PEABODY SQUARE - ZONING ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM
Flood Mitigation Facilities
for Peabody Square Area
' Peabody, Massachusetts
Submitted by:
' City of Peabody Department of Public Services
' Submitted to:
' Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Unit
May 2008
1
1
' METCALF & EDDY ,
METCALF&EDDY I AECOM
' Metcalf& Eddy Inc.
701 Edgewater Drive
Wakefield' T 781224.6172 F 781,224,5986 Massachusetts 05371
www.m-e.aecom.com
RECEIVE®
' MAY 1 3 2008
DEPT. OF PLANNfNG&
' May 12, 2008 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Secretary Ian Bowles
Executive Office of Energy& Environmental Affairs
' Attn: MEPA Office
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
' Subject: Peabody Flood Mitigation Project—Environmental Notification Form
' Dear Secretary Bowles:
On behalf of our client, the City of Peabody, Metcalf& Eddy respectfully submits the enclosed
Environmental Notification Form (ENF) in accordance with 301 CMR 11.00. The ENF describes the City
of Peabody's recurrent flooding issues during severe storm events, the most recent assessment of flood
mitigation alternatives, and a multi-phased proposed project.
' The ENF has been circulated in accordance with 301 CMR 11.16(2), and the public notice was published
in the May 9, 2008 issue of the Salem Evening News.
' If you have any questions regarding this ENF or would like to schedule a site visit, please contact me at
(781) 224-6222.
Very truly yours,
METCALF & EDDY, INC
1 0,
Aaron Weieneth
Project Environmental Planner
enclosures
' copies: R. Carnevale, City of Peabody, Director of Public Services
Distribution List(see Attachment C)
1
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM
ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIVITIES Page
' 1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 1
' 1.2 SUMMARY OF RECENT FLOOD EVENTS AND IMPACTS...................................2
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA................................................................. 3
3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................ 4
' 3.1 ALTERNATIVE I - TIDAL GATE AND PUMP STATION AT BEVERLY
HARBOR....................................................................................................................................4
3.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 - MODIFICATION OF NORTH RIVER DRAINAGE SYSTEM
' (RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE)...................................................................................... 5
3.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 -UPSTREAM STORAGE.............................................................. 7
3.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 -DREDGING THE NORTH RIVER............................................. 9
4 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES........................................................................................... 11
' 4.1 PROJECT 1................................................................................................................... 11
4.2 PROJECT 2................................................................................................................... 12
' 4.3 PROJECT 3................................................................................................................... 14
5 PROJECT IMPACTS................................................................................................... 14
5.1 FLOODING.................................................................................................................. 15
' 5.2 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS (NOISE AND TRAFFIC)................. 17
5.3 WETLAND RESOURCE AREAS............................................................................... 17
Project1 Impacts................................................................................................................... 18
' Project 2 Impacts................................................................................................................... 20
Project3 Impacts................................................................................................................... 20
5.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS...................................................................................... 20
' 5.5 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES .....................................................22
5.6 FISHERIES................................................................................................................... 22
5.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES......................................................................................... 22
' 6 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................23
7 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................24
' ATTACHMENT B AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
ATTACHMENT C NPC DISTRIBUTION LIST
' LIST OF TABLES
' TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STORAGE LOCATIONS......................................... 8
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF PEAK HYDRAULIC GRADE FOR BASELINE CONDITION;
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS 1, 2, AND 3 (RUN 4) AND
' RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS FOR PROJECTS 1 AND 2 (RUN 8) FOR
50-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM AND MAY 2006 FLOOD ..................................... 16
' TABLE 3. APPROXIMATE WETLAND IMPACTS FOR ENTIRE FLOOD ALLEVIATION
PLAN (PROJECTS 1, 2,AND 3) ............................................................................ 18
TABLE 4. PROJECT 1 WETLAND IMPACTS......................................................................... 19
' TABLE 5. PROJECT 2 WETLAND IMPACTS.........................................................................21
TABLE 6. PROJECT 3 WETLAND IMPACTS.........................................................................21
' LIST OF FIGURES (BOUND IN BACK OF ATTACHMENT A)
' FIGURE 1. PROJECT AREA
FIGURE 2. PLAN SHOWING BROOKS AND TRIBUTARY DRAINAGE BOUNDARIES
' FIGURE 3. POTENTIAL STORAGE AREA LOCATIONS
FIGURE 4. PROJECT 1 -GOLDTHWAITE BROOK CULVERTS: APPROXIMATE
ALIGNMENT AND PERMANENT EASEMENT LOCATIONS
' FIGURE 5. PROJECT 2-NORTH RIVER WIDENING APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT
AND PERMANENT EASEMENT LOCATIONS
FIGURE 6. PROJECT 2-NORTH RIVER SECTION A-A VERTICAL WALL
' ALTERNATIVES AND RIP RAP WALL ALTERNATIVES
FIGURE 7. MAPPED WETLANDS IN PROJECT AREA
1
1
Commonwealth of Massachusetts For Office Use Only
' Executive Office of Environmental Affairs N MEPA Office Executive Offcee of Environmental Affairs
Environmental EOEANo.:
ENF MEPA Analyst:
Notification Form Phone: 617-626-
The information requested on this
' form must be completed to begin MEPA Review in accordance with the provisions of the
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, 301 CMR 11.00.
' Project Name: Flood Mitigation Facilities for Peabody Square Area
Street: Multiple Locations
'
Municipality: Peabody, MA Watershed: North Coast
Universal Tranverse Mercator Coordinates: Latitude: N 42° 31' 32.61"
North American Datum (NAD) 1983 Longitude: W 70° 55' 26.03"
' Estimated commencement date: 09/2008 Estimated completion date: 09/2012
Approximate cost: $32.7 million Status of project design: 25 °/complet
' Proponent: Mr. Richard M. Carnevale — Director of Public Services
Street: 50 Farm Avenue
Municipality: Peabody State: MA Zip Code: 01960
' Name of Contact Person From Whom Copies of this ENF May Be Obtained:
Aaron Weieneth
Firm/Agency: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Street: 701 Edgewater Drive
tMunicipality: Wakefield State: MA I Zip Code: 01880
Phone: 781-224-6222 Fax: 781-244-5986 E-mail: aaron.weieneth@m-e.aecom.com
' Does this project meet or exceed a mandatory EIR threshold (see 301 CMR 11.03)?
❑Yes ®No
' Has this project been filed with MEPA before?
❑ Yes (EDEA No. ) ®No
Has any project on this site been filed with MEPA before?
t ❑ Yes (EDEA No. ) ®No
Is this an Expanded ENF (see 301 CMR 11.06(7)) requesting:
a Single EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.06(8)) ❑Yes ®No
' a Special Review Procedure? (see 301CMR 11.09)❑Yes ®No
a Waiver of mandatory EIR? (see 3ol CMR 11.11) ❑Yes ®No
a Phase I Waiver? (see 301 CMR 11.11) ❑Yes ®No
' 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): Massachusetts Economic
Stimulus Bill ($2 million); Massachusetts Transportation Bond Bill ($2 million); MA Department of
Housing and Community Development ($0.5 million); MA Department of Conservation and Recreation
($0.1 million); also seeking funds from the Executive Office of Transportation through the Public
Works Economic Development program.
Are you requesting coordinated review with any other federal, state, regional, or local agency?
❑Yes (Specify ) ®No
List Local or Federal Permits and Approvals: Peabody Conservation Commission Order of Conditions.
' Peabody Historical Commission Review, Section 404 Programmatic General Permit NPDES General
Construction Stormwater and Remediation General Permits.
Revised 10/99 Comment period is limited. For information call 617-626-1020
1
Which ENF or EIR review threshold(s) does the project meet or exceed (see 301 CMR 11.03):
' ❑ Land ❑ Rare Species E Wetlands, Waterways, & Tidelands
❑ Water ❑ Wastewater ❑ Transportation
' ❑ Energy ❑ Air ❑ Solid & Hazardous Waste
❑ ACEC ❑ Regulations ❑ Historical & Archaeological
Resources
' Summary of Project Size Existing Change Total State Permits &
& Environmental Impacts' Approvals
® Order of Conditions
' Total site acreage s.s ❑ Superseding Order of
Conditions
New acres of land altered 2 0 ® Chapter 91 License
' Acres of impervious area ® 401 Water Quality
Certification
' Square feet of new bordering ° ❑ MHD or MDC Access
vegetated wetlands alteration2 Permit
Square feet of new other Seeiisto/ ❑ Water Management
2 wetlantl impacts
' wetland alteration n Wetlands Act Permit
section of ENF
Acres of new non-water ° ❑ New Source Approval
dependent use of tidelands or
STRUCTURES
' waterways
❑ DEP or MWRA
Sewer Connection/
' Extension Permit
Gross square footage o 0 0 ® Other Permits
(including Legislative
' approvals)— Specify:
Number of housing units ° o ° MA Office of CZM
Maximum height (in feet) 0 0 o Federal Consistency
. , NSPORTKI ION Review, Notice of
Intent to Perform
Vehicle trips per day ° ° ° Utility-Related
' Parking spaces ° 0 0 Abatement Measures
WASTEWATER (URAM)
Gallons/day (GPD) of water use o 0 0
' GPD water withdrawal 0 0 0
GPD wastewater generation/ 0 0 0
' treatment
Length of water/sewer mains o 0 0
(in miles)
' Notes:
General Note—Impacts are based on preliminary designs prepared during the early planning phase of the proposed
project and may change as design progresses.
1. The proposed culverts for Goldthwaite Brook will be entirely below grade and disturbed surfaces would be restored
to existing conditions, and widening of the North River would not require additional impervious surfaces.Thus,
there would be no increase in impervious surfaces within the project area.
2. Impacts to wetland resource areas are based on review of available mapping layers from Massachusetts
Geographic Information System(MassGIS)and preliminary field observations. Impacts to wetlands will be
' confirmed during final design.
-2-
CONSERVATION LAND: Will the project involve the conversion of public parkland or other Article 97 public natural
' resources to any purpose not in accordance with Article 97?
[]Yes(Specify ) ®No
Will it involve the release of any conservation restriction, preservation restriction, agricultural preservation
' restriction, or watershed preservation restriction?
❑Yes (Specify, ) ®No
' RARE SPECIES: Does the project site include Estimated Habitat of Rare Species, Vernal Pools, Priority Sites of
Rare Species, or Exemplary Natural Communities?
❑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
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN: Is the project in or adjacent to an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern?
❑Yes(Specify, ) ®No
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Thej
roect description p p on should include (a) a description of the project site,
' (b) a description of both on-site and off-site alternatives and the impacts associated with each
alternative, and (c) potential on-site and off-site mitigation measures for each alternative (You may
attach one additional page, if necessary.)
' Significant flooding occurs in Peabody Square and nearby streets during major precipitation events. The
proposed plan includes alleviation of this flooding by modifying the two existing primary drainage conduits in
Peabody, which are the culvert(s)carrying Goldthwaite Brook and Proctor Brook, and the open channel of North
' River.The plan has been divided into three projects: Project 1, Project 2, and Project 3.
Project 1 —Relocating and enlarging Goldthwaite Brook approximately 1,950 linear feet from Oak Street to its
confluence with the North River approximately 100 feet east of Wallis Street, and cleaning approximately
990 feet of the original Foster Street culvert upstream of Oak Street and east of Foster Street.The existing
culvert downstream of Franklin Street will remain in service to convey local drainage and flow from Proctor Brook
to the North River. Multiple alternative alignments for the enlarged Goldthwaite Brook were identified in the same
' general area.
Project 2—Widening approximately 1,600 feet of the North River from the confluence of Goldthwaite Brook with
' the North River(approximately 100 feet east of Wallis Street)to the Howley Street bridge over the North River.
Project 2 will also require the replacement of the Caller Street bridge to allow the bridge culvert width to match
the width of the river widening.This project(and Project 1 above)is located entirely within the City of Peabody.
' Project 3—The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) is about to initiate a Feasibility Study to improve
conveyance for a section of the North River extending approximately 3,100 feet, including approximately 400 feet
in Peabody from the Howley Street bridge to the Peabody-Salem boundary, and an additional 2,700 feet in
' Salem to approximately 600 feet downstream of Grove St.).The feasibility study will likely include widening the
above-referenced stretch of river to 38 feet as well as other alternatives.Widening of the river may involve
installing sheet piling along 3,100 linear feet of the north side of the river(the widened side), re-aligning a 90-
degree river bend at a Railroad crossing, and the excavation and disposal of contaminated materials (river
tbanks).The project was initiated under Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act(PL 80-858), as amended.
The City of Peabody is responsible for the implementation of Projects 1 and 2,while the ACOE is responsible for
Project 3.Additional details regarding the proposed plan are provided in Attachment A of this ENF.
1
-3-
1
Flood mitigation alternatives to the proposed plan included stormwater storage upstream at various existing
' ponds and wetlands, including: Cedar Pond, Upper Flume Pond, Lower Flume Pond, Sydney Pond, wetland
upstream of Downing Road, detention pond at Northshore Mall and Crowninshield Pond. These upstream
storage alternatives have been evaluated by the ACOE and by the City of Peabody consultants a total of four
times in recent years.Alternative alignments for the Project 1 culvert widening, and alternatives for the Project 2
' widening of the North River were also investigated to alleviate the flooding.
The footprint of the construction area has been minimized to disturb the smallest area possible to widen the
North River. The widened river will provide additional wildlife habitat due to its increase in size. Similarly, the
' Goldthwaite Brook culvert realignment limit of work has also been limited to reduce disturbance within Riverfront
Area.
1
-4-
1
1
' LAND SECTION — all proponents must fill out this section
I. Thresholds/Permits
'
A. Does the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to land (see 301 CMR 11.03(1)
Yes X 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' _1.2
Roadways, parking, and other paved areas2_1.9_ =0.9_ _1.0
Other altered areas (describe)
' UndevelopedareasZ _2.1_ _-1.9_ _0.2
Notes:
' 1. Represents approximate footprint of buildings required to be demolished to
accommodate the proposed culverts for Goldthwaite Brook and widening of the
North River. Portions of some buildings extend beyond the proposed Goldthwaite
Brook culvert and North River widening alignments, but the entire building
' footprint to be demolished is reported.
2. Represents approximate reduction in area as a result of the proposed widening of
the North River,which requires excavation and conversion of existing upland to a
' waterway.The proposed culverts for Goldthwaite Brook will be entirely below
grade, and any disturbed surfaces will be restored to existing conditions to the
extent practicable.
' B. Has any part of the project site been in active agricultural use in the last three years?
_Yes X No; if yes, how many acres of land in agricultural use(with 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 DEM-approved forest management plan:
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:
H. Describe the project's stormwater impacts and, if applicable, measures that the project will take to
' comply with the standards found in DEP's Stormwater Management Policy:
Best management practices for stormwater management will be incorporated into project
design to meet state standards.Work will be conducted in compliance with the Peabody
-5-
' Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions for the project. Prior to the start of
construction, all erosion and sedimentation controls will be approved by the Engineer and
inspected by the Peabody Conservation Commission if they so choose. Construction is
expected to be covered under the NPDES General Construction Stormwater and Remediation
' General Permits. Also,the project will not result in any new impervious surface within the
project area.
' I. Is the project site currently being regulated under M.G.L.c.21 E or the Massachusetts Contingency
Plan? Yes X No ; if yes,what is the Release Tracking Number(RTN)?
Based on review of the MassDEP Tier Classified Chapter 21 E Sites MassGIS datalayer,three
properties within the project area are currently being regulated: 166 Main Street, Peabody
(RTN 3-0004322); 174 Main Street, Peabody(RTN 3-0002675); and 60 Grove Street, Salem (RTN
3-0002131).
' J. If the project is site is within the Chicopee or Nashua watershed, is it within the Quabbin, Ware, or
Wachusett subwatershed?_Yes _X_No; if yes, is the project site subject to regulation under the
Watershed Protection Act?_Yes —No
K. Describe the project's other impacts on land:
' Installation of the culverts for Goldthwaite Brook will result in temporary traffic impacts
due to construction within a portion of Foster Street, Franklin Street, Church Street,
Central Street, and Wallis Street. Installation of the culverts will also result in temporary
loss of on-street parking spaces along Foster Street and in two parking lots adjacent to
Foster Street.Widening of the North River will result in temporary traffic impacts due to
the replacement of bridges at Caller Street and Howley Street in Peabody for Project 2. The
widening will also require the city to obtain permanent easements on privately-owned
' parcels to the south of the existing channel. For Project 3, easements may be required on
either the north or south side of the existing river.
t The project will result in temporary disruptions to railroad service. However, use of the
affected railroad is limited to infrequent freight use and impacts are anticipated to be
minimal.The City of Peabody Department of Public Services (D.P.S.)shall review all
coordination documents before they are sent to outside agencies or property owners.
' After D.P.S.approval the consultant shall coordinate with affected property owners and
the MBTA and Pan-AM Railways as project planning continues.
' III.. Consistency
A. Identify the current municipal comprehensive land use plan and the open space plan and describe
the consistency of the project and its impacts with that plan(s):
The project is compatible with the Peabody Master Plan(September 2002)objective to
implement a flooding improvement program to reduce flooding in the city's downtown and
related areas. The proposed project is also consistent with the need identified in the Peabody
' Recreation and Open Space Plan(2006)to improve waterway channels to mitigate downtown
flooding.
B. Identify the current Regional Policy Plan of the applicable Regional Planning Agency and describe
' the consistency of the project and its impacts with that plan:
The project is compatible with an Open Space Plan Action Recommendation presented in the
' Metropolitan Area Planning Council's MetroPian 2000(1990, with subsequent revisions) by
enabling the city of Peabody to implement a portion of the Peabody Recreation and Open
Space Plan.
' -6-
C. Will the project require any approvals under the local zoning by-law or ordinance (i.e. text or map
amendment, special permit, or variance)? Yes No —X; if yes, describe:
D.Will the project require local site plan or project impact review?
Yes _X_No; if yes, describe:
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(As previously indicated, based on review of the Natural
Heritage&Endangered Species Program's (NHESP) MassGIS datalayers,the North River and
Goldthwaite Brook project sites do not include any rare species resources.A MESA
Information Request Form has been submitted to NHESP for the project. NHESP's response
' only identified Priority Habitat and Estimated Habitat in the vicinity of the potential Downing
Road/Proctor Brook upstream storage area that provides habitat to the Blue-Spotted
Salamander(Ambystoma laterale),which is a state-listed rare species (see Attachment B).
' However,this storage area is no longer being considered and is not proposed for this project.
Thus, it is not anticipated the project will exceed any thresholds related to rare species or
habitat.) if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
' B. Does the project require any state permits related to rare species or habitat? _Yes _X_No
C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, 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.
' IL 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. Which rare species are known to occur within the Priority or Estimated Habitat(contact:
' Environmental Review, Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, Route 135,
Westborough, MA 01581, allowing 30 days for receipt of information):
2. Have you surveyed the site for rare species? _Yes_No; if yes, please include the
results of your survey.
' 3. 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.1 31A(see also 321 CMR 10.04)? _Yes _No; if yes, describe:
' C. Will the project alter"significant habitat"as designated by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries
and Wildlife in accordance with M.G.L. c.131A (see also 321 CMR 10.30)? _Yes No; if yes,
' describe:
D. Describe the project's other impacts on rare species including indirect impacts (for example,
stormwater runoff into a wetland known to contain rare species or lighting impacts on rare moth
' habitat):
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:
_7_
1
L
1
1 The proposed project will exceed the following review thresholds: new structure in a
regulatory floodway; alteration of Coastal Bank; alteration of greater than 500 linear feet of
Inland Bank; alteration of greater than one half acre of Riverfront Area, Land Subject to
Coastal Storm Flowage, and Bordering Land Subject to Flooding.
1 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:
1 Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Order of Conditions, Chapter 91 License,Water
Quality Certificate.
1 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.
1 II. Wetlands Impacts and Permits
A. Describe any wetland resource areas currently existing on the project site and indicate them on
1 the site plan:
The following wetland resources are located within the project area: Inland Bank, Coastal
Bank, Bordering Land Subject to Flooding, Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage, Land
1 Under Water, Land Under the Ocean, Fish Run, and Riverfront Area. Detailed wetland
mapping has not yet been conducted for the project site. However, a wetlands figure is
attached illustrating the DEP Wetlands datalayer from MassGIS (see Figure 7 in Attachment
1 A).
B. Estimate the extent and type of impact that the project will have on wetland resources, and
indicate whether the impacts are temporary or permanent:T=temporary; P=permanent
1 Coastal Wetlands Area(in square feet) or Length (in linear feet)
Land Under the Ocean 63.000 sf (T)
1 Designated Port Areas
Coastal Beaches
Coastal Dunes
Barrier Beaches
1 Coastal Banks 3,150 If (T)
Rocky Intertidal Shores
Salt Marshes
1 Land Under Salt Ponds
Land Containing Shellfish
Fish Runs 63,000 sf (T)
Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 78,750 sf (T)
1 Inland Wetlands
Bank 1,975 If (T)and 830 (P)
Bordering Vegetated Wetlands
1 Land under Water 28,650 sf(T) and 1,200(P) _
Isolated Land Subject to Flooding
Bordering Land Subject to Flooding 97,845 sf (T)
1 Riverfront Area 135,150 sf (T)
1
1
' C. Is any part of the project
1. a limited project? _X_Yes No
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? _X_Yes _No
' 4. dredging or disposal of dredged material? _X_Yes _No; if yes, describe the volume
of dredged material and the proposed disposal site:
' Approximately 4,250 cubic yards (CY)of material will be dredged from the bottom of
the North River Channel as part of the widening process.The dredged material will be
contained and transported to a permitted disposal location.
' 5. a discharge to Outstanding Resource Waters? —Yes _X_No
6. subject to a wetlands restriction order? _Yes _X_No; if yes, identify the area(in
square feet):
' D. 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 or a local Order of
' Conditions issued? _Yes _X_No; if yes, list the date and DEP file number:
Was the Order of Conditions appealed? _Yes No. Will the project require a variance from
the Wetlands regulations?_Yes _X_No
' E. Will the project:
1. be subject to a local wetlands ordinance or bylaw? _X_Yes _No
2. alter any federally-protected wetlands not regulated under state or local law?
' _Yes _X_No; if yes, what is the area(in s.f.)?
F. Describe the project's other impacts on wetlands (including new shading of wetland areas or
removal of tree canopy from forested wetlands):
' The wetland impacts estimated above would result from the installation of the proposed
Goldthwaite Brook culverts and North River widening.The proposed Goldthwaite Brook
culverts would redirect flow that currently travels through an open section of the brook
parallel to Foster Street, located north and south of Church Street. This section of the brook
has stone and granite block walls, a granite slab bottom, and provides minimal wetland
habitat benefits. This section will continue to carry flow from existing storm drain
connections.
III. Waterways and Tidelands Impacts and Permits
' A. Is any part of the project site 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? _Yes No; if yes, list the date and number:
' A Chapter 91 license application has not yet been prepared for any component of the
proposed project. During the application process, current Chapter 91 licenses and/or permits
affecting the project area will be identified.
' B. Does the project require a new or modified license 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 _ Change _0_ Total –0_
' Activities for the proposed project are water dependent uses.
' C. Is any part of the project
1. a roadway, bridge, or utility line to or on a barrier beach? Yes _X_No; if yes,
describe:
' -9-
' 2. dredging or disposal of dredged material? _X_Yes _No; if yes, volume of dredged
material_4,250 CY
3. a solid fill, pile-supported, or bottom-anchored structure in flowed tidelands or other
waterways? _Yes _X No; if yes,what is the base area?
' 4. within a Designated Port Area? Yes _X_No
D. Describe the project's other impacts on waterways and tidelands:
' The proposed project will result in temporary work within the North River during construction
activities associated with widening the river. Implementation of the project will significantly
reduce the frequency and magnitude of flooding in Downtown Peabody.
IV. Consistency:
A. Is the project located within the Coastal Zone? _X_Yes _No; if yes, describe the project's
' consistency with policies of the Office of Coastal Zone Management:
The tidally-influenced portion of the North River in the project area(the limits of Project 3,
from approximately Howley Street in Peabody to 600 feet downstream of Grove Street in
' Salem)is within the Coastal Zone. Construction activities within this area would comply with
relevant CZM policies and management principles. Although some operational activities
would occur within the Coastal Zone, all would comply with relevant CZM policies and
' management principles.Therefore, only minor CZM impacts would occur as a result of the
project.
' B. Is the project located within an area subject to a Municipal Harbor Plan? — Yes _X_No; if yes,
ith
identify the Municipal Harbor Plan and describe the project's consistency wthat plan:
WATER SUPPLY SECTION
1 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.
It. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe, in gallons/day, the volume and source of water use for existing and proposed activities
at the project site:
Existing Chane Total
Withdrawal from groundwater
' Withdrawal from surface water
Interbasin transfer
Municipal or regional water supply
' 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,
1. have you submitted a permit application? _Yes No; if yes, attach the application
2. have you conducted a pump test? _Yes No; if yes, attach the pump test report
t - to-
I�
' D. What is the currently permitted withdrawal at the proposed water supply source (in gallons/day)?
Will the project require an increase in that withdrawal? Yes No
' 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:
' Water supply well(s)(capacity; in gpd) Existing Change Total
Drinking water treatment plant(capacity, in gpd)
' Water mains (length, in miles)
F. If the project involves any 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 a state agency 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
' H. Describe the project's other impacts (including indirect impacts) on water resources, quality,
facilities and services:
III. Consistency-- Describe the project's consistency with water conservation plans or other plans to
' enhance water resources, quality,facilities and services:
WASTEWATER SECTION
' 1. 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, in gallons/day, the volume and disposal of wastewater generation for existing and
' proposed activities at the project site (calculate according to 310 CMR 15.00):
Existing Change Total
' Discharge to groundwater (Title 5)
Discharge to groundwater(non-Title 5)
Discharge to outstanding resource water
Discharge to surface water
tMunicipal or regional wastewater facility
TOTAL
t
1
' B. — Is there sufficient capacity in the existing collection system to accommodate the project?
Yes No; if no, describe where capacity will be found:
C. Is there sufficient existing capacity at the proposed wastewater disposal facility?_Yes No;
tif no, describe how capacity will be increased:
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:
Existing Chance Total
Wastewater treatment plant(capacity, in gpd)
Sewer mains(length, in miles)
Title 5 systems (capacity, in gpd)
' E. If the project involves any interbasin transfer of wastewater,which basins are involved,what is the
direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or proposed?
' F. Does the project involve new sewer service by an Agency of the Commonwealth to a municipality
or sewer district? Yes No
G. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage,treatment, processing,
combustion or disposal of sewage sludge, sludge ash, grit, screenings, or other sewage residual
materials? Yes No; if yes, what is the capacity(in tons per day):
Existing Change Total
' Storage
Treatment, processing
Combustion
' Disposal
H. Describe the project's other impacts (including indirect impacts)on wastewater,generation and
treatment facilities:
tIII. Consistency-- Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with federal, state,
regional, and local plans and policies related to wastewater management:
' A. If the project requires a sewer extension permit, is that extension included in a comprehensive
wastewater management plan? _Yes _No; if yes, indicate the EOEA number for the plan and
describe the relationship of the project to the plan
TRANSPORTATION -- TRAFFIC GENERATION SECTION
' 1. Thresholds/Permits
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.
' 12-
1
' 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. Describe how the project will affect transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and
services:
' 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:
1
1
' - ]3-
' ROADWAYS AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES SECTION
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.
IL Transportation Facility Impacts
' A. Describe existing and proposed transportation facilities at the project site:
Existing Change Total
Length (in linear feet)of new or widened roadway
Width (in feet)of new or widened roadway
' Other transportation facilities:
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:
ENERGY SECTION
' I. Thresholds/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.
' 11. Impacts and Permits
A. Describe existing and proposed energy generation and transmission facilities at the project site:
Existing Change 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)?
- 14-
1
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:
AIR QUALITY SECTION
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.
' It. 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:
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION
I. Thresholds/ 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
' - 15-
' 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.
It. 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
' 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:
' HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SECTION
I. Thresholds I Impacts
A. 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
all or any exterior part of such historic structure? _Yes _No; if yes, please describe:
B. 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 _No; if
yes, does the project involve the destruction of all or any part of such archaeological site? _Yes
' _X_No; if yes, please describe:
As previously indicated, based on review of the State Register of Historic Places MassGIS
' datalayer, the project site does not include any historic resources. A Project Notification Form
has been submitted to the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), and MHC has
requested that additional information be provided as it becomes available to aid in their
determination of potential impacts to historic or archaeological resources resulting from
t construction of the proposed project(see Attachment B for MHC response letter). Any
information provided by the MHC will be incorporated into future permit applications.
' - 16-
1
' C. If you answered "No"to all parts of both questions A and B, 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.
' D. Have you consulted with the Massachusetts Historical Commission? _Yes No; if yes,
attach correspondence
' E. Describe and assess the project's other impacts, direct and indirect, on listed or inventoried
historical and archaeological resources:
' II. 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:
' ATTACHMENTS:
1. Plan, at an appropriate scale, of existing conditions of the project site and its immediate
context, showing all known structures, roadways and parking lots, rail rights-of-way, wetlands
' and water bodies,wooded areas, farmland, steep slopes, public open spaces, and major
utilities.
2. Plan 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
1 of each phase).
3. Original U.S.G.S. map or good quality color copy(8-1/2x 11 inches or larger) indicating the
project location and boundaries
' 4 List of all agencies and persons to whom the proponent circulated the ENF, in accordance
with 301 CMR 11.16(2).
5. Other:
' CERTIFICATIONS:
1. The Public Notice of Environmental Review has been/will be published in the following
newspapers in accordance with 301 CMR 11.15(1):
' The Salem Evening News May 9, 2008
(Name) (Date)
' 2 This form has been circulated to Agencies and Persons in accordance
with 301 CMR 11.16(2).
����" ✓ ��� S 710`6
t Signature of Responsible Officer Date Signature of person preparing Date
or Proponent ENF (if different from above)
' ichard Carnevale Aaron Weieneth
ame (print or type) Name (print or type)
' City of Peabody, Dept of Public Services Metcalf& Eddy, Inc.
Firm/Agency Firm/Agency
' 50 Farm Avenue 701 Edgewater Drive
Street Street
' Peabody, MA 01960 Wakefield, MA 01880
Municipality/State/Zip Municipality/State/Zip
978.536-7126 781-224-6222
' Phone Phone
- 17-
.1
1
1
1
' ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIVITIES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 ATTACHMENT A: PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIVITIES
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
The City of Peabody, in particular Peabody Square, has experienced recurring flooding problems
since the 1950s (Figure 1). The flooding is largely attributed to Peabody's post World War II
' development and the deteriorating condition of the watercourses in downtown Peabody,which
were culverted and/or converted to channels to promote drainage and development adjacent to
' the streams. Five major flood events have occurred in Peabody since 1996: October 1996, June
' 1998, March 2001, April 2004, and.May 2006. These events have resulted in major flooding in
the Peabody Square area. Flooding of Peabody Square has caused significant public safety and
' public health impacts, considerable property damage, and widespread economic losses. The goal
of this project is to implement flood protection in the Peabody Square area for a 50-year storm
while not causing any adverse impacts downstream in Salem.
' The City has reviewed the flooding reports and data generated since 1954, including the various
alternatives to identify a practicable project to alleviate flooding in Peabody Square. The City
' has evaluated areas both upstream and downstream from Peabody Square to identify a range of
alternatives. A watershed-based solution was sought and this approach is reflected in the various
' alternatives that have been developed.
' To help provide enhanced technical support and review of the City's mitigation effort, an
independent Flood Mitigation Task Force(Task Force) was established by the Mayor. The Task
' Force coordinated peer and design review of flood mitigation activities as well as a series of
meetings to provide an opportunity for public input and comment concerning Peabody's long-
term response and planning for flooding problems. The Task Force is comprised mostly of
professional engineers, public officials, academics, and planners. As part of the City's ongoing
' community outreach, the Mayor's Office, the Community Development and Planning
t A-1
' Department, and the Department of Public Services have provided regular community updates to
' Peabody's Chamber of Commerce regarding the progress of the flood alleviation evaluation. To
help provide an opportunity to review and discuss the historical overview, engineering
' assessments, funding, and preliminary designs for flood mitigation, a public forum was held on
July 24, 2006 and was attended by over 100 people. Mayor Bonfanti was joined by engineers
from Metcalf& Eddy (M&E) and gave a slide presentation on the history of flooding as well as a
current update of flood mitigation efforts in Peabody. The forum was attended by Congressman
John Tierney and a number of local officials. Many residents from various neighborhoods
throughout the City also attended and were provided with an opportunity to discuss the City's
' plan.
' This Environmental Notification Form(ENF) and attachments identify and evaluate flood
mitigation alternatives that have been the subject of many public reviews and Task Force
tmeetings. This ENF identifies the potential impacts of the recommended alternative for the City
to provide flood mitigation for the City's downtown area(Peabody Square) for the 50-year 24-
hour storm event. It is anticipated that the implementation of the recommended alternative,
which includes widening of the North River and the realignment and expansion of the culverts
' carrying Goldthwaite Brook, would exceed the Wetlands, Waterways, and Tidelands
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act(MEPA) threshold for an ENF.
1
1.2 SUMMARY OF RECENT FLOOD EVENTS AND IMPACTS
' Five major flood events have occurred in Peabody since 1996: October 1996, June 1998, March
2001, April 2004, and May 2006. These events have resulted in major flooding in the Peabody
' Square area. Three of the flood events (October 1996, April 2004, and May 2006) were declared
Federal Disasters. Flooding of Peabody Square has caused significant public safety and public
' health impacts, considerable property damage, and widespread economic losses. Flooding has
also caused closure of major transportation arterials that lead to US Interstate 95 and MA Routes
' 128 and 114, as well as commercial rail service, for several days. The regional economy is
impacted by these events since several large businesses and manufacturers cannot receive or ship
' goods and consumers cannot access several businesses. A summary of some of the impacts
' A-2
1
' associated with the City's most recent significant flood event (May 2006 storm) is provided
' below:
• The City's main fire station and police department were isolated by floodwaters for
several days, thus impacting public safety response and threatening lives city-wide. The
loss of function costs associated with these two critical facilities was approximately$1.4
million,based on a Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA)benefit-cost
' analysis.
• Emergency response costs to the City's Department of Public Services, Police
' Department, and Fire Department were approximately$360,000.
• Eastman Gelatine Corporation suffered$1.2 million in damages and losses due to loss of
rail service.
' • The loss of function costs associated with road closures, delays, and detours were
estimated at$4.2 million,based on a FEMA benefit-cost analysis.
' • Over$4.6 million in additional FEMA insurance claims and assistance funds were
distributed to home and business owners.
' 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA
The proposed project area is located within the North River drainage area in the municipalities of
' Peabody and Salem, Massachusetts. Work is concentrated along Goldthwaite Brook in Peabody
Square (or Downtown Peabody) and the North River channel extending from Peabody Square to
' downstream of Grove Street in Salem. This area is heavily developed with a variety of land uses
(including residential, commercial, and industrial), with the exception of a portion of the North
' River adjacent to the Harmony Grove Cemetery. Figure I illustrates the proposed project area
associated with flood alleviation in Peabody Square.
' Of special note is the historical use of the project area, specifically the areas surrounding North
' River. Tanneries, or leather manufacturing facilities, were historically located along both the
north and south sides of the North River. The soil on and adjacent to these properties is known to
' contain hazardous material, and sediments immediately adjacent and within North River within
the project area are documented to contain hazardous materials.
' The North River is the main drainage conduit in Peabody. The North River begins
approximately 100 feet east of Wallis Street, near downtown Peabody, and extends
' A3
' approximately 8,200 feet through Peabody and Salem to its discharge near Beverly Harbor next
to North Street in Salem. The watershed for the North River encompasses nearly 11.5 square
miles, mostly from tributary areas in Peabody associated with Proctor Brook, Goldthwaite
' Brook, Tapley Brook, Strongwater Brook and Lawrence Brook. A plan showing the tributary
drainage boundaries associated with the above referenced brooks is presented in Figure 2.
' Approximately 9.2 square miles, or 80 percent of the tributary watershed area, is conveyed to the
North River through two culverts identified as the Goldthwaite Brook and the Proctor Brook
' culverts. These culverts converge into a main culvert at a subterranean intersection near the
Peabody District Courthouse,between Lowell Street and Railroad Avenue. The main culvert
' extends, with varying dimensions, a distance of approximately 1,400 feet to the discharge at the
North River near Wallis Street. During large storms, the main culvert is not capable of
' conveying the combined flow from Goldthwaite and Proctor Brooks, and this is the main cause
of flooding in the downtown area.
3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The City of Peabody has conducted or participated in numerous evaluations of the flooding in
' Peabody Square. The goal was to identify a plan that would 1) alleviate flooding of Peabody
Square, 2) not cause any additional flooding downstream in the City of Salem beyond what
' currently occurs under existing conditions, and 3)be practicable from a cost and construction
standpoint. This section summarizes the alternatives the City has evaluated to alleviate the
' flooding in Peabody Square over the last several decades, and also identifies a recommended
alternative.
1
' 3.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 - TIDAL GATE AND PUMP STATION AT BEVERLY
HARBOR
' A tidal gate and pump station on the North River at its confluence with Beverly Harbor
(downstream of Peabody Square) was first identified and evaluated in a 1979 study for the
Massachusetts Department of Public Works. This study was revisited and further analyzed by
CDM in 2003. The results of the CDM analysis indicate that the tidal gate would provide
A-4
' minimal flood mitigation for the Peabody Square area. Therefore, the City has eliminated this
' alternative.
3.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 -MODIFICATION OF NORTH RIVER DRAINAGE SYSTEM
(RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE)
1
A series of reports and studies have been prepared over the last several decades to examine the
' hydrology and hydraulics of the North River drainage system. A list of these reports is presented
below:
' • Flood Control at Peabody, dated 1956, prepared by Metcalf& Eddy. This report was
prepared following the 1954 Flume Pond dam failure that flooded Peabody Square. The
' report presented several recommendations to mitigate future flooding(including channel
improvements and diversion of flood flows). Some of the recommended improvements
were subsequently constructed.
' • Flood Investigation/Study, dated 1969,prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE). This study determined that extensive channel restoration and improvements
' required to mitigate flooding were not cost effective and recommended continuation of a
culvert and channel maintenance program.
• Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Study, dated 1979,prepared
' by Anderson-Nichols and Company, Inc. The purpose of this study was to permit
administration of the National Flood Insurance Program in Peabody, and it established
boundaries of the 100-year and 500-year floodplains in the City through use of the
' ACOE's HEC-2 hydraulic model.
• Salem-Peabody Connector Hydrology and Hydraulics Report, dated 1979, prepared by
' Howard Needles Tammen & Begendoff. This report suggested that the Peabody Square
drainage and flooding problems could be resolved by the proposed Massachusetts
Highway Department's (MHD) Peabody-Salem Connector Road. This project proposed
' significant channel improvements for Proctor Brook and the North River; however, the
MHD project and associated channel improvements were not implemented.
• Peabody Square Flooding, dated 1988, prepared by Camp, Dresser&McKee(CDM).
This study assessed the ability to attenuate flood flows before they reached Peabody
Square through upstream storage. A HEC-I hydrologic model of the watershed was
developed to support the analyses. The study concluded that upstream storage alone
would not eliminate the need for hydraulic improvements to the drainage channels and
culverts in Peabody Square.
' • Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan, dated 2000, prepared by the City of Peabody. This report
documented damages associated with the October 1996 flood in Peabody and
recommended the implementation of several structural projects and improvements,
' including dredging, channel improvements, drain repairs, and replacement of culverts.
' A-5
' • Draft Peabody Square Flood Control Study, dated 2003, prepared by CDM, hereinafter
' referred to as "the 2003 Study". This study included a summary of the earlier reports, a
detailed evaluation of various flood mitigation alternatives, and a recommended plan.
The study also converted the HEC-1 and HEC-2 models prepared for previous studies to
' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Storm Water Management Model (SWMM).
Conclusions from this report are described in more detail below.
• Peabody Annex of the Regional Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, dated 2005, prepared by
' the Metropolitan Area Planning Council. This report established hazard mitigation goals
for the City, including improvements to the North River and Goldthwaite Brook, and
estimated damages due to flooding events using assessor's data.
The 2003 Study noted above contains a series of recommended prioritized improvements to the
' Peabody Square area to minimize flooding events. Using these recommended improvements as a
basis, the City selected the proposed drainage improvement projects on the North River and
' Goldthwaite Brook as the recommended alternative for alleviating flooding in Peabody Square.
' Further hydraulic evaluation in 2007 by M&E refined the project boundaries noted in the 2003
Study and the plan was divided into several separate projects (Projects 1, 2, and 3) as defined
' below. Projects 1 and 2 are the subject of a draft report entitled "Preliminary Design of Flood
Mitigation Facilities for Peabody Square Area" (PDR)prepared by M&E and submitted to the
' City of Peabody in April 2008. A figure showing the approximate locations of each project is
presented in Figure 3.
' ➢ Project 1 —Relocating and enlarging Goldthwaite Brook to include twin 4-feet high by
10-feet wide box culverts extending approximately 1,950 linear feet from Oak Street to
its confluence with the North River approximately 100 feet east of Wallis Street, and
' cleaning approximately 990 feet of the original Foster Street culvert upstream of Oak
Street and east of Foster Street. The existing culvert downstream of Franklin Street will
remain in service to convey local drainage and flow from Proctor Brook to the North
' River. Multiple alternative alignments for the enlarged Goldthwaite Brook were
identified in the same general area.
' ➢ Project 2—Widening approximately 1,600 feet of the North River to a width of 38 feet
(or 41 feet, depending on the type of wall selected) extending from the confluence of
Goldthwaite Brook with the North River(approximately 100 feet east of Wallis Street) to
the Howley Street bridge over the North River. Project 2 will also require the
replacement of the Caller Street bridge to allow the bridge culvert width to match the
width of the river widening. This project(and Project 1 above) is located entirely within
' the City of Peabody.
➢ Project 3—Widening approximately 400 feet of the North River downstream of Howley
Street in Peabody and about 2,700 feet in Salem. Project 3 will require the replacement of
' several bridges spanning the North River in order to accommodate the proposed river
' A-6
widening, including: Grove Street bridge in Salem, railroad crossing west of Grove Street
' in Salem, and a pedestrian footbridge downstream of Howley Street in Salem. The
implementation of Project 3 is being pursued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOE)under their Section 205 program.
The remaining section of the North River not included in either Project 2 or Project 3 extends
' approximately 3,300 feet from a point opposite Friend Street in Salem to the mouth of the North
River in Beverly Harbor at North Street(Route 114). This portion of the North River was
' recently widened or otherwise improved as part of a Massachusetts Highway Department
project.
' 3.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 - UPSTREAM STORAGE
Using the watershed approach to identify potential solutions to the flooding in Peabody Square,
' several areas upstream of Peabody Square have been identified as potential locations where
excess runoff could be stored during a flood, thereby attenuating the peak flows. Storage options
' were evaluated using a hydraulic model for the following locations: Cedar Pond, Upper Flume
Pond, Lower Flume Pond, Sydney Pond, a wetland upstream of Downing Road, the detention
' pond at Northshore Mall and Crowninshield Pond (Figure 3). For the 50-year, 24-hour storm,
the peak elevations in the upstream ponds assessed for storage potential are close to or exceed
' the critical flood elevations (Table 1).
Modifications to increase the peak hydraulic grade line in these ponds could aggravate existing
flooding. No additional upstream storage is therefore available under existing conditions to
' attenuate peak flows and mitigate downstream flooding in Peabody Square without further
aggravating flooding upstream.
' The upstream storage has now been evaluated four times, twice by the ACOE (in 1969 and
' 1978), by CDM in 1988, and by M&E in 2007. All four studies contain the unanimous
conclusion that upstream storage will not significantly decrease peak flows and runoff causing
' downtown flooding. In addition, this alternative was further evaluated to determine if upstream
1
' A-7
' TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STORAGE LOCATIONS
Peak Localized
Elevation Storage Benefit
Drainage Approximate During 50- Critical Feasibility under
Area Surface Area year Storm Elevation for 50-year Further
Location (acres)[ __(acres)' (ft)3 (ft)4 Storms Stud
Cedar Pond 785 48.0 96.9 96.9 No Yes
Upper Flume 3,251 15.5 42.2 39.3 No No
Pond
Lower Flume 3,709 32.6 36.5 35.1 to No No
' Pond 35.8
Sydney Pond 1,370 7.6 48.8 46.5 No No
Wetland 650 42.7 57.0 56.5 No Yes
' Upstream of -
Downing Road
North Shore 112 2.2 To be 53.5 Tobe Yes
Mall evaluated evaluated
Crowninshield 1,755 2.0 37.9 37.3 To be No
Pond evaluated
' Notes:
1. Area tributary to storage area.
2. Surface area based on available topographic mapping.
3. Peak hydraulic grade in storage area during 50-year,24-hour storm under existing conditions based on
hydrologic/hydraulic model.
4. Critical elevation,based on available mapping,at which flooding may occur upstream. Specific location
' described in text.
5. The feasibility of storage was assessed by comparing the peak hydraulic grade for the 50-year storm under
existing conditions with the critical elevation.
6. Investigation is on-going as part of another project andwillbe incorporated into the hydraulic model at a
later date,if warranted. -
' storage could be implemented to reduce the modifications of the North River drainage system
(the recommended alternative). Hydraulic analyses were performed to determine if smaller or
' fewer culverts could be used to convey Goldthwaite Brook and/or if the North River
modifications could be minimized. However, the results indicated that increasing the peak
' hydraulic grade lines in the identified points upstream in the watershed would not result in a
decrease in the amount of structural modifications that are proposed in North River and
' Goldthwaite Brook. Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from further evaluation.
' A-8
i
' 3.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 -DREDGING THE NORTH RIVER
' Presented in this section is a discussion of dredging the North River as an alternative to, or in
conjunction with, widening of the North River. The 2003 Study included a simulation assuming
the North River is dredged to an average dimension of 8 feet deep by 20 feet wide for a distance
extending from 100 feet east of Wallis Street to North Street in Salem. The deepened invert of
' the channel would require replacement of the Caller Street and Howley Street culverts together
with all other bridges and culverts along the North River in Peabody and Salem. The simulation
' concluded that there would be no change in the number of flood events over the 50 year
simulation period when compared to existing conditions at Goldthwaite Brook along Foster
Street and minimal change in Peabody Square, and therefore the dredging option was not
considered further in the 2003 Study.
For dredging to have a positive effect in reducing the number of flood events in Peabody, the
' scope of dredging would need to be increased to include a deeper channel and a wider river than
the above referenced dimensions. Thus, a combination of dredging and widening of the river
' would need to be considered.
' Hydraulic modeling performed as part of the PDR determined an optimum river channel width of
38 feet to minimize flood events. The depth of the channel in the North River is variable.
' However, the typical depth of the channel is approximately 5 feet in the Project 2 area. A
channel with dimensions 5 feet high by 38 feet wide yields a cross section of 190 square feet,
' representing a typical cross section for the Project 2 river widening work. To achieve similar
modeling results, any combination of dredging and widening that is studied should have a
' comparable cross section. For example, if the river is widened to 24 feet instead of 38 feet, the
depth of the river will need to be approximately 8 feet to achieve the same cross sectional area.
' To eliminate adverse bed slope, a combination of dredging/widening would need to extend at
least for the length of the North River from its upstream end(approximately 100 feet east of
' Wallis Street) to the downstream end of the Project 3 limit,being approximately 600 feet
downstream of Grove Street in Salem. The downstream end referenced above also represents the
' upstream limit of where the North River has already been widened in Salem.
A-9
' Within the limits of the Project 1 and Project 2 area, a general comparison of the
tdredging/widening alternative (approximately 8 feet deep by 24 feet wide) versus the river
widening alternative (approximately 5 feet deep by 38 feet wide) is presented below:
1. The river will be widened under both alternatives. Therefore, a wall on the south side of
the river will be required for both alternatives. Because the river will be deeper under the
dredging/widening alternative, the south wall will need to be extended further into the
ground. Thus, the south wall will be more costly for the dredging/widening alternative
' than for the widening alternative.
2. Various sections of the north wall were recently repaired or replaced under the North
' River Canal—North Wall Rehabilitation Project. Further work related to river widening
will require minimal work to the north wall. However, if dredging/widening is performed
to make the river deeper than its current state, the existing north wall would be
' undermined, requiring additional north wall replacement work that would not otherwise
be needed. The result will be a higher cost for the dredging/widening alternative.
3. The unit cost to excavate, handle and dispose material from within the river limits
' (between the existing north and south walls) is more than the unit cost to excavate,handle
and dispose material from outside of the river limits because material within the river
limits is more likely to be contaminated. Approximately the same quantity of material
will need to be excavated and disposed under both alternatives. However, the river
dredging/widening alternative will have a larger quantity of material within the river
limits to be excavated and disposed. The result will be a higher cost for the
dredging/widening alternative.
4. The deeper river under the dredging/widening alternative will likely collect more
' sediment,requiring more frequent river cleaning work to maintain the working cross
section. The result will be a higher maintenance cost for the dredging/widening
alternative.
5. Bridges across the North River need to be replaced under both alternatives.
1 In conclusion, the above-referenced general comparison shows that costs for both construction
and long tern maintenance would be more for the river dredging/widening alternative than for
the river widening alternative. Therefore, dredging, or a combination of dredging and river
widening, is not considered a viable alternative for solving the Peabody Square flooding
' problems, and was not considered for further analysis.
A-10
1
1
' 4 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES
' The recommended alternative includes Project 1, Project 2, and Project 3, as briefly described in
the section above. Presented in this section is a description of the major work tasks that will be
' required.
' 4.1 PROJECT 1
Project 1 will require the construction of twin 4-feet high by 10-feet wide culverts to convey the
' flow of Goldthwaite Brook from Oak Street to the North River approximately 100 feet east of
Wallis Street. Project 1 will also require cleaning of the original Foster Street culvert upstream of
Oak Street and east of Foster Street.
' The existing culvert will remain in service from the North River to a location approximately 70
feet southwest of Franklin Street at Foster Street; however, the tributary drainage of the existing
culvert will be changed to include only some local drainage and Proctor Brook. The flow from
Goldthwaite Brook will be diverted into the proposed twin 4-feet high by 10-feet wide culverts at
Oak Street and conveyed directly to the North River. Figure 4 is a plan showing the proposed
' locations of the Project 1 Goldthwaite Brook culverts and various ancillary features such as the
30-feet wide corridor for the culverts, permanent easement locations, possible locations for
contractor's staging area, and lot numbers from city assessor's plans.
' The proposed twin culverts would extend approximately 410 feet north along Foster Street
starting at Oak Street, then turn west and north behind the building on lot 085-177, cross Church
' Street, extend through the city-owned parking lot, and cross Lowell Street to the Peabody Square
i
monument. From the monument to the North River, three alternative alignments were analyzed:
' an alignment crossing the railroad tracks, an alignment south of the railroad tracks, and an
alignment in Mill Street. The recommended alternative follows an alignment south of the
t railroad tracks to minimize the relocation of utilities and avoid construction close to existing
building foundations.
' A-11
' The twin 4-feet high by 10-feet wide culverts will be precast sections constructed to depths
' ranging from approximately 6-feet to 9-feet below ground surface to invert. On each side of the
culvert excavation, steel sheeting left-in-place and extending 4-feet below the bottom of the
' excavation will be used to minimize the excavation width and settlement. Paved areas above the
culverts will comply with City requirements for pavement in city roads. It is anticipated that a
minimum of 4-inches of pavement in two courses will be needed and that this will be underlain
with 12-inches gravel base course on top of select borrow extending to the top of the culverts. In
' unpaved areas, a minimum of 6-inches loam and seed underlain with bank run gravel to the top
of the culverts is proposed. For cleaning purposes and flushing of sediments when necessary,
' access manholes would be provided at 200 feet intervals on each culvert.
' Where Goldthwaite Brook enters Foster Street upstream of Mason Street, the flow is conveyed
through two existing culverts which extend downstream toward Oak Street. One culvert,
' constructed by the City in 2000,measures 4-feet high by 10-feet wide and extends downstream
in Foster Street to Oak Street. The other existing culvert, identified as the original Foster Street
' culvert, crosses Foster Street upstream of Mason Street and extends cross country east of Foster
Street a distance of approximately 990 feet to a convergence with the existing 4-feet high by
' 10-feet wide culvert in Foster Street at Oak Street. To allow the existing culverts to convey the
required flow during the 50-year storm, Project 1 includes cleaning the original Foster Street
' culvert, including the open channel portion of the culvert.
' A transition structure will be constructed on top of the existing culverts where they converge in
Foster Street at Oak Street. The structure will be cast-in-place with varying dimensions including
' approximate maximum 26-feet wide by 24-feet long. The transition structure will be designed to
convey flow from the upstream existing culverts to the downstream proposed new twin 4-feet
' high by 10-feet wide culverts.
4.2 PROJECT 2
' The North River within the limits of the Project 2 area extends a distance of approximately 1,600
linear feet, from the upstream end of the North River(approximately 100 feet east of Wallis
' Street) to Howley Street. Project 2 will require widening the North River within the above
' A-12
' referenced stretch. The width of the river will be either 38 feet or 41 feet, depending on the type
' of wall chosen for the south side of the river(38 feet for steel sheet pile wall or 41 feet for rip rap
wall). Approximately 180 feet downstream of Strongwater Brook, the river traverses two 90
' degree bends, which act as a constriction during storm events. As part of this work, the path of
the river will be changed to eliminate the two 90 degree bends (Figure 5).
The North River upstream of Howley Street has a width that varies between approximately
' 11 feet to 22 feet. Under Project 2, the river will be widened a distance of 38 feet or 41 feet
extending to the south from the inside face of the walls on the north side of the river. Presented
' in Figure 6 is a cross-section of the North River showing some of the typical features required
for the Project 2 North River widening. Major items required for the Project 2 work include the
' construction of a new south wall to form the south boundary of the river for the entire length of
the Project 2 area between the upstream end of the North River and Howley Street; construction
' of a new north wall to form the north boundary of the river between Strongwater Brook and
Howley Street; improving the flow characteristics of the river by eliminating the two 90 degree
' bends between Strongwater Brook and Howley Street; constructing new culverts to carry the
river flow underneath the railroad tracks at the railroad crossing downstream of Strongwater
' Brook; and building demolition work. Material that exists within the 38 feet (or 41 feet) wide
path of the proposed river widening area will be removed, including the existing south wall and
' the soil between the existing south wall and the proposed new south wall.
tA new wall will be required along the south side of the river. The south wall will end
approximately 15 feet from the right-of-way lines on both sides of Caller Street. The 15 feet
' setback on each side of Caller Street is necessary to account for the future replacement of the
Caller Street Bridge. The setback is intended to provide space to allow a transitional tie-in
' between the Caller Street Bridge and the south wall. A 15-feet setback will also be required on
' the upstream side of Howley Street to allow a transitional tie-in between the south wall and the
future replacement of the Howley Street Bridge. At the confluence of Strongwater Brook with
' the North River, the south wall will end on both sides of Strongwater Brook, leaving a space
approximately 10 feet wide for Strongwater Brook.
1
' A-13
Four alternative wall types were reviewed as part of this project, including a sheet pile wall, a
stone masonry wall on a concrete foundation slab, a concrete wall with granite masonry veneer
on a concrete foundation slab, and a rip-rap wall. The City has not yet determined which wall
' would be used to line the south side of North River, but to evaluate potential impacts and land
disturbance, the assumption has been made that a rip-rap wall will be selected since this wall
' design represents the largest footprint.
tThe widening of the North River within the Project 2 area will require the replacement of the
existing Caller Street bridge. The details of the bridge design are not yet known. The widening of
tthe North River within the Project 2 area also extends to Howley Street, and would include the
replacement of the existing Howley Street Bridge. The replacement of the Howley Street Bridge
' is proposed to be designed and constructed by the Massachusetts Highway Department
(MassHighway). The City is currently negotiating with MassHighway regarding the ultimate
' width of the river at the bridge; however, conservative estimates for impacts resulting from this
bridge replacement are reflected in this ENF.
' 4.3 PROJECT 3
' Project 3 is being conducted by the ACOE. The project entails widening approximately 400 feet
of the North River downstream of Howley Street in Peabody and about 2,700 feet in Salem.
' Project 3 will require the replacement of several bridges spanning the North River to
accommodate the proposed river widening, including: Grove Street bridge in Salem, railroad
' crossing west of Grove Street in Salem, and a pedestrian footbridge downstream of Howley
Street in Salem. The anticipated depth and width of the river in the Project 3 area is anticipated
to match that achieved in the Project 2 area to avoid hydraulic inconsistencies. As the ACOE
' progresses with their feasibility study for Project 3, coordination will continue between the City
of Peabody and ACOE.
' S PROJECT IMPACTS
Overall, the project is anticipated to result in a net benefit to the environment. The flooding
experienced in Peabody Square is anticipated to be alleviated for storms up to the 50-year 24-
hour storm. In addition, an increase in wetland resource areas, as defined by the Massachusetts
A-14
1
' Wetlands Protection Act, is also anticipated. Although areas of the North River and Goldthwaite
' Brook, and their associated resource areas, will be disturbed during construction, the North River
will ultimately be widened, providing additional aquatic habitat( including land under water)
and additional flood storage capacity within bordering land subject to flooding; removing
potentially hazardous materials lining the south side of the river(and portions along the north
' side); and increasing flow in Goldthwaite Brook during storm events. In addition, the City of
Peabody will reduce the tremendous financial impacts that result from continued flooding of
' Peabody Square during significant storm events. Improvement of flooding conditions could also
impact the development potential and investment trends in the City of Peabody as businesses
' would be less likely to fear flooding of their properties during storm events.
' The following paragraphs detail the types of impacts anticipated for the project. This discussion
is based on preliminary/conceptual designs prepared during the early planning phase of the
' recommended flood mitigation plan. More detailed information regarding potential impacts will
be available at later stages of design for the project. The impacts summarized below are intended
' to be conservative in nature, and impacts resulting from final design and implementation of the
proposed project may be of a lesser magnitude. In particular, the final design of the south wall
' along the widened North River between Goldthwaite Brook and Howley Street was assumed to
be a sloped wall, resulting in a larger footprint of altered area compared with a vertical wall. In
' addition, Project 3 has not yet reached the conceptual design stage, thus impacts associated with
Project 3 are very general.
1
Correspondence from various state and federal agencies regarding potential environmental
' resources are provided in Attachment B of this ENE
1 5.1 FLOODING
The performance of the recommended improvements was assessed based on the 50-year, 24-hour
' storm and the May 2006 flood. Table 2 presents a summary of the results. The recommended
improvements for Projects 1, 2, and 3 (Run 4 in Table 2) are predicted to eliminate flooding
' during the 50-year, 24-hour storm in the Peabody Square area and should not cause adverse
' impacts in Salem. Constructing Projects I and 2 before Project 3 (Run 9 in Table 2) will result in
' A-15
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF PEAK HYDRAULIC GRADE FOR BASELINE CONDITION,RECOMMENDED
IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS 1,2,AND 3 (RUN 4) AND RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS FOR PROJECTS 1 AND
2 (RUN 8) FOR 50-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM AND MAY 2006 FLOOD
Run 4: Recommended Run 9:Recommended
Baseline(Existing) Improvements(Projects 1,2, Improvements Projects 1 and 2
Conditions 3 Onl
Flood Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak
Threshold Elevation 50- Elevation Elevation 50- Elevation Peak Elevation Elevation
Elevation year Storm May-2006 year Storm May-2006 50-year Storm May-2006
Location Model Node Cit feet feet Flood feet feet Flood feet feet Flood feet
Goldthwaite Brook
at Foster Street Gold05945 Peabody 24.1 27.07 27.18 23.86 23.89 23.84 23.81
Goldthwaite Brook
at Oak Street Gold04868 Peabody 21 25.24 25.26 18.35 18.36 18.34 18.34
Peabody Square
near Courthouse Nor03643 Peabody 21.7 23.4 23.37 18.6 16.5 19.17 16.76
North River 100-ft
East of Wallis
Street Nor02O60 Peabody 13.5 15.83 15.78 11.48 11.41 13.25 12.95
North River at
Caller Street Nor01214 Peabody 13.3 14.7 14.59 10.94 10.66 13.2 12.83
North River at
Howley Street Nor00370 Peabody 10.4 12.85 12.66 10.17 9.94 12.9 12.54
Railroad Bridge
Approximately 550
ft.Upstream of
Grove St. NorSO4600 Salem 9.2 8.95 8.6 7.09 6.95 9.16 8.67
Grove Street NorS03958 Salem 10.1 7.88 7.73 6.87 7.08 8.06 7.69
Flint Street NorS02400 Salem 9.4 5.87 6.15 5.94 6.72 5.83 6.14
Upstream Side of
North Street NorS00200 Salem 8.1 5.69 5.93 5.7 6.34 5.67 5.92
Downstream Side
of North Street NorS00000 Salem 9 5.45 5.64 5.45 5.94 5.45 5.64
(1)Includes the reach between Strongwater Brook and Howley Street
A-16
1
' continued flooding at Howley Street for the 50-year, 24-hour storm, and the May 2006 flood. In
' Salem, nominal increases in the hydraulic grade are predicted if Projects 1 and 2 are constructed
before Project 3; however, the peak hydraulic grade is predicted to be below the flood threshold
' at the locations studied in Salem during the 50-year 24-hour storm.
' 5.2 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS (NOISE AND TRAFFIC)
' Project 1 is anticipated to extend for approximately 18 months, while Projects 2 and 3 are
anticipated to occur over 24-month and 15-month periods, respectively. Construction-related
' noise and traffic impacts are anticipated to be experienced locally in the immediate vicinity of
the project areas during construction. Typical construction vehicle and equipment noise, as well
' as excavation, dredging and other construction activities may impact nearby businesses along the
Project 2 and Project 3 alignments. Construction of Project 1 is also located in the vicinity of
' existing residences, which may also be impacted by noise and traffic. Given the highly
developed areas along the North River, the noise and traffic impacts are not anticipated to be
' significant. In addition, the impacts would be temporary in nature and cease upon completion of
the project.
5.3 WETLAND RESOURCE AREAS
' Identification of impacts to wetland resource areas was based on review of available wetlands
mapping layers from Massachusetts Geographic Information System(MassGIS; Figure 7). A
' wetland delineation will need to be conducted as project design continues to verify anticipated
impacts. Modeling conducted for this project indicates that the tidal influence along the North
' River ends at approximately the Howley Street bridge. Therefore, the wetland resource area
impacts for Projects 2 and 3 were identified as coastal resources south of the Howley Street
' bridge, while the area upstream is considered inland. Based on the preliminary information
currently available in the preliminary design phase, Table 3 presents total impacts for all three
' projects by resource area, as defined in the Wetlands Protection Act. A more detailed breakdown
and discussion of impacts by project is also provided below. Tables 4, 5, and 6 present impacts to
' wetland resource areas by Project.
' A-17
I
1
' TABLE 3. APPROXIMATE WETLAND IMPACTS FOR ENTIRE
FLOOD ALLEVIATION PLAN (PROJECTS 1, 2, AND 3)'
' Total Approximate Wetland Impacts Temporary Permanent
Coastal Wetlands
' Land Under the Ocean 63,000 sf 0
Coastal Banks 3,150 If 0
Fish Runs 63,000 sf 0
' Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 78,750 sf See Note 2
Inland Wetlands
Bank 1,9751f 8301f
' Land Under Water 28,650 sf 1,200 sf
Bordering Land Subject to Flooding 97,845 sf See Note 2
Riverfront Area 135,150 sf 0
Notes:
1. Impacts reflect a"worst-case" scenario where a rip-rap bank would be installed for the
' widened North River,requiring a total top channel width of 41 feet(as opposed to 38
feet for a vertical wall).
2.The intent of the project is to provide flood mitigation,and the project will result in
' the net gain of approximately 18,800 cubic yards of storage capacity within the 100 year
floodplain.
Project 1 Impacts
tBeginning at the transition structure in Foster Street at Oak Street, the flow from Goldthwaite
' Brook will be diverted away from the existing culvert and into the proposed new twin 4-feet high
by 10-feet wide culverts. Thus, the existing culvert downstream of Oak Street will remain in
' service but will convey only local street drainage until it connects with Proctor Brook further
downstream near the Courthouse. Approximately 400 feet of open channel exists along this
' stretch of the existing culvert. In this location, the project will result in impacts to the land under
water and inland bank. Although stormwater from local drainage will still travel into and along
' this channel during precipitation events from surrounding land, the perennial streamflow from
Goldthwaite Brook will be diverted from this path into the new twin culverts. This loss of natural
flow is anticipated to permanently impact the inland bank along both sides of this 400-foot long
drainage channel as well as approximately 1,200 square feet of land under water(assumes a 3-
foot width of the channel; Table 4). However, it should be noted that the inland bank and land
under water along this short stretch of drainage channel is comprised of an artificial impervious
' material and thus these resource areas are likely to be significant to flood control and storm
' A-18
1
' damage prevention only, and provide minimal benefit to the remaining interests of the
tMassachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (WPA), including wildlife habitat, water supply,
pollution prevention, and fisheries protection(see CMR 10.56(1) and CMR 10.54(1)).
' TABLE 4. PROJECT 1 WETLAND IMPACTS
' Project 1: Goldthwaite Brook Width(ft) Length(ft) Square Ft Resource Area/Wetland
Culvert installation, culvert removal, Bordering Land Subject to
including transition chamber 27 1,935 52,245 Flooding
' Culvert installation, including
transition chamber 27 400 10,800 Riverfront Area
Abandoning of existing culvert and Land Under Water(1,200
' drainage channel 3 400 1,200 sf); hfland Bank(800 If)
Existing Foster Street Culvert
Maintenance NA 375 NA Inland Bank
' Connection to North River NA 30 NA Inland Bank
sf=square feet; if=linear feet
' No inland banks or land under water are present/will be impacted by abandoning/reducing flow
in the existing culvert carrying Goldthwaite Brook. Installation of the new twin culverts to carry
' the brook will be located in bordering land subject to flooding(BLSF) with a total anticipated
area of disturbance of 52,245 square feet. Since the ground surface within this BLSF will be
' restored to pre-construction contours upon completion of construction, no permanent impacts to
BLSF are anticipated.
At the point where the new twin culverts carrying Goldthwaite Brook meet the North River,
approximately 30 linear feet of inland bank on the south side of North River is anticipated to be
impacted to create the discharge point of the brook into the river. For the Foster Street culvert
' cleaning, no wetland impacts are anticipated to result from cleaning of the culverted area. A
' small portion of this drainage channel is daylighted and dry most of the year. Therefore,
approximately 375 feet of inland bank are anticipated to be temporarily impacted.
' Since the existing culverted portion of Goldthwaite Brook is greater than 200 feet in length, the
' riverfront area ends at a line perpendicular to the culvert at either end, thus work over/around the
existing culvert will not be located in riverfront area for most of the new dual-culvert alignment.
' The only riverfront area impacted would be that associated with the 400-foot daylighted portion
' A-19
' of the stream, resulting in approximately 10,800 square feet of impact to riverfront area and
' bordering land subject to flooding. The culverts are proposed to mitigate flooding in Peabody
Square and therefore are intended to provide a net benefit to the flood control and storm damage
tprevention interests of the WPA.
' Project 2 Impacts
Widening of the North River north of Howley Street is proposed along an approximately 1,600
' linear foot section, resulting in impacts to the souther inland bank for that distance (Table 5). In
addition, excavation for the widening will occur in art area of bordering land subject to flooding
' since it is located within the 100-year floodplain, as well as riverfront area to North River. An
area approximately 45,600 square feet will be impacted in these resource areas. Dredging an
' average of one foot from the bottom of the existing streambed will result in a net gain of storage
capacity in the river; however, it will also result in the disturbance of 26,400 square feet of land
' under water. The additional material removed(approximately 375 feet in length and 6 feet in
width) from the North River channel in front of a short section of the existing north wall is
' anticipated to impact approximately 2,250 square feet of land under water.
' Project 3 Impacts
Widening of the North River south of Howley Street is proposed along a 3,100-foot alignment,
' resulting in impacts to the southern coastal bank of the North River along that section(Table 6).
Excavation of areas just outside the existing channel along the 3,100-foot length will extend
' approximately 25 feet in width,resulting in impacts to approximately 78,750 square feet of land
subject to coastal storm flowage and riverfront area. Dredging the existing channel bottom at an
' average width of 20 feet would result in approximately 63,000 square feet of impact to land
under the ocean and a fish run.
1
' 5.4 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Material dredged from the riverbed and removed for the river-widening activities associated with
Project 2 is anticipated to contain hazardous materials that require special handling. Any
' A-20
TABLE 5. PROJECT 2 WETLAND IMPACTS
Project 2: North River-Inland Width ft Length ft Square Ft Resource Area/Wetland
South wall removed NA 1,600 NA Inland Bank
Excavation for widening(including south
wall) 28.5 1,600 45,600 BLSF,Riverfront
Dredge existing channel 16.5 1,600 26,400 Land Under Water
Material removal from in front of north
wall 6 1 375 1 2,250 Land Under Water
Note:North River impacts reflect a"worst-case" scenario where a rip-rap bank would be installed,requiring a total
channel width of 41 feet(as opposed to 38 feet for a vertical wall).
TABLE 6. PROJECT 3 WETLAND IMPACTS
Project 3:North River-Coastal Width ft Length ft Square Ft Resource Area/Wetland
South wall removed NA 3,150 NA Coastal Bank
Excavation for widening(including E g( g south
wall 25 3,150 78,750 LSCSF,Riverfront
Land Under the Ocean,Fish
Dredge existing channel 20 3,150 63,000 Run
Note:North River impacts reflect a"worst-case" scenario where a rip-rap bank would be installed,requiring a total
channel width of 41 feet(as opposed to 38 feet for a vertical wall).
A-21
' hazardous materials used during construction would be stored, transported, and disposed of in
' accordance with state and federal regulations. Hazardous materials handled during construction
would also be reported, stored, transported, and disposed of following the procedures in the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan. The contractor would also be required to obtain coverage and
comply with requirements of the Remediation General Permit, as appropriate.
' 5.5 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
Based on review of the Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program's (NHESP) MassGIS
' datalayers, the North River and Goldthwaite Brook project sites do not include any rare species
resources. A MESA Information Request Form has been submitted to NHESP for the project.
' NHESP's response only identified Priority Habitat and Estimated Habitat in the vicinity of the
potential Downing Road/Proctor Brook upstream storage area that provides habitat to the Blue-
Spotted Salamander(Ambystoma laterale), which is a state-listed rare species (see Attachment
B). However, this storage area is no longer being considered and is not proposed for this project.
1
5.6 FISHERIES
' According to a letter received from the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, "the North
River, including the area ofproposed work,provides important habitat for the migration and
' spawning of the diadromous species rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), American eel (Anguilla
rostrata) and white perch (Moron americanus). 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."Therefore, work required within the existing channel of the
' North River will be avoided between March I and June 1 of any given year. Consultation with
the Division of Marine Fisheries will continue during the permitting phases of the project.
1
' 5.7 CULTURAL RESOURCES
' Based on review of the State Register of Historic Places MassGIS datalayer, the project site does
not include any historic resources. A Project Notification Form has been submitted to the
' Massachusetts Historical Commission(MHC), and MHC has requested that additional
' A-22
' information be provided as it becomes available to aid in their determination of potential impacts
' to historic or archaeological resources resulting from construction of the proposed project(see
Attachment B for MHC response letter). Any information provided by the MHC will be
' incorporated into future permit applications.
' 6 CONCLUSION
' The City of Peabody has tried to design this project in a sustainable manner of meeting the
project objective of reducing flooding in Peabody Square while avoiding downstream flooding
' impacts and reducing the overall environmental impacts of the selected alternative. Although the
recommended alternative to alleviate flooding in the Peabody Square area during the 24-hour 50-
year storm will result in short-term and long-term impacts to the environment, these impacts are
outweighed by the expected net positive benefits to the environment.
1
1
1
1
' A-23
1
' 7 REFERENCES
Anderson-Nichols and Company, Inc., 1979. Peabody Federal Emergency Management Agency
' Flood Insurance Study.
Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM), 1988. Peabody Square Flooding.
CDM, 2000. Peabody Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan.
' CDM, 2003. Draft Peabody Square Flood Control Study.
Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR), 2007. Electronic Database Report: Peabody
' Corridor North River Peabody, MA 01960.
Flow Assessment Services (FAS), 2006. Report from FAS containing the results of the
' continuous flow monitoring performed from October-December 2006. December 28,
2006.
' J.F. White Contracting Company, 2006. Goldthwaite Brook Inspection Peabody, Massachusetts
for Metcalf& Eddy. November 2006.
' Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), 1995. Instruction Manual
for Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup (BWSC) Transmittal Forms. BWSC-104 through
' BWSC-111, BWSC-113, BWSC-114. May 8, 1995.
MassDEP, 2002. Hydrology Handbook for Conservation Commissioners: A Guide to
' Understanding Hydrologic and Hydraulic Data and Calculations Under the Massachusetts
Wetlands Protection Act.
' Massachusetts Geographic Information System (MassGIS), 1997. FEMA Q3 Flood Datalayer.
July 1997.
' MassGIS, 2000. State Register of Historic Places Datalayer. January 2000.
MassGIS, 2003 a. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Datalayer. December 2003.
MassGIS, 2003b. National Wetlands Inventory Datalayer. February 2003.
' MassGIS, 2006a. MassDEP Tier Classified Oil and/or Hazardous Material Sites (MGL c. 21E)
Datalayer. November 2006.
' MassGIS, 2006b. Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Priority Habitats of Rare
Species and Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife Datalayers. Updated December 2006.
' MassGIS, 2007a. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Datalayer. March 2007.
' A-24
1
MassGIS, 2007b. DEP Wetlands (1:12,000) Datalayer: April 2007.
' Metcalf& Eddy(M&E), 1956. Flood Control at Peabody.
' M&E, 2007. Personal communication between M&E (Aaron Weieneth) and Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection(Ben Lynch) re: interpretation of"navigable
' river"per Chapter 91 regulations. June 20, 2007.
M&E, 2008. Preliminary Design of Flood Mitigation Facilities for Peabody Square Area. Draft
' Preliminary Design Report. April. 2008.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), 2005. Peabody Annex of the Regional Multi-
Hazard Mitigation Plan.
National Weather Service, 1961. Technical Paper 40, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United
' States for Durations from 30 Minutes to 24 Hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100
Years.
National Weather Service, 1964. Technical Paper 49 (National Weather Service), Two-to-Ten-
Day Precipitation for Return Periods of 2 to 100 Years in the Contiguous United States.
' Needles Tammen& Begendoff, 1979. Salem-Peabody Connector Hydrology and Hydraulics
Report.
' U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ALOE), 1969. Peabody Flood Investigation/Study.
Weston& Sampson Engineers, Inc. (W&S), 2007. NOI Filing,North River Canal—North Wall
' Rehabilitation Project Peabody, MA. March 21, 2007.
1
1
' A-25
A
i.--' ( rr .� IIIN fE�CH /t -a ■ i�l�r j ' /4�, k
o• 1 t r-1 �i \ � �s�� 7'r
S.I.
_
org �, .•,,. '`�. Ce `.'�- 1 �' �Golt Course �+'+."r�+, ''`.raj F .. h
•• "� � �� Jlr 1 y �� \l}'� :. `. j_'�''� \� l` ��7 - - �edac�� SQL : � ���;
moo
H h
FJ,1 Pa' s
� � �� �
�. �.. Y wru. 'k
_' •• Y. � ,�� \\�}� } �, YEyW011 *�/ �' .�� - + �'.s North RIVef �t, �
k �' Peabody Square ,xiF F
al
t v"� vt r sem• `-. . � r s � t=
Goldthwalte "` r Project3 ,~ -' �' -� {107 s
Q' +z
v
a SG\
Jen h
j t
LL Legend
> City of Peabody, MA
�o Preliminary Design of Flood Mitigation Facilities
C== Proposed Project Area
N for Peabody Square Area
Municipal Boundary
FIGURE 1
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
;` PROJECT AREA
Feet `
Source:USGS Topographic Quadrangle Images Datalayer
(MassGIS,2001). METCALF&EDDY AECOM
rs ;- _ -
Legend
I � t
WMM Assessor's map and lot number ' ° +I
Alternative A- � er• v
• � s ..'Y a , � �. � `_� Alignment Crossing *�'
0 Property line Railroad Tracks ' AZ Rzi
0 P-3 Proposed boring location Alternative
-
® me B-86 Existing boring location ' .� �= � k .,� Align nt South of ;. ,i
X Nor02O6OApproximate model node location
� Potential parcel to be used for contractor's staging area �• �•• "
°•
— — Existing 78'diameter SESD sewer � t �. <: • Ft , , � '
—•— Approximate location of existing drainage culo
vert �' r` i. . � iit j
11
Proposed transition Structure ', p •T:' a: !. n : " Y ^ � •p-,•, �'� ��, � �� ,
Centerline of proposed 4'x 10"culvert(Project 1) =r r " �" �"� ��� ►� } '' ��`� ,: ,• t`,
QApproximate limit of 30'wide construction corridor M1_= '- � z� � .' , ' �, - � 'j' ,` � •'�•d.,J, ��� �� `��,® ��, t •^" ; 'E `r ��s
® Proposed permanent easement location 4 r° ,� ° ° ! f . . +` • o: '°\:
+� Railroad ,# ,y ° , 4 T Alternative C
� Alignment in Mill Street--0- Direction of flow �i� ° ,
,
100 50 0 100 .,✓' r '3, 1� I5� •t+ '� ', � " . ,p ,S�E�✓ • '/ :�
Feet ~ 30'Wide Corridor for ' a
s
P, Project I
,
(GoldthwaiteBrook Culverts
w
x .: � .... y a �"..; v �. �I. ',I ...: �,., .'. - 3F'�.-.{. l�" �• ,kpT�w-Y 1 0 t ° -
{ r
�` F IbroSWO
44'Wide Corridorfor
♦ ,. � �{�. 9 °3
• �'/�r''
"
♦
Project 2
(North River Widening).
For Continuation see Figure 5
r
e
\W Y
• • 3 d
r Y�\ 4'� _ h r r,- �. � , any S °' y� � e�°•Y ° °' /
. 1 'tu dam'
X M
;,: \' \ - i�-ltl� uxry:a•) .. '� 'fit :, p< AJ .!.
.. Pr'OpOSed Sit _ ®Z. a '_ a �. _. " e;'o� '. a^♦ .♦ ° '',w .,,'� ..$ l• '=',s' p.
Transition s ' r �• ' �', �'. � � i€€€ ,�^ _
Structure y r •� . t * - _ .� • � o. °: ..+ `i �q�� wq -° � �. :'r
x � � l,i V }.. 4 9 x '�� O� VF� t�,� F;f G� r� � ..;I � �A•• � '. M+t.'
Ri
`
City of Peabody MA
Preliminary Design of Flood Mitigation Facilities
for Peabody Square Area
FIGURE 4
Original
Culvert(to be Cleaned , s <. +, °: gjp fi ,�, - ° PROJECT 1 -GOLDTHWAITE BROOK CULVERTS W
under Project 1) � ° e ° Q? + APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT AND
r >� ` ° PERMANENT EASEMENT LOCATIONS
� ,-
°` r �t ,.` CY ,: "� ¢ METCALF&EDDY AECOM
BB:.vo-- �r°aC � rte_ ..(-��._i`" ¢ a'»'S ,$".': f- A` X 'q ;_ °.'tea a. ,•vl" •-:� `te v #°�., MIA�''__•- f : 1:. 1, — o:. o. 'i- ., .,a,l:. ° Cts.' _ I:. o: ,, per'
+�„�� '
+ ' key . 4 "Tli6OB O4
Corridor
-
'ti71 -z
�-
..,;�.
Project'I �' B: o°
r (Goldthwaite Brook Culverts). da �1i , a QBE" /
rr` `Y
For Continuation see Figure
r� B
.p
. . • ._ as xoro a��O `'` s,. Y � v r$. �6 1: B '. � <�„';Yil � r.� ' �'a� '���
. r
r
i
e
®; ,,,,ar a �.� � `�' " T- Wig' � ,. s ♦. � 4 �* � a;t' '°:.
Gy 1""
n
k r�
WidCorridor afor
'
• . '� ., ' .`!` " +#. . : ®'tea,. _;� = Project 2 I y .r .,"" • m�, `x;
(North River Widening).
See Now 1. � + AFr 'j,
rP
I $
�s
1:
Existing 900
3
x e
..
a: " River to be ,
Proposed Culverts
R Filled under Railraod
Tracks
AL �S v +�
Y .
l . :
u ,
R I max
f J)
c
-
I
Legend
�,
@65@M Assessor's map and lot number T= 'y'MF: '� * ; „® :�. fi.,. .,:, 'x " ,: �,,;,„ .� ti -- •',
�. a 1 � a � . .
Structure OverhangingP-7 Proposed boring location A,
® B-82 Existing boring location V North River to be
Removed .,'
X Nor02060-Approximate model node location s +
Potential parcel to be used for contractor's staging area 9 _er Brook
Stron wat
a
a
4+00 Approximate 100' Station Location
YIl w
u S ,� �Y , 1 B.• - zK `f Y �—t .14 V
• C253
78 diameter SESD sewer � 1 � - `^y ; �� _� , � . :�F �a' �' " ' - _ > +'r
Proposed wall to be constructed under Project 2 `' , ! ° vJ,
x Approximate limit of corridor for North River widening ,
f "
Note 1: 44'wide corridor for steel sheet pile south wall,
50'wide corridor for ripsouth wall. t = _
rapJF , City of Peabody, MA
Property line Preliminary Design of Flood Mitigation Facilities_ t for Peabody Square Area
t rz] Proposed permanent easement location ° ' ai►$ �' r ! ^ ' e f FIGURE 5
r
a
Railroad , �, �,� '"�, - a - �, � f/, �r � � fit, ;; � �
a A' 1 rw, PROJECT 2- NORTH RIVER WIDENING
i �� Direction of flow N 1 s' , t".
`� � �. � ie.�, �� � � � APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT AND
F 100 50 0 100
PERMANENT EASEMENT LOCATIONS
Feet fJL
METCALF&EDDY I AECOM
W,% 7W.: n
' Project he4 S o d tri�.r a rC Acct. No. Page of
Subject F(aeel M,H4�a.fP0" Comptd. By It//IQM Date l0�<5�07
Detail N.,.f6 Raver SEC-60y" Ck'd. By MRM Date 328/08
t i
1
t
l
U2E
MBTfj Proper tJ Pr°posed 20' Proposed FI,G6
�K .Tewin ao mar Co�S ruCtiu
1
f
:dtVa rulfrovry 22j'('33'�.. .
h er I 1
W �FV'.�r0/j°S¢d' [,orrifo/" for No rfh' Qr`Y¢✓ W,i<cn,�� -
38'P"Po3ed Norfb Raver 'lgide4 (a:
I ;iA , RrJer
!!'to ZZ'� -.
(IJ Exr36n,�J'� rai/r'se,d
any Erac4r _ -
LL rap°�tof S°UtLt c+ (C ver'0cr,( wffer.-&ve -s17eeC pale wal(,
J _—. S'f�KR .uuj�Hry w4!(eyr CA`tCfC f'e {s.i.,vela i,t?✓I s/a 'pr C�nCr�+Ce.
Q Cx%sf7! 4 Lrvrftr rio<( (/
L,-);e! �ronite' Mato0ry {eager pa; co crele 7o anclat `D�
r '
V �Tv rer'Narr1 w�si`rea..+� t=YiSET+�S hl:,tL - -'
Wof S)<rsn5l,.oferl�roali; f21v<d s(r^6 (sheeYpr7e wo// Shawn)
' t� 6� rep(ace (c(owKpfreari., !
,D f Sfro y aYer &root. . Exisf,l5 zoa:t7i"64W `MCaf !"( 40
{c Ge reo+wvaR4) b�ere vn e.6:
' c
nro�ect 2 /Jortoh e2iver refer ;(,b F-�Nre 5) 6Cefk l 'rFlo�
Vertirr./ W4!( A/terpat%ve5
Oreep rtaGati — Fac r'nq t7o w bra�ftst✓tn
Nt13IH /jr�(er{� �r7� Ei sea enY Zo' pro��led' - --
�- a -" Pt•r•r., Nc•+ Te.,.pe rc,ry ConSM,.ctiorr
(ea few„���af (W;dit, �ra,r.a5 frees 28'f� 3y� Ease rent
50 /�roposecP Corr,dor for North Raver h/rderor t5
' N-l ' PropoSee( T.op WrdEh of North River_ J
35' !'roposed (boetom Wrath of Narfb River (a' 4 S17 '
-/r-- - frarw;fl to 22)
r-x+sflrJ l/9if4 .
n-_- ft�., ,-rt rr G.e»2fa.I /,(-fc=:Seet:vKj' ,:r2 6_10:r /v(o k'('t?
(7° rzv al u{sYr<a ExJs�.hy so4Y4 wo%f motce.n'u( tre l2 ver f�owr Sid, o}aa S{c� .. l�tao
' of rfs .A,0w*- !}rxGj fo /je ({" 6e re.atoaed� Ge fewlavec( t�pctrr<a-wr of J° Qe.t�f
:, J -
m rCni /aClo! c{a tJryS�fe W..K�.. . '_ _.'._ .._.•'. .;._ � :;....
c !. of Sfro..5i,a>fe� (3rogG)
■ o
Z , - f f-�d Qc7'. z. /�/o rtLr Rifle! SeCtioN fT`ri: Cr2'E2 r: �j F01
i4u 'e
Zi ; Ri/o 24p WS:JI Alfervtq{'iVe
AF
J
Proctor E
wQ11n
2-
IJ
-T
\� .,� �; r' 1 j �\�ti�� f — ��JI � ��� ��" ��>� � �
A-i
J
Wr
rainageLB!s
7
V
X�
\Y
S I 'T B
rainage Basin I-
Gol�at wa�lte-BrooAt� Location f
Al,
Location of
'o cation of
Proj
Location
2 of
'Project 3 Work
7
L?
IL
If 10-01*-
ton water Brook rooK inage Basin
n-
�PtA-60-D
-A
91
X
Tapley Brook-Drainage-Basin
�SALEM
4
Legend
Tributary Drainage Boundary
C3
Ommm Municipal Boundary
✓ City of Peabody, MA
X vo;� Preliminary Design of Flood Mitigation Facilities I
Approximate Project Boundary
E
Railroad
----
for Peabody Square Area
1
RoadsFIGURE 2
Water Bodies % PLAN SHOWING BROOKS AND
TRIBUTARY DRAINAGE BOUNDARIES
0 1,050 2,100 4,200
Feet METCALF&EDDY AECOM
0 a ;, f -...; � \�� : � ���^.�� �_:._t�id � ♦o _\ � —`� .(,���_' .����'I 1 4$- ��� � � aa� g 1 >k. ..%`t `_t .., �,' ,✓' .�1;. d' 'u•,.
ch 6t Qea _ -:�~ f z �'s/`� � •f< t�" .,� .q R 'i Y n5;.: Pd S/ �^`• , "_•.�r r � Y �' 'r
t
Ir 3 Y
I
� S
f 5
_ Y
.� a *.fi. fMrv,a •1/ -.'•�.� 1 _ -.. ':. �^Qs: f ,'�♦ - -\�-�. 1.. •v_�'.. Y 5 �1'wn �T �• �� T
• i
_ r
r n -.. � �:;.. •;�' .: .. a er ♦.. `..' 4''°,., �'. - (• -\y� \ �•�V!<'D �)r �" .; .ry�,_.,k �' `v.,r 1b � � E5�'�
'. }ks '' .. �. - .- � ♦�/3` .. :. '�,r Cem •fv _'\� `'! n` -_:�Y{♦., l. ) <� � r a.
.:�,;... .vim .:�-:fr ubsta a ,feq� t e', ,.� _ ;-. ,... .. .� . - t'` r.P�• ..,>ti �aa.. - _ �j _ ��' :''�' �, q�sy�.
_ _ - _ /1 rtl,' '<E.,� •:' •r 1� o�F \ •.�+;: �. � a � � -,Goff-Course � . '� r:��f. .:.:�h p �
r
•: .. �. '. l .. r ,.. . rj ^: r``� � " '{j-pfN� � , � �a. PIt>8. r _ � y r `".,i ��� .F�.a �
�,:. .-... �/ �'. a 1 .. p v9»a� - i 1 _ \ r �( '! �a� s:.�.t�- r 1 ,.�. �'' " � a`.•:�.
,
r
n r� .
trA h�
o.
9 a"
„ ., `� rove •• � u' ,,,_ i �. .r. -4 S � -' �- � ,:,, y.. . � "�r � t(, 1 }� rV,';j_ "`'r' :�'- ')f;r \• R h"-s
., �..a-. •-„t .,+ ,4 _. _ rte- r
�.^: ,� r ... ,:> ...:" - _ ' ' � ..��^� , r,. ;r �� N H� � 1 '.I\ `:�1 � 9 -, �.`4'� ms's<•";�MwH�q,.3j'y-
+ o
,: .;y, 't- a � ��..'' .,. � - "` � �- K,,.:. i� � T' - r, I> ! \., Cdurs "` . ���`>Z�e��P-'"mar-✓�' ^�.�'toAsr€ :
,�, .c2 .✓-^.L Jif w.-.". _„` .- . _ a.,�. !ar',, ; :AI - s E' � Ht� _ . ,1 1 A :'\ ^'rte= - _
>s. � / � ,•, - ,. . �,'-�. ,- ,-_-;_: . � �Shopping Center r x� .. .
r r
� L tt .• •Y, S.:2 air.: .y,� ,..- i .
. ,� .G.fi 6 .^y VAA •-:;c,;, ,w' ..... . ,�^,.., �. .- �'�-.. ?, .�£` ._ � �:V �s �', < ..,. "�-� :�'.
. : ':•. ,. 1 -; , � ^ . p l,__..���..r , -_ ._ ,.`�..w. �,`.'; ^- A''� /\. it �, . �:�1 r�_�,-+ r ` .l' . t y; Ne
_ • '�t'e6 , ,".+q,.:.• ... c '� �� t ..� �, ,. e v. §`, r � : t POnd :' `t �. '�,! rk �' .� `Y: r
r. r a P'� '� � q .((. . .. gi�c _.� �s„ �q _,.n. - � aL. ^y : <'� `:.r.: ">< f. q$'+C nSa �' '•� :,y v }”)
• .,.. xb-.�.,r., q".�'S`'+* ..: ,..: '�-„ _. '•Y- c "_,"„ • .§,: 5 -. ,. ,, ._ r, x...;•. c4 .k'" i.�-.�. i'»: �_,'. 2 ,.::...
1 c a� ,, o x. p .. vr"�` ,r ,. ` � ' g •r..� `R' ties">. ��t ,� �Y'.�� 'e .: e; -�s Q �`�: ..,oy.'- � K �•�:
� ,:� . I i�'S'Y. , ,�# ,Ae - „ . , -� � �"♦:'��,'4 PfOJOCt Z, x ..iy:� .� .P�� §? t,��, la. i, Scry
_ `■ v. r.� . w;kg ,��,. -;,� a ._� � cam,,,. '°� � �n. r a. n
�1 0
�" � `� .'YES r �i�p., �.� - �', '� � +f,_ ,r�-�V • y' .r'.5' -�;y '�:' s�„ ."."'�- �t', � t ,�'."r^" � ,«�- w'�� ��i0 0 r� o
. :--.. -�` - , "' :-.' _�;�` ' ,..<. •.. �• ':,�,;, �,,. ,� _ ,'. : �� .:- �,.,: Project 1� i`,'.. � �� �.a. , f,;7"m
_' �;;,> - _� :: .dl`. i. . ..: � ae+ -� �+ l -� 1:�.:" — +�r, s ^er� c&✓ ,a � ,hwy" •
•
e Pond
-
y
rr
-
- .i
��"'. a u'� ,�, — 'f - " _ UPP.etrFlUrnB'P_Orld ,„� - `« . '� � ,�s�1 •.i h y ':i �
' T HANG �'.w.- �r-'�_•_`�` � — ss r r fy ek^-,b�" c fi � _ 't A. g{
vin
r„- ✓ `L:.:. � � }^1 3` bRy-c': J - `}' V',y, 1 r��1 ?rte sSr'
+ _ �. _ .y>a "'` r rsn ..r', i t:. "s � .� •,r�`�”' _ ` t ..,u .,r «,5. r ..fit . `r � "@; .A ��ht
a9
F
o
,, ,. �v. a �::� et .S'. -�\�.-,. •.r +. ;'- t x�> c' .� 'i' i u v 1 � \ .�� ♦ 1, "i.r...,
^
: .,. .. : �, � �. .i• : s �.. ,.,.'�, r.�4M.-,-_ .: N�-,..5 ��- �, ,: , �' • T`a ,.�i�*r y� ''��� s ;• ,,� ��--•l^. '� � m �•::� _ Po/nf;
�'*
t::eWr .-• •� i. 'L `t ,n. .... v �e*�.. -:. � -�i�. ... `...YY ':yN'. k� J •� ..f �`-'ty . ., ..,. :,: � _`). i
-:.-:,' .; � ... �.Kai.:; ,. }� -.,. f•r""` ��'"c - '_,: ,. ;�`. "k,, ti �;4 y 1.. � Y �'ka'�' ".:''s• fi.�.?
CA
,: ,, ,: .. w„ ; . . -. r. -.- .. � . � .,� a '.' •. � dne Pond l �`�` � I •otie
x
.Y n 0 :..� � �' .a.^ .. -.:.. UO ry � Jl.. n �'�3, ♦ :..' ..< Y: .i SR •k."/.k I � ♦ d � � � f 3 `+r. �' + �g
.: ♦ 'Z"(','. .3 " ... � �_..I. `�:, ., r. >.. - u R, . ,., s:: � :,\ . �r: �1• ,,ry A :ar Olnt _ i
P61-
*%C_. u.:. � :-J��P't-`°`}+„ � .,: �. ::. •. .z'tx_ :abr �-..r ars t� �(+ s� �r o+\, a'r�
,� � ,� "..� :., '- �[[ �� `as J „ ,.:;. .• :�-'� :: .'�.. ',x"22 1 t `.r h ,. -¢ -•�a �
� : :. .7w` .- a• t 16 re •gin > '
�.-r 4,„N, � - „'.i - as .� [" � „-... 7. p. T��4„ y'*«rdrF'": a �4�.> '•, .73 -� •.�\♦ � b � _ {,��x e:
r,
',.- •l f�,' -, : w ;.,. ,_ .,,. _ :.-� ... .: . . • k, '',.1 � .�_y: � }� f3i, 1. t` 'e� �titi.'a`r"": �n r � .-�°--;
�-:.� _ .- . '� :,: :; ,:. .. ".:.. +: .. : ..'.• rl w, - ,: ::td C,.."*--.�-'-'-�'''- �' �.yd lv r �_`� /'� "�w- 7f` .-(bark'.
,.♦ ,� - Pick
T
E
111511
E .. '1�1N. �1������k'"".?.'.��f4- ,., `.�:- v f •�� •• "x....._.�.--• aa` �D i r � �.���
ZT
z
'• ,,•y `^ , ' �'_ 4, jf/ i. :- r x� 1LLt s r r.�� ��,a„ r �.. ��, ✓1 5� �k �.
- t
1
--Cegend
- S - `:� k � . J : ) Il, / .` /J •- .: ': 1 - (� ,.moo r �i c` c
w�I
®P• Proposed Project Area � a
r a'y_ -.�, `• �r,,- ��.y� '. i��""�? , '�;' ,- Ci Peabody,of , M.A
Potential Storage Areas PreliminaryDesi n of Flood Mitigation F
acilities,
■ h s ,_ for Peabody Square Area
r d Municipal Boundary
r • s ' C � r'-
'�
0 1,000 2,000 4,000 FIGURE 3
� x - � i � r � ) �� n � k ' � *�' �,`^ � �* '� _ V� ��
z Feet
_ ` >•-.!` ° '._'�'..>, ` . �� -. --,'
POTENTIAL STORAGE AREA LOCA
TIONS
sSource:USGS Topographic Quadrangle Images Datalayer --
tMassGIS,2001> METCALF&EDDY AECOM
�
— — — q
I,,
�' t � F .n i -.B '���y� Y5 . y5i � }��. �� � •'t, , � r..;{p �'Y- � "'.�,�g r y' ' � t t �r„, ��Y"�'I
`r. � p .1R,rv:N7 V }''�' ;'�! y��' TY l,+i F.; • '� * t i ,y
tr9" t t,�4v t tq rr t�' F a i�"f t ^s C �.,�' 3 s" � w Y r M � •S -'G*n. Y.. f� -h �i_.. r .- �`^ } {:i. "2+4;
� f � r "� 4 i f .�>: x �' 'r.,;�. � % 'i a *V' ,may, $ `.,R�+1` "• .,,T vY�
' y. Y'�. � �?itr°,q. i 'dr. �„y- � � •Xyp p ,3•� � �'�K��. f �'�i' p
l � � rp�, <., A. -,'__-,. '� +,y '-+ `S� p �. h+E4, xrk`t,/. ,u{,'t'w ` �+fi rr•�;
f• r +nr =q, 9 �f ��_ � e 'a- - ,fir, � .u°'�®`�,� F `4 l
y � + +' _ s � !: ��'�.k�-'�-'�"i �`•w`kv � 3 k 1 n F ��a{ .r - .a\'.hSC,'+F
} .;- frS+ �. yy x{,�5`+^a- $'i "••' 4'"•:ti.,,
p r•Y' �I d•� ,yds ^r .pfi .� � r � .t � 's �`�iy, �F'!r�✓ �'ye .' 9�T �SME T:.
u ,} t{I t9 "fl •. � N � �d � �, ._ T Myo M � 'T' 9
Legend 1 ne � x v Frp pyt
lx * p re. .., s _•, , f w* Tr u se s
@ti
MA DEP Wetlands ,;,,�� *; �',a, � �,•„�,."�~gy
C* Open Water
CS Shallow Marsh Meadow or Fen N t- i may. " r, City of Peabody, MAi v
o - Preliminary Design of Flood Mitigation Facilities
O Proposed Project Areafor Peabody Square Area
` f
Municipal Boundary *K E r j{' FIGURE 7
wS. a�' ry
� 0 400 800 1,600
MAPPED WETLANDS IN PROJECT AREA
Feet
g Sources:USGS Topographic Quadrangle Images Data n METCALF&EDDY A[COM
6 (MassGIS,2001);DEP Wetlands Datalayer(MassGIS,2007)
r
1
t
t
1
1
1
' ATTACHMENT B
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
' Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries
' 251 Causeway Street, Suite 400
Boston, MA 02114
Paul J.Diodati (617) 626.1520
' Director Fax (617) 626.1509
' June 13,2007
Aaron Weieneth
' Project Environmental Planner
Metcalf&Eddy
701 Edgewater Drive
Wakefield,Massachusetts, 01880
Subject: Response to request for information for proposed flood mitigation facilities for Peabody Square.
' Dear Mr. Weieneth,
' Thank you for contacting the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries(MarineFisheries), on behalf of
the City of Peabody, early in your project design. The proposed project is for flood mitigation in the City
of Peabody and includes the construction of 2,010 feet of twin box culverts and the widening of 4,700 feet
of the North River.
' The North River,including the area of proposed work,provides important habitat for the migration and
spawning of the diadromous species rainbow smelt(Osmerus mordax),American eel (Anguilla rostrata)
' and white perch (Morone americanus). MarineFisheries maintains a sampling station in the North River
and has been monitoring the recovery of smelt in this previously degraded system since 2004. Since the
initial sampling,the number of smelt has increased every year from 0%of the total catch in 2004,to 46%
' of the total catch,representing 43 individuals,in 2006.The smelt recovery is likely due to a combination
of improved water quality due to the elimination of industrial point source pollution and an active smelt
stocking program in the nearby Crane River.
' 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. Therefore,we typically recommend that no
in-water work take place in smelt runs between March 1 st and June I st.
' The North River is a sensitive system and all efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to diadromous fish
should be incorporated into the project design.
' Thank you for requesting information on the marine fisheries resources at your project site. We will
further review the project when more information and detailed plans are available. In the mean time,if
you have any questions,please call or email Tay Evans at our Gloucester Office(978-282-0308 x. 168
' tay.evans@state.ma.us).
' An Agency of the Department of Fish and Game
Mary Griffin, Commissioner
1
Sincerely,
1 '
Paul J.Diodati
Director
CC. Chase,Griffin(DMF)
' An Agency of the Department of Fish and Game
Mary Griffin, Commissioner
1
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
' William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
Massachusetts Historical Commission
' June 19,2007
Aaron Weieneth
Project Environmental Planner
Metcalf&Eddy,Inc.
701 Edgewater Drive
Wakefield,MA 01880-5371
' RE:Peabody Square Flood Mitigation Area,Peabody and Salem,MA. MHC#RC.42275
Dear Mr.Weieneth:
' Thank you for submitting a Project Notification Form to the Massachusetts Historical Commission for the
project referenced above. Staff of the MHC have reviewed our files and the information submitted. The
' - proposed project involves the construction of 2,010 feet of twin 4-foot by 10-foot box culvert from the
intersection of Foster Street and Oak Street to the existing open channel of the North River downstream of
Wallis Street and widening approximately 4,700 feet of the North River to an approximate width of 38 feet
from Wallis Street to a point 500 feet downstream of Grove Street in Peabody and Salem. MHC
' understands that this project is funded through a FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant and is under
programmatic review by MEPA and the USACOE.
MHC is unable to determine the area of potential effect for the project,which is subject to the
' Programmatic Agreement between FEMA and the MHC. Please submit additional information,including
scaled existing and proposed conditions project plans and current,original photos and elevations of all
buildings proposed for demolition,and project area,keyed to the plan,as they become available. Please
' submit to MHC a copy of the Environmental Notification Form and project plans when they are submitted
to the MEPA office.
These comments are provided to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
' Preservation Act of 1966,as amended(36 CFR 800)and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 9,Sections
26-27C(950 CMR 71),MEPA(301 CMR 11)and the terms of the Programmatic Agreement with FEMA.
If you have further questions or require additional information please contact Jonathan K.Patton at this
office.
' Sincerely,
' Edward L. Bell
Senior Archaeologist
' Massachusetts Historical Commission
xc: Richard Carnevale-Peabody Department of Public Services
Peabody Historical Commission
Salem Historical Commission
' 220 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts 02125
(617) 727-8470• Fax: (617) 727-5128
www.sec.srate.ma.uslmhc
Commonwealth ofMaanachusens
_ 4 Division of
`J Fisheries & Wildlife.
' MassWi/d/ife
Wayne F.MacCallum,Director
' June 27,2007
Aaron Weieneth
Metcalf&Eddy,Inc
' 701 Edgewater Drive
Wakefield,MA 01880
' RE: Project Location: Foster Street&Oak Street-North River,Proctor Brook,Cedar
Pond,Sidney Pond,&Lower&Upper Flume Pond
Town: Peabody
NHESP Tracking No. 07-22617
To Whom It May Concern:
' Thank you for contacting the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program C"NHESP")of the MA
Division of Fisheries &Wildlife for information regarding state-listed rare species in the vicinity of the
above referenced site.After a review of the information provided,there are no rare species concerns with
' Cedar Pond,Sydney Pond,Lower&Upper Flume Pond,or the North River.However,Proctor Brook is
mapped for a state-listed rare species.Based on the information provided,this project site,or a portion
thereof,is located within Priorihf Habitat 1106(PH 1106)and Estimated Habitat 455 (EH 455)as indicated
in the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas(12'^Edition).Our database indicates that the following state-
listed rare species have been found in the vicinity of the site:
Scientific name Common Name Taxonomic Group State Status
' Ambystoma laterale Blue-Spotted Salamander Amphibian Special Concern
The species listed above is protected under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act(MESA)(M.G.L.c.
131A)and its implementing regulations(321 CMR 10.00). State-listed wildlife are also protected under
' the state's Wetlands Protection Act(WPA)(M.G.L.c.131,s.40)and its implementing regulations(310
CMR 10.00). Fact sheets for most state-listed rare species can be found on our website(www.nhesp.ore).
' Please note that projects and activities located within Priority and/or Estimated Habitat must be
reviewed by the NHESP for compliance with the state-listed rare species protection provisions of MESA
(321 CMR 10.00)and/or the WPA(310 CMR 10.00).
' Wetlands Protection Act(310 CMR 10.00)
If the project site is within Estimated Habitat and a Notice of Intent(NOI)is required,then a copy of the
NOI must be submitted to the NHESP so that it is received at the same time as the local conservation
' commission. If the NHESP determines that the proposed project will adversely affect the actual Resource
Area habitat of state-protected wildlife,then the proposed project may not be permitted (310 CMR 10.37,
10.58(4)(b)&10.59). In such a case,the project proponent may request a consultation with the NHESP to
' discuss potential project design modifications that would avoid adverse effects to rare wildlife habitat.
www.masswildlife.org
' Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
Field Headquarters,North Drive,Westborough,MA 01581 (508)389-6300 Fax(508)389-7891
An Agency of fhe Department of Fire and Gana,
1
Page 2
A streamlined joint MESA/WPA review process is now available. When filing a Notice of Intent(NOI),
the applicant may now file concurrently under the MESA on the same NOI form and qualify for a 30-day
streamlined joint review. For a copy of the revised NOI form,please visit the MA Department of
Environmental Protection's website: hUp://www.mass.gov/dep/water/approvals/wpafonn3doc.
' MA Endangered Species Act (M.G.L.c.131A)
If the proposed project is located within Priority Habitat and is not exempt from review(see 321 CMR
10.14), then project plans,a fee,and other required materials must be sent to NHESP Environmental
' Review to determine whether a probable"take'under the MA Endangered Species Act would occur(321
CMR 10.18). Please note that all proposed and anticipated development must be disclosed,as MESA
does not allow project segmentation(321 CMR 10.16). For a MESA filing checklist and additional
' .information please see our website:ww,.nhesp.orQ("Regulatory Review" tab).
We recommend that rare species habitat concerns be addressed during the project design phase prior to
submission of a formal MESA filing,as avoidance and minimization of impacts to rare species and their
' habitats is likely to expedite endangered species regulatory review.
This evaluation is based on the most recent information available in the Natural Heritage database,which
' is constantly being expanded and updated through ongoing research and inventory. If you have any
questions regarding this letter please contact Amy Coman,Endangered Species Review Assistant,at
(508)389-6364.
' Sincerely,
' Thomas W.French,Ph.D.
Assistant Director
t
1
1
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
y NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
NORTHEAST REGION
One Blackburn Drive
rts a'vs Gloucester.MA 019304298
JUL -9 M'7
' Aaron Weieneth
Metcalf&Eddy
' 701 Edgewater Drive
Wakefield,Massachusetts 01880-5371
' Dear Mr. Weieneth,
This is in response to your letter dated May 31, 2007 regarding a proposed flood mitigation plan
for the City of Peabody, Massachusetts. Your letter requested that NOAA's National Marine
Fisheries Service(NMFS) provide information on the likely presence of and potential impact to
' listed species under ourjurisdiction.
While several species of endangered and threatened whales and sea turtles are known to occur in
' the coastal.waters of Massachusetts,no federally listed or proposed threatened or endangered
species and/or designated critical habitat for listed species under the jurisdiction of NMFS are
known to exist in the North River or other waters affected by the proposed project. Therefore, no
' consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, is
required for this project. Should project plans change or new information become available that
changes the basis for this determination,then consultation should be initiated.
' Your information request has been forwarded to NMFS Habitat Conservation Division (HCD).
You may receive separate comments from HCD on the presence of designated Essential Fish
Habitat or other fisheries resources. Should you have any questions regarding these resources,
please contact Chris Boelke at(978)281-9131 or by e-mail (Chlistophei-.Boelke(ialloa i.uov).
Should you have any questions regarding this correspondence,please contact Julie Crocker of my
staff at(978)281-9300 ext. 6530.
Sincerely,
Mary 0 G�lh
' Assistant Regional Administrator
for Protected Resources
Cc: Boelke, F/NER4
rIST
File Code:Sec7,Mass.NSP -
s
MENT OFT us
mPP yF�q� '"Aseance �
1 0 o United States Department of the Interior
� b
' y9RCN ry 0,A FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
New England Field Office 4M T
70 Commercial Street, Suite 300
' Concord, New Hampshire 03301-5087
July 2, 2007
' Reference: Project Location
Flood mitigation facilities Peabody, MA
I ' Aaron Weieneth
Metcalf& Eddy,Inc.
701 Edgewater Drive
Wakefield, MA 01880-5371
' Dear Mr. Weieneth:
' This responds to your recent correspondence requesting information on the presence of federally-
listed and/or proposed endangered or threatened species in relation to the proposed activity(ies)
referenced above.
' Based on information currently available to us, no federally-listed or proposed, threatened or
endangered species or critical habitat under the jurisdiction of the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service
' are known to occur in the project area(s). Preparation of a Biological Assessment or further
consultation with us under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required.
' This concludes our review of listed species and critical habitat in the project location(s) and
environs referenced above. No further Endangered Species Act coordination of this type is
necessary for a period of one year from the date of this letter, unless additional information on
' listed or proposed species becomes available.
Thank you for your coordination. Please contact us at 603-223-2541 if we can be of further
' assistance.
' Sincerely yours,
Anthony P. Tur
Endangered Species Specialist
' New England Field Office
1
1
1
' ATTACHMENT C
NPC DISTRIBUTION LIST
1
1
ENF Distribution List
Flood Mitigation Facilities for Peabody Square Area
Secretary Ian A. Bowles Executive Office of Energy&
Executive Office of Energy & Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Environmental Affairs
Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA Coordinator Undersecretary for Policy
Attn: MEPA Office 10 Park Plaza, 6th Fl. 100 Cambridge Street,Suite 900
' 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02216-3966 Boston, MA 02114
Boston, MA 02114
' DEP—NERO Massachusetts Department of DEP/Northeast Regional Office
Division of Wetlands and Waterways Environmental Protection Attn: MEPA Coordinator
2058 Lowell Street One Winter Street 205B Lowell Street
Wilmington, MA 01887 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Wilmington, MA 01887
' MassDEP Bureau of Resource
Protection Secretary of the Commonwealth Massachusetts Office of Coastal
Division of Watershed Management Massachusetts Historical Commission Zone Management
One Winter Street 220 Morrissey Boulevard 251 Causeway Street, Suite 800
Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Boston, MA 02125-3314 Boston, MA 02114-2138
Attn: MEPA Reviewer Attn: MEPA Reviewer Attn: MEPA Reviewer
Massachusetts Division of Marine Executive Office of Transportation MassHighway
Fisheries Attn: Environmental Reviewer Public/Private Development Unit
Atte: Environmental Reviewer 30 10 Park Plaza, Room 3510 10 Park Plaza
Emerson Avenue Gloucester, MA
01930 Boston, MA 02116-3969 Boston, MA 02116
' MHD- District#4 Massachusetts Aeronautics
Attn: MEPA Coordinator Commission Metropolitan Area Planning Council
519 Appleton Street Attn: MEPA Coordinator 60 Temple Place/6th floor
t Arlington, MA 02476 10 Park Plaza, Suite 3510 Boston, MA 02111
Boston, MA 02116
Massachusetts Water Resource
' Authority Peabody Board of Health Peabody Planning Board
Attn: MEPA Coordinator City Hall City Hall
100 First Avenue 24 Lowell Street 24 Lowell Street
' Charlestown Navy Yard Peabody, MA 01960 Peabody, MA 01960
Boston, MA 02129
' Peabody City Council Peabody Conservation Commission Salem Board of Health
City Hall City Hall City Hall
24 Lowell Street 24 Lowell Street 93 Washington Street
Peabody, MA 01960 Peabody, MA 01960 Salem, MA 01970
Salem Planning Board Salem City Council Salem Conservation Commission
City Hall City Hall City Hall
93 Washington Street 93 Washington Street 93 Washington Street
Salem, MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970 Salem, MA 01970
1
1
1
1
1
1
METCALF & EDDY AECOM '.
MEETING NOTICE
TO: Distribution
FROM: William T. Gage, MEPA Unit
DATE: May 29, 2008
SUBJECT: Flood Mitigation Facilities for the Peabody Square Area -
Peabody & Salem
EOEA # 14251
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An Environmental Notification Form has been submitted for this
project. According to MGL Chapter 30, Section 62, the Secretary of
Environmental Affairs must issue a determination regarding the
significance of the potential environmental impacts of this project,
and must determine whether an Environmental Impact Report should be
required to document the impacts and to reduce all feasible means of
damage to the environment .
Therefore, a consultation meeting will be held to receive advice and
comments from agencies, officials, and citizens regarding which
environmental issues, if any, are significant for this project.
Opinions as to the extent of significance of possible environmental
impact will be welcome.
The meeting is scheduled as follows :
DATE: June 4, 2008, Wednesday
TIME: 2 : 00 pm
LOCATION: Peabody City Hall
24 Lowell Street - Basement Conference Room
Peabody
The meeting will include a brief presentation of the project by the
proponent, with periods for questions, answers, and open comment .
Additional comments will be welcome in writing prior to June 10, 2008 .
Pursuant to the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act,
this Meeting Notice is available in alternative formats upon request .
Questions on the meeting may be answered by contacting William Gage of
the MEPA staff at (617) 626-1025 .
METCALF&EDDY AECOM
Metcalf& Eddy
701 Edgewater Drive, Wakefield, Massachusetts 01880-5371
T 781.246.5200 F 781.245.6293 www.m-e.aecom.com FIC gg
L. ED
VL-
JUN 2 7 2008
June 25, 2008
DEPT.OF PLANNING d
To: Distribution COMD9l.INITYDE,'ELOPMENT
Subject: Additional Comment and Decision Date Extension for Flood Mitigation
Facilities for the Peabody Square Area ENF
EOEEA# 14251
To Whom It May Concern:
Please note that the City of Peabody has requested that the comment and decision dates for
the subject ENF be extended to August 12, 2008 and August 22, 2008, respectively. This
extension will be published in the next Environmental Monitor and has been requested to
provide additional time for review and consideration of supplemental information to be submitted
by the City for the subject ENF. This supplemental information will be mailed to everyone on the
distribution list under separate cover when available.
The mailing address for comments is:
Secretary Ian A. Bowles
EOEEA, Attn: MEPA Office
William Gage, EOEEA No. 14251
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
If you have any questions, please contact me at 781-224-6222.
Regards,
Aaron Weieneth, AICP
Project Environmental Planner
Cc: R. Carnevale, City of Peabody, Director of Public Services