Developer Seeks Industrial Warehouse Complex on Priority Habitat, Wetlands in Middleborough

Public Comments Due to MEPA Monday, July 24th; Project Contrary to Mass. Environmental Policy Act

(MIDDLEBOROUGH) — Real estate developer Lincoln Property Company is proposing to build a massive industrial warehouse complex on an environmentally sensitive parcel in the Town of Middleborough, drawing opposition from local residents and environmentalists across the region.

(The parcel in question, listed as Priority Habitat 592 by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; credit — MassMapper via Mass.gov.)

“LPC Northeast, LLC … is proposing to construct three warehouses totaling approximately 680,000 square feet (sf) on an approximately 150-acre parcel located off of Harding Street (Route 44) just west of I-495 in Middleborough, Massachusetts,” states the June 15th, 2023, Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) submitted by LPC Northeast for its proposed Lincoln Logistics Middleborough (EEA #16642).

The 78-acre project and its three industrial warehouses would include 173 loading docks and anywhere from 349 to 679 parking spaces. The DEIR was prepared by Epsilon Associates, Inc., a Maynard-based engineering firm.

    Public comments are due to MEPA by tomorrow, Monday, July 24th, 2023. A sign-on letter has been circulated by the environmental group the Community Land and Water Coalition here; one simply has to fill in one’s relevant information, and the comments will be sent to MEPA. Comments may also be directly submitted to MEPA here, at the MEPA Public Comment Portal (search for EEA # 16642, and then click “Comment” under “Actions” on the right side of your screen).

        The site of the proposed warehouse is already recognized by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for its unique environmental qualities. LPC Northeast themselves are forced to admit this in their own report:

      “Nearly the entire Site is within Estimated and Priority Habitat for State listed Rare Species. There is one NHESP [MassWildlife’s Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program] Certified Vernal Pool (CVP) and several Potential Vernal Pools (PVP) throughout the Site. There are two perennial streams (Puddingshear Brook and Poquoy Brook) which run through the property and associated Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (BVW), Bordering Land Subject to flooding (BLSF), and several isolated vegetated wetlands (IVW),” states the LPC Northeast LLC’s draft report.¹

Opposition from Middleborough, Lakeville Residents; Developer’s Assertions

This was a theme echoed by commenters from Middleborough and neighboring Lakeville.

    “I am gravely concerned about this project and was on the Vernon Street Committee several years back when a different development company tried to build on the same property on Rt. 44-Vernon Street-Clayton Road i[n] Middleborough,” wrote Allison Nuovo, of Middleborough, in comments emailed to MEPA on January 30, 2023.

   “Not only is the Lincoln Properties project going to affect the aquifer for our well water supply to residents, the wetlands, animals, but the public, who pay taxes, from traffic and destroying land that was not meant to be built on. This project has a substantial detrimental impact to an extremely sensitive environment which is natural habitat for both wetland, streams, and forest flora and fauna. Its impact will affect not only the town infrastructure but will be devastating to the bordering residential neighborhoods,” wrote Ms. Nuovo.

“This is and always has been the wrong place for this kind of development. I hope you take this to heart and not cut corners on this very serious ‘can't reverse the damage project’. As a member of the Vernon Street Committee, we have submitted numerous documents proving that this property is unfit to build on and will destroy a needed balance of nature and wetlands,” she said.

Matthew Bruffee, of Middleborough, registered his objections, in a Jan. 29th, 2023 comment.

“Despite numerous meetings with residents in protest to this project it has continued to surface. …. [T]he project is putting warehousing in an unacceptable area for many reasons.  This land is known to be of prehistoric archaeological significance.  …. [T]his project will disturb natural habitat for documented endangered and newly documented species.  It is not only natural [habitat] thriving with fox, coyote, rabbits, skunks, raccoons, deer, hawks and other birds, but the streams contain numerous varieties of coldwater species especially trout and other fish and aquatics,” wrote Mr. Bruffee.

“The land has documented vernal pools and is a documented watershed aquifer for this area and most of North Middleboro,” noted Mr. Bruffee. He pointed particularly to the inadequacy of the developer-proposed remediation:

“None of the proposed remediation even begins to compensate for the devastation this development will cause to this area. The access road alone is going to be a stormwater, snow, and salt nightmare as where is all this run off going to go? Into the wetlands of course, and then into our wells and our drinking water,” he said.²

Heather Kundzicz, also of Middleborough, registered her opposition in a January 30, 2023 comment:

“I would like to submit my sincere, extreme concern regarding the proposed warehouse project in North Middleboro on the former Southpointe property,” wrote Ms. Kundzicz.

She continued that while “I understand the need for growth, taxes and places to live. But, this parcel of land is different, and I have sacrificed many, many hours to protect it from the insult of giant warehouses as best as I know how,” she wrote.

“The proposed project sits on top of an aquifer serving the drinking water and wells of those nearby. There are rare and endangered species on this property, such as the marbled mole salamander and Eastern Box turtle. There are wetlands and vernal pools (right under the proposed parking lot!) and the Poquoy and Puddingshire Brooks are home to native trout. I've learned that uplands are just as important as wetlands. I am extremely concerned that, despite the best laid plans of people and policy, sand, salt, motor oil, gas, rubber, and diesel fallout from plows and trucks will pollute the fragile habitats and environs​. The natural environmental features are documented and known by the State and entities such as Natural Heritage, as this is not the first time proposals of various flavors have been made for this land (Legoland, corporate parks, warehouses),” wrote Ms. Kundzicz.³

Michelle MacEachern, of Lakeville, likewise commented to MEPA on the importance of preserving the region’s natural, and particularly hydrological, resources.

“This proposed project location is within 1,000 feet of the Taunton River, along with the Puddingshear and Poquoy Brooks. While homeowners in the South Shore region face impending costly septic upgrades to protect watershed areas from nitrogen loading, it is mind-boggling to think that a mega warehouse could be constructed in this location,” wrote Ms. MacEachern (emphasis in original).

“When our wetlands are destroyed and turned into impervious areas, our drinking water is no longer safe. Wetlands are crucial for purifying water. No human being needs a concrete building or parking lot, but we all need clean air, clean water and clean food. Mega warehouses like this negatively impact those needs of everyone living in the area. The truck exhaust will pollute the air, and oil, gas and other fluids which frequently leak from these vehicles will seep into the ground and runoff into our water ways,” she said.

“This project aims to build on a large portion of a parcel which should remain protected and untouched in its entirety. Growing up in the MA south shore region, I have watched as farmland, open spaces and forests have been drastically reduced over the past decades. What will we be leaving behind for our children and grandchildren when all of the trees have been cut down and all of the land has been paved over? Our natural resources are precious and deserve to be protected — there is no replacing these things once they are gone,” Ms. MacEachern wrote (emphasis in original).⁴

LPC Northeastern LLC, on the other hand, asserts that the project is consistent with both local zoning bylaws, and local and regional planning, pointing to Town and regional planning documents that are 21 and 27 years old, respectively.

“... [T]he proposed warehouse Project is consistent with both local and regional planning initiatives. The Town of Middleborough published the Middleborough Master Plan (Master Plan) in 2002 and the Southeast Regional Planning and Economic Development District (SRPEDD) published the Regional Land Use: Roles, Policies, and Plan Outline for Southeastern Massachusetts (Regional Plan) in 1996…. The proposed warehouse/distribution center will promote economic development through provision of temporary construction jobs and permanent warehouse jobs in the Town, consistent with both the Master Plan and Regional Plan,” said the draft report.
       
The developers also promised that 67% of the space would remain open, and subject to a conservation restriction.⁵

The Mass. Environmental Policy Act and Associated Regulations

      The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, M.G.L. c. 30 secs. 61-62, is worth considering here, since the proposed warehouse project stands counter to its plain language.

    For instance, at Section 61, the Act states that “unless a clear contrary intent is manifested, all statutes shall be interpreted and administered so as to minimize and prevent damage to the environment.”⁶

    It further states that “in considering and issuing permits, licenses and other administrative approvals and decisions, the respective agency, department, board, commission or authority shall also consider reasonably foreseeable climate change impacts, including additional greenhouse gas emissions, and effects, such as predicted sea level rise.”⁷
   
The statute defines “damage to the environment” thusly:

“As used in this section and section sixty-two, ‘damage to the environment’ shall mean any destruction, damage or impairment, actual or probable, to any of the natural resources of the commonwealth and shall include but not be limited to air pollution, water pollution, improper sewage disposal, pesticide pollution, excessive noise, improper operation of dumping grounds, reduction of groundwater levels, impairment of water quality, increases in flooding or storm water flows, impairment and eutrophication of rivers, streams, flood plains, lakes, ponds, or other surface or subsurface water resources; destruction of seashores, dunes, marine resources, underwater archaeological resources, wetlands, open spaces, natural areas, parks, or historic districts or sites.”⁸

Looking more specifically at the regulations promulgated by the Commonwealth pursuant to the Mass. Environmental Policy Act, it is clear that the proposal by LPC Northeast meets the threshold for review in a number of areas, and further, that the proposal will cause damage to the environment under the meaning of the Act.
According to the MEPA’s general description of the project, the following review thresholds are met (edited for legibility, with citations bolded):

    “301 CMR 11.03(6)(b)(15) - Construction of 300 or more New parking spaces at a single location. ; 301 CMR 11.03(1)(a)(1) - Direct alteration of 50 or more acres of land, unless the Project is consistent with an approved conservation farm plan or forest cutting plan or other similar generally accepted agricultural or forestry practices. ; 301 CMR 11.03(2)(b)(2) -Greater than two acres of disturbance of designated priority habitat, as defined in 321 CMR 10.02, that results in a take of a state-listed endangered or threatened species or species of special concern. ; 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)(1)(d)-Provided that a Permit is required: alteration of 5,000 or more sf of bordering or isolated vegetated wetlands; 301 CMR 11.03(5)(b)(3)(c)-Construction of one or more New sewer mains: ½ or more miles in length, provided the sewer mains are not located in the right of way of existing roadways. ; 301 CMR 11.03(1)(a)(2)-Creation of ten or more acres of impervious area.; 301 CMR 11.03(6)(b)(14)-Generation of 1,000 or more New adt on roadways providing access to a single location and construction of 150 or more New parking spaces at a single location.; 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)(1)(f)-Provided that a Permit is required: alteration of ½ or more acres of any other wetlands[.]”⁹

      All of these fall under the definition of “damage to the environment” as described in the Environmental Policy Act: “‘damage to the environment’ shall mean any destruction, damage or impairment, actual or probable, to any of the natural resources of the commonwealth ….”¹⁰

      The construction of an industrial warehouse complex on this parcel, having the natural features described above, clearly will cause both actual and probable damage to environment, whether from deforestation, runoff, creation of impermeable surfaces, or the approximately 1,150 weekday vehicle trips.

      Given that the statute states that the Commonwealth “shall also consider reasonably foreseeable climate change impacts, including additional greenhouse gas emissions,” it is worth noting that, generally speaking, the climate implications of the nation’s recent industrial warehousing boom have generally been negative.

    A December 9th, 2021, article by Kaveh Waddell of Consumer Reports and Maanvi Singh of The Guardian pointed to the deleterious environmental and climate impacts of industrial warehouses. While the details are different in places — the warehouse in question is in Fontana, California, and is owned by Amazon rather than Lincoln Property Company — in other respects, they are identical, with both projects’ warehouse capacity totaling 680,000 square feet. Waddell and Singh describe the experiences of residents of Fontana:

“The 680,000 sqft Amazon warehouse went up around the corner two years ago. Now, Kolde’s 11-year-old son keeps the TV on all night to drown out the constant growl of engines on the street. Kolde and his wife leave a portable AC unit running in their room for the same reason. ‘For a while, we would all be four peas in a pod, all in one bed together, because the kids would get scared of the noise,’ he says. ‘Now they’re getting more used to it.’”

Waddell and Singh noted that “a traffic study from the project’s developer estimated that the Amazon warehouse and a smaller warehouse next door together generated nearly 6,000 vehicle trips per day, including more than 2,300 diesel truck trips.”¹¹

LPC Northeastern estimates that their project will produce 1,150 vehicle trips per weekday, with 746 car trips and 404 truck trips. This increase in vehicle trips will surely produce an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, of which, per the statute, the Commonwealth must take cognizance.¹²

Host communities for industrial warehouses often end up worse off, one expert told Waddell and Singh:

“‘Communities that host delivery facilities end up being the losers,’ says Sacoby Wilson, director of the Center for Community Engagement, Environmental Justice and Health at the University of Maryland, College Park, which worked with [Consumer Reports] to analyze the locations of Amazon facilities. ‘They get more traffic, air pollution, traffic jams and pedestrian safety problems, but they don’t receive their fair share of the benefits that accrue from having the retail nearby.’”

It is important here to note that principles of environmental justice have also been enshrined in the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. At Section 62, “Environmental justice principles” are defined as “principles that support protection from environmental pollution and the ability to live in and enjoy a clean and healthy environment, regardless of race, color, income, class, handicap, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, ethnicity or ancestry, religious belief or English language proficiency, which includes: (i) the meaningful involvement of all people with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies, including climate change policies; and (ii) the equitable distribution of energy and environmental benefits and environmental burdens.”¹³

These principles apply in Middleborough as they do everywhere in the Commonwealth — and, I would argue, across the United States and the world.

(The parcel in question; credit — Lincoln Property Company, DEIR, June 15, 2023.)

Beyond the climate change and environmental justice implications of this project, the larger economic context of excess warehouse construction must be considered. Recent years have seen a veritable bubble of industrial warehouse construction, even as logistics giants like Amazon find themselves with an excess of warehouse capacity.
As reported by Eugene Kim in a January 5th, 2023, Business Insider story, Amazon serves as a case study in the excesses of the warehouse construction boom.
     
    “It could take Amazon 3 years to recover from a pandemic-era warehouse expansion binge that left the e-commerce giant with too much space, according to new estimates from renowned consulting firm MWPVL International,” wrote Mr. Kim.

“Amazon currently uses about 65% of its total warehouse capacity, lower than the 85% levels from 2019, [MWPVL President Marc] Wulfraat estimated. That's because Amazon over-expanded in recent years, with warehouse growth ‘materially’ outpacing product sales growth, he said. It will need 2 to 3 more years to reach the 2019 capacity utilization levels, Wulfraat estimated,” Mr. Kim reported.¹⁴

Given the excess capacity in industrial warehousing that presently exists, it is neither necessary nor in the public interest — though it may be in LPC Northeastern LLC’s private, pecuniary interest — to destroy protected habitats and critical carbon sinks in order to build 680,000 square feet of warehouse space in Middleborough.

         Ultimately, both considerations of fact and of law, as well as a larger consideration of social need vs. private profit in terms of warehouse construction, impel one conclusion: MEPA should find that LPC Northeastern, LLC’s draft environmental impact report is inadequate, and that the proposed warehouse complex will in fact cause damage to the environment, in contravention of the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act.

        The sign-on letter is here, should you wish to add your name.

1. Lincoln Property Company, Draft Environmental Impact Report: Lincoln Logistics Middleborough, June 15, 2023, EEA#16642, Section 1.2.

2. Matthew Bruffee, MEPA Comment, Jan. 29th, 2023. Available via MEPA Public Comment Portal: https://eeaonline.eea.state.ma.us/EEA/PublicComment/UI/reviewcomment/502e7b3c-1ec5-4995-8c3f-afff7ef9763f

3. Heather Kundzicz, MEPA Comment, Jan. 30, 2023. Available via MEPA Public Comment Portal: https://eeaonline.eea.state.ma.us/EEA/PublicComment/UI/reviewcomment/ffa53671-ebd4-460c-bc9c-b03d84a818b8

4. Michele MacEachern, MEPA Comment, Jan. 18, 2023. Available via MEPA Public Comment Portal: https://eeaonline.eea.state.ma.us/EEA/PublicComment/UI/reviewcomment/aab48b94-d500-4368-aa58-686544653962

5. Lincoln Property Company, DEIR, Sec. 1.6.

6. M.G.L. c. 30 sec. 61.

7. M.G.L. c. 30 sec. 61.

8. M.G.L. c. 30 sec. 61.

9. https://eeaonline.eea.state.ma.us/EEA/MEPA-eMonitor/project/c780ef22-0520-476e-9776-12cba90fc853

10. M.G.L. c. 30 sec. 61.

11. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/09/when-amazon-expands-these-communities-pay-the-price

12. Lincoln Property Company, DEIR, Table 7-5.

13. M.G.L. c. 30 Sec. 62

14. https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-warehouses-overbuilding-years-to-recover-walmart-2023-1