The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900

Boston, MA 02114

Charles D. Baker GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Karyn E. Polito Fax: (617) 626-1181 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR http://www.mass.gov/envir Kathleen A. Theoharides SECRETARY

June 26, 2020

CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM

PROJECT NAME : Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Pepperell PROJECT WATERSHED : Nashua EEA NUMBER : 16208 PROJECT PROPONENT : Town of Pepperell Conservation Commission DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : May 20, 2020

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (M.G. L. c. 30, ss. 61-62I) and Section 11.03 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), this project is subject to the mandatory requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). In accordance with Section 11.05(7) of the MEPA regulations, the Proponent submitted an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) with a request that I grant a Waiver of the requirement to prepare an EIR. In a separate Draft Record of Decision (DROD), also issued today, I propose to grant a Waiver of the EIR requirement. This Certificate sets forth the issues that must be addressed by the Proponent during permitting and discusses recommendations that were submitted on the project during the MEPA comment period.

Project Description

As described in the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF), the project includes the removal of a stone dam that is not under the jurisdiction of the Office of Dam Safety (ODS) within the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). The project also proposes to replace an undersized culvert located on Sucker Brook, a tributary to Nissitisset River. The purpose of the project is to restore continuity, restore sediment transport, and reduce elevated water temperatures in Sucker Brook in order to benefit native fisheries and wildlife including state-listed rare species.

EEA# 16208 EENF Certificate June 26, 2020

The undersized culvert is located immediately upstream of the dam impoundment underneath the access road to the Keyes-Parker Conservation Area. The existing culvert will be replaced with two, side-by-side box culverts, each measuring 10 feet wide by 6 feet high (with the bottom two feet embedded beneath the natural stream bed) which will meet Massachusetts Stream Crossing Standards. The culverts will be placed on a concrete leveling pad to facilitate connection of culvert segments and to minimize the potential of differential settling. The twin culvert system will be equipped with headwalls, wingwalls, and associated footings. The excavation zone will be hydraulically isolated from the river using upstream and downstream coffer dams. River flow will be allowed to continue via gravity using a temporary bypass pipe to the river left side of the excavation area.

Demolition of the stone dam will be primarily by hand with larger stones removed by small machine as necessary. The removal of the stone dam is anticipated to occur over a six to eight-week period which will allow the impoundment water level to be gradually drawn down over time. The gradual removal of the dam will minimize the amount of abrupt sediment migration that might occur. Approximately 4,500 cubic yards (cy) of sediment will be passively released as the dam is removed

Stones and large woody debris salvaged from the dam will be reused in the vicinity of the dam site to create stream edge and in-channel reinforcement, energy dissipation, and aquatic habitat features. Some of the salvaged stones will also be used at the access road culvert site to provide similar in-channel reinforcement, energy dissipation, and aquatic habitat features.

Project Site

The project site is located within the Keyes-Parker Conservation area, an approximately 70-acre municipally-owned conservation area located off of Oak Street in Pepperell. The conservation area consists of approximately 60 acres of forested upland, 6 acres of meadow, and approximately 4 acres of wetland resources consisting of the 3.3-acre impoundment and associated wetlands. A beaver dam is located within the upper reaches of the impoundment. Sucker Brook flows in a south to north direction before joining the Nissitissit River approximately one mile downstream. The Nissitissit River flows into the Nashua River and eventually into the Merrimack River.

The existing culvert located approximately 1,380 lf upstream of the dam consists of a 3-ft diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) underneath the conservation area access drive. The culvert is equipped with a “beaver deceiver” which consists of a wire fence enclosure to prevent beavers from accessing the culvert. Because the enclosure tends to catch debris that blocks flow, most of the brook flow is carried by an approximately 18-inch diameter high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe that conveys flow through the beaver deceiver. As described in the ENF, review of historic maps and aerial photographs indicates that the impoundment was formed by a stone dam which was likely constructed between 1936 and 1938. The dam is a run-of-the- river dam approximately 35 feet wide and constructed out of field stones. It creates a hydraulic drop of approximately four feet. Further to the river right (looking downstream), there is an approximately 6-foot-wide bypass channel. The main dam spillway regularly becomes blocked

2 EEA# 16208 EENF Certificate June 26, 2020 by woody debris and therefore a significant portion of the flow passes through the bypass channel during higher flow events.

The project site is located within the Squannassit Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). The project site includes Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) Priority and Estimated Habitat for rare species including the Brook Floater (Alasmidonta varicose), Creeper (Strophitus undulates) and Wood Turtle (Glyptemys Insculpta). Sucker Brook is classified as a Coldwater Fishery by the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW) and provides habitat for native eastern brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and numerous other cold water fish species.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation

This is an ecological restoration project designed to restore and enhance the natural functions of the brook and surrounding wetland resource areas, improve fish passage, and improve water quality. The project also has climate resiliency benefits, as it will reduce upstream flooding and roadway overtopping through the expansion of an existing culvert and dam removal. Due to the nature of the project, permanent conversion of wetland resource areas is unavoidable and temporary impacts associated with the construction period are anticipated. Potential environmental impacts associated with the project include the loss of approximately 271 linear feet of Bank; creation of 28,635 sf of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (BVW); loss of 28,635 sf of Land Under Water (LUW) and loss of 710 sf of Riverfront Area. During the construction period, the project is anticipated to temporarily impact 530 lf of Bank; 5,035 sf of BVW, 22,065 sf of Riverfront Area. The project involves the passive release of approximately 4,500 cy of sediment.

Measures to minimize construction period impacts include staging and maintenance of construction vehicles and equipment in designated areas, use of sedimentation and erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs), and compliance with a habitat management plan approved by NHESP including Time-of-Year (TOY) restrictions (to be determined by NHESP). All disturbed areas will be stabilized and/or vegetated.

Jurisdiction and Permitting

The project is undergoing MEPA review and is subject to a mandatory EIR pursuant to 301 CMR 11.03(3)(a)(4) of the MEPA regulations because it requires State Agency Actions and will result in the structural alteration of an existing dam that causes any decrease in impoundment capacity. The project also exceeds the ENF thresholds at 11.03(3)(b)(1)(b), 11.03(3)(b)(1)(d) and 11.03(11)(b) because it involves the alteration of 500 or more linear feet of bank along a fish run or inland bank; alteration of 5,000 or more sf of bordering or isolated vegetated wetlands; and work located in an ACEC. The project requires a 401 Water Quality Certificate (WQC) and may require a Chapter 91 (c. 91) Permit from MassDEP. The project is receiving funding from the Division of Ecological Restoration (DER).

The project will require an Order of Conditions (OOC) from the Pepperell Conservation Commission (or in the case of an appeal, a Superseding Order of Conditions from MassDEP) and submittal of a Pre-Construction Notification to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)

3 EEA# 16208 EENF Certificate June 26, 2020 seeking authorization under the General Permits for Massachusetts in accordance with Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act.

Because the project is receiving Financial Assistance, MEPA jurisdiction is broad in scope and extends to all aspects of the project that may cause Damage to the Environment, as defined in the MEPA regulations.

Request for EIR Waiver

The Proponent submitted an EENF with a request that I waive the requirement for the preparation of a mandatory EIR, or if the Waiver is not granted (301 CMR 11.11), allow a Single EIR to be prepared in lieu of the usual two-stage Draft and Final EIR process pursuant to Section 11.06(8) of the MEPA regulations.

The MEPA regulations at 301 CMR 11.11(1) state that I may waive any provision or requirement in 301 CMR 11.00 not specifically required by MEPA and may impose appropriate and relevant conditions or restrictions, provided that I find that strict compliance with the provision or requirement would:

(a) result in an undue hardship for the Proponent, unless based on delay in compliance by the Proponent; and (b) not serve to avoid or minimize Damage to the Environment.

As stated in 301 CMR 11.11(3), in the case of a waiver of a mandatory EIR review threshold, the Secretary shall at a minimum base the finding required in accordance with 301 CMR 11.11(1)(b) on a determination that:

(a) the Project is likely to cause no Damage to the Environment; and (b) ample and unconstrained infrastructure facilities and services exist to support the Project (in the case of a Project undertaken by an Agency or involving Financial Assistance) or those aspects of the Project within subject matter jurisdiction (in the case of a Project undertaken by a Person and requiring one or more Permits or involving a Land Transfer but not involving Financial Assistance).

The Proponent may provide evidence satisfactory to the Secretary that the Agency Action on the Project will contain terms such as a condition or restriction that will cause benefits to environmental resources or quality or infrastructure facilities or services in excess of those that would result in the absence of the waiver.

Review of the EENF

The EENF provided a description of existing and proposed conditions, preliminary project plans, results of hydrologic and hydraulic (H&H) modeling, sediment analysis results and an alternatives analysis, and identified measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate environmental impacts. I received numerous comment letters from non-profit/advocacy groups expressing support for the Waiver. Comments from State Agencies were generally supportive of the project and the request for a full Waiver from the requirement to submit an EIR.

4 EEA# 16208 EENF Certificate June 26, 2020

Alternatives Analysis

The EENF included an alternatives analysis which considered a No-Action Alternative, A Culvert Replacement/Dam Removal with Sediment Removal Alternative and the Preferred Alternative. The No-Action Alternative was dismissed because current conditions associated with the undersized culvert and dam impoundment restrict fish passage and contribute to thermal pollution of a coldwater fishery. The Culvert Replacement/Dam Removal with Sediment Removal Alternative would include the culvert replacement/enlargement and removal of the dam similar to the Preferred Alternative, but it would also involve the dredging of a stream channel and active removal of sediment. The additional heavy machinery and work required for the sediment removal would require additional tree clearing and site disturbance as well a phased drawdown, an extended construction time period, and additional staging/stockpiling of material. It would also require extensive water control to allow for heavy equipment to work in the impoundment. This alternative would increase the temporary environmental impact of the project, as well as the timeline and cost. The mechanical removal of sediment would help reduce short term impacts to habitat downstream of the dam by reducing the downstream release of sediment which causes turbidity that can negatively effect fish and other species in the brook.. However, because the sediment analysis indicates that it is clean and infrastructure downstream of the dam is not anticipated to be impacted by the sediment release, a passive sediment management alternative is preferred as it would avoid the additional temporary impacts and costs indicated above.

As described in the ENF, the Preferred Alternative involves passive sediment management which will facilitate downstream sediment transport, a natural riverine process. That natural process is altered by the presence of dammed impoundments which tend to capture and accumulate sediment migrating from upstream sources thereby depriving downstream areas of the sediment supply. Following dam removal, sediment is anticipated to migrate downstream from behind the impoundment at an accelerated pace for approximately 1-2 years, eventually redistributing to downstream areas that have been sediment starved. As indicated in the ENF, the loss of short-term benefits from mechanical sediment removal, as explained above, is outweighed by the long-term gains of restoring natural riverine conditions. Additionally, based on sediment sampling results and rural setting this project is a strong candidate for passive sediment management.

The Preferred Alternative includes leaving the majority of the beaver dam in place. As described in the ENF, brook trout and beavers have naturally coexisted in New England riparian ecosystems and the pools created by large woody materials, such as logs and branches used for beaver dams, are known spawning habitats for brook trout. Wetlands, Waterway, Fisheries and ACEC

The project site contains numerous wetland resource areas including Bank, BVW, LUW, and Riverfront Area. The project is proposed as an Ecological Restoration Limited Project under 310 CMR 10.53(4). While one of the primary goals of the project is to restore ecological processes on the site, the project will impact existing wetland resource areas temporarily and permanently. The Pepperell Conservation Commission will review the project to determine its consistency with the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA), the Wetlands Regulations (310 CMR

5 EEA# 16208 EENF Certificate June 26, 2020

10.00), and associated performance standards. I refer the Proponent to MassDEP’s comment letter which provides additional permitting guidance.

As described in the EENF, the project will restore navigability to this reach of Sucker Brook by removing an unauthorized structure, which is presently impassable without portage, in accordance with the protection of the public right of navigation per the Waterways Regulations (310 CMR 9.35(2)(a) and (b)). Comments from MassDEP indicate that the project may not be subject to the Waterways Regulations, but MassDEP reserves the right to determine this issue during the review of the 401 WQC. MassDEP suggests that the Proponent contact the Chapter 91 Program to clarify whether the project will require a c. 91 Permit. If it is determined that a c. 91 permit is required, the Proponent may choose to file a combined c.91 and 401 WQC application with MassDEP (BRP WW 26). MassDEP will review the project to determine its consistency with the Waterways Regulations (310 CMR 9.00) and the 401 WQC Regulations (314 CMR 9.00).

According to the EENF, sediment samples were compared against ecological thresholds for freshwater ecosystems (designed to assess impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates, fish, and other aquatic and terrestrial organisms) and the soil and groundwater thresholds from the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) (designed to assess human health impacts). Sampling locations included several grab samples (single core) taken from upstream of the access road culvert and downstream of the dam and three composite samples (combination of three of more sediment cores) within the dam impoundment. The results of the testing and comments from MassDEP indicate that sediment does not exceed contaminants that exceed MassDEP’s human or ecological impact thresholds.

The H&H model was performed to evaluate the hydrology within the project area and the project’s potential hydraulic implications of the dam removal and culvert replacement including water surfaceelevation, sediment transport and flow velocities for fish passage. Hydrology, in this context, refers to the conveyance of precipitation-derived water from the watershed into the brook under different storm events; while hydraulics refers to the flow characteristics of the brook resulting from those hydrologic inputs under the same set of various storm conditions.

The hydraulic modeling was done using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Hydraulic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC-RAS, v. 5.0.3). HEC-RAS calculates the water surface elevation profile, velocities and depths. HEC-RAS can also be used to determine the effects of various obstructions such as bridges and culverts in the channel and floodplain. Hydrologic inputs to the HEC-RAS hydraulic model were defined using StreamStats estimates of peak flow rates for nine different flow events including the 95% exceedance (low flow event), , 5% exceedance (high flow event), 2-, 10-, 25-, 50- and 100-year flood events. The Sucker Brook watershed is approximately 1,613 acres (2.52 square miles), with approximately 50% of the watershed covered by forest. StreamStats generates peak discharges for ungauged streams using regression equations and basin characteristics specific to the selected watershed. It is anticipated that the calculations generated by StreamStats are more conservative than actual conditions. The existing conditions model was run including the stone dam, beaver dam, and access road culvert as they currently exist. Model results suggest that the access road overtops for the 2-year flood event and greater. According to the Town, however,

6 EEA# 16208 EENF Certificate June 26, 2020 access road flooding is uncommon. This suggests that the model is overpredicting water levels, likely because the StreamStats generated flow estimates may also be overpredictions. As described in the EENF, the model remains a suitable tool for evaluating relative changes in hydraulic conditions from various potential restoration activities although predicted water levels for any scenario are likely higher than would actually occur. This conservatism to the model may be useful when considering future unknowns such as climate change impacts. Cross-sectional geometry for the model was defined using fifteen surveyed transects within a 2,000 linear foot section of the brook extending from just upstream of the culvert at Oak Hill Street to just downstream of the stone dam.

The results of the modeling indicate that the replacement of the culvert would decrease upstream water elevations by 2.7 ft during the 100-yr storm event. The removal of the dam is anticipated to reduce the surface water elevation within the impoundment by 1.5 ft. If the beaver dam ultimately remains in place, only the impoundment upstream of the stone dam would reduce in size, while the beaver dam impoundment would remain unchanged. Modeling identified the mobilization of approximately 4,500 cy of sediment. Once sediment has been transported, it is anticipated that the average main channel velocities will be approximately 2.25 feet per second (fps) under normal flows which will support brook trout passage.

As noted above, the project is located within the Squannassit ACEC. The ACEC supports a remarkable richness of wildlife ranging from concentrations of rare and endangered species to deer, moose, fisher, bobcat, otter, and even occasional black bear. The Squannacook and Nissitissit rivers and 16 tributary streams within the ACEC are classified as cold water fisheries. These rivers were designated Outstanding Resource Waters for these fisheries. There are also highly significant drinking water resources present within the ACEC. Rare Species

As noted above, the project site includes mapped priority habitat for state-listed species. Comments from DFW’s NHESP indicate that habitat management ctivities (such as enhancing habitat through ecological restoration) such as those proposed in the project may be exempt from review under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) pursuant to 321 CMR 10.14(15). This provision exempts from MESA review active management of State-listed species for the purposes of maintaining or enhancing habitat for the benefit of rare species, provided that the management is carried out in accordance with a habitat management plan approved in writing by DFW. Comments from NHESP indicate that based on information contained in the EENF, the project appears to qualify for a habitat management exemption. The project will likely require implementation of NHESP approved protection plans to avoid and minimize inadvertent harm to state-listed mussels and turtle species. Comments from NHESP also indicate that the Town of Pepperell and project partners including DER and Trout Unlimited have actively coordinated with DFW during the project design phase and are currently working with DFW to protect state-listed species during the construction period including monitoring and relocation of state listed species.

7 EEA# 16208 EENF Certificate June 26, 2020

Climate Change

Governor Baker’s Executive Order 569: Establishing an Integrated Climate Change Strategy for the Commonwealth (EO 569; the Order) was issued on September 16, 2016. The Order recognizes the serious threat presented by climate change and direct Executive Branch agencies to develop and implement an integrated strategy that leverages state resources to combat climate change and prepare for its impacts. The Order seeks to ensure that Massachusetts will meet GHG emissions reduction limits established under the Global Warming Solution Act of 2008 (GWSA) and will work to prepare state government and cities and towns for the impacts of climate change. I note that the MEPA statute directs all State Agencies to consider reasonably foreseeable climate change impacts, including additional greenhouse gas emissions, and effects, such as predicted sea level rise, when issuing permits, licenses and other administrative approvals and decisions. M.G.L. c. 30, § 61. Adaptation and Resiliency

The project is proposing to remove aging and undersized infrastructure from a natural system which will increase the resiliency of the project area. As a run of the river dam, it does not serve to prevent or mitigate flooding downstream of the dam since it allows water to flow over the dam during most typical flows. As noted above, the EENF included an H&H analysis to determine the project’s effects on nearby infrastructure. The H&H analysis indicates that the project will provide capacity for the new access road culvert to pass flows during the 100-yr storm event and the removal of the dam will reduce upstream flooding and water elevation within the study area. As noted earlier, the StreamStats modeling results represent a conservative estimate of water elevations which can anticipate more frequent and severe conditions such as those associated with climate change. Modeling indicates that water surface elevations within the 2,000 ft section study area of the brook will decrease as a result of the project; therefore, downstream flooding is not anticipated. As described in the ENF, an examination of aerial photography reveals no structures or infrastructure outside of the study area at obvious risk of flooding. Moreover, the replacement of the access road culvert with a larger structure and the removal of the stone dam would both be expected to reduce the risk of flooding upstream from the structures due to the improved flow conveyance.

The Town is currently in the planning grant phase of the Commonwealth’s Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness (MVP) program. The MVP program is a community-driven process to define natural and climate-related hazards, identify existing and future vulnerabilities and strengths of infrastructure, environmental resources and vulnerable populations, and develop, prioritize and implement specific actions the Town can take to reduce risk and build resilience. Through this process, the Town will identify vulnerabilities that will need to be addressed. During the process, the Town should identify opportunities to address other undersized culverts along Sucker Brooke (including the upstreamOak Hill Street culvert and downstream Brookline Street Culvert) and other areas, to increase the Town’s resiliency in light of climate change and more frequent and severe storm events.

8 EEA# 16208 EENF Certificate June 26, 2020

Greenhouse Gas Emission (GHG)

This project is subject to review under the May 2010 MEPA Greenhouse Gas Emission (GHG) Policy and Protocol (Policy) because it exceeds thresholds for a mandatory EIR. The GHG Policy includes a de minimis exemption for projects that are expected to produce minimal GHG emissions. According to the EENF, GHG emissions associated with this ecological restoration project will be limited to the construction period and are de mimimis. The Proponent therefore is not required to submit a GHG analysis in conjunction with the EENF.

Construction Period

The culvert replacement access will be from Oak Hill Street on the Conservation Area access road. Construction equipment and material staging will be located in the Conservation Area parking lot on river right. The excavation zone will be hydraulically isolated from the river using upstream and downstream coffer dams. River flow will be allowed to continue via gravity using a temporary bypass pipe to the river left side of the excavation area. Groundwater in the excavation area will be lowered using sumps and pumps that discharge to a sedimentation control structure located at the edge of the parking area.

Construction access for the proposed dam removal will be from the conservation area parking lot, down the gated fire road, along the east shore of the impoundment. A stabilized construction entrance at the Conservation Area access road will be required to minimize sediment tracking out of the construction zone. Primary construction equipment and materials staging will occur in the conservation area parking lot. Closer proximity staging will occur at the end of the fire road near the dam site. Removal of the dam will occur in the wet; therefore, dewatering of the impoundment will happen gradually.

All graded portions of the work area will be planted and seeded with appropriate native species. Erosion control and storm water management will comply with all state and local regulations and be approved by a licensed engineer. Similarly, all access and staging locations will be returned to their original state and stabilized with appropriate vegetation. Fish and wildlife will be precluded from the work area using fencing, as appropriate. Monitoring and relocation of state listed species will be coordinated with NHESP.

Comments from the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR) indicate that a review of records indicate that no submerged archaeological resources are known to exist at the project site. BUAR notes that if unknown resources are encountered during construction, the Proponent should consult with BUAR.

All construction and demolition activities should be managed in accordance with applicable MassDEP’s regulations regarding Air Pollution Control (310 CMR 7.01, 7.09-7.10), and Solid Waste Facilities (310 CMR 16.00 and 310 CMR 19.00, including the waste ban provision at 310 CMR 19.017). The project should include measures to reduce construction period impacts (e.g., noise, dust, odor, solid waste management) and emissions of air pollutants from equipment, including anti-idling measures in accordance with the Air Quality regulations (310 CMR 7.11). I encourage the Proponent to require that its contractors use construction equipment with engines manufactured to Tier 4 federal emission standards, or select project

9 EEA# 16208 EENF Certificate June 26, 2020 contractors that have installed retrofit emissions control devices or vehicles that use alternative fuels to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) from diesel-powered equipment. Off-road vehicles are required to use ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD). If oil and/or hazardous materials are found during construction, the Proponent should notify MassDEP in accordance with the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (310 CMR 40.00). All construction activities should be undertaken in compliance with the conditions of all State and local permits. I encourage the Proponent to reuse or recycle construction and demolition (C&D) debris to the maximum extent.

Mitigation

As noted previously, the project is an environmental restoration project designed to restore ecological connectivity, enhance aquatic habitat, and improve wetlands and water quality. It is expected to provide a significant net environmental benefit but will also result in temporary and long-term environmental impacts, particularly to wetland resource areas. The EENF identifies permitting requirements and measures that will be employed to avoid, minimize and mitigate environmental impacts. These include:

• Obtaining a Section 401 WQC from MassDEP for the dredging of greater than 100 cy of material. The project will be designed and constructed in a manner consistent with applicable Water Quality Regulations (314 CMR 9.00); • Obtaining a c. 91 Permit from MassDEP, if required; • Obtaining an Order of Conditions from the Pepperell Conservation Commission outlining how the project will comply with the limited Ecological Restoration project provisions of the Massachusetts WPA; • Maintaining stream flow during the removal process; • Implementation of erosion and sedimentation controls; and, • Restoration of areas disturbed during the construction period.

Conclusion

Based on a review of the information provided in the EENF, consultation with State Agencies and review of public comments, I find that the potential impacts of this project do not warrant further MEPA review. Outstanding issues may be addressed during the local, State, and federal permitting processes. Comment letters do not identify alternatives or mitigation measures that warrant additional analysis in an EIR.

I have determined that the EENF demonstrates that the project meets the Waiver criteria at 301 CMR 11.11. I have also issued today a DROD proposing to grant a Waiver from the requirement to prepare an EIR for the project. The DROD will be published in the next edition of the Environmental Monitor on June 24, 2020 in accordance with 301 CMR 11.15(2), which begins the public comment period. The public comment period lasts for 14 days and will end on July 8, 2020. Based on written comments received concerning the DROD, I will issue a Final Record of Decision (FROD) or a Scope within seven days after the close of the public comment period, in accordance with 301 CMR 11.15(6).

10 EEA# 16208 EENF Certificate June 26, 2020

June 26, 2020 ______Date Kathleen A. Theoharides

Comments received:

06/08/2020 Division of Ecological Restoration (DER) 06/10/2020 Nashua River Watershed Association 06/13/2020 Trout Unlimited 06/16/2020 Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW) 06/17/2020 Northern Middlesex Council of Governments (NMCOG) 06/18/2020 MassAudobon 06/18/2020 Nashoba Conservation Trust 06/19/2020 Bureau of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR) 06/19/2020 Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) 06/22/2020 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Central Regional Office (CERO)

KAT/EFF/eff

Charles D. Baker Governor Karyn E. Polito Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Theoharides Beth Lambert, Director Secretary Hunt Durey, Deputy Director Ronald S. Amidon Commissioner Mary-Lee King June 8, 2020 Deputy Commissioner

Secretary Kathleen Theoharides Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attention: MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114

RE: MEPA File #: 16208, Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project

Dear Secretary Theoharides:

The MA Division of Ecological Restoration (DER) supports the Pepperell Conservation Commission’s request for a waiver of the mandatory Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under 301 CMR 11.11(5) for the Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project (Project). DER agrees with the proponent that an EIR would result in undue hardship and that the Project meets the EIR waiver requirements, including that an EIR would “not serve to avoid or minimize damage to the environment” and “the Project is likely to cause no damage to the environment”.

The Project will reconnect fragmented sections of Sucker Brook to the Nissitissitt River by removing a non- jurisdictional dam and replacing a culvert beneath the access road to Keyes-Parker Conservation Area with a structure that meets current stream crossing standards. The Project will reduce the Town of Pepperell’s maintenance burden and enhance climate resilience by removing and replacing this infrastructure. The Project is a designated DER Priority Project due to its substantial environmental benefits. Sucker Brook is a Certified Coldwater Fishery with naturally reproducing eastern brook trout documented by the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. In addition, state listed mussels species, dependent on the movement of brook trout for reproduction, have been documented in the brook by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program.

The Project has undergone extensive engineering design and pre-application review by numerous agencies and stakeholders since becoming a DER Priority Project in 2018. The local, state, and federal permits required for this project will result in a thorough review by regulatory agencies and provide ample opportunity for additional public comment.

We appreciate this opportunity to comment during the MEPA process. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (617) 626-1542 with any questions.

Sincerely,

Beth Lambert, Director

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Ecological Restoration 251 Causeway Street • Suite 400 • Boston, Massachusetts 02114 • www.mass.gov/der • (617) 626-1540

June 16, 2020

Secretary Kathleen Theoharides Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Attention: MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114

RE: MEPA File #: 16208 Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project

Dear Secretary Beaton:

The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (MassWildlife) supports the request for a waiver of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under 301 CMR 11.11(5) for the Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project to restore fish passage and wildlife habitat. The project will also have excellent community resiliency benefits for the town of Pepperell by eliminating the aging dam and restoring a natural stream channel.

Under 301 CMR, the Secretary may waive an EIR if preparation of the EIR would result in “undue hardship” to the project proponent or would “not serve to avoid or minimize damage to the environment” as described under 301 CMR 11.11(1). Furthermore we understand that when mandatory EIR review thresholds have been exceeded, the Secretary may grant a waiver of the EIR as described under 301 CMR 11.11(2) based on determination that preparation of an EIR would not provide increased benefit to the project and the environment. Based upon the scientific and engineering analysis included in the EENF, preparation of an EIR for this project would not serve to avoid or minimize damage to the environment, nor would its preparation provide increased benefit to the project and the environment for reasons listed below.

The project would connect a fragmented section of Sucker Brook to the Nissitissit River, thereby providing fish passage for Eastern brook trout which are a critical species used during the reproductive cycle of the rare brook floater and Eastern pearl shell mussels, found in the brook. The project would also restore sediment transport downstream of the dam and help eliminate an impoundment that results in increased water temperatures impacting the coldwater fishery resource. The main project components consist of removing an undersized culvert at the Keyes-Parker Conservation Area access road, replacing it with a culvert that meets the North Atlantic Aquatic Connectivity Collaborative crossing standards, and removal of the full vertical extent of the rock dam.

Determinations for an EIR Waiver are based on whether “the project is likely to cause no damage to the environment” and “ample and unconstrained infrastructure facilities exist to support the project” (301 CMR 11.11(3)). Dam removal restores natural ecological function and maximizes environmental benefit. The basis of this waiver request is founded upon the extensive data collection and analysis of environmental impacts that have been conducted in support of this project to date. These analyses support the overwhelming environmental benefit of the project, and have allowed for the development of strategies to minimize and avoid negative environmental impacts as discuss in the alternatives analysis. This project is also supported by other state, federal, and non-governmental organizations with decades of restoration experience.

The Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project will have many environmental and community benefits. MassWildlife urges you to favorably consider this waiver request. If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Caleb Slater, PhD Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 1 Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01581 p: (508) 389-6331 | e: [email protected] mass.gov/masswildlife | facebook.com/masswildlife

Charles D. Baker Kathleen A. Theoharides Governor Secretary

Karyn E. Polito Martin Suuberg Lieutenant Governor Commissioner

June 22, 2020

Secretary Kathleen A. Theoharides Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, 9th Floor Boston, MA 02114

Attention: MEPA Unit – Erin Flaherty

Re: Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project Pepperell EEA #16208

Dear Secretary Theoharides,

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's (“MassDEP”) Central Regional Office has reviewed the EENF for the proposed Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project (the “Project”). The Town of Pepperell (the “Proponent”) is proposing to replace a culvert and remove a dam in the Keyes-Parker Conservation area to connect fragmented sections of Sucker Brook to the Nissitissitt River. Keyes-Parker Conservation Area is a 70-acre park, with 60 acres of forested land with walking trails, six acres of meadow and a four-acre impoundment. Sucker Brook flows south to north through the property, joining the Nissitissitt River one mile downstream.

The Proponent will remove a non-jurisdictional rock dam and replace an undersized culvert at the access road to the Conservation Area, which will provide passage for several fish species, restore sediment transport, and eliminate an impoundment that causes increased water temperatures in a cold water fishery resource. The dam, which serves no economic purpose, is a run-of-the-river dam approximately 35 feet wide and constructed out of field stones. It creates a hydraulic drop of approximately four feet. . Upstream of the dam and the impoundment Sucker Brook flows through a three-foot diameter reinforced concrete pipe beneath the Conservation Area access road. This culvert is significantly undersized, restricting flow and fish passage. The access road is a private driveway with no through traffic.

The Project will be partially funded by the Massachusetts Department of Fish & Game Division of Ecological Restoration, therefore, MEPA jurisdiction is broad.

This information is available in alternate format. Contact Michelle Waters-Ekanem, Director of Diversity/Civil Rights at 617-292-5751. TTY# MassRelay Service 1-800-439-2370 MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper

MassDEP Comments – EEA# 16208 Page 2 of 4

The Proponent is requesting a waiver of the mandatory Environmental Impact Report for the Project.

The Project is under MEPA review because it meets or exceeds the following review thresholds:

11.03(3)(a)(4) -Structural alteration of an existing dam that causes an Expansion of 20% or any decrease in impoundment Capacity; 11.03(3)(b)(1)(b) -alteration of 500 or more linear feet of bank along a fish run or inland bank; 11.03(3)(b)(1)(d) -alteration of 5,000 or more sf of bordering or isolated vegetated wetlands.

The Project requires the following State Agency Permits:

MassDEP- 401 Water Quality Certification; MassDEP Chapter 91 Dredge Permit.

Alternatives Analysis

Alternative 1, “No Action,” would leave the dam and culvert in their current state. Leaving the structures would mean continued fish passage restriction and natural stream function impediment. Alternative 2, “Culvert Removal, Dam Removal, and Passive Downstream Release of Sediment,” is the preferred alternative. Alternative 3, “Culvert Replacement, Dam Removal with Sediment Removal,” would add a proposed channel to be excavated to increase the rate of sediment removal. This alternative would require additional tree clearing and site disturbance, and might require heavy equipment and a phased approach. This alternative would increase the temporary environmental impacts of the process, as well as the time and cost of the project.

MassDEP offers the following comments:

Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup

The Proponent has sampled sediment at or near the dam that will be removed. Samples were analyzed for metals, PAHs, PCBs and pesticides. No contaminants were detected above Reportable Concentrations or MassDEP sediment quality benchmarks. Based on the above information, the Project does not appear to be regulated under G.L. c. 21 or the Massachusetts Contingency Plan, 310 CMR 40.0000.

Wetlands

As a result of the Project, temporary and permanent alterations will occur to Bank (530 feet temporary/271 permanent), Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (5,035 sf temporary/28,635 sf permanent) Land Under Water (4,365 sf temporary/28,920 sf permanent), and Riverfront Area (22,065 sf temporary/710 sf permanent). Approximately 4,500 cubic yards of Land Under Water is proposed to be dredged. The EENF states that the project is proposed as a Limited Project under provisions under the Wetlands Protection Act. Work associated with the project is proposed to take place in an Area of Environmental Concern, an Outstanding Resource Water, and Rare Species Habitat.

The Proponent will be required to file a Notice of Intent (“NOI”) for the Project with the Pepperell Conservation Commission (the “Commission”) and MassDEP. The NOI should provide greater details of the location of the wetlands resource areas, proposed impacts to wetlands resource areas, and mitigation measures. The Proponent should specify in the NOI what Limited Project the work is being proposed MassDEP Comments – EEA# 16208 Page 3 of 4 under the Wetlands Protection Act regulations. While the project may qualify as a Limited Project under 310 CMR 10.53(4) as an Ecological Restoration Project, it may also qualify under the Notice of Intent for Ecological Restoration Projects per 310 CMR 10.12. With the NOI submittal, the Proponent would need to demonstrate that the eligibility criteria has been met in accordance with 310 CMR 10.11, which includes obtainment of a preliminary written determination from the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (“NHESP”) that the Project will not have any adverse long-term and short-term effects on specified habitat sites of Rare Species or the Project will be carried out in accordance with a habitat management plan that has been approved in writing by and submitted with the NOI and within any time of year restrictions set by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (“DFW”). There was not documentation in the EENF that indicated the status of the NHESP or DFW.

The EENF does provide information on measures that during the construction and post- construction phase to address sedimentation and erosion. Those details should be reiterated and clearly identified in the NOI. MassDEP may provide comments to the Proponent and the Commission in the File Number Notification Letter issued following MassDEP’s technical review of the NOI.

Also under 310 CMR 10.11(6), if the Ecological Restoration Project involves dredging of 100 cubic yards or more in a Resource Area or dredging of any amount in an Outstanding Resource Water, the applicant shall obtain a Water Quality Certification pursuant to 314 CMR 9.00: 401 Water Quality Certification for Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material, Dredging, and Dredged Material Disposal in Waters of the United States Within the Commonwealth prior to submitting a Notice of Intent.

As stated in the EENF, the Proponent is required to obtain a 401 Water Quality Certification (Dredge and Fill) from MassDEP for the Project under the requirements of 314 CMR 9.00. As stated above, to qualify for the Ecological Restoration Limited Project under the WPA, a 401 WQC Dredge Permit much be obtained prior to the submittal of the NOI. No dredging shall be permitted unless appropriate and practicable steps have been taken which will first avoid, and if avoidance is not possible then minimize, or if neither avoidance or minimization are possible, then mitigate, potential adverse impacts to land under water (314 CMR 9.07(1)(a)). No dredging shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative that would have less impact on the aquatic ecosystem. However, no such dredging may be permitted that will have any adverse effect on specified habitat sites of Rare Species unless the work is subject to a Conservation and Management Permit or Determination of No Take issued by the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.

The Proponent will be required to submit a comprehensive analysis of practicable alternatives as defined in 314 CMR 9.07 (1)(a) (as applicable) as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification application. The scope of alternatives to be considered should be commensurate with the scale and purpose of the proposed activity, the impacts of the proposed activity, and the classification, designation, and existing uses of the affected wetlands and waters in the Surface Water Quality Standards at 314 CMR 4.00.

The EENF states that a Chapter 91 Dredge permit is needed but also provides information on why the activities are not subject to 310 CMR 9.00. MassDEP reserves the right to review whether the activities are subject to 310 CMR 9.00 during the review of the 401 WQC Dredge Permit. MassDEP suggests that the Proponent contact the Chapter 91 Program Director for clarification of this issue rather than preparing a DEIR to investigate the regulatory options for the Project.

MassDEP Comments – EEA# 16208 Page 4 of 4

MassDEP appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please do not hesitate to contact JoAnne Kasper-Dunne, Central Regional Office MEPA Coordinator, at (508) 767-2716.

Very truly yours,

Mary Jude Pigsley Regional Director cc: Commissioner’s Office, MassDEP Daniel Padien, BWR Boston

June 19, 2020

Kathleen A. Theoharides, Secretary Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Attention: Erin Flaherty, MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street Boston, Massachusetts 02114

Project Name: Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project Proponent: Town of Pepperell Conservation Commission Location: Keyes-Parker Conservation Area, Oak Hill Street, Pepperell Document Reviewed: Expanded Environmental Notification Form EEA No.: 16208 NHESP No.: 20-39369

Dear Secretary Theoharides:

The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife (the “Division”) has received and reviewed the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) for the proposed Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project (the Project) and would like to offer the following comments regarding state-listed species and their habitats.

The Project, as proposed, includes the removal of a non-jurisdictional rock dam and the replacement of an undersized culvert within Sucker Brook, a tributary to the Nissitisset River. The purpose of the Project is to improve continuity, restore sediment transport and reduce elevated water temperatures within Sucker Brook in order to benefit native fish and wildlife, including but not limited to state-listed species.

The Project site is mapped as Priority Habitat for the following species according to the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (14th Edition):

Scientific Name Common Name State Status Alasmidonta varicosa Brook Floater Endangered Strophitus undulatus Creeper Special Concern Glyptemys insculpta Wood Turtle Special Concern

These species and their habitats are protected pursuant to the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MGL c.131A) and its implementing regulations (MESA; 321 CMR 10.00). Fact Sheets for these species can be found on our website, www.mass.gov/nhesp. In addition, the Division notes that Sucker Brook is also listed as a Coldwater Fish Resource under 321 CMR 5.00 and provides habitat for a wide range of coldwater fish species managed by the Division.

EENF, Pepperell, EEA# 16208, page 2 of 2

All projects proposed within Priority Habitat, which are not otherwise exempt from review pursuant to 321 CMR 10.14, will require review through a direct filing with the Division pursuant to MESA (321 CMR 10.18). MESA is administered by the Division and prohibits the Take of state-listed species, which is defined as “in reference to animals…harm…kill…disrupt the nesting, breeding, feeding or migratory activity…and in reference to plants…collect, pick, kill, transplant, cut or process…Disruption of nesting, breeding, feeding, or migratory activity may result from, but is not limited to, the modification, degradation, or destruction of Habitat” of state-listed species (321 CMR 10.02).

The Division notes that habitat management activities such as these may be exempt from MESA review pursuant to 321 CMR 10.14 (15), which states that “[t]he following Projects and Activities shall be exempt from the requirements of 321 CMR 10.18 through 10.23…”

[15] the active management of State-listed Species habitat, including but not limited to mowing, cutting, burning, or pruning of vegetation, or removing exotic or invasive species, for the purpose of maintaining or enhancing the habitat for the benefit of rare species, provided that the management is carried out in accordance with a habitat management plan approved in writing by the Division and;

Based on the information contained in the EENF and the information contained within our database, the Division anticipates that the Project may qualify for the habitat management exemption (321 CMR 10.14 (15)). The Project will likely require implementation of Division-approved protection plans to avoid and minimize inadvertent harm to state-listed mussel and turtle species. The Proponent and its partners – including the Massachusetts Department of Ecological Restoration and Trout Unlimited – have actively coordinated with the Division during the Project design phase and are currently working with the Division to proactively prepare plans to protect state-listed species during construction.

The Division looks forward to continued consultation and coordination with the Proponent regarding this Project. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Jesse Leddick, Chief of Regulatory Review, at (508) 389-6386 or [email protected]. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this Project.

Sincerely,

Everose Schlüter, Ph.D. Assistant Director

Cc: Paula Terrasi, Town of Pepperell Conservation Commission Joseph Gould and Nick Wildman, MA Department of Ecological Restoration Michael Rosser, MA Department of Ecological Restoration Todd Richards, Assistant Director of Fisheries, MassWildlife Pat Huckery, District Supervisor, MassWildlife Northeast District Office MA DEP Northeastern Regional Office, Wetlands Program

CounqrT

Northern Middlesex Council of Governments

June L7,2020 "o"ooio"" Kathleen Theoharides, Secretary Executive 0ffice of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attention; MEPA Office Erin Flaherty: EOEAA #L6208 A Multi-Disciplinary 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900

Regional Planning Boston, MA02174-2509

Agency Servingr RE: E0EEA #16208/NMCOG #677 -Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project, Pepperell

Billerica Dear Secretary Theoharides Chehnsford

Dracut The Northern Middlesex Council of Governments [NMC0G) has reviewed the Expanded Environmental Notification Form for the Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project in Dunstable Pepperell. Components of the project include removal of a non-jurisdictional field stone Lowell dam and replacement of an access road culvert to meet NAACC stream crossing

Pepperell standards. The Town of Pepperell is the project proponent and has partnered with the Division of Ecological Restoration and the Squan-A-Tissit chapter of Trout Unlimited on Tewksbury the project. The proponent is requesting a waiver of the mandatory Environmental Tyngsborough Impact Report given the extensive engineering analysis and research performed for the project to date. Should you decide an EIR is required, the proponent is requesting that Westford a Single EIR be submitted to fulfill the requirement.

This project triggers MEPA review due to the fact that it trips the following thresholds Pat Wojtas o includes a structural alteration ofan existing dam that causes an expansion of, Chair 20o/o or a decrease on impoundment capacity; o involves alteration of 500 feet or more linear feet of bank along a fish run or inland bank; and BeverlyA. Woods Executive Director o includes alteration of 5,000 or more square feet of bordering or isolated vegetated wetland.

A MADEP Water Quality certificate and Chapter 91 Dredge Permit is required for the 40 Church Street project. Suite 200 Lowell, MA 01852-2686 The project is located in the Keyes-Parker Conservation Area and is in the Squannassit ACEC. The conservation area access road culvert is currently undersized and restricts TEL: (978) 454-8021 flow and fish passage. Massachusetts Fish & Game, Division of Ecological Restoration has designated this as a Priority Project and invested $43,000 in design and engineering FAX: (978) 454-8023 to date. The proposed project would connect fragmented sections of Sucker Brook to the wwwnlncog.org Nissitissit River to restore fish and wildlife passage, facilitate sediment transport, and improve water quality. These improvements would benefit three rare species located in the area: the brook floater; Eastern pearlshell; and Eastern box turtle. Based on the extensive information provided within the Expanded Environmental Notification Form, analysis has shown that the project will not result in any appreciable negative impacts, and will instead benefit fish and wildlife, improve resiliency, and eliminate downstream risks associated with any potential future dam failure. Therefore, future review under the MEPA process does not appear warranted. Any outstanding issues relative to the project can be adequately addressed through the state and local permitting processes.

Should you have any questions regarding the NMCOG staff comments please feel free to contact me directly at (978) 454-8027, ext. 120. Sincerely,pi;W'rDto-'Ytt Beverly Woods Executive Director

cc: Pepperell: Town Manager Administrator Board of Selectmen Public Works Director Planning Board Conservation Commission NMCOG Councilors

Protecting our water, our land, our communities

June 10, 2020

Secretary Kathleen Theoharides Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Attention: MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114

RE: MEPA File #: 16208 Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project

Dear Secretary Theoharides:

The Nashua River Watershed Association (NRWA) wholeheartedly supports the Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project to restore fish passage and wildlife habitat on Sucker Brook. Sucker Brook, a tributary to the Nissitissit River, is an important Coldwater Fishery Resource, with naturally reproducing brook trout. The rare brook floater and endangered Eastern pearlshell mussels, which are also found in Sucker Brook, are important species for water cleansing and filtering. The rare and endangered mussels depend on a healthy brook trout population for their reproductive cycle. The dam and underperforming culvert on Sucker Brook endanger both the brook trout and the mussels’ survival by limiting passage and impairing water quality.

NRWA also supports the request for a waiver of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under 301 CMR 11.11(5) for the Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project. The project will have excellent community resiliency benefits for the Town of Pepperell by eliminating the aging dam and replacing the access road culvert, to Keyes-Parker Conservation Area, with one that meets NAACC crossing standards.

We understand that under 301 CMR, the Secretary may waive an EIR if preparation of the EIR would result in “undue hardship” to the project proponent or would “not serve to avoid or minimize damage to the environment” as described under 301 CMR 11.11(1). Furthermore, we understand that when mandatory EIR review thresholds have been exceeded, the Secretary may grant a waiver of the EIR as described under 301 CMR 11.11(2) based on determination that preparation of an EIR would not provide increased benefit to the project and the environment. Based upon the scientific and engineering analysis included in the EENF, preparation of an EIR for this project would not serve to avoid or minimize damage to the environment, nor would its preparation provide increased benefit to the project and the environment for reasons listed below.

592 Main Street, Groton, MA 01450-1230 p 978.448.0299 f 978.448.0941 www.nashuariverwatershed.org

support the overwhelming environmental benefit of the project, and have allowed for the development of strategies to minimize and avoid negative environmental impacts as discussed in the alternatives analysis. This project is also supported by state, federal, and non-governmental organizations with decades of restoration experience.

This project triggers mandatory EIR threshold under 301 CMR 11.03(3), namely (3.a.4) structural alteration of an existing dam that causes and expansion of 20% or any decrease in impoundment capacity, (3.b1.b) alteration of 500 or more linear feet of bank along a fish run or inland bank, and (3.b.1.d) alteration of 5,000 or more SF of boarding or isolated vegetated wetlands. The dam is a run-of-river dam and does not provide any flood storage. In addition, the dam has breached and the bypass channel now conveys a substantial amount of the flow. Further reduction in the capacity through removal of dam will restore the natural and historical ecological function of the Sucker Brook project reach. Dam removal has many environmental benefits, including improved water quality, restoration of natural sediment and nutrient transport regimes, improvement to aquatic habitat, aquatic species passage, creation of wetlands, and increased floodplain connectivity. The impoundment currently does not support public recreation, nor does the dam provide any flood protection.

The permitting associated with this project will enable additional public and regulator input as well as a mechanism for application of conditions to ensure compliance with MEPA regulations. This project will require a number of environmental permits, including the 401 Water Quality Certificate (Department of Environmental Protection), Chapter 91 Dredge Permit (Department of Environmental Protection), Wetland Protection Act Notice of Intent/Order of Conditions (Pepperell Conservation Commission), Section 106 Historical Certificate (Mass. Historic and other signatories), and a Section 404 dredge and fill Permit (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).

In addition, project partners have already connected with several Town officials, local non-profits, and neighbors to the site. In this manner, public interests are being addressed and incorporated in the project development process.

The Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project will have many environmental and community benefits. We urge you to favorably consider this waiver request. If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact Martha Morgan at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Elizabeth Ainsley Campbell Martha S. Morgan Executive Director Water Programs Director

Cc: Paula Terrasi, Town of Pepperell Conservation Administrator Michael Lauritzen, President, Squan-a-Tissit Chapter of Trout Unlimited

June 18, 2020

Secretary Kathleen A. Theoharides Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attention: MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114

Via Email: [email protected]

Re: EOEEA # 16208, Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project, Pepperell

Dear Secretary Theoharides:

On behalf of Mass Audubon, I submit the following comments in support of the request for a waiver of the requirement for a mandatory Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the MEPA regulations at 301 CMR 11.11(5) for the removal of a small stone dam and upgrading of an undersized culvert at the Keyes-Parker Conservation Area in Pepperell.

Sucker Brook is a tributary to the Nissitissit River, which is part of the Nashua-Squannacook- Nissitissit National Wild and Scenic Rivers designation. This project has many benefits including fish passage for the Eastern Brook Trout (Salvelinus Fontinalis). In turn, the trout is a species that plays an essential role in the reproductive cycle of two rare mussels that are found in the brook, the brook floater and Eastern pearlshell. The project will also restore natural flow and sediment regime processes, and remove an impoundment that warms water temperatures in a coldwater fishery resource.

Removal of obsolete dams is important for both public safety and ecological health, especially in light of climate change impacts on precipitation patterns and temperature regimes.

The project has the support of the town and the local chapter of Trout Unlimited, and is a priority project of the Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration. The project meets the requirements for a waiver, as it will improve rather than damage environmental conditions. Extensive analyses and planning have already been conducted for the project, including a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis, sediment assessment and management planning, and evaluation of alternatives on the culvert. This information, along with project plans, are included in the ENF. Any remaining project design and conditioning can be addressed through the required permitting processes at the local and state levels.

Thank you for considering these comments and the request for an EIR waiver.

Sincerely,

E. Heidi Ricci Assistant Director of Advocacy

Cc: Pepperell Conservation Commission Nashua River Watershed Association

Nashoba Conservation Trust, Inc. PO Box 188 Pepperell, MA 01463

June 18, 2020 Secretary Kathleen Theoharides Executive Office of Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114

RE: MEPA File #: 16208 Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project

Dear Secretary Theoharides:

Nashoba Conservation Trust (NCT), a land trust based in Pepperell, MA, is proud to have partnered with the MA Division of Ecological Restoration, the Pepperell Conservation Commission, the Squan-A- Tissit Chapter of Trout Unlimited, and other local organizations to advocate for the removal of the Sucker Brook Dam as part of the larger Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project.

As a follow-on to our letter of June 22, 2018 in support of the dam removal project, this letter supports the request for a waiver of the requirement for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under 301 CMR 11.11(5). The basis of this waiver request is founded upon the extensive data collection and analysis of environmental impacts which have been conducted to date in support of this project. These analyses support the overwhelming environmental benefits of the project and have allowed for the development of strategies to minimize, as well as avoid, negative environmental impacts as discussed in the alternatives analysis.

Furthermore, the additional permitting associated with this project will enable public and regulator input, as well as a mechanism for application of conditions, to ensure compliance with MEPA regulations. This project will require a number of environmental permits, including 401 Water Quality Certificate (Department of Environmental Protection), Chapter 91 Dredge Permit (Department of Environmental Protection), Wetland Protection Act Notice of Intent/Order of Conditions, Section 106 Historical Certificate (Mass Historic and other Signatories), and Section 404 Dredge and Fill Permit (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).

Additionally, project partners have already connected with several Town of Pepperell officials, local non-profits, and frequent users of and neighbors to the site. In short, public interests are being addressed and incorporated in the project development process.

The Sucker Brook Continuity Restoration Project will have many environmental and community benefits. I urge you to favorably consider this waiver request.

Sincerely yours,

Kenneth Hartlage President