting information set forth in • key. Volume Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The Stormwater Report must be prepared and • .dl., I I certified by a Registered Professional Engineer(RPE) licensed in the Commonwealth. �It�l • The Stormwater Report must include: • r� • The Stormwater Checklist completed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer(see page 2)that certifies that the Stormwater Report contains all required submittals.' This Checklist • is to be used as the cover for the completed Stormwater Report. • • Applicant/Project Name • Project Address • • Name of Firm and Registered Professional Engineer that prepared the Report • • Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan required by Standards 4-6 • Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan required • by Standard 8Z • • Operation and Maintenance Plan required by Standard 9 • In addition to all plans and supporting information, the Stormwater Report must include a brief narrative • describing stonnwater management practices, including environmentally sensitive site design and LID techniques, along with a diagram depicting runoff through the proposed BMP treatment train. Plans are • required to show existing and proposed conditions, identify all wetland resource areas, NRCS soil types, • critical areas, Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads(LUHPPL), and any areas on the site where infiltration rate is greater than 2.4 inches per hour. The Plans shall identify the drainage areas for • both existing and proposed conditions at a scale that enables verification of supporting calculations. • As noted in the Checklist, the Stormwater Management Report shall document compliance with each of • the Stormwater Management Standards as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The • soils evaluation and calculations shall be done using the methodologies set forth in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. • To ensure that the Stormwater Report is complete,applicants are required to fill in the Stormwater Report • Checklist by checking the box to indicate that the specified information has been included in the • Stormwater Report. If any of the information specified in the checklist has not been submitted,the applicant must provide an explanation. The completed Stormwater Report Checklist and Certification • must be submitted with the Stormwater Report. • • • 'The Stormwater Report may also include the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement required by Standard 10. If not Included in • the Stormwater Report,the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement must be submitted prior to the discharge of stormwater runoff to the post-construction best management practices. • Y For some complex projects,it may not be possible to Include the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan in • -- the Stormwater Report. In that event,the issuing authority has the discretion to issue an Order of Conditions that approves the project and includes a condition requiring the proponent to submit the Construction Period.Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan • before commencing any land disturbance activity on the site. • swcheck.doc•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 1 of 8 • • i i i Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report B. Stormwater Checklist and Certification i The following checklist is intended to serve as a guide for applicants as to the elements that ordinarily need to be addressed in a complete Stormwater Report.The checklist is also intended to provide 49 conservation commissions and other reviewing authorities with a summary of the components necessary for a comprehensive Stormwater Report that addresses the ten Stormwater Standards. Note:Because stormwater requirements vary from project to project, it is possible that a complete • Stormwater Report may not include information on some of the subjects specified in the Checklist. If it is determined that a specific item does not apply to the project under review, please note that the item is not applicable(N.A.)and provide the reasons for that determination. • A complete checklist must include the Certification set forth below signed by the Registered Professional Engineer who prepared the Stormwater Report. Registered Professional Engineer's Certification i 1 have reviewed the Stormwater Report, including the soil evaluation, computations,Long-tern Pollution 4 Prevention Plan, the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (if included),the Long- term Post-Construction Operation and Maintenance Plan, the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement(if included) and the plans showing the stormwater management system, and have determined that they i have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Stormwater Management Standards as• ,- further elaborated by the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. 1 have also determined that the information presented in the Stormwater Checklist is accurate and that the information presented in the Stormwater Report accurately reflects conditions at the site as of the date of this permit application. Registered Professional Engineer Block and Signature 49 i y `~t{ OF ab�� - - o PETER M. i BLAISDELL.JR. m - `o CIVIL - &Na.41613 i 15�Q Zq ignature and Data i Checklist Project Type: Is the application for new development, redevelopment, or a mix of new and redevelopment? - ❑ New development S ® Redevelopment ❑ Mix of New Development and Redevelopment swcheck.doc•04/01/08 - Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 2 of 8. • • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection • Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report • Checklist (continued) • LID Measures: Stdrmwater Standards require LID measures to be considered. Document what • environmentally sensitive design and LID Techniques were considered during the planning and design of - the project: • ® No disturbance to any Wetland Resource Areas • ❑ Site Design Practices(e.g. clustered development, reduced frontage setbacks) • • ® Reduced Impervious Area (Redevelopment Only) - ❑ Minimizing disturbance to existing trees and shrubs ❑ LID Site Design Credit Requested: • • ❑ Credit 1 ❑ Credit 2 • ❑ Credit 3 • ❑ Use of"country drainage"versus curb and gutter conveyance and pipe • ® Bioretention Cells (includes Rain Gardens) • ❑ Constructed Stormwater Wetlands (includes Gravel Wetlands designs) i ❑ Treebox Filter • ❑ Water Quality Swale • ❑ Grass Channel • ❑ Green Roof , ❑ Other(describe): • • • Standard 1: No New Untreated Discharges ® No new untreated discharges ® Outlets have been designed so there is no erosion or scour to wetlands and waters of the Commonwealth • ❑ Supporting calculations specified in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook included. • • • swchedcdoc•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 3 of 8 • 40 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report • Checklist (continued) Standard 2: Peak Rate Attenuatlon ® Standard 2 waiver requested because the project is located in land subject to coastal storm flowage and stormwater discharge is to a wetland subject to coastal flooding. • ® Evaluation provided to determine whether off-site flooding increases during the 100-year 24-hour storm. ® Calculations provided to show that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre- development rates for the 2-year and 10-year 24-hour storms. If evaluation shows that off-site flooding increases during the 100-year 24-hour storm, calculations are also provided to show that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development rates for the 100-year 24- hour storm. Standard 3: Recharge ❑ Soil Analysis provided. • ® Required Recharge Volume calculation provided. ❑ Required Recharge volume reduced through use of the LID site Design Credits. w ® Sizing the infiltration, BMPs is based on the following method: Check the method used. ❑Static ® Simple Dynamic ❑ Dynamic Field' ❑ Runoff from all impervious areas at the site discharging to the infiltration BMP. • ® Runoff from all impervious areas at the site is notdischarging to the infiltration BMP and calculations are provided showing that the drainage area contributing runoff to the infiltration BMPs is sufficient to • generate the required recharge volume. ® Recharge BMPs have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume. ® Recharge BMPs have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume only to the maximum extent practicable for the following reason: ® Site is comprised solely of C and D soils and/or bedrock at the land surface ❑ M.G.L. c. 21 E sites pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0000 S ❑ Solid Waste Landfill pursuant to 310 CMR 19.000 ❑ Project is otherwise subject to Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum extent practicable. ❑ Calculations showing that the infiltration BMPs will drain in 72 hours are provided. ❑ Property includes a M.G.L. c.21 E site or a solid waste landfill and a mounding analysis is included. S '80%TSS removal is required prior to discharge to infiltration BMP if Dynamic Field method is used. •swchedc.doc•04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 4 of 8 40 . . . - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report • Checklist (continued) Standard 3: Recharge(continued) ❑ The infiltration BMP is used to attenuate peak flows during storms greater than or equal to the 10- year 24-hour storm and separation to seasonal high groundwater is less than 4 feet and a mounding analysis is provided. ! ❑ Documentation is provided showing that infiltration BMPs do not adversely impact nearby wetland resource areas. Standard 4: Water Quality , The Long-Tenn Pollution Prevention Plan typically includes the following: • Good housekeeping practices; . • .Provisions for storing materials and waste products inside or under cover; • Vehicle washing controls; ! • Requirements for routine inspections and maintenance of stormwater BMPs; • Spill prevention and response plans; • Provisions for maintenance of lawns, gardens, and other landscaped areas; • Requirements for storage and use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides; • • Pet waste management provisions; • Provisions for operation and management of septic systems; • Provisions for solid waste management; Snow disposal and plowing plans relative to Wetland Resource Areas; • Winter Road Salt and/or Sand Use and Storage restrictions; ! • Street sweeping schedules; • Provisions for prevention of illicit discharges to the stormwater management system; • Documentation that Stormwater BMPs are designed to provide for shutdown and containment in the ! event of a spill or discharges to or near critical areas or from LUHPPL; • Training for staff or personnel involved with implementing Long-Tenn Pollution Prevention Plan; • List of Emergency contacts for implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan. ! ❑ A Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan is attached to Stormwater Report and is included as an attachment to the Wetlands Notice of Intent. TO %IF. 'Q�>,/e AmA " SWQPf ' ❑ .Treatment BMPs subject to the 44% TSS removal pretreatment requirement and the one inch rule for calculating the water quality volume are included, and discharge: ! ❑ is within the Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area ! ❑ is near or to other critical areas ❑ is within soils with a rapid infiltration rate(greater than 2.4 inches per hour) - ❑ involves runoff from land uses with higher potential pollutant loads. ! ❑ The Required Water Quality Volume is reduced through use of the LID site Design Credits. 41 ® Calculations documenting that the treatment train meets the 80%TSS removal requirement and, if applicable, the 44%TSS removal pretreatment requirement, are provided. swchedc.doc•04/01/08 - Storrnwater Report Checklist Page.5 of 8 ! • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection-Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report • Checklist (continued) • Standard 4: Water Quality (continued) = ❑ The BMP is sized (and calculations provided) based on: • ❑ The W or 1"Water Quality Volume or • ❑ The equivalent flow rate associated with the Water Quality Volume and documentation is • provided showing that the BMP treats the required water quality volume. • ® The applicant proposes to use proprietary BMPs, and documentation supporting use of proprietary BMP and proposed TSS removal rate is provided. This documentation may be in the form of the • propriety BMP checklist found in Volume 2, Chapter 4 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook and submitting copies of the TARP Report, STEP Report, and/or other third party studies verifying performance of the proprietary BMPs. ❑ 'A TMDL exists that indicates a need to reduce pollutants other than TSS and documentation showing • that the BMPs selected are consistent with the TMDL is provided. Standard 5: Land Uses With Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPLs) • ,t� . El The NPDES Muni-Sector General Permit covers the land use and the Stormwater Pollution • Prevention Plan(SWPPP)has been included with the Stormwater Report. ❑ The NPDES Mufti-Sector General Permit covers the land use and the SWPPP will be submitted prior • to the discharge of stonnwater to the post-construction stormwater BMPs. • ❑ The NPDES Mufti-Sector General Permit does not cover the land use. • ❑ LUHPPLs are located at the site and industry specific source control and pollution prevention • measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate the exposure of LUHPPLs to rain, snow, snow melt and runoff, and been included in the long term Pollution Prevention Plan. • ❑ All exposure has been eliminated. ❑ All exposure has not been eliminated and all BMPs selected are on MassDEP LUHPPL list. • • ❑ The LUHPPL has the potential to generate runoff with moderate to higher concentrations of oil and grease (e.g. all parking lots with >1000 vehicle trips per day)and the treatment train includes an oil • grit separator, a filtering bioretention area, a sand filter or equivalent. Standard 6: Critical Areas ❑ The discharge is near or to a critical area and the treatment train includes only BMPs that MassDEP • has approved for Stormwater discharges to or near that particular class of critical area. •. ❑ Critical areas and BMPs are identified in the Stormwater Report. • • • • • swcheck.doc•04/01/08 - : - - - - _ Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 6 of 8 • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection = Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report • Checklist(continued) • Standard 7: Redevelopments and Other Projects Subject to the Standards only to the maximum • extent practicable • ® The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum Extent Practicable as a: • ❑ Limited Project • ❑ Small Residential Projects: 5-9 single family houses or 5-9 units in a multi-family development • provided there is no discharge that may potentially affect a critical area. • ❑ Small Residential Projects: 2-4 single family houses or 2-4 units in a multi-family development with a discharge to a critical area • ❑ Marina and/or boatyard provided the hull painting, service and maintenance areas are protected • from exposure to rain, snow, snow melt and runoff ❑ Bike Path and/or Foot Path • • ® Redevelopment Project • ❑ Redevelopment portion of mix of new and redevelopment. • ❑ Certain standards are not fully met(Standard No. 1, 8, 9, and 10 must always be fully met)and an • explanation of why these standards are not met is contained in the Stormwater Report. • ❑ The project involves redevelopment and a description of all measures that have been taken to improve existing conditions is provided in the Stormwater Report. The redevelopment checklist found • in Volume 2 Chapter 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook may be used to document that • the proposed stormwater management system (a) complies with Standards 2, 3 and the pretreatment and structural BMP requirements of Standards 4-6 to the maximum extent practicable and (b) • improves existing conditions. • Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control • A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan must include the • following information: (To sra ?Ido"oeo tee SW PPP) • • Narrative; • • Construction Period Operation and Maintenance Plan; • • Names of Persons or Entity Responsible for Plan Compliance; • Construction Period Pollution Prevention Measures; • Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Drawings; • • Detail drawings and specifications for erosion control-BMPs, including sizing calculations; • • Vegetation Planning; Site Development Plan; • Construction Sequencing Plan; • • Sequencing of Erosion and Sedimentation Controls; • Operation and Maintenance of Erosion and Sedimentation Controls; • • Inspection Schedule; • • Maintenance Schedule; • Inspection and Maintenance Log Form. • ❑ A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan containing • the information set forth above has been included in the Stormwater Report • • swcheck.doc•04/011M. Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 7 of 8 • • • = Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection -Wetlands Program Checklist for Stormwater Report • • Checklist (continued) • Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control • (continued) • ❑ The project is highly complex and information is included in the Stormwater Report that explains why it is not possible to submit the Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and • Sedimentation Control Plan with the application. A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and • Erosion and Sedimentation Control has not been included in the Stormwater Report but will be submitted before land disturbance begins. • • ❑ The project is not covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit. • ❑ The project is covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit and a copy of the SWPPP is in the Stormwater Report. • ® The project is covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit but no SWPPP been submitted. • The SWPPP will be submitted BEFORE land disturbance begins. • Standard 9: Operation and Maintenance Plan • ® The Post Construction Operation and Maintenance Plan is included in the Stormwater Report and includes the following information: (-SM Ustc- ® 1�PA Pkavlow iN 1 • ❑ Name of the stormwater management system owners; )) • • ❑ Party responsible for operation and maintenance; • ❑ Schedule for implementation of routine and non-routine maintenance tasks; = ❑ Plan showing the location of all stormwater BMPs maintenance access areas; • ❑ Description and delineation of public safety features; • ❑ Estimated operation and maintenance budget; and ❑ Operation and Maintenance Log Form. ❑ The responsible party is not the owner of the parcel where the BMP is located and the Stormwater • Report includes the following submissions: • ❑ A copy of the legal instrument(deed, homeowner's association, utility trust or other legal entity) • that establishes the terms of and legal responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the • project site stormwater BMPs; • ❑ A plan and easement deed that allows site access for the legal entity to operate and maintain BMP functions. • Standard 10: Prohibition of Illicit Discharges • ® The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan includes measures to prevent illicit discharges; • ® An Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement is attached; • ❑ NO Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement is attached but will be submitted prior to the discharge of • any stormwater to post-construction BMPs. • • swcheck.doc•04/01/08 - _ - - Stormwater Report Checklist•Page 8 of 8 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Checklist for Redevelopment Projects • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I, • • • Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook • • Chapter 3 • • Checklist for Redevelopment Projects • Standard 7.A redevelopment project is required to meet the following Stormwater Management • Standards only to the maximum extent practicable:Standard 2, Standard 3,and the pretreatment and • structural stormwater best management practice requirements of Standards 4, S,and 6. Existing • stormwater discharges shall comply with Standard I only to the maximum extent practicable. A • redevelopment project shall also comply with all other requirements of the Stormwater Management Standards and improve existing conditions. • Redevelopment is defined to include • • • Maimenance.and improvement of existing roadways,including widening less than a • single lane,adding shoulders,correcting substandard intersections, improving existing • drainage systems;and repaving; • Development rehabilitation,expansion and phased projects on previously developed • sites,provided the redevelopment results in no net increase in impervious area;and • • Remedial projects specifically designed to provide improved stormwater management, such as projects to separate storm drains and sanitary sewers,and stormwater retrofit • projects. . Components of redevelopment projects that include development of previously undeveloped sites do not • meet this definition. The portion of the project located in a previously developed area must meet Standard • 7,but project components within undeveloped areas must meet all the Standards. - MassDEP recognizes that site constraints often make it difficult to comply with all the Standards at a • redevelopment site. These constraints are as follows: - Lack of space. Because of the presence of existing structures, on-site subsurface sewage • disposal systems, stormwater best management practices, and water bodies and wetlands,and • easements,the space available for the installation of additional stormwater BMPs may be quite • limited. On many suites it may be difficult or impossible to use space-intensive BMPs such as wet detention basins. • wommob Soils: The presence of bedrock or clay can limit the effectiveness of infiltration or detention = BMPs. Often soils at redevelopment sites have been compacted by buildings and heavy traffic, impairing their ability to infiltrate stormwater into the ground. n Ph # t�5 • Underground utilities. The presence of underground utilities including gas and water mains, • sewer pipes and electric cable conduits can greatly reduce the amount of land available for BMPs. • This chapter provides specific guidance and checklists to ensure that the applicant has met his/her obligations under Standard 7. Because it may be difficult for a redevelopment project to comply with all the Stormwater Management Standards, Standard 7 provides that a redevelopment project is required to • comply with the following Standards only"to the maximum extent practicable": Standard 2, Standard 3, • and the pretreatment and structural stormwater best management practice requirements of Standards 4, 5, and 6. Existing outfalls shall be brought into compliance with Standard 1 only to the maximum extent • practicable. • • Volume 2:Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Chapter 3 Page I • Stormwater Management Standards • • • • ' Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook • As set forth in Standard 7,the phrase"to the maximum extent practicable"means that: • m==#w (1) Proponents of redevelopment projects have made all reasonable efforts to meet the • requirements of Standards 2 and 3 and the pretreatment and structural stormwater • best management practices requirements of Standards 4, 5,and 6 and to bring • existing outfalls into compliance with Standard 1. • (2) They have made a complete evaluation of possible Stormwater management • measures, including environmentally sensitive site design that minimizes land disturbance and impervious surfaces,low impact development techniques and • structural stormwater BMPs; and (3) If not in full compliance with Standard I for existing outfalls, Standards 2 and 3 and the pretreatment and structural stormwater best management practice requirements of Standards 4, 5,and 6,they are implementing the highest practicable level of • stormwater management. • Generally, an alternative is practicable if it can be implemented within the site being redeveloped,taking - into consideration cost, land area requirements,soils and other site constraints. However, offsite • alternatives may also be practicable.Proponents must document the evaluation of practicable alternatives with sufficient information to support the conclusions of the analysis. • • At the same time, stormwater runoff from redevelopment projects must be properly managed.To this end, Standard 7 provides that redevelopment projects shall comply with all other requirements of the • Stormwater Management Standards,including,without limitation, the pollution prevention requirements . of Standards 4, 5, and 6, the erosion and sedimentation control requirements of Standard 8,the operation and maintenance requirements of Standard 9, and the prohibition of illicit discharge set forth in Standard • 10. Proponents must also improve existing conditions. • Proponents of redevelopment projects shall document their compliance with these requirements. To assist proponents and reviewers in determining whether a redevelopment project complies with Standard 7, • MassDEP has prepared the following redevelopment checklist. • [Proponents of MassHighway redevelopment projects and Conservation Commissions reviewing such • projects may follow the guidelines for redevelopment provided in the MassHighway Stormwater • Handbook for Highways and Bridges (May 2004 or latest version) in lieu of the guidance set forth in this • chapter.' The MassHighway Stormwater Handbook was developed by the Massachusetts Highway Department and issued by joint correspondence of May 7, 2004 by MusHighway and MassDEP. It • provides detailed guidance on the evaluation and implementation ofstormwater management practices • for MassHighway road and bridge redevelopment projects, including a methodologyfor screening and selecting Best Management Practices (BMPs). Proponents acrd reviewers of other public roadway • redevelopment projects may find useful information in the MassHighway Stormwater Handbook.] • • • • • • 'The MassHighway Handbook published in 2004 must be revised to make it consistent with this Handbook Volume 2:Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Chapter 3 Page 2 • Stormwater Management Standards • • • • Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook • • • Redevelopment Checklist • Existing Conditions • • On-site: For all redevelopment projects,proponents should document existing conditions, • including a description of extent of impervious surfaces, soil types, existing land uses • with higher potential pollutant loads, and current onsite stormwater management • practices. - Watershed: Proponents should determine whether the project is located in a watershed or subwatershed,where flooding, low streamflow or poor water quality is an issue. - The Project • Is the project a redevelopment project? JW' • • Maintenance and improvement of existing roadways • • Development of rehabilitation, expansion or phased project on redeveloped site,or - • Remedial stormwater project - For non-roadway projects,is any portion of the project outside the definition of redevelopment? • • Development of previously undeveloped area = • Increase in impervious surface • If a component of the project is not a redevelopment project,the proponent shall use the checklist set - forth below to document that at a minimum the proposed stormwater management system fully meets each Standard for that component. The proponent shall also document that the proposed stormwater • management system meets the requirements of Standard 7 for the remainder of the project. • The Stormwater Management Standards • • The redevelopment checklist reviews compliance with each of the Stormwater Management Standards in . order. • Standard 1: (Untreated discharges,) - No new stormwater conveyances(e.g.,outfalls) may discharge untreated stormwater directly to or - cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth. Same rule applies for new developments and redevelopments. • Full compliance with Standard 1 is required for new outfalls. ; • What BMPs are proposed to ensure that all new discharges associated with the discharge are adequately treated? SAAAP CIS%$ t eKbiwitri. ir, snitAcemi wit • • What BMPs are propmed t----e that no new discharges cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealthftl Q W 360" Fos, \10 ACee f 4: Jlkyt-nolJ= • Will the proposed discharge comply with all applicable requirements of the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 314 CMR 3.00, 314 CMR 4.00 and • 314 CMR 5.00? Y�e� • Volume 2:Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Chapter 3 Page 3 Stormwater Management Standards • • • • • Massachuseas Stormwater Handbook • Existing outfalls shall be brought into compliance with Standard 1 to the maximum extent practicable. • Are there any existing discharges associated with the redevelopment project for which new treatment could be provided? ti® • • If so, the proponent shall specify the stormwater BMP retrofit measures that have been . considered to ensure that the discharges are adequately treated and indicate the reasons for - adopting or rejecting those measures. (See Section entitled"Retrofit of Existing BMPs".) • What BMPs have been considered to prevent erosion from existing stormwater discharges? • Standard 2:(Peak rate control and flood prevention) Stormwater management systems must be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates. This Standard may be waived for land subject to - coastal stormJlowage. • Full compliance for any component that is not a redevelopment Compliance to the Maximum Extent Practicable: • Does the redevelopment design meet Standard 2,comparing post-development to pre- development conditions? XE 31 • If not, the applicant shall document an analysis of alternative approaches for meeting the Standard. (See Menu of Strategies to Reduce Runoff and Peak Flows and/or Increase Recharge • Menu included at the end of this chapter.) • Improvement of existing conditions: • • Does the project reduce the volume and/or rate of runoff to less than current estimated • conditions?Has the applicant considered all the alternatives for reducing the volume and/or rate of runoff from the site? (See Menu.) • Is the project located within a watershed subject to damage by flooding during the 2-year or 10- year 24-hour storm event?If so,does the project design provide for attenuation of the 2-year and • 10-year 24-hour storm event to less than current estimated conditions? Have measures been t, implemented to reduce the volume of runoff from the site resulting from the 2 year or 10 year 24 . hour storm event?(See Menu.) {.fie - • Is the project located adjacent to a water body or watercourse subject to adverse impacts from NOV. flooding during the 100-year 24-hour storm event?If so,are portions of the site available to increase flood storage adjacent to existing Bordering Land Subject to Flooding(BLSF)? CV4*r WOftftUff\ • • Have measures been implemented to attenuate peak rates of discharge during the 100-year 24- a • hour storm event to less than the peak rates under current estimated conditions?Have measures Nks • been implemented to reduce the volume of runoff from the site resulting from the 100-year 24- hour storm event? (See Menu.) - Standard 3: (Recharge to Ground water) Loss of annual recharge to ground water shall be eliminated or minimized through the use of infiltration measures,including environmentally sensitive site design,low Impact development techniques, best management practices, and good operation and maintenance.At a minimum,the annual recharge from the post-development site shall approximate the annual recharge from the pre- development conditions based on soil type. This Standard is met when the stormwater management • system is designed to infiltrate the required recharge volume as determined in accordance with the Massachuseliss Stormwaler Handbook. • Full compliance for any component that is not a redevelopment • Volume 2:Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Chapter 3 Page 4 Stormwater Management Standards • • • Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook Compliance to the Maximum Extent Practicable: . • Does the redevelopment design meet Standard 3, comparing post-development to pre- development conditions? 'IEs • If not,the applicant shall document an analysis of alternative approaches for meeting the Standard? - • What soil types are present on the site?Is the site is comprised� solely of C and D soils and bedrock at the land surface? 'D �i 1®§ IL aV S • Does the project include sites where recharge is proposed at or adjacent to an area classified as • contaminated, sites where contamination has been capped in place, sites that have an Activity and Use Limitation(AUL)that precludes inducing runoff to the groundwater,pursuant to MGL Chapter 21E and the Massachusetts Contingency Plan 310 CMR 40.0000;sites that are the location of a solid waste landfill as defined in 310 CMR 19.000; or sites where groundwater from - the recharge location flows directly toward a solid waste landfill or 2 1 E site?Z "OE E S • Is the stormwater runoff from a land use with a higher potential pollutant load? N® • Is the discharge to the ground located within the Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area of a public water supply? Nye • Does the site have an infiltration rate greater than 2.4 inches per hour? q a Improvements to Existing Conditions: S • Does the project increase the required recharge volume over existing(developed)conditions?If - so,can the project be redesigned to reduce the required recharge volume by decreasing impervious surfaces(make building higher,put parking under the building,narrower roads, , sidewalks on only one side of street,etc.)or using low impact development techniques such as ' porous pavement? %.40 • Is the project located within a basin or sub-basin that has been categorized as under high or medium stress by the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission,or where there is other evidence that there are rivers and streams experiencing low flow problems? If so,have measures been considered to replace the natural recharge lost as a result of the prior development?(See Menu.) t4og To Tft %gE5r C* O.-M KNOWS • • Has the applicant evaluated measures for reducing site runoff? (See Menu.) Standard 4: (80%TSS Removal) Stormwater management systems must be designed to remove 80% of the average annual post- - construction load of Total Suspended Solids(TSS). This standard is met when: • a. Suitable practices for source control and pollution prevention are idendfwd in a long-term pollution prevention plan and thereafter are implemented and maintained, b. Stormwater BMPs are sized to capture the required water quality volume determined in • accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook, and c. Pretreatment is provided in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. Full compliance for any component that is not a redevelopment . Full compliance with the long-term pollution plan requirement for new developments and - redevelopments. • Has the proponent developed a long-tern pollution plan that fully meets the requirements of S Standard 49 'ro Be PIVD✓low Iar SWQQP • Does the pollution prevention plan include the following source control measures? o Street sweeping E5 � 2 A mounding analysis is needed if a site falls within this category. See Volume 3. - Volume 2:Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Chapter 3 Page 5 Stormwater Management Standards 41 • • • Massachusetts Stormwater(landbook • o Proper management of snow, salt, sand and other deicing chemicals '10 o Proper management of fertilizers,herbicides and pesticides o Stabilization of existing eroding surfaces AWS • • Compliance to the Maximum Extent Practicable for the other requirements: • • Does the redevelopment design provide for treatment of all runoff from existing(as well as new) w impervious areas to achieve 80%TSS removal? If 80%TSS removal is not achieved,has the • stormwater management system been designed to remove TSS to the maximum extent practicable? '(ES • • Have the proposed Stormwater BMPs been properly sized to capture the prescribed runoff volume? KES (,SE S-T%lAC w-Vr.V. Stzt�lta CAuC.WLATlo.. {i/ � o One inch rule applies for discharge • within a Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area, • near or to another critical area, • from a land use with a higher potential pollutant load to the ground where the infiltration rate is greater than 2.4 inches per hour • Has adequate pretreatmembeen proposed? `(C-5 (per Svr.P as'-, W/N000) o 44%TSS Removal Pretreatment Requirement applies if: • • Stormwater runoff is from a land use with a higher potential pollutant load Stormwater is discharged • • To the ground within the Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area of a Public Water Supply • To the ground with an infiltration rate greater than 2.4 inches per • hour • Near or to an Outstanding Resource Water, Special Resource Water, Cold-Water Fishery, Shellfish Growing Area,or Bathing Beach. '• • If the stormwater BMPs do not meet all the requirements set forth above, the applicant shall document an analysis of alternative approaches for meeting the these requirements. (See Section on Retrofitting Existing BMPs(the"Retrofit Section"). Improvements to Existing Conditions: • Have measures been provided to achieve at least partial compliance with the TSS removal standard? `(E' • • Have any of the best management practices in the RetrofitSection been considered? N.A • Have any of the following pollution prevention measures been considered? o Reduction or elimination of winter sanding,where safe and prudent to do so 140 o Tighter controls over the application of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides yeS • o Landscaping that reduces the need for fertilizer,herbicides and pesticides *to o High frequency sweeping of paved surfaces using vacuum sweepers µp o Improved catch basin cleaning `WS, o Waterfowl control programs MO • Are there any discharges(new or existing)to impaired waters? If so,see TMDL section. tAO Standard 5 (Higher Potential Pollutant Loads(HPPL) t4,A, a For land uses with higher polential pollutant loads,source control and pollution prevention shall be implemented in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater handbook to eliminate or reduce the discharge of stormwater runoff from such land uses to the maximum extent practicable, If through source control araUor pollution prevention,all land uses with higher potential pollutant loads cannot Volume 2:Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Chapter 3 Page 6 41 Stormwater Management Standards • • Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook be completely protectedfrom exposure to rain,snow,snow mek and Stormwater runoff, the proponent shall use the specUlc stormwater BMPs determined by the Department to be suitable for such use as s provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. Stormwater discharges from land uses with higher potential pokulant loads shall also comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act,M.G.L. c. 21,§§26-53,and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 314 CMR 3.00,314 49 CMR 4.00 and 314 CMR 5.00. Full compliance for any component that is not a redevelopment. • Full compliance with pollution prevention requirements for new developments and redevelopments. Pollution Prevention • Has the proponent considered any of the following operational source control measures? o Formation of a pollution prevention team, - o Good housekeeping practices, • o Preventive maintenance procedures, o Spill prevention and clean up, i o Employee training, and • o Regular inspection of pollutant sources. • Has the proponent considered implementation of any of the following operational changes to reduce the quantity of pollutants on site? o Process changes, o Raw material changes, o Product changes,or o Recycling. 40 • Has the proponent considered making capital improvements to protect the land uses with higher - potential pollutant loads from exposure to rain,snow, snow melt,and stormwater runoff? o Enclosing and/or covering pollutant sources(e.g.placing pollutant sources within a building or other enclosure,placing a roof over storage and working areas,placing tarps under pollutant source) o Installing a containment system with an emergency shutoff to contain spills? • o Physically segregating the pollutant source to prevent run-on of uncontaminated • stormwater? reatment • If applicable,compliance with the treatment and pretreatment requirements of Standard 5 only to the Maximum Extent Practicable by directing the stormwater runoff from land uses with higher potential pollutant loads to appropriate stormwater BMPs? o Are the BMPs selected capable of removing the pollutants associated with the higher potential pollutant load land("LUHPPL")use? o Is the land use likely to generate stormwater with high concentrations of oil and grease? If so has an oil grit separator, sand filter,filtering bioretention area or equivalent been •' proposed for pretreatment? i Improvement of Existing Conditions. • Volume 2:Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Chapter 3 Page 7 • Stormwater Management Standards • w • • Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook • pf • If the redevelopment converts a site from a non-LUHPPL use to a LUHPPL use,the applicant w shall document how the stormwater BMPs shall be modified or replaced to come into compliance with Standard 5. • • • What specific measures have been considered to offset the anticipated impacts of land uses with • higher potential pollutant loads? • • If the redevelopment proposal is a brownfield project,the applicant shall demonstrate how the • stormwater management measures have been designed to prevent mobilization or remobilization of soil and groundwater contamination. (See Brownfield section) • • Other Requirements • • Does the discharge comply with all applicable requirements of the Massachusetts Clean Waters w Act, 314 CMR 3.00,314 CMR 4.00 and 314 CMR 5.00? • Standard 6(Critical Areas) Stormwater discharges to a Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area of a public water supply and stormwater discharges near or any other critical area require the use of the specific source control and pollution prevention measures and the specific stormwater best management practices determined by the Department to be suitable for managing discharges to such area, as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook A discharge is near a critical area if there is a strong likelihood of a significant impact occurring to said area, taking into account site-specific factors. Stormwater discharges to Outstanding Resource Waters or Special Resource Waters shall be set back from the receiving water and receive the highest and best practical method of treatment.A "stormwater discharge,"as defined in 314 CMR 3.04(2)(a)1. or(b),to an Outstanding Resource Water or Special • Resource Water shall comply with 314 CMR 3.00 and 314 CMR 4.00. Stormwater discharges to a Zone I or Zone A are prohibited unless essential to the operation of the public water supply. • Full compliance for component of project that is not a redevelopment • Full compliance with pollution prevention requirements for new developments and redevelopments. • If applicable, compliance to the Maximum Extent Practicable with the pretreatment and treatment • requirements of Standard 6: • • Does the redevelopment project utilize the pretreatment,treatment and infiltration BMPs • approved for discharges near or to critical areas? • • If the redevelopment project does not comply with Standard 6,the applicant shall document an analysis of alternative measures for meeting Standard 6.(See Section on Specific Redevelopment Projects.) • • Improvements to Existing Conditions: • Have measures to protect critical areas been considered, including additional pollution prevention • measures and structural and non-structural BMPs? = Other Requirements • Does the discharge comply with the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, 314 CMR 3.00, 314 CMR • 4.00,and 314 CMR 5.00? = Standard 8: (Erosion. Sediment Control Volume 2:Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Chapter 3 Page 8 • Stormwater Management Standards • • w • Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook • • A plan to control construction-related impacts,including erosion sedimentation and other pollutant • sources during construction and land disturbance activities(construction period erosion, • sedimentation, and pollution prevention plan), must be developed and implemented. • All redevelopment projects shall fully comply with Standard 8. w • Has the proponent submitted a construction period erosion, sedimentation and pollution • prevention plan that meets the requirements of Standard 8? sr. S.6uousvm® t J swiW Standard 9: (Operation and Maintenance) • A long-term operation and maintenance plan must be developed and implemented to ensure that • stormwater management systems function as designed. • All redevelopment projects shall fully comply with Standard 9. • • Has the proponent submitted a long-term Operation and Maintenance plan that meets the • requirements of Standard 9? �.$re P14a0 l,t ivy P� • Standard 10 (Illicit Discharges) • All illicit discharges to the stormwater management system are prohibited • All redevelopment projects shall fully comply with Standard 10. • • Are there any known or suspected illicit discharges to the stormwater management system at the • redevelopment project site? No • • Has an illicit connection detection program been implemented using visual screening,dye or smoke testing? Woo • • Have an Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement and associated site map been submitted verifying • that there are no illicit discharges to the stormwater management system at the site? • • Improvements to Existing Conditions: • • Once all illicit discharges are removed,has the proponent implemented any measures to prevent • additional illicit discharges? M,q • • • • • • • • • • • • • Volume 2:Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Chapter 3 Page 9 • Stormwater Management Standards • • • • • • Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook • • • Figure 5-1 • • Menu of Strategies to Reduce Runoff or Peak Flows and/or Increase Recharge • • Rehabilitate the soils • o.�e. • Plant trees and other vegetation • • Install a green roof • • Maximize naturally vegetated areas ...0 • Reduce impervious surfaces • m mom • Disconnect roof runoff from direct discharge to the drainage system • • Disconnect other existing paved areas from direct discharge to the drainage system, allowing controlled flow over pervious areas or through BMPs providing at least partial recharge • Install porous pavement and/or other recharge measures(where sustainable and maintainable for • promoting infiltration) • • Apply LID techniques for runoff reduction .,,v,2, • Install additional structural BMPs that are appropriate for redevelopment sites including • infiltration trenches, subsurface structures,oil-grit separators,proprietary BMPs • Retrofit existing BMPs • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Volume 2:Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Chapter 3 Page to • Stormwater Management Standards . . • • Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook • • Retrofitting Existing BMPs �. • Many BMPs can be effectively retrofitted depending on site conditions and the water quantity or quality • objectives trying to be achieved.3 The objective of stormwater retrofitting is to remedy problems • associated with, and improve water quality mitigation functions of, older,poorly designed,or poorly • maintained stormwater management systems. Prior to the development of the stormwater standards, site • drainage design did not require stormwater detention for controlling post-development peak flows. As a result,drainage,flooding,and erosion problems can be common in many older developed areas of the • state. Furthermore,a majority of the dry detention basins throughout the state have been designed to • control peak flows,without regard to water quality mitigation. Therefore,many existing dry detention basins provide only minimal water quality benefit.Incorporating stormwater retrofits into existing • developed sites or into redevelopment projects can reduce the adverse impacts of uncontrolled stormwater • runoff. • Bioretention Area Retrofits-can be used as a stormwater retrofit,by modifying existing landscaped areas, • or if a parking lot is being resurfaced. In highly urban watersheds,they are one of the few practical • retrofit options. • Catch Basin Retrofits or Reconstruction-Older catch basins without sumps can be replaced with catch • basins having four foot-deep sumps. Sumps provide storage volume for coarse sediments,assuming that accumulated sediment is removed on a regular basis.Hooded outlets,which are covers over the catch • basin outlets that extend below the standing water line,can also be used to trap litter and other floatable • materials.Leaching catch basins can be installed adjacent to deep sump catch basins to achieve 80%TSS • removal.Be aware,however,that many products are being touted as catch basin inserts,but.the effectiveness of these devices can vary significantly. • Dry Detention Basin Retrofits-Traditional dry detention basins can be modified to become extended dry = .detention basins,wet basins,or constructed stormwater wetlands for enhanced pollutant removal. This is one of the most commonly and easily implemented retrofits, since it typically requires little or no • additional land area,capitalizes on an existing facility for which there is already some resident acceptance • of stormwater management,and involves minimal impacts to environmental resources(Claytor,Center for Watershed Protection,2000). • There are numerous retrofit options that will enhance the removal of pollutants in detention basins: • • • Excavate the basin bottom to create more permanent pool storage. • • Raise the basin embankment to obtain additional storage for extended detention. • • Modify the outfall structure to create a two-stage release to better control small storms while not significantly compromising flood control detention for large storms. • • Increase the flow path from inflow to outflow and eliminate short-circuiting by using baffles, • earthen berms or micro-pond topography to increase residence time. • • Incorporate stilling basins at inlets and outlets. • Regrade the basin bottom to create a wetland area near the basin outlet or revegetate parts of the • basin bottom with wetland vegetation to enhance pollutant removal,reduce mowing,and improve • aesthetics. • • Create a wetland shelf along the perimeter of a wet basin to improve shoreline stabilization, enhance pollutant filtering,and enhance aesthetic and habitat functions. • • Create a low maintenance"no-mow"wildflower ecosystem in the drier portions of the basin. - 3 Additional information on retrofitting stormwater BMPs can be found in the Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices • Manual. See hqp://www.cyM.orgQownloads/ELC USRM3ann.odf. • Volume 2:Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Chapter 3 Page 11 Stormwater Management Standards - - - - - • • • • Massachusetts Storm water Handbook • • Provide a high flow bypass to avoid resuspension of captured sediments/pollutants during high • flows. • Eliminate low-flow bypasses. Drainage Channel Retrofits-Existing channelized streams and drainage conveyances such as drainage channels can be modified to reduce flow velocities and enhance pollutant removal.Weir walls or riprap check dams placed across a channel create opportunities for ponding, infiltration,and establishment of wetland vegetation upstream of the retrofit.In-stream retrofit practices include stream bank stabilization • of eroded areas and placement of habitat improvement structures(i.e.,flow deflectors,boulders, pools/riffles,and low-flow channels)in natural streams and along stream banks.In-stream retrofits may • require an evaluation of potential flooding and floodplain impacts resulting from altered channel • conveyance,as well as requirements for local,state, or federal approval for'work in wetlands and • watercourses. - Parking Lots and Roadways-Parking lots offer ideal opportunities for a wide range of stormwater • retrofits: • 1. Incorporate bioretention areas into parking lot islands and landscaped areas;tree planter boxes • can be converted into functional bioretention areas,rain gardens,or treebox filters to reduce and treat stormwater runoff. • 2. Remove curbing and add slotted curb stops.Curbs along the edges of parking lots can sometimes be removed or slotted to re-route runoff to vegetated filter strips,water quality swales,grass channels,or bioretention facilities.The capacity of existing swales may need to be evaluated and expanded as part of this retrofit option. • 3. Incorporate new treatment practices such as bioretention areas,sand filters,and constructed • stormwater wetlands at the edges of parking lots. 4. In overflow parking or other low-traffic areas,asphalt can be replaced with porous pavement. • Sand Filter Retrofits-are suitable where space is limited, because they consume little surface space and • have few site restrictions. Since sand filters cannot treat large drainage areas,retrofitting many small individual sites may be the only option.This option may be expensive. • - Storm Drain Outfalls-New storrawater treatment practices can be constructed at the outfalls of existing drainage systems. The new stormwater treatment practices are commonly designed as off-line devices to • treat the fust flush volume and bypass larger storms. Water quality swales,bioretention areas, sand filters, • constructed stormwater wetlands,and wet basins are commonly used for this type of retrofit.Other • stormwater treatment practices may also be used if there is enough space for construction and maintenance. • • • Specific Redevelopment Projects - Redevelopment projects present unique challenges for controlling stormwater.It is possible that site constraints may prevent a redevelopment project from complying with one or more of the Stormwater Management Standards. Even if a redevelopment project cannot meet all of the Standards,there may be • ample opportunity to improve existing site conditions depending on the other water quality or quantity issues in the watershed.The following special considerations provide unique opportunities for identifying • how existing conditions may be improved: • Volume 2:Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Chapter 3 Page 12 • Stoanwater Management Standards • • • • Massachusetts Storm water Handbook • �.� . A. Groundwater Recharge Areas-Redevelopment projects located within these areas(Zone II, • Interim Wellhead Protection Areas(IWPA),aquifer protection districts,etc.)should place a high • priority on ground water recharge BMPs. 1) Disconnecting Rooftop Runoff—In some instances,building roof drains connected to the • stormwater drainage system can be disconnected and re-directed to vegetated filter strips, • bioretention facilities,or infiltration structures(dry wells or infiltration trenches). • 2) Use of Porous Paving Materials-Existing impermeable pavement in overflow parking or other low-traffic areas can sometimes be replaced with alternative permeable materials such • as modular concrete paving blocks, modular concrete or plastic lattice,or cast-in-place . concrete grids. Site-specific factors including traffic volumes,soil permeability,maintenance, sediment loads,and land use must be carefully considered prior to selection. • • B. Cold-Water Fisheries-Redevelopment projects adjacent to these areas should place a high • priority on mitigating potential thermal impacts. Techniques to consider include: • 1) Maintain Time of Concentration-Time of concentration(Tc) is based on the flow path and • length,ground cover, slope and channel shape.When development occurs,Tc is often shortened due to the impervious area,causing greater flows to occur over a shorter period of • time. Increasing the Tc will help to reduce the thermal impact of stormwater runoff from warm surface areas.Options to consider include: • • Increasing the length of the runoff flow path • • Increasing the surface roughness of the flow path • • Detaining flows on site • Minimizing land disturbance • • Creating flatter slopes. • 2) Disconnecting impervious areas—Breaking up large impervious expanses with vegetated • zones will reduce the potential temperature increases of stormwater flowing across hot pavement. • • • C. Brownfield Redevelopment—Redeveloping urban and non-urban brownfield sites(which in • Massachusetts includes most"disposal sites'under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan[MCP]) • are a Commonwealth priority,with ramifications for urban sprawl as well as the remediation of historically contaminated properties. Proponents of brownfield redevelopment projects should • evaluate BMPs that will prevent the significant uncontrolled mobilization or remobilization of • soil or ground water contamination. BMP considerations at these sites should consider such factors as: • • The location of stormwater infiltration units with respect to contaminated areas • • Ground water mounding effects on the rate and direction of migration of ground water • contaminants • The location of outfalls • • Water quality BMPs. • D. Runoff to Impaired Water Bodies—If MassDEP has issued a Total Maximum Daily Load • (TMDL)that establishes a waste load allocation for stormwater discharge and/or a TMDL • Implementation Plan that identifies remedies aimed at reducing the amount of pollutants from - stormwater discharges,proponents may be required to install stormwater BMPs that are consistent with the TMDL. • Volume 2:Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Chapter 3 Page 13 • Stormwater Management Standards - • • • • • - Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook • • • E. Runoff to Areas of Localized Flooding—Project proponents must also understand the potential impacts of stormwater runoff in areas prone to localized flooding. When completing the • checklist,proponents should consider the capacity of the receiving water and/or storm drainage • system. When evaluating discharges to areas subject to localized flooding,the proponent should evaluate the ability to maintain and/or improve existing site cover and reduce runoff volume. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - Volume 2:Technical Guide for Compliance with the Massachusetts Chapter 3 Page 14 • Stormwater Management Standards • • A M i • • w • w • • a Operation & Maintenance Plan w r • • • w • • w • w 'r w w • • • • w • • • • • • Operation &Maintenance Plan 72 Flint Street, #67 & #71 Mason Street Salem, MA September 21,2014 This Operation&Maintenance Plan has been prepared to comply with the provisions set forth in the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection(DEP)Stormwater Management Standards. Structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) require periodic maintenance to insure proper function and • efficiency in pollutant removal from stormwater discharges that would otherwise reach wetland resource areas untreated. Maintenance schedules found below are as recommended in Department of Environmental A Protection's Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook and as recommended in the manufacturefs specifications. The following BMPs shall be utilized for the Riverview Place project for pollutant removal from stormwater is discharge as well providing additional groundwater recharge on site by directing the proposed roof runoff to an infiltration basin: • Parking Lot Sweeping 40 • Deep-Sump Catch Basins • Stormceptor STC 4800 , • Bioretention Cells for Roof Runoff • Parking Lot Sweeping: • • The parking lot shall he swept at least once per year in the spring. Deep Sump Catch Basins.• • Inspect at least four times per year with special consideration given to the end of foliage and snow , removal seasons. • Sediments must be removed whenever the depth of deposits is greater than or equal to one half the r depth from the bottom of the sump or one half the depth of the invert of the outlet pipe. 40 • Clamshell buckets and/or vacuum trucks are typically used to remove sediment in Massachusetts. • Cleanings may be taken to a landfill or other facility permitted by MassDEP to accept solid waste, i without any prior approval by MassDEP. However,some landfills require catch basin cleanings to be tested before they are accepted. For information on all of the MassDEP requirements pertaining to the 'A disposal of catch basin cleanings go to www.Mass.gov/dep/recycle/laws/cafacts.doc • • w • Stormcegtor STC 4800: • • • •Operation & Maintenance Plan •Riverview Place, Salem, MA - September 21, 2014 •Stormceptor STC 4800: = • Rinker Materials generally recommends annual maintenance be performed or whenever the sediment volume in the unit reaches 15% of the total storage. • • • Oil is removed through the 6"inspection/cleanout pipe and sediment is removed through the 24" • diameter outlet riser pipe. Alternatively, oil could be removed from the 24" opening if water is removed from the treatment chamber,lowering the oil level below the drop pipes. • • • The depth of sediment can be measured from the surface of the Stormceptor with a dipstick tube • equipped with a ball valve (Sludge Judge®). Rinker Materials recommends maintenance be performed • once the sediment depth exceeds the guideline values provided in Table 8 found on page 19 of The Stormceptor®System Technical Manual. As can be seen below,the sediment depth indicating • required maintenance is eight(8")inches. • • Table 8. Sediment Depths Indicating Required Maintenance* • Model Sediment Depth • 450i 8" 200 mm • 900 8" 200 mm 1200 10" 250 mm • 1800 15" 375 mm • 2400 12" 300 mm • 3600 17" 425 mm • 4800 15" 375 mm 6000 18" 450 mm • 7200 15" 375 mm • 11000s 17" 425 mm)- 13000s m**13000s 20" 500 mm ** • 16000s 17" 425 mm)- Depths m**Depths are approximate • **Depths in each structure - • No entry into the unit is required for routine maintenance of the Inlet Stormceptor or the smaller disc insert models of the In-Line Stormceptor. Entry to the level of the by-pass may be required for • servicing the larger in-line models. Any potential obstructions at the inlet can be observed from the • surface. The by-pass chamber has been designed as a platform for authorized maintenance personnel, • in the event that an obstruction needs to be removed,drain flushing needs to be performed,or camera • surveys required. • • Typically,maintenance is performed by the Vacuum Service Industry,a well established sector of the • service industry that cleans underground tanks,sewers,and catch-basins. Costs to clean a Stormceptor • will vary based on the size of the unit and transportation distances. If you need assistance for cleaning a Stormceptor unit,contact your local Rinker Materials representative,or the Rinker Materials • Stormceptor Information Line at(800) 909-7763. • • 2 • • • • Operation &Maintenance Plan • Riverview Place, Salem, MA - September 21, 2014 • • The requirements for the disposal of material from a Stormceptor are similar to that of any other BMPs. • Local guidelines should be consulted prior to disposal of the separator contents. • • Bioretention Cells: • • Inspect and remove trash monthly throughout the year. = • Remove and replace dead vegetation annually in the spring. • • Prune the shrubs annually in the spring. • Remove any sediment from the top of the stone diaphragms and from the pretreatment sideslope • annually in the spring. • • Mow the pretreatment sideslopes once a month during the growing season. = • When areas of erosion are identified,repair areas of erosion and revegetate as needed as soon as • possible. • • Inspections shall be performed at least twice a year,or after a major storm event which is defined as a • storm that is equal to or greater than the 2-year storm event. • • During these inspections,record and map the following information: • -The presence of accumulated trash and/or debris, • -The presence of dead vegetation and/ or invasive species (invasives must be removed), -Stability of the sideslopes and berms, • -Accumulation of sediment, -Survival rate of plantings (dead plantings must be replaced) • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Erosion & Sedimentation Control • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Erosion &Sediment Control Plan • #72 Flint Street,#67 & #71 Mason Street • Salem, MA • September 21, 2014 • • In order to limit the amount of erosion and sedimentation that takes place during and after construction,it is • important to implement a management plan,which will protect and limit the amount of land area that is • devoid of vegetation at any given time. • Prior to Construction-Prior to start of construction activities,the owner,builder,and site contractor shall • clearly identify areas that may be affected by the proposed clearing and earth moving activities by reviewing • the approved grading plan as part of an initial site visit. During the site visit,the limit of work line shall be reviewed to confirm the type of erosion control measure to be used to protect downstream wetland resources • and abutting property. Limits of tree clearing shall be verified during the initial site visit with emphasis on • identifying"save areas" for existing trees and vegetation where practicable. • Erosion and Sediment Control Device • • Siltfence is proposed as the primary erosion control device for this project(see construction detail provided on • the subdivision plan set). It is important for the owner,builder,and/or site contractor to have access to a • supply of haybales should the need arise for additional erosion and sediment control measures. Haybales can be used along a slope and/or together with siltfence to protect against concentrated stormwater runoff over • exposed surfaces(see attached construction detail for haybale installation). The erosion and sediment control • devices shall be inspected every 7 days or within 24-hours of a 1/2-inch(or greater)rainfall event to ensure • that they are operating properly. If sediment levels begin to build up on the erosion control devices,it may be necessary to remove the accumulated sediment to ensure that the erosion control devices continue to operate • as designed. Sediment shall be removed if it builds up more than 12-inches above the ground surface at the • erosion control device. • Earth-moving Activities • • After trees and other vegetation are cleared,earth-moving (or grading) activities can begin. The approved • grading plan shall be used to help guide the site contractor during regrading activities. Often times it is • helpful to have a land surveyor establish benchmark elevations and/or lines of grade to aid the site contractor during regrading activities. This is the time during which the site is most vulnerable to erosion. Therefore,it • is important for the site contractor to finalize grading activities as soon as practicable following land clearing. • Areas than remain exposed longer than 30 working days in an interim condition shall be stabilized in a • temporary fashion. Once final grades have been established,permanent vegetation can be established. • Temporary Seeding • During construction it may be necessary to temporarily stabilize areas that will not be brought to final grade • for a period longer than 30 working days. Temporary seeding is accomplished using fast-growing grass seed • species such as ryegrass. Seeding shall be performed in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the • attached Temporary Seeding Guidance,which is an excerpt from a publication entitled,"Massachusetts • Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Urban and Suburban Areas,May 2003,prepared by Franklin, • Hampden,and Hampshire Conservation Districts." • • • •Erosion & Sediment Control #11 East Street&#0 Maple Street, Middleton, MA OFebruary 10, 2014 • Permanent Seeding&Plantings a Once final grades have been established and the weather permits,every effort shall be made to establish -permanent vegetation on disturbed and exposed areas. hi addition to grass seed, tree and shrub plantings shall be an integral part of the permanent stabilization plan Care shall be taken by the owner,builder,and/or Osite contractor to select trees, shrubs,and seed mixes that are best suited to the soil conditions on the site. Soil 40moisture, depth to seasonal groundwater,and exposure to sunlight shall be carefully considered when •selecting species. In recent years,the emphasis on using plant species native to Massachusetts has grown. Information on the use of non-native and native species can be found on the web and in many local nursery 49catalogs. -Permanent seeding shall be performed in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the attached Permanent Seeding Guidance,which is an excerpt from a publication entitled,"Massachusetts Erosion and Sediment OControl Guidelines for Urban and Suburban Areas, May 2003,prepared by Franklin,Hampden,and 4PHampshire Conservation Districts." 2 • • • • • • • • Attachment A • • • "Temporary Seeding Guidance Document" • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 142 Erosion and Sediment Control Practices • • Maintenance • Inspect seeded areas for failure and make necessary repairs and • reseed immediately. Conduct or follow-up survey after one year and • replace failed plants where necessary. If vegetative cover is inadequate to prevent rill erosion, overseed and • fertilize in accordance with soil test results. • If a stand has less than 40% cover, reevaluate choice of plant materials • and,quantities of lime and fertilizer. Re-establish the stand following seedbed preparation and seeding recommendations, omitting lime and • fertilizer in the absence of soil test results. If the season prevents resowing, • mulch or jute netting is an effective temporary cover. • Seeded areas should be fertilized during the second growing season. Lime and fertilize thereafter at periodic intervals,as needed. • R�f „ ... • e1,��f1C�S North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, • Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual, Raleigh, NC, February 1991. • Personal communication, Richard J. DeVergilio, USDA, Natural Resources • Conservation Service, Amherst, MA. • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Storm Water Management For • Construction Activities, EPA-832-R-92-005,Washington,DC, September, 1992. - Washington State Department of Ecology,Stormwater Management Manual • for the Puget Sound Basin, Olympia, WA, February, 1992. • 016 MW. . • Planting rapid-growing annual grasses, small grains, or legumes to • provide initial, temporary cover for erosion control on disturbed areas. • Purpose To temporarily stabilize areas that will not be brought to final grade for a period of more than 30 working days. • To stabilize disturbed areas before final grading or in a season not suitable • for permanent seeding. • Temporary seeding controls runoff and erosion until permanent vegetation or other erosion control measures can be established. • Root systems hold down the soils so that they are less apt to be carried • offsite by storm water runoff or wind. • Temporary seeding also reduces the problems associated with mud and dust from bare soil surfaces during construction. • • Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines • a • • • Erosion and Sediment Control Practices 143 • • Where Practice Applies On any cleared, unvegetated, or sparsely vegetated soil surface - where vegetative cover is needed for less than one year.Applications of this practice include diversions, dams, temporary sediment basins, • temporary road banks,and topsoil stockpiles. Where permanent structures are to be installed or extensive re- grading of the area will occur prior to the establishment of permanent vegetation. • Areas which will not be subjected to heavy wear by construction • traffic. Areas sloping up to 10% for 100 feet or less, where temporary seeding is the only practice used. • • Advantages This is a relatively inexpensive form of erosion control but should • only be used on sites awaiting permanent planting or grading. Those sites should have permanent measures used. • Vegetation will not only prevent erosion from occurring, but will • also trap sediment in runoff from other parts of the site. • Temporary seeding offers fairly rapid protection to exposed areas. Disadvantages/Problems Temporary seeding is only viable when there is a sufficient window • in time for plants to grow and establish cover. It depends heavily on the • season and rainfall rate for success. • If sown on subsoil, growth will be poor unless heavily fertilized and limed. Because overfertilization can cause pollution of stormwater • runoff, other practices such as mulching alone may be more • appropriate. The potential for over-fertilization is an even worse problem in or near aquatic systems. Once seeded, areas should not be travelled over. • Irrigation may be needed for successful growth. Regular irrigation • is not encouraged because of the expense and the potential for erosion in areas that are not regularly inspected. • Planning Considerations • Temporary seedings provide protective cover for less than • one year. Areas must be reseeded annual or planted with perennial • vegetation. Temporary seeding is used to protect earthen sediment control • practices and to stabilize denuded areas that will not be brought into final grade for several weeks or months. Temporary seeding can • provide a nurse crop for permanent vegetation, provide residue for soil protection and seedbed preparation, and help prevent dust production • during construction. • - Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines • S • • • 144 Erosion and Sediment Control Practices • Use low-maintenance native species wherever possible. • Planting should be timed to minimize the need for irrigation. • Sheet erosion, caused by the impact of rain on bare soil, is the source of most fine particles in sediment. To reduce this sediment load • in runoff,the soil surface itself should be protected.The most efficient and economical means of controlling sheet and rill erosion is to establish • vegetative cover.Annual plants which sprout rapidly and survive for only one growing season are suitable for establishing temporary vegetative • cover. Temporary seeding is effective when combined with construction • phasing so bare areas of the site are minimized at all times. • Temporary seeding may prevent costly maintenance operations on other erosion control systems. For example, sediment basin clean-outs will • be reduced if the drainage area of the basin is seeded where grading and • construction are not taking place. Perimeter dikes will be more effective if - not choked with sediment. Proper seedbed preparation and the use of quality seed are important • in this practice just as in permanent seeding. Failure to carefully follow • sound agronomic recommendations will often result in an inadequate • stand of vegetation that provides little or no erosion control. Soil that has been compacted by heavy traffic or machinery may • need to be loosened. Successful growth usually requires that the soil be • tilled before the seed is applied. Topsoiling is not necessary for temporary • seeding;however, it may improve the chances of establishing temporary . vegetation in an area. • • Planting Procedures • Time of Planting • Planting should preferably be done between April 1 and June 30, and • September 1 through September 30. If planting is done in the months of ' July and August, irrigation may be required. If planting is done between i October 1 and March 31, mulching should be applied immediately after planting. If seeding is done during the summer months, irrigation of some • sort will probably be necessary. Site Preparation • Before seeding, install needed surface runoff control measures such as • gradient terraces, interceptor dike/swales, level spreaders, and sediment • basins. • Seedbed Preparation The seedbed should be firm with a fairly fine surface. . Perform all cultural operations across or at right angles to the slope. See Topsofling and Surface Roughening for more information on seedbed • preparation.A minimum of 2 to 4 inches of tilled topsoil is required. - • Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines • • a • w Erosion and Sediment Control Practices 145 +� Liming and Fertilization Apply uniformly 2 tons of ground limestone per acre (100 lbs. per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) or according to soil test. Apply uniformly 10-10-10 analysis fertilizer at the rate of 400 lbs. per acre (14 lbs. per 1,000 Sq. Ft.) or as indicated by soil test. Forty percent of the nitrogen should be in organic form. Work in lime and fertilizer to a depth of 4 inches using any suitable equipment. ... S` .d d.dil § t ` +� (ti€•�Ytdd Yk fhb n° 'ta '; .. �rsutr -. t3ii€tae p� _ rill 1 t tr t t}tur.€ dt l wr . F 3 • n a �, sA EN F11 .. - ---;. 49 Seeding Select adapted species from the accompanying table. Apply seed uniformly according to the rate indicated in the table by broadcasting, drilling or hydraulic application. �. Cover seeds with suitable equipment as follows: mRye grass '/a inch • aMillet l6 to Y4 inch aOats 1 to 1-1/2 inches M aWinter rye 1 to 1-1/2 inches. i r Mulch i Use an effective mulch, such as clean grain straw;tacked and/or tied down with netting to protect seedbed and encourage plant growth. Common Trouble Points Lime and fertilizer not incorporated to at least 4 inches May be lost to runoff or remain concentrated near the surface where they may inhibit germination. Mulch rate inadequate or straw mulch not tacked down Results in poor germination or failure, and erosion damage. Repair damaged areas, reseed and mulch. ` Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines S • 146 Erosion and Sediment Control Practices Annual ryegrass used for temporary seeding Ryegrass reseeds itself and makes it difficult to establish a good cover of permanent vegetation. Seed not broadcast evenly or rate too low Results in patchy growth and erosion. • Maintenance Inspect within 6 weeks of planting to see if stands are adequate. Check for damage after heavy rains. Stands should be uniform and dense. Fertilize, reseed, and mulch damaged and sparse areas immediately. Tack or tie down mulch as necessary. Seeds should be supplied with adequate moisture. Furnish water as , needed, especially in abnormally hot or dry weather or on adverse sites. Water application rates should be controlled to prevent runoff. 01w t'etteS` • Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Watershed Management, Nonpoint Source Program, Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Management Manual. Boston, Massachusetts, June, 1993. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,, • Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual, Raleigh, NC, February 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Storm Water Management For • Construction Activities, EPA-832-11-92-005, Washington, DC, September, 1992. Washington State Department of Ecology,Stormwater Management Manual • for the Puget Sound Basin, Olympia,WA, February, 1992. imLs��r�;i!, A temporary sediment barrier installed parallel to the bank of a i stream or lake. Used to contain the sediment produced by construction operations on the bank of a stream or lake and allow for its removal. i Where Practice Applies • The silt curtain is used along the banks of streams or lakes where 41 sediment could pollute or degrade the stream or lake. A 41 0 Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines - w • • • • • • • • • Attachment B • "Permanent Seeding Guidance Document" • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 132 Erosion and Sediment Control Practices • • Maintenance • The effective life of a sediment trap depends upon adequate • maintenance. The trap should be readily accessible for periodic - maintenance and sediment removal. Set a stake at one-half the design depth. This will be the "cleanout • level." Remove sediment when it has accumulated to one-half the design • depth. • Inspect sediment traps after each significant rainfall event. Repair any erosion and piping holes immediately. • Clean or replace spillway gravel facing if clogged. • Promptly replace any displaced riprap, being careful that no stones in • the spillway are above design grade. Inspect vegetation; reseed and remulch if necessary. • Check spillway depth periodically to ensure minimum of 1.5 ft depth • from lowest point of the settled embankment to highest point of spillway • crest. Fill any low areas of the embankment to maintain design elevation. After all sediment-producing areas have been stabilized, inspected, • and approved, remove the structure and all unstable sediment.Smooth site . to blend with adjoining areas and stabilize in accordance with vegetation plan. • • �efCP ACIe5��' " • Minnick, E. L.,and H. T. Marshall,Stormwater Management and Erosion • Control for Urban and Developing Areas in New Hamoshire, Rockingham County Conservation District,August 1992. • North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, • Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual, Raleigh, NC,February 1991. - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Storm Water Management For • Construction Activities,EPA-832-11-92-005,Washington, DC, September, 1992. Washington State Department of Ecology,Stormuater Management Manual • for the Puget Sound Basin, Olympia,WA, February, 1992. • p • Is" rCtg � - tt The establishment of perennial vegetative cover on disturbed areas. • • Purpose • Permanent seeding of grass and planting trees and shrubs provides • stabilization to the soil by holding soil particles in place. Vegetation reduces sediments and runoff to downstream areas by • slowing the velocity of runoff and permitting greater infiltration of the • runoff. • Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines • • • • • Erosion and Sediment Control Practices 133 • • Vegetation also filters sediments, helps the soil absorb water, • improves wildlife habitats, and enhances the aesthetics of a site. = Where Practice Applies Permanent seeding and planting is appropriate for any graded or • cleared area where long-lived plant cover is needed to stabilize the soil. • — Areas which will not be brought to final grade for a year or more. • — Some areas where permanent seeding is especially important are filter strips, buffer areas, vegetated swales, steep slopes, and stream banks. This practice is effective on areas where soils are unstable because of • their texture or structure, high water table,winds, or steep slope. • • Advantages • Advantages of seeding over other means of establishing plants include the small initial establishment cost,the wide variety of grasses • and legumes available, low labor requirement,and ease of establishment • in difficult areas. • Seeding is usually the most economical way to stabilize large areas. Well established grass and ground covers can give an aesthetically • pleasing, finished look to a development. • Once established, the vegetation will serve to prevent erosion and • retard the velocity of runoff. • Disadvantages/Problems • Disadvantages which must be dealt with are the potential for • erosion during the establishment stage, a need to reseed areas that fail • to establish, limited periods during the year suitable for seeding, and a need for water and appropriate climatic conditions during germination. • Vegetation and mulch cannot prevent soil slippage and erosion if soil is • not inherently stable. Coarse, high grasses that are not mowed can create a fire hazard in some locales. Very short mowed grass, however, provides less stability • and sediment filtering capacity. Grass planted to the edge of a watercourse may encourage fertilizing j • and mowing near the water's edge and increase nutrient and pesticide contamination. • Depends initially on climate and weather for success. • May require regular irrigation to establish and maintain. • • Planning considerations • Selection of the right plant materials for the site, good seedbed preparation, timing,and conscientious maintenance are important. • Whenever possible,native species of plants should be used for • landscaping. These plants are already adapted to the locale and • • Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines • • • • • 134 Erosion and Sediment Control Practices • • survivability should be higher than with "introduced'species. • Native species are also less likely to require irrigation, which can be • a large maintenance burden and is neither cost-effective nor ecologically sound. • If non-native plant species are used,they should be tolerant of a large • range of growing conditions, as low-maintenance as possible, and not • invasive. • Consider the microclimate within the development area. Low areas may be frost pockets and require hardier vegetation since cold air tends to • sink and flow towards low spots. South-facing slopes may be more difficult • to re-vegetate because they tend to be sunnier and drier. • Divert as much surface water as possible from the area to be planted. Remove seepage water that would continue to have adverse effects • on soil stability or the protecting vegetation. Subsurface drainage or other • engineering practices may be needed. In this situation, a permit may be • needed from the local Conservation.Commission: check ahead of time to avoid construction delays. • Provide protection from equipment,trampling and other destructive • agents. Vegetation cannot be expected to supply an erosion control cover and • prevent slippage on a soil that is not stable due to its texture, structure, • water movement, or excessive slope. • • Seeding Grasses and Legumes • Install needed surface runoff control measures such as gradient terraces, • berms, dikes, level spreaders, waterways, and sediment basins prior to • seeding or planting. • Seedbed Preparation • If infertile or coarse-textured subsoil will be exposed during land shaping, • it is best to stockpile topsoil and respread it over the finished slope at • a minimum 2-to 6-inch depth and roll it to provide a firm seedbed. If construction fill operations have left soil exposed with a loose, rough, or • irregular surface, smooth with blade and roll. • Loosen the soil to a depth of 3-5 inches with suitable agricultural or . construction equipment. Areas not to receive top soil shall be treated to firm the seedbed after • incorporation of the lime and fertilizer so that it is depressed no more • than ih- 1 inch when stepped on with a shoe.Areas to receive topsoil • shall not be firmed until after topsoiling and lime and fertilizer is applied and incorporated, at which time it shall be treated to firm the seedbed as • described above. This can be done by rolling or cultipacking. • • Cool Season Grasses • Cool Season Grasses grow rapidly in the cool weather of spring and fall, • Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines • • • • • • Erosion and Sediment Control Practices 135 • and set seed in June and July. Cool season grasses become dormant • when summer temperatures persist above 85 degrees and moisture is scarce. • • Lime and Fertilizer • Apply lime and fertilizer according to soil test and current Extension . Service recommendations. In absence of a soil test, apply lime (a pH of • 5.5-6.0 is desired)at a rate of 2.5 tons per acre and 10-20-20 analysis fertilizer at a rate of 500 pounds per acre(40% of N to be in an organic • or slow release form). Incorporate lime and fertilizer into the top 2-3 • inches of soil. • Seeding Dates Seeding operations should be performed within one of the following • periods: • . April 1 -May 31, • � August 1-September 10, . . November 1 -December 15 as a dormant seeding(seeding rates shall be increased by 50% for dormant seedings). • • Seeding Methods • Seeding should be performed by one of the following methods. Seed • should be planted to a depth of %to i/z inches. • o. Drill seedings, a Broadcast and rolled, cultipacked or tracked with a small track piece • of construction equipment, • a Hydroseeding,with subsequent tracking. • • Mulch • Mulch the seedings with straw applied at the rate of '6 tons per acre. Anchor the mulch with erosion control netting or fabric on sloping • areas. • Warm Season Grasses • Warm Season Grasses begin growth slowly in the spring,grow rapidly • in the hot summer months and set seed in the fall. Many warm season • grasses are sensitive to frost in the fall, and the top growth may die • back. Growth begins from the plant base the following spring. • Lime and Fertilizer Lime to attain a pH of at least 5.5.Apply a 0-10-10 analysis fertilizer at • the rate of 600 lbs./acre. • Incorporate both into the top 2-3 inches of soil. (30 lbs. of slow release • nitrogen should be applied after emergence of grass in the late spring.) • Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines • • • • 136 Erosion and Sediment Control Practices • • Seeding Dates • Seeding operations should be performed as an early spring seeding (April • 1-May 15)with the use of cold treated seed. A late fall early winter dormant • seeding (November 1 -December 15) can also be made, however the • seeding rate will need to be increased by 50%. • Seeding Methods • Seeding should be performed by one of the following methods: • Drill seedings (de-awned or de-bearded seed should be used unless the • drill is equipped with special features to accept awned seed). Broadcast seeding with subsequent rolling, cultipacking or tracking • the seeding with small track construction equipment. Tracking should be • oriented up and down the slope. Hydroseeding with subsequent tracking. If wood fiber mulch is used, • it should be applied as a separate operation after seeding and tracking to assure good seed to soil contact. • Mulch Mulch the seedings with straw applied at the rate of %z tons per acre. • Anchor the mulch with erosion control netting or fabric on sloping areas. • Seed Mixtures for Permanent Cover Recommended mixtures for permanent seeding are provided on the following pages. Select plant species which are suited to the site conditions and planned use. Soil moisture conditions, often the major limiting site factor, are usually classified as follows: - Dry-Sands and gravels to sandy loams. No effective moisture supply from • seepage or a high water table. Moist-Well drained to moderately well drained sandy loams, loams, and • finer; or coarser textured material with moderate influence on root zone • from seepage or a high water table. • Wet-All textures with a water table at or very near the soil surface, or with enduring seepage. • When other factors strongly influence site conditions, the plants selected must also be tolerant of these conditions. • • • • • • • • Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines • • • • • • Erosion and Sediment Control Practices 137 • Permanent Seeding Mixtures • Seed,Pounds\per ! • Mix ' Site Seed Mudure Acre 1 000 sf Aemar lcs 1 Dry ' Ltttle BI tem 'Use Warm'Season planting procedure • or Broomsedge ' ' ' 10 0 25 *Roadsides • Tumble L ovegrass* 1 0 10 "Sand and Gavel Stabilization Swrtchgrass = 10 0 25 * Clover'requires inoculation with nitrogen= • fixing bacteria • Bush Clover* 2 0.10 Red Top 1 0.10 * Rates for this mix are for PLS. • 42 Dry L)eertongue 15 0.35 Use Warm:Season planting procedures. Broomsedge 10 . '' 0.25. *Acid sites/Mine spoil • Bush Clov.,er* 2 0.10 * Clover requires inoculation with nitrogen fixing bacteria • i 'Red Top • *Rates for this mix are for PLS: • 3 Dry -,O i, ig Bluestein 10 0 25 *Use Warm;Season planting procedures. Indian Grass 10 0 25 * Eastern Paide appearance ii Ij­ • Switchgrass ', 10 025" *.Sand and`Cavel pits.; • Little Bluestein 10 0 25 *Golf Coursg,Wild Areas =Red Top or 1 0.10 *'Sanitary'LAndfill Cover seeding' • Pj<rennial Ryegrass 10 0 25 \ *Wlldlile Areas • *O7{fio substitute P.oir tyDropseed in place S of-Red Top/Ryegrass. • *Rates for this mix are for PLS. • 4 Dry Flat Pea . x' 25 0.60 *Use Cool Season planting procedures • " Red Top oY 2 0 10 *Utility Rights-of-Ways;(tends tosuppress • Perennial Ryegrass 15 0 35 woody growth) • 5 Dry rttie Bluesterri5 ao 10 „ *Use Warm Season planting procedures • Switchgrass 10 FO 25 *Coastal sites ` Beach Pea* 20 F> 045 a *Rates for Bluestein and Stvitchgi ass are for • ;Perennial[lyegrass 10 0 25 RLS 6 Dry Red Fescue 10 0 25 *Use Cool Season planting procedure • Moist Canada Bluegrass 10 0 25 *Provides quick cover,b, non-aggressive • Perenmal"Ryegrass 10 025will bend to allow indigenous plant • colonization Red Top 1 0 l& *General erosion control on variety of sites, • *, . " r ineluding#orest roads skid trails and i 3andings 7 Moigt Switchgra ss 10 D 25 *Use Warm Season planting procedure \ • CNet Mrginia Wild Rye 5 z 010\ :`Coastdhlilain/flood plain Big Bluestein 15 0 35 ' Rates for B,luestem and Switchgrass are for • *,Red Top 1 0 10. ;PLS • Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines • • • • • 138 Erosion and Sediment Control Practices • • Permanent'Seedln`g Mixtures • Seed, Pounds per: • MixSite Seed Mixture Acre 1,000 sf Rein • 8 Moist Creeping Bentgrass 5 0.1.0 *Use Cool Season planting procedures. Wet Fringed Bromegrass,, 50:10, * Pond'Banks • Fowl Meadowgrass 5'. 0 10 *Waterways/ditch banks • Blueloint Reedgrii s on Rice Cutgrass 2 O:ID • PerennialRyegrass YO ;, 0.25 • %9", ,I4to[st 'Red Fescue ` 5 0.10 *Salt Tolerant • Wet Creeping Bentgrass ' 2' 0.10 Fescue and Bentgrass provide low • growing appearance,while Switchgrass-provides tall cover for • \ wildlife. • Swttchgrass ' 8 ``620' PerennialRyegrass 10 0 25 • t • ,:. 10 Moist Red Fescue 5 0=10 *Use Cool Season'planting procedure Wet Creeping Bentgrass• 5 010 *Trefoil requires inoculation with nitrogen • fixing bacteria. • Virginia Wild Rye 8 020 Wpod Reed Grass*\ 1` 0.10, * Suitable for forest access roads,skid • Showy Tick Trefoil* 1 0.10 trails and other partial shade situations • 11 1kIQist``Creeping Bentgrass 5 010 Use Cool Season planting'proceduie. • Wet Biuelomt Reed Grass` l:' 0.10 ' Suitable for waterways,pond or ditch'. - S\ banks. Ulrginia Wi1d:Rye 3 0.10 * Trefoil requires inoculation with • ', nitrogen fixing bacteria. • Fowl MeadowGrass 10 ` 0.25 ,Showy Tick Trefoil* I. 0.10 • \ Red.Top \ 1 O.to \ \ 12 Wek� Blue Joint Reed Grass 1 ; 010 ' *Use Cool Season planting procedure • \ k \ Canada Manna Grasp i`\ � 0 10 �\ *OK to seed m saturated soil',' • �` conditions, but not m standing \ \ • � t ; water. Rice Cut Grass 1,. 0 10 ° • Creeping Bent Grass 5 O 10 * Sortable as stabihzahon seeding for • c created wetland, Fowl Meadow Grass 5 0:1'0 *All species in this mix are native71 to - Massachusetts 13 Dry- American'Beachj `ass 18 ` 18i *Vegetative planting 4th dormant • \ culnjs,35 culms per planting Moist \ ' centers center's ? • 1 Inter- Smooth CQrdgrassl2-18" 12-18" *Vegetative-plantar gwith transplants • Tidal :.Saltpteadow CQrdgrass centers renters • \ • Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines • • • • • • • Erosion and Sediment Control Practices 139 • • Notes: • ' Species such as Tumble Lovegrass,Fringed Bromegrass,Wood Reedgrass,Bush Clover and Beach Pea,while known to be commercially available from specific seed • suppliers,may not always be available from your particular seed suppliers.The local Natural Resources Conservation Service office may be able to help with a source of • supply.In the event a particular species listed in a mix can not be obtained,however,it • may be possible to substitute another species. Seed mixtures by courtesy ofNatumi Resources Conservation Service,Amherst MA. - (PLS) Pure Live Seed • Warm Season grass seed is sold and planted on the basis of pure live seed.An adjustment is made to the bulk rate of the seed to compensate for inert material and non-viable seed.Percent of pure live seed is • calculated by multiplying the percent purity by the percent germination; (%purity)x(%germination)=percent PLS. • For example,if the seeding rate calls for 10 lbs./acre PIS and the seed • lot has a purity of 70% and germination of 75%, the PLS factor is: • (.70 x.75) =.53 10 lbs. divided by.53 = approx. 19 lbs. • Therefore, 19 lbs of seed from the particular lot will need to be • applied to obtain 10 lbs. of pure live seed. • Special Note Tall Fescue,Reed Canary Grass, Crownvetch and Birdsfoot Trefoil are no longer recommended for general erosion control use in Massachusetts • due to the invasive characteristics of each. If these species are used, it is recommended that the ecosystem of the site be analyzed for the 40 effects species invasiveness may impose.The mixes listed in the above • mixtures include either species native to Massachusetts or non-native • species that are not perceived to be invasive,as per the Massachusetts • Native Plant Advisory Committee. • Wetlands Seed Mixtures • For newly created wetlands, a wetlands specialist should design - plantings to provide the best chance of success. Do not use introduced, • invasive plants like reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea) or purple • loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria). Using plants such as these will cause many more problems than they will solve. • The following grasses all thrive in wetland situations: • cs Fresh Water Cordgrass (Spartina pectinata) cs Marsh/Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera, oar. • Palustric) • es Broomsedge(Andropogon uirginicus) es Fringed Bromegrass(Bromus ciliatus) es Blue Joint Reed Grass (Calamagrostis caoedensis) • cs Fowl Meadow Grass(Glyceria striata) • cs Riverbank Wild Rye (Efymus riparius) cs Rice Cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides) • cs Stout Wood Reed (Cinna arundinacea) • cs Canada Manna Grass (Glyceria canadensis) • Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines • • • • • 140 Erosion and Sediment Control Practices - A sample wetlands seed mix developed by The New England • Environmental Wetland Plant Nursery is shown on the following page. . • Wetland Seed Mixture • The New England Environmental Wetland Plant Nursery has developed a seed mixture which is specifically designed to be used • in wetland replication projects and stormwater detention basins. It • is composed of seeds from a variety of indigenous wetland species. • Establishing a native wetland plant understory in these areas provides quick erosion control, wildlife food and cover, and helps to reduce the • establishment of undesirable invasive species such as Phragmites and • purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria).The species have been selected • to represent varying degrees of drought tolerance,and will establish themselves based upon microtopography and the resulting variation in • soil moisture. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Erosion and.Sediment Control Guidelines • • • • • • Erosion and Sediment Control Practices 141 w • Common Name • (Seien4 rne) %in Mix` \,. .: Comments • Lurid Sedge 30 \* A low ground cover that tolerates mes►c sites ! \\ (Carex tunda) m addition to saturated areas; prolific seeder, • m second growing on. ,, • • Fowl Meadow:Grass 25 '` Prohfic`seed-producer thaYis a valuable cen • (Glya Canadens►s) wildlife food source. • Fringed SMge 10, A medium to large sedge that,tolerates • (Carex cnattq) ` ` saturated areas;good seed;producer. S - \ • doe-Pye Weed 0 Flowering plant that is valuable for wildlife, • (Eupatonadtphus ma�ufatus)\ eouer Grows to 4 feet \ ; \ • Brook Sedge 10 Tolerates a wide range of hydrologic • (Carex spp:, Ovales group) conditions: • Woolgrass. \ 5 Tolerates fluctuating.hydrology. `,;(Scrpus,cypennus) • Boneset 5 ° ;Flowering Plant tl at,is valuable forwildiiie • (�tipatonum;perfoltattrm) cover Grows to 3 feet. • Tussock Sedge <5 Grows in elevated humrliocks on wet sites, • (Carex stricta) may grow rhtzomonously ori ¢der sites. • ';Blue Vervainnat►veplant that bears attractive,blue • (VeMena iastata) . flowers • The recommended applieaflon ratals one pound per 5,000 square feet when usedas an \\ \ • understory cover This date\should beancrea ed`to one pound per,z 50p\squaare feet for \ detention bastes and,otber sites which require a very,dehse cover. For best'results,a late fall .. s 2` • a PllC'atlOh\1S YECOmIIfended hIS mIX IS,nOt.reCUInmended jor.SYdRr'!►R W2\tEli\ • • • • • • • • • • ! Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines • i • i • • • 4 • Snow Disposal Guidelines • • • • • • s • • • s w • • • • i • • • Snow Disposal Guidance I Water, Wastewater& Wetlands I MassDEP Page 1 of 40 MassQEP k4assaohusette Department of Emrirvnmental Priateotion Snow Disposal Guidance i Effective Date:March 8,2001 - Guideline No.BRPGOI-0I ' Applicability:Applies to all federal,state,regional and local agencies,as well as,to private businesses. Supersedes:BRP Snow Disposal Guideline BRPG97-1 issued 12/19/97,and all previous snow disposal guidance Approved by:Glenn Haas,Assistant Commissioner for Resource Protection PURPOSE:To provide guidelines to all government agencies and private businesses regarding snow disposal she selection,site preparation and maintenance,and emergency •, snow disposal options that are acceptable to the Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Resource Protection # APPLICABILITY:These Guidelines am issued by the Bureau of Resource Protection on • behalf of all Bureau Programs(including Drinking Water Supply,Wetlands and Waterways, Wastewater Management,and Watershed Planning and Permitting).They apply to public - - agencies and private businesses disposing of snow in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. , INTRODUCTION Finding a place to dispose of collected snow poses a challenge to municipalities and businesses as they clear roads,parking lots,bridges,and sidewalks.While we are all aware of the threats to public safety caused by snow,collected snow that is contaminated with road i salt,sand,litter,and automotive pollutants such as oil also threatens public health and the i environment. t•w As snow melts,road salt,sand,litter,and other pollutants are transported intosurface water. or through the soil where they may eveplualiy reach the groundwater.Road salt and other: - pollutants can contaminate water supplies aad ale toxic t4 thjaidic life at certain levels.Sand washed into waterbodies can create sand bars or fill in wetlands and ponds,impacting aquatic life,causing flooding,and affecting our use of these resources. There are severaisteps that communities can take to minimize the impacts of snow disposal- on public health and the environment These steps will help communities avoid the costs of - a contaminated water supply,degraded waterbodies,and flooding.Everything we do on the land has the potential to impact our water resources.Given the authority of.kneal ' government over the use pf the land,municipal officials and staff have a critically important _- "AdMplay in protaptipg our water resources: } Thbputpose of these guide lices is to-helpmunicipalihesand busiiessesselect;,ppepme and aIatNam appmpria0e snow di�msal Sites before fhZ::snow begins to ace milate through the.- ." - • i # • • Snow Disposal Guidance I Water, Wastewater&Wetlands I MassDEP Page 2 of 4 • • • winter. . • RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES These snow disposal guidelines address:(1)site selection;(2)she preparation and maintenance;and(3)emergency stow disposal. • 1.SITE SELECTION • • The key to selecting effective snow disposal sites is to locate them adjacent to or on pervious surfaces in upland areas away from water resources and wells.At these locations, • the snow meltwater can filter in to the soil,leaving behind sand and debris which can be • _removed in the springtime.The following areas should be avoided: • - • Avoid dumping of snow into any waterbody,including rivers,the ocean,reservoirs, • ponds,or wetlands.In addition to water quality impacts and flooding,snow disposed of in open water can cause navigational hazards when it freezes into ice blocks. • . a Do not dump snow within a Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area(I WPA)of • - a public water supply well or within 75 feet of a private well,where road salt may contaminate water supplies. • - • Avoid dumping snow on MassDEP-designated high and medium-yield aquifers • where it may contaminate groundwater(see the nesa page for information on ordering maps from MassGIS showing the locations of aquifers,Zone B's,and • IWPAs in your community). 9 Avoid dumping snow in sanitary landfills and gravel pits.Snow meltwater will • create mom contaminated leachate in landfills posing a greater risk to groundwater, • - and in gravel pits,there is little opportunity for pollutants to be filtered out of the • meltwater because groundwater is close to the land surface. • Avoid disposing of snow on top of storm drain catch basins or in stormwater • drainage swales or ditches.Snow combined with sand and debris may block a storm drainage system,causing localized flooding.A high volume of sand,sediment,and • litterreleased from melting snow also may be quickly.ttansported through the • - system into surface water. - • Site Selection Procedures • a It is important that the municipal Department of Public Works or Highway • Deparlmemt,Conservation Commission,and Board of Health work together to select • appropriate snow disposal sites.The following steps should be taken: b. Estimate how much snow disposal capacity is needed for the season so that an • - adequate number of disposal sites can be selected and prepared. - c. Identify sites that could potentially be used for snow disposal such as municipal open space(e.g.,parking lots or parks). • A Sites located in upland locations that are not likely to impact sensitive environmental • resources should be selected first. e. If more storage space is still needed,prioritize the sites with the least environmental • - impact(using the site selection criteria,and local or MassGIS maps as a guide). • MassGIS Maps of Open Space and Water Resources • • If local maps do not show the information you need to select appropriate snow disposal sites,you may order maps from MassGIS(Massachusetts Geographic Information System) • which show publicly owned open spaces and apprmdmate locations of sensitive • environmental resources(locations should be field-verified where possible).Different • • • •t,M.,.//..nasi mono nn../Ae«A:.,,Fe..A«...../..««...d:,.«1.�.... - . rnnrnn.n . . • Snow Disposal Guidance I Water,Wastewater&Wetlands I MassDEP Page 3 of 40 • • coverages or map themes depicting sensitive environmental resources are available from • MassGIS on the map you order.At a minimum,you should order the Priority Resources • Map.The Priority Resources Map includes aquifers,public water supplies,MassDEP- approved Zone I's,Interim Wellhead Protection Areas,Wetlands,Open Space,Areas of • Critical Environmental Concern,NHESP Wetlands Habitats,MassDEP Permitted Solid • Waste facilities,Surface Water Protection areas(Zone A's)and base map features.The cost ofthis map is$25.00.Other coverages or map themes you may consider,depending on the • location of your city or town,include Outstanding Resource Waters and MassDEP Eelgrass Resources.These are available at$25.00 each,with each map theme being depicted on a • separate map.Maps should be ordered from MassGIS via the Internet at • htgr://%vww.m ass.gov,mgis.Maps may also be ordered by fax at(617)626-1249(order form available from the MassGIS web site)or mail.For further information,contact MassGIS at • (617)626-1189. ,• 2.SITE PREPARATION AND MAINTENANCE • In addition to carefully selecting disposal sites before the winter begins,it is important to • prepare and maintain these sites to maximize their effectiveness.The following maintenance • measures should be undertaken for all snow disposal sites: • • A silt fence or equivalent barrier should be placed securely on the dovmgmdient side - • of the snow disposal site. • • To filter pollutants out of the meltwater,a 50-foot vegetative buffer strip should be maintained during the growth season between the disposal site and adjacent • waterbodies. • • Debris should be cleated from the site prior to using the site for snow disposal. • Debris should be cleared from the site and properly disposed of az the end of the • snow season and no later than May 15. - • 3.EMERGENCY SNOW DISPOSAL • As mentioned earlier,it is important to estimate the amount of snow disposal capacity you • will need so that an adequate number of upland disposal sites can be selected and prepared. •. If despite your planning,upland disposal sites have been exhausted,snow may be disposed • of new waterbodies.A vegetated butrer of at least 50 feet should still be maintained between - • the site and the waterbody in these situations.Furthermore,it is essential that the other '. guidelines for preparing and maintaining snow disposal sites be followed to minimize the • throat to adjacent waterbodies. - • Under extraordinary conditions,when all land-based snow disposal options are exhausted, • disposal of snow that is not obviously contaminated with road salt,sand,and other • pollutants may be allowed in certain waterbodies under certain conditions.In these dire situations,notify your Conservation Commission and the appropriate MassDEP Regional • Service Center before disposing of snow in a waterbody. • Use the following guidelines in these emergency situations: • • Dispose of mow in open water with adequate flow and mixing to prevent ice dams • from forming. • Do not dispose of snow in salhnarshes,vegetated wetlands,entified vernal pools, • shellfish beds,mudflats,drinking water reservoirs and their tributaries,Zone Its or - - IWPAs of public water supply wells,Outstanding Resource Waters,or Areas of - • Critical Environmental Concem - • • • • t.a__/L-_._..�__.. ....../a_�L-''__n'--_/-__--.�a� t._ - rrn�/nntn• • •_Snow Disposal Guidance I Water, Wastewater&Wetlands MassDEP . Page 4 of 4 • • • • Do not dispose of snow where trucks may cause shoreline damage or erosion. • Consult with the municipal Conservation Commission to ensure that sow disposal • in open water complies with local ordinances and bylaws. • FOR MORE INFORMATION • • Ifyou need mote information,contact one of MassDEP's Regional Service Centers: . • Northeast Regional Office,Wilmington,978-694-3200 • Southeast Regional Office,Lakeville,509-946-2714 Central Regional Office,Worcester,508-792-7683 • Western Regional Office,Springfield,413-755-2214 • or • • Call Thomas Maguire of DEP's Bureau of Resource Protection in Boston at 617-292-5602. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Guidelines on Deicing Chemical (Road Salt) • • Storage • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Guidelines On,Deicing Chemical(Road Salt) Storage I Water, Wastewater.& Wetlands I MassDEP Page 1 of 2• • w MassQEP • Massachusetts Department of Environmental pruteotion • • • Guidelines On Deicing Chemical (Road Salt) • Storage • Bureau of Resource Protection • Drinking Water Program • Effective Date:December 19, 1997. • Guideline No.DWSG97-1 • Applicability:Applies to all parties storing road salt or other chemical deicing agents. - Supersedes:Fact Sheet:DEICING CHEMICAL(ROAD SALT)STORAGE(January 1996 • Approved by:Arleen O'Donnell,Asst.Commissioner for Resource Protection - • PURPOSE: To summarize salt storage prohibition standards around drinking water • supplies and current salt storage practices. APPLICABILITY:These guidelines are issued on behalf of the Bureau of • Resource Protection's Drinking Water Program.They apply to all parties storing road salt or • other chemical deicing agents. - 1. The Road Salt Problem: • Historically,there have been incidents in Massachusetts where improperly stored road salt • has polluted public and private drinking water supplies.Recognizing the problem,state and local governments have taken steps in recent years to remediate impacted water supplies and • to protect water supplies from fimrre contamination,As a result of properly designing • storage sheds,new incidents are uncommon These guidelines summarize salt storage - • prohibition standards around drinking water supplies and current salt storage practices. _ Jl. Salt Pile Restrictions In Water Supply Protection • Areas: • Uncovered storage of sah is forbidden by Massachusetts General Law Chapter 85,section • 7A in areas that would threaten water supplies.The Drinking Water Regulations,310 CMR - 22.21(2)(b),also restrict deicing chemical storage within wellhead protection areas(Zone I • and Zone II)for public water supply wells,as follows:"storage of sodium chloride, - • chemically treated abrasives or other chemicals used for the removal of ice and snow on roads fare prohibited],unless such storage is within a structure designed to prevent the • generation and escape of contaminated runoff or leachate,"For drinking water reservoirs, • - -310 CMR 22.20C prohibits,through local bylaw,uncovered or uncontained storage of road or parking lot de-icing and sanding materials within Zone A at new reservoirs and at those • .reservoirs increasing their withdrawals under MGL Chapter 210,the Water Management Act • For people on a low-sodium diet,20 mg/L of sodium in drinking water is consistent with the • bottled water regulations'meaning of"sodium free."At 20 mg/L,sodium contributes 10'/6 or less to the sodium level in people on a sodium-restricted diet For more information - •. • • • i h4}..•//..rami vnoan nnv/.in«/.....t..�R....,../..,.ta,...: L.... . ,nn rnn.n • • • Guidelines On Deicing Chemical.(Road Salt) Storage { Water, Wastewater& Wetlands MassDEP Page 2.of 2 • • • contact:Catherine Samfinas at 617-556-1070 or catherine.sarafinas@state.maas,or Suzanne Robert at 617-292-5620 or suzanne.robertCr�l,+state.maus. • • III. Salt Storage Best Management Practices (BMP): Components of an"environment-friendly"roadway deicing salt storage facility include: • • • the right site=a flat site; • adequate space for salt piles; •. • storage on a pad(impervious/paved area); • • storage under a roof;and • runoff • • For more information,see The Salt Storage Handbook,6th ed.Virginia Salt Institute,2006 (phone 703-5494648 or hftp://www.saltiastitutB.org/Publicatiotis-A-V/Salt-Storage- • handbook). IV. Salt Storage Practices of the Massachusetts • Highway Department: The Massachusetts Highway Department(M D)has 216 permanent salt storage sheds at • 109 locations in the state.On teased land and state land under arteries and ramps,where the - • MHD cannot build sheds,salt piles are stared under impermeable material.This accounts for an additional 15 sites.The MHD also administers a program to assist municipalities with • the construction of salt storage sheds.Of 351 communities,201 municipalities have used • state funds for salt storage facilities. • .For more information about MHD's salt storage facilities,contact Paul Brown at the • Massachusetts Highway Department, 10 Park Plaza,Boston,MA 02116(phone 617-973- 7792), • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a DEP Compliance Calculations • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • w INSTRUCTIONS: Nonautorrated.Mar.4,2008 1. Sheet is nonautomated. Print sheet and complete using hand calculations.Column A and B: See MassDEP Structural BMP Table 2.The calculations must be completed using the Column Headings specified in Chart and Not the Excel Column Headings 3.To complete Chart Column D, multiple Column B value within Row x Column C value within Row 4.To complete Chart Column E value, subtract Column D value within Row from Column C within Row B.Total TSS Removal = Sum All Values in Column D Location. A B C D E TSS Removal Starting TSS Amount Remaining BMP' Rate' Load` Removed B*C Load C-D I', P 'j 1.00 -------------------- O O N H 7 V Separate Form Needs to be Completed for Each Total TSS Removal i1 outlet orsMPrraln Project : Sa��- ®o2�- . Prepared By <�� `Equals remaining load from previous BMP (E) Date l ¢, which enters the BMP Non-automated TSS Calculation Sheet must be used if Proprietary BMP Proposed 1.From MassDEP Stormwater Handbook Vol. 1 Mass-Dept.of Environmental Protection ii • oil • • sib • . . • lrr9It009900 • • • • 99a00a • • 90a90000 • i • Project No. SALE-0024 Prepared for: Riverview Place LLC 5 Broadmoor Lane # Salem, MA 0160 508-954-0073 i Comparative 140 Drainage Analysis i Riverview Place f 72 Flint Street, • #67 & #71 Mason Street • Salem, Massachusetts h • July 11, 2014 • Revised: September 21, 2014 • a � Its yv & WILLIAMS SPARAGES • i SUUIYCIS • S 189 N.Main Street,Suite 101 Middleton,MA 01949 Office Tel:978-539-8088 Fax: 978-539-8200 www.wsengineers.com o PETER M. c5 Comparative Drainage Analysis .F BLAISDELL.JR. y CIVIL "Riverview Place" 0 No.41613 y #72 Flint Street, #67 & #71 Mason Street Salem, Massachusetts July 11, 2014 i Revised: September 21, 2014 Purpose: The purpose of this analysis is to compare the pre-development, the present or current conditions and the post-development or proposed watershed conditions for the Riverview Place project by analyzing the surface runoff rates to the limit of the watershed analysis shown on the accompanying watershed maps. The results of which are presented on the summary table that follows. This revised analysis is the result of re-calculating the watershed parameters to reflect some minor r changes that have occurred to the site plan design since the time of the original filing e.g. building size,parking layout,drainage layout,green space and proposed grading. There are no changes to i the pre-existing condition or present condition. i fIntroduction: ! The Riverview Place project has received prior approval from the Planning Board for Site Plan 4D review and the purpose of this analysis is to expand upon the approved Stormwater Management Report dated November 2008 revised to December 23, 2008 which was contained in the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Eastern Land Survey. The project is bounded to the north by Mason Street, to the west by Flint Street and residences located thereon,to the south by the North River Canal and to the east by a commercial and S industrial site. The premises was previously operated as a leather manufacturing facility known as "Salem Suede' and was covered by two (2) large buildings,parking,various debris,very compact gravel/dirt areas and paved driveways. The buildings have been razed, the foundations remain, and much of the paved areas have been removed and stockpiled but the site is presently vacant. The site varies in elevation from approximately 27 feet at Mason Street to elevation 9 feet at an existing rock slope on the bank of the North River Canal which is a tidally influenced body of water. The mean high water of the Canal is elevation 4.4 feet NGVD 29 and the 100 year flood elevation is 10.3 feet NGVD 29. The proposal is to redevelop the site with the construction of three (3) new buildings, an elevated parking deck,surface parking,walkways,landscaping and a new drainage system for treatment of 1� stormwater runoff. It should be noted that this is strictly a buffer zone project and there are no proposed disturbances to any wetlands or the North River with the exception of the installation of a proposed drainage outlet discharging from the site. s w f• . Comparative Drainage Analysis - Riverview Ma int Street Salem, MA July 8, 2014 �• Revised: September 21, 2014 i Existing Condition Soils Analysis: - In order to model the runoff parameters for both the existing and proposed watershed parameters, the parent soils on site were mapped using the Web Soil Survey (WSS)made available on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) website. . The WSS provides vital soil data and information such as Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) which is - then input into a mathematical model to generate runoff curve numbers. The user inputs the soil cover type as well as the hydrologic soil group to generate a weighted curve number (CN) and also uses the topography of the land to generate a time of concentration(Tc) from • which the stormwater runoff rate as well as volume may be calculated for a certain watershed for - comparison. The soils present on site are comprised of Urban Land and do not have a rating for a Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) with the NRCS. For the comparative purposes of their analysis, Eastern Land Survey assumed that the site had a hydrologic soil group of"D" for the runoff • calculations. Since that time, soil borings have been performed which observed that the top layer of soil on the site consists of sand, gravel, brick, leather,many types of fill. Based on our inspection of the site and - the previous conditions it appears that the site was mostly covered by either roof,pavement, or very . compact gravel so it is our opinion that the site was not providing much opportunity for infiltration but the soils may be hydrologic soil group C or D,depending on the area and the consistency of the fill. However,in order to be consistent with the prior analysis,we have assumed the site has a hydrologic soil group of"D" for our runoff calculations as well. = Stormwater Modeling Methodology: The mathematical model used in this analysis was provided using the HydroCAD 9.10 Version • developed by HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC. HydroCAD is a program that is used to model - the hydrology and hydraulics of stormwater runoff and is based largely on programs and techniques developed by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) now known as the NRCS,specifically TR-20 and TR-55 as well as other hydraulic calculation methods. - HydroCAD allows the user,for a given rainfall event,to generate runoff hydrographs for single or multiple watersheds and is used to determine if a given drainage system is adequate under the desired conditions as well as to predict flooding or other impacts at specified locations such as erosion. = Three (3) design storm events were analyzed and the results presented in the tables that follow for the two (2) year,ten(10) year, and one-hundred(100) year storm events for comparison. • It should be noted that the prior study used the rational method and TR-55 for runoff computations. - As mentioned above, this analysis utilizes HydroCAD which has similar basis for computations. Although slightly different, the results of our analysis and the prior approved results are in the same order of magnitude for both the pre-development and post-development conditions. 2 • t • Comparative Drainage Analysis - Riverview • Mason/Flint Street Salem, MA • July 8, 2014 • Revised: September 21, 2014 • Existing Condition Watershed: • • The point of comparison selected is limit of the watershed analysis has been delineated along the • existing property lines for comparison with the proposed condition. In keeping with the Eastern Land Survey analysis,it is assumed that all flows ultimately reach the North River Canal either by • sheet flow or by the existing drainage system unless otherwise noted. When compared with the • approved existing condition watershed map by Eastern Land Survey we found that they are very • ' similar with the following exceptions noted: - 1) Based on the topography and with field inspection,more of the residential areas located • along Flint Street are tributary to the site along our westerly boundary. • 2) There is an existing depression located along the easterly property line which does not • appear to have an outlet so we have deducted this area from the amount of tributary runoff that reaches the North River Canal. • 3) We have included a portion of Mason Street which by topography and by field inspection • discharges surficial runoff onto the project site. • 4) The City of Salem GIS map shows an existing drain line running under the site and discharging from the existing catch basins on Mason Street to the North River Canal. This pipe • was mentioned as possibly being disconnected in the Environmental Impact Statement. Should • the pipe be found to be functioning, an easement to the City of Salem would be required. . Using the methods described in the stormwater modeling explanation above, runoff curve numbers • and times of concentration were generated for each watershed for the existing condition to be used • for comparison with the proposed condition described below. A schematic of the mathematical - model as well as the results of the calculations for the 2 year,10 year and 100 year,Type III, 24-hour • istorm events are included in this report. • Proposed Condition Watershed: • The proposed development includes the use of two (2) Bio retention Cells to promote infiltration as well as some runoff mitigation. Bio retention Cell A will receive runoff from the front half of Building 3 and Bio retention Cell B will receive runoff from the entire roof area from Building 1. • Each Bio retention cell will have an underdrain and an emergency overflow pipe that will connect to • the proposed drainage system. • The proposed parking and walkway areas will discharge to deep-sump catch basins which will then • convey the runoff via closed-pipe to a STC 4800 Stormceptor Unit for final treatment of the • stormwater runoff prior to discharging to the North River Canal. The discharge pipe to the canal • will be equipped with a Tide-Flex Valve or approved equivalent to prevent any backwater condition from the Canal into the proposed drainage system. • i • 3 • Comparative Drainage Analysis - Riverview Mason/Flint Street Salem, MA July 8, 2014 Revised: September 21, 2014 The Low Impact Development Measures found in the approved analysis and a detail shown on the • plans provided by Eastern Land Survey specify the use of porous pavement on the project site but did not mention a specific amount. The redevelopment checklist states in the recharge to groundwater section that an area of porous pavement is proposed along the south boundary of the parking lot. According to the ELS they were proposing to fully evaluate subsurface conditions with I- respect to the type of materials and 21E matters during the demolition phase and report the findings • along with any modifications relative to Standard 3 to the Salem Conservation Commission. �• Using the methods described above,runoff curve numbers and times of concentration were - generated for each watershed for the existing condition to be used for comparison with the . proposed condition described below. A schematic of the mathematical model as well as the results of the calculations for the 2 year, 10 year and 100 year,Type III, 24-hour storm events are included in this report. I. Compliance with the 10 DEP Stormwater Management Standards: Standard 1: • No new stornavater conveyances (e.g. outfalls) ntay discharge untreated stornavater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth. As in the approved design, the discharge from site will be directed through deep-sump catch basins • and a Stormceptor unit prior to reaching the North River Canal. The twenty-four (24") inch HDPE • outlet pipe will discharge over a riprap embankment consisting of one (1') foot to two (2') diameter placed stones which will not have a negative impact on slope stability. Standard 2: Stornnoater management systems shall be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak diselarge rates. This Standard may be waived for discharges to land subject to - coastal storm flowage as defined in 310 CMR 10.04. See the summary table that follows which demonstrates that the post-development peak discharge rates are less than the pre-development peak discharge rates as well as the present peak discharge rates. As mentioned in the Eastern Land Survey,portions of the site are subject to coastal storm - flowage and the Stormwater Management Policy does not require attenuation of the post- development peak discharge rates provided that the Standard is waived by the local Conservation Commission, I � I - 4 • j • Comparative Drainage Analysis - Riverview - Mason/Flint Street Salem, MA • July 8, 2014 • i Revised: September 21, 2014 • Standard 3: • • Loss of annual recharge to groundwater slall be eliminated or minimized through the use of infiltration • treasures including environmentally sensitive site design, low impact development techniques, stornuaater best management practices,and good operation and maintenance. Ata minimum, the annual recliarge from • the post-development site shall approximate the annual reclarge front the pre-development conditions based on • soil hype. This Standard is stet when the stornuaater nanagentent system is designed to infiltrate the required • recharge volume as determined in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormnvater Handbook. • Because the site has been classified as Urban Land by the NRCS,it does not have a rating for a • Hydrologic Soil Group which is required to perform the required groundwater recharge calculation • under the stormwater management standards. Eastern Land Survey assumed that because of the heavy industrial use that historically took place on the site that the HSG of the premises is"D". Soil • borings that were performed on site in November 2013 documented that the top layer of the existing • soil on the site consisted of fill material which is comprised of sand, gravel,brick, leather, etc. and is • virtually unclassifiable. • To be consistent with the approved analysis,we have also assumed that the soils present on site are • HSG"D"for the groundwater recharge calculations and adequate recharge has been provided. • Note that adequate recharge has also been provided to meet the requirement for"C" soils also. See • attached calculations which demonstrate the project meets this standard. • Standard 4: • Stornnzoater management systems shall be designed to remove 80% of the average annual post-construction load of Total Suspended Solids (TSS). This Standard is met when: • a. Suitable practices for source control and pollution prevention are identified in a long-term pollution • prevention plan,and thereafter are implemented and maintained, b. Structural stormwater best management practices are sized to capture the required zoater qualihj volume determined in accordance with the Massachusetts Stornnaater Handbook;and • c. Pretreatment is provided in accordance with thte Massachusetts Stornzvater Handbook • The proposed project will still utilize deep-sump hooded catch basins to collect the stormwater • runoff and discharge to the Stormceptor unit for a presumptive TSS removal rate of 82.75%. • • The Stormceptor STC 4800 Unit has been sized to accommodate the first flush (0.5") of rainfall over • the total impervious area using the sizing program provided by the manufacturer. • Pretreatment is being provided by the deep sump hooded catch basins. • I • 5 • • is • Comparative Drainage Analysis - Riverview Mason/Flint Street Is Salem, MA July 8, 2014 - Revised: September 21, 2014 i �r Standard 5: For land uses with higher potential pollutant loads, source control and pollution prevention shall be implemented in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook to eliminate or reduce the discharge Of stann:vater runoff fi-one such land uses to the maximum extent practicable. If through source control and/or - pollution prevention all land uses with higher potential pollutant loads cannot be completely protected from - exposure to rain, snow melt, and stornwater runoff, the proponent shall rise specific structural stonurvater BMPs determined by the Department to be suitable for such uses as provided in tyre Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. Stormwater discharges from land uses with higher potential pollutant loads shall also • comply with the requirements of the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, M.G.L. c. 21, §§26-53 and the • regulations promulgated there under at 314 CMR 3.00, 314 CMR 4.00 and 314 CMR 5.00. iAlthough there will be some commercial use with the proposed project, about 5,500 s.f., the - property use will be mainly residential and as such does not meet the criteria to be considered a (• LUHPPL. Standard 6: - Stornnvater discharges within the Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area of a public water supply, and stornuvater discharges near or to any other critical area, require the use of the specific source control and pollution prevention measures and the specific structural stonnwater best management practices determined by the Department to be suitable for managing discharges to such areas, as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. A discharge is near a critical area if there is a strong likelihood of a significant impact i occurring to said area, taking into account site-specific factors. Stormwater discharges to Outstanding Resource Waters and Special Resource Waters shill be removed and set back from the receiving water or wetland and receive the highest and best practical method of treatment. A "storm water discharge"as defined i- in 314 CMR 3.04(2) (a) (1 or(b) to an Outstanding Resource Water or Special Resource Water shall comply with 314 CMR 3.00 and 314 CMR 4.00. Stormwater discharges to a Zone I or Zone Aare prohibited unless essential to the operation of public water supply. I• The stormwater discharge from this property is not within a Zone II, an Interim Wellhead Protection Area of a public water supply or near to any other critical area and therefore meets this standard. Standard 7: i. A redevelopment project is required to meet the following Stornwater Management Standards only to the maximum extent practicable: Standard 2, Standard 3,and the pretreatment and structural best management practice requirements of Standards 4, 5,and 6. Existing stormwater disclu rges shall comply with Standard 1 i. only to the maximum extent practicable. A redevelopment project shall also comply with all other 1• requirements of the Stormwater Management Standards and improve existing conditions. The project meets the criteria for a redevelopment. Standards 1,2,3,4, 7,8,9 and 10 are being met and Standards 5 and 6 are not applicable. I• I� 6 I Comparative Drainage Analysis - Riverview - Mason/Flint Street Salem, MA July 8, 2014 Revised: September 21, 2014 - Standard 8: r A plan to control construction-related impacts including erosion, sedimentation and other pollutant sources during construction and land disturbance activities (construction period erosion, sedimentation,and pollution prevention plan) shall be developed and implemented. A draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which incorporated the required design criteria was included in the project's EIS provided by Eastern Land Survey in 2008. A final SWPPP which incorporates the project's modifications that have been made since then will be provided prior to the start of construction. Standard 9: • A long-term operation and maintenance plan shall be developed and implemented to ensure tlat storntzoater management systents f inction as designed. • Since there have been no changes to the best management practices (BMP's) that were approved by the Planning Board the Operation and Maintenance plan submitted by Eastern Land Survey is still valid. - Standard 10: All illicit disclarges to the stornnoater managentent system are prohibited. There are no proposed illicit discharges into the Stormwater Management Systems to be constructed. Conclusion: • i As can be seen by examining the following summary&performance tables,the proposed stormwater management system is effective for mitigating the peak flow rates of runoff from the . limit of the watershed analysis for the 2,10 & 100 year storm events. Further, slight reductions mi - the peak flow rates of runoff are expected from the pre-existing conditions and the present conditions for the proposed project development according to the mathematical model due to increased landscaping,improvement of soil cover type and the use of the two (2) bio retention cells. As you can see from the table below that the minor revisions that occurred to the site plan, there are . no changes to the rates of runoff to the existing depression on site;however, there has been a slight reduction in the rates of runoff for the flows entering the North River Canal. i 7 �� r • Comparative Drainage Analysis - Riverview Mason/Flint Street Salem, MA July 8, 2014 Revised: September 21, 2014 I� I� Total Peak Rate of Runoff Comparison Table I� - Description 24 hour Type Pre-Existine Present Proposed III Peak Rate of Condition Peak Rate of Storm Event Runoff Peak Rate of Runoff (year) Runoff l� Q cfs. Q cfs. Q cfs. �• Flow entering 2 (3.1 inch) 0.4 0.4 0.3 • the existing 10 (4.5 inch) 0.6 0.6 0.6 depression 100 (6.5 inch) 1.0 1.0 0.9 Link 90L Flow entering 2 (3.1 inch) 13.3 12.7 11.9 the North 10 (4.5 inch) 20.7 20.2 18.1 River Canal 100 (6.5 inch) 31.3 30.9 26.9 • Link 87 r� i� 8 • • i• • i• • f • Pre-Existing Analysis Watershed Anal �. Y is I !• i• is 1• ' I• • • • • • • • • • • • • EX-DEPRESSION Infiltrate into ground • • 635: i�go • EX-RES A� EXWSON ZEX-RES B • s2$ 94L EX-SITE 2 • EX-CB Add \. • F -intodrainage Flow to North River • .y.t.nq on Flint Street Canal(Tidal) • EX-SITE 1 • • • • • Subcaf Recti on Liflk Drainage Diagram for PRE-existing_r-D SOILS Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 7/16/2014 • 910 F Hyd11CA7 s1n 06611 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC • i • �• Pre-Existing Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA PRE-existing_r-D SOILS Type 111 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.90" '• Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 i HydroCADO 9.10 s/n 06611 @ 2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 • Summary for Subcatchment 63S: EX-RES A • - [491 Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 2.42 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 6,736 cf, Depth= 2.26" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span=0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description 35,836 92 1/8 acre lots 65% imp HSG D • 12,543 35.00% Pervious Area • 23,293 65.00% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) is 0.3 25 0.0640 1.63 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • 0.0 10 0.1200 7.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv=20.3 fps • 0.2 75 0.1100 5.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 0.5 110 Total i Summary for Subcatchment 88S: EX-RES B 149 • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.47 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,295 cf, Depth= 2.26" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" • Area (sf) CN Description • 6,887 92 1/8 acre lots 65% imp, HSG D • 2,410 35.00% Pervious Area • 4,477 65.00% Impervious Area i • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.3 20 0.0420 1.32 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • 0.0 10 0.1200 7.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Paved Kv=20.3 fps 0.2 50 0.0660 4.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, i Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps i 0.5 80 Total I I• • • • • • i Pre-Existing Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA • PRE-exist SOILS Type /Il 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 • HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 • Summary for Subcatchment 89S: EX-DEPRESSION = [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • I Runoff = 0.37 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,022 cf, Depth= 1.67" •_ 1 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" • Area (sf) CN Description 4,000 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 1,113 89 Dirt roads, HSG D • 1,700 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG D • 520 98 Paved parking HSG D 7,333 85 Weighted Average • 5,113 69.73% Pervious Area • 2,220 30.27% Impervious Area 1,700 76.58% Unconnected • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (f/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.4 25 0.0200 1.03 Sheet Flow, • Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • 0.2 55 0.1100 5.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 0.1 60 0.2000 7.20 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Unpaved Kv= 16 1 fps 0.7 140 Total • Summary for Subcatchment 90S: EX-MASON • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.19 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 567 cf, Depth= 2.87" - l Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" • Area (sf) CN Description • 2,372 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers HSG D • 2,372 100.00% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.4 25 0.0200 1.03 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • • • • i+ Pre-Existing Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA PRE-existing_r-D SOILS Type 11124-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 • HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 I - Summary for Subcatchment 91 S: EX-SITE 1 I• [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.48 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 1,429 cf, Depth= 2.16" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" - Area (sf) CN Description I• 3,300 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 4,621 98 Paved parking HSG D I• 7,921 91 Weighted Average 3,300 41.66% Pervious Area �• 4,621 58.34% Impervious Area = Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (f/sec) (cfs) I• 3.1 50 0.0900 0.27 Sheet Flow, • Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" 0.4 70 0.0330 2.92 Shallow Concentrated Flow, �• Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps �• 0.5 60 0.0100 2.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, 4.0 180 Total Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • Summary for Subcatchment 92S: EX-CB • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt I: Runoff = 0.48 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 1,466 cf, Depth= 1.83" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" Area(sf) CN Description • 4,500 98 Paved parking, HSG D 1,500 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D t• 3,628 77 Woods, Good HSG D • 9,628 87 Weighted Average • 5,128 53.26% Pervious Area 4,500 46.74% Impervious Area • I • I• i• • I• • • Pre-Existing Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA PRE-existing_r-D SOILS Type 11124-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 • HydroCADO 9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 4.2 25 0.0110 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" 0.5 65 0.0110 2.13 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 4.7 90 Total • • Summary for Subcatchment 93S: EX-SITE 2 • (49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 10.27 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 33,032 cf, Depth= 2.26" - i Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" • Area (sf) CN Description 30,723 73 Brush, Good, HSG D • 58,000 98 Paved parking, HSG C 11,000 77 Woods, Good, HSG D • 76,000 98 Roofs, HSG D • 175,723 92 Weighted Average - 41,723 23.74% Pervious Area f 134,000 76.26% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) • 1.3 25 0.1900 0.31 Sheet Flow, • Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" • 1.9 185 0.0100 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 2.5 240 0.0100 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.0 10 0.3300 9.25 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 5.7 460 Total • Summary for Link 74L: Flow into drainage system on Flint Street • Inflow Area = 17,549 sf, 51.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.98" for 2 yr event • Inflow = 0.96 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 2,894 cf • Primary = 0.96 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 2,894 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min . Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • • • I • • I, Pre-Existing Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA PRE-existing_r-D SOILS Type 111 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 HydroCAD@ 9.10 s/n 06611 @ 2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Link 87L: Flow to North River Canal (Tidal) • Inflow Area = 238,367 sf, 72.69% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.24" for 2 yr event Inflow = 13.25 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 44,524 cf • Primary = 13.25 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 44,524 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min I; Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs {� Summary for Link 90L: Infiltrate into ground Inflow Area = 7,333 sf, 30.27% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.67" for 2 yr event I= Inflow 0.37 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,022 cf Primary 0.37 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,022 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min I• Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Summary for Link 94L: Add • Inflow Area = 45,095 sf, 66.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.29" for 2 yr event s Inflow = 3.07 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 8,598 cf Primary = 3.07 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 8,598 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min I- Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs f: • • i• • • i • I,l i i • w w w Pre-Existing Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA PRE-existing_r-D SOILS Type /// 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Subcatchment 63S: EX-RES A w • ( [49) Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt w Runoff = 3.77 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 10,757 cf, Depth= 3.60" w Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs w Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" w Area (sf) CN Description 35,836 92 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp HSG D 12,543 35.00% Pervious Area w 23,293 65.00% Impervious Area w Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description w (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.3 25 0.0640 1.63 Sheet Flow, w Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.0 10 0.1200 7.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv=20.3 fps - 0.2 75 0.1100 5.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.5 110 Total - Summary for Subcatchment 88S: EX-RES B 40 w [49) Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.73 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 2,067 cf, Depth= 3.60" w f Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs - iType III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" w Area (sf) CN Description i 1 6,887 92 1/8 acre lots 65% imp HSG D 2,410 35.00% Pervious Area 4,477 65.00% Impervious Area w Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description w (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) 0.3 20 0.0420 1.32 Sheet Flow, , Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" w 0.0 10 0.1200 7.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv=20.3 fps w 0.2 50 0.0660 4.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps w 0.5 80 Total ' w w � w r Pre-Existing Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA 4l PRE-existing_r-D SOILS Type 11124-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 l� Summary for Subcatchment 89S: EX-DEPRESSION [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt i Runoff = 0.64 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,778 cf, Depth= 2.91" I� Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 4� 4,000 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 1,113 89 Dirt roads, HSG D 1,700 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG D 520 98 Paved parking HSG D 7,333 85 Weighted Average ' 5,113 69.73% Pervious Area 2,220 30.27% Impervious Area S 1,700 76.58% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description - (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) is 0.4 25 0.0200 1.03 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.2 55 0.1100 5.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.1 60 0.2000 7.20 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 49 0.7 140 Total I Summary for Subcatchment 90S: EX-MASON f� [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff - 0.27 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 843 cf, Depth= 4.26" I� Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 2,372 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG D 2,372 100.00% Impervious Area �- Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (f/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.4 25 0.0200 1.03 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" i I� it '� w w Pre-Existing Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA - { PRE-existing_r-D SOILS Type ll/ 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 HydroCAD@ 9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Facie 9 Summary for Subcatchment 91 S: EX-SITE 1 w [49) Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt � w Runoff = 0.75 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 2,309 cf, Depth= 3.50" w Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs w Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" i Area (sf) CN Description w ` 3,300 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D w 4,621 98 Paved parking HSG D w 7,921 91 Weighted Average w ` 3,300 41.66% Pervious Area 4,621 58.34% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) j 3.1 50 0.0900 0.27 Sheet Flow, w Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" 0.4 70 0.0330 2.92 Shallow Concentrated Flow, w Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 0.5 60 0.0100 2.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps w 4.0 180 Total , Summary for Subcatchment 92S: EX-CB w [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt 40 Runoff = 0.81 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 2,486 cf, Depth= 3.10" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" w Area (sf) CN Description 4,500 98 Paved parking, HSG D 1,500 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D w 3,628 77 Woods Good HSG D - 9,628 87 Weighted Average w 5,128 53.26% Pervious Area 4,500 46.74% Impervious Area 1♦ i I • � w • w 0 • i• • Pre-Existing Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA PRE-existing_r-D SOILS Type ///24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" '• Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 - HydroCAD(D 9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 f �• Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 4.2 25 0.0110 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" 0.5 65 0.0110 2.13 Shallow Concentrated Flow, �• 4.7 90 Total Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • Summary for Subcatchment 93S: EX-SITE 2 '• � • [49] Hint: TcQdt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 16.01 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 52,747 cf, Depth= 3.60" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" l • Area (sf) CN Description i• 30,723 73 Brush, Good, HSG D ,- 58,000 98 Paved parking, HSG C 11,000 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 76,000 98 Roofs HSG D • 175,723 92 Weighted Average 41,723 23.74% Pervious Area • 134,000 76.26% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 1.3 25 0.1900 0.31 Sheet Flow, - Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" 1.9 185 0.0100 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, t• Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps (• 2.5 240 0.0100 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps = 0.0 10 0.3300 9.25 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 5.7 460 Total • Summary for Link 74L: Flow into drainage system on Flint Street - Inflow Area = 17,549 sf, 51.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.28" for 10 yr event • Inflow = 1.56 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 4,795 cf • Primary = 1.56 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 4,795 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min • Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • I• • I • • • Pre-Existing Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA PRE-existing -D SOILS Type /// 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 • HydroCAD@ 9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 • Summary for Link 87L: Flow to North River Canal (Tidal) • • Inflow Area = 238,367 sf, 72.69% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.58" for 10 yr event • Inflow = 20.73 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 71,209 cf Primary = 20.73 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 71,209 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min • Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Link 90L: Infiltrate into ground • Inflow Area = 7,333 sf, 30.27% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.91" for 10 yr event • Inflow = 0.64 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,778 cf • Primary = 0.64 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,778 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min • Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Summary for Link 94L: Add Inflow Area = 45,095 sf, 66.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.64" for 10 yr event • Inflow 4.77 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 13,667 cf • Primary = 4.77 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 13,667 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min • Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • • I • 1 • • • • i • f • • • I• • Pre-Existing Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA PRE-existing_r-D SOILS Type /// 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" '• Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 • HydroCADOO 9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 f • Summary for Subcatchment 63S: EX-RES A • f• [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 5.68 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 16,609 cf, Depth= 5.56" `• Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" �• Area (sf) CN Description • 351836 92 1/8 acre lots 65% imp HSG D • 12,543 35.00% Pervious Area 4• 23,293 65.00% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) I.• 0.3 25 0.0640 1.63 Sheet Flow, • Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" J• 0.0 10 0.1200 7.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 0.2 75 0.1100 5.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, I•• Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps i 0.5 110 Total • Summary for Subcatchment 88S: EX-RES B �• [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • }• Runoff = 1.09 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 3,192 cf, Depth= 5.56" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" I• Area (sf) CN Description f= 6,887 92 1/8 acre lots 65% imp HSG D 2,410 35.00% Pervious Area • 4,477 65.00% Impervious Area (• Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.3 20 0.0420 1.32 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • 0.0 10 0.1200 7.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 0.2 50 0.0660 4.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 0.5 80 Total I,• • • Pre-Existing Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA • PRE-existing_r-D SOILS Type 111 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 • HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 • Summary for Subcatchment 89S: EX-DEPRESSION • • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 1.04 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 2,919 cf, Depth= 4.78" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • { Area (sf) CN Description = 4,000 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 1,113 89 Dirt roads, HSG D • 1,700 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG D • 520 98 Paved parking HSG D 7,333 85 Weighted Average • 5,113 69.73% Pervious Area • 2,220 30.27% Impervious Area 1,700 76.58% Unconnected • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.4 25 0.0200 1.03 Sheet Flow, • Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • 0.2 55 0.1100 5.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 0.1 60 0.2000 7.20 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.7 140 Total • Summary for Subcatchment 90S: EX-MASON • i [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.40 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 1,238 cf, Depth= 6.26" = Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • f Area (sf) CN Description • 2,372 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers HSG D • 2,372 100.00% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.4 25 0.0200 1.03 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • • • • I� Pre-Existing Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA PRE-existing_r-D SOILS Type 111 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" i� Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 HydroCAD@)9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 t Summary for Subcatchment 91S: EX-SITE 1 I: [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt - Runoff = 1.15 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 3,596 cf, Depth= 5.45' Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" (� Area (sf) CN Description I� 3,300 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D • 4,621 98 Paved parking HSG D 7,921 91 Weighted Average 3,300 41.66% Pervious Area 4,621 58.34% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) - 3.1 50 0.0900 0.27 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" 0.4 70 0.0330 2.92 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.5 60 0.0100 2.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 4.0 180 Total Summary for Subcatchment 92S: EX-CB is [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 1.28 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 4,009 cf, Depth= 5.00" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Area (sf) CN Description 4,500 98 Paved parking, HSG D 1,500 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D I- 3,628 77 Woods, Good, HSG D I. 9,628 87 Weighted Average 5,128 53.26% Pervious Area 1 4,500 46.74% Impervious Area I. I� l- • Pre-Existing Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA PRE-existing_r-D SOILS Type /// 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 • HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Facie 15 • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (f/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 4.2 25 0.0110 0.10 Sheet Flow, • Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" 0.5 65 0.0110 2.13 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • 4.7 90 Total Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • • Summary for Subcatchment 93S: EX-SITE 2 • [49) Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • • iRunoff = 24.11 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 81,442 cf, Depth= 5.56" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Area (sf) CN Description • 30,723 73 Brush, Good, HSG D • 58,000 98 Paved parking, HSG C 11,000 77 Woods, Good, HSG D • 76,000 98 Roofs, HSG D • 175,723 92 Weighted Average • 41,723 23.74% Pervious Area 134,000 76.26% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 1.3 25 0.1900 0.31 Sheet Flow, • ` Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" • 1.9 185 0.0100 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 2.5 240 0.0100 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.0 10 0.3300 9.25 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 5.7 460 Total • Summary for Link 74L: Flow into drainage system on Flint Street • Inflow Area = 17,549 sf, 51.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.20" for 100 yr event • Inflow 2.42 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 7,605 cf Primary - 2.42 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 7,605 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min • Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • • • • • • Pre-Existing Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA PRE-existing_r-D SOILS Type /// 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 • HydroCAD@ 9.10 s/n 06611 ©2010 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 I • Summary for Link 87L: Flow to North River Canal (Tidal) • I• Inflow Area = 238,367 sf, 72.69% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.54" for 100 yr event Inflow 31.29 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 110,085 cf • Primary = 31.29 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 110,085 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Summary for Link 90L: Infiltrate into ground • Inflow Area = 7,333 sf, 30.27% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.78" for 100 yr event i• Inflow = 1.04 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 2,919 cf I• Primary = 1.04 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 2,919 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min I• Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs (= Summary for Link 94L: Add i• Inflow Area = 45,095 sf, 66.84% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.60" for 100 yr event Inf ow 7.17 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 21,038 cf • Primary = 7.17 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 21,038 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min • Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • I= • • • • • • • • • • • �i I• li • I� Current (Existing) !: Watershed Analysis Is i � f, • i • • i • • • • • • i • � 89S` �. 90L • EX-DEPRESSION Infiltrate into ground • • 63S EX-M90LL5:`- 88S 1 EX-RES A ON_R EX-RES B2 935.: • EX-SITE 2R • 92S. 94C E%-CB � Add 74L I Flow into drainage Flow to North River • system on Flint Street Canal(Tidal) • EX-SITE t i • • • • • 1 - 1 • t r Bobcat' Reach oriLlnk Drainage Diagram for existing_r-D SOILS - Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 7/16/2014 • HydroCAD®9.10 stn 06611 ®2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC • • i Present (Existing) Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA existing_r-D SOILS Type /// 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" is Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 HydroCAD@ 9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 iw iw Summary for Subcatchment 63S: EX-RES A w [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 2.42 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 6,736 cf, Depth= 2.26" jw Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs '- Type 111 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" )w Area (sf) CN Description ,w 35,836 92 1/8 acre lots 65% imp HSG D w 12,543 35.00% Pervious Area 23,293 65.00% Impervious Area `w w Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (f/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) w 0.3 25 0.0640 1.63 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.0 10 0.1200 7.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, i w Paved Kv=20.3 fps 'w 0.2 75 0.1100 5.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, wUnpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.5 110 Total w Summary for Subcatchment 88S: EX-RES B2 i w [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt w w Runoff = 0.22 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 624 cf, Depth= 2.26" w Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs `- Type III 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" w Area (sf) CN Description w 3,319 92 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG D � . 1,162 35.00% Pervious Area 2,157 65.00% Impervious Area w i w Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (f/sec) (cfs) w 0.3 20 0.0420 1.32 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" = 0.0 10 0.1200 7.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.2 50 0.0660 4.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, w Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.5 80 Total i • w is ' w • i Present (Existing) Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA • existing_r-D SOILS Type Ill 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 • Summary for Subcatchment 89S: EX-DEPRESSION = [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt ! Runoff = 0.37 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,022 cf, Depth= 1.67 • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" • Area (sf) CN Description 4,000 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 1,113 89 Dirt roads, HSG D • 1,700 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG D • 520 98 Paved parking HSG D 7,333 85 Weighted Average • 5,113 69.73% Pervious Area ! 2,220 30.27% Impervious Area 1,700 76.58% Unconnected • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.4 25 0.0200 1.03 Sheet Flow, • Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • 0.2 55 0.1100 5.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 0.1 60 0.2000 7.20 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.7 140 Total • Summary for Subcatchment 90S: EX-MASON_R ' [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.19 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 567 cf, Depth= 2.87' i Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" • Area (sf) CN Description 2,372 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers HSG D • 2,372 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.4 25 0.0200 1.03 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • �i i Present (Existing) Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA existing_r-D SOILS Type 111 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 - ydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 V2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 91 S: EX-SITE 1 . [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt I! Runoff = 0.53 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 1,615 cf, Depth= 2.45" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs 40 Type III 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" I! Area (sf) CN Description 3,300 89 <50% Grass cover, Poor, HSG D 3,421 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG D 1,200 98 Paved parking HSG D 7,921 94 Weighted Average 3,300 41.66% Pervious Area I� 4,621 58.34% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 2.8 50 0.0900 0.30 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 3.10" I* 0.4 70 0,0330 2.92 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.5 60 0.0100 2.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 3.7 180 Total Summary for Subcatchment 92S: EX-CB �. [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt I� Runoff = 0.48 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 1,466 cf, Depth= 1.83" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" Area (sf) CN Description 4,500 98 Paved parking, HSG D 1,500 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D ` 3,628 77 Woods, Good HSG D 9,628 87 Weighted Average 5,128 53.26% Pervious Area • 4,500 46.74% Impervious Area a I � 1i • • i Present (Existing) Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA A existing_r-D SOILS Type 111 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 • HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (f/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 4.2 25 0.0110 0.10 Sheet Flow, • Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" 0.5 65 0.0110 2.13 Shallow Concentrated Flow, , I Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 4.7 90 Total Summary for Subcatchment 93S: EX-SITE 21R [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt S Runoff = 9.79 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 31,020 cf, Depth= 2.08" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" - Area (sf) CN Description 39,723 73 Brush, Good, HSG D • 16,000 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG D 4,000 98 Paved parking, HSG D 11,000 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 56,224 98 Paved parking, HSG D 52,344 94 Newly graded area HSG D • 179,291 90 Weighted Average 103,067 57.49% Pervious Area • 76,224 42.51% Impervious Area w Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (f/sec) (cfs) 1.2 25 0.1900 0.35 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 3.10" 1.9 185 0.0100 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps M 2.5 240 0.0100 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 0.0 10 0.3300 9.25 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 5.6 460 Total Summary for Link 74L: Flow into drainage system on Flint Street Inflow Area = 17,549 sf, 51.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.11" for 2 yr event • Inflow = 1.01 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 3,081 cf Primary = 1.01 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 3,081 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs I • • is • Present (Existing) Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA existing_r-D SOILS Type /// 24-hr 2 yr Rainfall=3.10" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 • HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Link 87L: Flow to North River Canal (Tidal) I- Inflow Area = 238,367 sf, 47.48% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.12" for 2 yr event Inflow 12.67 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 42,028 cf I- Primary = 12.67 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 42,028 cf, Allen= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs (• Summary for Link 90L: Infiltrate into ground Inflow Area = 7,333 sf, 30.27% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.67" for 2 yr event I• Inflow 0.37 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,022 cf - Primary 0.37 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,022 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min il. Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Link 94L: Add I� Inflow Area = 41,527 sf, 67.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.29" for 2 yr event • Inflow _ 2.83 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 7,927 cf Primary 2.83 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 7,927 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min I- Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs I� I� I� I� I� • • i existing_r-D SOILS Present (Existing) Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA • Type /// 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 • HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pace 7 • Summary for Subcatchment 63S: EX-RES A • • [49) Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 3.77 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 10,757 cf, Depth= 3.60" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Area (sf) CN Description = 35,836 92 1/8 acre lots 65% imp HSG D 12,543 35.00% Pervious Area • 23,293 65.00% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • l (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.3 25 0.0640 1.63 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • 0.0 10 0.1200 7.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 0.2 75 0.1100 5.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 0.5 110 Total • Summary for Subcatchment 88S: EX-RES B2 • . [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt - Runoff = 0.35 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 996 cf, Depth= 3.60" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Area (sf) CN Description • j 3,319 92 1/8 acre lots 65% imp HSG D • ` 1,162 35.00% Pervious Area • i 2,157 65.00% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.3 20 0.0420 1.32 Sheet Flow, • Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.0 10 0.1200 7.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 0.2 50 0.0660 4.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 0.5 80 Total • I • • • • Present (Existing) Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA '• existing_r-D SOILS Type ///24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 • HydroCADO 9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 �• Summary for Subcatchment 89S: EX-DEPRESSION i= [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.64 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,778 cf, Depth= 2.91" I• Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" �• Area (sf) CN Description '• 4,000 77 Woods, Good, HSG D • 1,113 89 Dirt roads, HSG D I 1,700 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG D • 520 98 Paved parking, HSG D • 7,333 85 Weighted Average 5,113 69.73% Pervious Area ,• 2,220 30.27% Impervious Area • 1,700 76.58% Unconnected f• Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) I• 0.4 25 0.0200 1.03 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • 0.2 55 0.1100 5.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps I• 0.1 60 0.2000 7.20 Shallow Concentrated Flow, �,• Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 0.7 140 Total I• Summary for Subcatchment 90S: EX-MASON—R is [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 0.27 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 843 cf, Depth= 4.26" �+ Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" - Area (sf) CN Description 2,372 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers HSG D • 2,372 100.00% Impervious Area i• • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) i• 0.4 25 0.0200 1.03 Sheet Flow, • Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • • • Present (Existing) Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA • existing_r-D SOILS Type 11124-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 • HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 • I' Summary for Subcatchment 91S: EX-SITE 1 • ( [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt - Runoff = 0.81 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 2,518 cf, Depth= 3.82" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • fArea (sf) CN Description • 3,300 89 <50% Grass cover, Poor, HSG D • 3,421 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG D • 1,200 98 Paved parking HSG D • 7,921 94 Weighted Average 3,300 41.66% Pervious Area • 4,621 58.34% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 2.8 50 0.0900 0.30 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 3.10" • 0.4 70 0.0330 2.92 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 0.5 60 0.0100 2.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 3.7 180 Total • Summary for Subcatchment 92S: EX-CB • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.81 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 2,486 cf, Depth= 3.10" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Area (sf) CN Description 4,500 98 Paved parking, HSG D 1,500 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D • 3,628 77 Woods Good, HSG D • 9,628 87 Weighted Average 5,128 53.26% Pervious Area • 4,500 46.74% Impervious Area • • • • • t Present (Existing) Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA existing_r-D SOILS Type 111 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • _(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) �- 4.2 25 0.0110 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" • 0.5 65 0.0110 2.13 Shallow Concentrated Flow, [� Paved Kv=20.3 fps 4.7 90 Total Summary for Subcatchment 93S: EX-SITE 2R [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt �- Runoff = 15.69 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 50,736 cf, Depth= 3.40" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description (. 39,723 73 Brush, Good, HSG D 16,000 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG D 4,000 98 Paved parking, HSG D • 11,000 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 56,224 98 Paved parking, HSG D (� 52,344 94 Newly graded area HSG D 179,291 90 Weighted Average • 103,067 57.49% Pervious Area 76,224 42.51% Impervious Area I- Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.2 25 0.1900 0.35 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 3.10" ,- 1.9 185 0.0100 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps (� 2.5 240 0.0100 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, is Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.0 10 0.3300 9.25 Shallow Concentrated Flow, �� Unpaved Kv= 16 1 fps - 5.6 460 Total I�s Summary for Link 74L: Flow into drainage system on Flint Street I '- Inflow Area = 17,549 sf, 51.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.42" for 10 yr event Inflow = 1.61 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 5,005 cf f Primary = 1.61 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 5,005 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs I- • Present (Existing) Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA • ` existing_r-D SOILS Type 111 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 • HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 • Summary for Link 87L: Flow to North River Canal (Tidal) • II Inflow Area = 238,367 sf, 47.48% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.44" for 10 yr event • Inflow = 20.22 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 68,337 cf • Primary = 20.22 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 68,337 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min • Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Summary for Link 90L: Infiltrate into ground • Inflow Area = 7,333 sf, 30.27% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.91" for 10 yr event • Inflow _ 0.64 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,778 cf • Primary 0.64 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,778 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min • Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs - Summary for Link 94L: Add • • Inflow Area = 41,527 sf, 67.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.64" for 10 yr event • Inflow 4.40 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 12,596 cf • Primary = 4.40 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 12,596 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs - • I • • • • i • • i �i ii Present (Existing) Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA existing_r-D SOILS Type /II 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" i Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 �• HydroCAD@ 9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Summary for Subcatchment 63S: EX-RES A !- [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt i Runoff = 5.68 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 16,609 cf, Depth= 5.56" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" �= Area (sf) CN Description 35,836 92 1/8 acre lots 65% imp HSG D 12,543 35.00% Pervious Area 23,293 65.00% Impervious Area I� Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description 4i (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) i 0.3 25 0.0640 1.63 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" li 0.0 10 0.1200 7.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv=20.3 fps 0.2 75 0.1100 5.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, li Unpaved Kv= 16 1 fps i 0.5 110 Total ,is Summary for Subcatchment 88S: EX-RES B2 [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 0.53 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,538 cf, Depth= 5.56" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" = Area (sf) CN Description 3,319 92 1/8 acre lots 65% imp HSG D 1,162 35.00% Pervious Area i 2,157 65.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description i (min) (feet) (f/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.3 20 0.0420 1.32 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.0 10 0.1200 7.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.2 50 0.0660 4.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.5 80 Total • Present (Existing) Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA • existing_r-D SOILS Type 111 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 • HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 C2010 HVdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 • Summary for Subcatchment 89S: EX-DEPRESSION = [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 1.04 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 2,919 cf, Depth= 4.78" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description - 4,000 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 1,113 89 Dirt roads, HSG D • 1,700 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG D • 520 98 Paved parking HSG D 7,333 85 Weighted Average • 5,113 69.73% Pervious Area • 2,220 30.27% Impervious Area 1,700 76.58% Unconnected • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (f/sec) (cfs) 0.4 25 0.0200 1.03 Sheet Flow, • Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • 0.2 55 0.1100 5.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.1 60 0.2000 7.20 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.7 140 Total • Summary for Subcatchment 90S: EX-MASON_R • i [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.40 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 1,238 cf, Depth= 6.26" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Area (sf) CN Description • 2,372 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers HSG D 2,372 100.00% Impervious Area - Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (f/ft) (f/sec) (cfs) • 0.4 25 0.0200 1.03 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • • • • r li Present (Existing) Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA existing_r-D SOILS Type 111 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Summary for Subcatchment 91S: EX-SITE 1 [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 1.20 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 3,823 cf, Depth= 5.79" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description 3,300 89 <50% Grass cover, Poor, HSG D ,4D 3,421 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG D I� 1,200 98 Paved parking HSG D 7,921 94 Weighted Average 3,300 41.66% Pervious Area 4,621 58.34% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 2.8 50 0.0900 0.30 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 3.10" 0.4 70 0.0330 2.92 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.5 60 0.0100 2.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv=20.3 fps 3.7 180 Total Summary for Subcatchment 92S: EX-CB i [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 1.28 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 4,009 cf, Depth= 5.00" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Area (sf) CN Description 4,500 98 Paved parking, HSG D Q 1,500 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 3,628 77 Woods Good HSG D 9,628 87 Weighted Average 5,128 53.26% Pervious Area 4,500 46.74% Impervious Area � S I � I Present (Existing) Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA existing_r-D SOILS Type 111 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 HydroCADO 9.10 s/n 06611 Q2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (f/ft) (fUsec) (cfs) i4.2 25 0.0110 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" i 0.5 65 0.0110 2.13 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 4.7 90 Total • Summary for Subcatchment 93S: EX-SITE 211 [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt A Runoff = 24.04 cfs @ 12.08 hrs, Volume= 79,691 cf, Depth= 5.33" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs a Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description 39,723 73 Brush, Good, HSG D t♦ 16,000 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG D 4,000 98 Paved parking, HSG D 11,000 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 56,224 98 Paved parking, HSG D 52,344 94 Newly graded area HSG D 179,291 90 Weighted Average 103,067 57.49% Pervious Area 76,224 42.51% Impervious Area j Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (f/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) i 1.2 25 0.1900 0.35 Sheet Flow, Range n= 0.130 P2= 3.10" 1.9 185 0.0100 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 2.5 240 0.0100 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.0 10 0.3300 9.25 Shallow Concentrated Flow, - Unpaved Kv= 16 1 fps 1 5.6 460 Total ' Summary for Link 74L: Flow into drainage system on Flint Street Inflow Area = 17,549 sf, 51.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.36" for 100 yr event Inflow = 2.47 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 7,833 cf a Primary = 2.47 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 7,833 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min ' I Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs w • • ,• existing_r-D SOILS Present (Existing) Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Type /// 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" i • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 7/16/2014 • HydroCAD8 9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Summary for Link 87L: Flow to North River Canal (Tidal) I• Inflow Area = 238,367 sf, 47.48% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.38" for 100 yr event Inflow = 30.93 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 106,908 cf ++• Primary = 30.93 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 106,908 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min is Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs i• Summary for Link 90L: Infiltrate into ground Inflow Area = 7,333 sf, 30.27% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.78" for 100 yr event )• Inflow = 1.04 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 2,919 cf • Primary = 1.04 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 2,919 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min • Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Summary for Link 94L: Add • Inflow Area = 41,527 sf, 67.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.60" for 100 yr event - Inflow — 6.61 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 19,385 cf • Primary = 6.61 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 19,385 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min - Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • • • I- • i• • i is I Is ,• I� • I• • '. I• 1• • i 1. is is Proposed Condition is Watershed Analysis I. il • Is is • i • • 895 --0 90L PR-0EPRESSION Infil=a l ,i-ovE 638 0S 88S 93S EX--RESn\ PR9lntwoN E%RES 82 PR4R 1� 103 R \\]'J-- b ES PR-ROOF\ \\\\YYYJJJ. 94L PR-2_R 1-P Md 1095 995 Bio cella PRda PR-BIO B 1005 975 PR-lb PR-OECILR 1075 95L 955 PWROOF3b t or-ptor PR-R00F2 R 1055 PR5R 87L Q 1065 96S 928 low to None rover PR2 PR-ROOF3a }}}V777 5 / BIo call n 74L 98S / FlOw info dre1nage system an FlMt Shen PR-BIOA 915 PR-]R Drainage Diagram for PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Subcat Reach on Link Prepared by Microsoft, Printed 9/22/2014 FHydroCADB 9.10 s/n 06611 0 2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC • • • Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 PROPOSED-113 SOILS_R w Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 • HydroCADO 9.10 s/n 06611 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 1 • Area Listing (all nodes) • • Area CN Description w (sq-ft) (subcatchment-numbers) w 12,280 77 Woods, Good, HSG D (89S, 92S, 103S, 106S, 1095) 52,810 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D (92S, 98S, 99S, 100S, 1028, 103S, 104S, • 105S, 106S, 109S) w 1,841 89 <50% Grass cover, Poor, HSG D (91S) • 1,113 89 Dirt roads, HSG D (89S) 39,155 92 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp, HSG D (63S, 88S) • 81,694 98 Paved parking, HSG D (89S, 91 S, 92S, 97S, 100S, 101 S, 102S, 103S, 1045, • 105S, 106S, 109S) • 2,372 98 Paved roads w/curbs &sewers, HSG D (90S) 52,737 98 Roofs, HSG D (93S, 95S, 96S, 107S) • 1,700 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG D (89S) • 245,702 TOTAL AREA w • • I• i I• �w • • w • • • • • • • • • • • • • Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 • PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type /ll 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HVdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 • Summary for Subcatchment 63S: EX-RES A [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 3.77 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 10,757 cf, Depth= 3.60" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Area (sf) CN Description • 35,836 92 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp HSG D • 12,543 35.00% Pervious Area 23,293 65.00% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.3 25 0.0640 1.63 Sheet Flow, • Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.0 10 0.1200 7.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 0.2 75 0.1100 5.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.5 110 Total • Summary for Subcatchment 88S: EX-RES B2 • • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.35 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 996 cf, Depth= 3.60" • • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Area (so CN Description • 3,319 92 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp HSG D • 1,162 35.00% Pervious Area 2,157 65.00% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.3 20 0.0420 1.32 Sheet Flow, • Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • 0.0 10 0.1200 7.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 0.2 50 0.0660 4.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 0.5 80 Total • • • • • i• • • Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type /// 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 • HydroCADO 9.10 s/n 06611 @ 2010 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 • Summary for Subcatchment 89S: PR-DEPRESSION • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.63 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,742 cf, Depth= 2.91" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Area (sf) CN Description • 3,852 77 Woods, Good, HSG D • 1,113 89 Dirt roads, HSG D • 1,700 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG D 520 98 Paved parking HSG D • 7,185 85 Weighted Average • 4,965 69.10% Pervious Area 2,220 30.90% Impervious Area • 1,700 76.58% Unconnected • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • _(min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.4 25 0.0200 1.03 Sheet Flow, - Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.2 55 0.1100 5.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 0.1 60 0.2000 7.20 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 0.7 140 Total = Summary for Subcatchment 90S: PR-MASON • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.27 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 843 cf, Depth= 4.26" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Area (sf) CN Description • 2,372 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers, HSG D 2,372 100.00% Impervious Area • • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.4 25 0.0200 1.03 Sheet Flow, • Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • • • • • • Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 • PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type 111 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 • Summary for Subcatchment 91 S: PR-7R = [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.23 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 713 cf, Depth= 3.50" • • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Area (sf) CN Description • 1,841 89 <50% Grass cover, Poor, HSG D 1605 98 Paved parking, HSG D • 2,446 91 Weighted Average • 1,841 75.27% Pervious Area • 605 24.73% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (f/sec) (cfs) 3.8 40 0.0350 0.17 Sheet Flow, • Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" • 0.4 70 0.0330 2.92 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.5 60 0.0100 2.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Paved Kv= 20.3 fps . 4.7 170 Total • Summary for Subcatchment 92S: EX-CB_R • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.80 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 2,452 cf, Depth= 3.10" - Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • I, Area (sf) CN Description • 4,500 98 Paved parking, HSG D • 1,368 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 3,628 77 Woods Good HSG D • 9,496 87 Weighted Average • 4,996 52.61% Pervious Area • 4,500 47.39% Impervious Area • • • • • • • • • • i �• Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 - PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type 11124-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 • ydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) �- 4.2 25 0.0110 0.10 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" • 0.5 65 0.0110 2.13 Shallow Concentrated Flow, I• Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 4.7 90 Total I• Summary for Subcatchment 93S: PR-ROOF1 [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt I• Runoff = 3.23 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 10,190 cf, Depth= 4.26" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs '• Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Area (sf) CN Description • 28,676 98 Roofs, HSG D - 28,676 100.00% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 1.0 Direct Entry, �• Summary for Subcatchment 95S: PR-ROOF2_R • I• [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 1.62 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 5,126 cf, Depth= 4.26" I• Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs '• Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description '• 14,42_7 98 Roofs, HSG D 14,427 100.00% Impervious Area `• Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 1.0 Direct Entry, f Summary for Subcatchment 96S: PR-ROOF3a ''• [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt !• Runoff = 0.54 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,712 cf, Depth= 4.26" i• • • • • Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 • j PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type ///24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 HydroCAD0 9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Facie 6 • I Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Area (sf) CN Description • 4,817 98 Roofs, HSG D • j4,817 100.00% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • i (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (f/sec) (cfs) • 1.0 Direct Entry, • Summary for Subcatchment 97S: PR-DECK_R • • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 1.84 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 5,958 cf, Depth= 4.26" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Area (sf) CN Description • 16,767 98 Paved parking HSG D • 16,767 100.00% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.5 25 0.0100 0.78 Sheet Flow, • Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • 2.2 265 0.0100 2.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 2.7 290 Total • Summary for Subcatchment 98S: PR-BIO A • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt i Runoff = 0.05 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 131 cf, Depth= 2.46" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Area (sf) CN Description • 638 80 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG D • 638 100.00% Pervious Area • • • • • • • • I• Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type /// 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" I• Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 HydroCADO 9.10 s/n 06611 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pace 7 I` Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) I• 2.1 10 0.0100 0.08 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" • +- Summary for Subcatchment 99S: PR-BIO B • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt = Runoff = 0.41 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 1,187 cf, Depth= 2.46" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs �- Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" i Area (sf) CN Description { 5,787 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 5,787 100.00% Pervious Area j I• Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (f/sec) (cfs) • 3.3 25 0.0200 0.13 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" • Summary for Subcatchment 100S: PR-1b !� [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.96 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 2,746 cf, Depth= 3.60" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Area (sf) CN Description 5,940 98 Paved parking, HSG D • 3,208 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D �• 9,148 92 Weighted Average 3,208 35.07% Pervious Area 5,940 64.93% Impervious Area '• Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (f/sec) (cfs) �• 0.2 25 0.1000 1.95 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.2 70 0.1000 6.42 Shallow Concentrated Flow, i• Paved Kv= 20.3 fps - 0.2 40 0.0380 3.96 Shallow Concentrated Flow, 1• Paved Kv= 20.3 fps i 0.6 135 Total • • • Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 • PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type 111 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 • HydroCADOO 9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pape 8 • Summary for Subcatchment 1015: PR-2_R • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.28 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 853 cf, Depth= 4.26" = Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" I • j Area (sf) CN Description • 2,401 98 Paved parking, HSG D • 2,401 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (f/sec) (cfs) • 0 5 25 0.0100 0.78 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • Summary for Subcatchment 102S: PR-3_R • • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 3.13 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 9,238 cf, Depth= 3.50" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • • Area (sf) CN Description • j 18,897 98 Paved parking, HSG D 12,795 80 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG D • 31,692 91 Weighted Average • 12,795 40.37% Pervious Area • 18,897 59.63% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.3 25 0.0500 1.48 Sheet Flow, • Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • 0.2 65 0.0500 4.54 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.2 30 0.0200 2.87 Shallow Concentrated Flow, - j Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.6 150 0.0400 4.06 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 0.7 70 0.0070 1.70 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20,3 fps • 2.0 340 Total • • l • i ! Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 i PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type 111 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 i� HydroCAD©9,10 s/n 06611 © 2010 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Summary for Subcatchment 103S: PR-4R Runoff = 1.89 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 6,465 cf, Depth= 3.30" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description i� 12,614 98 Paved parking, HSG D 7,928 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 3,000 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 23,542 89 Weighted Average 10,928 46.42% Pervious Area 12,614 53.58% Impervious Area j Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.1 60 0.1200 0.14 Sheet Flow, I Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.10" 0.0 10 0.1000 5.09 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.8 115 0.0150 2.49 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 7.9 185 Total I Summary for Subcatchment 104S: PR-5111 i� (49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt !� Runoff = 1.20 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 3,626 cf, Depth= 3.71" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs i� Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description 8,749 98 Paved parking, HSG D 2,987 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 11,736 93 Weighted Average 2,987 25.45% Pervious Area 8,749 74.55% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 2.1 40 0.1600 0.32 Sheet Flow, i Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" 0.7 105 0.0160 2.57 Shallow Concentrated Flow, S Paved Kv= 20.3 fps �* 2.8 145 Total i i Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type 11124-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" a Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 HydroCAD(D9.10 s/n 06611 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Summary for Subcatchment 105S: PR-611 # [49) Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 0.39 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,146 cf, Depth= 3.60" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" Area (sf) CN Description ! 2,547 98 Paved parking, HSG D 11270 80 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG D 3,817 92 Weighted Average 1,270 33.27% Pervious Area 2,547 66.73% Impervious Area i Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs) i 0.4 25 0.0200 1.03 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.6 75 0.0110 2.13 Shallow Concentrated Flow, ! Paved Kv=20.3 fps 1.0 100 Total Summary for Subcatchment 106S: PR-8 Runoff = 0.81 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 5,094 cf, Depth= 2.82" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" S Area (sf) CN Description 5,174 98 Paved parking, HSG D 15,529 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D 1,000 77 Woods Good, HSG D i 21,703 84 Weighted Average ! 16,529 76.16% Pervious Area 5,174 23.84% Impervious Area ! Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 38.0 100 0.0050 0.04 Sheet Flow, ! Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.10" 1.9 185 0.0100 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps i 39.9 285 Total i i i i • • • I• Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 • PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type 111 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 = Summary for Subcatchment 107S: PR-ROOF3b • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.54 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,712 cf, Depth= 4.26" • • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • • Area (sf) CN Description 4,817 98 Roofs, HSG D I• 4,817 100.00% Impervious Area - Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 1.0 Direct Entry, = Summary for Subcatchment 109S: PR-1a • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt I• Runoff = 0.51 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,438 cf, Depth= 3.40" • • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • • Area (sf) CN Description 2,980 98 Paved parking, HSG D • 1,300 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D • 800 77 Woods, Good, HSG D i• 5,080 90 Weighted Average 2,100 41.34% Pervious Area • 2,980 58.66% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.2 25 0.1000 1.95 Sheet Flow, • Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.2 70 0.1000 6.42 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Paved Kv= 20.3 fps I- 0.4 95 Total • Summary for Pond 95P: B[o Cell A • • I• • i • Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 • PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type N24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 ydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 02010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 • Inflow Area = 5,455 sf, 88.30% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.05" for 10 yr event • Inflow = 0.58 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,843 cf • Outflow = 0.53 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 1,842 cf, Atten= 10%, Lag= 1.9 min • Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 2.20 hrs, Volume= 86 cf Primary = 0.53 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 1,756 cf • Secondary= 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf • Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Peak Elev= 13.89' @ 12.05 hrs Surf.Area= 350 sf Storage= 94 cf • Plug-Flow detention time= 28.4 min calculated for 1,842 cf(100% of inflow) • Center-of-Mass det. time= 28.3 min ( 779.0 - 750.7 ) • I Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description • #1 13.00' 490 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below(Recalc) • Elevation Surf.Area Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store • (feet) (sq-ft) (%) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) • 13.00 350 0.0 0 0 • 16.00 350 30.0 315 315 16.50 350 100.0 175 490 • Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices • #1 Primary 13.25' 6.0" Round Culvert • L= 30.0' CPP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 • Inlet/Outlet Invert= 13.25'/ 13.10' S= 0.0050 '/' Cc= 0.900 • n= 0.010 #2 Discarded 13.00' 0.090 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area • #3 Secondary 16.25' 4.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 • Qiscarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 2.20 hrs HW=13.04' (Free Discharge) • 2=Exfltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.00 cfs) • Primary OutFlow Max=0.53 cfs @ 12.05 hrs HW=13.88' (Free Discharge) • L1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.53 cfs @ 2.73 fps) • Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=13.00' (Free Discharge) • t3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) • Summary for Pond 10913: Bio Cell B • • Inflow Area = 34,463 sf, 83.21% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.96" for 10 yr event • Inflow 3.57 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 11,377 cf Outflow = 1.08 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 11,376 cf, Atten= 70%, Lag= 16.8 min • Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 2.25 hrs, Volume= 572 cf • Primary = 1.08 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 10,804 cf Secondary = 0.00 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0 cf • Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs = •- • • Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type 11124-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 �• HydroCADO 9.10 s/n 06611 ©2010 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 I• Peak Elev= 10.75' @ 12.30 hrs Surf.Area= 2,230 sf Storage= 2,568 cf • Plug-Flow detention time= 48.5 min calculated for 11,376 cf(100% of inflow) • Center-of-Mass det. time= 48.4 min ( 801.8 - 753.4 ) • • Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 7.50' 3,122 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below(Recalc) • - Elevation Surf.Area Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (%) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) • 7.50 2,230 0.0 0 0 I• 10.50 2,230 30.0 2,007 2,007 • 11.00 2,230 100.0 1,115 3,122 • Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices I• #1 Primary 7.75' 6.0" Round Culvert L= 106.0' CPP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 • Inlet/Outlet Invert= 7.75'/ 7.22' S= 0.0050 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 • #2 Discarded 7.50' 0.090 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #3 Secondary 10.75' 4.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 • Discarded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 2.25 hrs HW=7.54' (Free Discharge) 2=Exfltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.00 cfs) • Primary OutFlow Max=1.08 cfs @ 12.30 hrs HW=10.75' (Free Discharge) I= L7=Culvert (Barrel Controls 1.08 cfs @ 5.50 fps) • Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 12.30 hrs HW=10.75' (Free Discharge) • 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.00 cfs @ 0.14 fps) • Summary for Link 74L: Flow into drainage system on Flint Street • Inflow Area = 11,942 sf, 42.75% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.18" for 10 yr event • Inflow = 1.02 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 3,165 cf • Primary = 1.02 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 3,165 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min • Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Summary for Link 87L: Flow to North River Canal (Tidal) • Inflow Area = 238,517 sf, 67.81% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.61" for 10 yr event • Inflow 18.13 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 71,723 cf • Primary - 18.13 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 71,723 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • • • • • • • Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 • PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type 111 24-hr 10 yr Rainfall=4.50" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 HydroCAD®9.10 stn 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pace 14 • i Summary for Link 90L: Infiltrate into ground - i Inflow Area = 7,185 sf, 30.90% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.91" for 10 yr event • Inflow = 0.63 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,742 cf • Primary = 0.63 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,742 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min • Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Summary for Link 94L: Add • • Inflow Area = 41,527 sf, 67.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.64" for 10 yr event • I Inflow = 4.40 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 12,596 cf Primary = 4.40 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 12,596 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min • Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs = Summary for Link 95L: Stormceptor • } Inflow Area = 204,872 sf, 73.93% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.72" for 10 yr event • Inflow = 17.14 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 63,464 cf • Primary = 17.14 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 63,464 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min • Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • • • • • • • • • • • • • • �• Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 - PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type 11124-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9122/2014 • HydroCAD@ 9.10 s/n 06611 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 = Summary for Subcatchment 63S: EX-RES A • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 5.68 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 16,609 cf, Depth= 5.56" • • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" I- Area (sf) CN Description 35,836 92 1/8 acre lots 65% imp HSG D • 12,543 35.00% Pervious Area • 23,293 65.00% Impervious Area �• Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (f/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.3 25 0.0640 1.63 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • 0.0 10 0.1200 7.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, '- Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.2 75 0.1100 5.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps - 0.5 110 Total I: Summary for Subcatchment 88S: EX-RES B2 • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt i �• Runoff = 0.53 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,538 cf, Depth= 5.56" • • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • • Area (sf) CN Description 3,319 92 1/8 acre lots, 65% imp HSG D • 1,162 35.00% Pervious Area I• 2,157 65.00% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.3 20 0.0420 1.32 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • 0.0 10 0.1200 7.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, j• Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 0.2 50 0.0660 4.14 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 0.5 80 Total • • • • Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 • PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type 111 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 HydroCAD@ 9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 • Summary for Subcatchment 89S: PR-DEPRESSION • • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 1.02 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 2,860 cf, Depth= 4.78" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description • 3,852 77 Woods, Good, HSG D 1,113 89 Dirt roads, HSG D • 1,700 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG D • 520 98 Paved parking, HSG D • 7,185 85 Weighted Average 4,965 69.10% Pervious Area • 2,220 30.90% Impervious Area • 1,700 76.58% Unconnected i Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.4 25 0.0200 1.03 Sheet Flow, • Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" - 0.2 55 0.1100 5.34 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 0.1 60 0.2000 7.20 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • 0.7 140 Total Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • � • Summary for Subcatchment 90S: PR-MASON • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt = Runoff = 0.40 cfs @ 12.00 hrs, Volume= 1,238 cf, Depth= 6.26" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Area(sf) CN Description • 2,372 98 Paved roads w/curbs & sewers HSG D • 2,372 100.00% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.4 25 0.0200 1.03 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • i • i • • Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type 111 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 ydroCADO 9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 Summary for Subcatchment 91 S: PR-7R • • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 0.34 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 1,110 cf, Depth= 5.45" �. Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Area (sf) CN Description 1,841 89 <50% Grass cover, Poor, HSG D • 605 98 Paved parking HSG D • 2,446 91 Weighted Average • 1,841 75.27% Pervious Area 605 24.73% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description _(min) (feet), (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) �• 3.8 40 0.0350 0.17 Sheet Flow, • Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" 0.4 70 0.0330 2.92 Shallow Concentrated Flow, (• Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps - 0.5 60 0.0100 2.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Paved Kv= 20.3 fps I• 4.7 170 Total • Summary for Subcatchment 92S: EX-CB_R • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • �• Runoff = 1.26 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 3,954 cf, Depth= 5.00" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" I• Area (sf) CN Description . 4,500 98 Paved parking, HSG D 1,368 80 X75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D I• 3,628 77 Woods Good, HSG D 9,496 87 Weighted Average • 4,996 52.61% Pervious Area 4,500 47.39% Impervious Area i• i• • I• • • Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 • PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type 111 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 • i HydroCADO 9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Facie 18 • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 4.2 25 0.0110 0.10 Sheet Flow, • Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" • 0.5 65 0.0110 2.13 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 4.7 90 Total • Summary for Subcatchment 93S: PR-ROOF1 • ' [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 4.68 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 14,963 cf, Depth= 6.26" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Area (sf) CN Description • 28,676 98 Roofs, HSG D • 28,676 100.00% Impervious Area , j Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (f/sec) (cfs) • 1.0 Direct Entry, - Summary for Subcatchment 95S: PR-ROOF2_R • • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 2.35 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 7,528 cf, Depth= 6.26" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Area (sf) CN Description • 14,427 98 Roofs, HSG D 14,427 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (f/sec) (cfs) • 1.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 96S: PR-ROOF3a • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • i Runoff = 0.79 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 2,513 cf, Depth= 6.26" • I • • a _ Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type 111 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 19 Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Ia Area (sf) CN Description a 4,817 98 Roofs, HSG D 1� 4,817 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 1.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 97S: PR-DECK_R [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt i Runoff = 2.66 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 8,749 cf, Depth= 6.26" i Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description i� 16,767 98 Paved parking HSG D lip 16,767 100.00% Impervious Area i Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description �S (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.5 25 0.0100 0.78 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 2.2 265 0.0100 2.03 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 2.7 290 Total Summary for Subcatchment 98S: PR-BIO A [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 0.08 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 225 cf, Depth= 4.24" !� Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description 638 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D a 638 100.00% Pervious Area a w i� 'a • • Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 4 PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type fl/ 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HVdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 20 • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 2.1 10 0.0100 0.08 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" • Summary for Subcatchment 99S: PR-BIO B r [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 0.71 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 2,042 cf, Depth= 4.24" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description • 5,787 80 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG D • 5,787 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) . 3.3 25 0.0200 0.13 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" • Summary for Subcatchment 100S: PR-1b [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 1.45 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 4,240 cf, Depth= 5.56" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs t, Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Area (sf) CN Description 5,940 98 Paved parking, HSG D 3,208 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D r 9,148 92 Weighted Average 3,208 35.07% Pervious Area 5,940 64.93% Impervious Area , Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) # 0.2 25 0.1000 1.95 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • 0.2 70 0.1000 6.42 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.2 40 0.0380 3.96 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.6 135 Total • �I Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 PROPOSED-D SOILS R Type /// 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 HydroCAD@ 9.10 s/n 06611 @ 2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 21 = Summary for Subcatchment 101S: PR-2_R [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.40 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,253 cf, Depth= 6.26" • • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" I• • Area (sf) CN Description 2,401 98 Paved parking HSG D • 2,401 100.00% Impervious Area = Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.5 25 0.0100 0.78 Sheet Flow, • Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • Summary for Subcatchment 102S: PR-3-R • • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 4.75 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 14,386 cf, Depth= 5.45' I• Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Area (sf) CN Description �• 18,897 98 Paved parking, HSG D • 12,795 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D • 31,692 91 Weighted Average 12,795 40.37% Pervious Area • 18,897 59.63% Impervious Area Is Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (fUft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.3 25 0.0500 1.48 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • 0.2 65 0.0500 4.54 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 0.2 30 0.0200 2.87 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 0.6 150 0.0400 4.06 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Paved Kv= 20.3 fps 0.7 70 0.0070 1.70 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 2.0 340 Total i • • • • • • Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 • PROPOSED-D SOILS-R Type 111 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 02010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 22 • Summary for Subcatchment 103S: PR-4R • • Runoff = 2.93 cfs @ 12.11 hrs, Volume= 10,242 cf, Depth= 5.22" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Area (sf) CN Description • 12,614 98 Paved parking, HSG D • 7,928 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D • 3,000 77 Woods Good HSG D 23,542 89 Weighted Average • 10,928 46.42% Pervious Area • 12,614 53.58% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • _ (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 7.1 60 0.1200 0.14 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.10" • 0.0 10 0.1000 5.09 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps 0.8 115 0.0150 2.49 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 7.9 185 Total • Summary for Subcatchment 104S: PR-5R • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 1.80 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 5,552 cf, Depth= 5.68" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Area (sf) CN Description • 8,749 98 Paved parking, HSG D • 2,987 80 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG D • 11,736 93 Weighted Average 2,987 25.45% Pervious Area • 8,749 74.55% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • min feet ft/ft ft/sec cfs 2.1 40 0.1600 0.32 Sheet Flow, • Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 3.10" • 0.7 105 0.0160 2.57 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 2.8 145 Total • • • • I• Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type 111 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 • HydroCAD®9.10 s/n 06611 ©2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 23 • Summary for Subcatchment 105S: PR-6R 1• [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.59 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 1,769 cf, Depth= 5.56" I• Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" I= Area (sf) CN Description 2,547 98 Paved parking, HSG D • 1,270 80 >75% Grass cover, Good HSG D • 3,817 92 Weighted Average 1,270 33.27% Pervious Area (• 2,547 66.73% Impervious Area i• Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (f/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.4 25 0.0200 1.03 Sheet Flow, • Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" 0.6 75 0.0110 2.13 Shallow Concentrated Flow, • Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 1.0 100 Total �= Summary for Subcatchment 106S: PR-8 • Runoff = 1.33 cfs @ 12.54 hrs, Volume= 8,440 cf, Depth= 4.67' • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Area (sf) CN Description • 5,174 98 Paved parking, HSG D 15,529 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D • 1,000 77 Woods, Good HSG D • 21,703 84 Weighted Average • 16,529 76.16% Pervious Area 5,174 23.84% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 38.0 100 0.0050 0.04 Sheet Flow, • Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 3.10" • 1.9 185 0.0100 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Unpaved Kv= 16.1 fps • 39.9 285 Total • • • Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 • PROPOSED-D SOILS R Type /// 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 • HydroCADO 9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 24 • Summary for Subcatchment 107S: PR-ROOF3b • • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.79 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 2,513 cf, Depth= 6.26" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Area (sf) CN Description = 4,817 98 Roofs, HSG D 4,817 100.00% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (f/sec) (cfs) • 1.0 � Direct Entry, • Summary for Subcatchment 109S: PR-1a • [49] Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt • Runoff = 0.79 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 2,258 cf, Depth= 5.33" • Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Type III 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Area (sf) CN Description 2,980 98 Paved parking, HSG D 1,300 80 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG D • 800 77 Woods Good, HSG D • 5,080 90 Weighted Average • 2,100 41.34% Pervious Area f 2,980 58.66% Impervious Area • Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description • (min) (feet) (f 1ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) • 0.2 25 0.1000 1.95 Sheet Flow, • Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 3.10" • 0.2 70 0.1000 6.42 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Paved Kv= 20.3 fps • 0.4 95 Total • Summary for Pond 95P: Bio Cell A • • • • I• I • I- Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 •_ PROPOSED-D SOILS R Type 111 24-hr 900 yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 I• HydroCADO 9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 25 • Inflow Area = 5,455 sf, 88.30% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.02" for 100 yr event • Inflow = 0.86 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 2,739 cf Outflow = 0.75 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 2,739 cf, Atten= 12%, Lag= 2.4 min �• Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 1.50 hrs, Volume= 88 cf • Primary = 0.75 cfs @ 12.05 hrs, Volume= 2,651 cf • Secondary= 0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume= 0 cf • Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Peak Elev= 14.26' @ 12.05 hrs Surf.Area= 350 sf Storage= 133 cf • Plug-Flow detention time= 20.0 min calculated for 2,735 cf(100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 20.8 min ( 765.7 - 744.9 ) is Volume Invert Avail Storage Storage Description • #1 13.00' 490 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below(Recalc) I• Elevation Surf.Area Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store • (feet) (sq-ft) (%) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 13.00 350 0.0 0 0 I• 16.00 350 30.0 315 315 • 16.50 350 100.0 175 490 • Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices • #1 Primary 13.25' 6.0" Round Culvert • L= 30.0' CPP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 Inlet/Outlet Invert= 13.25'/ 13.10' S= 0.0050 T Cc= 0.900 • n= 0.010 • #2 Discarded 13.00' 0.090 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area I• #3 Secondary 16.25' 4.0"Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 • Discarded OutFlow, Max=0.00 cfs @ 1.50 hrs HW=13.04' (Free Discharge) • L2=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.00 cfs) • Primary OutFlow Max=0.75 cfs @ 12.05 hrs HW=14.25' (Free Discharge) • t1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.75 cfs @ 3.80 fps) • Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=13.00' (Free Discharge) • 3=Orifice/Grate ( Controls 0.00 cfs) • Summary for Pond 109P: Bio Cell B = [93] Warning: Storage range exceeded by 32.93' [88] Warning: Qout>Qin may require Finer Routing>1 • - Inflow Area = 34,463 sf, 83.21% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.92" for 100 yr event Inflow = 5.27 cfs @ 12.02 hrs, Volume= 17,005 cf • Outflow = 6.15 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 16,966 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 4.9 min • Discarded = 0.00 cfs @ 3.15 hrs, Volume= 518 cf Primary = 3.73 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 15,612 cf (• Secondary = 2.42 cfs @ 12.10 hrs, Volume= 835 cf • 1 • I • Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 • PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type Ill 24-hr 100 yr Rainfall=6.50" • Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 HydroCADO 9.10 s/n 06611 @2010 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 26 • 1, • Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Peak Elev= 43.93' @ 12.10 hrs Surf.Area= 2,230 sf Storage= 3,122 cf • Plug-Flow detention time= 36.5 min calculated for 16,944 cf(100% of inflow) • iCenter-of-Mass det. time= 35.9 min ( 783.6 - 747.6 ) • Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description • #1 7.50' 3,122 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below(Recalc) • Elevation Surf.Area Voids Inc.Store Cum.Store • (feet) (sq-ft) (%) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) • 7.50 2,230 0.0 0 0 • 10.50 2,230 30.0 2,007 2,007 11.00 2,230 100.0 1,115 3,122 • • Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices • #1 Primary 7.75' 6.0" Round Culvert L= 106.0' CPP, end-section conforming to fill, Ke= 0.500 • Inlet/ Outlet Invert= 7.75'/ 7.22' S= 0.0050 T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.010 • #2 Discarded 7.50' 0.090 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #3 Secondary 10.75' 4.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 • Qtrded OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 3.15 hrs HW=7.75' (Free Discharge) • Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.00 cfs) • rimary OutFlow Max=3.70 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=43.30' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 3.70 cfs @ 18.83 fps) • Secondary OutFlow Max=2.36 cfs @ 12.10 hrs HW=42.44' (Free Discharge) = 3=Orifice/Grate ,(Orifice Controls 2.36 cfs @ 27.03 fps) jSummary for Link 74L: Flow into drainage system on Flint Street - Inflow Area = 11,942 sf, 42.75% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.09" for 100 yr event • Inflow 1.60 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 5,065 cf • Primary = 1.60 cfs @ 12.07 hrs, Volume= 5,065 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min • Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • Summary for Link 87L: Flow to North River Canal (Tidal) • • Inflow Area = 238,517 sf, 67.81% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.56" for 100 yr event • Inflow = 26.86 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 110,477 of - Primary = 26.86 cfs @ 12.04 hrs, Volume= 110,477 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • • • • Proposed Condition Watershed Conditions - Riverview Place, Salem MA Revised 9/21/14 PROPOSED-D SOILS_R Type ///24-hr 900 yr Rainfall=6.50" Prepared by Microsoft Printed 9/22/2014 • HydroCADO 9.10 s/n 06611 ©2010 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 27 • Summary for Link 90L: Infiltrate into ground • Inflow Area = 7,185 sf, 30.90% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.78" for 100 yr event Inflow — 1.02 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 2,860 cf • Primary = 1.02 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 2,860 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min = Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs i• Summary for Link 94L: Add • Inflow Area = 41,527 sf, 67.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.60" for 100 yr event �• Inflow = 6.61 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 19,385 cf • Primary = 6.61 cfs @ 12.01 hrs, Volume= 19,385 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min • Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • • Summary for Link 95L: Stormceptor �• Inflow Area = 204,872 sf, 73.93% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.68" for 100 yr event . Inflow — 24.95 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 96,972 cf • Primary = 24.95 cfs @ 12.03 hrs, Volume= 96,972 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min • Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-40.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs • I• • I• i• • I• • t• I• I• I• • I• • • • • l T & WILLIAMS 191 South Main Street, Suite 103• V V SPARAGES Middleton, MA 01949 .11 'tt"". (978) 539-8088 Offices Twww.wsengineers.com• I •'l Ciiao 4e+;,?esti4 'l'm 9 i ip I. i l is 1 I l i i 11 1 i I... ' N _' ! � .... i.. . p � ; _._ `..... _ 1�11 F —s1 .i_.. 1'FI .{L I i r t C i i I i s I i 1 I 1 J- J- J_ j r 1 _ r i 1 i ! 1 , i • Stormceptor® 149 Stormceptor Design Summary 0 PCSWMM for Stormceptor 40 Project Information Rainfall Date 7/14/2014 Name BOSTON WSFO AP Project Name Riverview Place Project Number SALE-0024 State MA i• Location Mason Street/Flint Street ID 770 ! Designer Information Years of Records 1948 to 2005 Company Williams&Sparages Latitude 42°21'38"N I• Contact Peter Blaisdell Longitude 71°0'38"W Notes Water Quality Objective '- N/A TSS Removal(%) 77 `wDrainage Area Upstream Storage Total Area (ac) 4.73 Storage Discharge Imperviousness(%) 74.33 (ac-ft) (ds) The Stormceptor System model STC 4800 achieves the water quality objective removing 81%TSS for a • Fine (organics, silts and sand) particle size distribution. Stormceptor Sizing Summary Stormceptor Model TSS Removal - % - STC 450i 61 STC 900 71 STC 1200 71 STC 1800 71 I! STC 2400 76 I• STC 3600 76 STC :r0 81 « � d STC 7200 84t— ! STC 11000 88 f STC 13000 88 STC 16000 90 1� • � Stormceptor Design Summary- 1/2 '- kff • MATERIALS- i • • Stormceptor® • • Particle Size Distribution , Removing silt particles from runoff ensures that the majority of the pollutants, such as hydrocarbons and heavy • metals that adhere to fine particles,are not discharged into our natural water courses. The table below lists the • particle size distribution used to define the annual TSS removal. Fine or anics, silts and sand • Specific Settling S ecific Settlin • 72000 e Size Distribution Particle Size Distribution p 9 Gravity Velocity Gravity Velocity m /o ft/s m % • fUs 20 1.3 0.0013 20 1.8 0.0051 - 0 20 2.2 0.0354 0 20 2.65 0.2123 • 20 2.65 0.9417 • Stormceptor Design Notes •• • Stormceptor performance estimates are based on simulations using PCSWMM for Stormceptor. • • Design estimates listed are only representative of specific project requirements based on total suspended solids(TSS) removal. , • Only the STC 450i is adaptable to function with a catch basin inlet and/or inline pipes. - • Only the Stormceptor models STC 450i to STC 7200 may accommodate multiple inlet pipes. • • Inlet and outlet invert elevation differences are as follows: Inlet and Outlet Pipe Invert Elevations Differences • ' Inlet Pipe Configuration STC 450i STC 900 to STC STC 11000 to • � 7200 STC 16000 Single inlet pipe 3 in. 1 in. 3 In. • Multiple inlet pipes 3 in. 3 in. Only one inlet • pipe. • Design estimates are based on stable site conditions only, after construction is completed. • Design estimates assume that the storm drain is not submerged during zero flows. For submerged • applications, please contact your local Stormceptor representative. • • Design estimates may be modified for specific spills controls. Please contact your local Stormceptor representative for further assistance. • • For pricing inquiries or assistance,please contact Rinker Materials 1 (800)909-7763 • www,rinkerstormceptor.com • • Stormceptor Design Summary-2/2 NMMATC LS" • • ! • • s • • i i • ! • i • • • • • • • • • ! ! • ! • • Appendix 6 • • • SECTION 61 FINDINGS • • ! • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • Draft Section 61 Findings • Project Name: Riverview Place Project Location: Mason and Flint Streets, Salem, MA Project Proponent: Riverview LLC • EOEA File No.: TBD i i Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 30, Section 61 requires State agencies and authorities to review, evaluate and determine impacts on the natural environment of all projects or activities conducted by them, and to undertake all practicable means and measures to minimize and prevent damage to the • environment. The finding required by Section 61 shall be limited to those matters which are within the • scope of the environmental impact report, if any, required on a project M.G.L. c. 30, §. 62A. ! Draft Section 61 Findings prepared for the Project are found on the following pages. a ! i • • • • • • • ! • • • • • • • - Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • FINDING BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION • BUREAU OF RESOURCE PROTECTION (FOR A CHAPTER 91 LICENSE) UNDER M.G.L. C. 30, S. 61 The Department of Environmental Protection — Bureau of Resource Protection ("DEP-BRP") declares as • follows: • • Introduction Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 30, section 61 ("Section 61") requires that "[a]II agencies, • departments, boards, commission and authorities of the Commonwealth shall review, evaluate, and • determine the impact on the natural environment of all works, projects, or activities conducted by them • and shall use all practical means and measures to minimize damage to the environment. Any • determination made by an agency of the Commonwealth shall include a finding describing that all feasible • measures have been taken to avoid or minimize said impact." The finding required by Section 61 "shall • be limited to those matters which are within the scope of the environmental impact report, if any, required [on a project]." M.G.L. c. 30. S. 62A. • • The development of the Riverview Place Project requires a Chapter 91 License from DEP Waterways - Division for activities proposed on filled tidelands construction of portions of two residential buildings, - public walkways, roads, parking and lawn areas. Therefore, the DEP-Waterways Division must issue a • Section 61 finding. I', • MEPA Review • Representatives of the Project Proponent held a pre-application meeting with MEPA and MADEP • Waterways staff in December of 2010 to discuss the requirements for filing an Expanded Environmental - Notification Form (EENF) and Request for EIR waiver. At that meeting, MEPA requested that the • EENF/EIR waiver request include detailed information of the Project compliance with the state Chapter 91 program as well as a discussion of Public Benefits and a Green House Gas analysis. These analyses are provided in the following chapters. • • • On December 1, 2014 an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) was filed with the MEPA • Office along with a request for an EIR Waiver. On , 2015 the Secretary issued a Draft • Record of Decision on the EIR Waiver Request and a Certificate on the EENF • • Project Description • The Project involves the redevelopment of the site into a mixed use complex consisting of 130 - residential apartments and 5,000+/- square feet (sf) of commercial space. Three buildings are proposed on • the site (see Figure 3, Proposed Site Plan). Two of the Buildings, Building 1 and 2, contain residential • units and structured parking and the third Building, Building 3, contains residential uses in the upper floors and commercial uses on the lower level. The site has been designed with two site entrances; one • off of Mason Street and one off of Flint Street. The development includes 282 parking spaces of which • 104 are located in surface parking lots and the remainder within the buildings and a parking deck. • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • Twelve of the at-grade spaces will be made available to existing residents of Flint Street. The Project • conforms to the City of Salem's North River Can Corridor Master Plan. • • Mitigation Measures • The Project will not result in any long term adverse impacts to Chapter 91 interests and in fact provides • many program benefits including the introduction of public access to the site, parking for nearby • residents, affordable housing units and traffic improvements. The site plan was developed in • conjunction with the goals outlined for the area in the 2003 Neighborhood Master Plan for the North • River Canal Corridor. • The Project will redevelop an existing 4.3 acre site and create public access to and along the North River • Canal. A walkway will extend from Flint Street into the site to a green space being created between the • North River Canal and the proposed Building 1. The green space will include public walkways along the • Canal that extends to interior sidewalks. A view corridor will be created from Macon Street through the • site toward the North River Canal. Pedestrian access will be provided from Mason Street through the site to the North River Canal and Flint Street and a connection between a City owned walkway to • Leslie's Retreat Park will be made from the Project walkway along the Norht River. The site plan includes • a 30-foot wide easement through the southern portion of the Project site to allow for a potential • future extension of Commercial Street to Flint Street. • The Proponent has also committed to implement energy efficiency measures that will reduce overall • Project energy use (stationary sources) by 12.7% and will reduce CO2 emissions by 12.6%, compared to • the Base Case. In accordance with the MEPA "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol," the • proponent will provide a certification to the MEPA Office signed by an appropriate professional stating • that all transportation and non-transportation greenhouse gas mitigation measures described in this - EENF, or measures providing comparable mitigation, have been incorporated into the project. • Conclusion • Now, therefore, the DEP-DWW, having reviewed the MEPA filings for the Riverview Place Project and the • mitigation measures propose, finds pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30, Section 61 that with the implementation of • the aforesaid measures, all practical and feasible means and measures will have been taken to avoid or • minimize potential damage to the environment from the Project. • MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL • PROTECTION-BUREAU OF RESOURCE PROTECTION • • • Date By • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Appendix 7 • • DISTRIBUTION LIST • • • • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • DISTRIBUTION LIST • • PUBLIC OFFICIALS • Senator Joan Lovely • State House • Room 215 Boston, MA 02133 • • State Represent John Keenan • State House Office • Room 136 Massachusetts State House • Boston, MA 02133 • • Mayor Kimberley Driscoll . Salem City Hall • 93 Washington Street Salem, MA 01970 • • STATE AGENCIES • Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner's Office • One Winter Street . Boston, MA 02108 • Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional office • Attn: MEPA Coordinator • 205B Lowell Street • Wilmington, MA 01887 • Department of Environmental Protection Waterways Regulatory Program • One Winter Street, 6`h Floor • Boston, MA 02108 • Office of Coastal Zone Management • Attn: Project Review Coordinator • 251 Causeway Street, Suite 800 Boston, MA 02114 • • • • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form • • Division of Marine Fisheries • (North Shore) Attn: Environmental Reviewer • 30 Emerson Avenue • Gloucester, MA 01930 • Massachusetts Department of Transportation • Public/Private Development Unit • 10 Park Plaza • Boston, MA 02116 • • Executive Office of Transportation • Attn: Environmental Reviewer • 10 Park Plaza, Room 3510 Boston, MA 02116-3969 • • Massachusetts DOT District Office • Attn: MEPA Coordinator • 519 Appleton Street - Arlington, MA 02476 • Massachusetts Historical Commission • The MA Archives Building • 220 Morrissey Boulevard • Boston, MA 02125 • • Metropolitan Area Planning Council • 60 Temple Place/6th floor • Boston, MA 02111 • Department of Environmental Protection • Attention: Nancy Seidman • One Winter Street • Boston, MA 02114 • • Department of Energy Resources Attention: MEPA Coordinator • 100 Cambridge Street, 10th Floor • Boston, MA 02114 • • • • • • • • • Riverview Place Expanded Environmental Notification Form - • CITY OF SALEM • City Council • City Hall 93 Washington Street • Salem, MA 01970 • • Planning Board • City Hall Annex • 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor Salem, MA 01970 - • Conservation Commission • City Hall Annex 120 Washington Street, 3rtl Floor • Salem, MA • Board of Health • City Hall Annex • 120 Washington Street,4`h Floor • Salem, MA 01970 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •