Wynn MA, LLC EENF Appendices

7/28/2019 Wynn MA, LLC EENF Appendices

1/493

Appendix A

CIRCULATION LIST


2/493

Wynn Everett Expanded Environmental Notification Form

Appendix 1 Distribution List

A2-1

APPENDIX A: CIRCULATION LIST

STATE AGENCIES AND GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS

Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs

Attn: MEPA Office

100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900

Boston, MA 02114

DEP Commissioners Office

One Winter Street

Boston, MA 02108

DEP Northeast Regional Office

Attn: Environmental Reviewer

205B Lowell Street

Wilmington, MA 01887

DEP, Waterways Program

Attn: Ben Lynch

One Winter Street

Boston, MA 02108

Brona Simon, Executive Director

Massachusetts Historical Commission

220 Morrissey Boulevard

Boston, MA 02125

MA Department of Transportation

Public Private Development Unit

Ten Park Plaza

Boston, MA 02116-3969

MA Department of Transportation Highway Division District #4


519 Appleton Street

Arlington, MA 02476


3/493



A2-2

Metropolitan Area Planning Council

60 Temple Place/6th floor

Boston, MA 02111

Coastal Zone Management

Attn: Project Review Coordinator

251 Causeway Street, Suite 800

Boston, MA 02114

MA Department of Conservation & Recreation (DCR)

Division of Urban Parks

Attn: MEPA Coordinator

251 Causeway St. Suite 600

Boston MA 02114

MA Division of Marine Fisheries


251 Causeway Street, Suite 400

Boston, MA 02114

Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources

100 Cambridge Street, Suite 1020

Boston, MA 02114

Massachusetts Water Resources AuthorityAttn: MEPA Coordinator

100 First Avenue

Charlestown Navy Yard

Boston, MA 02129

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

Attn: MEPA Coordinator

10 Park Plaza, 6th Floor

Boston, MA 02116-3966EverettEverett

Massachusetts Gaming Commission

84 State Street

10th Floor

Boston, MA 02109


4/493



A2-3

CITY OF EVERETT

Office of the Mayor

Attn: Melissa Murphy Rodrigues

Chief of StaffEverett City Hall

484 Broadway, Room 31

Everett, MA 02149

Everett Board of Alderman

Attn: Joseph McGonagle

Alderman At-Large

46 Corey Street

Everett, MA 02149

Everett Dept. of Planning & Development

Attn: James Errickson

Executive Director

Everett City Hall


Everett, MA 02149

Everett Conservation Commission

Attn: Jon Norton

Chairman

Everett City Hall


Everett, MA 02149

Everett Public Health Department

Attn: Roberto Santamaria

Everett City Hall


Everett, MA 02149

Everett Department of City Services

Attn: Peter Pietrantonio

Everett City Hall

484 Broadway

Everett, MA 02149


5/493



A2-4

OTHER MUNICIPALITIES

Boston Redevelopment Authority

Attn: MEPA Reviewer

1 City Hall SquareBoston, MA 02201

City of Chelsea

Attn: City Managers Office

Chelsea City Hall

500 Broadway

Chelsea, MA 02150

City of Medford

Planning Department85 George P. Hassett Drive

Medford, MA 02155

City of Somerville

Planning Department

Somerville City Hall

93 Highland Avenue

Somerville, MA 02143

ELECTED OFFICIALS

Senator Sal N. DiDomenico

State House Room 218

Boston, MA 02133

Representative Wayne A. Matewsky


Boston, MA 02133

Representative Carl M. Sciortino, Jr


Boston, MA 02133

Representative Marjorie Decker


Boston, MA 02133


6/493



A2-5

Representative David M. Rogers


Boston, MA 02133

Representative Timothy J. Toomey Jr


Boston, MA 02133

Representative Eugene L. OFlaherty


Boston, MA 02133

Senator Anthony Petruccelli


Boston, MA 02133

Representative Carlo P. Basile


Boston, MA 02133

Representative Christopher G. Fallon


Boston, MA 02133

Representative Paul A. BrodeurState House Room 43

Boston, MA 02133

Senator Katherine Clark


Boston, MA 02133

Representative Carl M. Sciortino, Jr


Boston, MA 02133

Representative Denise Provost

State House Room 473B

Boston, MA 02133


7/493



A2-6

Congressman Michael E. Capuano

110 First Street

Cambridge, MA 02141

Congressman Ed Markey

5 High Street, Suite 101

Medford, MA 02155


8/493

Appendix B

TRANSPORTATION TECHNICALAPPENDICES


9/493


10/493


11/493


12/493


13/493


14/493


15/493


16/493


17/493


18/493


19/493


20/493


21/493


22/493


23/493


24/493


25/493


26/493


27/493


28/493


29/493


30/493


31/493


32/493


33/493


34/493


35/493


36/493


37/493


38/493


39/493


40/493


41/493


42/493


43/493


44/493


45/493


46/493


47/493


48/493


49/493


50/493


51/493


52/493


53/493


54/493


55/493


56/493


57/493


58/493


59/493


60/493


61/493


62/493


63/493


64/493


65/493


66/493


67/493


68/493


69/493


70/493


71/493


72/493


73/493


74/493


75/493


76/493


77/493


78/493


79/493


80/493


81/493


82/493


83/493


84/493


85/493


86/493


87/493


88/493


89/493


90/493


91/493


92/493


93/493


94/493


95/493


96/493


97/493


98/493


99/493


100/493


101/493


102/493


103/493


104/493


105/493


106/493


107/493


108/493


109/493


110/493


111/493


112/493


113/493


114/493


115/493


116/493


117/493


118/493


119/493


120/493


121/493


122/493


123/493


124/493


125/493


126/493


127/493


128/493


129/493


130/493


131/493


132/493


133/493


134/493


135/493


136/493


137/493


138/493


139/493


140/493


141/493


142/493


143/493


144/493


145/493


146/493


147/493


148/493


149/493


150/493


151/493


152/493


153/493


154/493


155/493


156/493


157/493


158/493


159/493


160/493


161/493


162/493


163/493


164/493


165/493


166/493


167/493


168/493


169/493


170/493


171/493


172/493


173/493


174/493


175/493


176/493


177/493


178/493


179/493


180/493


181/493


182/493


183/493


184/493


185/493


186/493


187/493


188/493


189/493


190/493


191/493


192/493


193/493


194/493


195/493


196/493


197/493


198/493


199/493


200/493


201/493


202/493


203/493


204/493


205/493


206/493


207/493


208/493


209/493


210/493


211/493


212/493


213/493


214/493


215/493


216/493


217/493


218/493


219/493


220/493


221/493


222/493


223/493


224/493


225/493


226/493


227/493


228/493


229/493


230/493


231/493


232/493


233/493


234/493


235/493


236/493


237/493


238/493


239/493


240/493


241/493


242/493


243/493


244/493


245/493


246/493


247/493


248/493


249/493


250/493


251/493


252/493


253/493


254/493


255/493


256/493


257/493


258/493


259/493


260/493


261/493


262/493


263/493


264/493


265/493


266/493


267/493


268/493


269/493


270/493


271/493


272/493


273/493


274/493


275/493


276/493


277/493


278/493


279/493


280/493


281/493


282/493


283/493


284/493


285/493


286/493


287/493


288/493


289/493


290/493


291/493


292/493


293/493


294/493


295/493


296/493


297/493


298/493


299/493


300/493


301/493


302/493


303/493


304/493


305/493


306/493


307/493


308/493


309/493


310/493


311/493


312/493


313/493


314/493


315/493


316/493


317/493


318/493


319/493


320/493


321/493


322/493


323/493


324/493


325/493


326/493


327/493


328/493


329/493


330/493


331/493


332/493


333/493


334/493


335/493


336/493


337/493


338/493


339/493


340/493


341/493


342/493


343/493


344/493


345/493


346/493


347/493


348/493


349/493


350/493


351/493


352/493


353/493


354/493


355/493


356/493


357/493


358/493


359/493


360/493


361/493


362/493


363/493


364/493


365/493


366/493


367/493


368/493


369/493


370/493


371/493


372/493


373/493


374/493


375/493


376/493


377/493


378/493


379/493


380/493


381/493


382/493


383/493


384/493


385/493


386/493


387/493


388/493


389/493


390/493


391/493


392/493


393/493


394/493


395/493

Appendix C

PEDESTRIAN WIND ASSESSMENT


396/493

Wynn Everett

Everett, Massachusetts

Novus Ref.: 13-0037

UniversityofGuelphResearchPark

150ResearchLane,Suite105

Guelph,ON,N1G4T2

226.706.8080 | www.novusenv.com

Date: May21,2013

To: FortPoint Associates, Inc.

Re: PedestrianWindAssessment

WynnEverett

Everett,MA

NovusProject#130037

NovusTeam:

SeniorSpecialist: BillF.Waechter,C.E.T.

Principal/Specialist: R.L.ScottPenton,P.Eng.

Comp


397/493

Wynn Everett


Novus Ref.: 13-0037

1.0 INTRODUCTION

NovusEnvironmentalInc.(Novus)wasretainedbyFourPointAssociates,

Inc. toconductaPedestrianWindAssessmentfortheplannedWynn

EverettdevelopmentlocatedonBroadwayinEverett,Massachusetts.

1.1 NatureoftheExistingSubjectLands

ThesubjectpropertyismainlyvacantlandlocatedinEverett,MA,tothe

westofBroadwayandimmediatelynorthofMysticRiver.Thepropertyis

alsoincludesMysticRivertidalflats. Anaerialviewtolocatetheproject

siteisprovidedinFigure1.

1.2 ProposedDevelopment

Theproposeddevelopmentisamixedusecommercialandretailbuildingwithcomponentsrangingfromoneto24storeys.Developmenthighlights

include:

Asinglestoreyretailcomponenttothesouth.

A300hoteltowerwithmainentrancelocatedinthesouthelevation.

1and2storeyballroom,conventionandcasinocomponentslocatedon

thenorthofthehotel.

6Levelemployeeparkinggarageonthenorthsideofthecasino.

AriverwalktrailalongtheshoreandtidalflatsofMysticRiver.

Watertaxiandguestdockfacilities.

Anamphitheatreandgazebolocatedsouthoftheretailcomponent.

Aroof

garden

terrace

east

of

the

ballroom

roof

and

aLevel

1terrace

at

thesoutheastendoftheretailsection.

Aconceptualsiteplanisshownin Figure2. Imagesofanarchitectural

scalemodelareprovidedinFigure3.Figure 1: Context Plan Showing D

Aerial Image Credit: Vanasse

MEDFORD

SOMMERVILLE

BOSTON

GATEWAY

CENTER

GATEWAY

CENTER


398/493

Wynn Everett


Novus Ref.: 13-0037

Figure 2: Conceptual Site Plan

AmphitheatrePorteCochere

Dropoffand

MainEntrance

Retail

River

Walk

Hotel

Tower Roof

Garden

Entrances

CarWash

CasinoAreas

Grand

Ballroom

Level1

Terrace

Employee

ParkingGarage

MysticRiver

TidalFlats

WaterTaxiand

Guest

Docks

BuildingServi

Areas

Scale(approx.)

0 3060 120 240feet

Gazebo


399/493

Wynn Everett


Novus Ref.: 13-0037

Figure 3: Architectural Model Views Looking Northward

Hote

Retail

Amphitheatre

Area

RiverWalkPath

PorteCochereDropoff

andMainEntrance

Dock

RiverWalkPath

Gazebo

WinterGarden

Skylights


400/493

Wynn Everett


Novus Ref.: 13-0037

1.3 NatureoftheSurroundings

ThesubjectpropertyislocatedwestofBroadway,andSoudanAvenueto

thesouth. Thesiteiscurrentlyoccupiedbytwoexisting14storey

apartmentbuildings.

An

aerial

view

to

locate

the

project

site

is

provided

in

Figure4.

Thesubjectpropertyissituatedinanareaofmixedusebuildingsthat

primarilyincludesindustrial,commercialandretailbuildings.AnMBTA

commuterraillineislocatedalongthewestpropertyedgewithGateway

Centerscommercial/retailbuildingslocatedfurtherwest.MysticRiverand

itstidalflatsaretothesouthandsouthwest.Commercialuselargelyexists

totheeastalongBroadway,withanincreaseddensityoflowrise

residentialhomesfoundtothenortheastaroundLyndeandBowStreets.

1.4

Areasof

Interest

for

Pedestrian

Wind

Comfort

Inadditiontopublicsidewalksonnearbystreets,locationsofinterestfor

theassessmentofpedestrianwindcomfortareshowninFigures2,3and

4 andinclude:

1. PublictransitstopsonBroadwaynearDexterSt,oppositeMysticSt

andonBroadway,northofLyndeSt.

2. PublicopenspacebetweenBroadwayandBowSt,nearLyndeSt.

3. PorteCocheredropoffandmainentrance.

4. Retailentrances.

5. Amphitheatre

and

gazebo.6. Level1amenityterracesintheretailcomponent.

7. Riverwalk.

8. BallroomGardenTerrace.

9. Watertaxiandguestdockfacilities. Figure 4: Development Site AreaAerial Image Credit: Vanasse

BOSTON

GATEWAY

CENTER

GATEWAY

CENTER


401/493

Wynn Everett


Novus Ref.: 13-0037

2.0 APPROACH

Windconditionsforareasofinterestw

commerciallyavailable

computational

producedbyMeteodynInc. Thesoftw

comfortanalysisandwasusedtopred

aroundthedevelopmentsite,andalso

windyareas.

Aviewofthe3Dmassingmodelusedi

isshowninFigure5. Theentire3Dspa

filledwithathreedimensionalgrid. T

windspeedateachoneofthe3Dgrid

eachtestdirectionisadjustedtoreflec

windcharacteristicsencounteredarou

Windflowswerepredictedwiththepr

eachoftheeightcompassquadrants(

WSW,andSSWdirections.TheCFDpre

directionsandgridpointswerethenco

forthisregiontopredicttheoccurrenc

realm,andtocompareagainstwindcr

tunneltestingofaphysicalscalemode

accurateanalysismethodology. Nonet

tooltoidentifypotentialwindissuesa

Theanalysis

of

wind

conditions

was

un

summerandwinter. Resultsareprese

conditionsalongmajorstreetsandthe

1.4.Thecomfortcriteriaarebasedon

thatinfluence apersonsoverallther

humidity,windchill,shade,etc.)arenoFigure 5: Computer Wind Analysis 3D Massing Model


402/493

Wynn Everett


Novus Ref.: 13-0037

3.0 PEDESTRIANWINDCRITERIA

Thewindcomfortconditionsarediscussedintermsofbeingacceptable

forcertain

pedestrian

activities

and

are

based

on

wind

force.

Pedestrian

activity,windchill,clothing,humidityandexposuretodirectsun,for

example,allaffectpedestrian(thermal)comfort;however,these

influencesarenotconsideredinwindforcecriteria.

Thecriteriaforwindcomfortandsafetyusedinthisassessmentarebased

onthosedevelopedattheBoundaryLayerWindTunnelLabofthe

UniversityofWesternOntario,togetherwithbuildingofficialsinLondon

England.TheyarebasedbroadlyontheBeaufortscaleandonprevious

criteriathatwereoriginallydevelopedbyDavenport. Thecriteriaareused

bytheAlanG.DavenportWindEngineeringGroupBoundaryLayerWind

TunnelLaboratoryforpedestrianwindstudyprojectslocatedaroundthe

globe.

Adetailed

description

of

the

criteria

and

history

of

its

development

iscontainedinthereferences.

Thecomfortcriteria,whicharebasedoncertainpredictedhourlymean

windspeedsbeingexceeded5%ofthetime,aresummarizedinthetable.

Veryroughly,thisisequivalenttoastormeventofseveralhoursduration

occurringaboutonceperweek.

Thecriterionforwindsafetyinthetableisbasedonhourlymeanwind

speedsthatareexceeded0.1%ofthetime(approximatelyninehoursper

year).Whenmorethanthree,3houreventsarepredictedtoexceedthe

FairWeather

Area

criterion

on

an

annual

basis,

wind

mitigation

measures

arethenadvised,especiallyforfrequentlyaccessedareas.

Activity

SafetyCriterionMeanW

SpeedExceeded

3TimesperYear(3x3

Any[1] 45mph 20m

Activity

ComfortRangesforM

WindSpeedExceeded5

theTime

Sitting 0to9mph 0to4

Standing 0to13mph 0to6

Leisurely

Walking0to18mph 0to8

Fast

Walking0to22mph 0to10

Notes:[1] EquivalenttotheFairWeatherLocatio

appliestofrequentlyaccessedareas.


403/493

Wynn Everett


Novus Ref.: 13-0037

4.0 WINDCLIMATE

WinddatarecordedatBostonLoganAirportforthe

periodof

1981

2011

were

obtained

and

analysed

tocreateawindclimatemodelforthefourseasons.

Annualandseasonalwinddistributiondiagrams

(windroses)areshowninFigure6. These

diagramsillustratethepercentageoftimewind

blowsfromthe16maincompassdirections. Of

maininterestarethelongestpeaksthatidentifythe

mostfrequentlyoccurringwinddirections. The

annualwindroseindicatesthatwindapproaching

fromthewestnorthwest,southwestandnorthwest

directionsaremostprevalent.Thefourseasonal

windrosesreadilyshowhowprevailingwindsshift

directionduring

the

year.

Thedirectionsfromwhichstrongerwinds(e.g.,

>30mph)approacharealsoofinterestastheyhave

ahigherpotentialofcreatingproblematicwind

conditions,dependinguponsiteexposureandthe

buildingconfigurations. ThewindrosesinFigure6

alsoidentifythedirectionalfrequencyofthese

strongerwinds,asindicatedinthefigureslegend

colourkey. Onanannualbasis,strongwindsoccur

mostfrequentlyfromthewestnorthwestand

northwest

directions.

All

wind

speeds

and

directions

wereincludedinthewindclimatemodel.

AnnualWinds(Calms:2.1%)

WinterWinds(Jan Mar)(Calms:1.7%)

SummerWinds(Jul Sept)(Calms:2.5%)

WINDSPEED

(mph)

>30

0.4 30

Figure 6: Wind Rose for Boston Logan Airport (1981


404/493

Wynn Everett


Novus Ref.: 13-0037

5.0 RESULTS

Figures7through10presentgraphicalimagesofthepredictedwind

comfortconditions,forsummerandwintermonthswiththeproposed

developmentpresent. Areaswherewindconditionsarepredictedtobe

suitableforvarioustypesofactivities notedinthelegendareshownin

theformofcolorcontours. Arangeofhoteltowerheightsbetween300

feetand400feetisbeingconsideredatthisconceptualdesignstage.

Figures11and12 illustratethepredictedwindspeedsatthepedestrian

levelforwindblowingfromtheprevailingsouthwestwinddirectionfora

300toweranda400hoteltower,respectively. Thesouthwestdirection

bestillustratestheredirectingeffectofthetowershapeonaprevailing

winddirection.Commentspertainingtothepotentialeffectofthetower

heightonpedestrianwindsareprovided.

Wind

Safety

Thewindsafetycriterionwaspredictedtobemetonandaroundthe

proposedWynnEverettdevelopment,includingthepublicrooftop

amenityspaces.

OffsiteAreasofInterest

AlongAlfordStreetandBroadway,windconditionssuitableforleisurely

walkingduringthesummermonths,andleisurelywalkingduringthe

winter,aredesired. ForthepublicopenspaceonBroadway,nearLynde

andBowStreets,windsuitableforsittinginthesummerarepreferred,

whilewindssuitableforstandingareconsideredidealforthetransitstops

onayear

round

basis.

ThelargesetbackofthehoteltowerfromAlfordandBroadway,plusits

streamlinedshapeandorientationrelativetotheprevailingWNWwinds,

resultsinaminimaleffectonwindconditionsinthepublicrealm. Figure 7: Predicted Wind Comfort

N

Sitting

Standing

Leisurely Walking


405/493

Wynn Everett


Novus Ref.: 13-0037

OffsiteAreasofInterest(cont.)

Windcomfortconditionssuitablefo

anticipatedatalllocationsduringth

arearated

as

leisurely

walking

occu

winter(Figure8),whileallotheroff

comfortableforsittingorstanding.

Thewindconditionsinalloffsitea

OnSiteAreasofInterest

ForthePorteCocheredropoff,maine

windscomfortableforstandingwould

Patronsoftheamphitheatrewouldwe

suitableforsittingduringthesummer,

Level1amenity

terrace

winds

rated

as

fortheoperationalseasons. Windcon

wouldbeappropriatefortheRiverWa

suitableforstandinginthedockareas

Areviewofthepredictedsummertime

foralltheabovesitefeaturesindicates

eithersittingorstanding. Thesecondi

interest,butareabovewhatisdesired

landscapingfeaturescanbedeveloped

however,patronswouldwelcomecoo

Theuseofportableorretractable form

withsoft

landscaping

(trees,

shrubs,

et

landscapeplantoprovidethedesired

comfort.

Figure 8: Predicted Wind Comfort Zones At Grade Winter

N

Fast Walking

Uncomfortable

Unsafe

Sitting

Standing

Leisurely Walking

N


406/493


407/493

Wynn Everett


Novus Ref.: 13-0037

Figure 9: Predicted Wind Comfort Zones on Roof-LevelBallroom Garden Terrace (EL 500)

Sitting

Standing

Leisurely Wa

KeyPlan

Hotel

Tower

RoofGarden

Hotel

Tower

Summer Winter


408/493

Wynn Everett


Novus Ref.: 13-0037

Figure 10: 300 Tall Hotel Mean Surface Wind SpeedsWind From Southwest

Figure 11: 400 Tall Hotel ToweWind From Southwe

Low

High

Relative

Wind

Speed

300

Hotel

Tower

Low

High

Relative

Wind

Speed

4

H

T


409/493

Wynn Everett


Novus Ref.: 13-0037

6.0 MICROCLIMATECONSIDERATIONSFOROUTDOORSPACEPLANNING

Thefocus

of

this

study

was

on

wind

speed

(force),

but

various

other

factorsalsoinfluenceapersonscomfortandtheiroverallenjoymentof

outdoorspaces. Thisisespeciallyrelevantinareasintendedforextended

periodsofuse.Climateparameters,suchasdirectsunexposure,

temperature,humidity,plusclothingoractivity(i.e.,metabolicrate)are

otherissuesthatcontributetoapersonsthermalcomfort.

Thesiteorientationissuchthatmanyoftheoutdooramenityspaceswill

beexposedtodirectsunlightinthesummerthroughagoodpartofthe

day.Thegraphoftemperatures(Figure12) indicatesanaveragemaximum

dailytemperatureof82Finthesummer.Mostpatronsofthe

Amphitheater,

for

example,

will

require

shade

in

order

to

be

thermally

comfortable. Lightcoloursurfacetreatmentscanalsohelpreducethermal

discomfort,butmayaddtoglarediscomfort. Increaseduseofgrassinlieu

ofhardpavingmaterialscanimproveuponlocalcooling.

Otherinfluences,suchaswinddrivenrain,areseldomconsideredwhen

planningoutdooramenityareasandbuildingoverhangsandcanopies.

TwowindrosesforBostonLoganAirport(Figure13) presentthe

frequencydistributionofwindbydirectionduringthesummer. However,

thewindroseontherightshowsthedominantdirectionswhenrainfall

occurssimultaneously. Thestrongestwindswithrainfalleventsoccur

mostfrequentlyfromthenortheast. Bostonaverageseightdaysper

monthwith

rainfall

>1mm.

Data

analysis

such

as

these

can

help

guide

the

planningofprotectivecanopiesandscreeningmaterial.

Theaboveexamplesintroduceotherconsiderationsbeyondwindforce

alone,thatcanguidethedesignofoutdooramenityspaces toenhance

theoverallenjoymentbypedestriansandamenityspacepatrons.

Figure 12: Boston Logan AP - M

Wind Without Rain

Figure 13: Boston Logan AP - Su


410/493


411/493

Wynn Everett


Novus Ref.: 13-0037

Blocken,B.,andJ.Carmeliet(2004)PedestrianWindEnvironmentaround

Buildings:Literature

Review

and

Practical

Examples

JournalofThermalEnvironmentandBuildingScience,28(2).

Cochran,L.(2004)DesignFeaturestoChangeand/orAmeliorate

PedestrianWindConditionsASCEStructuresConference2004.

Davenport,A.G.(1972)"AnApproachtoHumanComfortCriteriafor

EnvironmentalWindConditions",ColloquiumonBuildingClimatology,Stockholm,September1972.

Durgin,F.H.(1997)Pedestrianlevelwindcriteriausingtheequivalent

averageJournalofWindEngineeringandIndustrialAerodynamics66.Isyumov,N.andDavenport,A.G.,(1977)TheGroundLevelWind

EnvironmentinBuiltupAreas,Proc.of4thInt.Conf.onWindEffectson

BuildingsandStructures,London,England,Sept.1975,Cambridge

UniversityPress,1977.

Isyumov,N.,(1978)StudiesofthePedestrianLevelWindEnvironmentat

theBoundaryLayerWindTunnelLaboratoryoftheUniversityofWestern

Ontario,Jrnl.IndustrialAerodynamics,Vol.3,187200,1978.Irwin,P.A.(2004)OverviewofASCEReportonOutdoorComfortAround

Buildings:Assessment

and

Methods

of

Control

ASCE

Structures

Conference2004.

Kapoor,V.,Page,C.,Stefanowicz,P.,Li

PedestrianLevel

Wind

Studies

to

Aid

Development,StructuresCongressAbEngineers,1990.

Koss,H.H.(2006)Ondifferencesand

JournalofWindEngineeringandIndusSoligo,M.J.,P.A.,Irwin,C.J.Williams,G

ComprehensiveAssessmentofPedest

EffectsJournalofWindEngineeringaStathopoulos,T.,H.WuandC.Bedard

Buildings:A

Knowledge

Based

Approac

IndustrialAerodynamics 41/44.Stathopoulos,T.,andH.Wu(1995)G

windsinbuiltupregionsJournalofWAerodynamics 54/55.

Wu,H.,C.J.Williams,H.A.BakerandW

basedDesktopAnalysisofPedestrian

Conference2004.

8.0 REFERENCES


412/493

Wynn Everett


Novus Ref.: 13-0037


413/493

Appendix D

EVERETT CENTRAL WATERFRONT

MUNICIPAL HARBOR PLAN

NOTICE TO PROCEED


414/493

May 3, 2013

James Errickson, Executive DirectorCity of EverettDepartment of Planning and Development484 Broadway, Room 25Everett, MA 02149

Dear Mr. Errickson:

Pursuant to 301 CMR 23.03, the Municipal Harbor Plan (MHP) Regulations, the City ofEverett submitted a Request for Notice to Proceed (RNTP) for a state approved MHP for theEverett Central Waterfront in February 2013. Notice of this request was published in theEnvironmental Monitoron March 6, 2013 and public comments were accepted for a thirty-dayperiod ending on April 5, 2013, during which time my office received twelve (12) comment lettersfrom interested parties, copies of which were forwarded to the City of Everett and by request to anyinterested parties. All procedural requirements of 301 CMR 23.03 have, therefore, been met. Basedon a review of the Citys request, I am pleased to issue the following Notice to Proceed for the Cityof Everett Central Waterfront Municipal Harbor Plan.

Overview

The MHP Regulations (301 CMR 23.00) establish a voluntary procedure by whichmunicipalities may obtain approval of MHPs from the Secretary, promoting long-term,comprehensive, municipally-based planning of harbors and other waterways that fully incorporatesstate policies governing stewardship of trust lands. Additionally, approved plans guide and assist theMassachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Wetlands and WaterwaysDivision in making regulatory decisions pursuant to MGL Chapter 91 and the WaterwaysRegulations (310 CMR 9.00) that are responsive to harbor specific conditions and other local andregional circumstances. As promulgated, the Waterways Regulations provide a uniform statewideframework for regulating tidelands projects and developments. Municipal Harbor Plans presentcommunities with an opportunity to adopt a vision that modifies these uniform standards throughthe amplification of the discretionary requirements of the Waterways Regulations or through theadoption of provisions, which if approved, are intended to substitute for the minimum uselimitations or numerical standards of 310 CMR 9.00. While the Citys plan may embody the visionfor the development of its waterfront, the scope of an MHP is generally limited to the modificationof certain Chapter 91 standards to fulfill the local planning goals. Project specific issues such astraffic and broader environmental impacts will be described, analyzed, and assessed during anyrequisite MEPA review.


415/493

2

I. Municipal Harbor Planning Area

The harbor planning area identified in the RNTP includes approximately 155 acres of landroughly bounded by the Malden and Mystic Rivers to the west, Route 16 to the north, the MBTAtracks to the east, and the City boundary along Route 99 to the south. The harbor planning area islimited to land within the City of Everett and is not located in the Mystic River Designated Port

Area. The harbor planning area consists of sites owned by four major property owners;approximately 51 acres of parkland and roadways owned by the Department of Conservation andRecreation; approximately 73 areas of commercial buildings (Gateway Mall) and parking owned byDiversified Realty; 30 acres of vacant, former industrial land owned by FBT Everett Realty LLC, c/othe Denunzio Group LLC; and the MBTA commuter rail line.

According to the RNTP, approximately 75 acres of the harbor planning area consists offilled tidelands subject to Chapter 91 jurisdiction. Pursuant to 301 CMR 23.02, the harbor planningarea includes all areas that are relevant to the functional use and management of the waterwaysegment in question. Functional use refers to those activities that have the potential to promote orimpair water-dependent activity or public use or enjoyment of waterways or shorelines. The MHP

should contain a clear and detailed discussion of the relationship between the harbor planning areaand land subject to Chapter 91 jurisdiction. To place the proposed harbor planning area in thecontext of adjacent land uses and other development activities, the MHP should include high qualityimages and maps that:

For planning purposes, delineate the extent of Commonwealth and Private Tidelandsin the harbor planning area. The methodology and sources used should be discussedin the MHP.

On a parcel-specific basis, indentify properties and ownership of parcels within theharbor planning area, and significant parcels adjacent to the planning area in such a

way that defines the relationship of the parcels to the harbor planning area.

Since the MHP planning area includes land owned by the Department of Conservation andRecreation, the MHP should draw heavily on the Mystic River Master Plan that was completed byDCR in 2009 to reflect regional open space goals. The MHP should also include a discussion ofpast local planning efforts such as the Lower Broadway Master Plan and how the harbor planningarea fits within the context of these plans. Similarly, since the harbor planning area includesportions of the watersheet in the Mystic and Malden Rivers, the MHP should include a discussion ofpast watersheet planning efforts such as the Everett Waterfront Assessment, and maps that identifyownership, navigation channels, and other constraints in these waterways.

II. Public ParticipationThe RNTP documented the planning and participation that has already been completed

towards the development of this MHP as part of several local planning efforts, the most recentbeing the master planning for the Lower Broadway District Master Plan. This master planningprocess has engaged the community in a dialogue about re-envisioning the Lower Broadway area,including the waterfront parcels subject to this Notice to Proceed. The City of Everett shouldcontinue the momentum of public engagement into this MHP process, an extension of the LowerBroadway District Master Planning effort.


416/493

3

The RNTP included a list of potential members of the Harbor Planning Group that willserve as an advisory committee to the City of Everett in the development of the MHP. The HarborPlanning Group includes a number of local representatives as well as designees from the MysticRiver Watershed Association and the Department of Conservation and Recreation. The City should

also extend invitations for participation on the advisory Harbor Planning Group to theMassachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority, asthey have public property interests in the area. During the MHP planning process, the City shouldclosely coordinate with the surrounding communities of Boston, Somerville, and Medford, andprovide direct notice to these cities of all public meetings relating to the MHP planning process.

As stated in the RNTP, the public participation program includes regular meetings of theHarbor Planning Group in addition to broader public meetings intended to provide feedback atimportant milestones during the process. These public meetings should provide ample opportunityfor the public to participate in the Citys harbor planning process. The MHP should document thisprocess in order to demonstrate early and continuing public interaction and input on thedevelopment of the plan.

III. Substitution Guidance

For consideration as you develop your MHP, I call particular attention to the provisions of301 CMR 23.05, Standards for Approval. A state-approved MHP can allow greater flexibility to theapplication of certain Waterways requirements in that it may include provisions that substitute forcertain Chapter 91 limitations or numerical standards as long as the substitution provisions are atleast as effective at meeting the state tidelands policy objectives as those stated in the correspondingChapter 91 provisions and certain specific conditions are met. When a project conforms to a state-approved MHP, MassDEP will apply the use limitations or numerical standards specified in themunicipal harbor plan as a substitute for the respective limitations or standards contained in 310CMR 9.00 during the licensing process.

Substitute provisions may include alternative use limitations or numerical standards that areless or more restrictive than the Waterways requirements provided that, considering the balance ofeffects on an area-wide basis, they are accompanied by related measures that will mitigate,compensate for, or otherwise offset adverse impacts on tidelands policy objectives in a manner thatis of comparable or greater effectiveness than that afforded through the strict application of theWaterways standards. When assessing adverse impacts, therefore, the analysis and discussion shouldaddress directly those impacts to water-dependent activities, public access, and public use andenjoyment of the waterfront. Adverse impacts must be evaluated with consideration given to thecharacter of the anticipated use at the ground level.

In its RNTP, the City of Everett has identified the following substitute provisions to theWaterways Regulations that may be necessary for the implementation of the master planning thathas been completed for the area:

Height (310 CMR9.51(3)(e)) Water Dependent Use Zone (WDUZ)(310 CMR 9.51(3)(c)) Lot Coverage and Open Space (310 CMR 9.51(3)(d) and 310 CMR 9.53(2)(b))


417/493

4

Facilities of Public Tenancy(FPT) and Facilities of Public Accommodation(FPA) (310 CMR 9.51(3)(b) and 310 CMR 9.53(2)(c))

The MHP should discuss how appropriate approval standards are met and provide ananalysis and discussion addressing adverse impacts and corresponding offsets for each substitute

provision. In determining whether comparable or greater effectiveness is achieved by the proposedoffsetting measures in the MHP, the Secretary will consider the following:

a.The planning analysis and data must be organized to clearly identify the substituteprovisions proposed and the relative effects of the less restrictive provisions on therelated tidelands policy objectives.

b.Offsetting measures should be applied within reasonable proximity to the locus ofadverse effects to ensure a balance in the distribution of public benefits and potentialdetriments.

Offsets are required in the MHP Regulations to mitigate or compensate on both a parcel-byparcel and area-wide basis for the adverse effects of substitute provisions on water-related publicinterests. The development of offsets must be commensurate with the degree of adversity to publicaccess, pedestrian level activities, and water-dependent use, employing an approach that is eitherquantitative, such as one unit of replacement for one unit lost, or qualitative, such as a package ofvarying types of improvements that address the quality of the water-related public interests. Thelatter strategy can provide greater opportunity to develop a package of offsets either on-site, or inclose proximity thereto when the site where the impacts are felt cannot accommodate correspondingoffsets, taking into consideration opportunities along the waterfront that will promote thedestination value of the waterfront or open space and access to the waterfront. Special attention toimplementation measures is required when considering off-site offsets within the harbor planningarea.

If special permit, site review or design review processes are proposed to be used to establishparticulars of offsetting mitigation on a case-by-case basis, the MHP must sufficiently define theparameters of such a process so that a reasonable assessment of the possible effects of these offsetsunder varying circumstances can be made during the Secretarys review.

A. HeightPursuant to 301 CMR 23.05(c)(5), an MHP may provide alternative building height standards

to that specified at 310 CMR 9.51(3)(e). The MHP should specify alternative height standards andother requirements which will ensure that, in general, new or expanded buildings for nonwater-dependent use will be relatively modest in size, in order that wind, shadow, and other conditions of

the ground level environment will be conducive to water-dependent activity and public accessassociated therewith.

To assist in assessing the alternative standard's compliance with this charge, the plan shouldinclude a conceptual analysis comparing a Chapter 91-compliant alternative to an alternativeincorporating the proposed height substitution. This comparison should focus on massing,pedestrian-level winds, and shadows and should be presented in a manner that is easy to read andclearly identifies the differences between the two conditions. The MHP should include a massing


418/493

5

analysis comparing the gross volume associated with the proposed building heights to thatachievable under the Waterways Regulations. Based on the results of this analysis, a mitigationapproach should be defined to address any adverse effects of the substitute height standard throughthe use of offsets.

B.Water Dependent Use ZonePursuant to 301 CMR 23.05(c)(3), the MHP must specify alternative setback distances from

the water dependent use zone standard in 310 CMR 9.51(3)(c) and other requirements that ensurethat new or expanded buildings for nonwater-dependent use are not constructed immediatelyadjacent to a project shoreline. In addition, the MHP must demonstrate through appropriate analysisthat the substitute provision will, with comparable or greater effectiveness, devote sufficient spacealong the waters edge to water-dependent use and public access. The MHP should include ananalysis that quantifies the difference between the area of any reconfigured WDUZ and thatresulting for a strict application of the standards found in the Waterways regulations.

C. Lot Coverage and Open SpacePursuant to 301 CMR 23.05(c)(4), the MHP must specify alternative lot coverage ratios from

the standards found in the Waterways Regulations at 310 CMR 9.51(3)(d) and 310 CMR 9.53(2)(b))and other requirements which ensure that buildings for nonwater-dependent use will be relativelycondensed in footprint. The MHP must quantify any difference in the amount of open space areato be provided and that required under strict application of the Waterways standards, anddemonstrate that the substitute provision will, with comparable or greater effectiveness, reservesufficient open space to accommodate water-dependent activity and public access in a manner that iscommensurate with the area occupied by buildings.

Pursuant to 301CMR 23.05(c)(7), where projects are located on Commonwealth Tidelands,the MHP must specify additional requirements for public recreational facilities that will establish the

project site as a year-round locus of public activity. The MHP must demonstrate that public use andenjoyment of these tidelands will be promoted to a degree that is fully commensurate with thestandards in 310 CMR 9.53. The MHP should identify clearly the measures proposed to mitigate orcompensate for the adverse impacts associated with any modification to the open spacerequirements found at 310 CMR 9.51(3)(d) and 310 CMR 9.53(2)(b)).

D. Facilities of Private Tenancy and Facilities of Public AccommodationPursuant to 301 CMR 23.05(c)(2), the MHP must specify alternative limitations of facilities

of private tenancy from the standards found in the Waterways Regulations at 310 CMR 9.51(3)(b)and other requirements which ensure that there is no significant privatization of the waterfront areasimmediately adjacent to the WDUZ. The MHP must quantify the proposed FPT/FPA relationship

and demonstrate that the substitute provision will, with comparable or greater effectiveness, ensurethat waterfront areas immediately adjacent to the WDUZ are generally free of uses that conflictwith, preempt, or otherwise discourage water-dependent activity or public use and enjoyment of theWDUZ.

Further, pursuant to 301 CMR 23.05(c)(7), when projects are located on CommonwealthTidelands, the MHP must specify additional requirements for interior FPAs that will establish theproject site as a year-round locus of public activity. The MHP should include an analysis of how the


419/493

6

project site will provide interior public space commensurate to the quantity/quality that would berequired under 310 CMR 9.53.

IV. Designated Port Area

The Municipal Harbor Planning area does not consist of any land or water in the Designated

Port Area (DPA), but the MHP should contain a discussion of how new development andwatersheet uses will avoid interfering with or impeding the nearby DPA. The City of Everett andthe broader region depend on the DPA for jobs, the delivery of fuel and cargo, and other water-dependent industrial activities. While watersheet activation such as water transportation andrecreational boating uses are encouraged as an element of the MHP, any new uses should becarefully planned as to avoid conflict with the DPA.

V. Climate Adaptation Strategies

Municipal Harbor Plans reflect the long term vision of the local community, and promotethe public use of tidelands with a balance of substitutions, offsets and amplifications. MHPs should

reflect careful analysis and planning for the long term provision of public benefits along the waterwith consideration of the potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise. The MHP shouldcontain guidance on climate adaptation strategies to ensure the long term effectiveness of publicbenefits on tidelands.

VI. MHP Renewal

Pursuant to 301 CMR 23.06(2)(a), the MHP should include a discussion recommending theperiod of time for which the MHP shall be in effect. Approved MHPs expire on the date specifiedin the Secretarys Approval Decision and must be renewed periodically to ensure continuing use byMassDEP in its licensing decisions.

VII. Compatibility with State Agency Responsibility

The MHP must demonstrate that the municipality has worked with all relevant state agenciesto maximize compatibility of the harbor plan with the plans or planned activities of all state agenciesowning real property or responsible for the development/implementation of plans or projects in theharbor planning area.

VIII. Implementation Strategy

It is essential that the MHP include enforceable implementation commitments to ensure thatall measures will be taken in a timely and coordinated manner to offset the effect of any MHP

requirement that is less restrictive than that contained in the Waterways Regulations (310 CMR9.00). As stated above, special attention to implementation strategy is necessary when consideringarea-wide offsets. The MHP should include details pertaining to how any off-site benefits will beimplemented.

To further identify opportunities for plan implementation and to ensure that plan guidanceis developed to an appropriate level of specificity, CZM encourages continued consultation withCZM and MassDEP staff as appropriate.


420/493

7

In closing, my office looks forward to working with you, members of your staff and theharbor planning group, and I encourage you and your staff to continue to work closely with CZMsBoston Harbor Regional Coordinator, Valerie Gingrich, as you develop the City of Everett CentralWaterfront MHP.

Sincerely

Bruce K. CarlisleDirector

Cc: Ben Lynch, DEP WaterwaysAlex Strysky, DEP WaterwaysJamie Fay, Fort Point AssociatesSarah Kelly, Fort Point Associates


421/493

Appendix E

GREENHOUSE GAS AND

MESOSCALE AIR QUALITY

ANALYSIS


422/493

GREENHOUSE GAS AND MESOSCALE

AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR

WYNN EVERETT

EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS

April 2013


423/493

GREENHOUSE GAS AND MESOSCALE

AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS FOR WYNN EVERETT

EVERETT, MASSACHUSETTS

Prepared for:

Fort Point Associates, Inc.33 Union Street

Boston, MA 02108

Prepared by:

Tech Environmental, Inc.303 Wyman Street, Suite 295

Waltham, Massachusetts 02451

April 24, 2012


424/493

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Contents Page

1.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS ....................................................................................1

1.1 Mesoscale Air Quality Analysis ......................................................................1

1.2 Greenhouse Gas Analysis ................................................................................2

2.0 PROJECT MESOSCALE AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS.........................................4

2.1 Mesoscale Study Area .....................................................................................5

2.2 Mesoscale Analysis Procedure ........................................................................6

2.3 Predicted Project Impacts ................................................................................6

2.4

Measures to Mitigate Air Quality Impacts ......................................................7

3.0 TRANSPORTATION GHG EMISSIONS ............................................................11

4.0 GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) MITIGATION ANALYSIS ..................................13

4.1 Methodology and Summary of Results ..........................................................13

4.2 Site Design Mitigation Measures ...................................................................20

4.3 Building Design and Operation Mitigation Measures ...................................21

4.4 Draft Outline for Tenant Manual ...................................................................26

4.5

Transportation Mitigation Measures ..............................................................27

APPENDIX A - EQUEST MODEL OUTPUT

APPENDIX B - WORKSHEETs FOR VMT, VOC, NOx AND CO2 EMISSIONS


425/493

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Description Page

1 VOC Emissions Summary ................................................................................................10

2 NOx Emissions Summary ................................................................................................10

3 Motor Vehicle CO2 Emissions Summary .........................................................................12

4 Energy and CO2 Modeling ..................................................................................... 15 to 18

5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Summary ..............................................................................19

6 Energy Modeling Assumptions .............................................................................. 24 to 25


426/493

1

1.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

1.1 Mesoscale Air Quality Analysis

A mesoscale air quality analysis was performed for the proposed Wynn Everett entertainmentfacility located off Broadway (Route 99) in Everett, Massachusetts (hereafter referred to as the

Project). Mesoscale emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen

(NOx) were calculated for four scenarios: 2013 Existing, 2020 No-Build, 2020 Build, and 2020

Build with Mitigation. This analysis uses the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

MOBILE6.2 Mobile Source Emission Factor Model, and follows a protocol that was approved the

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

The mesoscale analysis predicts that the emissions of VOC and NOx in the project study area for the

2020 Build case will be larger than the emissions for the 2020 No-Build case.

Wynn Everett will mitigate potential air quality impacts by committing to a number of transportation

demand management (TDM) strategies and roadway/traffic signal improvements for the project.

Incentives will be provided to help increase the effectiveness of the voluntary TDM measures. The

TDM measures will improve traffic operations, reduce project generated vehicle trips, and reduce

project-related motor vehicle air pollutant emissions. These mitigation measures will result in small

reductions in VOC and NOx emissions compared to the 2020 Build case. The proposed TDM

measures and roadway/traffic signal improvements constitute all reasonable and feasible traffic

mitigation measures for a project that is well-served served by public transportation.


427/493

2

1.2 Greenhouse Gas Analysis

A greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis was performed for Wynn Everett, consistent with the

Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Policy and Protocol (May 5, 2010). The development consists of approximately 1.4 million square

feet (sf) of inhabited space, including a 19-story hotel, an entertainment facility including a casino,

convention space, restaurants, retail stores, a health club, and a Winter Garden facing south over the

Mystic River. There will be separate parking structures for patrons and employees. This GHG

analysis conforms to the EOEEA Policy, and the proposed Project is consistent with the

Commonwealths Sustainable Development Principles.

The GHG Policy requires a project to quantify 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. 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 4. To provide creative

energy mitigation, the Project has adopted the following Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs):

Cool roofs. Central chiller plant with better efficiency than Code. Demand Control Ventilation (DCV) for the casino, public entertainment and retail areas. Energy Recovery Ventilation (ERV) to reduce chiller energy use. Building envelopes with roof and window insulation better than Code. There will be skylights over the entry atrium, along the retail promenade and as part of

the glass-enclosure for the Winter Garden at the south end of the building.Daylighting controls will be tied to this extensive system of skylights.

Lower light power density better than Code for the high-rise hotel. Low-energy Electronic Gaming Machines (EGMs). Metal halide lighting for all parking structures. Demand Control Exhaust Ventilation (DCEV) with variable frequency drive (VFD) fans

for enclosed parking structures. Kitchen and restaurant refrigeration energy efficiency design to reduce energy use. Energy-STAR appliances. Occupancy controls for non-occupied or infrequently occupied spaces.


428/493

3

The potential for alternative and renewable energy sources to be incorporated into the Project will be

examined. The Project is only at an early conceptual level of design. Thus, the ability to

realistically evaluate certain energy efficiency technologies does not exist at this time. For this

reason, the analysis identifies the following additional EEMs that the Project will continue to study:

Combined heat and electric power generation (cogeneration). Ground-source heat pumps for the hotel high-rise building. Third-party photo-voltaic (PV) installation. Anaerobic digestion of source-separated organics (SSO) to derive fuel gas.

These additional innovative measures will be studied further for adoption as the design progresses.

The Project team will consult with MassDOER and MassDEP regarding these energy efficiency

measures.

The Project will commit to a comprehensive list of EEMs in the Mitigation Alternative that will

reduce total direct and indirect stationary source energy use by 19.1% and will reduce CO2

emissions by 20.6% compared to the Base Case. The Project, however, retains the flexibility to

achieve these goals using energy efficiency measures to be refined at the time of detailed design.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures for this project will reduce Project-related

motor vehicle CO2 emissions by 5.0%. The net reduction of the Projects total CO2 emissions

(stationary source, plus transportation) is 18.1% compared to the Base Case.

Following the completion of construction and in accordance with the MEPA GHG Emissions Policy

and Protocol, the Project 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 EIR, or measures providing comparable mitigation, have been

incorporated into the Project.


429/493

4

2.0 PROJECT MESOSCALE AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS

The mesoscale air quality analysis was performed to calculate the potential regional air quality effect

of the proposed project, using as a measure the total daily emissions of volatile organic compounds

(VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the study area following the latest Massachusetts DEP

guidance1. Specifically, calculations were performed to compare areawide VOC and NOx emissions

after the project is built with existing and future no-build emissions.

The purpose of controlling VOC and NOx emissions is to reduce the concentration of ground-level

ozone. VOC react with NOx in the presence of sunlight to create ground-level photochemical

oxidants (ozone). Motor vehicles are the predominant source of VOC and NOx in Massachusetts.

The entire Commonwealth of Massachusetts was classified by the US EPA as a "serious" ozone non-

attainment area with regard to the old one-hour ozone standard. Massachusetts was required by the

1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to reduce VOC emissions until attainment of the one-hour

Massachusetts and National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone is reached. The

Commonwealth developed a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone that showed how these

reductions would be achieved. Air monitoring showed that compliance with the one-hour ozone

standard has been achieved in most of Massachusetts.

In 1997, the U.S. EPA established a new eight-hour NAAQS for ozone. In April of 2004, the U.S.

EPA designated eastern Massachusetts as a moderate nonattainment area with respect to the new

eight-hour ozone NAAQS. The U.S. EPA revoked the one-hour ozone standard nationwide in 2005,

as part of the implementation of the eight-hour ozone NAAQS. The Commonwealth submitted the

required final ozone SIP to the U.S. EPA on January 31, 2008, demonstrating compliance with the 8-

hour ozone NAAQS. On March 12, 2008, the U.S. EPA revised the 8-hour ozone standard by

reducing it from 0.08 parts of ozone per million parts of air (ppm) to 0.075 ppm. The U.S. EPA

issued final attainment status designations regarding the new standard on June 28, 2012. In January

2010, U.S. EPA proposed to lower the standard to a level between 0.060 ppm to 0.070 ppm. On

1Massachusetts DEP, Guidelines for Performing Mesoscale Analysis of Indirect Sources, Division of Air Quality

Control, May 1991.


430/493

5

September 2, 2011, the Obama administration delayed signing a final rule on the reconsideration of

the 2008 Ozone standard until 2013, which likely delay the final attainment designations.

Ozone concentrations in the study area are made up of three parts: 1) natural ozone; 2) locally

generated ozone; and 3) ozone transported from upwind urban areas. Emissions of VOC and NOx in

the study area have almost no effect on local ozone levels due to their relatively small size and the

fact that photochemical reaction times are not rapid enough to form ozone until a parcel of air has

been transported a long distance downwind. VOC and NOx emissions from the urban areas south

and west of Massachusetts are the primary determinants of ozone levels in the study area. The VOC

and NOx emissions from the study area are insignificant when compared to emissions from the entire

region and urban areas upwind (such as Springfield, Hartford, and New York City). Effective ozone

control measures are national programs such as those setting motor vehicle emission standards and

controls on large fuel-burning sources (electric utility plants and industrial boilers).

2.1 Mesoscale Study Area

The mesoscale study area was conservatively defined to include the entire traffic study area. It is

includes the following roadway segments:

Main Street Connectors to Sweetser Circle Route 99 Connectors to Sweetser Circle Route 16 Connectors to Sweetser Circle Route 99 between Sweetser Circle & Beacham Street Sweetser Circle Route 16 W Off Ramp to Sweetser Circle Route 99 between Sweetser and Santilli Circles Route 16 Santilli Circle Connectors through Sweetser Circle Santilli Circle Rt 16 within Santilli Circle Santilli Highway to Santilli Circle Connectors Route 16 West Bound Connector Route 16 East Bound Connector to Santilli Circle Route 16 East Bound to Mystic View Road Mystic View Road to Santilli Circle Connectors Route 99 between Beacham Street and Chemical Lane Route 99 to Sullivan Square Connectors West Street to Sullivan Square Connector Main Street (Route 38) to Sullivan Square Connector Maffa Way to Sullivan Square Connector


431/493

6

Cambridge Street to Sullivan Square Connector Rutherford Avenue to Sullivan Square Connectors Main Street to Sullivan Square Connectors Sullivan Square Beacham Street to Route 99 McDonalds Drive to Route 99 Chemical Lane to Route 99

2.2 Mesoscale Analysis Procedure

The mesoscale analysis calculated emissions of VOC and NOx over the study area for four scenarios:

2013 Existing 2020 No-Build 2020 Build 2020 Build with Mitigation.

The vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for each roadway segment was calculated by multiplying the

length of each road segment by the average daily traffic volume on the segment. Average daily (24-

hour average) traffic volumes (ADTs) were calculated based on traffic data provided by Vanasse &

Associates, Inc. (VAI); the calculations are shown in Appendix B.

The VOC and NOx emissions for each roadway segment were calculated by multiplying the VMT

(miles per day) by the MOBILE6.2 predicted VOC and NOx emission factors in grams per mile.

The MOBILE6.2 model was run using input files provided by the Massachusetts DEP for 2013 and

2020. These emission factors were calculated for the warm summertime temperatures, which

correspond with the peak ozone season. MOBILE6.2 predicted VOC and NOx emission factors vary

with vehicle speed. Average speeds were assumed to range from 15 to 30 mph within the roadway

network.

2.3 Predicted Project Impacts

A summary of the results of the mesoscale analysis is presented in Tables 1 and 2. In Table 1, the

2013 Existing VOC mesoscale emissions over the study area are 31.39 kg/day. The mesoscale

emissions of VOC for the 2020 No-Build case are predicted to be 28.32 kg/day. This is a 9.8%


432/493

7

decrease from the existing mesoscale VOC emissions. The mesoscale emissions of VOC for the

2020 Build case are predicted to be 32.81 kg/day. This is a 4.5% increase from the existing

mesoscale VOC emissions.

Table 2 shows that the 2013 Existing NOx mesoscale emissions over the study area are 57.18 kg/day.

The mesoscale emissions of NOx for the 2020 No-Build case are predicted to be 30.14 kg/day. This

is a 47.3% decrease from the existing mesoscale NOx emissions. The mesoscale emissions of NOx

for the 2020 Build case are predicted to be 35.0 kg/day. This is a 38.8% decrease from the existing

mesoscale NOx emissions.

The US EPA has established more-strict emission standards for new motor vehicles than older

vehicles. The MOBILE6.2 model predicts motor vehicle VOC and NOx emissions to decrease

between 2013 and 2020, as new, lower polluting vehicles replace older vehicles on the roadways.

The MOBILE6.2 model predicts further declines in VOC and NOx motor vehicle emission rates after

2020. These national control programs are the most effective mitigation measures for ozone, a

regional air pollutant. While each indi

Wynn MA, LLC EENF Appendices

Documents

Transcript of Wynn MA, LLC EENF Appendices