Friends of Alewife Reservation (FAR)
Join Email List
|
|
|
|
|
Draft Environmental Impact Report - Belmont Office/R&D Building
Response from Michael F. Nakagawa Michael F. Nakagawa 51 Madison Avenue Cambridge, MA 02140 May 10, 2003 RE: DEIR for #12376R: Frontage Road Office/R&D Center, Belmont MA (additions to May 8, 2003 comments) Secretary Ellen Roy Herzfelder Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Att: Arthur Pugsley, MEPA Unit 251 Causeway Street, Suite 900 via fax to 617 626 1180 and Boston, MA 02114 e-mail to arthur.pugsley@state.ma.us Dear Secretary Roy Herzfelder: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Frontage Road Office/R&D Center project submitted on behalf of O'Neill Properties Group (O'Neill) for their Belmont project proposal. In addition to the comments that I submitted in response to their Environmental Notification Form, I would like to add the following comments. I mention the previous comments because they have not yet been addressed per 301 CMR 11.00 MEPA Regulations: 11.07: EIR Preparation and Filing (6) Form and Content of EIR. (l) Response to Comments. A response to the certificate of the Secretary on the previous review document and each comment received on the previous review document, provided that the subject matter of the comment is within the Scope. Unless the Secretary has indicated otherwise in the certificate on the previous review document, the EIR shall contain a copy of each comment either in this section or in a separate appendix, provided that this section clearly explains the location of each comment and the response to each comment.The proponents have chosen to categorize the ENF public comments and respond to the categories without individually addressing the specific issues addressed by the individual comments. Please require the proponent to follow the regulations (301 CMR 11.07(6)(l)) with a response to "each comment" as stated. This project proposal shows an egregious disregard for development near sensitive areas protected by the Wetlands Protection Act. According to their documentation 2.04 acres of the 7.8-acre disturbance, more than 25% of the project, will be within the buffer zone of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (BVW). Activities within the buffer zone are regulated under 310 CMR 10.000 as follows: 10.03: General Provisions (1) Burden of Proof. (a) Any person who files a Notice of Intent to perform any work within an Area Subject to Protection Under M.G.L. c. 131, s. 40 or within the Buffer Zone has the burden of demonstrating to the issuing authority: 3. that proposed work within the buffer zone will contribute to the protection of the interests identified in M.G.L. c. 131, s. 40, except that proposed work which lies both within the riverfront area and within all or a portion of the buffer zone to another resource area shall comply with the performance standards for riverfront areas at 310 CMR 10.58.As for the interests indentified in MGL c.131 s.40, I refer to para.18, noting, in particular, the second reference to "to protect wildlife habitat": 18. If after said hearing the conservation commission, selectmen or mayor, as the case may be, determine that the area on which the proposed work is to be done is significant to public or private water supply, to the groundwater supply, to flood control, to storm damage prevention, to prevention of pollution, to protection of land containing shellfish, to the protection of wildlife habitat or to the protection of fisheries or to the protection of the riverfront area consistent with the following purposes: to protect the private or public water supply; to protect the ground water; to provide flood control; to prevent storm damage; to prevent pollution; to protect land containing shellfish; to protect wildlife habitat; and to protect the fisheries, such conservation commission, board of selectmen or mayor shall by written order within twenty-one days of such hearing impose such conditions as will contribute to the protection of the interests described herein, and all work shall be done in accordance therewith.The proponent should be required to submit a study clearly demonstrating how the project "contributes to the protection of the interests identified in M.G.L., c. 131, s. 40." From what I have read on buffer zone design, permanent structures are detrimental to wildlife when placed in the buffer zone. Not only are such structures present (both the building and the parking garage), the 3-story parking garage has been placed approximately 10 feet from the southern BVW border. Additionally, access to the garage, with anticipated 2600+ car trips per day, is also in the buffer zone, in fact fully within the buffer zone at one point. Buffer zone design generally incorporates three zones: the inner stream zone; the middle zone of 30 to 100 feet from the edge of the wetlands border, floodplain border, or upslope from the stream bank, which consists of natural vegetation to support the habitat of the inner zone; and an outer zone of generally a minimum of 25 feet between the middle zone and the nearest permanent structure, used to allow the middle zone to exist but for which limited pervious uses are allowed. Functioning wildlife habitat requires a setback from large structures, such as the parking garage and the office building, in part because the buildings alter their surrounding environment, such as by causing shading or urban heat island effects. Furthermore, frequent vehicular travel near habitat areas would discourage habitation by certain species which would in turn disturb the balance of the of the habitat ecosystem. It is important to do everything reasonable to support the habitat to allow the protected Alewife Brook Reservation to continue its natural process of reclaiming previously disturbed areas and returning them to their former wetland state. A functioning wetland habitat will assist in protecting the region from flooding, which has increased in recent years, as the watershed has been developed with impervious surfaces. Furthermore, a strong wetland habitat will aid in the bioremediation of the increased street runoff entering the receiving waters. In addition to the development of general BVW buffer areas, there is one area of BVW buffer zone that is also within the 100-year floodplain (Bordering Land Subject to Flooding - BLSF) which is being developed. This type of buffer zone deserves special consideration, as was relayed to me by the former Executive Director of the Cambridge Conservation Commission while evaluating another project in the area. However, the proponents have placed a loading dock and part of their building in this area. While I appreciate the proponent's increase in flood compensation beyond the regulatory requirements under 310 CMR 10.57, I question the net benefit of their solution. Flooding is primarily a concern only during the larger storm events, so additional storage at lower elevations has little residential flooding benefit. However, I have documented, on videotape, that storms can cause the Alewife Brook to flow "upstream." Additional storage space at lower would thereby cause stormwater to be retained in the area instead of forcing it downstream. Therefore, the net cumulative effect would be significantly less than stated, since much of the additional capacity is at the lower elevations. Furthermore, the 3:1 compensation ratio applies only to the cumulative effect. At the higher elevation increments, the amount of compensation within the increment is much less than three times, such as a 3/4 increase for the increment near the 100-year-flood elevation (8-8.2'). (See tables 5.3-9 and 5.3-10) The EIR should give a table summarizing the net increases in storage for each increment to match the performance standards of the regulations. The Hydrology Handbook for Conservation Commissioners by the Massachusetts DEP, March 2002, states in Section 9.6 Calculations for Compensatory Flood Storage: "The key issue is that compensatory storage has to be provided equally AT THE SAME ELEVATION THAT STORAGE IS BEING REMOVED." (Emphasis as shown in the Handbook, not mine) I am also concerned about the proposed sewer connection. All three of the solutions eventually connect to the same northern-most MWRA Belmont Branch Sewer pipe. This pipe circles around the Alewife Brook Reservation as is the one servicing the combined sewers of the Massachusetts Avenue service area in Cambridge. This is the same line that overflows several times a year at the CAM002 combined sewer outfall as the Cambridge line attempts to connect to this MWRA sewer pipe. Additional flows into the MWRA pipe upstream will only serve to increase the overflows at this connection. Since the location of the outfall is near an area experiencing widespread residential flooding, with the floodplain continuing to expand covering more residences, the public health (and nuisance) implications must be considered. The MWRA and City of Cambridge, in the Notice of Project Change to their Combined Sewer Separation Project, have decided not to separate the Massachusetts Avenue combined sewers, and any improvements by the project will not have an impact on the MWRA sewer line for which the proponent plans to connect. The proponent should investigate alternative sewer connections and/or solutions so as not to increase the public health risk posed by their project. With regard to traffic concerns, please require the proponent to show actual delay times for intersectiosn Levels of Service (LOS) of grade F. The tables only show that the delay time exceeds 80 seconds, but not by how much. I have observed, on videotape, 7.5-minute delays on left turns from Route 2 eastbound to Alewife Brook Parkway northbound, after which the traffic will be in queue for another LOS F at the Alewife Brook Parkway and Massachusetts Avenue intersection. As delays continue to increase beyond what drivers consider as reasonable, drivers take their frustration (and highway mentality) onto residential roads in an attempt to bypass the bottlenecks. I experience this first-hand living on a road that serves as a Alewife Brook Parkway-Massachusetts Avenue bypass, despite restricted access postings during evening rush hours, and it becomes a public safety concern. Additionally, please require a map of the Concord Turnpike-Alewife Brook Parkway interchange indicating the ramps referenced in the tables. I was unable to ascertain whether my interpretations of references like Ramp E/F were correct. Finally, I urge you to scrutinize this project and not make allowances for this project. It is clear that the scale of the project is inconsistent with the natural resource area that surrounds it. For example, the conservation restriction placed on the property is BVW that is already protected from development by state law, since they cannot provide wetlands habitat compensation because they have proposed to use more than the possible compensatory area available on their site. The majority of the rest of the surrounding area is state wetlands. Still they propose a large project that requires them to place more than 25% of the project, including buildings, in BVW buffer zone. The habitat area they intend to destroy is the only significant undeveloped area north of the Little River that is outside the floodplain and accessible from the Alewife Brook Reservation. As such, it provides the only supporting lowlands/uplands habitat for the wetlands area, and the area itself is not large. Any loss of this habitat area will have a significant impact on the Reservation habitat, but the scale of their project not only eliminates almost the entire uplands habitat, but also impinges on the wetlands habitat by the magnitude of development up to the wetlands border. The proponents had sold of the other portion of their property for three times their investment in the whole property, within two years, with no improvements, netting a $42 million dollar profit. Please require them to do a thorough study demonstrating that their environmental impacts are justified. If they cannot do that, suggest that they consider reducing their project to one that can, at a minimum, meet the performance standards for the natural resource area in which they would like to build. Sincerely, Michael Nakagawa attachment: ENF comments for project |