FAFARD ENVI IMPACT REPORT HIGHLAND ACRES Form 5 DEOE File No.
64-92
(To be provided by DEOE)
c
Commonwealth CitylTown SALEM
of Massachusetts Applicant FAFARD COMPANIES
--� �
Order of Conditions
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act
G.L. c. 131, §40
From Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
To tor . Gregg Marren The Fafard Comnanies
(Name of Applicant) (Name of property owner)
290 Eliot St. 290 Eliot St.
Address Ashland, MA 01721 Address Ashland, MA 01721
This Order is issued and delivered as follows:
® by hand delivery to applicant or representative on Or ohPr d , 1 g ae (date)
by certified mail, return receipt requested on (date)
This project is located at Highland Avenue, Salem, MA
The property is recorded at the Registry of Essex
Book 5292; 6172 Page 734 ; 73
Certificate (if registered)
The Notice of Intent for this project was filed on Harch 25 , 1983 (date)
The public hearing was closed on January 12, 1984 (date)
FindIT8partment of Environmental
The Quality Engineerinq has reviewed the above-referenced Notice o
intent and plans and has held a public hearing on the project. Based on the information available to the
DEOE at this time, the DEQE has determined that
the area on which the proposed work is to be done is significant to the following interests in accordance with
the Presumptions of Significance set forth in the regulations for each Area Subject to Protection Under the
Act(check as appropriate):
® Public water supply (3 Storm damage prevention
O Private water supply ® Prevention of pollution
® Groundwater supply O land containing sheiBish
® Flood control O Fisheries
5.1
nests checl<ed above. Th? DF,QF. orders that all work shE!I be pe.forned
in accordance with said conditions and with the Novice of Intent re!ererced above. To the extent that the fol-
lowing conditions mo,ify or differ frcnl the p:Ens• Spccifi:,ation5 or Cthcr proposcJs 5L:miltcd vrith the NCffce
of Intent, the conditions shell cor!:cl.
GEr.aral Ccr.::i;io- ;
`L, '!ti --n .n, s'C1n_1 hereat, a";��with£�l rel:ted sialutes End Cts rcgulCtci` nE_s-
1 . a!IuretGco�-, , v;l: ., cc:,;.d. ns y
ures, sh be d_eme•: taus- to revoke or modify t::n'.s Crder.
2. This Order does not grant any property rights Gr any exclusive privileges; it does not authorze any injury
to private property Cr in',eC!on of prP:ate rights.
3. This Order does not relic•:e the permit"ee or any other person of the necessity of comp!ying with all
other applicable federal, Salt;; or focal statutes, ordlnarises, by-!avis or rag2ations.
4. The work authorized haraun der shall be completed within threa years from the date of this Order unless
either of the fdllo':✓ing apply:
(a) the work is a maintenance dredging project as prcvided for in the Act; or
(b) the time for comp!eficn has been extended to a spec'.fied date more thawthree years, but less than
five years, from the date Cf Issuance and both that date and the special C!rcumst2nce5 vtarrant!ng
the extended tins period are Set fcrth in tiiis Order.
5. This Order nay be eY.,Ended by the issuing autf:cry fcr one or more periods of op to three Tears each
up on app5ca tion to the :°suing Guth ori ty at!east 30 Cays ,,cr to tha exp iraticn do e Cf line Order.
6. Any fill used in connection with this pro Ect
'St- be clean fill, ccntainir,g no trash, refuse, rubbish nr de•
bris, including but not limited to lumber, tricks, plaster,vire, late, paper, oar dbGerd, pipe, tires, ashes,
refrigerators, motor vehicles or parts of any of the foregoing.
7. No work she!!be undertaken until all admen:S'rative apceal periods from this Order have Elapsed cr, if
such an appea! has been filed, until all proceedings tefcre the Department have been completed.
8. No wcrk shall to undertaken ur.t:l the Final Order has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land
Court for the district in which the land is located, within the Chain of titre of the affected property. In the
case of recorded lend, the Final Order shay also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name
of the owner of the land upon which the prcposed wcrk is to be done. In the case of regstered land, the
Final Order shall also be noted on the Ltd Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which
the proposed wor!<is to be done. The recordirg information shall be submitted to the DEOE
on the form at the end of this Crder prior to commencement of the work.
9. A sign shall be disp,ay ed at the site rot!ess than Mo square feet or more than three square feet in size
bearing the vicrds, "t.!assacin;aa-s Cepartnent cf Environmental Quality Engineering,
File Nur ter 64-92
10. Where tna De^ c. zf c TCn C , , c ee ! ^ i c d de�ar: _ .. ^i. r.._..:a, i.a`t., _r�.r._ r ny IS rEgLE�to b m4..e a ci Tlnc::Cn an..
J
10 SSu2 a°LperSc_.^� C. __�, ..E C:.fs ,.^. Com.m ISSGn shall to a pang to a!I a!'enCy , 'CC2EdiC-<
e.rJ f.EEG'.;s C a L_.'_r
11 . Upon CC 7 Ct t-- /,crk dESC,,CEd FE:E:-I, th E appi!Can' S a!I I c h'./ e^' Q ha! a
i,h r uE t in :veiling t
Cert t.cEfe of Comp:;E..ce oe zsued sta!!rg that t,^e work has been satis`ac:orily completed.
12. The work sha'I confcr n to the fcllcwing plans and special conditions:
5-2
Plans:
S j Detail=5ca`l�e 1"=44 ' pat preearedd and tfo=e Hi Mand Realty
File with:
t 1/�3dlJss as P 9 y
..an of Land in Salam, revised Trust by Essex Survey DEQE
MA - Showin_g—Bordering 7/30/ SeLvice and revised
84
Vegetated Wetlands by by Farfard Companies
HMM Assocs. 5J34/84 7/30/84
2. Supplemental
Drainage Study . 7/17/34 - HP.PI Associates DEQE
Highland Acres pre- Concord, MA
pared for Farfard
Compa '
Special Conditions(use additional paper it necessary)
1. All wetlands to be filler as a result of this project shall be
compensated for on a one for one, square foot for square foot
basis . These replacement areas shall have surface and ground-
water elevations approximately equal to the wetland areas to
be filled. Their overall location and horizontal configuration,
with respect to the banks of the watercourses they border, shall
be similar to that of the filled wetlands, and they shall have
an unrestricted hydraulic connection to the same water body
as the wetland system adjacent to which they are being con-
structed. A step-by-step plan for the wetland replacement shall
be prepared by the Applicant.
2. All replacement areas to be constructed shall be lined on their
surface with topsoil excavated from the wetlands to be .filled as
a result of the project. Arrangements shall be made for storage
and protection of the topsoil after removal and before replacement.
3 . A report shall be presented to the DEQE and the Salem Conservation
Commission at the end of two growing seasons subsequent to the
implementation of this project indicating the amount of wetlands
that has actually been replicated/created by the construction
of the replacement areas and any associated construction or
plantings. Any proposed compensatory wetland area which does
not revegetate with characteristic bordering vegetated wet-
land species over 75% of its surface area within two growing
seasons shall be planted with characteristic species. A plant-
ing plan for such purposes shall be presented to and approved
by the DEQE prior to its implementation. (continued)
..................................................................................................................................................................
(Leave Space Blank)
538 '
Special Conditions (continued)
SALEM (Fafard Companies) Wetlands File 064-92
4 . At least 75% of the surface of the replacement areas shall
be reestablished with indigenous wetlands plant species within
two growing seasons , and prior to said veaetative reestablish-
ment, any exposed soil in the replacement area shall be
temporarily stabilized to prevent erosion.
5. The large pit near the intersection of First Street and
Swampscott Road with a storage volume of 86 , 000 cubic feet,
as referred to on pages 12, 13 and 16 of the referenced
"Supplemental Drainaae Study" , shall be increased in size to
accommodate theinflowfrom "Catchment S-1" associated with
the one hundred year design storm.
6 . So that the proposed construction will net exacerbate ex_ .sting
local flooding problems, the "discharge at the low point of
Catchment S-4" , as described in the referenced drainage
study and shown on the plan titled: "Highland Acres, Prelimi-
nary Plan of Land in Salem, MA" and dated February 4 , 1982 and
revised May 5 , 1983 by Robert E. Maschi, P.E . and R.L.S. , shall
not be increased beyond its present level, 110 cubic feet per
second.
7 . Prior to any construction within one hundred feet of the wet-
lands as shown on the above referenced plan, an erosion control
barrier shall be installed between the construction site and
any downgradient wetlands.
8 . The Fafard Companies, Inc. shall be responsible for ensuring
that maintenance of all drainage inlets and outlets become a
condition of all leasing or ovmership of those properties for
sale or lease within Highland Acres which will have drainage
easements on them and will forward copies of all such mainten-
ance agreements to the Salem Conservation Commission and the
DEQE.
9 . The City of Salem and the Fafard Companies, Inc. shall enter
into an agreement which guarantees maintenance of the proposed
control structure, and forward such agreement to the Salem
Conservation Commission and the DEQE.
10. Construction and locus plans for any proposed above-ground or
underground storage facilities for chemicals and/or fuel, to-
gether with engineering construction plans, shall be submitted
to the Conservation Commission and the DEQE prior to their
construction.
11. Any other changes proposed for the project as shown on the
plans referenced above shall be submitted to DEQE and the
Conservation Commission prior to implementation. At that time
a determination will be made on whether said changes will re-
quire additional conditions or the filing of a new Notice of
Intent.
Issued by the Department of EnvironmenliaLLyality Engineen .
Signature
•
On this_4th day of October 1984 before me
personally appeared Thnma a P MrT neigh 1 i n Ar i nq rnmm tome known to be the person
described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed the same
as his/her free act and deed.
Public My commission expires
The applicant,the owner,any person aggrieved by this Superseding Order,any owner of land abutting the land upon which the pro•
posed work is to be done or any ten persons pursuant to G.L.c.30A,§t OA,are hereby notified of their right to request an adjudicatory
hearing pursuant to G.L.30A, §10.providing the request is made by certified mail or hand delivery to the Department within ten days
from the date of issuance of the Superseding Order,and is addressed to: Docket Clerk.Office of General Counsel,Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering,One Winter Street.Boston,MA 02108.A copy of the request shall at the same time be sent by
certified mail or hand delivery to the conservation commission,the applicant,and any other party.
A Notice of Claim for an Adjudicatory Hearing shall comply with the Department's Rules for Adjudicatory Proceedings,310 CMR
1.01(6).and shall contain the following information: .
(a) the DEOE Wetlands Fite Number,name of the applicant End address of the project;
(b) the complete name,address and telephone number of thea party filing the request,and,if represented by counsel,the name and
address of the attorney;
(c) the names and addresses of all other parties,if known;
(d) a clear and concise statement of(1)the facts which are grounds for the proceeding,(2)the objections to this Superseding Order,
including specifically the manner in which it is ai'eged to be inconsistent with the Department's Wetlands Regulations(310 CMR
10.00)and does not contribute to the protectic .of the interests identified In the Act,and(3)the relief sought through the adju-
dicatory hearing,including specifically the char. as desired in the Superseding Order;
( (e) a statement that a copy of the request has been ant to the applicant,the conservation commission and each Other party or rep-
resentative of such party,it known.
Failure to submit all necessary information may result ir.a dismissal by the Department of the Notice of Claim for an Adjudicatory Hearing.
Detach on dotted line and submit to the prim to commencement of work.
........_.................................._...._...................................._.............................................................................»...................»...............
To Issuing Authority
Please be advised that the Order of Conditions for the project at
File Number has been recorded at the Registry of and
has been noted in the chain of title of the affected property in accordance with General Condition B on , 19_
It recorded land, the instrument number which identifies this transaction is
V registered land, the document number which identifies this transaction la
Signature Applicant C
5-4B
n
W
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
HIGHLAND ACRES
i
,
HMM Document No. 83-532
August , 1981
Prepared for:
THE FAFARD COMPANIES
290 Eliot Street
Ashland, MA
Prepared by :
HMM ASSOCIATES
336 Baker Avenue
Concord , Massachusetts 01742
t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 . INTRODUCTION
2. COMMENTS ,RECEIVED ON DRAFT EIR
3. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
4. DRAINAGE STUDY
-ii-
INTRODUCTION
This document is the Final EIR for the proposed HighlaVd
Acres development in Salem , Massachusetts. The site is roughly
bounded by Swampscott Road , Highland Avenue, the Salem High
School , the Highland Park Golf Course and Thompson' s Meadow.
The project includes 700 condominium units in quadraplex
buildings. The number of condominium units has decreased since
the Draft EIR, which reported about 750 units. This change is
the result of meetings with Salem planners, park commissioners
and the conservation commission during which concerns were
raised about project density. Following these meetings, the
density was reduced from 8 units per acre to 7 units per acre.
This change , in association with changes in total acreage
devoted to residential development , has reduced the number of
units from 800 (originally ) to 750 (reported in the Draft) to
the current 700 units . In addition there will be approximately
45,000 square feet of commercial space and 305,000 square feet
of light industrial space. These uses are consistent with
existing zoning. Access to the commercial and industrial areas
of the project will be mainly from Highland Avenue. , Access to
the residential portion of the project will be from Swampscott
Road and through Highland Park to Willson Road. A more
detailed description of the project and its potential
environmental impacts , is presented in the Highland Acres Draft
Environmental Impact Report filed with the EOEA on April 15,
1983.
The Final EIR has been prepared pursuant to the MEPA
regulations , 301 CMR 10.07. This Final EIR contains all
comments received on the Draft EIR. Responses to these
comments have been drafted by the project proponent and are
attached. Since no significant project changes have occurred,
the Draft EIR is not being recirculated as part of the Final
EIR.
Subsequent sections of this Final EIR are as follows:
n
Section 2 contains the comments received on the Draft EIR.
-1-
i
1 Comments were received from the Secretary of the Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs, the Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) and the Metropolitan
Area Planning Council (MAPC) . No comments were received -from
the public , or local agencies. In the margin of the comment
letters the proponent has placed circled numbers which
correspond to the responses to comments.
Section 3 includes responses to each comment received on
the Draft EIR . Section 4 contains additional information
regarding the drainage issues associated with the project .
This work was carried out in response to comments received by
the Secretary of the EDEA, DEQE and MAPC.
1
i
i
-2-
n
^y
.x.
2. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ETR
n
�f e 7�a�z�nanuaea�i o��Gatilacf ccGc�/.�
&euz4i'v 011emn1 U'nui,on2m1en&1—V11ains
700 TOamG�irl�e JCxeel � '
go.4 on, Awad(6,16 NOV.?
MICHAEL S. DUKAKG
GOVERNOR
JAMES CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
SECREETARYRY
ON
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PROJECT NAME: Highland Acres
PROJECT LOCATION: Salem
EOEA NUMBER: 4573
PROJECT PROPONENT: Fafard Company
DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR: April 25, 1983
The Secretary of Environmental Affairs herein issues a statement that the
Draft Environmental Impact Report submitted on the above referenced project does
adequately and properly comply.with Massachusetts General -Laws, Chapter 30,
Section. 62-62H inclusive, and the regulations implementing MEPA.
I find that although I have questions about some of the underlying assumptions
in the drainage study and some concerns about the amount of wetland to be altered,
the DEIR has addressed the issues identified in the Scope. I, therefore, declare
the DEIR adequate with the expectation that the following questions will be answered
adequately in the FEIR.
The FEIR shall contain a copy of this Certificate with my comments, the comments
received on the DEIR, and responses to the comments. My specific comments are as
follows:
Traffic
The DEIR shows a significant degradation in capacity at the Swampscott Road/
Highland Avenue and Marlborough Road/Highland Avenue intersections that is
1O attributable to the proposed development. Modifications and signalization are
identified as means of minimizing these problems. The FEIR should identify what
improvements should occur and who should be responsible for their implementation.
FORM D
#4573
Page 2
Wetlands
The letter of comment from DEQE implies that this project will be'it ubject to
the revised Wetland Regulations. If this is the case, the project, as presented,
cannot receive permits. Under the old Regulations, the project might receive
Opermits, but issuance of such permits would be clearly opposed to the intent of
the Act. I feel that the proponent should develop an alternative scheme, perhaps
by reducing density, that would significantly reduce the impacts on wetlands and
present such a scheme in the FEIR.
Drainage
The drainage study presented in the DEIR raises some fundamental questions
that must be addressed in detail in the FEIR.
The runoff coefficients (c) used in the drainage study are surprisingly low
for such a site. The site is one with frequent rock outcrops, shallow till soils
and steep slopes yet the c values range from 0.2 to 0.5 with nearly 240 Ac of the
5004-' Ac site given a value of only 0.2. This appears to be a significant under-
estimation of the runoff coefficient and should be justified in detail or revised
for the FEIR.
The drainage study should be supported by detailed calculations for before
and after development showing' (1) detention area capacities and requirements for
each drainage area tributary to a detention basin, (2) computation of time of
concentration and subsequent rainfall intensity, (3) routing from one ponding area
to another to the ultimate discharge point. The plans used in these calculations
should represent the latest iteration of the development proposal.
Miscellaneous
® The FEIR should reconcile the discrepency identified by MAPC between the site
layout plan and the drainage plan.
June 1, 1983
DATE G JAtjE S. fl0YC1 . ,6 CRETARY
1
�/� 4191Ile0/116YW l2 , e/11 J1acllrJclt
^� =_- _ .,S 1l oiler to/��(�nrrionmrnlu��iia/.y Ony/inrr�/ii?
o
`.� ill/li�ollan Jlcslon i III 1¢1/ -l FI/ n
3 +'
ANTHONY D. CORTESE, Sc.D. /�f•!1</c �i�/on. •J(/u!, /IOI'u//, :///^�C/•P//
Cemmi„ien,r
7275191
MEMORANDUM
TO: James Hoyte,
Secretary, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs- A
MEPA Unit �/Y�},
FROM: William J. St. Hilaire, P.E. 1.0
Regional Environmental Engineer-Northeast Region
SUBJECT: Highland Acres , Salem, EOEA #4573 - DEIR
The DEIR submitted indicates that 26 acres of wetlands are
to be altered for the industrial , residential and commercial develop-
ment of the site and that an additional 13 acres of wetland are to be
altered for the golf course portion of the site. These quantities
are far in excess of those allowed by the Wetlands Protection Act
Regulations 310 CMR 10.00 et. al. 310 CMR 10.55 defines and sets forth
presumptions of significance for Bordering Vegetated Wetlands, which
comprise the majority, if not all , of the wetlands on the site. General
performance standards for Bordering Vegetated Wetlands are also set
forth in 310 CMR 10.55. They stipulate that°the issuingauthority
(either the Salem Conservation Commission or the D,E.Q.E. ) may issue
an Order of Conditions permitting work which results in the loss of
up to (a maximum of) 5000 square feet of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands
when such area is replaced in accordance with the following general
conditions and any additional conditions the issuing authority deems
necessary". The regulations require that the surface area of the
replacement area to be created shall be equal to that which will be
lost. The ground water and surface elevation and the overall horizon-
tal configuration and location with respect to the bank of the
replacement area must be the same as that of "the lost area. The re-
placement area must have an unrestricted hydraulic connection to the same
water body associated with the lost area and shall be located within
the same general area or reach of the waterbody or waterway as the lost
area, and at least 75 percent of the surface of the replacement area
shall be reestablished with indiginous wetlands vegetation.
The regulations also stipulate that the maximum allowable amount
Memorandum y
Page 2
April 26, 1983
of Bordering Vegetated Wetland that may be lost as a result of
work done by the applicant without compensation is 500 square
feet.
As presently planned, Highland Acres is not a permittable
site under the Wetlands Protection Act. It should also be noted
that the proponents of the project have•not yet applied to the
Salem Conservation Commission for work to be done on the site
and that the submission of an ENf, DEIR or final EIR in no way
precludes them from doing so.'
PD/jb
metropolitan Area Planning Council
110 Tremont Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617).451.2770
Serving 101 Cities & Towns in Mel+opolitan Boston
A May 20,
ft8
CEIVED
The Honorable James S. Hoyte, Secretary MAY Z 5 V1
Executive office of Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02202 CFFICf OF TNF S NItT', t' L'
N, a«rl.I1t5
Attention: MEPA Unit
RE: Highland Acres Development, Salem
(MAPC #EIR-83-16, Received April 20, 1983)
EOEA #4573
Dear Secretary Hoyte:
In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 30, Section 62 of the
Massachusetts General Laws, the Metropolitan Area Planning Council has reviewed
the above-referenced draft environmental impact report.
The Council regrets that it cannot comment on this draft report since it
is quite unclear just what is to be commented on and what its relationship to
the analysis. The document presented contains numerous contradictions and
deficiencies. These include:
e the number of residential units to be developed - the project
description states 750 but the accompanying drainage plan
enumerates 840.
e the site plan itself - the site plan presented in the project
description is not reconcilable with that presented in the
drainage plan. They show entirely different road configurations
and one locates housing units on drainage retention ponds specified
in the other.
e overall layout - a use plan presented in the appendix shows the
swapped parcels dedicated to "golf" while the drainage plan specifies
residential construction.
Beyond the contradictions there are addi.tionai .deficiencies that appear
to require some attention, although it is difficult to be sure because of
uncertainties in the project:
1. traffic -. the simple assertion that 'the access road through the
golf course will be the "primary (residential) access" (section 6.1.3)
Q is inadequate, especially in light of the traffic assignment on
p. 6-26, although the effect of this on the analysis is not entirely
clear.
El,zabeth A aransi,eld. President IN ilkan,C.Sayer. V,ce-Ptes�dent hank E. Baxter.Secretary Patricia A.Brady.Treasurer
E.ecuhre Duecror:Alexander V.Zaleski
Secretary James S. Hoyte - 2 - May 20, 1983
2. drainage - while the drainage plan in general appears adequate there
is no discussion of possible erosion due to high velocities accgmpanying
O increased runoff. Also the storage elevation of drainage pond at
area #12 set at elevation 113 (p. 6-63) is � foot below the pond
elevation (spot elevation = 113.5) on the drainage plan.
O 3. archeologic - before any final determination can be finalized, the
archeologic study should be completed.
The Council feels that to adequately comment on any aspect of this proposal
it must have an accurate, uncontradictory description of it including a real
site plan. Since siting is so crucial to a project of this magnitude, this is
all the more important. We hope these questions can be cleared up in either a
redraft of the DEIR or in a supplementary DEIR so that we may comment before
a final is drafted.
Aey'
n G. Truslow
Executive Director/
Director of Planning
JGT/MFO/lab
cc: Mr. W. Gregory Senko
MAPC Representative, Salem
Ms. Margaret B. Briggs
HMM Associates
Mr. Michael F. Oman
MAPC Staff
.y
3. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response No. I
A detailed traffic study was undertaken as part of the:
Draft EIR. As noted in that report, major design improvements
will be required at the intersection of Highland Avenue and
Marlborough Road to properly interface the proposed Marlborough
Road Extension. As noted in the DEIR, the recommended design
option at this location ( referred to as the Build 1 Alternative
in the DEIR) would incorporate a left turn lane along the
Highland Avenue southbound approach for vehicles turning left
into the proposed project development . . Marlborough Road
Extension would include four lanes , two in and two out of the
project site. The improvements at the Highland
Avenue/Marlborough Road intersection would require new signal
hardware, conduits and revised signal timing. Minor geometric
improvements would also be necessitated at the Marlborough Road
eastbound approach at this location. In addition, a right-turn
deceleration lane for vehicles travelling northbound along
Highland Avenue to Marlborough Road Extension should also be
included in the design option.
Massachusetts State funds have been earmarked, ,under the
Massachusetts Public Works Economic Development Grant Program,
for improvements to the Highland Avenue/Marlborough Road
intersection, the extension of First Street from Highland
Avenue to Swampscott Road, and Marlborough Road Extension from
Highland Avenue to First Street. A total of $500,000.00 has
been allocated for these roadway improvements.
The Massachusetts 'Public Works Economic Development Grant
Program was instituted to assist and promote industrial and
commercial development in the Commonwealth. The Grant Award
can be used for design and construction of roadway
improvements. To insure completion of the roadway improvements
identified under the Grant Award, the project proponent has
committed to provide assistance for improvements which may
required within the proposed project site, such as for
completion of the First Street or Marlborough Road Extension
-4-
k
roadways. The extent of this assistance cannot be determined
until that time at which bids are accepted for the roadway
improvement project. #
Although the project proponent does not plan at this time ..
to be responsible for recommended future improvements at the
Highland Avenue/Swampscott Road intersection, the proponent
will commit to working with the State and local public works
departments in the development of acceptable design options at
this location, aimed at improving progressive movements through
the area and reducing potential safety hazards. The
recommended design options for the latter location are
identified in the DEIR, and include traffic signalization and
minor widening and geometric improvements.
Response No . 2
The Notice of Intent for this project was filed with the
Salem Conservation Commission in March, 1983 (File $64-92) . A
public hearing was held on June 9, 1983 by the Salem
Conservation Commission. At that time, a sub-committee of 3
Conservation Commission Members was established to work on the
details of the project with the developer. The Fafard
Companies agreed to waive the time limit for issuance of the
Order of Conditions in order to work with the sub-committee.
,At this point , the developer is still working with this group.
Input received during the MEPA process will be available to the
Conservation Commission for use during deliberation on this
project .
Since the inception of this project, several measures have
been agreed to by the developer which mitigate impacts to
wetlands . At the beginning of project planning, the
Conservation Commission indicated interest in three parcels of
land for conservation purposes. These parcels are to be traded
to the City in return for land abutting the Golf Course in
which the Conservation Commission has no interest. This land
swap is described in the Draft EIR.
-5-
A second concern about the project raised by local
authorities was the density. The original density of the
project was 8 units per acre. In response to the local concern
over this density , it was reduced to the current 7 units per
acre. This represents a total reduction of the project by 100
units . Thus, the developer has already reduced the density of
the project , a measure suggested by the EOEA.
The current plan does result in the alteration of wetland
areas. However, the purpose of the alteration is to reduce an
existing flooding problem at Swampscott Road, and mitigate
project related drainage impacts. Modifications to wetland
areas involve mainly excavating ponding areas and adding
control structures to enhance the flood storage capacity of the
ponds . Construction of housing units will infringe on the
outer boundaries of the wetland. However, the limited negative
impacts this infringement may have on certain statutory
interests are offset by the significant positive impacts to the
flood control and storm damage prevention actions of the
wetlands.
Response No . 3
See Part 4 of this Final EIR.
Response No. 4
The site layout plan represented in Figure 3. 3. 1 of the
Draft EIR is a preliminary layout plotted to show the density
of the development . This plan has been changed as the project
has been refined. The land swap with the Golf Course ,
additional study on the drainage system, and a change in the
internal roadway system resulted in the site plan shown on the
large scale plan attached to the Draft EIR. Siting of
individual units within the residential area will depend upon
terrain and other land features.
-6-
" i
5d in response number 2, a Notice of Intent was ,he Salem Conservation Commission in March of 1483.
t understands that the MEPA process does not
requirement for an Order of Conditions from the
onseCommission.
Response No .._. 6
See response Number 4. The siting process for a project
such as this one depends on many factors, including terrain and
wetlands. The site plan shown as Figure 3. 3-1 in the Draft EIR
was a preliminary plan designed to show the proposed density of
the residential development. As project planning has
progressed , land swap arrangement , wetland and drainage
factors , and traffic and .access impacts have altered the
project layout. The project site-layout as it has evolved as a
result of these factors , and as efforts to mitigate impacts
identified in the Draft EIR have been incorporated into the
plan. The attached site drainage plan shows the current
layout. There will be approximately 700 housing units. This
plan is not expected to change significantly.
Response No. 7
As noted in the DEIR, general access to the proposed
residential development will be provided via (1) the proposed
Road "A" , to First Street , to Swampscott Road, and (2) along
the new roadway through the Highland Park Municipal Golf
Course, to Willson Street . It is expected that this latter
route will be the primary access , particularly for non-work
based trips . It is projected that during peak hour periods,
approximately 57 percent of the work-based trips to and from
the residential development would use the access road through
the golf course , due to travel time considerations. However,
'. since this route offers a much more attractive entrance to the
residential development, a larger portion of trips duringthe ,
off-peak hours are expected to use this access, versus the �
alternative access to Swampscott Road.
Response No . 8
See Part '4 of this Final EIR.
Response No. 9
The archaeologic study has been completed. No
archaeologic resources were found in the project area , although
several sites were located outside the project boundary. Some
potential historic sites were noted on the property. A copy of
the Phase II study has been forwarded to the Massachusetts
Historical Commission and the EDEA.
t
4. DRAINAGE STUDY
4 .1 Purpose .
This hydrologic analysis was performed in order to assess
the potential impacts of the Highland Acres development project
on storm drainage. This analysis is independent of the
analysis presented in the Draft EIR and is in response to the
written comments on the Draft EIR.
Based on discussions with city engineers there are three
primary locations where the potential .for flooding currently
exists and may be increased due to development of the Highland
Acres site. These three locations are along Swampscott Road
south of the site , at the box culvert beneath the Boston and
Maine railroad tracks east of the golf course , and at a set of
three 48" culverts which convey drainage beneath Jefferson
Avenue. This analysis focuses on the present and future peak
discharges at these three design points which are associated
with the 10, 50, and 100 year design storms. In addition, by
routing the 100 year design storm from one ponding area to
another and eventually to each design point, the adequacy of
the storage capacity of existing and proposed ponding areas is
assessed.
4 . 2 Methodology
The methods used in determining peak discharges from
catchments within the study area are based on procedures
presented in Technical Release Number 55 (TR-55), Urban
Hydrology for Small watersheds, prepared by the Engineering
Division of the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (Reference 1) . This method is
designed for small urbanized watersheds. It is based on
procedures outlined in the SCS National Engineering Handbook ,
Section 4, Hydrology (NEH-4) and largely parallels the SCS
Modified Soil Cover Complex Method which adapts NEH-4 to small
watersheds (Reference 2) .
-9-
Basically , the TR-55 method utilizes curve numbers ( CN)
that describe watershed cover conditions to determine the' 'total
amount of runoff associated with 24-hour design storms whidb
follow a rainfall pattern typical of eastern United States (a
type II rainfall distribution) . . The peak discharge is then
determined as a function of slope , watershed shape , the amount
of impervious area , the extent of hydraulic modifications, and
the location and amount of ponding and swampy areas within the
watershed . It should be noted that the use of curve numbers in
the TR-55 method replaces the use of "c" coefficients in the
rational method . Both values are measures of the .
imperviousness of a watershed' s cover, however, the "c"
coefficient also incorporates other factors such as slope and
rainfall intensity . These two values are not directly
comparable .
For this analysis, watersheds contributary to the selected
design points are subdivided into catchments for peak discharge
determinations. Based on peak discharges and times of
concentration for each catchment , triangular hydrographs are
plotted with the excess runoff from the 24-hour storm included
in the "tail" of each hydrograph. As appropriate , inflow
hydro„raphs are added together to determine the total inflow
hydrograph for design points and for existing or proposed
retention areas. Using these inflow hydrographs , the Puls
Method is used to calculate reservoir storage , maximum water
level , and outflow hydrographs foz retention areas. Using
these procedures, . this , complete inflow-outflow analysis
incorporates detention area capacities, times of concentration
within the individual catchments of each watershed , and the
preliminary sizing of proposed control structures in order to .
route runoff associated with design storms through the study
area. Additional descriptions of methods and input parameters
are included in Appendix A.
-10-
4 . 3 Existing Conditions
Runoff from the Highland Acres development site currently.
drains towards three locations. For the purposes of this
study , the land areas contributing runoff to each of these
locations are considered three watersheds comprising the total
study area . These three watersheds are identified and
described below.
s Highland Park Watershed : Runoff from this
watershed flows from north of Highland Avenue
through a portion of the development site and golf
course to the existing box culvert beneath the
Boston and Maine Railroad tracks. From this point ,
runoff flows to a ponding area south of Jefferson
Avenue , beneath Jefferson Avenue in a set of three
48" culverts, and into a swampy area north of
Jefferson Avenue which drains to Salem Harbor.
Possible diversion of surface runoff to the
Highland Park Watershed from an adjacent watershed
to the north is controlled by the Salem 'Engineering
Department . Based on conversations with that
department , this diversion has not been included in
this analysis . All other areas which may
contribute runoff to the triple culverts beneath
Jefferson Street are included in the Highland Park
Watershed. , This watershed is presently about 640
i
acres.
Thompsons Meadow Watershed : A portion of the site
currently drains directly to Thompsons Meadow
without entering the Swampscott Road drainage
system. This portion of the development site , as
well as the offsite drainage area between this
portion and Thompsons Meadow, is considered the
Thompsons Meadow Watershed. Surface drainage
-11-
enters Thompsons Meadow in three distinct channels
south of the site . From Thompsons Meadow surface'
water drains to Salem Harbor via Forest River. fit
should be noted that this 54 acre watershed does
not include all offsite runoff to Thompsons Meadow.
s Swampscott Road Watershed : This watershed includes
all areas which contribute runoff to the Swampscott
Road drainage system at the point where this
drainage system leaves the site towards Thompsons
Meadow . The critical point of this drainage system
is the 36" culvert which conveys drainage beneath
Swampscott Road from the southwest to the northeast
near the tennis club and the southern boundary of
the Highland Acres site. Hereafter, this control
point will be referred to as the culvert beneath
Swampscott Road . The Swampscott Road Watershed
includes portions of the Highland Acres site
northeast of Swampscott Road as well as a more
extensive offsite area to the southwest of
Swampscott Road which extends north beyond Highland
Avenue. After leaving the Highland Acres site,
runoff from the Swampscott Road Watershed travels
to Thompsons Meadow.
Within the study area there are three primary control
points where the potential for flooding presently exists and
may be exacerbated with development within the study area. The
first two control points are the box culvert beneath the B & M
railroad tracks and the triple culvert beneath Jefferson
Avenue. Both of these are within the Highland Park Watershed.
The third control point is the culvert beneath Swampscott Road.
The three major watersheds have been subdivided into
smaller catchments to improve the accuracy of drainage
calculations. These catchments are identified on the map in
Figure 4-1 . Key input parameters used in modeling storm runoff
in each catchment are summarized in Table 4-1 . Methods .
-12-
c I
IIt Y�i, (� 6 / lpM6 0
I 'l f �
o
IE'X�
TEL ij I!
' E
BJ5 gg
�1 //r��,t��l.r'�.1� � s� � .. �Yst 1P' u� { �` 'f �✓.a 1 ? u I .,
a js' ' � :C c ,�L
Olt 660A
➢�}� l., � �� 70i� ��1 �� fl. -41w� {ant��5`F,j aT i�,u.�
Pitt
V�NIX
Le
{ so•�^.,E�J.' �r . ..rj'mUhe o i �.?O.' /"7, .��. 'a''.-. 'Aa2Bes •�..�
----- CATCHMENT BOUNDARY
WATERSHED BOUNDARY
SCALE 1:25 000
7 0 1 MILE
i00_0 0 1000 1000 3000 4030 5000 6000 7000 FEET
1^ .5 0 1 MILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET SALEM, MASS.
- NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 1929
MASE DEPTH CURVES AND SOUNDINGS IN FEET—DATUM IS MEAN LOW WATER N4230—W7052.5/7.5
THE RELA70NSKIP BETWEEN THE TWO DATUMS IS VARIABLE
SHORELINE SHOWN REPRESENTS THE APPROXIMATE LIME DE MEAN HIGH WATER 1970
U d THE MGN RANGE OE TIDE IS APPROXIMATELY 9 FEET PHOTOREViSED 1979
QUADRANGLE LOCATION AMS 6869111 SW—SERIES V814
FIGURE 4-1
PRE-DEVELOPMENT WATERSHED AND CATCHMENT
BOUNDARIES
-13-
i
TABLE 4-1
SUMMARY OF IN'UT PARAMETERS -
PRESENT WATERSHEDS
Time of
Area Average Average Concentration
Watershed/Catchment (Aries) CN Slope (Minutes)
HIGH AN) PARK WATERSHED
HP-1* 93.0 78 Steep: 14% 22
a
HP-2* 123.9 83 Steep: 11% 35
HP-3 154.9 79 Moderate: 7% 30
HP-4 142.7 77 Steep: 11% 49
HP-5 62.0 81 Steep: 9% 23
HP-6 43.3 80 Steep: 8% 22
Area Subtotal 619.8
SWAMPSCOTT ROAD WATERSHED
S-1* 27.4 79 Steep: 14% 22
S-2* 29.7 77 Steep: 17% 14
S-3 150.7 80 Steep: 8% 46
S-4* 20.1 77 Steep: 16% 13
Area Subtotal 227.9
THOMPSONS MEADOW WATERSHED
T-1* 12.6 77 Steep: 8% 8
T-2* 18.1 77 Steep: 16% 7
T-3* 20.0 77 Steep: lO% 11
Area Subtotal 50.7
TOTAL AREA
OF STUDY AREA 898.4
" Totally or partially within development site.
-14-
described in TR-55 were used in determining these parameters,
and background information and assumptions are provided in,
Appendix A.
Peak discharges at the design point of each catchment are
presented in Table 4-2 for the 10 year, 50 year, and 100 year
design storms. In interpreting the peak discharges it is
important to realize that these peak discharges occur at
different times and at different locations. Therefore, peak
discharges are not necessarily additive. Since travel times
(times of concentration) for the catchments vary from 7 minutes
to 49 minutes, peaks from smaller catchments occur considerably
sooner than peaks from larger, or more remote catchments. The
result is illustrated in the hydrographs in Figure 4-2. These
hydrographs represent the discharges associated with the 50 and
100 year storms which enter the retention area adjacent the
railroad tracks ( retention area A) as a function of time
starting from the beginning of each design storm. These
hydrographs are plotted by summing the contributory hydrographs
from catchments HP-1, HP-'2., HP-3, HP-4, and HP-5. Hydrographs
from catchments HP-2 and HP-3 are displaced to appropriately
account for travel time to the retention area. As indicated in
Figure 4-2, for the 100 year design storm the predevelopment
peak inflow to the retention area adjacent to the railroad
tracks is about 1500 cubic feet per second (cfs) , and this peak
a
occurs approximately 40 minutes after the beginning of the
storm (T = 40) . Of the 1500 cfs , 560 cfs is contributed by
catchment HP-2 and 430 ,by HP-3. Smaller discharges are
contributed by catchments HP-1 and HP-5 which peak prior to
T = 40 and by HP-4 which peaks after T = 40.
A similar hydrograph analysis indicates the pre-devel-
opment peak discharges at the culvert beneath Swampscott Road
are 390 cfs :at T = 60 and 330 at T = 60 for the 100 and 50 year
design storms , respectively . Based on the limited storage
capacity in the channel upstream of this culvert and the flow
restriction created by the culvert , it appears that substantial
street flooding on Swampscott Road occurs during storms of this
-15-
TABLE 4-2
PRE-DEVELOPMENT PEAK DISCHARGES BY CATCHMENT
FOR 10, 50, AND 100 YEAR DESIGN STORMS
Peak Discharge (cfs)
Watershed/Catchment 1. 0-year 50-year 100-year
HIGHLAND PARK WATERSHED
HP-1 115 200 241
HP-2 285 472 557
HP-3 218 373 446
HP-4 157 273 327
HP-5 92 157 190
HP-6 83 134 157
SWAMPSCOTT ROAD WATERSHED
S-1 61 105 125
S-2 63 108 130
S-3 160 270 ' 322
S-4 67 105 121
THOMPSONS MEADOW WATERSHED
T-1 32 51 59
T-2 38 63 75
T-3 38 64 76
-16-
1500
1400
1300 -
1200
1100
1000 100 YEAR
0
m
900 -
Soo
00 600
a
m
^ 700 50 YEAR
600
600
400
300
200
l
100
O
O 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 00 100 110 120 130
TIME {Minutaol t
FIGURE 4-2 Pre-Development inflow Hydrographs for Retention Basin Adjacent to Railroad Tracks (Basin A): 100 and 50 Year Design Storms
intensity . For the Thompsons Meadow Watershed the 100 and 50 •
year storm peaks are 210 cfs and 178 cfs, respectively . Thi
potential flooding effects of this runoff are dampened as peak
discharges enter the large storage area of Thompsons Meadow.
Runoff represented in the inflow hydrograph in Figure 4-2
is restricted by the box culvert beneath the railroad tracks.
An inflow-outflow analysis based on this inflow hydrograph and
the design of the box culvert indicates that the water level in
the ponding area adjacent to the railroad tracks rises to
elevations of 22 . 2 feet and 21. 5 feet for the 100 and 50 year
design storms , respectively. For comparison , the railroad bed
above the culvert is at about 26 feet .
The retention basin between the railroad tracks and
Jefferson Avenue receives storm water runoff discharged from
the box culvert as well as from a small catchment identified as
HP-6. An inflow-outflow analysis of the partially blocked
triple culvert beneath Jefferson Avenue indicates that runoff
associated with the 50 and 100 year design storms are contained
within this retention basin without spilling over Jefferson
Avenue . Maximum water levels are 14. 9 and 14. 4 feet for the
100 and 50 year storms , respectively. The elevation of Jef-
ferson Avenue above the triple culvert is approximately 17 feet .
In conclusion , the present drainage pattern in the study
area presents the serious potential for flooding in the
Swampscott Road Watershed . The 390 cfs peak discharge
associated with the 100 year storm exceeds the capacity of the
culvert beneath Swampscott Road, and flooding along the roadway
can be expected during . severe storms events. In the Highland
Park Watershed , a considerable amount of natural and manmade
detention area dampens peak discharges to downstream control
structures . The most significant of these are the basins
adjacent to the railroad tracks and adjacent to Jefferson
Avenue . Ponding levels in these basins rise significantly
during design storms but do not breach the railroad tracks or
Jefferson Avenue during the 100 year design storm. Peak
discharges into these basins for the 100 year design storm are
1500 cfs and 270 cfs , respectively .
-18_ .
4 . 4 Future Conditions
Assessment of post-development drainage impacts are baled.
on Highland Acres development plans prepared by Fafard Company
dated 4 February 1982, revised 5 May 1983 (114-1001 ) and on
roadway profiles prepared by Fafard Company dated 11 April
1983. Salient features of the drainage plans are the
construction of several retention/detention ponds with
associated control structures, the diversion of runoff away
from the Swampscott Road Watershed , and the continued use of
the existing detention area adjacent to the railroad tracks.
While development plans generally conform closely with the
natural topography , excavation and grading activities will
create some important modifications in catchment boundaries.
These changes are reflected in the post-development watershed
and catchment boundaries deliniated in Figure 4-3 and in the
watershed areas presented in Table 4-3. Drainage from 20.5
acres of the Swampscott Road Watershed is diverted to the
Highland Park Watershed. Likewise, drainage from an additional
3. 6 acres of the Swampscott Road Watershed is diverted to the
Thompsons Meadow Watershed. Other changes in catchment
configurations reflect the collection of runoff into ponding
areas E , D, C, and B.
The input parameters used in modeling drainage from each
catchment are summarized in Table 4-3. As in Table 4-1 ,
methods described in TR-55 were used in determining these
parameters, and background information is provided in
Appendix A .
For those catchments which are totally or partially within
the Highlands Acres development site, a comparison between
Table 4-1 and Table 4-3 reveals three general observations.
First , there is typically an increase in curve number in the
post-development catchments. Curve number is a function of
land use and soil type . In areas of residential, commercial or
industrial development , higher curve numbers reflect an
increase in impervious surface , which in turn create higher
-19-
i
TABLE 4-3
SUMMARY OF INPUT PARAMETERS - FUTURE WATERSHEDS
Time of
Area Average Average Concentration
Watershed/Catchment (Acres) ON Slope (Minutes)
HID-LAND PARK WATERSHED
HP-1 93.0 77 Steep: 10% 22
Hp-3 154.9 79 Moderate: 7% 30
HP-5 62.0 81 Steep: 8% 23
HPC, 43.4 80 Steep: 9% 22
HP-C* 111.2 91 Moderate: 5% 9
HP-D* 11.4 85 Moderate: 6% 1
HP-E* 11.6 82 Moderate: 6% 2
Hp_7* 2.3� 78 Moderate: 6% 10
.3
HP-8 50.8 80 Steep: 11% 19
HP-9 69.8 75 Steep: 11% 13
Ali Area Subtotal 640.4
SWAMPSCOTT ROAD WATERSHED
S-3 150.7 80 Steep: 8% 46
S-5* 18.4 90 Steep: 8% 5
S-6* 18.1 83 Steep: 10% 5
S-7* 16.5 83 Steep: 10% 4
Area Subtotal 203.7
THOMPSONS MEADOW WATERSHED
T-2 18.1 80 Steep: 14% 5
T_3 19.6 78 Steep: 10% 5
T-4 16.6 80 Steep: 8% 2
Area Subtotal 54.3
{ TOTAL AREA
OF STUDY AREA 898.4
* Totally or partially wittdn development site.
-21-
7 '
� �W",a'' �. �• p _-y� �� I �11ti 1.
IL
Itt
I .m i 1 a y6 a Wv M•U \ T,. .
L ��•i 1wIPII i' l,
PJ7
.•/ .'-, v .,, } \� !/I) .t {.t r :� "'S I� , ' 15ab%TR 1-`•*�. v ^.. _ �r � r R
Ir.
'4�
J� t _ /�ti�(�`+.1a54�lYI� � t� � � ll ll 5 � •
0
i \
3`
14
�o`I l 'v„ •`3 1 y r"''� �, fir{ � c� _ _
f)�.`\ .`pry �� \' ;`� '. ^� c,.� .r r••. �C;•
p (-_ �' ! oo � ' • r�...�� rr _ .a' -'fid:
1S.,r` •-.t • Imo. (�a " +° ... f .l'
�. i 'kJ fta7
--- -- CATCHMENT BOUNDARY
WATERSHED BOUNDARY
SCALE 1:25 000 MILEI 1 0
1000 0 IOW 2000 3000 4WD BCW 6000 7000 FEET
1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET SALEM MASS.`, !�
NATIONAL GEODETIC VERTICAL DATUM OF 2929 N4234-007052.517.5 It
MASS
DEPTH CURVES AND SOUNDINGS IN FEET—DATUM IS MEAN LOW WATER
VV''TT��(( THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO DATUMS IS VARIABLE 3970 {
L^� SHORELINE SHOWN REPRESENTS THE APPROXIMATE LINE OF MEAN HIGH WATER PHOTOREVISEO 1979 f��
THE MEAN RANGE OF TIDE IS APPROXIMATELY 9 FEET
QUADRANGLE LOCATION AMS 6869 111 SW—SER}ES VBIF S
FIGURE 4-3
POST-DEVELOPMENT WATERSHED AND CATCHMENT BOUNDARIES
_20-
i
TA -
TABLE 4 4
POST-DEVELOPMENT PEAK DISCHARGES BY CATCHMENT
FOR 102 50, and 100 YEAR DESIGN STORMS 4
Peak Discharge (cfs)
Watershed/Catchment 10-year 50-year 100-year
HIGHLAND PARK WATERSHED
HP-1 120 208 249
HP-3 218 373 446
HP-5 83 134 157
HP-6 83 134 157
HP-C 401 596 681
HP-D 60 89 101
HP-E 47 71 79
HP-7 74 115 132
HP-8 129 207 243
HP-9 97 168 204
SWAMPSCOTT ROAD WATERSHED
S-3 160 270 322
S-5 141 201 225
S-6 88 133 151
S-7 92 139 158
THOMPSONS MEADOW WATERSHED
T-2 52 85 101
T-3 44 75 90
T-4 67 103 117
-23-
approximately 270, 000 cubic feet of available storage between.'
the elevations of 110 and 114 feet . Water retained Pond D k
during dry periods will be between the 114 feet water level and
the pond bottom.
Similar preliminary construction specifications for each
pond are presented in Table 4-5. These are based on the dry
weather pond surface areas delineated in the design plans the
storage calculations in Appendix A. These specifications are
preliminary and may be adjusted based on field conditions
encountered during construction or based on final design of the
ponds and control structures. These preliminary plans,
however, serve to demonstrate the feasibility of mitigating
adverse drainage impacts downstream of the development site
with the retention pond concept .
Based on an inflow-outflow analysis of the 100 year design
storm, Ponds E, D, and C all adequately retain runoff from the
post-development site without flooding streets or residential
areas within Highland Acres. The maximum water levels in Ponds
E, D, and C associated with the 100 year storm are below 117,
112, and 96 feet , respectively , and thus do not approach
emergency spillway elevations. In addition, each pond
effectively reduces peak discharges associated with the
post-developed site. While the 100 year storm peak discharge
into Pond E , D, and C is 78, 97, and 683 cfs, respectively , the
peak outflow from these ponds is 4, 4, and 19 cfs . In contrast
to pre-development discharges, the ponds sustain outflows of
similar magnitudes for several hours after rainfall has peaked.
Pond B collects runoff from post-development catchments
HP-8 and HP-3 of the Highland Park Watershed. Design
specifications presented in Table 4-5 indicate that Pond B
requires no excavation. During dry periods there will be no
change in water elevation in this area, and during wet periods
the proposed new road through the golf course will serve as an
embankment to temporarily detain water in Pond B. A
Post-development inflow-outflow analysis for the 100 year
design storm indicates that a 536 cfs peak discharge into Pond
-24-
peak discharges at the catchment design point . Second, there
is typically a decrease in the time of concentration or travel
time for each developed catchment . This is associated with
increased impervious surface and hydraulic modifications such
as subsurface drainage pipes. Third , there typically is a
decrease in average catchment slope associated with grading and
terracing development lots and roadways.
For the 10, 50, and 100 year design storms, peak
discharges for each post-development catchment are presented in
Table 4-4 . Although changes in catchment boundaries make
direct comparisons with pre-development catchments difficult ,
there is an increase in localized peak discharges in those
areas undergoing residential , commercial , or industrial
development . As in the pre-development peak discharges
presented in Table 4-2 , the post-development peak discharges
presented in Table 4-4 are not necessarily additive because of
important differences in 'times of concentration, catchment
design points and routing.
The primary mitigating measure designed to reduce the
adverse effects associated with increased peak discharges is
the construction of ponding areas to detain stormwater runoff
and delay the travel time to downstream control points. Ponds
E, D, and C are located in the residential development area of
Highland Acres and collect surface runoff from catchments HP-E,
HP-D, and HP-C, respectively . Discharge from Ponds E and D is
conveyed by sub-surface 24" pipes . to Pond C.
Each of these thr@e ponds is located in localized low -
areas presently containing wetland vegetation and intermittent
streams . Each will be excavated to increase water storage .
capacity while maintaining a permanent water level relative to
the local groundwater level. For example , Pond D will be
excavated to a depth below 110 feet from the present level of
about 113. 5. A maximum dry weather water level of 110 feet
will be maintained by a control structure with an invert
elevation of 110 feet . The maximum pond level , as regulated by
an emergency spillway will be 114 feet allowing for
-22-
700 -
600
$ 600
a
a 400
n
m
n
7 300
200
100
O
O 10 20 50 40 50 BO 70 so 00 100 110 120 190
TIME(Mk%4")
- FIGURE 4-4 Post-Development Inflow Hydrograph for Retention Basin Adjacent to Railroad Tracks (Basin A): 100 Year Design Storm
z
B at T = 40 is dampened to a 56 cfs peak outflow with the
maximum water level reaching about 51. 6 feet at T = 90. The
proposed road , at an elevation of 52 feet , serves as the IS
emergency spillway for Pond B.
Due to the retention of runoff in Ponds E, D, C, and B the
peak discharge to the detention area adjacent the railroad
tracks (Ponding Area A) associated with the post-development
100-year storm is approximately 700 cfs and occurs at T = 20.
This is shown in the inflow hydrograph in Figure 4-4. The
post-development inflow peak is substantially less than the
peak of 1500 cfs associated with existing conditions. The
maximum water level in this retention area is similarly reduced
from 22. 2 feet to 19. 4 feet in the post-development case.
The reason for this dramatic reduction is the presence of
Ponds D, E , C, and B. With the inclusion of these ponds ,
runoff from 340 acres, or 57% of the effective watershed, is
routed through at least one detention basin. Of particular
importance is Ponding Area B which collects runoff from - 206
acres including the large HP-3 catchment north of Highland
Avenue . Of the 100 year storm, post-development peak of 700
cfs which occurs at T = 20, only about 3% is contributed by the'
57% of the drainage area which is routed through detention
areas and 97% is contributed by the catchments which are
located southeast of the proposed new road through the golf
course (HP-1 , HP-9, HP-7, and HP-5) . These observations attest
to the beneficial effects of the retention areas in reducing
peak discharges.
The complementary effect of reducing a peak discharge is
prolonging the discharge during the course of the storm event.
Discharge to the retention basin adjacent the railroad tracks
continues for several hours. For example, after three hours of
the 100 year design storm (T = 180) , the post-development
inflow to this basin is 120 cfs while the pre-development
discharge is only 80 cfs.
-26-
TABLE 4-5
SIMMARY OF STORAGE POND ELEVATIONS
AND CAPACITIES
Pond
Area at Total
Elevations Available Minimum Storage
Ponding for Storage (feet) Elevation Capacity
Area Minimum Maximum (Acres) (ft3) Outlet Control
E 115 120 1.32 450,000 24" pipe culvert
! ' D 110 114 1.21 270,000 24" pipe culvert
C 90 100 4.13 2,700,000 18" pipe cluvert
B 47 52 4.95 114009000 36" pipe culvert
A 16 25 0.77 61600,000 4' x 6' box culvert
SCHEMATIC ROUTING IN HIGHLAND PARK WATERSHED
, a
OO()
t
The peak discharge to the retention area between the
railroad tracks and Jefferson Avenue is also reduced because of
the upland retention ponds. The pre-development peak inflA to
this area associated with the 100 year storm is 270 cfs and
detained water reaches an elevation of 14. 9 feet . In contrast ,
the post-development peak reaches only 230 cfs and the water
level rises to only 13. 6 feet . Therefore, the probability of
water overflowing Jefferson Avenue and flooding the homes in
that area are diminished with the addition of the Highland
Areas development and the proposed upland ponding areas.
In the Swampscott Road Watershed .the peak discharge to the
culvert beneath Swampscott Road is reduced in the
post-development case . As previously mentioned , the present
peak discharges at this control point are 390 cfs and 330 cfs
for the 100 and 50 year design storms, respectively . For the
post-development case these peak discharges are reduced to
330 cfs and 250 cfs, respectively . Despite this reduction, the
stormwater collection system along Swampscott Road appears to
be inadequate to handle any storm of this size without street
flooding occurring at certain control points . The reason for
the post-development reduction in peak discharges in the
Swampscott Road Watershed is the diversion of runoff away from
this watershed on the Highland Areas site. Most of this
diversion is to Ponds E and C of the Highland Park Watershed .
The effect of these diversions is limited because, of the 228
acres presently contributing runoff to the culvert beneath
Swampscott Road , only 77 acres are on the Highland Acres site.
In the future this 77 acres will be reduced to 53 acres,
however the development will have no effect on the other 151
acres (catchment 5-3) of the Swampscott Road Watershed which is
located primarily west of Swampscott Road and Highland Avenue .
Discharges to the Thompsons Meadow Watershed increase
slightly in the post-development case. This is primarily
because runoff from a small portion of the Swampscott Road
Watershed will be diverted to the Thompsons Meadow Watershed.
The increase in peak discharges is also a function of an
-28-
z
increase in impervious surfaces and decrease in travel time in
the portion of this watershed which will be developed with .k
housing units , driveways and roadways. Compared to the present
peak discharges of 210 cfs and 180 cfs associated with the 100
and 50' year design storms , respectively , the future peak
discharges are 310 cfs and 260 cfs, respectively . Due to the
size and storage capacity of the Thompsons Meadow area no
noticeable flooding impact from this increase is anticipated.
4. 5 Erosion Control and Construction Impacts
Soil erosion control measures will be established during
construction of the Highland Acres development site. Controls
will include the placement of straw bales, synthetic fabric, or
similar filtering material to serve as a silt fence along the
edge of exposed , downward sloping areas. In particular, such
sedimentation and erosion control devices will be placed around
steeply sloping bare areas that will be unprotected by
vegetation for prolonged time periods. As soils are disturbed
and/or graded during construction, they will be revegetated as
soon as possible to stabilize the finished soil cover.
Construction of new earthen embankments and retention pond
banks on the site will be designed at a maximum 3:1 slope for
stability and erosion control.
4. 6 Conclusions and Response to Comments on Draft EIR
As currently planned, the Highland Acres development
project will result in a decrease in the potential for flooding
and adverse drainage related impacts at critical downstream
design points . This conclusion is based on results summarized
in Table 4-6. Localized peak discharges within the development
site will increase due to modifications of surface cover and
hydraulic channels, however the downstream adverse effect of
these increases are mitigated through the use of
retention/detention ponds and the diversion of runoff away from
the Swampscott Road Watershed.
-29-
As indicated in Table 4-6, there is a significant decrease
in the peak discharge associated with the 100 year design 'storm
j at the three downstream locations of principal concern. Th$se
locations are (1) the box culvert beneath the B & M railroad
tracks adjacent to the golf course, (2) the triple culvert
beneath Jefferson Avenue, and (3) the 36" culvert running from
southwest to northeast beneath Swampscott Road near the
southern boundary of Highland Acres. The increased discharge
to the fourth area, Thompsons Meadow, is not considered
critical.
This analysis has been performed based on the most recent
development plans for Highland Acres. The analysis
demonstrates the feasibility of these plans from the standpoint
of controlling storm runoff and avoiding increases in peak
discharges to critical downstream areas. Design details may
change based on conditions encountered during construction or
final calculation of ponding capacities and adequate control
structures. The determination of maximum ponding elevations
and outflow hydrographs is derived primarily from calculations
based on the 100 year design storm. Peak discharges and
maximum ponding elevations associated with the 50 and 10 year.
design storms are less.
Comments on the Draft EIR drainage study made by EOEA and
MAPC have been addressed in Sections 4.1 through 4. 5.
Specifically , this drainage analysis is based on the latest
iteration of the development proposal and incorporates the
criteria identified in , the EDEA letter of April 250 1983 (see
third paragraph of Drainage comments) . As mentioned in Section
4.2 of this analysis, "c" coefficients used in Rational Method
and in the DEIR have not been used in this analysis which uses
the U.S. Soil Conservation Service TR-55 method for small urban
watersheds . Regarding the MAPC letter of May 20, 1983, the
elevations presented in Table 4-4, the discussion of pond
construction accompanying this table, and the erosion control
measures discussed in Section 4. 5 address specific drainage
comments .
-30-
TABLE 4-6
SUMMARY RESULTS OF DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
Peak Discharge Associated with
100-Year Design Storm (cfs)
(T=time when peak occurs, minutes)
Present Future
Conditions Conditions
Discharge to retention 1500 700
area adjacent railroad (T=40) (T=20)
tracks (box culvert)
Y'M
Discharge to retention 270 230
area adjacent (T=90) (T=30)
Jefferson Avenue
(triple culvert)
Discharge to Swampscott 390 330 *
Road culvert (T=60) (T=60)
Discharge to Thompsons 210 310 *
Meadow (T=10) (T=10)
* Nate: Runoff from both the, Swampscott Road Watershed and the Thompsons
Meadow Watershed ultimately enters Thompson Meadow. The increased
peak discharge directly to Thompson Meadow is partially due to
diverting water directly to Thompsons Meadow rather than through the
Swampscott Road drainage system.
-31-
a
4. 7 References for Section 4
1. U. S. Department of Agriculture , Soil Conservation Service,
Engineering Division , Urban Hydrology for Small
Watersheds , technical release no. 55 (TR-55) , January 1975.
2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service ,
"Estimating Runoff" , Chapter 2 in Engineering Field Manual
for Conservation Practices (Modified Soil Cover Complex
Method) .
3. Hershfied , D. M. , Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United
States for Durations from 30 minutes to 24 Hours and
Return Periods from 1 to 100 Years , prepared for
Engineering Division, Soil Conservation Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture , May 1961.
4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Weather Service , Five- to 60-Minute Precipitation
Frequency for the Eastern and Central United States , NDAA
Technical Memorandum NWS HYDRO-35, June 1977. ,
5. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Northern Massachusetts Interim Soil Survey Report ,
February 1982.
6. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
Guide for the Use of Technical Release No. 55 - Urban
Hydrology , Albany , New York, December 1977.
7. Pagan, Alfred R. , "How to Calculate Streamflow Time,"
Better Roads , June 1972.
8. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Design of Small Dams, second edition, revised reprint ,
1977.
-32-
APPENDIX A
DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS k
A-1 Determination of 10, 50, and 100 Year Storm Rainfalls
A-2 Determination of TR-55 Input Parameters
A-3 Hydrograph Plotting
A-4 Stage-Storage-Discharge Relationships
A-5 Inflow-Outflow Analysis
-33-
CALCULATION SHEET
h Mm
CALCULATION IDENTIFICATION NUMB
J.O. OR W.O. NO. DIVISION b GROUP CALCULATION NO. PAGE_
I
2
3 �ierm ti��,'on Of /0) SU u ,o( /00 year S�.r.n Iti+•K�+II:
4
5
6
rG,,�J( o(QPAl 'fnr 11.0- Q '1 -(7c�r SIV e.'"s
6 wifi� r¢�rn fro f cf /0 0 . �
9 � S O� 0'1• too y(w V' wpr+e rP� '�
o w�Pa �� vt Fere,c cS 3 �,� d 4 .(-
pr Sale^^ Mbss��l��se 1�T.
II
Iz A
Rci•,fn QEr o4 �'Co,rro.U(i,�Cl<Ps
13
14
_ ID
5
16
Sn yr. S �. C)
17 /
1e /DL• 4�r�. c �• �
19
20
21 —rkl 71? -S S /� , �tJQ ✓f;71 ?e'C lt4 T Pe � 'C�Vrt '1
22 pp r (� ,/ / L
d�`t�r16 .� ' JH ; ,,(" CT tc-Ikfp Uri T(d � S�AtL �ri23
• r .
za 1;'t mart SPvP+r`
Or allS�' orfF t• C�vr o'� ru r.j �, ,'� �
25
a ti1o�r o(ec 'gr1 Sforw� .
26 V
27
26
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
36
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
CALCULATION SHEET inmi
' CALCULATION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
J.O. OR'W.O.NO. DIVIISSInO,N && GROUP CALCULATION NO. /I I PAGE i
1
2f TR- s9 Ap✓ Ara w7e(ers
�rhr.r-�afie� d t
3
4
3 T
e '.
7 A So, E. {ar {L c Sg7ft e(n rprt of EsSF�+k �oJn
6 hAS rlo' 6e£ x (ol shfcQ An gdvantFd cq� 6r tit
9 s/o;/ 0 11
40 {i'II�j1
IC l'�� JOS I l.,e n�lK� 'en'4 �/Y✓��Q. �I[al i'GC /'f [u�.l e
II So, SeriL Icv✓'JaC'Tz "r 0, cktai .
12 rdnkIaS(C+p.T,rff�fE.JQ)Y i--r - eLf�.t. df erv-vt7ede -(L%
13 eTE01l fe.tacn�e�e..alC[rrO'SvPS�+etx
14 CA) W40 as PeyLt—'
S Vh
16
IT
16 {�f �yr�rq{ 'cJ s�; f 9ro P 1a:Ptd. on rt �erc�rr 1 r 2 r a rI
19 o.I.. d p rson e,l fO�w.ri.: t4.�,'a V• w: "�T^+� SCS t}a('f" e5 i�t:�aCo{i %•
20 Co Qt F+ydrq
21 �.,,.o SO• tt^^ tt
�„Ce„� JciV SQ nYi NGr.Q,
22
23
24 /' C lw'�'F�etd -Noil,'S-�ack. o.rtccoio2 3 ie IS°)e tlarc
r �}
25 `^ rb c ,HF��,:�+a- 1-{77tL3- ^oc.lc .o✓fcr.+F+ � IS' 1' 3S'�• S1oPt
26 U Y c � 1or T}72ra'iZ i.t r+oo' Errt
27 aU v- �\ Or6on L..A e - i t
28 W� (.� Whl'+N'1aN �^gywN tIy sivv Oc,
29 S� fl S/ ttiaktr T:nQ Sa'c(I i60'mr , C1
30 Q1 �. Krt�gQto.'r� Q1c{rQ7++t�� s'40n_) 4*,At Sandy loil"S 3 3
31 Si D SouJu.NLen! v"C .) peat
32 EIA r� c -IW v✓GON TSAR yS.0"dl j�'y�IDAW , �i 40 3 % stopq-
35t�4 C �, �It,x ` U(VOen IA,n - il[ssGk 6aJ1-CfoP CLv1 D1�t Js�f�u A1'ner
34 Qti Q�atei4..jr
35 [D � Flee fes,,.v. w1,.c,kr paNde.Q
36 retC c {{p�`ca X'h,✓I vera 1oa 74v , � 'i'6 iSry'L1'Pe
37 C-re4.4v.. K^uC.IC
30 W b wr�a+er t 5p/y
39 - SCA b S(';tl[o sllf Iom1 ( C) f0 e slorf.
41 UX Ll iS 0'71 f� V1" 4n k,4d Ct"plty + QPKTi4 11010t'43
42 J J
43
44
45
46
CALCULATION SHEET
�1�R1
CALCULATION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
J.O. OR W.O. NO. DIVISION Fi GROUP CALCULATION NO. ,PAGE
z
3 Sc S So ( •� r el D�or4P Df adwHc¢d o(.cft of So;1 S rde
4 /
s
6
l
B �
9 /
10
z /
13
C.O
14
15
16
17C.D
C.0 CID., �
9 Uc H.0 j
C,9 D
19 LID UD
zo CID f'D .� C.D _
21 i me
UD
22 ` Uf /
St CID Uv
23 ' u ` UD 15
24 C.0 .Y /, sok 1
25 uo � i�. C.D CA
LAI2 6 CID Q� C.D °° Uf
S,n
27 � r ^ U
26
29 v
I �_ `l CID
4r D.
30 CID
31
CID
32 • HvC
c.c ` c•� t.c cm
33 HSC '�.`
34 CID C.D C.0
35 15t Fp
36 •� na.�wD
60
37
36Fv GC
39 CrD
40 Q•
41 \ w
42
43
i
44
45
46
ml
CALCULATION SHEET h�
CALCULATION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
J.O. OR W.0. NO. DIVISION E GROUP CALCULATION N0. , .;PAGE S
53a !-fN1M �} -a
2 C fie I�unlovr :
3
4 C.,r✓e jt v--e' 6<r of � � drataJ.'c so.
c{ lo-CfSe Cl bar cl
Yb.�� Gr a. f 0.1 Q-'11d r S.L.+ . �a r•
6 f 1 ( O^e. o� ' 1' ww.
p �� pG(� L / '�^ kE n 'Ca
7 C(-fScoi ,Gnlu{ UJrS LAI C d' u 1'.l S On U•S.G xS mo f
6 -{tIt4, ,rq j a. {r (<,+ c.bPcc of �I e �3csPv I L, f+rrke4 .
9 q T� �T � � of r4[.`25 z i'k wlerX Lharat�tf z<c( ai
Gn VSfS o* rr� +�+^ (�
10 q3 �Y 0cce f'c 5-'rj Qn{,r� CJvnr� f�cr+f, o�.�.� �..S.N PC S� �ON� (CNtcf6,,
11t l
or YnFv �o ? �b fFf. are.r.ot �bncJs}
12
i3 � S (Jf"1CfbGd x)'. ! P{P{FnGf Z er{ WC. p�t( C.N,w✓ml,•ar{
i4 Wat c o i c fir e, ItQrr° f f-
0 m d( t*uf re Ca{t.�wR
t5 ff S9'�'I�rt Cnlc✓%. 1ow+ S�t! '( + a,ffoc.4f�•
16
17
lupe Qntl\ µytlfnvliC (..r9 h .
19
20
21 1 .1JE�ff.n.v ,'o�n L�p� ,f S�to�C / TDrf
22 co t-'t� w.f✓1{"T .WAS 6RE4 0.. wel�•leO..L PCC.Sr�r"1ie d, 7N
23 rt f �. a.-d 6 Vs,n� a 1 "� ' �fo�r-p6�t 3;4e Alts„n ,{
24 rCo'fL.�rr c'vt"rf pNO[ P ff^-V.S.6
25 �br of•F-i;tt Ca{�.4t.M e.�i-T. Fe' fj,)rcC lcairkwe^lfr Sl-pr1
26 anc� Vi� pvovi.-c 7f,nq{rr We.r•C PLf N1.1G kbl ^ -(fte" E'xlti , ,c)
27 ,1 �n y�[� hlV j z;k �14J„ns ' nNc7[ '�ra{f tjt.R 4X ��dc.�Q�„e✓t� .
26
29
30
31
32
33 iGe �C�• 55 r�e"fllortOr c4e{er�,wr� P{a1c d�zci�Qv
34 o,��ow5 . u�+✓s1 f.- e,^tZ -{ar ��+.frft#�Pd Si,o-�3e, �artcl.r� arphS
35 wi k4 ;n (j t w�1 tSktc{ r . �L ty4 ce } rt� +��n/;u ,i f area ;th+n
36 ee P.. + 0T Mbd •�x rc.1?'rN� '�'p
37 -�/`.t}� t ( ('faNl.G �Pny� c, These �4tPi✓fcs 'fe.
36 �tcRor'm014 /r'-TfQN +k l"-roo` S"k pl-'N
39 Mae a.n�`'� -6c (j Su<'vf, S . Afer� t3(F*(»^ 1NFT�bti3
40 4+,a We ! / /C,0".1^f*- f,7 .Volver.1 NSf0. 1/1 �Pa� �1 YC�ofp,Q
41 r L^ fl
• C.AQ (T �'Mi/1 r-�.wnl GJQ. P-Hr,t 41.
{2
43
i;
45
46
, •i
Table 2-2.--Runoff curve numbers for selected agricultural, suburban, and
urban land use. (Antecedent moisture condition II, and Ia = 0.25)
HYDROLOGIC SOIL GWUP
LAND USE DESCRIPTION
A B C D
Cultivated land!/: without conservation treatment 72 81 88 91
: with coacervation treatment 62 71 78 81
Pasture or range land: poor condition 68 79 86 89
good condition 39 61 74 80
Meadow: good condition 30 58 71 78
Wood or Forest land: thin stand, poor cover, no mulch 45 66 77 83
good cwer2/ 25 55 70 7T
Open Spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, etc.
good condition:. grass ewer on 755 or more of the area 39 61 74 80
fair condition: grass cover on 50f to 75% of the area 49 69 79 84
Commercial and business areas (855. Impervious) 89 92 94 95
Industrial districts (72% impervious). 81 68 91 93
Residential:!/
Average lot size Average % Impervious!/
1/8 acre or lees 65 77 85 90 92
1/4 acre 38 61 75 83 87
1/3 acre 30 57 T2 81 86
1/2 acre 25 54 70 80 85
1 acre 20 51 68 79 84
Paved parking lots, roofs, drivwgrs, etc.!/ 98 98 98 98
Streets and roads:
paved with curbs and storm severe!/ 98 98 98 98
gravel 76 85 89 91
dirt 72 82 87 89
1/
For a more detailed description of agricultural land we curve numbers refer to
Rational Engineering Randbook, Section 4, $ydrologf, Chapter 9, Aug. 1972.
a/ Good cover Is protected from grazing and litter and brush cover soil.
Curve numbers are computed assuming the r o%off from the house and driveway
is directed towards the street with a minimum of roof voter directed to louse
where additional infiltration could occur.
!/ The remaining pervious areas (lawn) are considered to be in good pasture condition
for these curve numbers.
In name warmer climates of the country a curve number of 95 mar be used.
' � • {ro.., TR'JAS (Ri�er¢..c r 1,
} L
SCS MODIFIED SOIL COVER COMPLEX METHOD - AVERAGE CN l
AW
Project Name . - { " 3 S _ Analysis Datei
y
X Pre-Developmemt, _ CY Post-Development Analyst jt-
Land Use Soil Group CN Area Area x CN
'y': .:,;t�c-c•{i� l ('130.10 C fil t( a5�4
r
Alb
_0 I .Z 12N
e
Total Area ( L X202_ Total
Average CN = to
m
i
CALCULATION SHEET �m
CALCULATION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
J.O. OR W.0.N0. DIVISION 6 GROUP I CALCULATION NO. - ;PAGE
5 3?L t4m AA
2 G Qa t.tl , -+
Ave Awe 4I dr.41;c pe(0..+ wt
Co,4cb wet GM
Grtit St„r- 1.c(.��`ri. Mod:fi,P� Ap�rc}}s. 1rca1.K'1" Inr,r-
5
HP-1 Pd F 93,0 78177 10 OL-7)o 0 11+5 c,, 0
6 HPQ P 013.9 SI t 2too `t 5 c 1.t
HP.3 PAF 159.9 l9 1 3000. 1-1 8 C !,Q
10 14P-`t P _14x.7 -77 t1 34 o0 0 b C. I
11 14P-7 P4--F b p
.2,0 41 I 3044 20 7 b to
12 N P- 6 PtF 43.3 IVo '? X500 O 13 . C ►4
13 14P-L F II (,1 91 5 3So0 Sg a G -71
14 HP- 1D F 11.4 is
toxo 30 o NA 47
t5 NP- E F 11.L ¢i 10 to ra O MA 4'a
16 1-fP--)1 F 3'1.3 74 6 1(riQ Ic, o n1A 1+4
17 t4P- bF y0.g $0 I1 I6a6 O a 16
16 HP--tfs F 69.8 75 I4
19
20 9- 1 P 27.4 -79 I'l 13510 0. 3 D 9
21
22 S- 3 PAF 1501 %c B SVOO T 5 G t6
23 S-cl P 20, 1 '7`1 IG 980 0 6 NA 0
2" 5. I`l.4 9a 8 1470 93 o MA 70
25 s-(o F if6. t '63 10 1120 aj 0 r4 III
26 5- } 4= 5; 3 10 9 k 10 o rJA SO
27
26 7-1 P 11.4 71 Sr 1760 0 0 tj a
29 7_a P4.F 101. 1 77160 16'+10 1260t1Toc 0 +10 / D 0030
30 T-'3 P4F 20.0 71478 10 IQoa9�o;too 0*25 2 D Otto
31 T-'l F ib.b 8o ,Q 144o 11 O NA 079
32
33
34
35
36 P _Prrrezent
36 Pte%
39
40 r� 1
42 L
' 43 1L) u�fj2< CeQtlwl�
44 NR ^ not G1)pl,ia�stC
45 1
46
mil
CALCULATION SHEET hm
CALCULATION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
J.O. OR W.O. NO. DIVISION & GROUP CALCULATION NO. nn ,PAGE
S3-;1- r1Mnn A• 3 /• U/
2
' N� dro9r� pl,
4 -
5 / 1 -If� /� /
6 14,01Yuq rop�s �Y (.P ME+^ 1U01c /!/rc. YZIIOW�l
7 J V
B
9
10
11 (c 4 s)
12
13
14 O Tp -TY
15
16
Te -rlmF y
17
19
zo f - ,J1
zl �� CAfP Of
22
23
24 Z,•. (O'j V,Ovo�,.t1 s a clef;y ?Omtarc 6.54 0r' 'V,w-
25 S w o'f �, jr;b �e�� �1�fug Ca PIIS acc� ^tn� -(u, �f74�e1 Irwe.
26 U
27
26 '
I, /o� Core .�ry{'oNi ck,d open cA,A. e +r-,r—,o ' +r,r s
29 /P t
?(Ow. Ga.'Ec�M4.�.�f IO �2i�y In QO,Nt2 Gr.2'C CLIC JI O.�^� 10 91E'�
of
30 til
.� FC.rc�Sc�a+c.�w.eJKf�/! ✓f: I,i c dp K'�'f,.� -}-ramie I R {�
32 Yy-e1 �I0 Mack (..GTv'i^ CC�'S�� CP�.JAWtlfT v'I'1�,1 t�lJl 1••VL
33
OQ,•'V u 4c.34 tNQ O.(- off.% [1ooKe'l -G'OeW.I CJ IG•F-.�k4
S
35
LNErL Ga,IC.�IcJ(t4.� 67 /�nn�l�'S eyv-'+vh
36
37 v _ • �q C 1/j S1/Z
36
39 s
v V?�oc
40
h MnNn�1..q'S M
t. 62 S = S `�p¢
43 \/ L� -I 1 _ I i/7
44 •q' S "\u! I�V,N r WQ�. �'%IFN nor �.��Olt ( awLQ
45
46
CALCULATION SHEET hI1�I
CALCULATION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
J.O. OR W.O.NO. DIVISION E GROUP I CALCULATION NO. �,} :PAGE
53a HtgfA A -q
2
3
s
6
7
t'Gy�c." p`y J'--'C. t �(A'ilonx ktpt -rU<
Yo17e'ti�.rxo'� /q••✓en.'e. all- Shown
o kac �nlluw.�,� P4�e.s
Aro-A ole (e�,-+,HoY,�. t LJP+'c-.
it /l f.f'forro .!D IJ y �a r�w!rG ( utd'ly ' pfN,^4eo. Y.d lh4e" la+�Ep�
12 (c.,Af >.,rc ro, /-#T-,c, l `'� ( v �' A�lo �SPI,�s. plr.n aF' rel
li s�ryA. •d,'S[.NOY J✓1CT/,ya� S iPm..! (ooscof or%
14 �'P�P✓ �;?� y ot1''ttC vt c.�' g ..
15
IE
17
. t8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
36
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
i 7 R 11
CALCULATION SHEET inmi
CALCULATION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
J.0. OR W.0.NO. DIVISION 6 GROUP CALCULATION N0. ;PAGE
Sia HAI 14
2 9,5/1 ROAO Tr<ACK RCTEN7tom AKA
}
4 CtF,JAI,Ont —.Sr6pA6 VaLur E (�i��
AJC
fi E �PJ,.l,Fe 1r"I a �\ tr tC(vr.l in<rt.n rni.,.,
7
B N
10 Ib,�ay f 16,4)`1
'2 i3�3,3'�0 1 l33,3ae
13 17 X32 991 ls �f ,uy
14 3} 51 ?`+6 i Si 5,746
15 t4 398j5or ybst140
16 5;2�, o5Y 1, 05 `I
17 o CL5 6n 1 5 ;?oIOoS
t3 004 S 5 07 S,p� 0 G t
191, 37 i Ot`! 394 S� 1 0:2
19
20
21 1 c 70x/ 000
22
a.} a,,k08/ 00 -
23 �-Z _ , k00, 009
24 2-� 4Ii 4001 00 '0
25 7 gJ 400 goo
26
27
ze
!`f
29
30
2
31
32 22
53
34 71
35
Sfi
Ze
37
38 t4
39
40 1`
4t
42 1
43
44 /
45
46 r 2 3 Y 5 C )
CALCULATION SHEET
nm
CALCULATION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
J.O. OR W.O.NO. DIVISION 6 GROUP I CALCULATION NO. n PAGE 3
53 NMa1
2 ?FFG£k'S01j AJtNUF '7kiFCc' CULVERT
3
FL�vP
srvR�ic F vgwrY £
/y f / Arc
6 �? (I 11\ in�r�.,w.� (�1, iw«i..t.i..-1
7
9 /v 1G1y7� o
9 43914 2 87,8��6
o /,2 111350 $7 Bz4
1 09 0-73 2 2tti 146 1
1z
13 /41 1y� 711 305197 `I
I qG Q40 I 19 01)
quern
14
IS 3, ;1 S0 ; 91Y
15 a 971 ?9C a 5914, sti3
.6 17 3 `11 Sfo
17 I 10U Sul
e II 3S� 000
19
20 I�/ �QD 06 p
�b 760 0 °v .
21 1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
I
37
38
39
40
41
• 42
43
44
45
46
CALCULATION SHEET f1I1'i
CALCULATION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
J.O. OR W.O.NO. DIVISION & GROUP CALCULATION NO. PAGE
532 HMfA A 1 0.
�.4EtiATtor-/Gvt {- Ui > tO)< GULV4.q--T '7
Rte TR40�S
2
4 I,.! U e�y}rn c
1 n
6 �ONCKi`}:`on C
7 /
6 15, S 0
12
13 I ( �.� �� �m• 0 /y.0
14
15
16
17
.6
18 at 5.S ).V8 35,0 ;tiv.c)
20
21 2�. G.5 !• 5 i 4�,� 23 a .. i
22
23 a� �,� 1.-74 " 7,5
?.05
24 C }
25 >1y $.� 1. 9 % $2.0
26
27 '33(o
ze
2,9 JJ 1 L)
30 {ON
30
31
32
33 �6 A : 3 +�
34
35
f 1
36
C
37 -"
38 � L
h
39
40 0,
41 '
4
—7
2
43
44
45
ii
46
CALCULATION SHEET hcn
CALCULATION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
J.O. OR W.O.NO. DIVISION & GROUP CALCULATION N0. PAGE S
s 3 a HM M
£ LfVRT :,tJ/&,JTf=tOw T< , ff, Ad£. 'TRIPLE CQJLVJPl I
2
3
E(k�t-.�t /
�i�S,,,M+c Z �.,e.•fi: �o`", �F{t� r.c. arras, _ �S'7a .-� 7t�2 � d,a,hek.r =3.5
4 Oro d 5 6,c ,CV
6 E l c� •H N �D C,t 3 4' f�cs�v..,.
B
9
0 /
11 l A,
Iz
13
14 It t 0. 2.8 6 '�0 AA
15
79
16 t L Z o s 71 1a 6c. ;Z
` 17
IB
19 Ac T fie? r
20 / lY7
21 \
22 r5 S
23
24 4 6 1 , 7 I �} 102 30�
25 77 rr
26 17
2T
28
29
30
31
32t7
33
34
—%
35 W
36 --
3
Iz
7
rl
38
39 too Too
40
41 Q
42
e
43
s 44
45
46
111
CALCULATION SHEET hm
CALCULATION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
J.O. OR W.O.NO. DIVISION E GROUP CALCULATION N0. l PAGE 6
53a HAIM
1 ��e7�J LU J` MvERT
2 ELEVATION- nasi £LBV :
3
4 vo,_0 o£ (;f T�
T
B
4
,o 115 5 a� 0
it
12 CS y,C?�/D Jr A� sJ7 oo.!;-
i3 C- fl IaD 66 ( 0 L195 Loa
i
14
15 fi= t Q (cJ5)
IT Its O O
16 !! S9, OBo
19 ll � 17�i, 1100
20 I IPS 2A, 7, 140 I.S 2.0.0
21 rr9 3561310 ,o ab.0
22 100 4141f4P0 a..5 30
23
24 POND D
25 EL£vAl Lo GHRPr,rr{
s
26
2T
£IPYr.��or p
26
24 ( 1 D .2�7 D O I
30 c,e,l,� ti � '7
31
32
33
34 CIP...�,� ,n )I'n. ram l ` S4P0 I
35
36 11 t! C7 d o It 1
37
36 /!2 13E 3y; I. 0 t3,o
39 71 o4 .�ty !..$ 020. 0
40 f 1 t{ .?-7.f,X646 o'j.0 �..,.0
. 41
42
43
44
45
46
CALCULATION SHEET
h"m
CALCULATION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
J.O. OR W.O. NO. DIVISION 1, GROUP CALCULATION NO. PAGE 7
sz� H/0 A g .W•
z
aND
fLF vk7,ON -5 TORA6 E - DISCHAk C--£ -
3
4
s ,r k,,.G
6 90 1797 2.$
7
X67 066
e to
' s /Do � 54,4Dy a�670� 661
10
1 0 e 10 X14 ll°"5"(-(t
Iz
13
14 91 a67 06C O. (p S
16 z 9z 524, ,E 2 I, 33 6,0
c 16 IgIZ 2.Oo
17 `I 5`I 106$)264 2 .G7 a,0
16 S `1 S 15 33I
19 3 3.331q.0
G `I6 � , 602, 397 4,00 20.0
20
9
21 1 (, Cl, Nb Zi 4.67 al.D
0i4 �I 13 6,529 5.37 74, o
zz
2, tio3,S`1S G ,oO ;Ls,0
23 t0 lOo a 670 6� 1 x,61
24
23 Po ND IS
26 (;-LFvkfION —57-0PA& F--`4�1ISCHARc.E
27
28
VOCuP�£
29 I/ltrtw-6.,1�..� Cylt`�Iw�uE
30 til als 6�2
31 O
31 2L01124 3 "742 774
50 3ot z2 7 132,7 4
33 332 -S a (. 641 ,16
34
52 35Q, yq9 1, 447, foo
35
36 3 b
37 N elegy , o r 00'.x, (�tT� 3%
37
36 _ = 36 „
39 0 41 l 0 o O
4 0I 119
<p6 .2 60 9 1 5 ,3 3
41 I 1 5 . I1 CI'I I 7 20
m
42 3 50 77 a1-7-7 4 1, 0 3s
43 y 51
44 r ►, 1t53-71.-33, I S1, � X19
•7 5 z 1 I L147, Soo I. b'I `o
� 45
46
CALCULATION SHEET inmi
CALCULATION IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
J.0. OR W.O. N0. DIVISION 0 GROUP CALCULATION NO. • PAGE
Sia km
i
2
1r�11�w — Ovtr(o.., ��.l� s1s
4
1
3
6 ISGS� Ov. I v,s Me� t�o�Q
T
45
10 h
II Ui (-4L Q = /�'Q Cin of low o(vr.H,
12 •J t /
13 ,L ` /'I PA h i✓12 1 o w cs VS 11q •�'l,..i� �C f 1 0�t G�'E
14
c i5 - NP.+ ck%a"N x 1%, s!'o(,<j. Qvt2h Cj per;Yd 4t
16 fF 6S 4} i
19
20
21 nfl
22 f
0
23
24
25
1 13t � vhri
26
2T
28 CYC �. O�tl �^� G Tv11G.11Un 04-' S o 0%.^c
29 4' t L7 � �y/
30 Z o S a fv n[ 1 ' t Or C.�'9JC C j 1 S de IR(r 1V t c.c
31 I 8
32 ntcfc-tJF',( A SGw4(C (lloCkS 's
33 / l rr' �(
34 ! 1 q (� �. M.4✓�S T23c" o,c{
Gi•E-'�'�c�M1G�'t. 1rG1 nc>tiC� TIOM+ / b i
35 rQy
36 1_ { J
37
38
39
40
41
a 42
43
i
44
45
46
I<{C C VLVf ti 5erC�le.t� ,2
90 y{a� slot~,
• mr
Pre. d P„zI.PM.., F1m
RESERVOIR-STORAGE METHOD Page 2
Time in Inflow I1 + I2 2S Outflow 2S _ 0 water
Minutes CFS At + O CFS Lt Level
- to lov c�09 ad V / OV 0
C) i C> Y a o a o 3 1 Lt ► s,3
! o ail
1!291 305 I6.6
a -74`7 10Aq )a% '1 ro0 II63 I-M
3o IDiq 17G � 21) a01 6 7 i� a
60 Li 931 1 65 y G 0-7 119.9
• 50 o 7. o. s
4
60 -793 1547 93-75 204 7955 21. 0
7o 601 13 9 't 01353 al9 89 15 21 .3
ASO 410 101 ( C1cl 9N7.:L x1 .43
X10 a3o hyo 01 � � 230..'}) 965a x1.49
loo 13 -7 3 67 Ib o 19 224 I 9563 pl. q G
Ito 9S -2 3 5 97gg y6 � . `iD
Ito � 3 16 1 95D-1 2z I 9b65 a1. 3
13 0 59 Iz 917,4 21 ? 1� 7Sa al . a
1,90 9_7 I15 �s�b -I 21 06441 al . l
ISO 5 .7 114 555 ao4 $ 139 ai. o
1 1 3 Masa, A04 y'y ao.9
170 5C IIa 1956 'a00 15560
I z o r s It i 7c*7 1q6 7D77 ao.
190 55- 1 1 0 &qR7 a7
200 5 `f 1 0 Cl 110(0 110 'j 20.10
1 f
• �' Yu Sf. tICW