- General Comments
- Site was located on overpass directly off of Route 114. There is a parking turnout at the lead mills conservation area.
Floodgates were erected in 1931 (No ch 91 but City of Salem has the 1931 plans).
They were reconstructed in 1961 and the sluice gates were replaced in kind in 1963 (#2206 MADEM) constructed by state DPW.
The Massachusetts legislature gave approval for town to keep the gates closed on the weekends from June 1-Sept 1. It was approved by the conservation commission on Oct 4, 1979 (found in chapter 593 of the MA state legislature). This was partially to allow for the town to operate a high tide pool area for a local beach which was permitted in 1982.
The Corps reviewed the history of the structure in 1990 and determined that the structure was constructed prior to Dec, 18, 1968, which made it eligible for "Grandfathering" under the Nationwide Permits.
There were electrical improvements made in 2011.
- Operation Plan
- No
- Operation Comments
- Tide gate is manually operated by Salem DPW (i.e., closed) during specific weather events to reduce flooding upstream.
- Gate Comments
- There were three identical tide gates at this location – Salem-01A was located to the northwest, Salem-01B was located in the middle, and Salem-01C was located to the southeast. The tide gates were all rectangular wooden sluice gates with electric actuators. Access to the tide gates and actuators was limited by a locked chain link fence, so tide gate dimensions are approximate. All three tide gates appeared to be in good condition – the wood was weathered, but did not appear to be rotten and the actuators appeared to have been installed in the last 5-15 years and appeared to be operable.
- Elevation Comments
- As previously indicated, access to the tide gates was limited by a locked chainlink fence so an invert measuredown could not be obtained. Staining was apparent on the upstream (U/S) and downstream (D/S) ends of the headwall (HW) so approximate extent of U/S and D/S tidal influence was able to be assessed. The below lists measuredowns taken with a surveyors rod and corresponding top of headwall LiDAR elevations (NAVD88 datum).
1) TG Inv – N/A
2) Upstream Tidal Influence: Top of headwall LiDAR Elevation = 2.79’; Staining Measuredown = 4.33’; U/S Tidal influence = 2.79’ – 4.33 = -1.54’.
3) Downstream Tidal Influence: Top of headwall LiDAR elevation = -0.033’; Staining Measuredown = N/A (staining line was flush with retaining wall – see scanned field notes for reference location); D/S Tidal Influence = -0.033’ – 0.00’ = -0.033’
Note: LiDAR was inconsistent on upstream headwall. In order to obtain values, averaged two representative values (3.67’ & 1.9’ = 2.79’). Downstream = 12.66’ & 13.62’ = 13.14; Upstream = 5.64’ & 1.74’ = 3.69’