Flood Mitigation Facilities for Peabody Square Area

Transcription

1 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

2 Metcalf & Eddy Inc. 701 Edgewater Drive Wakefield, Massachusetts T F May 12, 2008 Secretary Ian Bowles Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs Attn: MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 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 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) Very truly yours, METCALF & EDDY, INC Aaron Weieneth Project Environmental Planner enclosures copies: R. Carnevale, City of Peabody, Director of Public Services Distribution List (see Attachment C)

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIVITIES Page 1 INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND SUMMARY OF RECENT FLOOD EVENTS AND IMPACTS DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE 1 - TIDAL GATE AND PUMP STATION AT BEVERLY HARBOR ALTERNATIVE 2 - MODIFICATION OF NORTH RIVER DRAINAGE SYSTEM (RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE) ALTERNATIVE 3 - UPSTREAM STORAGE ALTERNATIVE 4 - DREDGING THE NORTH RIVER PROPOSED ACTIVITIES PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT IMPACTS FLOODING TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS (NOISE AND TRAFFIC) WETLAND RESOURCE AREAS...17 Project 1 Impacts...18 Project 2 Impacts...20 Project 3 Impacts HAZARDOUS MATERIALS THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES FISHERIES CULTURAL RESOURCES CONCLUSION 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

4 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

5 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs MEPA Office Environmental ENF Notification Form For Office Use Only Executive Office of Environmental Affairs EOEA No.:. MEPA Analyst:. Phone: 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 Project Name: Flood Mitigation Facilities for Peabody Square Area Street: Multiple Locations Municipality: Peabody, MA Watershed: North Coast Universal Tranverse Mercator Coordinates: North American Datum (NAD) 1983 Latitude: N Longitude: W Estimated commencement date: 09/2008 Estimated completion date: 09/2012 Approximate cost: $32.7 million Status of project design: 25 %complete Proponent: Mr. Richard M. Carnevale Director of Public Services Street: 50 Farm Avenue Municipality: Peabody State: MA Zip Code: Name of Contact Person From Whom Copies of this ENF May Be Obtained: Aaron Weieneth Firm/Agency: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. Street: 701 Edgewater Drive Municipality: Wakefield State: MA Zip Code: Phone: Fax: 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 (EOEA No. ) No Has any project on this site been filed with MEPA before? Yes (EOEA No. ) No Is this an Expanded ENF (see 301 CMR 11.05(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 301 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 Revised 10/99 Comment period is limited. For information call

6 Construction Stormwater and Remediation General Permits. Which ENF or EIR review threshold(s) does the project meet or exceed (see 301 CMR 11.03): Land Rare Species 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 1 Approvals LAND Order of Conditions Total site acreage 6.6 Superseding Order of Conditions New acres of land altered 2.0 Chapter 91 License Acres of impervious area Water Quality Certification Square feet of new bordering vegetated wetlands alteration 2 Square feet of new other wetland alteration 2 Acres of new non-water dependent use of tidelands or waterways MHD or MDC Access Permit See list of wetland impacts in Wetlands section of ENF 0 Water Management Act Permit New Source Approval STRUCTURES DEP or MWRA Sewer Connection/ Extension Permit Gross square footage Other Permits (including Legislative Approvals) Specify: Number of housing units MA Office of CZM Maximum height (in feet) Federal Consistency Review, Notice of TRANSPORTATION Intent to Perform Vehicle trips per day Utility-Related Parking spaces Abatement Measures WASTEWATER (URAM) Gallons/day (GPD) of water use GPD water withdrawal GPD wastewater generation/ treatment Length of water/sewer mains (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.

7 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. 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: The project description 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

8 degree river bend at a Railroad crossing, and the excavation and disposal of contaminated materials (river banks). The project was initiated under Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act (PL ), 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. 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

9 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 Roadways, parking, and other paved areas Other altered areas (describe) Undeveloped areas 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.121B? 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: - 5 -

10 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 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.21E 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 21E Sites MassGIS datalayer, three properties within the project area are currently being regulated: 166 Main Street, Peabody (RTN ); 174 Main Street, Peabody (RTN ); and 60 Grove Street, Salem (RTN ). 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 privatelyowned 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. 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 - 6 -

11 the Metropolitan Area Planning Council s MetroPlan 2000 (1990, with subsequent revisions) by enabling the city of Peabody to implement a portion of the Peabody Recreation and Open Space Plan. 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: No B. Does the project require any state permits related to rare species or habitat? Yes _X_ 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. II. 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.131a (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): - 7 -

12 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: 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. 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: Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Order of Conditions, Chapter 91 License, Water Quality Certificate. 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. II. Wetlands Impacts and Permits A. Describe any wetland resource areas currently existing on the project site and indicate them on 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 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 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 Coastal Wetlands Area (in square feet) or Length (in linear feet) Land Under the Ocean 63,000 sf_(t) Designated Port Areas Coastal Beaches Coastal Dunes Barrier Beaches Coastal Banks 3,150 lf (T) Rocky Intertidal Shores Salt Marshes Land Under Salt Ponds Land Containing Shellfish Fish Runs 63,000 sf_(t) Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 78,750 sf_(t) Inland Wetlands Bank Bordering Vegetated Wetlands Land under Water Isolated Land Subject to Flooding Bordering Land Subject to Flooding 1,975 lf_(t) and 830 (P) 28,650 sf (T)_and 1,200 (P) 97,845 sf_(t) - 8 -

13 Riverfront Area 135,150 sf_(t) - 9 -

14 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:

15 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, identify the Municipal Harbor Plan and describe the project's consistency with that plan: WATER SUPPLY SECTION 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. II. 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 Change 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,

16 application 1. have you submitted a permit application? Yes No; if yes, attach the 2. have you conducted a pump test? Yes No; if yes, attach the pump test report 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: Existing Change Total Water supply well(s) (capacity, in gpd) 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 I. 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. II. 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

17 Discharge to surface water Municipal or regional wastewater facility TOTAL 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; if 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 Change 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: III. 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 I. 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

18 Transportation Facilities Section. If you answered "Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Traffic Generation Section below

19 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 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:

20 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. II. 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. II. 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

21 1. the facility's current and proposed fuel source(s)? 2. the facility's current and proposed cooling source(s)? 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. II. 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

22 _X_ No; if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Historical and Archaeological 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. II. 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 / 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

23 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

24

25 ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED PROJECT ACTIVITIES

26 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 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 longterm 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 A-1

27 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 meetings. 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. 1.2 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 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

28 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 1 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 A-3

29 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. 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 The results of the CDM analysis indicate that the tidal gate would provide A-4

30 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) 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-1 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

31 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 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

32 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 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 A-7

33 TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL STORAGE LOCATIONS Peak Elevation Storage During 50- Feasibility year Storm for 50-year Location Drainage Area (acres) 1 Approximate Surface Area (acres) 2 (ft) 3 Critical Elevation (ft) 4 Storm 5 Cedar Pond No Yes Upper Flume 3, No No Pond Lower Flume 3, to No No Pond 35.8 Sydney Pond 1, No No No Yes Wetland Upstream of Downing Road North Shore Mall Crowninshield Pond Notes: 53.5 To be To be evaluated 6 evaluated 1, To be evaluated Localized Benefit under Further Study 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 and will be incorporated into the hydraulic model at a later date, if warranted. Yes No 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

34 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

35 Within the limits of the Project 1 and Project 2 area, a general comparison of the dredging/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. In conclusion, the above-referenced general comparison shows that costs for both construction and long term 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

36 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 , cross Church Street, extend through the city-owned parking lot, and cross Lowell Street to the Peabody Square 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 railroad tracks to minimize the relocation of utilities and avoid construction close to existing building foundations. A-11

37 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

38 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. A 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. A-13

39 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. The 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 the 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. 5 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

40 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. Correspondence from various state and federal agencies regarding potential environmental resources are provided in Attachment B of this ENF. 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 1 and 2 before Project 3 (Run 9 in Table 2) will result in A-15

41 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 Flood Threshold Elevation (feet) Baseline (Existing) Conditions Peak Elevation 50- year Storm (feet) Peak Elevation May-2006 Flood (feet) Run 4: Recommended Improvements (Projects 1, 2, 3) Peak Elevation 50- year Storm (feet Peak Elevation May-2006 Flood (feet) Run 9: Recommended (1) Improvements Projects 1 and 2 Only) Peak Elevation 50-year Storm (feet) Peak Elevation May-2006 Flood (feet) Location Model Node City Goldthwaite Brook at Foster Street Gold05945 Peabody Goldthwaite Brook at Oak Street Gold04868 Peabody Peabody Square near Courthouse Nor03643 Peabody North River 100-ft East of Wallis Street Nor02060 Peabody North River at Caller Street Nor01214 Peabody North River at Howley Street Nor00370 Peabody Railroad Bridge Approximately 550 ft. Upstream of Grove St. NorS04600 Salem Grove Street NorS03958 Salem Flint Street NorS02400 Salem Upstream Side of North Street NorS00200 Salem Downstream Side of North Street NorS00000 Salem (1) Includes the reach between Strongwater Brook and Howley Street A-16

42 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

43 TABLE 3. APPROXIMATE WETLAND IMPACTS FOR ENTIRE FLOOD ALLEVIATION PLAN (PROJECTS 1, 2, AND 3) 1 Total Approximate Wetland Impacts Temporary Permanent Coastal Wetlands Land Under the Ocean 63,000 sf 0 Coastal Banks 3,150 lf 0 Fish Runs 63,000 sf 0 Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage 78,750 sf See Note 2 Inland Wetlands Bank 1,975 lf 830 lf 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 Beginning 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

44 damage prevention only, and provide minimal benefit to the remaining interests of the Massachusetts 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, including transition chamber 27 1,935 52,245 Culvert installation, including transition chamber ,800 Riverfront Area Abandoning of existing culvert and drainage channel ,200 Existing Foster Street Culvert Maintenance NA 375 NA Inland Bank Connection to North River NA 30 NA Inland Bank sf = square feet; lf = linear feet Bordering Land Subject to Flooding Land Under Water (1,200 sf); Inland Bank (800 lf) 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

45 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 prevention 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 southern inland bank for that distance (Table 5). In addition, excavation for the widening will occur in an 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. 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

46 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) ,600 45,600 BLSF, Riverfront Dredge existing channel ,600 26,400 Land Under Water Material removal from in front of north wall ,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 south wall) 25 3,150 78,750 LSCSF, Riverfront Dredge existing channel 20 3,150 63,000 Land Under the Ocean, Fish 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

47 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. 5.6 FISHERIES According to a letter received from the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, 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). 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 1 and June 1 of any given year. Consultation with the Division of Marine Fisheries will continue during the permitting phases of the project. 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

48 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. A-23

49 7 REFERENCES Anderson-Nichols and Company, Inc., Peabody Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Study. Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM), Peabody Square Flooding. CDM, Peabody Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan. CDM, Draft Peabody Square Flood Control Study. Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR), Electronic Database Report: Peabody Corridor North River Peabody, MA Flow Assessment Services (FAS), Report from FAS containing the results of the continuous flow monitoring performed from October-December December 28, J.F. White Contracting Company, Goldthwaite Brook Inspection Peabody, Massachusetts for Metcalf & Eddy. November Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), Instruction Manual for Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup (BWSC) Transmittal Forms. BWSC-104 through BWSC-111, BWSC-113, BWSC-114. May 8, MassDEP, 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), FEMA Q3 Flood Datalayer. July MassGIS, State Register of Historic Places Datalayer. January MassGIS, 2003a. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Datalayer. December MassGIS, 2003b. National Wetlands Inventory Datalayer. February MassGIS, 2006a. MassDEP Tier Classified Oil and/or Hazardous Material Sites (MGL c. 21E) Datalayer. November MassGIS, 2006b. Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program Priority Habitats of Rare Species and Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife Datalayers. Updated December MassGIS, 2007a. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern Datalayer. March A-24

50 MassGIS, 2007b. DEP Wetlands (1:12,000) Datalayer. April Metcalf & Eddy (M&E), Flood Control at Peabody. M&E, 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, M&E, Preliminary Design of Flood Mitigation Facilities for Peabody Square Area. Draft Preliminary Design Report. April Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), Peabody Annex of the Regional Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan. National Weather Service, 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, 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, Salem-Peabody Connector Hydrology and Hydraulics Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Peabody Flood Investigation/Study. Weston & Sampson Engineers, Inc. (W&S), NOI Filing, North River Canal North Wall Rehabilitation Project Peabody, MA. March 21, A-25

51 North River Peabody Square Project 2 G:\Projects\MUNI\ PEA\maps\ENF-Figure1.mxd Goldthwaite Brook Project 3 Project 1 Legend Proposed Project Area Municipal Boundary 0 1,000 2,000 Feet E 4,000 Source: USGS Topographic Quadrangle Images Datalayer (MassGIS, 2001). City of Peabody, MA Preliminary Design of Flood Mitigation Facilities for Peabody Square Area FIGURE 1 PROJECT AREA

52 Proctor Brook Drainage Basin Lawrence Brook Drainage Basin Salem Tributary Drainage Basin Goldthwaite Brook Drainage Basin Location of Project 1 Work Location of Project 2 Work Location of Project 3 Work Strongwater Brook Drainage Basin PEABODY Tapley Brook Drainage Basin SALEM G:\Projects\MUNI\ PEA\maps\ENF-Figure2.mxd Legend Tributary Drainage Boundary E Approximate Project Boundary Municipal Boundary Railroad Roads Water Bodies 0 1,050 2,100 4,200 Feet City of Peabody, MA Preliminary Design of Flood Mitigation Facilities for Peabody Square Area FIGURE 2 PLAN SHOWING BROOKS AND TRIBUTARY DRAINAGE BOUNDARIES

53 Proctor Brook/Downing Road North Shore Shopping Center Crowninshield Pond Project 2 Project 3 Lower Flume Pond Cedar Pond Project 1 Upper Flume Pond G:\Projects\MUNI\ PEA\maps\ENF-Figure3.mxd Sydney Pond Legend Proposed Project Area Potential Storage Areas Municipal Boundary 0 1,000 2,000 Feet E 4,000 Source: USGS Topographic Quadrangle Images Datalayer (MassGIS, 2001). City of Peabody, MA Preliminary Design of Flood Mitigation Facilities for Peabody Square Area FIGURE 3 POTENTIAL STORAGE AREA LOCATIONS

54 A M AI N M SU ? X ET RE ST P-1 ER ST FO T EE R ST Gold E Original Foster Street Culvert A (to be Cleaned under Project 1) ET RE ST A X A j k UNKNOWN EE T X K OA ST R 44' Wide Corridor for Project 2 (North River Widening). For Continuation see Figure WS ET RE ST Nor02060? RE UA SQ T EE R ST NG RI SP LS O H C A NI NE LA RK PA T UR O C G IN R A SP A ? B-4 T EE IN KL AN FR R ST A B-3 ER M B Proposed Transition Structure? NA E NA P X NA ' Wide Corridor for Project 1 (Goldthwaite Brook Culverts) P-2 j k T EE S R ST ? B B-85 W AL LI ? Alternative C Alignment in Mill Street k j STR EE T MIL L P-5 EE T NA P G:\Projects\MUNI\ PEA\maps\ENF-Figure4.mxd A NA j B k A B Alternative B Alignment South of Railroad Tracks P CH UR CH UT T EE E Centerline of proposed 4' x 10' culvert (Project 1) Approximate limit Sof corridor AI 30' wide construction N T JO Proposed permanent easement location H N 'S Railroad AV EN Direction of flow U E Feet B-1? CH ? Proposed transition structure TN ES R ST Approximate location of existing drainage culvert 0 Nor03643 E Existing 78" diameter SESD sewer 50 T Potential parcel to be used for contractor's staging area E TR EE Nor02060 Approximate model node location LS Alternative A Alignment Crossing Railroad Tracks EE T ST R B-86 Existing boring location j k B P-3 Proposed boring location? W EL ? B-87 Property line LO Assessor's map and lot number A A CENTRAL STREE T Legend X WA LN UT ST R RK A P ET E R ST City of Peabody, MA B Preliminary Design of Flood Mitigation Facilities A for Peabody Square Area A FIGURE APROJECT A A GOLDTHWAITE BROOK CULVERTS APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT AND PERMANENT EASEMENT LOCATIONS A

55 B-84 E? Nor ?? WS WA LN UT ST R X B NA A A P-8? B Section A-A? A Assessor's E map and lot number Potential parcel to be used for contractor's staging area Approximate limit of corridor for North River widening Note 1: 44' wide corridor for steel sheet pile south wall, 50' wide corridor for rip rap south wall Direction of flow B A Feet 100 ST RE ET Railroad E P NA j k A ST RE ET P-12? WS-2 Nor j k City of Peabody, MA Preliminary Design of Flood Mitigation Facilities for Peabody Square Area FIGURE A A MA IN X ST RE ET Structure Overhanging North River to be Removed A Strongwater Brook A UNKNOWN A Property line Proposed permanent easement location A A MA IN Proposed Culverts under Railraod Tracks X Nor Approximate model node location B-82 Existing boring location Proposed wall to be constructed under Project W AS HI NG TO N G:\Projects\MUNI\ PEA\maps\ENF-Figure5.mxd P-10 o Existing 90 River Bend to be Filled B-81? P-7 Proposed boring location 100' Station Location Approximate 78" diameter SESD sewer? WS TE NS TR EE T Legend j k WS-4 Nor01214 ST R A CA LL ER B A P-9 A A? 44' Wide Corridor for Project 2 (North River Widening). See Note 1. B j k E E EE T P A EE T j k X? B EE T HOW LEY STR EET EET 30' Wide Corridor for Project 1 (Goldthwaite Brook Culverts). For Continuation see Figure WA LLI SS TR NA FU LT ON ST R PROJECT 2 - NORTH RIVER WIDENING APPROXIMATE ALIGNMENT AND PERMANENT EASEMENT LOCATIONS X

56

57 G:\Projects\MUNI\ PEA\maps\ENF-Figure7.mxd Legend MA DEP Wetlands Open Water Shallow Marsh Meadow or Fen Proposed Project Area 0 Municipal Boundary Feet E 1,600 Sources: USGS Topographic Quadrangle Images Datalayer (MassGIS, 2001); DEP Wetlands Datalayer (MassGIS, 2007). City of Peabody, MA Preliminary Design of Flood Mitigation Facilities for Peabody Square Area FIGURE 7 MAPPED WETLANDS IN PROJECT AREA