The URL can be used to link to this page

14-005 Upper Roberts Meadow Dam EENF MEPA FilingSubmitted to: Executive Office of Energy & Environmental Affairs January, 2013 Submitted by: GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. 1 Edgewater Drive Norwood, MA 02062 781 - 278 -5803 GZA Engineers and GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Scientists January 15, 2013 File No. 01.019547.10 Secretary Richard K. Sullivan Jr. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Attention: MEPA Office G� Re: Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal MEPA Expanded Environmental Notification Form Dear Secretary Sullivan: On behalf of the City of Northampton, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. is pleased to submit this Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) for the removal of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam in Northampton, Massachusetts. The Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir One Edgewater Drive dam is an earthen embankment with a curved stone masonry spillway that was constructed in 1883. Norwood The reservoir was originally constructed as art t of the C water sup system. is no on Massachusetts 02062 p y pp 1 y t It longer y g Phone: 781- 278 -3700 used for water supply purposes reservoir. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir has no potential to Fax: 781- 278 -5701 provide water supply, even on an emergency basis. Therefore, the dam currently serves no purpose http:iiwww.gza.c relative to the water supply for the City of Northampton. The condition of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam has been rated as Poor /Unsafe since the 1970's. The condition of the dam was again rated as "Poor" condition by the City's dam engineering consultant, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) as stated in the 2006 Phase I Dam Safety Inspection Report. GZA had continued to assign the "Poor" condition rating to the dam in the subsequent 6 -month follow up inspections (2007, 2009, and 2011) and Phase I Inspections (2008 and 2010). The "Poor" condition rating was assigned to the dam mainly due to significant leakage through the spillway and abutments, displacement of masonry stone, potential internal erosion, and other factors. As a result of the "Poor" condition rating in the 2006 Phase I Inspection Report, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation — Office of Dam Safety issued a Certificate of Non - Compliance and Dam Safety Order to the City of Northampton on June 8, 2007 because the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam was a High Hazard Class (Class I) structure in "Poor" condition. The Order requires that the City perform 6 -month follow -up inspections of the dam, perform a Phase II Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives Analyses, and to bring the dam into compliance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts - Dam Safety Regulations (302 CMR 10.00). After considerable engineering evaluation, alternatives analyses, public input/involvement, and pre- application discussions with environmental regulators, the City selected dam removal as the preferred option to comply with the Order. The dam will be removed and the stream within the existing reservoir basin will be restored. The proposed Project will have the added benefit of connecting /restoring an upgradient cold water fisheries stream in the area between Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir. Each of these project elements is discussed in detail in the enclosed Expanded Environmental Notification Form. Copyright 2013 GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. An Equal Opportunity Employer M /F /V /H EOEEA /MEPA January 15, 2013 File No. 01.019547.10.00 Page This project triggers mandatory EIR thresholds under 301 CMR 1I.03(3)(a)(4), namely alteration of an existing dam that decreases impoundment capacity. Based on the environmental analyses completed to date, we are requesting waiver of the requirement for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). It is our belief that preparation of an EIR would not "serve to avoid or minimize damage to the environment ", as described under 301 CMR 11.11(1), or provide increased benefit to the project and the environment, as described under 301 CMR 11.11(2). The analyses completed G� to-date demonstrate that the project meets the EIR waiver thresholds as identified in 301 CMR 11.11(3). Specifically, 1. the project does not cause damage to the environment and 2. "ample and unconstrained infrastructure and services" exist to support the project. While the project results in a change to the local environment, we do not believe that the project as planned and implemented with various mitigation measures will result in damage to the environment as defined by the MEPA regulations. The structure has also been determined to be potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. As such, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act compliance documentation will be completed as part of future permitting work prior to any removal of the structure, and this mitigation work will be performed in direct coordination with the MA Historical Commission. As documented in the EENF, the dam removal will result in a multitude of long -term benefits to local resources, including: restoration of connectivity of Roberts Meadow Brook to allow migration of brook trout and other aquatic organisms from a lower segmented portion of the brook to the upper reaches of the brook; restoration of natural flow patterns; reestablishment of natural sediment and nutrient transport; improvement of water quality; and enhancement of habitat value and long -term sustainable benefits for aquatic organisms. The loss of open water area associated with the current reservoir would be offset by these long -term environmental benefits. The second condition is met because the project does not require infrastructure and services. This project will improve public safety and will not result in a loss of public water supply, flood storage facility, or any recreational opportunity. Also, this project relieves the City of Northampton of an ongoing financial burden and risk to public safety. The proposed project will still require the issuance of several permits, imposing the standards and conditions of these permits, and will receive full public process under these permit processes. Therefore, the additional public review and analysis that would accompany an EIR will, in effect, be accomplished as part of these public permit review processes and the additional requirement for an EIR would not serve to better protect the environment or provide public review. In the event that the Secretary cannot make a determination that a waiver can be issued for the requirement of an EIR, the ENF has been submitted as an Expanded ENF with the intent of potentially being approvable under Single EIR process (301CMR11.05(7)). Therefore, if the waiver is not granted, we respectfully request that the remaining MEPA documentation and review be processed as a Single EIR. EOEEA /MEPA January 15, 2013 File No. 01.019547.10.00 Page If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Matthew Taylor at (781) 279 -5803, Paul Davis at (413) 726 -2100 or Anders Bjarngard at (781) 278 -4802. Sincerely, GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Z A AafthewA. Taylor, P.E. Senior Project Manager Anders B. Bjarngar , P.E. Principal -In- Charge Paul G. Davis, Ph.D., CPSSc Principal Environmental Scientist J: \19, 000 -20, 999\ 19547\ 19547 -10. MAT \Pmnitting\MEPA\EENF\Final \URMD EENF Coverletter - Final - GZA Letterhead.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER PAGE COVER LETTER ENF FORM ATTACHMENT 1. EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM NARRATIVE 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... ..............................1 GZ\ 1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVE AND BENEFITS ......................................... ..............................4 1.1.1 Project Objective ................................................................................. ..............................4 1.1.2 Project Benefits .................................................................................... ..............................4 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................. ............................... 6 2.1 Project Site Description ....................................................................... ..............................6 2.2 Previous Dam Safety Inspections and Engineering Analyses ............. ..............................7 3.0 Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................ ............................... 11 3.1 Alternatives Analysis Approach ......................................................... .............................11 3.2 Alternatives Analysis in Response to 2007 Dam Safety Order .......... .............................11 3.2.1 Alternative No. 1 — No Action ............................................................ .............................12 3.2.2 Alternative No. 2 — Dam Rehabilitation — Dam Modification ............ .............................12 3.2.3 Alternative No. 3 — Full Dam Rehabilitation ...................................... .............................14 3.2.3.1 Hydropower Considerations ............................................................... .............................15 3.2.4 Alternative No.4 — Dam Removal (Preferred Alternative) ................. .............................15 3.3 Conceptual Design — Dam Removal Alternative ................................ .............................17 3.3.1 Initial Sediment Management Alternatives Evaluation ...................... .............................18 3.3.2 Pre- Permitting Activities .................................................................... .............................20 3.3.3 Sediment Management Alternatives Analysis .................................... .............................20 3.3.4 Public Outreach Process ..................................................................... .............................22 3.3.5 Public Opposition for Dam Removal .................................................. .............................36 4.0 Preliminary Design of Preferred Alternative: Dam Removal and Stream Restoration ...38 4.1 Sediment Management — Hydraulic Dredging ................................. ............................... 38 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) 4.1.1 Grading — Stabilization of Sediments ................................................. .............................39 4.1.2 Stream Bed and Bank Features ........................................................... .............................39 4.1.3 Riparian Vegetation Planting ............................................................ ............................... 40 4.2 Construction Approach & Sequencing ............................................... .............................41 CJZX) 4.2.1 Construction Approach ..................................................................... ............................... 41 4.2.2 Anticipated Construction Sequence - Sediment Containment Basin Construction .........42 4.2.3 Anticipated Construction Sequence - Hydraulic Dredging And Dam Removal .............43 4.3 Schedule and Cost ............................................................................... .............................47 5.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ............................................................ .............................48 5.1 Topography, Geology, Soils and Sediments ....................................... .............................48 5.1.1 Sediment Analysis ............................................................................ ............................... 53 5.2 Wetland Resource Areas ..................................................................... .............................59 5.3 Watershed and Hydrology ................................................................ ............................... 67 5.4 Vegetation .......................................................................................... .............................69 5.5 Fish and Wildlife Resources ............................................................. ............................... 70 5.6 Rare Species ........................................................................................ .............................75 5.7 Historic Structures or Districts and Archaeological Sites ................... .............................75 5.8 Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................... .............................77 5.9 Noise .......................................................................................... .............................78 5.10 Hazardous Materials Review ............................................................ ............................... 78 5.11 Aesthetic Resources /Open Space /Recreational Resources ............... ............................... 80 5.12 Socioeconomic Characteristics ......................................................... ............................... 81 6.0 IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT .............................................. .............................82 6.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils ...................................................... ............................... 82 6.2 Wetland Resource Areas ..................................................................... .............................83 6.2.1 Land Under Waterway & Waterbody (LUWW) .............................. ............................... 84 Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) 6.2.2 Inland Bank ......................................................................................... .............................84 6.2.3 Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW) ............................................... .............................85 6.2.4 Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF) ................................... ............................... 86 6.2.5 200 -foot Riverfront Area ( RFA) ......................................................... .............................87 6.3 Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................... ............................... 88 6.4 Vegetation .......................................................................................... .............................89 6.5 Fisheries and Wildlife ......................................................................... .............................89 6.6 Special Concern, Threatened and Endangered Species ...................... .............................90 6.7 Historic Structures or Districts and Archaeological Sites ................... .............................91 6.8 Air Quality ........................................................................................ ............................... 91 6.9 Noise .......................................................................................... .............................92 6.10 Hazardous Materials ......................................................................... ............................... 92 6.11 Aesthetic Resources /Open Space /Recreational Resources ............... ............................... 80 6.12 Socioeconomic Characteristics ......................................................... ............................... 93 7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................ .............................94 8.0 REQUESTS FOR WAIVER OF EIR OR FOR SINGLE EIR IN ALTERNATIVE (IF WAIVER NOT GRANTED) ...................................................... ............................... 95 9.0 REQUIRED PERMITS ...................................................................... .............................97 10.0 MITIGATION SUMMARY ............................................................... .............................99 11.0 REFERENCES ................................................... ............................... ............................102 Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form TABLE OF CONTENTS (conk) LIST OF TABLES Table 3 -1: URMR Dam Removal Pre- Pemutting Activities Summary ............. ............................... 21 Table 3 -2: URMR Dam Removal — Alternatives Analysis of Sediment Management Sub- Alternatives....................................................................................... ............................... 23 Table 3 -3: Chronology of Public Meetings ........................................................ ............................... 25 Table 4 -1: rxzx Proposed Riparian Zone Plantings ..................................................... .............................40 Table 5 -1: Basic Limnological Characteristics of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir .....................48 Table 5 -2: Reservoir Depth and Volume ............................................................ ............................... 52 Table 5 -3: US Riverways Program Sediment Sampling at Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir (November 2, 2005) Compared to MA Contingency and Background Levels ............... 54 Table 5 -4: Sediment Testing Results — Soil Characteristics ............................... ............................... 55 Table 5 -5: Sediment Testing Results — Particle Size Analysis Percent Passing, by weight .............. 55 Table 5 -6: Sediment Testing Results — Total Metals ..................... ....................................... ,............ 56 Table 5 -7: Sediment Testing Results — Metals Total Characteristics Leachate Procedure [mg/kg (ppm)] ........................................................................................ ............................... 56 Table 5 -8: Sediment Sampling Results— Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) mg/kg (ppb) ........57 Table 5 -9: Sediment Testing Results— Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPHs) .................. 58 Table 5 -10: Wetland Resources in Proximity to Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir ........................ 59 Table 5 -11: Hydrological Characteristics & Features of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir........... 67 Table 5 -12: Land in Use in Reservoir Watershed ............................... _.............. ............................... 67 Table 5 -13: Characterization of Aquatic Habitat of Roberts Meadow Brook between Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir, 2009 Observations........... 73 Table 6 -1: Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Wetland Resource Impact Summary 83 Upper Roberts Akadow Reservoir Dam Removal iv Northamp04 Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Aaafiication Form TABLE OF CONTENTS (conk) LIST OF FIGURES Figure1 -1 Locus ........................................................ ..........................._... ................. ................3 Figure2 -1 : Watershed .......................................................................................... ..............................8 Figure 5 -5: Wetlands Downgradient of URMR ................................................. ............................... 64 Figure5 -6: FEMA Map ...................................................................................... ............................... 66 Figure 5 -7: Watershed Land. Use ................................................................ ............................... _......68 Figure 5 -8: Stream Reaches _. ......... _. _....... ......._ ,. .......... ....._.. 74. Figure5 -9: NHESP Map .................................................................................... ............................... 76. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT 2— Agency and Other Correspondence ATTACHMENT 3 — Sediment Sampling Locations, Boring Plans, and Lab Analysis Results ATTACHMENT 4 — Hydrologic Information. NEC RAS Modeling Results Illustrating Post Dam Removal Water Elevations. Sediment Transport Modeling Results and Innundation Study Graphics ATTACHMENT 5 — Archaeological Services Report. Kerry J. Lynch, Ph.D. Background Research and a National Register Eligibility Opinion for the The Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Northampton, Massachusetts ATTACHMENT 6 — Preliminary Design Plan Set ATTACHMENT 7— EENF Distibution List Upper Roberts Akadow Reservoir Darn Removal Northaram Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Aaafiication Form v ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Office Environmental Notification Form For Office Use Only EEA #: MEPA Analyst: The information requested on this form must be completed in order to submit a document electronically for review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, 301 CMR 11.00. Project Name: Dam Removal at Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Street Address: Chesterfield Rd Municipality: Northampton Watershed: Connecticut River Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: Latitude: 42 20'17.56" Longitude: 72 43'40.51" Estimated commencement date: 2013 Estimated completion date: 2015 Project Type: Dam Removal & Stream Status of project design: 25 %complete Restoration Proponent: City of Northampton, DPW Street Address:125 Locust Street Municipality: Northampton State: MA Zip Code: 01060 Name of Contact Person: Mr. Matthew Ta for Firm /Agency: GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc.1 Street Address: One Edgewater Dr Municipality: Norwood I State: MA Zi Code:02062 Phone: 781 - 278 -5803 Fax: 781-278-6701 E -mail: matthew.ta l or0aza. com Does this project meet or exceed a mandatory EIR threshold (see 301 CMR 11.03)? ❑Yes ❑No If this is an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF) (see 301 CMR 11.05(7)) or a Notice of Project Change (N PC), are you requesting: • Single EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.06(8)) ❑Yes ❑No Yes if Waiver not granted • Special Review Procedure? (see 301CMR 11.09) ❑Yes ®No • Waiver of mandatory EIR? (see 301 CMR 11.11) ®Yes ❑No • Phase I Waiver? (see 301 CMR 11.11) ❑Yes ❑No (Note: Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis must be included in the Expanded ENF.) Which MEPA review threshold(s) does the project meet or exceed (see 301 CMR 11.03)? Structural alteration of an existing dam that causes ..... any decrease in impoundment capacity Which State Agency Permits will the project require? 401 Water Quality Certification; Chap. 253 Dam Safety Permit; Chapter 91 Waiver Letter 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: MEMA Grant pending Effective January 2011 Summary of Project Size Existing Change Total & Environmental Impacts Total site acreage 11± New acres of land altered 4.2 ac. open water converted to stream & Rivertront Area riparian area 4.95 ac. temporary sedimentation basin Acres of impervious area 0.013 ±ac temporary 0.0 Square feet of new bordering 600 ±SF temporary for vegetated wetlands alteration access crossing Square feet of new other wetland 183,000 sf conversion alteration of Land Under Water to Rivertront Area Acres of new non -water dependent 4.2 conversion of Land use of tidelands or waterwa S y STRUCTURES Under Water to Rivertront Area Gross square footage 100 SF of existing (100 SF) dam removal (100 SF) removal dam Number of housing units 0 0 0 Maximum height (feet) NA NA NA TRANSPORTATION Vehicle trips per day NA NA NA Parking spaces NA NA NA WASTEWATER Water Use (Gallons per day) NA NA NA Water withdrawal (GPD) NA NA NA Wastewater generation /treatment NA NA NA (GPD) Length of water mains (miles) NA NA NA Length of sewer mains (miles) NA NA NA Has this project been filed with MEPA before? ❑ Yes (EEA# ) ®No Has any project on this site been filed with MEPA before? ❑ Yes (EEA# ) ®No -2- GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION - all proponents must fill out this section PROJECT DESCRIPTION See Attachment 1 for full project description, alternatives analysis, existing conditions, and anticipated impacts. Describe the existing conditions and land uses on the project site:_ Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is a 4.8 acre impoundment of Roberts Meadow Brook located entirely on land owned by the City of Northampton DPW -Water Division. The reservoir is within watershed lands upgradient of Middle Roberts Reservoir which is an emergency water supply to the City of Northampton. Describe the proposed project and its programmatic and physical elements: In compliance with an Office of Dam Safety Order, the existing dam will be removed. The reservoir will first be hydraulically dredged to remove most sediments that might be mobilized upon dam removal. The temporary dredging sedimentation basin will be located partially within riverfront area and floodplain downgradient of the dam, and will be restored upon completion of the dredging. Roberts Meadow Brook will be reestablished within the existing reservoir after being dewatered and the existing reservoir basin will be vegetated by seeding and plantings with herbaceous and woody growth within the newly exposed riparian area. The entire basin will become regulated Riverfront Area (RFA) for a net increase of 680,000 SF of RFA, offsetting the loss of 183,000 SF of Land Under Water Bodies and Waterways (LUWW). The existing high quality cold water stream habitat upgradient of the reservoir will be extended into the reservoir and connectivity to a segmented 5900 linear feet of downgradient stream will be reestablished as a result of this project. (Attachment 1) Describe the on -site project alternatives (and alternative off -site locations, if applicable), considered by the proponent, including at least one feasible alternative that is allowed under current zoning, and the reasons(s) that they were not selected as the preferred alternative: Alternatives considered as part of this project included repair of the dam, use of the dam for hydropower (as a value added for dam repair), and different scenarios for dam removal. As part of the dam removal alternative, different sediment management techniques were considered sluicing of sediments, capture of sediments within the downgradient reservoir or stream diversion/ sedimentation basins, and pre- dredging the sediments. The alternatives were discussed at length with regulators and the public, including discussion and public meeting with City officials, residents, State and Federal regulatory officials, and public interest groups. While a local dam restoration advocacy group remains in opposition to dam removal, it was determined that dam removal would provide the greatest safety to the human and natural environment, by addressing the identified dam safety issue, lowest cost, and greatest environmental benefit associated with the project stream due to the stream restoration). (See Attachment 1) Summarize the mitigation measures proposed to offset the impacts of the preferred alternative: Dam removal and stream restoration are an environmental mitigation measure relative to stream/ aquatic habitat connectivity and restoration of cold water fish habitat. Loss of limited warm water fish habitat is an unavoidable consequence. Hydraulic dredging of accumulated sediments will minimize sedimentation impacts during dam removal. Riparian areas will be restored with vegetation. An invasive species control plan will be implemented. Follow -up monitoring will address aquatic habitat and riparian zone restoration, and control of invasive species. In addition, the dam has been identified as being potentially eligible for listing on the National -3- Register of Historic Places. Therefore, the Section 404 permit will require compliance with Section 106(f) National Historic Preservation Act which will require engineering and historic documentation for archival purposes in coordination with the MA Historical Commission. If the project is proposed to be constructed in phases, please describe each phase: 1. Invasive species control initiated 2. Pre - construction hydraulic dredging phase 3. Removal of dam in sections 4. Stream and riparian habitat restoration 5. Post construction monitoring AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN: Is the project within or adjacent to an Area of Critical Environmental Concern? ❑Yes (Specify ) ®No if yes, does the ACEC have an approved Resource Management Plan? Yes _ No, If yes, describe how the project complies with this plan. Will there be stormwater runoff or discharge to the designated ACEC? Yes No, If yes, describe and assess the potential impacts of such stormwater runoff /discharge to the designated ACEC. RARE SPECIES Does the project site include Estimated and /or Priority Habitat of State - Listed Rare Species? (see http: / /www. mass. gov /dfwel e /dfw /nhesp /regulatory _review /prio rity_habitat /prio rity_habitat_ho me. htm) ❑Yes ®No( But Wood Turtle habitat exists at headwaters of Reservoir 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 See attached report/investigation. Structure judged to be locally significant, likely requiring historical research documentation and development of an engineering historical record in coordination with MA Historical Commission. If yes, does the project involve any demolition or destruction of any listed or inventoried historic or archaeological resources? ❑Yes (Specify ) ®No However, site recommended for listing. WATER RESOURCES: Is there an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) on or within a half -mile radius of the project site? X Yes No, if yes, identify the ORW and its location. Roberts Meadow Brook and Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is Tributary to Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir which is an emergency back up municipal water supply to the City of Northampton. (NOTE: Outstanding Resource Waters include Class A public water supplies, their tributaries, and bordering wetlands, active and inactive reservoirs approved by MassDEP, certain waters within Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, and certified vernal pools. Outstanding resource waters are listed in the Surface Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR 4. 00.) Are there any impaired water bodies on or within a half -mile radius of the project site? _Yes X_No, if yes, identify the water body and pollutant(s) causing the impairment: Is the project within a medium or high stress basin, as established by the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission? Yes X No STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: Generally describe the project's stormwater impacts and measures that the project will take to comply -4- with the standards found in MassDEP's Stormwater Management Regulations: NA. A local stormwater permit will be required under City ordinance, and a construction NOI /SWPPP will be required due to construction of sedimentation basin. MASSACHUSETTS CONTINGENCY PLAN: Has the project site been, or is it currently being, regulated under M.G.L.c.21 E or the Massachusetts Contingency Plan? Yes No X ; if yes, please describe the current status of the site (including Release Tracking Number (RTN), cleanup phase, and Response Action Outcome classification): Is there an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) on any portion of the project site? Yes No if yes, describe which portion of the site and how the project will be consistent with the AUL: Are you aware of any Reportable Conditions at the property that have not yet been assigned an RTN? Yes No ; if yes, please describe: SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE: If the project will generate solid waste during demolition or construction, describe alternatives considered for re -use, recycling, and disposal of, e.g., asphalt, brick, concrete, gypsum, metal, wood: Sediment from hydraulic dredging will be removed and disposed of on upland City property. (NOTE: Asphalt pavement, brick, concrete and metal are banned from disposal at Massachusetts landfills and waste combustion facilities and wood is banned from disposal at Massachusetts landfills. See 310 CMR 19.017 for the complete list of banned materials.) Will your project disturb asbestos containing materials? Yes No X_ if yes, please consult state asbestos requirements at http: / /mass.gov /MassDEP /air /asbhom0l.htm Describe anti - idling and other measures to limit emissions from construction equipment DESIGNATED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER: Is this project site located wholly or partially within a defined river corridor of a federally designated Wild and Scenic River or a state designated Scenic River? Yes No X_ if yes, specify name of river and designation: If yes, does the project have the potential to impact any of the "outstandingly remarkable" resources of a federally Wild and Scenic River or the stated purpose of a state designated Scenic River? Yes No if yes, specify name of river and designation: if yes, will the project will result in any impacts to any of the designated "outstandingly remarkable" resources of the Wild and Scenic River or the stated purposes of a Scenic River. Yes No ; if yes,describe the potential impacts to one or more of the "outstandingly remarkable" resources or stated purposes and mitigation measures proposed ATTACHMENTS: 1. List of all attachments to this document. Attachment 1 Expanded Environmental Notification Form Narrative Attachment 2 Agency and Other Correspondence Attachment 3 Sediment Sampling Locations, Boring Profiles, and Lab Analysis Results Attachment 4 HEC -RAS Modeling Results Illustrating Post -Dam Removal Water Elevations, Sediment Transport Modeling Results and Inundation Mapping. Attachment 5 Archaeological Services Report. Kerry J. Lynch, Ph.D. Background -5- Research And National Register Eligibility Opinion For The Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Northampton, Massachusetts Attachment 6 Plan Set Attachment 7 EENF Distribution List 2. U.S.G.S. map (good quality color copy, 8 -% x 11 inches or larger, at a scale of 1:24,000) indicating the project location and boundaries. Attachment 1 3.. Plan, at an appropriate scale, of existing conditions on the project site and its immediate environs, showing all known structures, roadways and parking lots, railroad rights -of -way, wetlands and water bodies, wooded areas, farmland, steep slopes, public open spaces, and major utilities. Attachment 6 4 Plan, at an appropriate scale, depicting environmental constraints on or adjacent to the project site such as Priority and /or Estimated Habitat of state - listed rare species, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Chapter 91 jurisdictional areas, Article 97 lands, wetland resource area delineations, water supply protection areas, and historic resources and /or districts. Attachment 1 5. Plan, at an appropriate scale, of proposed conditions upon completion of project (if construction of the project is proposed to be phased, there should be a site plan showing conditions upon the completion of each phase). Attachment 6 6. List of all agencies and persons to whom the proponent circulated the ENF, in accordance with 301 CMR 11.16(2). Attachment 7 7. List of municipal and federal permits and reviews required by the project, as applicable. Attachment 1, Section 9. -6- 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: Impacts and Permits A. Describe, in acres, the current and proposed character of the project site, as follows: Existing Change Total Footprint of buildings Internal roadways Parking and other paved areas Other altered areas Undeveloped areas Total: Project Site Acreage 4.8 reservoir 4.2 conversion 0.0 loss regulated area to Riverfront Area 5.0 woodland 5.0 temp sed basin 0.0 (restoration) 9.8 9.8 temp 0.0 B. Has any part of the project site been in active agricultural use in the last five years? Yes _X_ No, if yes, how many acres of land in agricultural use (with prime state or locally important 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 forest management plan approved by the Department of Conservation and Recreation: A forest stewardship plan will be prepared for all water supply property owned by the City surrounding the 3 Roberts Meadow reservoirs. 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? _X Yes_ No, if yes, does the project involve the release or modification of such restriction? Yes _X_ No, if yes, describe: Temporary use of land for dam removal and sedimentation basin consistent with City of Northampton reservoir watershed protections. 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.121 A? Yes _X_ No, if yes, describe: G. Does the project require approval of a new urban renewal plan or a major modification of an existing urban renewal plan under M.G.L.c.121 B? Yes No _X_; if yes, describe: III. Consistency A. Identify the current municipal comprehensive land use plan Title: Open Space Plan, Recreation & Multi -Use Trail Plan Date 6 -23 -2011 N Describe the project's consistency with that plan with regard to: 1) economic development NA 2) adequacy of infrastructure NA 3) open space impacts _ dam removal and stream restoration consistent with open space protection goals relative to goal EEC -3, OS -3. 4) compatibility with adjacent land uses All land is within City Protected Watershed Protection Lands. Dam removal is compatible with watershed protection goals for Middle Roberts Reservoir. C. Identify the current Regional Policy Plan of the applicable Regional Planning Agency (RPA) RPA: Pioneer Valley Planning Commission Title: Valley Vision 2: New Regional Land Use Plan for the Pioneer Valley: Date July 2011 D. Describe the project's consistency with that plan with regard to: 1) economic development NA 2) adequacy of infrastructure NA 3) open space impacts _dam removal and stream restoration consistent with Goal Eight to "Protect, restore, and enhance our regions' key environmental assets ". RARE SPECIES SECTION I. Thresholds f 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, if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: The reservoir is immediately downgradient of wood turtle habitat. Preliminary consultation with NHESP does not suggest that a determination of "take" is likely and that the dam removal will likely be of benefit to the species. However, additional review and consultation will occur with the filing of the MA Wetlands Protection Act Notice of Intent. NHESP will complete its review of the project once the MWPA NOI is filed with the Northampton Conservation Commission, DEP and NHESP. (NOTE: If you are uncertain, it is recommended that you consult with the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) prior to submitting the ENF.) B. Does the project require any state permits related to rare species or habitat? Yes _X_ No Coordination via MA Wetlands Protection Act permitting. C. Does the project site fall within mapped rare species habitat (Priority or Estimated Habitat?) in the current Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? Yes _X_ No. Immediately adjacent at upper reaches of reservoir. D. If you answered "No" to all questions A, B and C, 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. 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. Have you consulted with the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP)? _Yes _No, if yes, have you received a determination as to whether the project will result in the "take" of a rare species? Yes No, if yes, attach the letter of determination to this submission. 2. 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, provide a summary of proposed measures to minimize and mitigate rare species impacts 3. Which rare species are known to occur within the Priority or Estimated Habitat? 4. Has the site been surveyed for rare species in accordance with the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act? _ Yes No 4. If your project is within Estimated Habitat, have you filed a Notice of Intent or received an -8- Order of Conditions for this project? _ Yes No, if yes, did you send a copy of the Notice of Intent to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, in accordance with the Wetlands Protection Act regulations? Yes _ No B. Will the project "take" an endangered, threatened, and /or species of special concern in accordance with M.G.L. c.1 31A (see also 321 CMR 10.04)? _ Yes No, if yes, provide a summary of proposed measures to minimize and mitigate impacts to significant habitat: WETLANDS, WATERWAYS, AND TIDELANDS SECTION I. Thresholds / Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wetlands, waterways, and tidelands (see 301 CMR 11.03(3))? X Yes No, if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: Alteration of > 500 LF of Inland Bank. Relocation of Bank within reservoir (3660 LF) to stream (3450 LF) reestablished within current base of waterbody. Alteration of > 0.5 acres of other wetlands. Conversion of 183,000 SF of LUWW to Rivertront Area, with additional 500,000 SF of Rivertront Area creation. Temporary conversion of Rivertront Area and Bordering Land Subject to Flooding to Sedimentation Basin for use in hydraulically dredging of reservoir to minimize impacts associated with sediment release from dewatered reservoir. 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: • MA Wetlands Protection Act Notice of Intent & Order of Conditions Section 401 Water Quality Certification Chapter 91 Certification Waiver Letter 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. Does the project require a new or amended Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L. c.131 A)? X_Yes No, if yes, has a Notice of Intent been filed? Yes X_ No, if yes, list the date and MassDEP file number: , if yes, has a local Order of Conditions been issued? Yes No, Was the Order of Conditions appealed? Yes No. Will the project require a Variance from the Wetlands regulations? Yes No. B. Describe any proposed permanent or temporary impacts to wetland resource areas located on the project site: -9- Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Wetland Resource Impact Summar Construction Access & Total Resource Area Reservoir Basin Area Dredging Containment Basin Permanent Coastal Dunes Temporary Permanent Created Temporary Permanent Change L d Under r 25,500 SF stream 183,000 SF Salt Marshes 157,500 SF a Y restoration decrease 0 0 0 decrease Waterbody Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage Inland Wetlands (see Table inserted above for breakdown of temp. 20 LF Bank (If) 210 net loss 3660 Bordering Vegetated Wetlands 210 LF Bank (construction 3660 LF 3450 LF 35± LF 0 decrease Isolated Land Subject to Flooding access) 0 Bordering Land Subject to Flooding 216.000 SF Bordering 600± SF Vegetated 0 0 0 (construction 0 0 Wetland I access with mats Bordering Land Subject to 0 0 0 216,000± SF 0 0 Floodin 17,400 SF (construction 680,000 Riverfrord Area access from 0 SF 180,000± SF 0 680,000 SF Kennedy Road increase on north side of increase brook) C. Estimate the extent and type of impact that the project will have on wetland resources, and indicate whether the impacts are temporary or permanent: Coastal Wetlands Area (square feet) or Temporary or Length (linear feet) Permanent Impact? Land Under the Ocean Designated Port Areas Coastal Beaches Coastal Dunes Barrier Beaches Coastal Banks Rocky Intertidal Shores Salt Marshes Land Under Salt Ponds Land Containing Shellfish Fish Runs Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage Inland Wetlands (see Table inserted above for breakdown of temp. and permanent impacts) Bank (If) 210 net loss 3660 Bordering Vegetated Wetlands 0 600 SF Isolated Vegetated Wetlands 0 0 Land under Water 183.000 SF 208,500 SF Isolated Land Subject to Flooding 0 0 Bordering Land Subject to Flooding 216.000 SF Riverfront Area D. Is any part of the project 1. proposed as a limited project? _X_ Yes No, if yes, what is the area (in sf)?_ See Table Above 2. the construction or alteration of a dam? _X_ Yes No, if yes, describe: Removal 3. fill or structure in a velocity zone or regulatory floodway? Yes _X_ No to- 4. dredging or disposal of dredged material? _X_ Yes _ No, if yes, describe the volume of dredged material and the proposed disposal site: Approx. 10,000 CY of sediment will be dredged from the pond with dewatering located northeast and downstream of the reservoir. After dewatering, the material will either be left in place or transported for reuse. 5. a discharge to an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) or an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)? _X Yes No return flow of hydraulic dredging flow to stream post treatment. As per 314 CMR 0.07 DEP may allow dam removal 6. subject to a wetlands restriction order? Yes _X_ No, if yes, identify the area (in sf): 7. located in buffer zones? _Yes _X No, if yes, how much (in sf) _ All work within Riverfront Area which extends beyond buffer zones 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 law? Yes _X_ No, if yes, what is the area (sf)? III. Waterways and Tidelands Impacts and Permits A. Does the project site contain 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 _X No, if yes, list the date and license or to permit number and provide a copy of the hisric map used to determine extent of filled tidelands: Chapter 91 waiver will be requested. State Policy indicates that dam removal and stream restoration can qualify as a public benefit. B. Does the project require a new or modified license or permit under M.G.L.c.91? Yes X 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 Total _0_ If yes, how many square feet of solid fill or pile - supported structures (in sf)? C. For non - water - dependent use projects, indicate the following: Area of filled tidelands on the site 0 Area of filled tidelands covered by buildings:0 For portions of site on filled tidelands, list ground floor uses and area of each use Does the project include new non - water - dependent uses located over flowed tidelands? Yes No _X_ Height of building on filled tidelands_X Also show the following on a site plan: Mean High Water, Mean Low Water, Water - dependent Use Zone, location of uses within buildings on tidelands, and interior and exterior areas and facilities dedicated for public use, and historic high and historic low water marks. D. Is the project located on landlocked tidelands? Yes _X No, if yes, describe the project's impact on the public's right to access, use and enjoy jurisdictional tidelands and describe measures the project will implement to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impact: E. Is the project located in an area where low groundwater levels have been identified by a municipality or by a state or federal agency as a threat to building foundations? Ye=. _X_ No, if yes, describe the project's impact on groundwater levels and describe measures the project will implement to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impact: F. Is the project non - water - dependent and located on landlocked tidelands or waterways or tidelands subject to the Waterways Act and subject to a mandatory EIR? _Yes X _No, (NOTE: If yes, then the project will be subject to Public Benefit Review and -11- Determination.) G. Does the project include dredging? X_ Yes_ No; if yes, answer the following questions: What type of dredging? Improvement X Maintenance Both What is the proposed dredge volume, in cubic yards (cys) <10,000 CY What is the proposed dredge footprint? 1300 ft length, 100 ft width, 13 ft max depth Will dredging impact the following resource areas? Intertidal Yes_ No X_; if yes, sq ft Outstanding Resource Waters Yes X_ No_; if yes, 160,000 sq ft Other resource area (i.e. shellfish beds, eel grass beds) Yes_ No_X_; if yes sq ft If yes to any of the above, have you evaluated appropriate and practicable steps to: 1) avoidance; 2) if avoidance is not possible, minimization; 3) if either avoidance or minimize is not possible, mitigation? YES If no to any of the above, what information or documentation was used to support this determination? Provide a comprehensive analysis of practicable alternatives for improvement dredging in accordance with 314 CMR 9.07(1)(b). Physical and chemical data of the sediment shall be included in the comprehensive analysis. SEE ATTACHMENTS Sediment Characterization SEE ATTACHMENTS Existing gradation analysis results? X_Yes No: if yes, provide results. Existing chemical results for parameters listed in 314 CMR 9.07(2)(b)6? X_Yes No; if yes, provide results. SEE ATTACHMENTS Do you have sufficient information to evaluate feasibility of the following management options for dredged sediment? If yes, check the appropriate option. Beach Nourishment_ Unconfined Ocean Disposal Confined Disposal: Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD) Confined Disposal Facility (CDF) Landfill Reuse in accordance with COMM -97 -001 Shoreline Placement Upland Material Reuse X In -State landfill disposal_ Out -of -state landfill disposal (NOTE: This information is required for a 401 Water Quality Certification.) IV. Consistency: A. Does the project have effects on the coastal resources or uses, and /or is the project located within the Coastal Zone? Yes X_ No, if yes, describe these effects and the projects consistency with the policies of the Office of Coastal Zone Management: 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: 12- 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. Impacts and Permits A. Describe, in gallons per day (gpd), the volume and source of water use for existing and proposed activities at the project site: Existing Change Total Municipal or regional water supply Withdrawal from groundwater Withdrawal from surface water Interbasin transfer (NOTE: Interbasin Transfer approval will be required if the basin and community where the proposed water supply source is located is different from the basin and community where the wastewater from the source will be discharged.) 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, has a pumping test been conducted? Yes No, if yes, attach a map of the drilling sites and a summary of the alternatives considered and the results. D. What is the currently permitted withdrawal at the proposed water supply source (in gallons per day)? Will the project require an increase in that withdrawal? _Yes No, if yes, then how much of an increase (gpd)? 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: Permitted Existing Avg Project Flow Total Flow Daily Flow Capacity of water supply well(s) (gpd) Capacity of water treatment plant (gpd) F. If the project involves a new 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 the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority or other agency of the Commonwealth 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 III. Consistency Describe the project's consistency with water conservation plans or other plans to enhance water resources, quality, facilities and services: WASTEWATER SECTION 13- 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 the volume (in gallons per day) and type of disposal of wastewater generation for existing and proposed activities at the project site (calculate according to 310 CMR 15.00 for septic systems or 314 CMR 7.00 for sewer systems): Existing Change Total Discharge of sanitary wastewater Discharge of industrial wastewater TOTAL Discharge to groundwater Discharge to outstanding resource water Discharge to surface water Discharge to municipal or regional wastewater facility TOTAL Existing Change Total B. Is the existing collection system at or near its capacity? Yes No, if yes, then describe the measures to be undertaken to accommodate the project's wastewater flows: C. Is the existing wastewater disposal facility at or near its permitted capacity? Yes _ No, if yes, then describe the measures to be undertaken to accommodate the project's wastewater flows: 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: Permitted Existing Avg Project Flow Total Daily Flow Wastewater treatment plant capacity (in gallons per day) E. If the project requires an interbasin transfer of wastewater, which basins are involved, what is the direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or new? (NOTE: Interbasin Transfer approval may be needed if the basin and community where wastewater will be discharged is different from the basin and community where the source of water supply is located.) 14- F. Does the project involve new sewer service by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) or other Agency of the Commonwealth to a municipality or sewer district? _ Yes No G. Is there an existing facility, or is a new facility proposed at the project site for the storage, treatment, processing, combustion or disposal of sewage sludge, sludge ash, grit, screenings, wastewater reuse (gray water) or other sewage residual materials? Yes No, if yes, what is the capacity (tons per day): Existing Change Total Storage Treatment Processing Combustion Disposal H. Describe the water conservation measures to be undertaken by the project, and other wastewater mitigation, such as infiltration and inflow removal. III. Consistency A. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with applicable state, regional, and local plans and policies related to wastewater management: B. If the project requires a sewer extension permit, is that extension included in a comprehensive wastewater management plan? Yes No, if yes, indicate the EEA number for the plan and whether the project site is within a sewer service area recommended or approved in that plan: TRANSPORTATION SECTION (TRAFFIC GENERATION) I. Thresholds / Permit 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: C. Does the project require any state permits related to state - controlled roadways? _ Yes X_No, if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Roadways and Other Transportation Facilities Section. If you answered 'Yes" to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Traffic Generation Section below. II. Traffic Impacts and Permits A. Describe existing and proposed vehicular traffic generated by activities at the project site: Existing Change Total Number of parking spaces Number of vehicle trips per day ITE Land Use Code(s): B. What is the estimated average daily traffic on roadways serving the site? Roadway Existing Change Total 1. 2. 3. 15- C. If applicable, describe proposed mitigation measures on state - controlled roadways that the project proponent will implement: D. How will the project implement and /or promote the use of transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities and services to provide access to and from the project site? C. Is there a Transportation Management Association (TMA) that provides transportation demand management (TDM) services in the area of the project site? Yes No, if yes, describe if and how will the project will participate in the TMA: D. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation facilities? Yes No, if yes, generally describe: E. If the project will penetrate approach airspace of a nearby airport, has the proponent filed a Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission Airspace Review Form (780 CMR 111.7) and a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (CFR Title 14 Part 77.13, forms 7460 -1 and 7460 -2)? 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: TRANSPORTATION SECTION (ROADWAYS AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES) 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 in the immediate vicinity of the project site 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: 16- 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: 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 17- Particulate matter Carbon monoxide Sulfur dioxide Volatile organic compounds Oxides of nitrogen Lead Any hazardous air pollutant Carbon dioxide B. Describe the project's other impacts on air resources and air quality, including noise impacts: III. Consistency A. Describe the project's consistency with the State Implementation Plan: B. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with other federal, state, regional, and local plans and policies related to air resources and air quality: SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION I. Thresholds / Permits A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to solid or hazardous waste (see 301 CMR 11.03(9))? Yes _X_ No, if yes, specify, in quantitative terms: B. Does the project require any state permits related to solid and hazardous waste? _ Yes X No, if yes, specify which permit: C. If you answered "No" to both questions A and B, proceed to the Historical and Archaeological 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: Storage Treatment, processing Combustion Disposal Existing Change Total 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: Storage Recycling Treatment Disposal Existing Change Total 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? 18 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. Have you consulted with the Massachusetts Historical Commission? X_ Yes _ No if yes, attach correspondence. For project sites involving lands under water, have you consulted with the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources? _X Yes —No, if yes, attach correspondence B. 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: C. 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 _X_ No, Judged to be potentially eligible. if yes, does the project involve the destruction of all or any part of such archaeological site? _X_ Yes No, if yes, please describe: Dam, which was judged potentially eligible will be removed. D. If you answered "No" to all parts of both questions A, B and C, proceed to the Attachments and Certifications Sections. If you answered "Yes" to any part of either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Historical and Archaeological Resources Section below. II. Impacts Describe and assess the project's impacts, direct and indirect, on listed or inventoried historical and archaeological resources: Due to questions raised during the initial agency consultation relative to the potential for historic resources on -site, a Phase 1 analysis has been performed and the results are summarized and presented in the EENF (Attachment 1). Based upon this analysis, the dam was judged to be potentially eligible structure based upon local significance and structural integrity. The full report is given in Attachment 5 and has been submitted to MHC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Assuming they concur with the findings, removal will likely require more extensive engineering documentation of the existing structure for archival purposes in addition to the historic research performed as part of the Phase 1 analysis. All such work will be done in conformance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and in coordination with the MA Historical Commission. III. Consistency Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with federal, state, regional, and local plans and policies related to preserving historical and archaeological resources: The City will coordinate with MHC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to satisfy any requirements for documentation of the historic engineering features prior to dam removal. 19 CERTIFICATIONS: The Public Notice of Environmental Review has been /will be published in the following newspapers in accordance with 301 CMR 11.15(1): (Name) Daily Hampshire Gazette (Date) January 15, 2013 2. This form has been circulated to Agencies and Persons in accordance with 301 CMR 11.16(2). Signatures: / /// //I Date Signature of Responsibletfficer - Date Signdture of person preparing or Proponent NPC (if different from above) Edward S. Huntley, P.E. Director Matthew A. Taylor, P. E. Name (print or type) Name (print or type) City of Northampton Public Works GZA GeoEnviron mental, Inc. Firm /Agency Firm /Agency 125 Locust Street One Edgewater Drive Street Street Northampton, MA 01060 Norwood, MA 02062 Municipality /State /Zip Municipality /State /Zip 413 -587 -1570 781- 278 -5803 Phone Phone 20 ATTACHMENT EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM ►E:"WI Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form riz ) k 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Project proposes to remove the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, which impounds Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir in the Village of Leeds in Northampton, Massachusetts (Figure 1 -1). The documentation in this Attachment is submitted in support of the MEPA Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) and request for waiver of the requirement for an Environmental Impact Report. The proposed Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Project will exceed the following Mandatory Environmental Impact Report (EIR) review threshold criteria: removal of an existing dam that would result in a decrease in impoundment capacity (301 CMR 11.03(3)(a)(4). The City of Northampton is requesting a waiver from the mandatory EIR requirement. The information contained in this Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) is intended to provide sufficient information to allow the Secretary to grant the EIR waiver. In the event that the Secretary finds that an EIR continues to be required for this project, we request approval for processing this filing as a Single EIR. The justification for these requests is summarized in greater detail in Section 8.0 of this Attachment. The Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir dam is an earthen embankment with a curved stone masonry spillway that was constructed in 1883. The reservoir was originally constructed as part of the City's water supply system, to control flows to Middle Roberts Reservoir, but no longer is used as a water supply reservoir. Around 1905, the reservoir was taken off line with the construction of Mountain Street Reservoir in Williamsburg, MA. While the piping still exists, potentially allowing utilization of Middle Roberts Reservoir as a public drinking water supply, the Middle Roberts Reservoir currently only provides an emergency backup water supply reservoir to the existing municipal water supply. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir has no potential to provide water supply, even on an emergency basis. Therefore, the dam currently serves no purpose relative to the water supply for the City of Northampton. However, Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is still considered an Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) (314 CMR 4.06(2)) because it ultimately discharges to the Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form The condition of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam has been rated as Poor/Unsafe since the 1970's. The condition of the dam was again rated as "Poor" condition by the City's dam engineering consultant, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) as stated in the 2006 Phase I Dam Safety Inspection Report. GZA had continued to assign the "Poor" condition rating to the dam in the subsequent 6 -month Follow up Inspections (2007, 2009, and 2011) and Phase I Inspections (2008, 2010 and 2012). The "Poor" condition rating was assigned to the dam mainly due to significant leakage through the masonry spillway and its abutments, displacement of a4n I masonry stone, a surface depression on the right embankment near the right training wall, trees and brush on the dike, inadequate factors of safety against sliding and overturning and inadequate spillway capacity. As a result of the "Poor" condition rating in the 2006 Phase I Inspection Report, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation — Office of Dam Safety issued a Certificate of Non - Compliance and Dam Safety Order to the City of Northampton on June 8, 2007 because the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam was a High Hazard Class (Class I) structure in "Poor" condition. The Order requires that the City perform 6 -month follow -up inspections of the dam, performs a Phase II Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives Analyses, and to bring the dam into compliance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts - Dam Safety Regulations (302 CMR 10.00). After considerable engineering evaluation, alternatives analyses, public input/involvement, and pre - application discussions with environmental regulators, the City selected dam removal as the preferred option to comply with the dam safety order. The Phase II Study has been completed and the follow -up inspections are being performed every six months. The dam will be removed and the stream within the existing reservoir basin will be restored. The proposed Project will have the added benefit of connecting /restoring an upgradient cold water fisheries stream in the area between Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir. The proposed method of dam removal has been developed to minimize impacts associated with the breaching of the dam. The reservoir basin is currently an average depth of <4 feet with accumulated soft sediments that are up to 15 feet thick for a total quantity of about 27,000 cubic yards within the impoundment. To control sediment release during the dam removal, a portion of the reservoir basin will be hydraulically dredged prior to removal of the dam. The actual removal of the dam structure will be performed in stages to further assist in the control of sediment. The hydraulically dredged sediment will be pumped to a containment basin that will be constructed on the north side of Roberts Meadow Brook and east side of Kennedy Road, downgradient of the dam. The dredged sediment basin will be located on a property owned by the City of Northampton - Water Division, which is also within the 100 -year FEMA floodplain of the Roberts Meadow Brook. Upon completion of the dam removal, the dredged sediment basin area will be revegetated and graded upon completion of the project, preserving the floodplain storage and function. As a result, there will be a need to remove some combination of existing soils and sediment from the site to eliminate any fill in floodplain. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 2 r ! Mtn >nd rr .J% I N J I ✓ r WE ��" S i Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir 9 oberts � Ij ' I 1 Dewatering Area I � J try c ` •may l � � ., �e ..r�iil �M1r i - l / r Rohhe is I � Meadow �1,��\ 6 Upper Roberts I' pp berts Meadow Reservoir Tr \ \ll''IA� r r! reRq,PVt;tsr Feet LOCUS MAP Project No: 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 01.0019547.10 Drawn by: Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir ERH Checked by: Dam Removal Project PGD Northampton, MA Date: 311712011 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP Figure No: 111� EASTHAMPTON, 1979 6io GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc. Data obtained from MASS GIS, Commowealth of Massachusetts 1 �1 Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) 3 1.1 Project Objective And Benefits 1.1.1 Project Objective The primary project objective of the Project is to satisfy the requirements of the June 8, 2007 Certificate of Non - Compliance -Dam Safety Order issued by the MADCR- Office of Dam Safety to the City. The Order states that the City must bring the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam into compliance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Dam Safety Regulation (302 CMR 10.00). A copy of the Order is included in Attachment 2. An added benefit of the Project will be the restoration of the Roberts Meadow Brook stream habitat within the existing reservoir basin. 1.1.2 Project Benefits The removal of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam will have immediate benefits for the City, the community, City's water rate payers and the environment. First and foremost, the removal of the dam will allow the City to come into compliance with the dam safety regulations. The dam no longer serves its intended function as a component in the City's water supply system. The removal of the dam will reduce the City's risk and liability associated with owning a High Hazard dam and the threat to the downstream residents. The dam removal alternative (as opposed to dam rehabilitation) is the most cost effective solution, thus allowing the City to direct future spending on projects, which will provide a greater benefit to the community, and specifically, the water rate payers within the City of Northampton. In addition, the dam removal will also provide a potential benefit to the environment by restoring the stream habitat that once existed in the area. The stream restoration will also reconnect an upgradient high quality brook trout stream to the potential trout habitat in the stream between the Upper and Middle Reservoirs on the Roberts Meadow Brook. The dam removal has received verbal support from the American Rivers and the MA Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW). The dam removal will provide the following specific benefits to the environment: • The dam removal will restore stream connectivity between the high quality upgradient brook trout stream and the potential trout habitat located within the stream between the upper and middle reservoirs along the Roberts Meadow Brook. • The dam removal will improve water quality by eliminating an area where the cold -water stream is warmed in the existing reservoir, and maintain high natural dissolved oxygen levels within the stream regime. • The dam removal will provide a continuous vegetated riparian corridor between Reservoir Road and the re- established stream, whereas currently the open water extends to the immediate margin of the road along a 500± foot segment. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 4 • Currently, the habitat for wood turtle is considered to end at the upper reaches of the reservoir. It is likely that this habitat will follow the stream downgradient with the restoration of the stream within the reservoir basin, potentially resulting in an increase in wood turtle habitat. The beneficial environmental changes listed above will result in transitioning the existing impounded reservoir, which functions as a small, shallow warm -water pond habitat, into the pre- existing cold water stream and riparian habitat. The stream connectivity and habitat improvements will restore the local landscape more closely to the historic Z)k conditions that existed prior to the construction of the dam and will be viewed as a net benefit to the environment (See Section 6.0 for greater detail on project impacts). Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 5 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The following section provides a project site description, identification of the project purpose, a summary of the previous studies, a summary of the decision process used to select the dam removal alternative including the public involvement, discussion of the conceptual and preliminary design phases, and anticipated construction activities that will be required. 2.1 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION Upper Robert's Meadow Reservoir Dam (Dam) (NID No. MA 00760, State ID No. 2-8-214-15) is located on Roberts Meadow Brook in the Leeds section of Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts. The dam is situated off Chesterfield Road (Figure 1 -1: Locus Map). The dam is an earthen embankment with a curved stone masonry spillway. The dam has a structural height of about 35 feet and a length of about 125 feet. The dam has an approximately 65- feet -long, curved, stone block masonry broad - crested spillway that is located near the dam's left abutment. The breadth of the spillway crest is about 4.5 feet. A 27 -foot long portion of the spillway near its left abutment is notched about 6 inches lower than the remainder of the spillway crest. A stone masonry and concrete gatehouse was formerly located at the right side of the spillway and reportedly removed many years ago. Remnants of the gatehouse foundation and gate chamber are still visible, including the steel tie -rods and 24- square inch sluiceway. The gatehouse remnants also contains 12- inch - diameter cast iron gate valve, which is reportedly inoperable. The downstream slope of the dam embankment is about two horizontal to one vertical (2H:1V) and the upstream slope is about 3H:IV. A portion of the earthen embankment downstream slope, right of the spillway, is formed by a near - vertical stone masonry retaining wall supported on bedrock. The spillway's left abutment consists of a bedrock outcrop. The spillway's right abutment is formed by the earthen embankment with a stone masonry training wall over a bedrock outcrop. An earthen dike, about 4 -feet high and 175 -feet long with 2H: IV upstream and downstream slopes, is located left and upstream of the stone masonry spillway. The total length of the dam and dike is about 300 feet. The dam's impoundment is referred to as Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir as well as the Upper Leeds Reservoir and the Hoxie Reservoir. The reservoir is a small (4.8± acre) impoundment located in the Leeds portion of Northampton near the border of Westhampton. It is located on the north side of Chesterfield Rd., 900± feet west of the intersection of Kennedy Road. While the Reservoir is small, it is a relatively long and linear "run of the river" impoundment, roughly 1,600 feet long and up to 200 feet wide, but generally with a width of about 100 to 150 feet. The reservoir floods a steep river valley with bedrock cliffs that once framed portions of the original stream. Roberts Meadow Brook enters the reservoir at its west end and exits over the dam at the eastern end. The brook extends upgradient, westerly into Westhampton and continues into Chesterfield. Marble Brook is a tributary to Roberts Meadow Brook, having its confluence approximately 600 feet upgradient of the western-most portion of the reservoir. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 6 Marble Brook flows from north to south, and extends upgradient into Williamsburg. The watershed of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is approximately 8.8± square miles in size encompassing the northwest corner of the Northampton, the northeast portion of Westhampton, and portions of Williamsburg and Chesterfield (Figure 2 -1). The reservoir is largely located within uninhabited woodlands, with the exception of a single nearby house located on Chesterfield Road opposite the south side of the waterbody. Flow over the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam spillway continues via Roberts Meadow Brook (a combination of a natural stream and manmade channel) in an easterly direction rjZX) along the north side of Chesterfield Road and passes under Kennedy Road, again following the northerly side of Reservoir Road, to its confluence with Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir approximately 5,900 feet downstream from the dam. Flow over the spillway at the Middle Roberts Reservoir flows in northeast direction to the Lower Roberts Meadow Reservoir. Outflow from Lower Roberts Meadow Reservoir eventually reaches the Mill River within the Village of Leeds in Northampton. 2.2 Previous Dam Safety Inspections And Engineering Analyses The condition of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam has been rated as "Poor/Unsafe" since being inspected by the Massachusetts Department of Public Works in the 1970's, the US Army Corps of Engineers in June 1980 (USACE, 1980), the Department of Environmental Management, Office of Dam Safety in the 1980's & 1990's (DEM 1998, 1993, 1987), and by the City of Northampton's dam engineering consultant (GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.) beginning in 2006 until the present (GZA, 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012). The "Poor" condition rating has been assigned to the dam due to several deficiencies which include the following: • Significant leakage through the downstream face of the stone masonry at the overflow section, at the left spillway abutment, and at the right embankment training wall; • Horizontal displacement of top masonry spillway block by approximately 4 -5 inches; • Growth of brush and trees on embankment and dike; • Growth of weeds on spillway crest; • Surface depression extending from upstream slope to downstream slope near right spillway abutment (may have worsened since the last inspection); • A 6 -inch diameter sinkhole on the upstream slope of the right embankment within the observed surface depression; • Inadequate factors of safety against sliding and overturning in accordance with 302 CMR 10.14(9); and • Inadequate spillway capacity under the regulatory Spillway Design Flood (SDF). Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 7 N i I T I Upper Roberts Meadow �+' �l iiJ If l�l Reservoir Watershed ( ILI Ei I N' I L I. I A )1 :�, ,, ., CHFSERF�L w„ WESTHAMPTON ORTHAMPTON A i= - Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir 3,000 1500 0 3,000 Feet RESERVOIR WATERSHED " OfeiN 01.0091457.10 Drawn by: Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir ERR Cbecketl by: Dam Removal Project PGD Northampton, Massachusetts pace 4/19/17 BASE MAP USGSTOPOGRAPHICQUADRANGLEMAP Figure No: EASTHAM PTON, MASS. 197M1 sack �� Data obtained fro in MASS ST Com PTO Nal of S Massachusetts Executive Office GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. of Etlergy am Environmental Affairs U } f��c ti A i= - Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir 3,000 1500 0 3,000 Feet RESERVOIR WATERSHED " OfeiN 01.0091457.10 Drawn by: Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir ERR Cbecketl by: Dam Removal Project PGD Northampton, Massachusetts pace 4/19/17 BASE MAP USGSTOPOGRAPHICQUADRANGLEMAP Figure No: EASTHAM PTON, MASS. 197M1 sack �� Data obtained fro in MASS ST Com PTO Nal of S Massachusetts Executive Office GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. of Etlergy am Environmental Affairs U The Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir dam has been classified as a High hazard dam in accordance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts dam safety rules and regulations (302 CMR 10.00). High hazard is defined as "dams located where failure will likely cause loss of life and serious damage to home(s), industrial or commercial facilities, important public utilities, main highway(s) or railroad(s)." The High Hazard rating of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam was originally assigned to the dam in 1987 in a Department of Environmental Management — Office of Dam Safety Inspection/Evaluation Report and is based on the premise that the failure of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam could result in a "domino failure" of Middle and Lower Roberts Meadow Dams thus causing serious flooding to the downstream roadways and residential sections in the Village of Leeds. The flood wave would likely result in serious damage to homes, public roadways, industrial and commercial facilities and possibly the loss of life. In 2012, GZA updated the Emergency Action Plan (EAP) for the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam (GZA, 2012). The EAP outlines the general responsibilities of the City of Northampton and state agencies in response to a dam failure, which would result in a sudden and rapid uncontrolled release of water from the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam. GZA utilized the National Weather Services (NWS) DAMBRK computer program to predict the hypothetical dam break wave formation at Upper Roberts Meadow Dam and the downstream progression via Roberts Meadow Brook through the Middle and Lower Roberts Meadow Reservoirs, the Village of Leeds and then the Mill River. The DAMBRK computer model was used to develop Inundation Maps for the downstream areas. The Inundation Maps were developed for both dry weather and wet weather dam failure scenarios. Copies of the Inundation Maps for the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam are included in Attachment 4. In response to the "Poor" condition rating presented in the 2006 Phase I Inspection Report, the MA Department of Conservation and Recreation — Office of Dam Safety issued a Certificate of Non - Compliance and Dam Safety Order to the City of Northampton on June 8, 2007. The Order required that the City perform 6 -month Follow -Up Inspections of the dam, perform a Phase II Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives Analyses, and bring the dam into compliance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts - Dam Safety Regulations (302 CMR 10.00). In August 2007, GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc. was authorized by the City of Northampton to perform 6 -month Follow -Up Dam Inspections and to perform the Phase II Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives Analysis. GZA's Phase H work included fieldwork activities (topographic survey, test borings, and wetland delineation), engineering analyses (structural stability and detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analyses), and an alternatives analysis of options to bring the dam in to compliance with the dam safety regulations. GZA concluded through detailed engineering analyses that the dam did not have adequate factors of safety for its structural stability nor did it have adequate spillway capacity (i.e. it could only pass 56% of the 500 -yr Spillway Design Flood). The results of the detailed engineering evaluations, coupled with the deteriorated physical condition of the dam, confirmed the "Poor" condition rating of the dam. The Phase 11 studies included an alternatives analysis that considered four options: no action, dam removal, dam modification and full dam rehabilitation. The advantages and Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 9 G79 disadvantages of each alternative were considered by GZA and discussed with the City. Ultimately, GZA recommended, and the City concurred, that the preferred alternative was dam removal. The dam removal alternative was selected over the various dam repair alternatives mainly due to the following considerations: overall project cost, long -term maintenance requirements, risk management, outside funding opportunities, asset allocation, water rate payer impacts, and the environmental benefits relative to stream restoration. GZA issued the final Phase II Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives Analysis Report for Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam in March 2008 (GZA, 2008). A detailed discussion of the alternatives considered for the project is provided below. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 10 3.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS 3.1 Alternatives Analysis Approach As stated previously, GZA recommended the Dam Removal Alternative in the March 2008 - Phase II Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives Analysis Report for the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir. On April 23, 2008, the Northampton Board of Public Works voted to breach the dam. The dam removal project will eliminate the potential for dam failure and the downstream flooding associated with a sudden and uncontrolled release of water from the failure of the Upper Roberts Reservoir Dam. The project would mitigate potential dam failure induced flooding and damage to Chesterfield Road, Kennedy Road and bridge, two downstream dams, and the residential and commercial properties in the Village of Leeds. Once dam removal was selected as the preferred alternative, GZA was contracted by the City to provide preliminary design and pre - permitting activities for the project. During preliminary design, the issue of sediment management became a key factor in the scope of the project, both from design and permitting perspectives. A supplement alternative analysis focused solely on sediment management was performed as described in Section 3.3. As a result of a multi -year preliminary design process which included re- evaluation of viable dam safety alternatives, public discourse and meetings, additional studies and regulatory agency coordination, the City has reconfirmed their desire to pursue the alternative of full dam removal for the project. The preferred alternative will involve hydraulic dredging to selectively remove the sediments from the new stream channel area within the impoundment area to minimize downgradient impacts associated with sediment transport and relocation. The following is a description of the consideration of these various alternatives and sub - alternatives, and the range of anticipated environmental impacts associated with each alternative. 3.2 Alternatives Analysis in Response to 2007 Dam Safety Order Four alternatives were considered to address the dam safety issues identified at the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam in the Phase II Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives Analysis (GZA, 2008). The alternatives considered included the following: No Action, Dam Removal, Dam Modification, and Full Dam Rehabilitation. The No Action alternative was immediately dismissed since it was not a viable option given the condition rating of the dam and potential liability exposure for the City if the dam were to fail. The remaining three alternatives considered addressed the deficiencies at the dam and reduced /eliminated the potential for downstream flooding as a result of dam failure and would bring the dam into compliance with the dam safety regulation as required per the June 8, 2007 Certificate of Non - Compliance and Dam Safety Order issued by the MADCR - Office of Dam Safety. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 11 The following facts about the dam apply to all three viable alternatives: Source of Hazards: Failure of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Risks: Flooding of private property, flooding of public road, damages to infrastructure, interruptions of public service, potential human injuries and loss of life. Avoided Physical Damages: Buildings, Contents, Infrastructure, Landscaping, 6ZX) Vehicles, Equipment Avoided Loss -of- Function: Disruption time for residents, Loss of public services, Economic impact of loss of utility services and of road closures Avoided Casualties: Potential Loss of Life and human injuries Other than the No Action alternative which was dismissed, all alternatives are consistent with the following specific goals of the City of Northampton's Multi- Hazard Mitigation Plan: 1. Prevent and reduce the potential for loss of life, injury, public health impacts and property damages resulting from all major natural hazards. 2. Identify and seek funding for measures to mitigate or eliminate each known significant flood hazard area. 3. Prevent and reduce the damage to public infrastructure resulting from all hazards. A description of each alternative is as follows: 3.2.1 Alternative No. I —No Action Alternative No. 1 - No Action was not considered to be a viable option due to the observed dam safety deficiencies at the dam and its overall "Poor" conditions. Failure to address the identified deficiencies would be a violation of Massachusetts law (G.L> c. 253, § 44 -49 as amended by Chapter 330 of the Acts of 2002) and Massachusetts regulations (302 CMR 10.00) which require an Owner to properly maintain his /her dam such that it meets minimum dam safety standards. Failure to correct the dam safety deficiencies identified at the Upper Robert's Meadow Reservoir Dam could endanger downstream public safety and property. 3.2.2 Alternative No. 2 — Dam Rehabilitation — Dam Modification Alternative No. 2 addresses the dam safety issues by rehabilitating the dam through modifications that lower the spillway crest. This alternative involved two options: Alterative 2A: lowering the spillway crest to Elevation 446 (i.e. 4 feet below the current normal pool) and Alternative 213: lowering the spillway to Elevation 435 (i.e. 15 feet Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 12 below the current normal pool). Each option results in a smaller impoundment size because the spillway crest is lowered. Alternative 2A requires the use of post - tensioned tie -down anchors and a reinforced concrete cap beam over the masonry spillway to provide an adequate factor of safety against sliding and to mitigate overturning. Alternative 2B does not require the use of tie -down anchors to meet the minimum factors of safety. There is a cost saving by eliminating the need for tie -down anchors; however, the amount of open water is also reduced as the spillway crest elevation is lowered. Limited dewatering of the reservoir would be required to allow the spillway crest lowering construction to occur in the dry. Dewatering could be done by installing a siphon over the right embankment that discharges downstream of the spillway. The siphon could be left in place to function as part of a permanent low -level outlet for the dam. Lowering the spillway would be done with excavators equipped with hydraulic hammers to break apart the stone masonry. The masonry would have to be loaded on to trucks and hauled and disposed of off -site. Repointing of the remaining portions of the masonry spillway along with abutment grouting will be required to address the leakage and deteriorating conditions of the masonry spillway. The lowering of the spillway crest will provide sufficient hydraulic capacity to safely pass the 500 -year spillway design flood (SDF). The advantages of the Dam Rehabilitation — Dam Modification Alternative include • Provides sufficient hydraulic capacity for the spillway to safely pass the 500 -yr SDF without the need for the construction of an additional emergency spillway. • Adequately addresses the stability issues of the spillway and embankment sections. • Removes the upper portions of the spillway where most of the leakage has been observed. • The hazard classification of the dam may be reduced thus reducing some of the City's obligations with regard to maintenance and inspection of the dam. • Lowest short term cost when compared to full dam rehabilitation. The disadvantages of the Dam Rehabilitation — Dam Modification Alternative include: • The threat of a dam failure induced flooding event is still possible. • The City of Northampton will lose a significant portion of the current capacity of the Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir. • Loss of surface area and capacity of the reservoir may impact potential future recreational use. • It will require significant modification of a potential historic structure of local significance (see Section 5.7). • The dam will remain on -line and thus will require maintenance and inspection in accordance with the dam safety regulations of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. • High repair costs compared to dam removal with no immediate increase in the water supply capabilities of the City. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 13 In addition to the construction costs, future costs including dam safety inspections, masonry repointing, annual operation and maintenance of the dam, and reservoir dredging were also included in the evaluation of this alternative. It was recognized, that for the potential alternative of dam restoration, sediment management was still an issue because the primary motivation for preserving the dam would be to preserve the open water. The reservoir currently has an average depth of less than 3 feet, has lost half of its original volume, and supports an alluvial island which is rapidly advancing into the central pond tws basin filling the pond. Therefore, lowering the spillway at least 4 feet is unlikely to preserve a significant amount of open water. r j l ' 3.2.3 Alternative No. 3 —Full Dam Rehabilitation Alternative No. 3 involves the full dam rehabilitation which would require restoring and improving the dam and its appurtenant structures to a condition, which meets the current regulations. The full dam rehabilitation would be the most comprehensive and expensive option; however, this alternative would fully address the dam safety issues while preserving the current storage capacity of the reservoir. Lowering the reservoir with a siphon will allow the work to occur in the dry. The spillway repairs would involve removal of the upper 3 feet of the masonry spillway, replacing it with a reinforced concrete cap beam. Spillway abutment grouting would be required to reduce abutment leakage and to improve overall stability of the spillway. Reconstruction of the embankment to raise the crest height and improve slope stability would be required. To provide sufficient hydraulic capacity, overtopping protection would be added to the dike to allow the dam to safely pass the 500 -year SDF. The overtopping protection would consist of large riprap or articulating concrete mats placed over approximately 145 feet of the dike. A discharge channel would be constructed from the toe of the dike and would lead to Roberts Meadows Brook downstream of the current spillway. Due to the topography in the area, some rock removal may be required for the construction of the discharge channel. The advantages of the Full Dam Rehabilitation Alternative include: • It provides sufficient hydraulic capacity for the structure to safely pass the SDF; • It adequately addresses the stability issues of the spillway and embankment sections; • It removes the upper portions of the spillway where most of the spillway leakage has been observed; and • It preserves the structure and the Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir at its current normal pool, maintaining the current shallow waterbody and associated wetland resources. The disadvantages of the Full Dam Rehabilitation Alternative include: • The threat of a dam failure induced flooding event is still possible; • It requires construction of overtopping protection at the dike and raising the right embankment to allow the dam to safely pass the SDF; Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 14 • It will likely require direct permanent impact to Bordering Vegetated Wetland and Riverfront Area for the construction of the new overflow spillway and structure; • It will require significant modification of a potential historic structure of local significance (see Section 5.7); • The dam will remain a High Hazard structure and will thus require maintenance and inspection in accordance with the dam safety regulations of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and • The repair costs will be relatively high and the option does not provide the City an increase in the water supply capabilities. In addition to the construction costs, future costs including dam safety inspections, masonry repointing, annual operation and maintenance of the dam, and reservoir dredging were also included in the evaluation of this alternative. 3.2.3.1 Hydropower Considerations As a subset of the full dam rehabilitation alternative, GZA was contracted by the City to evaluate the hydropower potential at the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam as a means to potential offset some of the repair costs. In May /June of 2009 (after the Phase 11 Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives Analysis was completed), the City asked GZA to perform a pre - feasibility level evaluation of the hydropower potential at the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam as part of the evaluation of the Full Dam Rehabilitation alternative for the project. GZA concluded that based on the flow conditions, the dam's geometry (i.e. available head), and the lack of an end user for power generated at the dam, the project was not economically feasible. In August/September of 2009, the City requested GZA refine the June 2009 pre- feasibility hydropower evaluation of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam and prepare a more detailed preliminary evaluation. In September 2009, GZA issued a Preliminary Hydropower Evaluation letter report (GZA, 2009), which stated adding hydropower to the dam was technically feasible; however, it was not economically feasible and therefore not recommended. The main issues being the potential annual energy generated was very small (i.e. energy to power about 30 homes), the City does not have need for the energy at the dam so the power would need to be put back into the grid at a wholesale rate which is about 1/3 of the retail value), the annual value of the power was estimated to be worth only about $13K. The cost of the hydropower installation, which is in addition to the full dam rehabilitation costs, was about $750K to $1M, and the estimated payback period was approximately 58 to 77 years. The City concluded that the payback period was too long to be considered economically viable and therefore chose not to pursue the development of hydropower at Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam. 3.2.4 Alternative No. 4 — Dam Removal (Preferred Alternative) Alternative No. 4 is to remove the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam in order to address the identified dam safety deficiencies. Dam removal will require an alternating process of hydraulic dredging and incremental removal of the dam structure. Hydraulic dredging will be performed prior to each removal of 5 to 10 feet of the granite block Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 15 masonry dam. Removing the dam in sections and performing a phased hydraulic dredging operation will allow a significant amount of the approximately 27,000 cubic yards of sediment that is currently impounded in the reservoir, to be stabilized in- place, thereby reducing the amount of sediment to be dredged and thus limiting the overall cost of the proj ect. Dredging must be conducted prior to each stage of dam removal in order to dredge shallow areas in the upper reaches of each stage impoundment. The undredged sediments impounded in the upper reaches of the reservoir will be exposed as the reservoir level is GZV lowered and will be stabilized with wetland seeding and plantings, as necessary. Hydraulic dredging will be used to establish the alignment of the proposed stream channel, which has been estimated from the bathymetric survey and original topography plans. The dam will be utilized as a temporary sediment trap to limit downstream releases of sediment during the work and to maintain a working pool level for each phase of hydraulic dredging. A temporary storage (dewatering) basin will be constructed on City -owned property to contain the sediment in the woodlands off of Kennedy Road /Chesterfield Road (see Figure 1 -1). The existing masonry from the dismantled spillway section would likely be hauled off site or possibly incorporated into an interpretive display at the dam site. The advantages of the Dam Removal Alternative include: • Eliminates the threat of a dam failure induced flooding event; • Reduces the City's responsibility and liability with regard to dam safety, dam maintenance and dam inspections; • Restores the wildlife habitat and stream channel to the natural condition that existed before the dam was constructed; • Restores stream connectivity on the Roberts Meadow Brook thereby improving fish passage; • Eliminates the need and cost associated with future dam inspections and maintenance; • Grant funding may be available; and • The dam removal is the lowest cost alternative even before considering any outside funding sources. The disadvantages of the Dam Removal Alternative include: • The City of Northampton will lose the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir as potential backup water supply resource; • The dam removal process will likely result in discharge of some sediment from the reservoir impoundment; • There is risk associated with the possibility of finding contaminants in sediment and thereby triggering additional studies and higher off -site disposal costs; • There may be increased flows downstream of the dam during storm events; • It will require the removal of a potential historic structure of local significance (see Section 5.7); and • The Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir would be lost as a small open water impoundment with a view of the open water from Chesterfield Road. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 16 The Dam Removal Alternative was selected over the other alternatives because it: 1. Allows the City to comply with the Dam Safety Order; 2. Eliminates the potential for dam failure and the resulting downstream flooding associated with such an event; and 3. Is the lowest cost short and long term alternative for the City. 3.3 Conceptual Design — Dam Removal Alternative After the Phase 11 — Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives Analysis report was issued in 2008 and the City had selected Dam Removal as the preferred alternative to address the Dam Safety Orders issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the City contracted GZA to perform conceptual level engineering design for the dam removal alternative. The conceptual level design was presented to various regulatory agencies as well as to the public via a series of public presentations in an effort to gather input from the various stakeholders to facilitate the advancement of the design from the conceptual level to the preliminary design level. In 2008, GZA performed additional fieldwork including reservoir bathymetry, sediment sampling with analytical testing, and wetland delineation. The results of the additional fieldwork indicated that the amount of sediment within the impoundment was significantly more than originally anticipated. However, the sediment, which is comprised of a layered configuration of leaf litter within fine and coarse soils, did not contain appreciable amount of contamination. Concurrently, GZA performed due diligence activities to assess the historic and current land use in the area. GZA also contacted Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) regarding the presence of rare and endangered species within the project area. The only Estimated or Priority Habitat in the vicinity is located immediately upgradient of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir, and is associated with wood turtle within this riparian corridor. The initial conceptual design was based on removing the dam in stages. Based on the bathymetric survey which revealed approximately 27,400 cubic yards of sediment within the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir, the issue of sediment management during the dam removal was identified as a key component in the project. Full scale conventional dredging of the entire impoundment (i.e. draining the reservoir and excavating the sediments with excavators and hauling it away with dump trucks was initially dismissed due to the high costs and constructability issues resulting from the lack of truck access to the reservoir and the steep hard bottom profile of the overall impoundment. Consequently, the sediment management issue was initially evaluated using two approaches: limited hydraulic dredging techniques and minimal conventional dredging in the immediate vicinity of the dam. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 17 3.3.1 Initial Sediment Management Alternatives Evaluation Two sediment management alternatives were evaluated, using conceptual sediment transport modeling as part of the analysis: 1. Dam removal with minimal conventional dredging, and 2. Dam removal with limited hydraulic dredging. GZA performed a conceptual level sediment transport modeling analysis using the 6Z)k U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' HEC -RAS computer model (Version 4.0). The HEC -RAS computer model contains sediment transport routing routines based on sediment continuity mass balance theory. The first sediment management option initially considered was to perform only minimal conventional dredging near the dam itself and rely on the lowering of the water level in the impoundment to allow the stream channel to naturally erode its alignment within the impoundment. Limited or minimal conventional dredging would be performed immediately upstream of the dam only to create a catchment area to collect the sediments that were eroded along the stream alignment within the former impoundment area as the reservoir level was drawn down. The dam would be removed in stages; however, the stream channel would be formed through the natural migration of sediments within the impoundment resulting from the lowered reservoir level. The obvious benefit of the "minimal conventional dredging" scenario was the cost savings realized by not needing to implement the hydraulic dredging operation. The second sediment management option initially considered was the implementation of limited hydraulic dredging along the proposed stream alignment through a significant portion of the Upper Roberts Meadow impoundment. The goal would be to use the hydraulic dredging to create a pilot channel to eventually form the stream channel. Hydraulic dredging would be performed within the estimated historic stream channel as defined by the hard bottom bathymetry developed through document research and field investigations. Dredging would be performed in phases tied to the staged removal of the dam. The hydraulically dredged material would be pumped to a dewatering site southeast of the intersection of Chesterfield Road and Sylvester Road, approximately 1,300 feet downgradient from Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir, a site identified early in the alternatives evaluation. The sediments could be either dewatered using a geotubes (i.e. large fabric bags) or removed via gravity settling within a containment basin. The dredged sediments would be dewatered, excavated, hauled and disposed of off -site. The results of the initial conceptual level sediment transport modeling indicated that under either dredging option, a significant amount of sediment would be transported over the dam and eventually deposited in the Middle Roberts Reservoir. Even with the added expense of implementing a hydraulic dredging operation in the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir at a cost of about $500,000, the City would still need to implement a sediment removal project in the Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 18 [Refer to Attachment 4 for Table titled "Sediment Transport Model Results for the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal" for a summary of the two sediment management options considered during the conceptual design phase of the project.] During a project status meeting with the City on February 12, 2009, GZA presented the two sediment management options. During the meeting, the City offered a third alternative which involved sluicing sediments from the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir via the Roberts Meadow Brook to a temporary forebay constructed within Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir. The temporary forebay would be used to capture sediment transported over the dam during the dam removal. The City was concerned about the cost of the hydraulic dredging and the limitation of vernal pools that could be impacted by the construction of a containment basin (at that time the location was southeast of the intersection of Chesterfield and Sylvester Roads) needed to dewater and facilitate the disposal of the dredged sediment. The City also indicated that the hydraulic dredging option was too expensive given the uncertainty associated with funding availability. At the conclusion of the meeting, it was agreed that the preferred alternative would be to sluice the sediment from the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir via the Roberts Meadow Brook to a proposed temporary forebay constructed in Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir. Conceptual Design - Dam Removal with Temporary Forebay The objective of the temporary forebay was to create a containment area in the Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir to manage and limit the potential impact of sediment transport resulting from the removal of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam. The concept would allow the sediments to be eroded from the stream alignment within the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir, be put into suspension, transported to Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir via the high energy channel (Roberts Meadow Brook) and then settle out in the temporary forebay in Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir. This conceptual design approach was about $500,000 less expensive than the other concepts which involved hydraulic dredging. The temporary forebay in Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir would be constructed by partially dewatering Middle Roberts Reservoir and building an earthen embankment dike within a portion of the impoundment where the Robert Meadow Brook discharges to the Middle Reservoir. As the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam is removed in 5 to 10 foot tall sections, the new stream alignment would become established within the upper reaches of the impoundment. The newly exposed sediments beyond the new stream alignment would re- vegetate and therefore become stabilized prior to the removal of the 5 to 10 foot tall section of the dam. Periodically during the removal of the dam, the temporary forebay at Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir would be dewatered and sediments would be excavated and removed using conventional excavation techniques. The City envisioned being able to accomplish some of the sediment removal with their own forces, which would likely result in a lower project cost. Based on the topography around the reservoir, the temporary forebay location in Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir provides more accessible location for a conventional dredging operation when compared to the limited accessibility at Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir. The temporary forebay also provided a means to contain the sediment. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 19 A set of conceptual level design plans for the dam removal and the construction of the temporary forebay in Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir were developed by GZA and presented to the City in March 2009. The City elected to present the conceptual design to various regulatory agencies and to the public to solicit input as the project moved from the conceptual design stage to the preliminary design stage. 3.3.2 Pre- Permitting Activities rJzX) After completing the conceptual design, the City and GZA began a series of pre - permitting discussions and meetings with the various environmental regulatory agencies to identify issues or concerns that the regulators may have with the conceptual dam removal design approach. Table 3 -1 provides a summary of the various pre - permitting activities conducted as part of the project. In general, each of the regulatory agencies concurred with the overall project objectives and understood the City's decision to move forward with the dam removal alternative. However, the sediment management approach involving the sluicing of sediment from the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir to the Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir and ultimately capturing it using a temporary forebay in Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir was deemed unacceptable by the MADEP WERO. MADEP WERO expressed concerns about constructing the temporary forebay with Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir given the ORW and PWS designations of both Upper and Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoirs. MADEP WERO suggested the City consider an alternative that involved sluicing the sediment to a containment basin constructed in an adjacent farm field. At the conclusion of the May 21, 2009 meeting, MADEP WERO strongly suggested that the City perform a detailed alternatives analysis for several sediment management options to determine the most appropriate solution for the project. 3.3.3 Sediment Management Alternatives Analysis As such, the City directed GZA to perform an alternatives analysis of several sediment management options for the project. GZA prepared an alternative matrix for several sediment management alternatives. (See Table 3 -2 — URMR Dam Removal - Alternative Analysis of Sediment Management Sub - Alternatives) In addition to the "No Action" and "Dam Repair" Alternatives, the Dam Removal Alternative was evaluated with several Sub - Alternatives related to sediment management which included: • Hydraulic Dredging • Sluicing of Sediments to Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir — No Forebay • Sluicing of Sediments to Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir — With Forebay • Sluicing of Sediment to an off stream basin in woodland (City owned property) Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 20 Table 3 -1: URMR Dam Removal Pre - Permitting Activities Summary GZ� Date Regulatory Agency Key Outcomes 4/9/09 Northampton • GZA and the City presented the project and the forebay in Middle Conservation Roberts option. Commission Agent • Agent indicated the Commission would be interested in sediment testing, impact to environment • Suggested public forum be conducted 5/4/09 MADEP — Boston • GZA and the City presented the project and the forebay option for Office Middle Roberts. • MADEP initially found forebay potentially acceptable. • MADEP expressed concerns about water supply related issues. • Suggested additional sediment testing. • Suggested changing the term " Foreba " to a "temporary measure" 5/6/09 US Army Corps of • USACE did not provide an opinion of which approach (forebay vs. Engineers (USACE) hydraulic dredging) would be accepted/endorsed by the USACE. • USACE indicated the application for the 404 should include contingencies and mitigations as well as stabilization procedures to be used upstream of the dam within the proposed stream channel. • USACE indicated a project monitor will likely be required to recommend when stabilization options should be implemented. 5/21/09 MADEP — WERO 0 GZA and the City presented the project to MADEP WERO with a focus on the forebay concept. • MADEP WERO was concerned about the forebay placement within Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) and Public Water Supply (PWS) designations and the associated issues with those designations. • MADEP WERO suggested at the meeting and in a follow up letter (7 -13- 09 in Attachment 2) additional alternatives to address sedimentation issues. 9/11/09 MADEP —WERO 0 GZA presented second alternatives analysis with additional sediment management options including the off -line sedimentation basin in an adjacent farm field suggested by MADEP WERO. • MADEP WERO did not give a clear recommendation for the preferred alternative, although constructing a forebay to collect re- positioned sediments in the Middle Roberts Reservoir was clearly their least preferred alternative. • MADEP WERO had the least objection to the hydraulic dredging option with temporary disposal in the City owned woodland or the adjacent privately owned farm field. MADEP WERO indicated that the farm field was more acceptable, but recognized it was not City -owned land. Temporary storage of excavated soils in floodplain was considered acceptable. • MADEP WERO indicated a more detailed alternative analysis for the sediment management options to "vigorously demonstrate" through engineering analysis the conclusions and recommendations. 11/22/10 MEPA Office, • Dam removal categorically included for EIR; but most dam removal meeting with Richard projects submit EENF requesting and receiving a waiver from EIR. Bourre • Pre - application contacts with regulators were well received. • Alternatives analyses and public discussion acknowledged as good initial steps, including coordination/ response to the Friends of Upper Roberts. • Historical study needs to be completed and presented in EENF. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 21 The alternatives analysis considered the following factors: Compliance with Dam Safety Orders, Engineering Feasibility, Long Term Impacts, Short Term Impacts, Environmental Permitting, and Conceptual Cost Estimates. Refer to the Table 3.2 for each of the evaluation criteria used to assess and evaluate the Long Term and Short Term Impacts of each sediment management sub - alternative. The City and GZA met with MADEP WERO on September 11, 2011 and presented the results of the sediment management alternatives analysis for the project. The City and GZA again contended the sluicing of the sediment to the temporary forebay in Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir was the preferred alternative because it was the lowest cost and it had similar environmental impacts as each of the other sediment management alternatives evaluated. At the conclusion of the September 11, 2009 meeting, MADEP WERO indicated that the option of constructing a temporary forebay in Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir was the least desirable of the options presented. MADEP WERO indicated that the hydraulic dredging of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir was the sediment management option they objected to the least. However, MADEP WERO indicated that detailed engineering analyses of the various sediment management options should be performed to serve as the justification of the project approach. The City remains concerned about the need to clear land and associated woodland and habitat impacts necessary to build a temporary sediment basin under the MA DEP WERO preferred option. As a result of this pre - application meeting, the City directed GZA to advance the design of the project from the conceptual level to the preliminary design level based on the use of hydraulic dredging techniques in Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir to limit the amount of sediment transport to Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir. 3.3.4 Public Outreach Process Concurrent with the pre - permitting activities, the City and GZA held three public presentation /forums as part of the public outreach efforts during the conceptual design phase of the project. The first public presentation was held on May 20, 2009 in the Community Room in the T.F.K Middle School in Florence, Massachusetts. The City and GZA provided a description of the dam and site setting, the dam safety inspection history, a description of the current condition of the dam, the engineering studies completed to date, an overview of the dam safety alternatives analysis (i.e. dam removal vs. dam repair) conducted, and a summary of the preferred alternative of dam removal, the proposed construction approach, and the proposed impacts to the environment. The project approach presented in the May 20, 2009 presentation was the dam removal with sediment sluiced to a temporary forebay in Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 22 Table 3 -2: URMR Dam Removal — Alternatives Analysis of Sediment Management Sub - Alternatives Approach to Compliance with Dam Safety Order Long Term Impacts Short Term Impacts Potential Primary for loss of Gain of Clearing Dam Safety Sediment Office of life and Loss of warm vegetatively Sediment and Environmental Dam Safety MRMR water Gain ofcold restored Control of Amount of impact to Streambed Sediment excavation Permits Compliance Management Order dam due fisheries water trout Gain of riverfront invasive sediment sluiced stream and stream Stream Stream impact to of RFA Alternative Sub - Alternative Description Compliance to failure habitat stream riverfront area area species downstream length flow anoxia backwatering clewatering MRMR woodland Required Do notlung. Allow possibility of failure. Continued non - No Action NA NO High Not Applicable — NotaFeasible Option compliance with Office of Dam Safety Order. Dredge hydraulically Dam Dewater 5f feet and prior to dam repair WPA/Northampton minimizing sediment YES Low None None None None None 500 CY 5900 LF 5900 LF None None Minimal 2 Acres Order of Conditions, Repair repair erosion and restore 401WQC, 404 ACOE reservoir basin Dredge hydraulically 8 Y Y gain of 1300- Gain of H± prior to dam removal 1600 LF with acres, with >5 5 -6 acres in Control WPA/Northampton Pre - dredging minimizing sediment YES None Loss of St connection to acres of new exposed pond needed in 3000 CY 5900 LF 5900 LF None None Yes 2 Acres Order of Conditions, erosion and restore acres resource area bottom exposed 401WQC, 404 ACOE reservoir basin LF LF of isolated fated of jurisdiction riparian area. sediments stream Allow sediment Allow movement of gain of 1300 - g sluicing to Middle sediment from to 1600 LF with Gain of l It acres, with >5 5 -6 acres in Control WPA/Northampton Roberts Meadow MRMR, minimized YES None Loss of 5t connection to acres of new exposed pond needed in 10,000 CY 5900 LF 5900 LF None None Yes None Order of Conditions, Reservoir without by gradual removal acres additional 5900 resource area bottom exposed osed 401WQC, 404 ACOE Dam of dam in a few LF of isolated jurisdiction riparian area. sediments Removal mitigation vertical feet at a time stream Construct temporary Allow sediment sediment forebay in sluicing to Middle MRMR to collect gain of 1300- Gain of l It Roberts Meadow sediment from 1600 LF with acres, with >5 5 -6 acres in Control Temporary WPA/Northampton Reservoir with URMR. Remove by YES None Loss connection to acres of new exposed pond needed in 10,000 CY 5900 LF 5900 LF None None within forebay; None Order of Conditions, construction/ dredging after acres acres resource area bottom exposed limited turbidity 401WQC, 404 ACOE LF of isolated LF o fon fated jurisdiction riparian area. sediments beyond forebay. maintenance of project, lowering stream sediment forebay water level in MRMR Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 23 The second public forum was held on January 20, 2010 at the Leeds Elementary School in the Village of Leeds in Northampton, Massachusetts. GZA presented a summary of the project and provided additional comments relative to hydropower considerations and outside funding opportunities. A concerned citizens group called the "Friends of Upper Roberts & Chesterfield Road Dam" (FURCRD or Friends) also presented their position relative to saving the dam via dam rehabilitation. The project approach presented in the second public forum included the use of hydraulic dredging to limit sediment transport into Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir. The third public presentation for the project was held at a City Council meeting on October 27, 2010 in the Community Room in the J.F.K Middle School in Florence, Massachusetts. The Northampton Board of Public Works and GZA presented the proposed dam removal project with a focus on hazard reclassification potential, dredging requirements, hydropower considerations, and a project cost comparison between GZA's cost estimates and the Friends cost estimates. The Friends along with their consultant presented their findings relative to the hydropower feasibility, hazard reclassification potential, and their cost estimates for the various alternatives for the project. Summary of City Public Meetings The section provides a summary of public discussions and meetings held relative to the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam. Generally, public discussions within the City were held during City Council meetings, Board of Public Works meetings, and Conference Committee (Joint City Council/Board of Public Works) meetings. Many of the public discussions were held with representatives of The Friends of the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam (Friends). Other public discussions were held at the Northampton Historical Commission and the Community Preservation Committee as a result of the Friends advocacy for repairing the Upper Roberts Dam. Table 3 -3 - Chronology of Public Meetings below summarizes these public meetings held from 2008 -2010. The meetings fall into the following five categories: • City Council Meetings — The City Council is the legislative body of the government of Northampton. Councilors are elected to serve two -year terms. There are nine City Councilors, one from each of the City's seven wards, and two elected at- large. City Council meetings are held on the first and third Thursdays of the month. • Board of Public Works Meetings The Board of Public Works is a citizen committee that advises the Department of Public Works, sets policy, approves contracts, and provides oversight of public works matters. The Board consists of seven resident members that are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The Board meets twice a month. • Joint City Council /Board of Public Works Conference Committee - This committee provides the means for the direct exchange of information and regular communication between the City Council and Board of Public Works. The Conference Committee also provides a forum for discussion of City -wide issues that directly or indirectly falls under Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 24 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form the jurisdiction of the Board. The committee is composed of three members of the City Council and three members of the Board of Public Works. Meetings are held at a minimum of quarterly and as frequently as monthly. • Northampton Historical Commission - The Commission is concerned with the preservation, promotion and development of the City's historical assets. The commission is the municipal link to the Massachusetts Historical Commission at the state level and the Department of Interior at the federal level. The Commission consists of seven resident members that are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. Meetings are generally held on the first Monday evening of the month. • Community Preservation Act Committee - The Committee is responsible for establishing with creating a CPA Plan, review grant applications and make recommendations for projects to receive funding. The Committee consists of 9 citizen volunteers as follows: two are elected at- large, 1 appointed by the Mayor, 1 appointed by the City Council and 5 appointed by constituent commissions. Table 3 -3: Chronology of Public Meetings DATE DISCUSSION SUMMARY March 12, 2008 Preliminary discussion of draft Phase II engineering study. More detailed information to be presented in future meeting BPW April 23, 2008 Board presented with a summary of Phase II study including dam deficiencies, options and recommendations. Board voted to approve a full BPW dam breach. May 28, 2008 Scope of services for the preliminary design and permitting of the dam removal was discussed. One Board member requested that a public forum BPW be held to discuss the project. Brief discussion of the breach alternative and impacts to Roberts Meadow Brook. Vote on the contract scope was tabled. June 11, 2008 Discussion and approval of engineering contract for preliminary design and permitting of dam removal. BPW October 22, 2008 Discussion of the costs to breach the dam which were on the order of about $1 million. BPW April 22, 2009 A progress summary about the dam was provided to the Board. A public meeting date of May 20, 2009 at 7 p.m. was set for a presentation and BPW Public Meeting about the dam. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 25 DATE DISCUSSION SUMMARY June 10, 2009 A summary of the May 20, 2009 was discussed. Limited opposition to the dam breach was mentioned. BPW June 24, 2009 Residents that live near the dam were present and said they hoped to save the dam and hope to raise money to do so. They said about $400,000 would BPW be needed to repair the dam. The DPW stated it was under pressure from the Office of Dam Safety (ODS) to take action to breach or repair the dam. Also, funds for long term maintenance of the dam and reservoir would be needed if the dam was repaired. The Board stated concern about long term liability of owning a dam that was no longer needed. The Board asked staff to get input from ODS about the timeline for action on the dam. July 29, 2009 Staff provided the Board with a status of the dam and also reported that a review of hydro- electric potential was done and found not to be BPW economically feasible. ODS has been notified of Board 4/23/08 decision to remove the dam. The Board noted that long term maintenance costs would be great and also that some groups that were in favor of the dam removal. The Board added that the residents that would like to save the dam would need to raise about $500,000 in the next couple of months for the Board to consider repairing the dam. The Board decided not to revisit their 4/23/08 vote to breach the dam. September 9, 2009 An article in the Valley Advocate about the dam was discussed. A Conference committee meeting scheduled for 9/14/09 would include a BPW discussion with the Friends of the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam (Friends). The Friends have filed a Community Preservation Act (CPA) Grant Application. Staff posted an update on the status of the dam on the City website. Brief discussion of the meaning of "high hazard" classification and that it's not related to the condition of the dam. September 14, 2009 The Friends requested that the dam project be delayed for 6 months to allow them to pursue grant fundraising and the possibility of developing a Conference hydropower project. The Friends said a CPA grant application was Committee submitted. They said they received encouragement from Senator Stan Rosenberg. The Friends said they have a petition to restore the dam that has over 200 signatures. A committee member stated that the ODS has designated the dam as a high hazard dam. In addition, a review of alternatives completed for the BPW revealed that dam breach was the most cost effective and safest option and this was selected by the BPW. It was also noted that small scale hydro was found not be feasible. The Committee asked the BPW to contact ODS and request a 6 -month extension in order to allow the Friends to prepare grant applications. BPW members requested that the Friends submit copies of grant applications, plans and a timeline to the Board at their next meeting. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 26 DATE DISCUSSION SUMMARY September 23, 2009 The City received a letter from ODS granting a 6 -month extension of time to comply with the Dam Safety Order. DPW has until 3 /30/2010 to BPW determine whether repair or breach will occur. The extension will allow the Friends to raise funds to restore the dam. Staff noted that $1.825 million would be needed for dam repair and long term maintenance. There was some discussion about sediment management during dam removal. Costs of different alternatives were discussed. The Friends were present and the Board requested that they develop and submit to the Board a timeline and proposal for their actions to raise money. Board discussed dam failure inundation maps and the risks that are present and also whether it makes any sense to repair a dam for aesthetics given the risks of a high hazard dam. If the dam is repaired the Board said a long term mechanism for maintenance funding would be needed. Further discussion was scheduled for 10/14/09 Board meeting. October 14, 2009 At the request of the Friends the Board tabled discussion of the dam until the next Board meeting scheduled for 10/28/09 BPW October 28, 2009 The Friends passed out a list of potential grants. The Friends said they will raise funds and put it into escrow. They will raise money for long term BPW maintenance. They will hire a consultant to verify hydro - electric potential. If hydro - electric is feasible they will raise money for hydro - power. The Friends said that if they have not made progress in 6 months they will state they have not been successful. That would honor an agreement they feel they have with the Conference Committee. They requested City assistance with grant applications and also to agree to apply for grants that are available to municipalities. The Board asked the Friends to prepare and submit a step by step plan for the next 3 months. The Friends agreed to have a plan submitted in a couple of days. The Board asked the Friends about competition for grants and the probability of raising funds. Board said it seemed unlikely that adequate funding could be raised. Staff was asked by the CPA to meet to speak about why the Board voted to breach the dam. Staff sought Board guidance on how to reply. The Board voted to direct staff to tell the CPA "Although we have voted to remove the dam, this vote is potentially under reconsideration and the Board is not ready to advocate one way or the other as to the removal or preservation of the dam ". Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 27 DATE DISCUSSION SUMMARY November 18, 2009 The Chair of the Board said he met with Mayor Clare Higgins to discuss the dam. She asked the Board to give the Friends 6 months to raise funds to BPW repair the dam. She asked the Board to seek comments from residents in Leeds that are in the inundation zone. Staff said a letter would be sent to abutters and would also be posted at City Hall, the DPW, the City Calendar and a notice would be placed in the Daily Hampshire Gazette. A public informational meeting was scheduled for January 20, 2010 at the Leeds School. December 14, 2009 Staff reported that a public informational meeting was scheduled for January 20, 2010 at the Leeds School and that GZA would make a Conference presentation about the dam. Staff also reported that ODS issued a 6 month Committee timeline extension. Committee members requested that abutters and residents in the inundation zone be notified of the meeting. January 6, 2010 Staff reported that 240 letters were mailed to resident in the inundation zone notifying them of the 1/20/10 public meeting. Staff also reported BPW submitting a grant application to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for funding dam removal. The Board requested that large maps of the flood inundation zone be prepared for the public meeting. January 20, 2010 Public Forum at Leeds School 7 pm to 9 pm. A presentation was made by GZA. They presented: facts and figures about the dam, dam safety issues, BPW hazard rating, consequences of failure, dam repair and breach alternatives, Public Forum cost estimates, hydropower potential, project funding, habitat changes, and decision for dam removal. Questions and comments followed. Topics included: nice aesthetics of the pond, fire protection, hydropower, trout and fish in Robert Meadow Brook, support for restoring the Brook and dam removal, safety should be main concern in decision - making. February 8, 2010 The Committee discussed the history of the dam status for new members on the committee. A dam safety order had been issued by ODS, the BPW Conference voted to breach the dam and that the Friends wanted the chance to raise Committee money to repair the dam instead. The dam safety order extension ends in March. The Committee requested the BPW to allow the Friends time to raise money. Staff indicated a dam inspection by GZA was scheduled for March. March 3, 2010 The Friends discussed with the CPC a request to change their grant application related to the dam. $25,000 is now sought for engineering study CPC Committee to prioritize dam repairs. The maintenance fund request was reduced by $25,000. Maintenance funding was discussed as not appropriate for CPA Grant and was removed from grant request. CPC approved the proposed amendment to the grant application. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 28 DATE DISCUSSION SUMMARY March 8, 2010 A discussion about the Friends desire to have BPW endorsement of their CAP grant application was held. It was indicated that a City Councilor was Conference told by the Friends that they would contact ODS about the dam's hazard Committee class and if it could be changed from High Hazard to Significant Hazard. Staff indicated that the BPW needed to respond to ODS by 3/31/2010. Staff stated that a grant application with MEMA was being considered for dam removal. A discussion ensued about what if enough funds were raised to save the dam, what would happen? It was stated that the Friends would need to raise $650,000 in order for dam repair to be considered. One of the BPW members said that there are other non -cost factors such as the long term risk of owning a high hazard dam and that there will always be regulatory requirements to comply with as long as there is a dam. March 10, 2010 The Friends asked the Board to support their CPA grant application. The grant application included $25,000 to study whether the embankment, or BPW the dam itself was in greater need of repair and $40,000 for a Historic Restoration Study that would determine a design for historic dam repair that will balance repair with historical integrity. The Friends stated that the dam fits criteria for historic preservation and registration on the National Historic Registry and they are asking Northampton Historical Commission for a demolition review. The Friends discussed a desire to reclassify the dam from High Hazard to Significant Hazard. They felt a change in hazard class would reduce the cost of repairs. Staff stated that the masonry and the embankment were leaking and it was critical for the entire dam to be repaired or removed and that segmenting repair did not make sense. The dam's deficiencies were reviewed: inadequate spillway capacity, inadequate structural safety. Staff said that it was unlikely that the hazard class could be reduced to significant. Staff added that the spillway capacity in this case would be the same if the dam is classified as a high hazard or a significant hazard due to "incremental damage assessment" allowed by ODS. Based on this supporting the CPA grant was not recommended by staff. Staff reported that the dam removal may be eligible for flood mitigation grant funds through the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA). The Board did not support the CPA grant application and voted to have staff submit a grant application to MEMA. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 29 DATE DISCUSSION SUMMARY March 17, 2010 Friends told the CPC that the BPW did not vote to approve a support letter but that several City Councilors indicated support. A councilor was present CPC Committee and described support for the historical dam and felt is was well built and safe. Friends reported progress in other fund raising activity. Some discussion ensued about hydropower at the dam. The Friends said that engineering study was needed to prioritize dam repairs. Friends stated that habitat and scenic vistas at the dam site were a benefit that should be saved. Discussion about ODS deadlines for City response. March 22, 2010 The Friends provided a history of the dam to NHC. The Friends indicated they are seeking to have the dam placed on the state historical register. NHC Staff will seek input from the City Solicitor about the applicability of the demolition delay ordinance. A discussion about the dam condition, accessibility to the public and the history of the surrounding area was held. NHC asked how demolition delay would come into play if ODS and BOW ordered the dam removed for safety reasons. March 24, 2010 Staff referred to a letter delivered on this date from the Friends stating they hired Essex Partnership to review hydra - electric feasibility. Staff discussed BPW the MEMA grant opportunity and another grant opportunity through Trout Unlimited. The Board asked the Friends for the detailed plan they requested and the Friends indicated it was not completed. There was discussion about whether ODS would issue another extension of time since the City has until 3 /30/2010 to confirm a decision about the dam. The Board voted to request another 6 month extension from ODS. April 7, 2010 CPC said preserving the dam as a historic resource is legitimate, but money for studies have traditionally not been viewed favorable by CPA since they CPC Committee may not lead to ultimate preservation. CPC said the creation of the dam destroyed the surrounding neighborhood that public access is limited, and there is evidence that a healthy free - flowing river and dams should be removed. There was some CPC support for the engineering study. The CPC showed interest in hydropower aspects of the dam. The CPC wanted to see the results of a hydropower study before making any decision. Recommendation tabled to the next meeting April 21, 2010. April 12, 2010 The Friends provided a preliminary report from Essex Partnership about hydropower at the dam. They requested that meeting be set -up with the Conference City Council and BPW, the Mayor and the public. The Friends presented Committee some information provided by Essex. It was agreed that dates at JFK Middle school would be checked to arrange a meeting date. It was noted that the City had until October 2, 2010 to provide a decision to ODS. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 30 DATE DISCUSSION SUMMARY April 21, 2010 The CPC asked: Does the long -term public benefit of keeping the dam outweigh the benefit of returning the river to its natural state? And if the CPC Committee answer is no the CPC can end discussion. Some discussion about hydropower was held and that CPC interest in hydropower can only be indirect because CPC interest is in historical preservation and also open space impacts. These criteria were discussed. It was noted that the Northampton Historical Commission supported the grant application. The CPC approved $25,000 to cover the cost between repair and removal of the dam. No more than $500 for National Register nomination be spent until the BPW indicates support of dam preservation. If support is not provided in a year the funds will be returned. April 28, 2010 Staff summarized discussions held earlier in the week in the Conference committee regarding the hydropower study completed by Essex BPW Partnership. The Conference Committee requested that the Board set -up a public meeting to discuss the outcome of the Essex study. Consider able technical discussion ensured comparing the Essex Study results and the results from the GZA hydropower study that was done for the DPW. It was noted that the Essex Study was not stamped by a professional engineer in the Commonwealth of MA. DPW said they had many questions about the Essex Study and could prepare a list of written questions for Essex to consider. Staff agreed to send questions to Essex. May 10, 2010 A discussion about the Essex report was held. The city stated why they wanted the study to be stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer in Conference MA. The BPW member also said they were awaiting responses from Essex Committee to questions raised by Staff and that a public meeting would not be scheduled until responses were received. May 12, 2010 The Friends handed the Board a handout of responses to questions that the staff had sent to Essex. Discussion ensued about why the responses that BPW were technical and cost related were not issued by Essex but were on Friends letterhead. The Friends requested a meeting with DPW, Board of Public Works, GZA, and Essex to resolve some engineering questions. The Board declined to set -up a meeting until such time that DPW questions had been responded to in detail by Essex. May 20, 2009 Public Forum at JFK Middle School from 7pm -9 pm. GZA made a presentation about the dam including: dam history and description, dam BPW safety, hazard rating, consequences of failure, existing environment, dam Public Forum removal project approach, proposed changes to the environment, regulatory process, project schedule, and funding considerations. Discussion followed the presentation. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 31 DATE DISCUSSION SUMMARY May 26, 2010 Staff said that the Wildlife Conservation Grant was not funded. Staff also reported receipt of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission BPW (MHC) indicating that additional information had been submitted about the dam and they now will require additional historical review of the dam project. Since the last meeting the Friends send a list of documents and information from the City records that they would like. Staff reported that all documents requested were posted on the City's web -site. Staff told the Board they were still waiting for responses to the list of question sent to Essex. The Friends expressed concern that they only had until June 30, 2010 as agreed to with the Mayor to determine if funding for dam repair was raised. The Friends said they had done some historical research on the dam that was send the MHC. Detailed discussion about hydro -power financing ensued. An article researched and published by Northampton Media agreed with GZA findings and not with Essex. The research included discussion with National Grid about power pricing. Staff said the remaining questions for Essex were related to the power revenue, capital cost of the facility and the payback period. June 9, 2010 The Board noted that it had been about a year since the original vote to breach the dam and it was 9/9/09 when extension of timeframes began. BPW Staff indicating that work was being done to again extend the timeframe with ODS to September 2010. The Board said that unless hydropower becomes the new purpose of the dam and generates enough revenue to fund long term maintenance it's not an acceptable alternative. One Board member said the Conference Committee should be informed that the Board is about to proceed with the dam breach. Another Board member felt a meeting should be held with Essex. June 14, 2010 BPW member said the Friends were still seeking a public meeting with Essex to discuss hydropower. Discussion ensued about the differences in Conference capital cost estimates and revenues generated between the Essex Report Committee and the GZA report. A BPW member said the hazard class of the dam was not relevant since the needed repairs would be the same even if the hazard class was changed. The City Councilors requested the BPW to schedule a public meeting. June 21, 2010 Staff read a letter from Mass Historical Commission to the DPW stating that additional information would be required to determine if the dam is NHC eligible for the National Register listing. The Friends stated they hired a hydropower consultant. NHC discussed the hydropower aspects of the dam, but noted that hydropower is not a NHC concern. NHC voted that the dam is of historic interest and importance to the City. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 32 DATE DISCUSSION SUMMARY June 23. 2010 Staff reported research that was completed regarding the West Stockbridge hydropower project that was cited by Essex as a low capital cost example BPW of what could be done at Upper Roberts. Details were provided about the differences between Upper Roberts and West Stockbridge. June 29, 2010 A special meeting was held to discuss Upper Roberts hydropower. The Friends and Essex were in attendance. The City's consultant GZA was BPW present. Essex presented information about energy and capacity as well as discussion of costs on the West Stockbridge project. Some discussion of dam hazard classification was held. Essex admitted to being more familiar with FERC related dams, not ODS regulated dams. A lengthy discussion about net - metering ensued. Staff stated that even if net - metering were feasible and resulted in higher revenue the project payback for hydropower alone was still about 30 years and thus would not generate excess revenue to repair the dam. The Friends said they had raised $25,000 as they had agreed to do. The Board said that it was $625,000 that needed to be raised as agreed to with the Mayor. Staff reported that ODS required a firm decision about the dam by 9/30/2010. July 12, 2010 Staff reported a discussion with MEMA stating the MEMA had recommended the dam removal project to FEMA for funding with a budget Conference of $1.3 Million. A discussion of the dam's hazard class ensued. The dam Committee was determined to be a high hazard dam by the Army Corps of Engineers and MA Department of Environmental Management in the 1970's. The hazard class was recently confirmed by GZA in their Phase II study. July 14, 2010 Staff reported a discussion with MEMA stating the MEMA had recommended the dam removal project to FEMA for funding with a budget BPW of $1.3 Million. August 11, 2010 The Board said the Mayor had received a letter from the Friends stating that they had accomplished the fund raising goals. The Mayor said she asked BPW the City's Energy Officer to hire another engineering company to review the work done by GZA and Essex about hydropower feasibility. The Mayor asked that the Water Department pay for this work to be done. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 33 DATE DISCUSSION SUMMARY August 19, 2010 Discussion of a resolution of the City Council on the preservation of the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam. Presentation by the Friends about: the City Council history of the dam, the ecological importance, safety and dam failure impacts, and other factors. Council discussion about resolution is not about saving the dam but whether hydropower project there is economically viable. Some discussion about possible dam hazard classification change. BPW and DPW staff presented information about history of the dam, the condition of the dam, flooding concerns, reason and impact of high hazard classification, funding requirements, a year of public meetings and discussions with the Friends has occurred. Further discussion and vote on a resolution postponed to September 2, 2010. September 2, 2010 Resolution of the City Council on the preservation of the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam. Discussion about postponing resolution until the results of City Council the 3r party review of hydropower studies is completed by City Energy Officer and Tighe & Bond. Some discussion about grant possibilities and project funding. Discussion about the desire of some to have a public meeting. Mayor said that the City council cannot usurp the authority of BPW in this matter. Voted to postpone first reading of resolution to October 7, 2010. September 8, 2010 Staff reported that the Energy Officer was seeking proposals from engineers to do a 3r party review of the Essex and GZA hydropower BPW studies. The Board asked when ODS would require the City to take action. Staff said the date was October 2, 2010. September 13, 2010 Staff noted that the Energy Officer was seeking proposals from engineers to do a 3r party review of the Essex and GZA hydropower studies. Staff Conference added that ODS requires a response from the City by October 2, 2010. Committee September 22, 2010 The Board Chair noted that there was an October 2, 2010 deadline to respond to ODS about the dam. Staff noted that Tighe & Bond had been BPW hired to do the 3r party review of the hydropower studies. The Board requested staff to seek a 30 day extension from ODS to allow Tighe & Bond to complete their review. October 7, 2010 Resolution of the City Council on the preservation of the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam. Discussion regarding the need for a public forum. Noted City Council that information from ODS was received and that a decision about the dam was due by November 1. Tighe & Bond 3r party review was complete. Agreed to schedule a public forum as soon as possible. Vote to postpone first reading of the resolution to October 21, 2010. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 34 DATE DISCUSSION SUMMARY October 18, 2010 The Board Chair said the City Council has looked at various resolutions about the dam and they are waiting for Tighe & Bonds review before BPW proceeding. The Council will hold a forum at JFK Middle School on October 27, 2010 to discuss the dam. ODS had indicated they need a decision by the City about the dam by November 1, 2010. October 21, 2010 Resolution of the City Council on the preservation of the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam. Stated that the purpose of the resolution was not to save City Council the dam. Facts have been introduced and the BPW must make an informed decision. The public forum will address facts and concerns. Stated that all key players have been invited to the forum and the ODS will also be present. Stated that BPW will meet on October 28, 2010 and that a decision is needed about the dam by November 1, 2010. An amended resolution was passed in the first reading. October 27, 2010 Public Forum at JFK Middle School at 7 p.m. Forum started with 10 minute presentation by ODS staff. They discussed the condition of the dam City Council and the high hazard classification. Potential loss of life and damage if there Public Forum is a dam breach. Extensions have been granted for 13 months. Current deadline is November 1, 2010. Northampton has done a great job managing its dams. Next 20 minutes a presentation by BPW and GZA was made. GZA discussed: Hazard Classification, dredging, hydropower, project costs. The next 20 minutes a presentation by the Friends and Essex Partnership was made. Friends and Essex discussed hydropower aspects and hazard class factors. The questioned GZA analyses of hydropower costs. They suggested that the City seek another extension from ODS. The City Energy officer discussed the results of Tighe & Bond review. For the next hour questions and comments from the public were heard. Topics included: dam overtopping, flood inundation maps, cost to study dam hazard class change, beliefs that GZA work is too conservative and exaggerates threat, long term maintenance costs are a factor, concerns about trout in Roberts Brook, and suggestions that the City seek an extension from ODS. October 28, 2010 The Board invited discussion from the public about the dam. The Friends stated the previous night's meeting was good and informative. They asked BPW that the Board consider trying to change the hazard class of the dam. Board members stated that public informational meetings were held on 5/20/09, 4/20/10 and 12/23/10 at cost of about $15,000 to $18,000. Board members expressed concern about the amount of water enterprise money being spent on this project and said they believe that hydropower is not financially feasible at the dam site. The Board voted to uphold the original vote from July 2009 (originally 4/23/08) to breach the dam. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 35 DATE DISCUSSION SUMMARY November 4, 2010 Resolution of the City Council on the preservation of the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam. Vote to postpone resolution indefinitely passed. City Council November 8, 2010 The Friends stated they don't agree with the BPW decision to breach the dam. They added that they want to have input into the plans to remove the Conference dam and what the restoration would look like. Staff said that the BPW Committee would provide opportunity for public input during the final permitting and design. November 16, 2010 During public comment several people spoke about the dam and the fact that BPW intends on removing the dam. A desire to save some stone block NHC and installation of a plaque were discussed. The Commission asked how much support for these ideas existed in the area. It was not known. Project Support for Dam Removal Several professional groups and members of the public have publically expressed their support of the dam removal. Brian Graber and /or Amy Singler of American Rivers, a rivers advocacy organization, have attended and spoken in support of the project at each of the public presentation. Several residents in the village of Leeds have also spoken at the public presentations in support of the project. Their support was founded in the City's desire to protect the downstream residents from the flooding potential caused by failure of a high hazard dam in Poor condition as well as the City's desire to exercise fiscal responsibility by implementing the lowest cost alternative for the project. On June 9, 2009, Nat Arai of GZA conducted a site walk with Amy Singler of American Rivers, Melissa Grader of MA Division of Fish and Wildlife Services, and Patty Gambarini of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC). Each indicated support for the project. Ms. Singular spoke of the value of stream restoration and the presence of brook trout in the area. Ms. Grader indicated that the Roberts Meadow Brook was rated "good" in the National Fish Habitat Action Plan. Ms Grader also suggested that government agencies such as the US Dept. of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) may offer funding for such projects. Ms. Grader further suggested funding from groups such as Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture and Trout Unlimited could be sources for funding the project. Ms. Gambarini indicated that PVPC is working hard to secure funding for dam projects for the cities and towns in the Pioneer Valley. 3.3.5 Public Opposition for Dam Removal After the May 20, 2009 Public Information Session, a group of concerned residents formed the group known as the "Friends of Upper Roberts & Chesterfield Road Dam" ( FURCRD). The FURCRD were opposed to the removal of the dam and the loss of the open water habitat. The FURCRD argued consistently from the time of the May 2009 public information session to the last public forum on October 27, 2010, that the dam should be Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 36 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form rehabilitated and the funding for the cost difference between the dam rehabilitation and the dam removal could be realized through hydropower grants and private fundraising. Over the course of the next seven months, the City and GZA responded to various inquiries from the FURCRD pertaining to condition rating of the dam, the alternatives analysis for dam removal vs. dam rehabilitation, outside funding options for dam rehabilitation, the hazard classification of the dam, and the feasibility of adding hydropower to the dam (see relevant correspondence in Attachment 2). The FURCRD requested and the City complied with their requests to obtain time extension from the MADCR- Office of Dam Safety to allow the dam rehabilitation option to be re- assessed for the project. The FURCRD were not convinced that the dam was in "Poor" condition, or that the reservoir needed to be dredged for the dam rehabilitation. They also suggested that outside funding sources (i.e. grants) were available to fund the dam rehabilitation, and hydropower could be added to the dam to help fund the repairs and future maintenance costs. As requested by the City, GZA responded to each of the FURCRD requests during the referenced time frame. Additional hydropower evaluations were conducted by GZA, the FURCRD and the City's independent consultant (Tighe & Bond) as described in Subsection 3.2.3.1. The City also held two additional public forums (January 20, 2010 and October 27, 2010) to allow the FURCRD the opportunity to present their case as outlined in Paragraph 3.5.2. During the public forum held at the October 27, 2010 City Councilor's meeting, the City and GZA made the following points: • The high hazard classification was appropriate and if the dam were reclassified to significant hazard, the scope and cost of the dam repairs to bring the dam into compliance with the dam safety regulations would be similar to those required under the high hazard classification. • The cost of dredging of the reservoir is appropriate in comparing the dam removal and dam rehabilitation alternatives because the reservoir will eventually become silted in if it is not dredged and therefore the "open water" would be eventually lost even if the dam was rehabilitated. Therefore, maintenance of the dam is necessarily linked to maintenance of open water within the impoundment. • The hydropower potential of the dam is technically feasible but not economically feasible. Due to the very long project payback period the City will not move ahead with a hydropower project. The FURCRD had not been able to identify any viable source of funding to cover the cost difference between the dam repair and the dam removal. After about seventeen months of public involvement consisting of three public information sessions and responding to the FURCRD's requests for information, time extensions, and additional studies, the Northampton Board of Public Works voted, on October 28, 2010, to confirm their initial decision to proceed to with the dam removal. The City notified the MADCR - Office of Dam Safety and reiterated their intention to move forward with the dam removal project on October 29, 2010. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 37 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 4.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: DAM REMOVAL AND STREAM RESTORATION Once the pre - permitting coordination was complete and the preferred alternative selected, the preliminary dam breach design was initiated. The preliminary dam breach design was similar to the conceptual dam breach design, which was based on a staged dam removal construction sequence whereby the sediments within the impoundment were gradually exposed by lowering the dam structure in stages. Refer to Attachment 6 for the Preliminary Design Plans for the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal and Stream Restoration Project. The exposed sediments would be cut via natural erosive stream processes, redistributing the sediment within the impoundment and to the downstream of the dam. The seed beds within the sediments within the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir would be allowed to vegetate with each stage of exposure and thus would provide a self stabilization mechanism for the restored stream channel. Based on project input gathered through the pre - permitting process, in particular MADEP WERO, the sediment management option selected for the project is the implementation of hydraulic dredging prior to and during the gradual removal of the dam in 5- to 10 -foot sections. 4.1 Sediment Management — Hydraulic Dredging The sediment management approach for the preliminary design was based on the sediment management alternatives analysis performed for the MADEP WERO where the hydraulic dredging option was identified as the option that was most acceptable to the regulators at that office. Hydraulic dredging within the alignment of the anticipated stream alignment in the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir would be performed prior to and during the staged lowering of the dam. Hydraulically dredged sediments will be pumped to the sediment containment basin constructed east of Kennedy Road, north of the Robert's Meadow Brook, within currently wooded City -owned property. (See Figure 1 -1 and Sheet 8 of 10, Attachment 6, for the location of the proposed location of the sediment containment basin). Gravity settling requires the construction of an earthen containment basin where, the slurry is pumped. The anticipated volume of in -place sediment to be dredged from the reservoir is approximately 10,000 cubic yards. The basin is designed to have an appropriate water volume that provides residence time for primary settling of the gross solids and capacity for bulking or "fluffing" of the material from its in -place condition to a dredged condition in the basin. Adding additional non -wet volume for freeboard above the operating water level, the basin will have a capacity of about 25,000 cubic yards. An additional, smaller "flocculation" basin is also needed for secondary settling to remove fines remaining in suspension after primary settling and will have an approximate capacity of 9,500 cubic yards. The discharge from the containment basin is taken from the top few inches of water in the basin pool, the primary clarified water containing only fine suspended particles. Referred to as the "supernatant ", the discharge is treated with a flocculent in its flow path into the flocculation basin. The flocculent is typically an anionic polymer, which binds or coagulates suspended particles to the point in which they become heavy enough to settle out of suspension. The flocculation basin contains sufficient volume to provide adequate residence time for secondary settling and clarified water overflows into a discharge pipe conveying the water to Roberts Meadow Brook. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 38 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form The preliminary design of the total containment basin was based primarily on the initial sediment transport modeling and the available land area upon with the basin is to be constructed. The final design phase of the project will involve a more detailed sediment transport analysis and bench scale testing of sediment for bulking and settling characteristics. Based on these updated analyses, the actual size of the basin may need to be refined. However, control of the dredging and dewatering process can be adjusted to match the final basin size by controlling the rate of dredging (i.e., the rate of pumping of the dredged slurry), directly altering residence times, meeting the capacity requirements of the basin, and providing the proper settling times. Such adjustments will affect the efficiency and timing of the hydraulic dredging, and will be affected by: • the variability of the sediment consistency, • the sequence and timing of the staged dam removal, and • the timing of the redistribution of the sediments within the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir as the stream channel carves out its new stream alignment within the impoundment. The hydraulic dredging and sediment dewatering operations will be a dynamic process that will require detailed monitoring and adjustments of the rate of dredging will necessarily be based on the actual field conditions. 4.1.1 Grading — Stabilization of Sediments Hydraulic dredging, while efficient at removing sediment from the reservoir bottom, will not create a smooth landscaped surface once the basin is dewatered. Rough, abrupt sediment edges will be expected upon dewatering, although as the sediments dewater, they will slump and smooth to some extent. While a perfectly smooth landscaped surface is not needed or desirable, the rough topography created by hydraulic dredging may need to be "smoothed" by the use of equipment and hand work to create a soil surface that can be seeded and planted. The sediments, which consist of sand, silt and organic materials, will likely support natural riparian growth. To accelerate growth and stabilization, soil testing will be performed and limestone will be added as a soil amendment to adjust soil pH. Given the rough terrain, we anticipate that the limestone will be spread by hand. 4.1.2 Stream Bed and Bank Features The stream is likely to be re- established in the historic stream bed that existed prior to the creation of the dam, and, in this terrain, the brook is largely confined within bedrock and hardened surfaces. Therefore, a stable stream bed is likely to be achieved fairly readily once the loose sediments are removed. However, to accelerate the process of stream bank stabilization, a number of stream bank stabilization techniques will be employed where needed as the actual stream bank conditions begin to emerge as the stream is established. Because the precise conditions will not be known until the reservoir is dewatered and the stream begins to form, these techniques will not be precisely located on the plan sheets, but instead are provided as standard details for implementation on a case -by -case basis, as determined in the field during stream restoration. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 39 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form The anticipated stream bank stabilization features to be considered as part of the stream reestablishment may include coir rolls, boulder placement, geotextile and stone /boulder placement, geotextile and planting /live stakes, and brush layers & fascines. The stream restoration will utilize natural materials (e.g., tree debris /root wattles /rock and gravel) to help ensure facilitation of fish passage within the stream bed. The gravel areas near the existing alluvial island will likely provide potential brook trout spawning areas. 4.1.3 Riparian Vegetation Planting Table 4 -1: Pro osed Riparian Zone Plantings Type Common Name Scientific Name Number of Plants Red Maple Acer rubrum 50 Silver Maple Acer saccharum 50 Green Ash Fraxinus enns lvanica 50 Trees Grey Birch Betula lenta 50 Pin Oak Quercus palustris 50 Cottonwood Po ulus deltoides 50 totals 300 Winterberry Ilex verticillata 80 Shrubs Hi hbush Blueberry Vaccinium cor mbosum 80 Arrowwood Viburnum dentatum 80 Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum 80 Red -Osier Dogwood Cornus stoloni era 80 Speckled Alder Alnus rugosa 80 totals 480 Redtop A rostis alba Creeping Bent grass A rostis stoloni era Partridge Pea Chamaecrista asciculata Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum Riverbank Wild Rye Elymus riparius Virginia Wild Rye Elymus virginicus New Joe e Weed Eu atorium istulosum England Creeping Red Fescue Festuca rubra Roadside Sensitive Fern Onoclea sensibilis Matrix Wet Meado Switch Grass Panicum vir atum w Seed Mix Steeple Bush Spiraea tomentosa Blue Vervain Verbena hastata Southern Arrow Wood Viburnum dentatum 351bs /acre Namyberry Viburnum lentago will also be continued within this area during the period of reestablishment. The former reservoir bottom will largely become a vegetated riparian area bordering upon the reestablished Roberts Meadow Brook. The exposed sediments that have not been removed by hydraulic dredging will become the soils. These sediments undoubtedly have a residual seed bank. However, reliance upon this seed bank for restoration is less assured of rapid reestablishment of vegetative stabilization. Further, it is possible that the local seed bank also includes some invasive species given the proximity of dense invasive species located on the upgradient alluvial island. Therefore, the exposed sediments will be seeded and planted, where needed, to encourage rapid reestablishment of the riparian zone with an appropriate vegetative assemblage (Table 4 -1). Invasive species control Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 40 Coarse woody debris (e.g., logs and tree stumps /roots) will be placed within the former basin area to provide habitat structure. 4.2 Construction Approach & Sequencing 4.2.1 Construction Approach Hydraulic dredging of the reservoir will be performed prior to each stage of dam removal. One of the main goals of this construction approach is to minimize sediment transport from the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir to downstream areas. However, the establishment of a new stream channel within the current impoundment will require significant additional sediment management measures. It should be noted that even with hydraulic dredging and other preventive measures in place, there will still be some unavoidable transport of sediment downgradient which will be repositioned into Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir or beyond. Such sediment repositioning is a recognized consequence of dam removal, as noted in regulatory and policy guidance documents produced for dam removal in Massachusetts (DFWELE, 2003; MADEP, 2007). The primary sediment management measure will be the removal of sediment in Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir by hydraulic dredging prior to the incremental removal of the dam. Phased dredging will help initiate the re- establishment of the stream channel within the impoundment by removing much of the sediment that has accumulated within the old stream channel at the bottom of the reservoir. Hydraulic dredging is necessary due to limited access to the shorelines of the reservoir and due to the final depths of the areas to be dredged which would preclude the implementation of conventional dredging techniques. Hydraulic dredging will also minimize the discharge of suspended solids to downstream areas. The dredge will be a barge- mounted machine that operates from the water surface utilizing a cutter head mounted to an articulating boom. On -board pumps will draw the sediment - water slurry through the cutter head and discharge it through a pipeline to an upland containment area for dewatering. Dewatering of hydraulically dredged material is done by one of three methods: Mechanical press or filtering, geotextile tube filtering, or gravity settling. All three methods are effective at removing gross and suspended solids from the water volume in the slurry and all three typically utilize the introduction of a flocculent to coalesce fine silty suspended particles. Clarified water will be returned to Roberts Meadow Brook, upstream of the Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir. The sediment containment and flocculation basin system will be constructed on the City -owned land downgradient of the reservoir and located to the northeast of the intersection of Chesterfield Road and Kennedy Road (Figure 1 -1). The basins will require the earthwork construction of a 25,000 cubic yard containment basin and a 9,500 cubic yard flocculation basin within an area of about 5 acres. Five acres of forested riparian area must be cleared to construct this basin. On balance, approximately 9,000 cubic yards of earth materials would be excavated and formed into engineered earthen berms around the basin perimeters. Piping and high -level outlet flow structures would be erected within each basin to provide for controlled discharges. An additional 3,000 cubic yards of earthwork would be required to construct a basin with an approximate volume of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 41 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 8,000 cubic yards. Upon completion of all dredging, the City has the choice of excavating the material from the basins for reuse at another location or the material could remain in place, provided that the original grades within the floodplain are not exceeded. In either scenario, any structures and piping would be removed from the site and the site would be graded over and replanted with trees and other vegetation. The masonry portion of the dam will be removed in 5- to 10 -foot tall stages or increments depending on the effectiveness of the hydraulic dredging, mobilization of the sediment within the impoundment, the effectiveness of the operation to limit discharge of sediment laden water over the dam, and the settling time required in the containment basin. The intent will be to lower the water level in the impoundment in a staged, systematic manner. Hydraulic dredging will be performed prior to each stage removal, establishing the stream channel alignment. As masonry is removed, the sediments in the upper reaches of the impoundment will become exposed. It is anticipated that the existing sediments have a sufficient seed bed that will vegetate quickly once it is exposed to the atmosphere. The Contractor will be required to hand grade and seed /revegetated the exposed basin bottom as necessary to stabilize portions of the new stream channel that show signs of erosion during the course of the work. The staged removal of the masonry portions of the dam will alternate with the hydraulic dredging until the majority of the masonry dam structure has been removed. Up to about 6 feet of the existing dam structure may be left in -place as a grade transition feature within the stream alignment to assist with the sediment management and overall constructability issues with the dam removal. A portion of the existing dam may be left in place because the original dam excavation was extended below the original streambed grade to reach a competent bedrock foundation subgrade. Final design of the dam removal site will include provisions to accommodate fish passage. 4.2.2 Anticipated Construction Sequence - Sediment Containment Basin Construction Step 1- Site Mobilization: The contractor will mobilize equipment and materials to the site in the late summer or early fall, utilizing the existing cleared "parking area" at the southeast corner of the intersection of Chesterfield and Sylvester Roads. Temporary fencing will be erected to secure the area for storage of contactor materials and equipment for the construction of the sediment containment basin site. Step 2- Land Clearing and Grubbing: A 5 -acre area of existing woods will be cleared and grubbed for construction of the proposed sediment containment basin system at the northeast corner of the intersection of Chesterfield and Kennedy Roads and to the immediate north of Roberts Brook. Stumps and roots will be removed from the site. A stabilized construction access drive will be constructed off of Kennedy Road leading immediately to a staging area for the dredging and dam removal operation. Appropriate interim or longer -term permanent erosion and sedimentation controls will be installed to facilitate this initial work. Step 3- Erosion and Sediment Control: Immediately following the land clearing, the cleared perimeter will be protected with additional appropriate erosion and sediment control measures. This will be followed by grubbing of the site. Site construction will be Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 42 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form maintained in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and City of Northampton requirements for construction site stormwater discharges. Step 4- Basin Construction: The containment and flocculation basin system will be constructed primarily of onsite materials. A design phase subsurface investigation will be performed to confirm this assumption is valid or if off -site soils will be required for the basin construction. Existing topsoil will be stockpiled onsite or removed from site for temporary storage. Subsoils will be excavated to construct the basin embankments. It is anticipated that the earthwork volumes will be balanced such that little to no material will be required for import or export from the site. Embankments will be constructed according to engineering standards with respect to soil materials and compaction for embankment construction. Embankment slopes will be seeded and turf established prior to being put into service for the dredging operation. Alternatively to turf grass, a soil or geo- composite lining material could be used to cover and stabilize the slopes. The selection of the slope stabilization material will be made during the final design and will take into account the time of year when the basin will be put into use. The entire site will be surrounded by temporary fencing with a locking gate at the Kennedy Road construction entrance. Two basins are to be constructed: a 25,000± cubic yard sediment containment basin and an adjoining 9,500± cubic yard flocculation basin. Within each basin, a high -level outlet structure composed of a vertical riser structure and an outlet pipe at the bottom. Each structure will have stop log guides for controlling the water elevation. The discharge pipe from the flocculation basin to Roberts Brook will be constructed in the bank of the brook and an appropriately sized energy dissipating splash pad will be constructed. The discharge to the brook will be located 870± linear feet downstream of Kennedy Road. 4.2.3 Anticipated Construction Sequence - Hydraulic Dredging And Dam Removal Step I- Site Mobilization: The contractor will mobilize equipment and materials to the site during the Spring for both the demolition of the dam and the dredging of the reservoir. Erosion control measures will be installed in the area of the dam and other areas of construction to protect the Roberts Meadow Brook and other wetland resource areas in the vicinity of construction activities. Dam Removal Setup Access to the right and left abutments will be established and a staging area primarily for dam deconstruction equipment will be sited on City -owned property along Chesterfield Road. Access to the left abutment will require temporary utilization and improvement of an existing logging road extending into the area off of Kennedy Road and running parallel to the north side of the brook. There will be at least one temporary crossing of bordering vegetated wetland needed to access the abutment. Timber mats or other methods for temporary use will be employed to minimize impact at the crossing. A downstream cofferdam will be constructed approximately 40 feet downstream of the dam to allow the current plunge pool to serve as a secondary sediment trap during the dam removal process. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 43 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form Hydraulic Dredging SetuaL The contractor will mobilize a hydraulic dredge to the site in the late spring after the ice is off the reservoir. The contractor will place the hydraulic dredge in the reservoir by crane either from the vicinity of the right dam abutment or directly from Chesterfield Road. A 10 -inch to 12 -inch diameter flexible plastic pipeline will be extended from the dredge in the reservoir to the containment basin which will require extending the pipeline through the existing box culvert conveying Roberts Brook beneath Kennedy Road. The pipeline will rest on the ground and will require little to no ground disturbance. Invasive Species Control Prior to the start of dewatering of the impoundment, measures will be taken around the entire perimeter of the reservoir to control invasive vegetation, using cutting, hand removal, and direct herbicide application to the extent allowed by permit. The invasive species control work will be performed in an appropriate manner and subject to anticipated environmental permit limitations, given that Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir is an Outstanding Resource Water. Step 2- Initial Stream Channel Dredging: Prior to dredging, a turbidity curtain will be installed across the reservoir approximately 25 feet upstream of the spillway (STAG +25). Initially, with the reservoir at normal pool elevation of 450, the dredge will cut a 20 -foot wide channel between STA3 +00 and a distance approximately 1,000 feet upstream of the dam to STA10 +00. Approximately 2 to 6 feet of sediment will be dredged to hard bottom and to about El. 440. Additional slope dredging around the lower reaches of the reservoir and adjacent to the dredged channel will be done to lessen the slopes and provide for a new soil surface upon full dewatering of the basin. The initial stream channel dredging limits are indicated in the preliminary plans (Attachment 6). The upper reach of the reservoir between about STA10 +00 and STA17 +00 is shallow, with existing water depths ranging from 1 to 4 feet. This area will not be dredged and the stream channel will be allowed to form naturally once the area is exposed by lowering the water level within the reservoir as part of the dam removal. Step 3- Lower Dam to El. 445: Prior to any alteration of the dam, historic mitigation will have been completed in compliance with requirement of MHC and the Army Corps of Engineers, as appropriate. Upon completion of the initial dredging, the turbidity curtain will be removed, temporarily, and the contractor will begin the removal of the upper 5 feet of the dam. The contractor will likely use a hydraulic hammer mounted on tracked excavators sitting on the right and left abutments. The hydraulic hammers will initially create a 5 -foot deep "notch" in the crest of the spillway section. A 5 -ft section of the spillway crest will be lowered an additional 1 -foot to El. 444 to allow the rest of the dam above El. 445 to be removed in the dry. Additional dam removal activities for portions of the dam above El. 445 will be performed at this time. The City may direct the Contractor to remove and transport intact pieces of the stone masonry to a City -owned facility for storage. Step 4- First Stage of Stream Channel Cutting and Dredging: Once the pool elevation has dropped and stabilized to El. 445, the turbidity curtain will be reinstalled across the upstream of the dam. Between STAO +00 and STA9 +00, the hydraulic dredge Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 44 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form will remove 2 to 6 feet of sediment down to the original reservoir bottom in places or to about elevation 435. Based on our sediment transport model, we anticipate that the majority of the sediments cut by the natural formation of the stream channel in the upper reaches of the reservoir between about STA10 +00 and STA17 +00 will be re- distributed within the reservoir and accumulate immediately upstream of the dam for a period following the initial lowering of the dam to El. 445. We do not anticipate significant quantities of sediment to be transported to Middle Roberts Reservoir, although sediment transport cannot be totally eliminated. After a period of about 3 months (i.e. by early June) of allowing the upper reach of the stream to establish itself, the stream channel and reservoir area between STAO +00 and STA10 +00 (Blue Zone) will be re- dredged to remove accumulated sediments mobilized from the upper reach and to facilitate additional sediment transport, underwater side slope sloughing and stream bed backcutting during the next stage lowering of the dam. As the newly established river banks and newly exposed reservoir bottom along the perimeter become exposed in the upper reaches of the reservoir, revegetation will be encouraged in the area (Section 6.4) and coir logs and other erosion control measures will be added where necessary to stabilize areas subjected to surface runoff. Step 5- Lower Dam to El. 440: The upstream turbidity curtain will be temporarily removed. The contractor will "notch" the spillway to allow the reservoir level to drop to El. 440. Sediment collected between the dam and the downstream cofferdam will be dredged by conventional excavation equipment as necessary. The rubble masonry removed will be placed in the downstream plunge pool to re- establish the stream bed in the area. Step 6- Second Stage of Stream Channel Cutting and Dredging: Between STAG +00 and STA6+50, the hydraulic dredge will remove 2 to 6 feet of sediment down to the original reservoir bottom in places or to about elevation 430. The upper reach of stream and areas newly exposed between El. 440 and El. 445 will be allowed to stabilize for another 3 months (i.e., by early September). The area between the dam and STA6+50 will then be redredged to remove mobilized sediments from the upper reaches of the stream prior to the next stage of dam lowering. Step 7- Lower Dam to El. 435: The upstream turbidity curtain will be temporarily removed. The contractor will "notch" the spillway to allow the reservoir level to drop to El. 435. A 5 -ft wide section of the spillway crest will be notched an additional 1 foot to El. 434 to allow the rest of the dam to be removed down to El. 435 in the dry. Dredging of sediment collected between the dam and the downstream cofferdam will be dredged by conventional excavation equipment as necessary. The rubble masonry removed will be placed in the downstream plunge pool to re- establish the stream bed in the area. Step 8- Third Stage of Stream Channel Cutting and Dredging: Between STAO +00 and STA2 +50, the hydraulic dredge will remove 2 to 6 feet of sediment down to the original reservoir bottom in places or about elevation 423. The upper reach of stream and areas newly exposed between El. 435 and El. 440 will be allowed to stabilize for another 3 months (i.e., by early November). The area between the dam and STA6+50 will then be redredged to remove mobilized sediments from the upper reaches of the stream prior to the final stage of dam lowering. This is anticipated to be the final stage of hydraulic dredging. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 45 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form Step 9- Lower Dam to Elevation 425: The upstream turbidity curtain will be temporarily removed. The contractor will notch the spillway to allow the reservoir level to drop to El. 425. The top of the dam will be approximately 5 to 6 feet above the bottom of the dam. Regrading of the stream channel at the former dam site will be required to raise the stream bed to match the downstream stream channel grades. Step 10- Final Stream Channel Cutting: The turbidity curtain will be re- established upstream of the former dam location. The stream channel in the lower reach of the reservoir leading to the lower remains of the dam is anticipated to be established via naturally occurring stream bed erosion and side slope sloughing as a result of the reservoir being lowered to El. 425. The temporary cofferdam will remain in place below the dam to continue to trap sediment that may discharge from the exposed reservoir bottom. Accumulated sediments will be intermittently removed from this catchment system, as necessary. Appropriate seed mix and plantings will be added to the exposed stream banks and reservoir bottom as needed (see Section 4.3.1). Coir logs and other erosion control measures will be added to the stream banks to stabilize areas subjected to surface runoff. Step 11- Final Reservoir and Dam Site Restoration: The stream banks within the former impoundment will be inspected. Additional coir logs, root wads, shrub and tree plantings, or other erosion stabilization measures will be put in place or adjusted as necessary. Wetland seed mix will be added to areas where vegetation has not yet been established. The right embankment of the dam will be removed and soils are either placed along the sides of the stream or hauled off -site. The masonry corewall and training walls are to be broken up with hydraulic hammers and placed in the plunge pool downstream of the dam. Wetland seed mix will be placed in the area of the right embankment. Any sediment collected behind the cofferdam forming the plunge pool will be dredged after the stream banks and reservoir bottom are allowed to stabilize and become vegetated. Then the downstream cofferdam will be removed. The stream bed between the dam and the limits of the cofferdam will be graded with smaller stone to "cap" the masonry placed in the area and to provide a stable stream channel bed and create appropriate stream habitat conditions. The temporary access road and wetland crossing leading to the left dam abutment will be removed. Topsoil will be replaced and the area will be seeded with an appropriate cover to match the surrounding areas. Step 12- Containment Basin Site Restoration: The dredged sediments collected in the containment basin and flocculation basin will be allowed to dewater before they are stabilized in place. The stoplogs in the basin outlet structures can be removed incrementally to lower the water in the basins. Once the basins are dewatered, the outlet structures can be removed along with the associated piping. A portion of the embankment soils will be used to cover the sediments; however, there can be no net increase over the original grades of the floodplain area prior to construction of the basins. Therefore, some embankment soils will need to be removed from the site. The site will be revegetated with native grass and seed mix. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 46 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 4.3 Schedule and Cost It is anticipated that the City will authorize the final design and final permitting efforts for the Project during the summer /fall of 2013. Final design and permitting will likely require 6 to 12 months to complete. If an EIR is required, the project start date will likely be extended out at least an additional year. Assuming the EIR waiver is granted, the project could be bid during the summer /fall of 2014. Construction will likely begin in February/March of 2015. It is anticipated that the majority of the dam removal and stream restoration will be completed by the winter of 2015/2016. However, some additional stream restoration activities may be required along the stream bank near the former dam location along with some additional spot seeding efforts along the stream banks during the spring of 2016. Therefore, the overall project duration will be about 12 to 18 months. The actual start as well as the speed of construction will be greatly affected by weather, the rate of sediment erosion within the impoundment and the ability of the stream banks to vegetate and stabilize. The project costs have been estimated by to be approximately $1,200,000. The originally conceptual cost estimate was originally prepared by GZA in the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam in the Phase 11 Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives Analysis of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam (GZA, 2008). The cost estimate was later updated by GZA for the City in preparation for the September 23, 2009 Board of Public Works Meeting. The breakdown of the conceptual cost estimate is as follows: 1. Dam Removal and Stream Restoration $425,000 2. Hydraulic Dredging of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir $500,000 3. Estimated Maintenance Costs $150,000 4. Final Design and Permitting $125,000 Total Cost Estimate= $1,200,000 Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 47 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 5.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT 5.1 Topography, Geology, Soils and Sediments Topography, Geology, & Soils: Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is a roughly 4.8± acre manmade impoundment formed by a stone masonry and earthen embankment dam. It is located in Leeds portion of Northampton near the border of Westhampton (Figures 1 -1 & 5 -1) on the north side of Chesterfield Rd., 900± feet west of the intersection of Kennedy Road (42 20'17.45" N; 72 43'40.64" W). The Reservoir is roughly 1,600 feet long and up to 200 feet wide, but generally with width of 100 to 150 feet. At a point approximately 1,600 feet upgradient from the dam, the reservoir impoundment transitions to Roberts Meadow Brook where the slope of the stream bed steepens with riffles and the water depth shallows to less than one foot depth during normal stream flow. About 800 feet further upgradient, Roberts Meadow Brook has its confluence with Marble Brook. Table 5 -1: Basic Limnolo ical Characteristics of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Parameter Quantity (units as noted) Location Latitude 42 Longitude 72 0 43'40.64" Type of Reservoir Impoundment of Upper Roberts Meadow Brook Area 4.8± acres Mean Depth 6.0 feet Maximum Depth 18.0 feet Maximum Length 1,600± feet Width 70 -200± feet Shoreline Length 3500± feet Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is located within a glacial till area with steep to moderately steep local topography that forms the narrow river valley (Figure 5 -2). The local landform rises relatively quickly to the north and south to hilltops about 150 feet above the level of the reservoir. There are numerous boulders and exposed bedrock throughout the local landscape including along the upper portion of the reservoir where Upper Roberts Meadow Brook feeds into the reservoir. At this location, there are five to twenty foot tall exposed vertical bedrock walls that frame portions of the brook just before the confluence with the reservoir. The narrow river valley at this location provides deep shade for the stream. There are several natural pools in this area of four to five foot depth. Based upon Natural Resource Conservation Services data on MassGIS datalayers, the dominant soil series bordering along Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir are Charlton Fine Sandy Loam (very stony) to the north and Charlton -Rock Outcrop - Hollis Complex to the south (Figure 5 -3). Woodbridge fine sandy loam is shown to be on both sides of the reservoir at the western extreme where the general land slope is less steep. All of these soils are glacial till soils, typical for this region. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 48 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir ` "" CM1 Elm Dam Removal Project PGD Northampton, Massachusetts Dace MassGIS Orthophoto (2009) Figure No: GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Data obtained from MASS CIS, Commonwealtlh of MassacM1U5et6 ExecuMe 5.1 Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs .(EEA). eef I AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH I Fro1.001: 800 400 0 800 01.0019547.10 y / Dewatedng Area fL i Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir SURFICIAL GEOLOGY "Of 01. 1457.10 Surfcial Geology (MassGIS 250k) p W Sand &Gravel Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Project Drlby: ERH Ch ecked i by. W Till or Bedrock J Northampton, Massachusetts Dace 3/17/11 BASE MAP USGSTOPOGRAPHICOUADRANGLEMAP EASTHAMPTON, MASS. 1979 Figure No: Floodplaln Alluvium -L)% GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Data obtained from MASS GIS, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Off to ofEnergyand Environmental Affairs iEEA7. �� Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir X_, Dewatedng Area Soil Types 1: Water 2: Pootatuck fSL 4: Rippowam fSL 5: Saco SiL 8: Limerick SiL 88: Ridgebury Variant fSL, very stony 253: Hinckley LS 260: SudburyfSL 306: Paxton fSL, very stony 311: Woodbridge fSL, very stony 405: Charlton fSL 406: Charlton fSL, very stony 711: Charlton -Rock Outcrop - Hollis Complex 400 200 0 400Feer SOILS MAP Project No: v 01.0091457.10 Drawn by: LEGEND ® Dewatering Area Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Project I Checked by. pGD Northampton, Massachusetts Dace Soils 3/17/11 Figure No: BASE MAP'. MassGIS ORTHOPHOTO April 2009 cio GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Data obtained from MASS CIS, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)- USDA NRCS Soil Survey, Hampshire /� L J 5- J ""rov Water depths were measured throughout the reservoir in July 2008 and a bathymetric map was developed based upon this data. The resulting area and reservoir volumes by depth are presented in Table 5 -2. The maximum existing depth of the reservoir is 18 feet with the deepest portions immediately upgradient of the dam. However, this maximal depth rapidly diminishes upgradient as well as to the adjacent shorelines. Most of the current shallowness is associated with sediment in- filling, which has occurred over the course of many years of sediment and organic deposition within the reservoir basin. Within the easterly lower portion of the reservoir, the water depth adjacent to the shoreline increases quickly due to the steepness of the local topography of this area. However, within 500 feet of the dam the reservoir depth diminishes to less than 6 feet and thereafter becomes shallower to a depth of two to three feet for much of the remainder of the reservoir. Sediments: There is significant accumulation of soft sediments in the reservoir basin. The thickness and volume of sediment was determined by measuring the depth of the soft sediment (above hard bottom) by using a 20 foot long steel probing rod marked in 1 /10th foot increments, probing at over 200 individual points along 14 transects, and geo- referencing each of these data points. Water depths to the top of the soft sediments were measured at each probing location by lowering an 8 lb. mushroom anchor on a tether marked in 1 /10th foot increments. Table 5 -2: Reservoir Depth and Volume Depth Increment (ft) Area (SF) at lower contour Volume (cubic feet) Percent Volume 0 182,762 0 -2 131,493 314,255 37.8% 2 -4 71,811 203,304 24.5% 4 -6 40,835 112,646 13.6% 6 -8 31,397 72,232 8.7% 8 -10 22,228 53,625 6.5% 10 -12 14,134 36,362 4.4% 12 -14 8055 22,189 2.7% 14 -16 3873 11,928 1.4% 16 -18 887 4,760 0.6% Total Volume 831,301 100 At the western end of the reservoir, there is a large deltaic island that has been formed through the deposition of sediments from the inflowing stream. Gradually, the sediment island has become vegetated, but there is an evident advancing margin of the sediments incrementally extending into the more central reservoir basin. The primary channel and stream is along the southern shoreline. On the northerly shore of the reservoir basin, there remains a high flow channel with dense overhanging vegetation along the northern shoreline. The stream channel depth is one to three feet along the area of the sediment island. However, there are several areas of deeper four to five foot deep scoured pools along the rock walls where the river narrows and high flow events scour these basin areas. The thickness of the soft sediments ranges up to 13 feet deep within the central basin. Immediately upstream of the dam, the soft sediment appears to be five to seven feet thick (Attachment 6: Sheet 3). For the westerly portion of Upper Roberts Meadows Reservoir where the river narrows, sediment depths are roughly two to four feet thick. There are high levels of trapped gases within the accumulated organic sediments likely being trapped by matted layers of partially decomposed leaf litter which form restrictive barriers to vertical gas transport. The sediments are highly unconsolidated within the central basin area. Accumulated sediments within the reservoir vary from gravels and sands at the westerly Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 52 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form limits to the deep accumulation of organic materials at the easterly limits of the reservoir near the dam. The organic in- filling appears to be mostly associated with deep accumulations of leaf litter. 5.1.1 Sediment Analysis Sediments have been analyzed as part of prior studies and during the preparation of the current documentation. These results are presented below. USGS- Riverways Data: In November, 2005, the USGS Riverways Program conducted a sediment sampling and analysis. While the raw data was obtained from the Northampton DPW, the exact sampling locations within the reservoir do not appear to have been documented. Table 5 -3 summarizes the results of the analyses with a comparison to the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) Method 1, Soil Category S -1 Standards (310 CMR 40.0975(6)(a)) and the Background Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Metals in Soil ( MADEP, 2002) where they exist. The MCP Soil Standards represent the levels to attain at remediation sites where a release of hazardous materials has taken place. The soil standards are divided into three levels which describe risk exposure levels S -1, S -2, and S -3, Level S -1 being the highest risk of exposure and Level S -3 representing the lowest. Risk of exposure is described as likelihood of contact based on the expected use of the site. Additionally, the soil standards are adjusted for sites where potential for groundwater could also be exposed and thereby pose a risk of exposure to humans. Accordingly, there are three groundwater exposure standards, GW -1 to GW -3, where GW -3 represents the lowest risk of exposure. Finally, the MADEP Background Soil Concentrations were established to be used in lieu of site - specific background levels as part of site assessments in Massachusetts. While not directly applicable to sediments, the MCP levels provide information on threshold concentrations in other settings for soils and the MADEP Background Soil Concentrations do provide a frame of reference for the concentrations. Chromium exhibited levels that exceed the S -1 Soil, S -2 Soil, GW -1 and GW -2 Standards. Nickel exhibited levels that exceed the S -1 Soil, S -2 Soil, GW -1 and GW -2 Standards. The MADEP background levels in soil were exceeded for barium, but the levels were lower than the MCP Method 1, Soil Category S -1 Standard. No testing was done for the RCRA metals mercury, or selenium. Additionally, although some volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and total polychlorinated biphenyl congeners (PCBs) were analyzed, the VOCs, PCBs and the Massachusetts extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (EPH) tests required under the 401 Water Quality Certification program administered by MADEP were not done. Some of the raw data showed results such as "E220 ", with no explanation /interpretation of the "E ". These may have been test errors, but no explanation was given. GZA Sediment Analysis: GZA personnel conducted reservoir bottom sediment collections in August of 2008. Within each of three reservoir regions, one (1) composite sediment sample was obtained by combining full -depth aliquots of three (3) sub - samples taken with a benthic core sampler at various stations (see sampling locations, Attachment 3). Sediment Sample lABC was obtained from the upper third of the reservoir area nearest the inlet from Roberts Brook. Sediment Sample 2ABC was obtained from the middle third of the reservoir area and Sediment Sample 3ABC was taken from the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 53 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form lower third of the reservoir area nearest the dam. Each acquired sub - sample and composite was representative of the entire sediment column in the sample region, from the top of sediments to the firm underlying strata below. r Table 5 -3: US Riverways Program Sediment Sampling at Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir (November 2, 2005) Compared to MA Contingency and Background Levels Parameter Units Results for Three Sediment Samples (sample labels not rovided) 310 CMR 40 Mass Contingency Plan Re 1 ory Levels MADEP Background Concentrations in "Natural" I Soil RCS -1 Soil I RCS -2 Soil S -1 Soil & GW -1 S -1 Soil & GW -2 Benzo (a) pyrene mg/kg 0.140 2 4 2 2 2,000 Benzo (ghi) m /k <0.130 1,000 3,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 _p eiylene mg/kg 0.150 70 400 70 70 1,000 - Chiysene Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.320 1,000 3,000 1,000 1 1,000 - -- Phenanthrene m /k 0.200 10 1,000 10 50 1,000 m /k 0.270 1,000 3,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 - Py rene 4,4'-DDE ( p') m /k 0.008 3 20 3 3 4,4' -DDT ( p') mg/kg <0.006 3 20 3 3 Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.200 10 1,000 10 500 Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.320 1 1,000 3,000 1 1,000 1,000 mg/kg 0.270 1,000 3,000 1,000 1,000 - Py rene Chiysene mg/kg 0.150 70 400 70 70 Benzo (a) pyrene mg/kg 0.140 2 4 2 2 Arsenic mg/kg <3 <3 <3 20 20 20 1 20 20 Barium mg/kg 80 97 76 1 1,000 3,000 1,000 1,000 50 Beryllium mg/kg 0.8 0.9 0.9 100 200 100 100 Cadmium mg/kg <1 <1 <1 2 30 2 2 2 Chromium mg/kg 357 544 247 30 200 30 30 30 mg/kg 13.8 15.9 14.2 1,000 10,000 - Copper Lead mg/kg 23 25 25 1 300 300 300 1 300 100 Nickel m /k 23 31 23 20 700 20 20 Vanadium mg/kg 29 32 28 600 1,000 600 600 Zinc m /k 74.8 77.6 80.2 2,500 1 3,000 2,500 2,500 Notes: Green indicates levels above the Mass Contingency Plan Yellow indicates levels above MADEP background concentrations in "natural' soil 1. Samples collected by USGS Riverways Program; 2. Only detected constituents are presented 3. 310 CMR 40 Mass Contingency Plan - Massachusetts regulations for assessing and cleaning up releases of oil and hazardous material; 4. RCS -1 Exposure criteria for soils with high exposure potential; 5. RCS -2 Exposure criteria for soils with moderate exposure potential; 6. S -1 Soil & GW -1 = Exposure criteria for soils with high exposure potential in a groundwater resource area protected for its current or potential future use as drinking water; 7. S -1 Soil & GW -2 = Exposure criteria for soils with high exposure potential in a groundwater resource area that may act as a source of volatile material to indoor air. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 54 The sediment samples were placed in sterile glass sample jars provided by the laboratory. The collected samples were then delivered to Spectrum Analytical, Inc., a Massachusetts - registered laboratory, within allowable hold times and using appropriate preservation procedures. The complete sediment analysis results are provided in Attachment 3, and summarized below. All three composite samples were analyzed for the following parameters as required under 314 CMR 9.00 — 401 Water Quality Certification program administered by MADER Physical Analyses: • Soil Characteristics: Total Solids (TS) and Total Organic Carbon (TOC) • Grain Size Distribution: Sieve Chemical Analyses: • Total Metals: Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Mercury, Nickel, and Zinc • Metals TCLP: Chromium, Mercury, Table 5 -4: Sediment Testing Results — Soil Characteristics Parameter Sediment Sample 1ABC 2ABC 3ABC Solids, Total ( %) 98.9 96.9 97.1 Total Organic Carbon ( %) 9.85 29.4 33.8 and Nickel • Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs or PNAs) • Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and TCLP VOCs • Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) • Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH) • Total Chemical Leachate I GZA Sediment Physical Analyses The sediment sample "soil" characteristics are summarized in Table 5 -4 and sieve grain size analysis is summarized in the Table 5 -5. Total solids are a measure of the percent dry weight of the saturated nature of pond sediments and can range widely. Organic carbon content is a measure of organic matter. The results of these three tests indicate that the sediments within Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir are primarily mineral and become proportionally less so from the upstream end of the reservoir to the dam. Table 5 -5: Sediment Testing Results — Particle Size Analysis Percent Passing, by weight Sieve Size Sediment Samples 1 -ABC 2 -ABC 3 -ABC 3 /4 inch 100 - - - -- - - -- '/2 inch 98.0 100 100 #4 94.1 96.4 99.7 #10 87.0 95.8 99.2 #20 72.0 94.0 97.3 #40 53.75 90.0 95.2 #60 35.7 80.6 93.4 #100 17.7 66.8 83.3 #200 8.9 47.2 64.3 USDA Soil Classification Loamy Sand Loam or Sandy Loam Silt Loam Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 55 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form The grain size analysis for the upper third of the reservoir area, Sample 1 -ABC, indicates that the sediments are predominantly fine to medium sands with trace amount of silt and clay sized particles that would be classified under the USDA Soil Classification System as Loamy Sand. Sample 2 -ABC from the middle third area of the reservoir is fine to medium sands with silt and trace gravel, meeting a borderline USDA classification of Loam to Sandy Loam. The grain size analysis of Sample 3 -ABC from the lower third area of the reservoir is higher in silt content with fine to medium sand and trace gravel that is USDA classified as Silt Loam. GZA Sediment Chemical Analyses As mentioned previously, chemical analyses of the sediment samples collected by GZA in 2008 from Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir included metals, PAHs, VOCs, PCBs and Pesticides, and EPHs. Similar to the 2005 the USGS Riverways sample analyses, the 2008 Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir sediment samples, the Total Metals analysis results were compared with remediation and background values established by the MADEP, presented below in Table 5 -6. Table 5 -6: Sediment Testing Results — Total Metals All values listed in mg/kg ( m) 310 CMR 40 Mass. Contingency Plan MADEP Background Soil Concentrations' Method S -1 Soil GW -1, -2, & -3 'ABC 2ABC 3ABC Arsenic ND 0.967 1.14 20 17 Cadmium 0.191 0.603 0.668 2 2 Chromium 9.61 19.3 21.1 30 29 Copper 4.75 12.8 14 ND 38 Lead 6.52 23.1 24.4 300 99 Mercury ND 0.0638 0.0838 20 0.3 Nickel 7.88 15.5 17.3 20 17 Zinc 29.1 71.6 79.6 2,500 116 ND= Not detected - indicates the constituent was not present in quantities above the Method Detection Limit MDL ' Source: MADER 1995. Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization. Interim Final Policy WSC /ORS -95- 141. Table 5 -7: Sediment Testing Results — Metals Total Characteristics Leachate Procedure [mg /kg (ppm)] Sediment Sam le 310 CMR 40 Mass. Contingency Plan MADEP Method S -1 Soil Background Soil Parameter 'ABC 2ABC 3ABC GW -1, -2, & -3 Concentrations' Chromium ND ND ND 30 29 Mercury ND ND ND 20 0.3 Nickel 0.0094 0.0138 0.0180 20 17 The term "total" refers to the total amount of the tested substance within the sample and is commonly expressed in milligrams per kilogram (mg /kg, or ppm [parts per million]) or micrograms per kilogram (µg /kg, or ppb [parts per billion]). This test reveals only the total amount of a substance, regardless of what molecular compounds that substance may be Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 56 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form bound within. As an example, any test results which indicate elevated Total Lead levels may be reason for concern; however, reduced lead compounds (a common form appearing in pond sediments) are very stable in nature and in low concentrations may represent little to no toxicity in the natural environment. As shown in Tables 5 -6 & 5 -7, concentrations of metals observed in the samples were low compared with the MCP Method S -1 Soils GW -1, -2, & -3 Standards and, with the exception of Nickel in Sample 3 -ABC, were lower than MADEP background concentrations for non -urban soils. Because of detected levels of Parameter Sediment Sam les jhepkrrd rFerm Chromium and Nickel in previous 2ABC 3ABC GW -1 testing conducted by the USGS GW -3 Acetone t. Riverways Program in 2005, and due 0.351 l to a 1831 historical map of ; Notation for 0.0855 0.113 �s Northampton which shows a "leather " Leather Factory" 400 Carbon disulfide r` +� ®r factory" in the vicinity of the current I ,� ' Unlisted Unlisted , reservoir, TCLP testing was performed /' � ,, r �, on the sediment samples for • Chromium Nickel and Mercury. eLYC.M.! ltr�tarr r,•, . TCLP is the abbreviation for Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure. This test represents that amount of the ,�Y �- tr�oRTwrw:Ton. r tested element that may be mobilized • ` ?? " and leached from the sediments by a iKai. mild acid solution. TCLP Y..v j Inrbn �.h'rr r /.v. flirt•Tirw WwaW/Nf 11' ...t( f j f Sf51t Ir r �l • eM.v.vMrr�ywNh•M 96.�r/lrw. xnrnw. concentrations are usually much lower than total values, and are measured in milligrams /liter, which is the concentration of the acid solution after leaching through the sediment matrix. All values were below the detection limits of each constituent. The results are summarized in Table 5 -7 (for laboratory report, see Attachment 3). Table 5 -8 presents the chemical analysis results for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) for parameters in which any detected levels were present. The full data is given in Attachment 3. Detectable levels were observed in the sediments for only 3 of 77 analyzed VOC parameters. Table 5 -8: Sediment Sampling Results — Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) mg /kg (ppb) Parameter Sediment Sam les 310 CMR 40 Mass Con tin enc Plan S -1 1ABC 2ABC 3ABC GW -1 GW -2 GW -3 Acetone 0.255 0.301 0.351 6 50 400 2- Butanone (MEK) 0.0855 0.113 0.136 4 50 400 Carbon disulfide 0.0051 ND 0.0079 Unlisted Unlisted Unlisted Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 57 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form VOCs are primarily man -made compounds that have a high vapor pressure and low water solubility. They are used in the manufacture of paints, pharmaceuticals, and refrigerants in the form of industrial solvents and are common ingredients of petroleum based fuels, hydraulic fluids, paint thinners, and dry cleaning agents. All three sediment samples obtained from Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir contained detectable concentrations of the common solvents acetone, 2- butanone (MEK) and carbon disulfide. The detected concentrations of the three compounds were below the Method S -1 Soil GW -1, -2, & -3 Remediation Standards of the MCP. Table 5 -9: Sediment Testing Results — Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPHs) 310 CMR 40 Mass. EPH (m or m) Contingency Plan S -1 Soil GW- 1AB 3AB Sam le ID C 2ABC C 1 GW -2 GW -3 C9 -08 Aliphatics ND ND ND 100 100 100 C19 -C36 37.2 81.5 96.9 3,000 3,000 3,000 Ali hatics C11 -C22 57.4 92.9 72.4 1,000 1,000 1,000 Aromatics P traditional "Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon" or TPH analysis is used as an indicator of the presence and total concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons, no specific hydrocarbons are identified. In the interest of identifying hydrocarbons with regard to toxicological implications, the Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon (EPH) method allows for analysis of ranges of the aliphatic and aromatic fractions, the two main hydrocarbon groups. MADEP has developed a method for analysis of three ranges of EPHs for sediments to be disposed in upland locations. A summary of analysis of the sediment samples for Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPHs) is presented in Table 5 -9. Petroleum products such as gasoline, motor oil, and fuel oil are comprised of hundreds of hydrocarbons and can be found in the environment due to spills and leakages. Identifying and quantifying all possible hydrocarbons in a sample analysis is difficult and P-. ensive Where the The EPH analysis of the samples indicated presence of the C19 -06 Aliphatic and C11 -C22 Aromatic fractions. Not all samples contained detectable levels of each of these hydrocarbon ranges and none of the detectable levels exceeds the MCP remediation standards for S -1 Soil GW -1, -2, & -3 conditions. The sediment samples taken from Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir were also tested for presence of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticides. No PAHs, PCBs or Pesticides were detected in any of the samples (see laboratory analysis results, Attachment 3). Summary of Sediment Physical and Chemical Analyses The results of the solids and sieve analyses clearly indicate that the sediments in Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir are mostly mineral in the form of fine to medium sand in composition with some organic content and some silt content typical of a small run -of -river reservoir. Some of the chemical compounds tested for were detected and some levels of these were slightly elevated as compared to background level standards; Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 58 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form however, none of these levels indicate that the sediments are hazardous or represent any special disposal concerns. 5.2 Wetland Resource Areas Table 5 -10 summarizes the wetland resources regulated under the MA Wetlands Protection Act and City of Northampton Wetlands Ordinance in proximity to Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and proposed sediment management area. Drawing No. 3 in Attachment 6 contains an existing conditions plan in the area around the dam. Drawing No. 4 in Attachment 6 contains the existing bathymetry plan for the reservoir. Drawing 8 in Attachment 6 shows the proposed Dredged Sediment Containment & Dewatering Plan. Each referenced plan shows the wetland flagging for each respective area. The regulated types of wetland resources include: • Land under Water Bodies & Waterways (LUWW) • Bank • Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW) • Riverfront Area (RFA), and • Border Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF) Table 5 -10: Wetland Resources in Proximity to Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Resource Upgradient Roberts Downgradient Roberts Area Meadow Brook Reservoir Basin Area Meadow Brook Land Under 4.8f acre narrow Steep gradient narrow Waterway & Steep gradient narrow impoundment, 1600 LF long, stream, partially Waterbody stream corridor. up to 200 ft wide channelized, in broadening river valley Abrupt/steep with vertical Abrupt, densely vegetated Abrupt & steep, partially Bank bedrock exposures with overhanging vegetation channelized, lined by stones/boulders Bordering Little to none due to steep Little to none due to steep Little to none due to steep Vegetated transition from stream to transition from stream to transition from stream to upland, limited feeder Wetland upland upland drainage Bordering Confined to immediate Confined to immediate banks Narrow west of Kennedy Land Subject banks of stream of reservoir Rd and broad floodplain to Flooding east of Kennedy Rd 200' wooded RFA from dam to Middle Roberts Riverfront 200' wooded RFA to None from entrance of Reservoir, including parts Area entrance to reservoir reservoir to dam of Kennedy, Sylvester, Chesterfield & Reservoir Roads Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 59 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form There is also some isolated wetland area near Kennedy Road, which functions (and has been certified as) vernal pool habitat. This area is regulated locally as isolated wetland in addition to being located within RFA and BLSF. Due to the steep topography that forms most of the shoreline of the reservoir, the wetland resources associated with the waterbody include the water itself (LUWW), the shoreline (Bank), and extremely marginal BVW at the upper limits of the reservoir on the southerly bank, where the reservoir begins to take on riverine characteristics (See Figure 5 -4). The sediment island at the westerly end of the reservoir (0.6± acres) has areas of emergent wetland vegetation, but is largely above mean high water. The center portion of the sediment island has dominant upland vegetation including abundant invasive species (oriental bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculatus) and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)). y LUWW: Wetland Resource areas at and around the Roberts Meadow Brook system include a variety of -. palustrine and aquatic habitats associated with Upper Robert Meadows Brook and the associated 4.8± acre impoundment (Upper 4' Roberts Meadow Reservoir) created by the dam. Due to the control of the dam and steep bank slopes created by Westerly view of the steep topography, the Mean Body of Reser Annual Low (MALWL) and High - —_— Water Lines ( MAHWL) are relatively close together and the reservoir does not fluctuate laterally to any great extent. The area of impounded water within the reservoir and the flow path of the brook above and below the reservoir are LUWW resource under the MA Wetlands Protection Act (WPA), which, by definition, incorporates that area below MALWL. The LUWW habitat is a combination of shallow littoral and deeper water habitats with only limited area of emergent vegetation present. Open water areas range from shallow ( <5') to deep (18± feet) with an unconsolidated bottom comprised of deep organic sediments. Because of the depth minimal aquatic vegetation was found in deeper areas. Areas of intermediate depth contained submersed aquatic macrophytes such as Big Leaved Pondweed (Potamogeton amplifolius) and coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum). Emergent and semi - terrestrial plants such as water purslane (Ludwigia palustris), blueflag iris (Iris versicolor) and burr -reed (Sparganium spp.) grow in the shallow areas. The portion of the brook that is below the MALWL is considered LUWW resource area. These areas are mainly comprised of stones and boulders with varying degrees of inundation based on temporal variation in water levels and rain events. These habitats are described further in the Fisheries subsection in Section 5.5 of this report. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 60 Intermittent Stream 2 1 VVetland Boundary Dam JO Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir LJ Stream W) GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir ERH Dam Removal Project Checked by: PGD Northampton, Massachusetts Cate 5/19/11 BASE MAP: MassGIS Orthophoto (2009) Figure No: Data obtained from MASS GIS, Commonwealtlh of Massachusetts Executive 5 -4 Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA. WETLANDS IN URMR I hi,b Bank: Bank habitat exists between the MALWL and MAHWL of the reservoir and stream, both upgradient and downgradient of the reservoir. Due to the steep side slopes, this area is limited in extent and defined more as a linear length following the waterbodies. Above the reservoir, the Banks of the brook are rocky with exposed vertical bedrock in some locations. Within the reservoir, the Bank is often rocky with limited vegetation, save for the overhanging trees and shrubs from the adjacent upland areas. The Banks of the brook downgradient are also limited in extent and comprised of large stones and boulders with some overhanging vegetation from the adjacent forested upland and wetland habitats. An intermittent stream flows into Roberts Meadow Brook about 400 feet downgradient of the dam, this intermittent stream drains from a wetland system located at the downstream toe of the dike, on the west side of the brook. This intermittent stream is also regulated as Bank, and consists of a 2 -3 foot wide channel with an unconsolidated sandy /muddy bottom. Bank vegetation, while limited, does contain many native species that are either growing within or overhanging the bank. Species such as speckled alder (Alnus rugosa) and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), are common woody species found with the bank resource. Downgradient of the dam, Roberts Meadow Brook continues within a steeply sloped stream valley to Kennedy Road, passing beneath a bridge to an area of flatter terrain. Here the stream is channelized and lined with stone from its construction as part of the reservoir system. The northerly bank is raised at the top, presumably from placement of the original excavated soils in this location. A large alluvial sediment island is located at the inlet to the reservoir, which has become vegetated with a mix of upland and wetland vegetation, including several invasive species which tend to dominate the area. A large part of this cobble bar is Bank resource with the central area being upland as it is slightly above the MAHWL. The invasive species include multiflora rose, Tartarian honeysuckle (Lonicera tartarica), and Oriental bittersweet. The wetland species are located primarily at the downgradient extent of the island where the accumulated sediments are closer to the normal water level of the pond. Native, non- invasive species included, jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), monkey flower (Mimulus ringens), joe -pye weed (Eupatorium maculatum), burr -reed, rough stem goldenrod (Solidago rugosa), beggars tick (Bidens spp.), grey dogwood (Cornus racemosa), speckled alder, boneset (Eupatorium perfoliatum), wood sorrel (Oxalis stricta), meadowsweet (Spirea latifolia), bittersweet nightshade (Solanum dulcamara) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 62 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form BVW: Bordering along the upper edges of the Bank resources are several areas of Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW) resource (Figure 5 -5). Because of the steep gradient along the edges of the . reservoir, minimal BVW areas are present along the edges of the reservoir and upgradient areas. However, in the lower reaches (below ` •,i w ,' the dam) there are extensive wetland areas along the west side of the stream, F ' ':4q particularly further downgradient of -a•-, Eastern End of Alluvial Is] Kennedy Road. All wetlands on site f -,., " ` are palustrine forested wetland systems, comprised mainly of red maple swamp. In total, three distinct BVW areas are found in proximity to the proposed project and are further described below. BVW Area A: This wetland is a relatively small area of seepage located along the upper edges of the reservoir. This wetland is located along the bank habitat, along the southern edge of reservoir and the inlet stream to the reservoir. Because of its small size, it is generally not forested, but is contained within the overall surrounding forested matrix. Vegetation varies from exposed mud and leaf litter to patches of sphagnum moss (Sphagnum spp.), skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus) and jewelweed. The hydrology for this wetland is a combination of the reservoir and seepage from abruptly rising upland to the south. BVW Area B: Includes a linear forested wetland system located along the northern side of the brook, downgradient of the northerly dike. The source of the hydrology to this wetland appears to be surface overflow from the upgradient upland forest and ground water seepage from the north and west. These water sources converge and create a narrow intermittent stream channel which carries this hydrology to Roberts Meadow Brook about 400 feet downgradient of the dam. The wetland bordering along this stream is relatively narrow and confined to the base of the surrounding slopes which contains the wetland and stream and funnels flow toward the brook. The wetland has a seasonally saturated hydrology and is vegetated by a mature red maple canopy with a moderately dense understory of spicebush (Lindera benzoin), highbush blueberry, multiflora rose, tussock sedge (Carex stricta), skunk cabbage and cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea). A certified vernal pool, while not directly connected to this wetland, is located about 800 feet to the northeast, along Kennedy Road. BVW Area C: This wetland is located 1,300± feet to the northeast of the dam, on the eastern side of Kennedy Road, and about 500 feet north of the Roberts Meadow Brook. This wetland is wooded within the area closest to Roberts Meadow Brook and is contiguous with the small stream that flows through the adjacent agricultural fields to the north. The forested wetlands along the brook are somewhat sinuous flowing from east to west to combine with the agricultural field drainage, which flows to the north east to Middle Roberts Reservoir. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 63 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir ` "" CM1ecketl Dam Removal Project PGD Northampton, Massachusetts Dace BASE MAP: MassGIS Orthophoto (2009) Figure No Data o stained from MASS CIS, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive �� GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.(EEA), 500 250 0 500 Feet WETLANDS F fOfe " 111001 1 01.0019547.10 BLSF: A large portion of the project area is located within BLSF as depicted in Figure 5 -6, which incorporates those areas within the 100 -year floodplain, as defined by elevation and FEMA mapping of the area. West of Kennedy Road, BLSF is largely coincident with the boundary of Bank resource due to the steep terrain that defines the margins of the brook and reservoir in this area. However, east of Kennedy Road, the stream valley broadens and BLSF extends both to the north and south from the margins of the brook, incorporating large areas of upland and wetland soils. RFA: Roberts Meadow Brook is also a perennial stream as depicted on the current USGS topographical map. As such, a 200 -foot RFA extends outward from the MAHWL of the brook. Because the reservoir interrupts the brook, and has no riverine characteristics, the RFA is cut off at the inlet and does not extend along the banks of the reservoir. The RFA has been divided into two sections (above and below the reservoir), which are described in further detail below: Upgradient RFA: The RFA upgradient of the reservoir consists almost exclusively of forested upland habitats to the north and south of the stream. In close proximity to the stream, the upland is very steep and rocky with a deep gorge along the stream edge in some areas. Chesterfield Road parallels the stream to the south. The forested upland areas within the RFA are comprised of a combination of oak -pine and northern hardwood vegetation, with the northern hardwood component found along the steeper slopes. Common species within the RFA include red oak (Quercus rubra), white pine (Pious strobus), eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), white birch (Betula papyrifera), black birch (B. lenta) and sugar maple (Ater saccharum). Downgradient RFA: The RFA downgradient of the dam is more disturbed in nature than above the reservoir; however, still mostly comprised of forested upland habitats with some wetland areas present on the western side of the stream. In this area, Chesterfield Road is much closer to the stream, with paved surfaces and residential homes within 60 feet of the stream in some areas. Because of this, the riparian corridor on the eastern side of the stream is relative narrow (average 40 feet), with a relatively steep drop -off from the road edge to the stream banks. The RFA on the western side of the stream is mostly forested in nature and comprised of a mixture of upland and wetland habitats. Kennedy Road crosses the stream 875± feet downgradient of the dam, spanning the stream with a bridge crossing. South of Kennedy Road the RFA on the western side of the stream is markedly different than the north side of the road, comprised of mainly red pine ( Pious resinosa) and white pine planted in rows and now even aged with a uniform understory of ferns. Forested upland areas are comprised of white pine, hemlock, maple and oak along the steep eastern slopes with some disturbed road edge habitats present along the margins of Chesterfield Road. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 65 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form I:l,lI \, I — f) f I, i ngmltn N Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir ---t•_ •. yy - E ! 4 1 rr I � I i J s I "y /t1l�lr' \ \I` �� ✓ '� C ��! �� M ' � Rrser7mir i I = „ Y Dewatering Area / � � /✓ x Robe, � s ;Meat•_ a "I �, I � • li -- - -- - J Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir o r 7 CO I S Ae a o ( Y- k—I HiI1 I,// j.. I rd "v�l P -t. I . a,I� r Feet 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 FEMA MAP Project No: 01.0019547.10 Drawn by: Z 100 -Year FEMA Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Pr � ERH Ch ecked by: PGD Northampton, Massachusetts Date: ! 3117111 BASE MAP:USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP, Figure No: J EASTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS 1979 V M 5 -6 GZA CoeoENVlfonmentat,Inc. Data obtained Tom Mass DIM, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs( EEA), FEMA 03 Flood layer created byFEMAby scanning current Flood Insurance Rate Maps, \ 0 I:l,lI \, I — f) f I, i ngmltn N Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir ---t•_ •. yy - E ! 4 1 rr I � I i J s I "y /t1l�lr' \ \I` �� ✓ '� C ��! �� M ' � Rrser7mir i I = „ Y Dewatering Area / � � /✓ x Robe, � s ;Meat•_ a "I �, I � • li -- - -- - J Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir o r 7 CO I S Ae a o ( Y- k—I HiI1 I,// j.. I rd "v�l P -t. I . a,I� r Feet 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 FEMA MAP Project No: 01.0019547.10 Drawn by: Z 100 -Year FEMA Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Pr � ERH Ch ecked by: PGD Northampton, Massachusetts Date: LLI "" "` Town Boundary 3117111 BASE MAP:USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP, Figure No: J EASTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS 1979 V M 5 -6 GZA CoeoENVlfonmentat,Inc. Data obtained Tom Mass DIM, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs( EEA), FEMA 03 Flood layer created byFEMAby scanning current Flood Insurance Rate Maps, 66 5.3 Watershed and Hydrology Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is a 1600± foot long, somewhat sinuous, "run of the river" impoundment of Roberts Meadow Brook. The reservoir 1 t 1 11 Table 5 -11: Hydrological Characteristics & Features of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Parameter Quantity units as noted Watershed Area (including reservoir) 8.8± square miles Size Ratio Watershed: Reservoir 1175:1 Estimated Reservoir Volume 828,000 cu ft Estimated Average Annual Flow 475,000,000 cu. ft /yr Estimated Water Residence Time 0.6± days is re a ive y sma (4.8± acres) with a maximum width of 170 feet, about 25 feet wide at the headwaters, and a width of 70 feet at the dam. The reservoir is shallow with an average depth of only 2.9 feet due to the infilling with sediment (original average depth was 6.5± feet). Currently, about 80% of the reservoir volume is less than 6 feet deep. The maximum depth of the reservoir is 18 feet, just above the dam. The reservoir has a total volume of about 830,000 cubic feet. Roberts Meadow Brook enters the reservoir at the west end of the reservoir with the dam located at the eastern end of the reservoir. Above the reservoir, Roberts Meadow Brook extends westerly into Westhampton and continues into a small portion of Chesterfield, with Brewer Brook as another tributary within this area. Marble Brook is a major tributary LO Roberts Meadow Brook, having its confluence approximately 600 feet upgradient of the western-most portion of the reservoir. Marble Brook flows from north to south, and extends upgradient into a small portion of Williamsburg. Below the dam, Roberts Meadow Brook flows in an easterly direction along the north side of Chesterfield Rd. and passes under Kennedy Rd., continuing along the northerly side of Table 5 -12: Land in Use in Reservoir Watershed Land Use Area (ac) Percent of Watershed Crop Land 166.3 3.1% Pasture 56.0 1.0% Forest 4873.5 89.4% Non - Forested Wetland 105.5 1.9% Mining 38.2 0.7% Open Land 17.3 0.3% Low Density Residential 170.0 3.1% Water 6.6 0.1% Powerline 17.1 0.3% Total Watershed 5450.5 T 100.0% Chesterfield Rd. and then along Reservoir Rd., to its confluence with Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir about 5,900 feet below the dam. Outflow from the lower reservoir eventually reaches the Mill River within the Florence portion of the Northampton. The 8.8± square mile watershed of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir encompassed the northwest corner of Northampton, the northeast portion of Westhampton, and portions of Williamsburg and Chesterfield (Figure 2 -1). Table 5 -12 depicts the land use within the watershed based upon GIS information. The watershed is rural and about 90% forested with one area of agricultural field on the west side of Marble Brook approximately 800 feet upgradient of the reservoir (Figure 5 -7). While there is some residential development along Chesterfield Rd., there is very little residential development throughout the entire watershed. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 67 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form �• n rid r Legend � 'I Crop Land Pasture i Forest t�+ Non-Forested Wetland Mining 11c � � � p –@ Open Land _ - Low Density Residential a - s -, r UL Water hue I t or l - Powerline Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir 3000 1500 0 3000 Fee` WATERSHED LAND USE " Ofe "l 01.0091457.10 Gz`Y GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Project °"" Checked by: I Northampton, Massachusetts it 4/19111 ` 7 / EASTHAM MASS_ 1 S �� A en nmen ml A ffairs teeA). .NV an mro I � Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Watershed �• n rid r Legend � 'I Crop Land Pasture i Forest t�+ Non-Forested Wetland Mining 11c � � � p –@ Open Land _ - Low Density Residential a - s -, r UL Water hue I t or l - Powerline Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir 3000 1500 0 3000 Fee` WATERSHED LAND USE " Ofe "l 01.0091457.10 Gz`Y GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Project °"" Checked by: I Northampton, Massachusetts Dace 4/19111 a / EASTHAM MASS_ sack ,brelne fro MASS Com monwealtlr of Mas Offlce �• n rid r Legend � 'I Crop Land Pasture i Forest t�+ Non-Forested Wetland Mining 11c � � � p –@ Open Land _ - Low Density Residential a - s -, r UL Water hue I t or l - Powerline Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir 3000 1500 0 3000 Fee` WATERSHED LAND USE " Ofe "l 01.0091457.10 Gz`Y GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Project °"" Checked by: I Northampton, Massachusetts Dace 4/19111 BASE MAP USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP Figure No: EASTHAM MASS_ sack ,brelne fro MASS Com monwealtlr of Mas Offlce �� A en nmen ml A ffairs teeA). .NV an mro i8 Based on the watershed size, Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir has annual estimated water flow of about 500 million cubic feet per year, which given the estimated water volume of the reservoir would equate to an exchange of the total volume of the reservoir water every 0.6 days on average. 5.4 Vegetation Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is set within a forested river valley, except for a portion of the reservoir that borders immediately upon Chesterfield Road. The adjoining terrain is often steep, with exposed bedrock, and the forest provides deep shaded woodland ravine habitats. Trees and limbs overhang the reservoir and some deadfall extends into the waterbody. Shrubs vary in density and groundcover is moderate to sparse. Dominant trees include mature hemlock and white pine with interspersed red maple (Acer rubrum), red oak, gray birch, yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), black birch, American elm (Ulmus americana) and other species, with vines of riverbank grape (Vitis riparia) and Oriental bittersweet (invasive species). Shrubs include silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), witch hazel (Hammelis virginianum), highbush blueberry, hobble bush (Viburnum alnifolium), striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum), mountain maple (Acer spicatum), multiflora rose (invasive) and Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) (invasive). Shoreline shrubs including silky dogwood and high bush blueberry provide overhanging branches into the reservoir. Fallen trees provide habitat structure within the reservoir basin. Herbaceous species within the riparian woodlands include meadow rue (Thalictrum pubescens), cinnamon fern (Osmundastrum cinnamomeum), hickory (Carya ovata), hayscented fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula), lady fern (Athyrium filix femina), interrupted fern (Osmunda claytoniana), Christmas fern (Polystichum arostichoides), riverbank grape, Massachusetts fern (Parathelypteris simulata), Solomon seal (Polygonatum commutatum), and jack in the pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum). On the 0.6± acre alluvial island at the western end of the reservoir the dominant species are the invasive species Oriental bittersweet, multiflora rose, and Japanese barberry. Aquatic macrophytes within the reservoir are relatively sparse except in the upper most reaches of the reservoir where the stream narrows and in the slack water channel between the alluvial island and the north side of the reservoir. In these areas, submerged aquatic vegetation consists of coontail, large pond weed, and water purslane (Didipis diandra). Emergent species included blue flag iris, burr -reed, and arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia). Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 69 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 5.5 Fish and Wildlife Resources Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and the surrounding environs naturalized after the dam was constructed in 1883 and the cleared forest lands naturally revegetated as woodlands. At this time, the habitats associated with Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and Roberts Meadow Brook in the vicinity of the proposed work predominantly consist of • upland forest with scattered forested wetland; • cold water brook and stream bank habitat; • warm water reservoir with littoral and bank habitats; and • some very limited shrub and herbaceous habitat associated with the alluvial island and roadway margins. The wildlife and fish resources within the project area are defined by these ecological habitats. The fauna of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir can be separated into terrestrial species, which occasionally use the reservoir and brook, and aquatic species, which depend almost entirely upon the open water for their life cycles. The following is a brief summary of the types of wildlife and taxa observed and anticipated to be within each area, as well as the value that the Roberts Meadow Brook System and surrounding habitat provides. The discussion is intended to be representative and is not intended to be an exhaustive species list. Invertebrates: Numerous freshwater mussels were observed within the stream channel below the reservoir. While not a listed species, the presence of this species in conjunction with other aquatic insects (dragonfly larvae, damselfly larvae, stoneflies, etc.) suggests a relatively high water quality in both the up- and downgradient water courses. Within the reservoir, the freshwater mussels continue to be present. North crayfish was also observed. The substantial detritus on the lake bottom provides habitat to aquatic insects favoring open bottom and open water areas. Avifauna: Avifauna use of the reservoir is limited to some waterfowl, although the suitable habitat is somewhat restricted and a better offering of appropriate habitats (vegetated littoral zone and reservoir shore community) to support waterfowl are represented in the downgradient Middle Roberts Reservoir. Waterfowl that may occasionally use this reservoir include mallard, wood and black duck; and Canada geese. Piscivorous species such as kingfisher, great egret, and great blue heron are also occasional residents of the area, with limited nesting habitat present in the surrounding upland areas for these species. Insect gleaning bird species such as tree swallows, flycatchers, and phoebes have the highest potential use of this waterbody as a food resource. Other passerine bird species likely use the adjacent upland habitats to a high degree. The relatively large patch of forest around the reservoir along with the lack of significant disturbance means that many forest and forest interior birds species are likely present in these upland and wetland habitats. Species such as pileated woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, downy woodpecker, veery, robin, tufted titmouse, black capped chickadee, blue jay and red tailed hawk were all observed by sight or sign. Other bird species that are likely present in or near the proposed project area based on the supporting habitat and habitat features include wood thrush, ovenbird, Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 70 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form northern flicker, red breasted woodpecker, broad winged hawk, wild turkey, amongst other forest interior and common sub -urban and rural bird species. Herpetofauna: Herpetofauna (reptile and amphibian) use of the site is of moderate to high quality for a number of species. Mole and lungless salamanders are present in the surrounding upland habitats, with both redback and yellow spotted salamander observed during our survey efforts. The presence of a certified vernal pool north of the reservoir likely provides breeding habitat for these and other species and supports the use of these upland forests by spotted salamander as well as wood frog, which was also encountered on site. Spring peeper and grey treefrog are also likely found on site and use this vernal pool as breeding habitat. The reservoir itself is not viable breeding habitat for these species; however, green frog, pickerel frog and bullfrog were all observed to be using the reservoir. The high gradient stream above and to a lesser extent below the reservoir contains some features conducive to stream salamander presence. While only dusky salamanders were found during our initial observations, species of stream salamander may also be found in these limnetic habitats. Reptile use of the site is more limited than amphibians; however, some notable reptiles were observed or are known to be in the vicinity. The most notable is the wood turtle. While a formal survey for this species has not been conducted along the brook, NHESP notes that the proposed project is near potential habitat for this species based on their records, a more detailed discussion of the wood turtle is present in Section 5.6 below. Other turtle species that may be present in the reservoir include the more common painted turtle and snapping turtle, of which several painted turtles were observed. No snakes were observed, however based on the surrounding habitat features and landscaped context, species such as garter snake, brown snake, red belly snake could potentially be found throughout the site with northern water snakes possible within the aquatic habitats of the reservoir. Mammals: The site does provide good habitat to many species of mammals. Mammalian use of the reservoir is likely limited because its small size limits habitat for larger aquatic mammals. Species such as muskrat and mink may be found along the stream and reservoir banks and the large size of the habitat block suggests that species such as bobcat, black bear, porcupine and fisher are also likely inhabitants of the general area. More common woodland species such as white tailed deer, raccoon, striped skunk, red squirrel and flying squirrel are typical inhabits of these areas and use the uplands, streams and reservoir as both a food and water source. Wildlife species observed (either directly or by sign /call) included raccoon, grey squirrel, and eastern chipmunk. A beaver but was observed along the northern reservoir shoreline approximately 300 feet upgradient of the dam. Fisheries: Reservoir and stream habitats in proximity to Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir have been investigated for fish populations and fish habitat. Upgradient of the reservoir, Roberts Meadow Brook and its tributaries of Marble and Brewer Brooks are recognized as cold water fishery habitat supporting native brook trout. The reservoir, as an impoundment of a cold water stream, represents a small area of warm water fishery habitat. The 1.2± mile segment of the brook between Upper and Middle Roberts Reservoirs continues as cold water fish habitat. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 71 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form Upgradient Brook Habitat: Roberts Meadow Brook and Brewer Brook were sampled in 1985, 1986, and 2006 by the MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife Fisheries Surveys. Among the species noted were native brook trout, slimy sculpin, blacknose dace, and longnose dace, all of which are associated with cold water fishery environments. The largely undeveloped watershed has continued to maintain excellent water quality. The groundwater baseflow contributions of cold water, combined with ample stretches of dense woodland providing nearly 100 percent shading of the brook, keep stream temperatures cool. The stream has abundant boulders riffles, small vertical drops and cascades over its relatively steep gradient (providing good aeration), and sandy bottom eddy pools (for potential spawning habitat). The habitat is quite favorable to desirable cold water fish, which is a significantly diminished habitat in Massachusetts. Reservoir Aquatic Habitat: Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir as an artificial impoundment of a cold water stream, exposes the water to the warming rays of the sun, and slows the water passage, especially in areas of more restricted circulation along the shallow edges and eddy current areas where the reservoir first broadens in the central basin. The summer formation of a warm upper layer (epilimnion) further restricts flow and allows the cooler incoming stream water to underflow the epilimnetic waters. The shallow, slower, water within the reservoir creates warm water fish habitat in the reservoir, particularly in the upper reaches where the water is the shallowest. Fish species observed in the reservoir include large -mouth bass, small mouth bass, and bluegill. Other species that are likely present include common shiner, perch and catfish. Because the reservoir is of a relatively small size and some areas are deep, some cold water species from the upgradient stream may also survive in deeper section of the reservoir including brook trout, if present. However, it should be noted that the deep organic laden sediments create anoxic conditions in deeper areas of the reservoir, and cold water stream species typically do not tolerate these areas well during the hottest summer months when flows are the lowest. Downgradient Brook Habitat: GZA biologists conducted a limited fisheries survey of the Roberts Meadow Brook in September of 2009. This study broke the stream down into seven segments (Reaches) and classified the stream habitat features of each segment including observed fish species within each (Table 5 -13). Figure 5 -8 depicts these stream reaches. As the channel heads eastward from Kennedy Road, it becomes progressively straighter and more trapezoidal, due to its man -made channelization, with slower, deeper water present in the lower reaches. Based upon manual probing of the stream corridor, it was evident that the substrate changes accordingly, with the stream gradient being steeper and rocky above and below the reservoir, and transitioning to sandy and moderate gradient near the confluence with Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir. Some cold water fish were observed to inhabit these segments. While no trout were observed in this limited study, good foraging and spawning habitat was found in these stream segments which could potentially support such populations. Based upon the high prevalence of brook trout and other cold water fish upgradient of the shallow reservoir, the impounded stream was undoubtedly trout habitat at one time, and likely continued into the now channelized, semi - isolated 1.2± mile stretch of Roberts Meadow Brook, sandwiched between the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and the Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 72 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form Table 5 -13: Characterization of Aquatic Habitat of Roberts Meadow Brook between Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir, 2009 Observations Segment Location Habitat Description 1 Dam to -500 e High gradient, 20 -40 foot wide channel; 6 -12" deep above Kennedy e Braided, multiple flow paths; stone - cobble substrate; fast riffle, pool habitat Rd e Many large flat stones in stream & banks; stream stones angular to sub angular • Vegetation on cobble bars • Many mussels, crayfish, blacknose dace and common shiners observed 2 End Segment 1 e 6 -12" deep normal flow depth; slight lower gradient; single channel, no to Kennedy braiding /cobble bars Road e Flat stones in channel and along edge and many sub - angular stones • Stone - cobble substrate, good mix of riffle, pool and run habitat • Some cobble - gravel, sand areas (spawning habitat) behind large stones and opposite cut banks • Crayfish, mussels, common shiners, blacknose dace, and slimy sculpin observed • Dusky salamanders observed along bank 3 Kennedy Road e Stream 10 -15 feet wide, single channel; Large stones along banks to point 1000 . 12 -18" deep (some pools to 30 ") feet downstream Gravel- cobble and cobble -stone substrate (mostly cobble- stone) • Mix of riffle -run (some pool) habitat; good in -stream structure • Crayfish, mussels, shiners and dace observed • Some shallow riffle over gravel-COS /S substrate (Excellent spawning habitat) 4 From Segment 3 e Trapezoidal channel; depth 12 " -36" with sandy substrate; deepest pools 36 "; to point 2000 e Stream moderate gradient, mostly shallow riffle (75°/6) and shallow run (25 %) feet downstream Straight channel, no pools • Substrate mostly cobble (stones along bank), no flat stones • No mussels, no salamanders found • Good spawning habitat present 5 From Segment 4 . 10 -12' wide straight trapezoidal channel, stone and cobble along banks, sandy to point 1000 center (most of channel); shallow run habitat dominates, some shallow riffle feet downstream e No bends or pools; progressively deeper downstream; depths 12 -24" upper to 24 " -36" lower (deep runs to 48 ") • Minimal riparian to right (along road) • Sandy substrate, with some gravel, finer sands and some organic in deeper runs • Little brook troutspawning habitat present this segment 6 From Segment 5 . 10 -12' wide trapezoidal, moderate gradient channel, straight, no bends or pools to point 1000 e Stream gets shallower and faster (6 -12" deep on average) feet downstream e Mostly Shallow riffle /run habitat in gravel substrate, with some sand deposits; some deep runs present, with organic buildup • Moderate spawning habitat for Brook Trout 7 Segment 6 to e Steeper Gradient; 10 -15' wide 6 -12" deep (pools to 24 ") Middle Roberts e Cobble -stone substrate (rounded) with some pools with gravel substrate Reservoir Common shiners observed Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 73 &---A Wetland Boundary Z DewateringArea URMR Dam J URMR and Downgradient Stream Reach GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Project Northampton, Massachusetts BASE MAP: MassGIS Data obtained from MASS cis, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs .(EEA). I Figure No: 5 -8 74 Boo 400 o Soo Feet I STREAM REACHES I Piroe "N° 01.0019547.10 5.6 Rare Species The area of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and downgradient stream to Middle Roberts Reservoir, as well as areas adjacent to the stream and reservoirs are not within Priority or Estimated Habitat for Rare Species as designated by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP). However, Roberts Meadow Brook, immediately upgradient of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is designated as being within Estimated Habitat for wood turtle (see Attachment 2 NfiESP date August 1, 2008). Until the 2008 Estimated Habitat revisions, this area included Upper and Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoirs. However, the 2008 mapping (Figure 5 -9) shows this habitat only extending to the upper edge of the reservoir. GZA's habitat assessment concurred with NHESP's truncating the Estimated Habitat map as the assessment also determined that Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and the high gradient stream and riparian corridor between the upper and middle reservoirs are not ideal wood turtle habitat. Nevertheless, wood turtles, if present, could migrate up /down the stream and /or surrounding riparian areas during the summer to forage and search for nesting locations. 5.7 Historic Structures or Districts and Archaeological Sites The Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir, once called the Hoxie Reservoir, is impounded by a granite arch dam that was constructed in 1883. Based upon an inquiry to the Massachusetts Historic Commission (MHC) dated June 25, 2009, MHC stated that after review of the site inventory, it was determined that the project at the dam site was unlikely to impact significant archaeological resources (Attachment 2). Based upon additional information provided to the MHC and following their review in April 2010, Edward Bell of the MHC stated (letter dated May 21, 2010) that the dam could be historically significant as a municipal work in the City, and also may be a significant historic engineering structure. The MHC also offered to review the information and the potential eligibility of the site for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The review referenced in the May 21, 2010 letter was conducted by Peter Stott of the Massachusetts Historical Commission (April 26, 2010) who attempted to evaluate the site for potential eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This review was provided to the Northampton Department of Public Works by State Historic Preservation Officer Brona Simon on June 14, 2010. The review notes that the Hoxie Reservoir Dam was designed by Northampton City Engineer Emory C. Davis (c. 1835 -1906) and by consulting engineer Clemens Herschel (1842 - 1930), who was at the time the head of the Holyoke Water Power Company (MHC 2010). Stott surmises that the dam was built of granite to avoid collapse as had occurred nine years earlier at the Mill River dam in Williamsburg. He also comments that the design of the dam is not unusual for the time period. The primacy of the dam was questioned because of the construction of another dam (Northampton Reservoir) downstream 10 -years earlier than the Hoxie dam construction. Stott was unable to offer an opinion of eligibility for the National Register and requested additional information. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 75 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form �\ �e N 1 l 1 ' Meddle Roberts Meadow Reservoir -_ � S Hill �Dewatenng Area L 1 I i l l _ '1 't _ I 1 y Meatlov. N � �11 EH 961 Fdl� L 41 b �o Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Feet NHESP MAP Pmect NO: 2,000 1,000 0 2,000 01.0019547.10 LEGEND Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir ERH Certified Vernal Pools 2010 Dam Removal Project Checked by: ® Estimated Habitats 2008 PGD Northampton, Massachusetts oat: ® Priority Habitats 2008 3/17/11 BASE MAP:USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP, 1'..,e No: —•• Tom Boundary EASTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS 1979 0 G�GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. 5 76 The MHC letter of June 14, 2010 recommended that the City undertake historical research by a qualified historic preservation consultant to assemble the information needed for an effective National Register review, and in so doing, provide answers to the questions posed by Stott, including: • The questionable primacy of the because the "lower" reservoir located downstream was in existence ten years before the "upper" dam was constructed; • The role of the reservoir in the development of Northampton's water supply system; • The reason for discontinuance in 1905; and • The nature of the involvement of the Holyoke Water Power Company in the dam construction. Based upon the June 2010 inquiry of MHC, the City of Northampton contracted with Archaeological Services, to conduct historical background research and provide answers to the questions posited by the MHC. The full study is reproduced in Attachment 5 of this ENF. Among the findings of the report, Archaeological Services recommended that the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places on the local level under Criteria A and C. Under Criterion A, the dam was a key element in the development of Northampton's public water supply system. Under Criterion C, the dam has retained its integrity and the distinctive characteristics of a nineteenth century engineering structure. In further correspondence from the MHC on June 6, 2012, MHC attached their opinion that the dam and Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir meet the criteria for the National Register under Criteria A and C at the local level (See June 6, 2012 MHC letter in Attachment 2). Additional correspondence with the Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR) was conducted in 2012, and responded with a letter on June 4, 2012 (Attachment 2). BUAR stated that "Based on the results of this review and previously (sic) disturbance during dam construction and repair, the Board expects that this project is unlikely to impact submerged cultural resources." However, they further stated that in MHC's MACRIS files, it was noted that the dam was constructed on the site of a bark grinding mill and that the mill stone is visible near the foot of the dam. BUAR suggested that additional consideration be given to potential preservation of this earlier structure as part of the project mitigation documentation. 5.8 Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions Given the rural setting of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and the lack of local sources of air borne pollutants, except for the relatively low local traffic levels, the air quality in this area would be expected to be relatively good and generally reflective of regional trends. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has set a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ground -level ozone, as well as other pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, and lead. The USEPA establishes primary and secondary standards. While primary standards focus on public health, secondary standards concern general public welfare such as visibility. The state regulates air quality using USEPA's standards (310 CMR 6.00). MADEP maintains Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 77 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form monitoring stations throughout the state that record the highest concentration or the mean concentration of regulated air pollutants. Some stations monitor only one pollutant, while others monitor more than one. The closest MADEP air monitoring stations in proximity to the project site are in Amherst, MA (ozone only) and on Liberty Street in Springfield, MA. The Springfield station monitors particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10) concentrations, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide. Data from these monitoring location show occasional exceedances in 2011 for the Air Quality Index (AQI) based upon these factors. The single residential home on Reservoir Road opposite Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir, and an adjacent Bed and Breakfast building are the potential sensitive receptors in immediate proximity to the reservoir. The closest sensitive receptor to the sedimentation basin is a residence located approximately 500 feet to the north of the site. Relative to greenhouse gas emissions, the "Revised MEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy And Protocol" (Effective Date: May 5, 2010) allows for a "de minimis" exemption, where the MEPA Office acknowledges that some projects that require an EIR will have little or no GHG emissions, and this Policy is not be applied to such projects. The policy specifically references dam removal projects as eligible for such a "de minimis" exemption. Ecologic restoration and waterway dredging projects are also included for this same exemption, and such elements are included within the current project. 5.9 Noise Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is isolated and separated from all but a single residence along Chesterfield Road and a nearby Bed and Breakfast building, both opposite the reservoir. There is a farm house about 500 feet from the proposed sedimentation basin, which is separated by a forested buffer zone. In this area, the ambient noise climate is primarily affected by roadway traffic. There are no other current noise - producing activities at the site. Many federal agencies use the day -night sound level to describe noise and to predict community effects from long -term exposure to noise. In addition, this noise level classification system is used to determine the appropriateness of a given use of specific land (land use compatibility) relative to the average level of environmental noise experienced at the location. Noise levels ranging from 65 -75 decibels (time weighted averages) are generally considered to be compatible with residential land use. The City of Northampton has a noise standard under Chapter 350 of the City ordinances, which includes a maximum of 60 db in residential areas between 7 am and 10 pm. This project will likely have little difficulty complying with the City ordinance, and this standard will be a requirement of the work. 5.10 Hazardous Materials Review Due Diligence for Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir In accordance with the sampling and analysis requirements for the evaluation of applications for dredging and dredged material management of 314 CMR 9.07(2), a "due diligence" review was conducted prior to the sediment sampling conducted by GZA in 2008. The purpose of the "due diligence" review was to assess the potential for the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 78 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form sediment proposed to be sampled from Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir to have concentrations of oil or hazardous materials (OHM), as defined in 310 CMR 40.0000. This due diligence OHM review also provides an overall hazardous materials review for the general project site. Resources reviewed included the following: • Generation and review of an Environmental FirstSearch Report with Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir as the target property; • Review of MADEP online Reportable Releases database for sites within the reservoir's watershed in Northampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield and Westhampton; • A telephone interview with the Northampton Board of Health on July 31, 2008; • Anecdotal evidence from neighbors who live near the reservoir; • Historic land use data from Sanborn Maps; and • Coordination with the local DPW/Engineering Department to obtain sediment sampling records. The USGS Riverways Program sampled sediment within the reservoir in the fall of 2005. The following is a summary of the OHM review findings: OHM Releases: No reported OHM releases or spills within the watershed to Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir were found in the records obtained through Environmental FirstSearch and MADEP's online Reportable Releases database. This information is congruous with the mostly undeveloped watershed. RCRA Generators: No Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) generators were reported within 0.25 miles of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir. Interview with the Northampton Board of Health: A telephone interview with the Northampton Board of Health offices on July 31, 2008, revealed that the Board of Health does not have a report of OHM releases within their offices. Historical Information: A search of Sanborn historic fire district maps was conducted for Northampton; however, no maps exist for the area within the reservoir's watershed since it is largely undeveloped. A historic map of the area shows a leather factory as being in immediate proximity to the current location of Upper Roberts Reservoir. According to the US EPA Region 5, Water Division, the potential sediment contaminant associated with leather /tanning industries is chromium. Other Sources: The local fire departments often keep records of spills of hazardous materials. However, this record keeping is covered by review of MADEP's online database. If any release occurred that met MADEP reporting requirements, it would have been included in the MADEP online Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form database, and no such records of release responses in the watershed existed at the time of the review. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Sediment Sample Analysis: As discussed in Section 5.1.1, sediment sampling was conducted of the reservoir by the USGS Riverways Program in November, 2005 and again by GZA as part of this current study in 2008. As indicated in that section, chromium and nickel levels were somewhat high compared to certain standards. The MADEP background levels in soil were exceeded for barium, but the levels were lower than the MCP Method 1, Soil Category S -1 Standard. For the more recent 2008 sampling, some of the chemical compounds tested for were detected and some levels of these were slightly elevated as compared to average background levels referenced for the State of Massachusetts ( MADEP, 1995, Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization, Interim Final Policy WSC /ORS -95 -141). Such background levels are expected to have a range, and they typically vary from one geologic and regional setting to another. Therefore, occasional values slightly elevated above average background concentrations are to be expected. Most importantly, however, none of these levels indicate that the sediments are hazardous material concerns. The results of the due diligence review indicate that, as would be expected for this undeveloped watershed, there is low potential for oil or hazardous materials to be present in proximity to Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir or within its sediments. No spills of oil or hazardous material have been reported in the reservoir and watershed as revealed by the MADEP Release online database and the FirstSearch Report. Historic map reference to a leather factory in the vicinity of the reservoir indicated the potential for chromium due to the potential tannery operations, and previous sediment sampling data showed some evidence of elevated levels of chromium and nickel. Sample analysis conducted as part of this study showed some concentrations slightly above normal background. However, there is little evidence suggesting the need for analysis of any parameters in addition to those specifically required by the Section 401 Water Quality Certification regulations (314 CMR 9.07(2)6). 5.11 Aesthetic Resources /Open Space/Recreational Resources The area surrounding the proposed dam removal site is mostly undeveloped forest, with Chesterfield Road passing immediately adjacent to the reservoir. There is one single family residence and a bed & breakfast (Starlight Llama) located opposite side of Chesterfield Road adjacent to the site. There is also a farm building and small field on the adjacent lot to the west. The vista from the roadway and residences is of a small open water body within a steep wooded valley. The watershed land to the north of the reservoir is not open to recreational hiking although evidence of some unauthorized use was noted. Recreational boating or fishing is not allowed at the reservoir. There are no formal recreational opportunities offered at this waterbody. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 80 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 5.12 Socioeconomic Characteristics As previously noted, the project site is located along Chesterfield Road in an otherwise forested location that is isolated from other land uses. The entire reservoir is located within an 85± acre parcel north of Chesterfield Road, owned by the City of Northampton, which is zoned "Rural Residential/ Watershed Protection/ Water Supply Protection ". The lot east of Kennedy Road which would hold the temporary dredging containment basin is similarly zoned. Both zoning categories were established to protect the back -up drinking water supply. The area on the south side of Chesterfield Road is zoned "Rural Residential" and there is one single family house and a nearby bed and breakfast (Starlight Llama) opposite the reservoir. An adjacent lot to the west has a small barn adjacent to an open field. The bed and breakfast is the only economic activity in immediate proximity to the reservoir. There is no employment or economic activity associated with the reservoir itself. Northampton A ssessors and Zoning Map a - -- Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 81 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 6.0 IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT As previously described in Section 4.0, the proposed project would remove the dam and reestablish the former stream channel. The dam would be removed in the following sequence: hydraulically dredge the reservoir basin, removing soft erodible sediments from the low points where the stream channel will most likely reform; staged removal of dam face to gradually lower the reservoir level, with supplemental hydraulic dredging, thereby allowing the stream channel to reform in sections and allow the remaining portions of the dam to capture mobilized sediment; and revegetation of the exposed reservoir bottom. The assessment of any potential impacts associated with this project would need to look at both the hydraulic dredging stages, which uses a downgradient sedimentation basin, and at the stream reformation / reservoir dewatering stages. As summarized in this section, the long -term impacts are potentially beneficial to Roberts Meadow Brook in the restoration of stream continuity, including cold water fish habitat, recognizing that there will be a loss of the impoundment and warm water fish habitat. The short-term construction related impacts will need to be controlled. 6.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils The proposed removal of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir dam will have the net effect of approximately recreating the original topography of the flooded stream valley prior to the construction of the dam. The hydraulic dredging to be conducted prior to dam removal will remove some of the accumulated sediment within the reservoir basin prior to dewatering. The remaining sediment will become reestablished as vegetated riparian wetland and upland soils flanking the stream. The proposed contours, cross sections, and the longitudinal stream profile with the dewatered reservoir basin are shown in Attachment 6. The redevelopment of the stream is largely expected to be a gradual process as the reservoir level is dropped and the stream positions itself within the low point of the basin. The stream restoration will be monitored and will include placement of boulders and cobbles where necessary to mimic existing upstream and downstream banks and stream habitat structure. The banks of the brook will be reformed during stream positioning within the existing reservoir basin, causing some potential short-term erosion of sediments. Disturbed areas would be seeded with an erosion control seed mix using native herbaceous and woody stem species appropriate to the riparian environment. Exposed sediments /soils will be covered with an erosion control blanket in steep erosion prone areas, as necessary. The construction of the sediment containment basin east of Kennedy Road will disturb soils as part of the tree removal and temporarily alter the topography north of Roberts Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 82 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form Meadow Brook. The area will be restored to original grades after the dredging is completed. The sediment hydraulically dredged from the reservoir may be used as part of the final grading when the site is restored to its original contours. Excess material will be relocated to upland areas. Approximately 10,000 cubic yards of net soil or sediment is expected to be removed from the sediment containment site upon restoration of the area to the original soil elevations. Throughout construction, measures will be taken to control erosion and sedimentation. 6.2 Wetland Resource Areas The removal of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir dam will alter wetland resources, reducing the impoundment volume and area extent while reestablishing the stream and riparian area. The project will establish a continuous 200 -foot Riverfront Area along the reestablished stream corridor upon removal of the dam and reestablishment of the stream. There is only one small area of Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW) fringing the reservoir that could be affected by the removal of the darn. Therefore, there will be no overall loss of jurisdictional area, and a net increase in some locations. Table 6 -1 summarizes the impacts associated with the different phases of the project to each of the relevant wetland resource area types, as regulated under the MA Wetlands Protection Act and Federal Clean Water Act. These impacts are discussed in the sections below. Table 6 -1: Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Wetland Resource Sum mar - Impact Construction Access & Total Resource Reservoir Basin Area Dredging Containment Permanent Area Basin Change Temporary Permanent Created Temporary Permanent Land Under 25,500 SF 183,000 SF 157,500 SF Waterway & stream decrease 0 0 0 decrease Waterbody restoration 20 LF 210 LF Bank (construction 3660 LF 3450 LF 35± LF 0 decrease access) 600± SF Bordering (construction Vegetated 0 0 0 access with 0 0 Wetland mats) Bordering Land Subject 0 0 0 216,000± SF 0 0 to Floodin 17,400 SF (construction 680,000 Riverfront access from 0 SF 180,000± SF 0 680,000 SF Area Kennedy increase Road on north increase side of brook) Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 83 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 62.1 Land Under Waterway & Waterbody (LUWi9 The draining of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir by to the removal of the dam is anticipated to eliminate 183,000 square feet of LUWW, as defined under the MA Wetlands Protection Act. The LUWW remaining will be limited to the newly reestablished perennial stream (Roberts Meadow Brook) within the former reservoir basin. All of the exposed pond basin bottom will be converted to other regulated wetland resources (primarily Riverfront Area; see Section 6.2.5). Much of this same area will also be disturbed prior to the draining of the reservoir in association with the hydraulic dredging to remove erodible sediment from the reservoir basin. With the restoration of Roberts Meadow Brook within the reservoir basin, there will be 25,500± square feet of LUWW associated with the stream. As part of the stream restoration, there would be placement of boulders and cobbles within the reformed stream channel (as needed) to provide stream habitat structure and stability of the newly formed stream banks (See Attachment 6). During hydraulic dredging, a slurry of water and sediment will be pumped from the reservoir to the containment basin on the east side of Kennedy Road, in effect diverting a portion of the normal flow to a point downstream where sediments will be allowed to settle out of the water prior to recombining the diverted water to Roberts Meadow Brook. The maximal flow rate of the diverted water is about 4 cubic feet per second (cfs), which is substantially below the average 15 cfs flow for Roberts Meadow Brook. Therefore, there will be adequate normal flow within the portion of the stream below the dam and the discharge from the sediment treatment basin, and there will be no temporary impact to LUWW in this segment of the channel. In conformance with the WPA general performance standards stated in the regulations of the MA Wetlands Protection Act (310 CMR 10.56), the proposed work would maintain and not impair the water carrying capacity within the defined channel, even though the configuration of the channel is altered from impoundment to restored stream. The natural flow pattern that existed prior to the construction of the dam would be reestablished, thereby improving water quality and natural riverine conditions associated with a cold water stream. The loss of LUWW does not impair the capacity of the area to provide important wildlife functions, because the project connects the fragmented 5900 linear feet of cold water stream downgradient with the upgradient stream, and reestablishes aquatic stream habitat in the basin bottom and allow for aquatic species migration. Further, the WPA, under section 310 CMR 10.53(4), allows the Conservation Commission to issue an Order of Conditions for projects that improve the natural capacity of a resource area to protect the interests identified in M.G.L.c. 131, § 40. 6.2.2 Inland Bank Currently, the Inland Bank associated with the reservoir is coincident with mean high water, following the edge of the impoundment. Upon the removal of the dam, the new banks will be established along the edges of the reestablished stream at the base of the reservoir basin. The linear length of bank within the reservoir is currently 3660 linear feet. With the reestablishment of the stream channel, the stream will have approximately 3450 linear feet of bank, for a net loss of 210± linear feet. The decrease in length of bank is associated with the decrease in width of the open water area. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 84 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form There would also be some minor temporary impact to bank associated with construction access on the north side of Roberts Meadow Brook, below the dam. A narrow BVW with intermittent stream flow flanks a portion of the brook below the dam, and this BVW and intermittent stream would need to be crossed (see Attachment 6). The construction access would be along a woods road that has previously been used for timber harvesting and would require only minimal removal of trees and vegetation to provide access. Timber mats will be used at the crossing to minimize impact to the intermittent stream and fringing wetlands during construction. The mats would be removed upon completion of the project and any rutting would be smoothed as part of final restoration, with placement of straw mulch to control erosion while revegetation from seed and root stock restores the original site stabilization. There will also be some minor temporary impact to Bank at the site of the temporary discharge from the hydraulic dredging sedimentation basin where it returns clarified water from the treatment basin to the Roberts Meadow Brook downgradient of Kennedy Road. Impact at this location is <20 linear feet. This area of bank will be temporarily stabilized at the discharge location with riprap and fabric. Upon completion of the hydraulic dredging phase of the work, this area will be restored to original topography. The reestablishment of the stream conforms with the performance standards as outlined in WPA (310 CMR 10.54 (c)), providing for physical bank stability, reestablishing the original water carrying capacity of the stream, improving surface water quality (less opportunity for thermal impacts to cold water stream), and reestablishing bank associated habitat, and enhancing aquatic species migration between previously isolated parts of Roberts Meadow Brook. The loss of 210± linear feet of total bank is less than 10% of the bank habitat present and will not have any significant adverse effect on bank associated wildlife habitat. Although the temporary total impacts exceed the threshold as defined in 310 CMR 10.54 (a) (5), the result is a restored natural stream ecosystem with the goal of enhancing habitat value along Roberts Meadow Brook. In addition, 310 CMR 10.53(4) allows the Conservation Commission to issue an Order of Conditions for projects such as this that would improve the natural capacity of a resource area to protect the interests identified in M.G.L.c. 131, § 40. General performance standards outlined in BUPA 310 CMR 10.54 require that impacts to Inland Bank will have no adverse impact on specified habitat sites of rare vertebrate or invertebrate species. These impacts would not adversely affect the stream associated rare species habitat that exist upgradient of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir. Such habitat changes are general considered of net benefit based upon MADEP guidance documents for dam removal (e.g., MADEP 2007). 62.3 Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVffg Presently, there is very little BVW which borders upon the reservoir because the shoreline topography rises rapidly from the elevation of the reservoir. However, BVW was delineated along one short segment of the shoreline near the upper reaches of the reservoir. In addition, there are BVWs within the project area in association with 1. the construction access below the dam, and 2. in proximity to the sedimentation basin for the hydraulic dredging portion of the work. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 85 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form Figures 5 -4 & 5 -5 show the limits of the BVW. The potential for impact to BVW exists with the draining of the reservoir and any temporary impacts associated with construction access or the sedimentation basin below Kennedy Road. There will be temporary construction impacts for an equipment crossing of a narrow band of BVW below the dam, north of the brook. Timber mats will be used to provide construction access across a wetland swale with an intermittent stream. The temporary impact will be approximately to 600± SF, which will be restored upon removal of the timber mats. Otherwise, all construction related impacts to BVW will be able to be avoided. The sedimentation basin will be entirely outside of the BVW delineated east of Kennedy Road. There is a small area of BVW fringing on the reservoir on the south side of the inlet stream of Roberts Meadow Brook to the impoundment of the reservoir (see Figure 5 -4). The depth of impoundment at this location is typically less than 2 feet deep. Further, much of the hydrology of this fringing wetland is currently maintained by groundwater seepage associated with the shallow to bedrock soils, steeply rising terrain to the south. Therefore, while there may be some lowering of the local groundwater table in immediate proximity to the stream due to the removal of the dam, it is highly unlikely that this area will lose wetland hydrology due to local groundwater influence and the continuing immediate proximity of the stream. 62.4 Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF) For most of the project area, the limit of BLSF in association with the reservoir and Roberts Meadow Brook is coincident with the limits of the bank (see Figure 5 -6 FEMA floodplain map). The primary exception is for the area immediately above and the area downgradient of Kennedy Road, where the sedimentation basin for hydraulic dredging phase of the work will be located. Because there is no BLSF associated with the reservoir, and the effect of the dam is not to provide any flood storage potential, the removal of the dam will not result in a decrease of flood storage potential along the Roberts Meadow Brook corridor. The construction work to remove the dam itself will have no impact on BLSF. In fact, the dam removal is the preferred alternative to address the "Poor" dam conditions which could result in a significant flood event downgradient, if the condition of the dam is not brought into compliance with the dam safety regulations. Below Kennedy Road, the entire proposed sedimentation basin is located within BLSF. However, the alterations in grade are entirely temporary and the original grades will be restored upon completion of the project. Temporarily, there will be excavation of soils from the floodplain and storage within the floodplain. This area is not located within the area of a detailed FEMA study and the 10 -year floodplain elevation is therefore not identified. However, given the history of flooding in this area during precipitation events that exceeded the 10 -year event, the 10 -year floodplain is anticipated to not significantly extend beyond the limits of the stream banks. Therefore, the sedimentation basin and construction access for the dam appears to be above this probable elevation. As such, the performance standards relative to wildlife habitat in the floodplain are not likely Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 86 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form applicable. Regardless, all impact is temporary and the sediment basin area will be restored to original grades and seeded upon completion of the project. The temporary work within BLSF meets the performance standards for this resource area (310 CMR 10.57(4)(a)) by restoring original grades. The work will not restrict flows and /or increase flood stage or increase velocities. The work avoids alteration of land within the 10 -year floodplain except, presumably, where the discharge for the sedimentation basin to the stream will be constructed within the immediate stream margins. This area is less than 5,000 SF and well less than 10% of this resource within the watershed lands owned by the City of Northampton. The site is not within identified rare ; species habitat. 62.5 200 foot Riverfront Area (RFA) The existing RFA boundary stops where the water enters the reservoir and begins again at the face of the dam. The project will create a 200 -foot RFA by reestablishing a perennial stream within the current basin of the reservoir. As a result there will be a creation of 680,000 SF of RFA where none currently exists. The project will connect these two currently truncated RFA areas, creating a continuous RFA that extends to Middle Roberts Reservoir. All of the proposed work within the existing 200 -foot Riverfront Area is temporary construction related impacts with the following elements: • construction access from Kennedy Road to dam on woods road, north of brook; • removal of dam face; and • the temporary construction and operation of hydraulic dredging sedimentation basin east of Kennedy Road, north of brook. All impacts associated with the construction access, staging areas, and sedimentation basin are temporary; existing conditions would be restored, including removing and temporary materials, restoring grades, replacing with topsoil, and providing native seed mixes of herbaceous and woody, native and indigenous plant materials at the completion of construction activities. The temporary alteration of Riverfront Area is significantly less than 10% of the RFA within the 40 acres of City of Northampton owned land between Middle Roberts Reservoir and the confluence of Roberts Meadow Brook with Marble Brook. Therefore, the 10% threshold for RFA as outlined in 310 CMR 10.58 (4) (d) is not exceeded. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 87 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form While the performance standards for this resource area are met, it should also be noted that, as for the other resource areas, the "limited project" provision under 310 CMR 10.53(4) allows the Conservation Commission to issue an Order of Conditions for projects such as this that would improve the natural capacity of a resource area to protect the interests identified in M.G.L.c. 131 §40. 6.3 Hydrology and Water Quality The entire existing reservoir basin and stream between the reservoirs is within City owned watershed lands and will continue to be protected as watershed to the Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir. In the long term, the dam removal would result in beneficial change to surface water character, replacing a shallow, sediment filled warm water reservoir basin with cold water stream (currently 50% filled with sediment; sediment island extending into main part of waterbody; upper 2 /3rds of reservoir presently <4' deep). The reservoir behind the dam would be removed and the river restored to a free- flowing condition, thereby reducing water temperatures in the stretch of Roberts Meadow Brook that is currently contained below an impoundment. While there will be a net loss of open water area, in which 183,500± SF of mostly shallow reservoir would be converted to 1300 LF (25,500± SF) of stream, the project will provide a continuous connection to 5,900± LF of downgradient stream above Middle Roberts Reservoir. During dam removal stages, the control and handling of sediments within the existing reservoir basin will need to occur. This will be done in two primary ways: 1. Pre - dredging of soft sediments; and 2. Staged removal of the dam in limited vertical sections. The reservoir basin will be pre- dredged to remove the bulk of the sediments that would be most likely to be mobilized as part of the dam removal process, to minimize future sediment sluicing after the dam is removed. By pre- dredging approximately 10,000± CY of sediments before the dam is lowered, it is possible to remove most of the sediments within the old stream channel that existed prior to the dam and backslope the areas, thus allowing the stream and side slopes to become more readily established in its channel and minimize direct erosion. The remaining sediments will form the topsoil for the restored riparian stream valley. The principal areas of focus for the dredging would be in the finer, more organic sediments located in the middle and lower basins where the accumulated sediment is thicker and deeper. The sediments will be hydraulically dredged, pumping a slurry of about 20% sediment and reservoir water to the proposed temporary sedimentation basin located east of Kennedy Road, north of the stream (see Attachment 6). Following removal of sediment from the pumped slurry within the sedimentation basin (normal sedimentation or enhanced sedimentation with use of flocculent if needed), the water will be returned to the adjacent Roberts Meadow Brook. As described in section 4.0, the dam will be removed in roughly 5 to 10 foot vertical sections, lowering the spillway elevation from existing to el. 445, el. 435, and el. 426 in sequence, allowing time for the channel above these elevations to become stabilized prior Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 88 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form to the removal of the next vertical dam section. As the areas of reservoir bottom are exposed, Roberts Meadow Brook will begin to reform, cutting the channel through whatever sediments remain within the stream channel area after dredging. This staged removal will allow any mobilized sediments the opportunity to be trapped as sediment above the dam prior to the last removal of the dam. Active monitoring will be a component of the implementation of this project, focusing upon avoidance and minimization of turbid flow either from the reservoir, or from the sedimentation basin, adjusting dam removal methodology and hydraulic dredging as necessary (see Attachment 6). Despite the implementation of the hydraulic dredging and staged removal of vertical sections of the dam to control sediment mobilization, there will be some inevitable movement of sediment from the reservoir basin into Roberts Meadow Brook. Given the energy level of the brook between Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir, the sediment will travel to Middle Roberts and will be repositioned within this reservoir. Such impacts are an understood potential outcome of dam removal (MA Division of Fish & Wildlife, 2003). 6.4 Vegetation With the removal of the dam, the 218,000± SF of open water will be exposed to redevelopment as herbaceous and woody vegetation. The sediments already have a significant seed bed, but revegetation by native species will be encouraged by doing some minimal hand and mechanical grading of the residual sediments and seeding of the sediments once they are sufficiently dewatered. The dominant vegetation along the existing shore includes mature hemlock and white pine with interspersed red maple, red oak, gray birch, silky dogwood and high bush blueberry, which will be encouraged to extend into the exposed soils. The acidity of the soils will be checked prior to seeding to see if any pretreatment with lime is necessary to encourage growth of the seeds. In critical erosion prone areas, the basin will be mulched and erosion control blankets will be used, as necessary to control erosion. In addition to local native species, there is a significant population of invasive species, with a dominant population on the recently formed alluvial island at the entrance of Roberts Meadow Brook to the reservoir. These species include multiflora rose, Oriental bittersweet, Japanese barberry, and purple loosestrife. An invasive species control task will be initiated prior to seed production in the year that the basin will be dewatered to reduce the incursion of invasive plant species into the exposed sediments. Invasive species control will likely include cutting and hand removal. Additional spot treatment with herbicide by a licensed herbicide applicator will be considered to extent allowed by local and State regulation. 6.5 Fisheries and Wildlife The project will remove the shallow warm water fish habitat associated with the existing reservoir, and will thereby alter the population and diversity of aquatic species anticipated within this reach of the restored stream. Roberts Meadow Brook has excellent habitat for cold water species upgradient of the reservoir due to its high water quality and the surrounding undeveloped watershed. Fish surveys by the Massachusetts Division of Fish Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 89 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form and Wildlife found very high numbers of slimy sculpin, brook trout and blacknosed dace, as well as common shiner and longnosed dace. The Upper Roberts Meadow Dam will be removed connecting 5900 ft of downstream habitat with over 3.7 miles upstream tributaries. Dam removal will restore stream habitat and provide connectivity to upstream habitat important for these species. Because cold water fish habitat is a less available and more fragile aquatic habitat in Massachusetts streams and rivers, the restoration of the river to a free - flowing, natural cold water stream is presumed to improve both the population and diversity of resident aquatic species from a long -term perspective. A major long -term benefit to removing the reservoir dam would be restoration of stream connectivity and habitat to brook trout and other aquatic organisms. Post - removal, the average slope of the restored stream bed will be approximately 1.5% (see Attachment 6), with steeper sections approaching a 5% slope, which is well within the range of suitable stream gradients used by brook trout (Schmitt et. al., 1993). Based on anticipated post - construction slopes, sediment transport, and biological condition, brook trout and other cold water fish and aquatic species are anticipated to utilize the restored stream and the reach downstream of the dam to Middle Roberts Reservoir. The project will include elements in the restoration of the stream within the reservoir basin to enhance aquatic habitat and help ensure fish passage within the stream bed and provision of potential brook trout spawning areas. These measures will include: • the installation of fish migration pools and enhancements; • vegetation shading of the restored stream; and • the use of natural materials for bank stabilization and habitat structure (e.g., tree debris /root wattles /rock and gravel). The riparian area will be stabilized and planted with vegetation to provide shade to the stream and will be controlled for invasive species. Post construction site monitoring will be included for vegetation reestablishment within the riparian areas. Invasive species will continue to be monitored during this period and removed or treated. 6.6 Special Concern, Threatened and Endangered Species The NBESP identified habitat for wood turtle which extends to the upper limits of the existing reservoir, but does not include the main body of the reservoir itself. In general, the removal of the dam from a stream within a known wood turtle population will be beneficial in that dams are often impediments for in stream and parallel riparian movement during summer movement patterns when wood turtle may migrate up /down the stream channels from more suitable habitats. The stream up- and down - gradient of the site is fairly steep, very rocky, with a variable flow regime. The removal of the dam would also convert the open water habitat of the reservoir to stream channel; however, the existing reservoir is not likely highly utilized wood turtle habitat based on the depth and substrate composition. While the existing alluvial island provides some potentially good nesting habitat, this will not be lost with the dewatering of the reservoir basin, and will be in fact enhanced by the lowering of the effective groundwater level. It seems likely that the wood turtle habitat will be extended along the stream to the east in the future. The only potential negative affect to this species is that dams occasional act to catch wood turtles from being Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 90 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form washed further downstream during large flooding events, thus reducing the distance that they would need to migrate back upstream to their home range. Because of the identified habitat in vicinity of the upper reaches of the existing reservoir, the proposed project may need to go through a formal NHESP Review process under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) to allow NHESP to determine if the proposed project will result in the regulatory "Take" of any of the species of concern known to be in proximity to the project area. Coordination with NHESP will occur to determine if a project review is needed. Because the end result of the project creates a net benefit to the species by potentially expanding the turtle habitat along the reestablished stream, no additional long term mitigation is likely to be required. The proposed work will be performed in a manner to pre- screen for turtles in advance of the earthwork to remove these species from the work area. The continuous barrier of silt fence will limit access of turtles into the ongoing work area. 6.7 Historic Structures or Districts and Archaeological Sites Based upon the City of Northampton contracted historical background research and responses to the questions posited by the MHC (see Attachment 5), Upper Roberts' Meadow dam is potentially considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places on the local level, being a key element in the development of Northampton's public water supply system, and having retained its integrity and the distinctive characteristics of a nineteenth century engineering structure. This documentation has been submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, MA Historical Commission and the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR) for review and for a formal decision. MHC issued their opinion in early 2012 that the dam and reservoir meet the criteria for the National Register under Criteria A and C at the local level (Attachment 2: June 6 letter). BUAR stated that they expect this project is unlikely to cause impacts to submerged cultural resources. However, the BUAR also stated that since the mill stone of a bark grinding mill is visible near the base of the dam and suggested that consideration be given to potential preservation of remnants of the earlier bark grinding mill structure as part of mitigation documentation for the proj ect. The removal of a historic structure considered eligible for the National Register will trigger the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act, as an indirect permit requirement under the Federal Army Corps of Engineers permit process for alteration of Freshwater Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. It is anticipated that the dam removal will require additional formal photographic and engineering documentation of the existing structure as part of the mitigation for impact to a historic structure. As a structure whose eligibility is based upon local significance, additional mitigation is unlikely to be required, although some retention of residual abutment structure and dike is possible as part of the designed work. The City of Northampton will coordinate with the MA Historical Commission, the BUAR and the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that all such documentation is properly archived as part of this process, and that any other mitigation requirements are met. 6.8 Air Quality Overall, the removal of the dam is not anticipated to have any potential for significant affect on air quality. Construction machinery will include the hydraulic dredge and Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 91 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form excavator machinery used in the removal of the dam. Excavators and bulldozers will be needed for the construction and restoration of the sedimentation basin area. The project may increase the short-term potential for release of dust and diesel /gasoline associated airborne contaminants associated with these temporary activities. Best construction practices would be employed to reduce the impacts to air quality. This may include watering down of the construction access road during especially hot and dry days and reducing idling times of construction vehicles. Since the number of vehicles and duration of activity required to perform the work is limited, emissions are not anticipated to cause an exceedance of national or state air quality standards in the vicinity of the project site. As per MEPA policy, the project is considered to have de minimis impact associated with green house gases and no mitigation is needed or required. 6.9 Noise There will be a temporary and localized increase in noise levels associated with the hydraulic dredge, construction and restoration of the sedimentation basin, and machinery use associated with the removal of the dam. There will be no blasting associated with the project. There will be some local traffic and vehicle noise associated with trucks carrying loads of the removed sediment and dam materials. Noise levels would decrease as distance increases from the source, or dam removal site. The surrounding forested area would deflect some of the noise away from adjacent areas. The single residence at #830 Chesterfield Road is the only sensitive noise receptor in the immediate project vicinity. To minimize noise impacts during construction, best management practices (BMPs) would include the use of mufflers on construction equipment and vehicles. Construction activities will be limited to daylight hours. The City of Northampton noise standard (Chapter 350) maximum of 60 db in residential areas between 7 am and 10 pm should be able to be met without difficulty and will be a requirement of the work. 6.10 Hazardous Materials The due diligence study of the potential for hazardous material in the area did not indicate obvious significant factors suggesting the presence of hazardous materials. The 2008 results indicate that the mineral and organic sediments in Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir had detectable levels of some of the chemical compounds tested and that some levels were slightly elevated as compared to normal average background levels, but not beyond the range that would suggest levels originating from non - background conditions. Most importantly, none of these levels indicated hazardous conditions or represented any special disposal concerns. The earlier 2005 USGS Riverways Program sediment data showed some chromium, barium and nickel levels that were higher than observed in the 2008 analysis, but still lower than MCP standards. Therefore, sediment handling is not anticipated to require any unusual methods to protect the environment. Machinery used to dredge the basin and dismantle the dam will use diesel and /or gasoline for operating the engines. Hydraulic fluids will be present in the equipment as well. Best management operations procedures will be implemented as part of this work to limit the potential for contamination of the environment. Spill containment gear will be Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 92 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form maintained on -site by the contractor during all operation of machinery in the event of any spillage. Such hazards already exist in the immediate environment of the reservoir given the proximity of Chesterfield Road without the benefit of local spill containment equipment. 6.11 Aesthetic Resources /Open Space/Recreational Resources While the project will unavoidably result in a loss of the vista of open water and dam, this will be offset by restoration of the stream and creation of riparian wetlands and uplands. The public viewshed for this area is entirely from Chesterfield Road and the single residence at #830. The area will remain open space and protected as watershed land. There is no currently approved recreational use of the land or the reservoir. 6.12 Socioeconomic Characteristics The river restoration and dam removal would produce benefits to the local economy by providing temporary employment opportunities in the engineering and construction trades. No long -term impacts on socioeconomic characteristics are foreseen. The alteration of the viewshed for #830 Chesterfield Road is not foreseen to alter the resale value of the home since there is no direct frontage on the waterbody and the area will remain undeveloped and rural in character. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 93 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The City of Northampton is proposing to remove the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam in response to the MA DCR Office of Dam Safety Certificate of Non- Compliance and Dam Safety Order. Relative to the potential for cumulative impacts, it is important to evaluate the expected types of environmental changes envisioned or reasonably projected as part of the project and place these changes within the context of other past or future projects within the same area. The purpose of this additional analysis is to understand if the combined effect of multiple projects could potentially result in a greater impact than would be projected as part of the single, original project. In the case of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir, the likelihood of cumulative impacts is minimal since it is the only project of its type envisioned along Roberts Meadow Brook or otherwise within the area. The primary effect of the project will be to remove the dam, re- establishing the former flooded stream. The primary impacts, as discussed at length in the preceding sections, will be to: 1. Reduce open water associated with the current reservoir and convert it to stream and vegetated Riverfront Area; 2. Connect the upper and lower sections of Roberts Meadow Brook; 3. Mobilize sediment, to be managed by pre- dredging and disposal involving temporary use of wooded Riverfront Area downstream; and 4. Remove an engineering structure which has been judged to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Because this dam removal project is unique within the area and the dams are being maintained and repaired downgradient at Middle Roberts Meadow and Lower Roberts Meadow Reservoirs, there is little opportunity for cumulative impacts. There are no other envisioned removals of open water reservoirs and conversion to stream, there are no other projects that will require dredging in this area in the near future, and there are no other potentially historic dams that are planned for significant modification or removal. Therefore, there is no potential for cumulative impacts associated with this project. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 94 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 8.0 REQUESTS FOR WAIVER OF EIR OR FOR SINGLE EIR IN ALTERNATIVE (IF WAIVER NOT GRANTED) Conformance With Waiver Requirements: As previously stated, the proposed removal of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam exceeds the following mandatory EIR threshold for removal of an existing dam that would result in a decrease in impoundment capacity (301 CMR 11.03(3)(a)4). The City of Northampton is requesting a waiver of this mandatory EIR review threshold, allowing the project to proceed without preparation of an EIR. MEPA regulations state that in the case of a waiver of a mandatory EIR review threshold, the Secretary shall at a minimum base the finding that EIR review would not serve to avoid or minimize Damage to the Environment on a determination that: 1) "the Project is likely to cause no Damage to the Environment" (3 01 CMR 11. 1 1(3)(a)), and 2) "ample and unconstrained infrastructure facilities and services exist to support ... those aspects of the Project within subject matter jurisdiction" (301 CMR 11.11(3)(b)). Information regarding these two factors is provided in this Expanded ENF for the dam removal project to aid in the Secretary's determination. We believe that the project as designed and mitigated is likely to cause no Damage to the Environment in accordance with 301 CMR 11.11(3)(a). "Damage to the Environment" is defined by MEPA regulations as: "Any destruction or impairment (not including insignificant damage or impairment), actual or probable, to any of the natural resources of the Commonwealth including, but not limited to, air pollution, water pollution, improper sewage disposal, pesticide pollution, excessive noise, improper operation of dumping grounds, impairment and eutrophication of rivers, streams, flood plains, lakes, ponds or other surface or subsurface water resources, destruction of seashores, dunes, marine resources, underwater archaeological resources, wetlands, open spaces, natural areas, parks, or historic districts or sites" (301 CMR 11.02(2)). As discussed in the preceding text, there is an inevitable alteration of natural resources and loss of the dam as a potentially important local historic feature. However, all of these alterations will be mitigated by either the restoration of the stream itself, or by additional documentation prior to the conduct of work (i.e., for the historical aspects of the dam). As demonstrated in the preceding text, the dam removal would result in a multitude of long -term benefits to local resources, including: protection of the downstream environment from a potential uncontrolled release due to dam failure, restoration of connectivity of Roberts Meadow Brook to allow migration of brook trout and other aquatic organisms from a lower segmented portion of the brook to the upper reaches of the brook; restoration of natural flow patterns; reestablishment of natural sediment and nutrient transport; improve water quality; and enhancement of habitat value and long -term sustainable benefits for aquatic organisms. Although the project would result in a decrease in impoundment capacity, the reservoir is a relic water supply for the City that is no longer in service, and the City has sufficient water supply to meet future needs. Although short-term construction impacts may occur as described above, these do not constitute significant or Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 95 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form permanent changes to the environment and have been significantly mitigated by the design approach in coordination with MADER Therefore, the mitigated impacts do not constitute Damage to the Environment. The proposed project would require issuance of several permits (see Section 9.0). The proposed project would meet the standards and conditions of these permits, will receive full public process under these permit processes, and the end result of the proposed activities would be a net benefit to local resources. No net, long -term impact to the natural resources would occur. Therefore, the additional public review and analysis that would accompany an EIR will, in effect, be accomplished as part of these public permit review processes and the additional requirement for an EIR would not serve to better protect the environment or provide public review. As per the requirements of 301 CMR 11.11(3)(b), "ample and unconstrained infrastructure facilities and services exist to support....... those aspects of the Project within subject matter jurisdiction ". The proposed project would not require any new permanent infrastructure facilities or services upon completion. Request for Single EIR in Alternative that Waiver is not Granted: In the event that the Secretary cannot make a determination that waiver can be issued for the requirement of an EIR, the ENF has been submitted as an Expanded ENF with the intent of potentially being approved under the Single EIR process (301 CMR11.05(7)). Therefore, if the waiver is not granted, we respectfully request that the remaining MEPA documentation and review be processed as a Single EIR. To date and as documented herein, there has been extensive documentation developed and submitted as part of this ENF and the several years of consultation with public agencies and entities relative to the various alternatives associated with this project, combined with the additional environmental permitting required to allow this environmentally beneficial project to proceed. Therefore, we are confident that no additional public purpose would be served or environmental protection provided by requiring additional review through the full DEIR/FEIR processes. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 96 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 9.0 REQUIRED PERMITS The following permits /approvals are anticipated to be needed to implement the proposed dam removal project. Pre - application meetings have been held with local regulators, MEPA, MADEP WERO and MADEP Boston, MA Historical Commission, MA DCR - Office of Dam Safety, the MA Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP), and the Army Corps of Engineers to discuss the permitting requirements (see Section 3.3). Local Permits • Alteration of Structure o Demolition Permit from the City of Northampton Building Inspector, Required for demolition of structures. • Alteration of Wetlands and Waterbodies o Order of Conditions from the Northampton Conservation Commission under the MA Wetlands Protection Act and Municipal Wetlands Ordinance (state Superseding Order of Conditions, if appeal invoked). Required for alteration of wetland resources or work within buffer zone. • Stormwater o City of Northampton Stormwater Permit. Required for land alteration. State Permits • Alteration of Wetlands and Waterbodies: • MA Wetlands Protection Act (administered at local level — see above) • Section 401 - Clean Water Act — 314 CMR9.00 - MADEP Division of Wetlands and Waterways (alteration of 5,000 SF wetland /excavation of impounded sediment). Two separate 401 applications will be required: one for dredging and one for >5,000 SF of impact to waters or wetlands will be required for the project. • Chapter 91 Waiver Letter - Order of Conditions — 310 CMR 9.00 - MADEP Division of Wetlands and Waterways (sub- aqueous fill placement below low water). A license is not likely required since the waterway is not navigable and the reservoir is not a Great Pond but a letter of waiver is often obtained. • Rare Species o MA Endangered Species Act - 304 CMR 11.00, coordination with NHESP is proposed to determine if a NHESP streamlined project review under MA Wetlands Protection Act is needed. A Conservation & Management Permit would only be required if the project review determined that the project results in a Take, which at this point seems unlikely. Separate permitting assumed not required. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 97 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form • Alteration of Structure o Chapter 253 Dam Safety Permit — 302 CMR10.00 - DCR Dam Safety Division (Repair or alteration to dam or spillway). • Historical Resources o 950 CMR 71 - Massachusetts Historical Commission. MHC clearance required for Section 404 permit under Section 106(f) National Historic Preservation Act. As a structure eligible for the national register as a locally significant feature, removal of the structure will require engineering and historic documentation for archival purposes. Federal Permits • Alteration of Wetlands and Waterbodies o Section 404 Permit Individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Stormwater o NPDES Construction General Permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Section 106 Process, National Historic Preservation Act • Removal of a historic structure considered eligible for the National Register • Federal Army Corps of Engineers likely lead Federal agency as permitting authority for alteration of Freshwater Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 98 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 10.0 MITIGATION SUMMARY The overall project purpose for the removal of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir dam is to provide mitigation of an existing "Poor" condition high hazard dam, in compliance with a MA DCR Office of Dam Safety Order, which thereby mitigates risk of catastrophic damage to the human and natural resource environment that might be caused by dam failure. Following a review of potential alternatives relative to dam restoration or removal, it was decided to remove the dam. Dam removal, in addition to mitigating risks associated with catastrophic failure of the dam, has the benefit of providing recognized environmental benefits associated with the removal of a stream connectivity barrier and restoring natural stream habitat in an area of current impoundment. There are three major categories of mitigation associated with this project, the various elements of which are discussed in Section 6.0: 1. Construction Mitigation; 2. Long -term Mitigation Elements; and 3. Post Construction Monitoring Mitigation. Mitigation of Construction Related Impacts: For the mitigation of potential construction related impacts, significant care has been built into the project approach to control environmental impacts, including: • Invasive species controls; • Hydraulic dredging of soft accumulated sediments, before the removal of the dam, to minimize sediment erosion after the dam is removed; • Removal of dam in sections to further control sluicing of residual sediments during the reformation of the stream, and allowing for capture of the sediments by the remaining dam enclosure; • The use of sedimentation and erosion controls throughout the project (a detailed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)) will be provided and will guide this process); • Water quality monitoring of turbidity during dredging (sedimentation basin discharge) and sediment mobilization within the dewatered reservoir basin is anticipated to be a requirement of the operational work, to minimize impacts and adjust procedures to protect downgradient waters. Turbidity monitoring is readily accomplished by visual survey and routine water sampling and analysis by field equipment, to avoid time delays associated with submittal of samples for laboratory analysis; • Typical Best Management Practices for use of construction machinery in proximity to waters, including refueling outside of the wetlands and waters, or providing containment, managing debris and waste; and • Restoration of Riverfront Area in the dewatered reservoir basin, and in the restored sedimentation basin after the completion of the hydraulic dredging phase of the work. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 99 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form Relative to invasive species, prior to dewatering of the reservoir basin and the exposure of sediments to the air allowing for revegetation, invasive species within proximity to the reservoir will be controlled and /or eliminated in order to limit the potential for colonization of the exposed basin with the local assemblage of invasive species including multiflora rose, Oriental bittersweet, Japanese barberry and purple loosestrife. Control is anticipated to be by a combination of physical removal and the spot application of herbicides by a licensed applicator. Long -term Mitigation: Additional long -term mitigation elements associated with this project include the following: • Restoration of the stream channel and bank within the dewatered basin of the reservoir; • fish passage /habitat structure; • boulders /pools, structure, gravel areas; • The planting of the riparian plantings for stream shading and riparian habitat restoration; • The likely extension of wood turtle habitat from the upper reaches of the reservoir to the area extending southerly to Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir; and • The creation of new regulated Riverfront Area in the amount of about 680,000 SF (15.6± acres) associated with the reestablishment of the stream within the reservoir area. In this particular case, the upgradient 3.7 miles of stream is recognized as high value cold water fish/stream habitat for native trout. The removal of the dam provides the opportunity to directly restore 1,700 linear feet of trout stream, and provide connectivity to a currently segmented additional 5,900 linear feet of stream. This, in effect, adds 1.4 miles of cold water stream habitat to the existing 3.7 miles of existing habitat upgradient of the reservoir, an increase of 38 %. The reestablishment of the stream within the existing reservoir basin will create regulated Riverfront Area which will encompass the entire current reservoir basin. Therefore, there will be no loss of regulated area under the Wetlands Protection Act and, in fact, the area of resource area jurisdiction will increase because the existing reservoir basin is less than 6 acres in size. Post Construction Monitoring: Following the completion of the construction aspects of the work, we anticipate there will be follow -up mitigation associated with post - construction Monitoring & Management of the project area for a period of up to several years. Such requirements are typically part of conditions associated with the issuance of permits under the MA Wetlands Protection Act and the Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The details of such monitoring will be finalized with the permitting agencies during the period of permit consideration and approval. The follow up monitoring and management measures are also likely to be required by the general DPW reservoir management procedures. These post construction measures will likely include the following specific elements in some degree: • Invasive species monitoring and control within the revegetated areas of the former reservoir basin and the restored sedimentation basin east of Kennedy Road; • Monitoring of the stability of the restored stream; Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 100 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form Assessment of the cold water fisheries habitat reestablishment within the former reservoir basin; and Assessment of the viability of the riparian seeding and plantings. M Based upon the results of the monitoring, additional measures to control invasive species enhance revegetation by native species, enhance fisheries habitat may be taken. J: \19, 000 -20, 999\ 19547\ 19547- 10.MAT\Permitting \MEPA \EENF \Final \MEPA EENF URMD Narrative - Final- 1- 3- 13.Doc Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 101 11.0 REFERENCES American Rivers. 2008. Dam Removal and Historic preservation: Reconciling Dual Objectives. S. McClain, S. Lindloff, & K. Baer. Washington, D.C. 55 pp. City of Northampton, 2005. Open Space and Recreation Plan. December 30, 2005 City of Northampton. 2010. MEMA -DCR Grant Application for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) (FEMA- 1813- DR -MA). Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal. City of Northampton DPW & GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc. April 9, 2010 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Regulations, 302 CMR 10.00 — Dam Safety, Effective 11/4/05 Department of Conservation and Recreation Dam Detail Sheet, September 2006. "Department of Environmental Management, Office of Dam Safety, Inspection / Evaluation Report: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam," April, 1998. "Department of Environmental Management, Office of Dam Safety, Inspection / Evaluation Report: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam," June, 1993. "Department of Environmental Management, Office of Dam Safety, Inspection / Evaluation Report: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam," July, 1987. Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. 2007. Dam Removal in Massachusetts. A Basic Guide for Project Proponents. December 2007. Energy and Environmental Affairs. 2011. "Dam Removal Permit Streamlining" http: / /ww.mass.gov. Home > Air, Water & Climate Change > Preserving Water Resources > Natural Waters & Wetlands > GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. "Phase I Inspection/Evaluation Report — Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam." October 2010. GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. "6 -Month Follow -Up Inspection/Evaluation Report — Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam." February 25, 2010. GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. "6 -Month Follow -Up Inspection/Evaluation Report — Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam." September 2, 2009. GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. "6 -Month Follow -Up Inspection/Evaluation Report — Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam." February 2009. GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. "Phase I Inspection/Evaluation Report — Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam." August 2008. GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. "Phase II Engineering Evaluation & Alternatives Analysis - Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam." March 2008. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 102 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. "6 -Month Follow -Up Inspection/Evaluation Report — Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam." March 13, 2008. GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. "6 -Month Follow -Up Inspection/Evaluation Report — Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam." September 2007. GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. "Emergency Action Plan — Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam." Draft — Updated September 2012 (August 2007). GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. "Phase I Inspection/Evaluation Report — Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam." October 2006. Hershfield, David. 1961. Technical Paper 40 (TP -40), Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States for Durations from 30 minutes to 24 Hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100 Years. Prepared for the US Weather Bureau. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP). 2002. Hydrology Handbook for Conservation Commissioners. MADEP. 2011. Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2010 Air Quality Report. MADEP 2007 Dam Removal and Wetland Regulations. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Bureau of Resource Protection. Wetlands/Waterways Program. December 2007. Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement (DFWELE). 2003. Impounded Sediment and Dam Removal in Massachusetts — A Decision - Making Framework Regarding Dam Removal and Sediment Management Options. Massachusetts Department of Fish & Game, Riverways Program. 2003. Massachusetts Dam Removal Permitting Manual. GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc. June 2003. Massachusetts Riverways Program. 2009. Riverways & Conservation Commissions, Dam Removal for Aquatic Habitat Restoration. Schmitt, C.J., A. D. Lemly, P.V. Winger. 1993. Habitat Suitability Index Model for Brook Trout in Streams of the Southern Blue Ridge Province: Surrogate Variables, Model Evaluation, and Suggested Improvements. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Biological Report 18, August. Technical Release Number 20 (TR -20). National Technical Information Service. SCS. 1986. Technical Report 55 (TR -55). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Phase I Dam Inspection Report, MA 00760, Upper Roberts Meadow Dam, June, 1980. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 103 Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form Wandle, S. Wouldiam, Jr. 1983. Estimating Peak Discharges of Small, Rural Streams in Massachusetts. USGS Geological Survey Water - Supply Paper 2214. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form 104 ATTACHMENT AGENCY AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form Jun 12 2007 15:16 City of Northampton DPW (4131 587 -1576 do r Iune P�o�� r M 5 a aa �II•f Certified Mail No. 70042510000614310268 Return Receipt Requested Mr. Edward S. Huntley - Director of Public Works - City of Northampton 125 Locust Street Northampton, MA 01060 Subject: CERTIFICATE OF NON - COMPLIANCE and DAM SAFETY ORDER Dam Name: Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam Location: Northampton National ID No: MA 00760 Known Condition: Poor Dear Mr. Huntley: In accordance with 302 CMR 10.08, the Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Darn does not meet accepted dam safety standards and is a threat to life and /or property. You are therefore being issued a CERTIFICATE OF NON - COMPLIANCE and DAM SAFETY ORDER. Records at the Office of Dam safety indicate the City of Northampton DPW to be the Owner of the Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam, National Inventory of Dams No. MA00760. The Dam is classified by the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR), Office of Dam Safety (OOS) as an Intermediate Size, High Hazard Potential Structure. High Hazard Potential dams are dams that will likely cause loss of life and extensive property damage in the event of Failure. The Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam is considered a HIGH Hazard Potential structure due to the possibility that if a failure were to occur, It may result in the domino failure of Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam. The village of Leeds is located downstream of Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS - EXECUTIVE_ OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS P.1 Department of Cpnservatbn a xI Recreeft. Mitt Romney Stephen R. PrIM110 d, Secretary 251 Causeway Street, SuAe 600 Gove.r Execubve Of loo of Envie, m tal Affairs Boston MA 02114-2119 617 - 626-1250 512626 -1351 Fax Kerry Healey Stephen H, 9ur,ingtm, fnrmtissiaaer wmv.mass. gov /�Cr LL Govemor Deportment of con atim@ Recreation Jun 12 2007 15:16 City of Northampton DPW (413) 587 -1576 p.2 On October 19, 2005, an emergency inspection of the Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam was completed by ODS dam engineering consultant Baystate Environmental Consultants Inc. As a result of this Inspection, the dam was determined to be in POOR condition. Based on the condition of the dam, the ODS engaged another dam engineering consultant, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., to perform a follow -up Inspection. As a result of the follow -up inspection completed on June 7, 2006, the ODS and its consultant judged the dam to remain in POOR CONDITION. In response to ODS Dam Safety Order dated June 26, 2006, the City of Northampton engaged GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc.,. Consulting Engineers to complete a Phase I Dam Safety Inspection of the dam, as required by statue and regulation. GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc., as a result of their inspection on October 18, 2006, has judged the dam to be in POOR CONDITION. The basis for the CERTIFICATE OF NON- COMPLIANCE and POOR CONDITION findings are inspection report results for Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam. See the attached inspection report entitled Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Phase I Inspection /Evaluation, inspection date October 18, 2006. _ The dam has been found to be in need of complete repair, rehabilitation, breaching or removal to make the site safe. During the inspections performed on October 19, 2005, June 7, 2006 and October 18, 2006, a number of deficiencies were observed, Including but not limited to, significant leakage observed through the downstream face of the stone masonry at the overflow section, at the left abutment, and at the right embankment retaining wall; growth of brush and trees on the embankment and dike; growth of weeds on the spillway crest; surface depression and rutting near the right abutment; potentially inadequate spillway capacity under the regulatory Spillway Design Flood (SDF). MGL Chapter 253, Sections 44 -48 set forth the jurisdiction for the Office of Dam Safety and Its authority to take action and order actions to be taken. For your information copy of 302 CMR 10.00 Dam Safety is enclosed. - DAM SAFETY ORDER: In accordance with the authority of MGL Chapter 253, Section 47, POOR or Inadequate Dams, and pursuant to 302. CMR 10.07 Inspection Schedule, 10.08 Compliance with Inspection Results you are hereby ORDERED to comply with the following: 1) Conduct Phase 11 Inspection and Investigations. In accordance with 302 CMR 10.07 and 10.06 you are ORDERED to within 30 days of receipt of this CERTIFICATE OF NON - COMPLIANCE and DAM SAFETY ORDER to hire, at your cost, a qualified registered professional engineer with dam engineering experience (engineer) to conduct a Phase II Inspection and Investigation of the dam to evaluate the structural integrity and hydraulic capacity of Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam and to develop /implement a plan to make the dam safe by either repairing the dam, breaching or removing the dam (see attached Phase II Investigation outline Jun 12 2007 15 :1G City of Northampton DPW (413) 587 -1578 p.3 a. In accordance with 302 CMR 10.07 and 10.08 the Phase II Inspection and Investigation field work is to commence no later than 30 days from receipt of this Dam Safety Order.. The Phase II Inspection and Investigation is to conform to the attached Phase II Investigation outline You are to In a letter to ODS no later than 30 days from receipt of this ORDER, identify your selected engineer and Inform COS of the start date of the Phase It work. b. The Phase II Inspection and Investigation is to be completed, signed and stamped by your engineer within 90 days of receipt of this ORDER and copies of the Phase II final report are to be delivered to ODS, the Northampton Emergency Management Director and the Northampton Conservation Commission Coordinator within: 90 of receipt of this ORDER. You shall include a cover letter with the submitted Phase II report which describes your selected alternative to make the dam safe. In accordance with 302 CMR 10.07 and 10.08, you must submit a statement of your intent to implement inspection report recommendations to address structural and operational deficiencies to ODS upon submission of the required Phase Il Inspection and Investigation completed by your engineer. 2) Conduct Follow -up Inspections. In addition to the Phase II effort and in accordance with 302 CMR 10.07, you are ORDERED to complete follow -up visual inspections, conducted by an engineer at your cost, which are to be completed every six (6) months following receipt of this ORDER until adequate repairs are made or the dam Is adequately breached or removed. Follow -up inspections are to be summary in format and shall provide a written description, including photographs, of any changes In condition. The follow -up Inspection reports shall be signed and stamped by your engineer. You shall submit copies of all completed follow -up visual inspection reports to ODS, the Northampton EMD and the Northampton Conservation Commission Coordinator within 14 days of the date of follow -up inspection field work. 3) Additional Requirements: a. You shall furnish copies of all required submittals listed In items 1 - 2 above via certified mall. b. In order to maintain compliance with the Commonwealth's Wetlands Protection Laws you may have to file appropriate MGL Chapter 131, section 40 permit applications with the Conservation Commission. It is your obligation to contact and maintain communication with the Northampton Conservation Commission and any other local, state or federal permitting agency that may be applicable in order to maintain wetlands protection law and other regulatory compliance. Jun 12 2007 15:16 City of Northampton DPW [413] 587 -1576 p.4 c. Other entities that you shall keep Informed about the condition of the dam and your developing plans to make the clam safe include: all abutters of the impoundment upstream of Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam; property owners for one -half mile downstream of the Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam; Andrew Madden, District Manager, Western Wildlife District, Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, 400 Hubbard Avenue, Pittsfield, MA 01201; Michael Gorski, Regional Director, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Western Region, 436 Dwight Street, Springfield, MA 01103; Brian Duggan, Northampton Fire Chief; Clare Higgins, Mayor, Northampton; Northampton Conservation Commission Coordinator. Should you fail to comply with this order, DCR will levy fines against you. In accordance with 302 CMR 10.15 (4) (e) failure to provide ODS inspection reports that are In compliance as to content and frequency of inspections contained in this order will result in fines up to $500.00. Each violation shall be a separate and distinct offense and., In case of a continuing violation, each day's continuance thereof shall be deemed to be a separate and distinct offense. DCR may take legal action against the owner, enter the property, take such action as deemed necessary to ensure the safety of the public and property downstream, seek recovery of any cost incurred by the Commonwealth due to failure to comply, establish a lien on the property and refer the matter to the Attorney General's offlce. Nothing in this Order releases the Commission from requirements of the DDS June 26, 2006 Dam Safety Order to conduct a Dam Safety Phase I Inspection, due September 30, 2006, and Develop an Emergency Action Plan, due December 31, 2006. In accordance with 302 CMR 10.08 this CERTIFICATE OF NON - COMPLIANCE and DAM SAFETY ORDER will be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance following adequate repair, breaching or removal of the dam will be required to discharge the CERTIFICATE OF NON - COMPLIANCE and DAM SAFETY ORDER. Please direct any technical questions, correspondence, or submittals to Edward Hughes, Department of Conservation and Recreation, Office of Dam Safety, 251 Causeway Street, Suite 800, Boston, MA 02114. Legal questions should be directed to the DCR Assistant General Counsel, Ariana Johnson, 251 Causeway Street, Suite 600, Boston, MA 02114. Additional Information on the Office of Dam Safety can be found at the DCR -ODS website. Thank you for your cooperation. Priscilla eigis� Acting Commissioner Jun 12 2007 15:17 City or Northampton DPW [4131 587 -1576 P.5 CC: Clare Higgins, Northampton Mayor Brian Duggan, Northampton. Fire Chief Northampton Conservation Commission Coordinator Paul Sneeringer, U.S. Army Corps Michael Gorski, DEP Regional Director Deerin Babb -Brott, MEPA Andrew Madden, DFG Noel Baratta, DCR Michael Mlsslin, DCR - William Salomaa, DCR Edward Hughes, DCR Arlana Johnson, Esq., DCR E. Sorenson, DCR J. Kimball, Rlverways Jun 12 2007 15:17 City of Northampton DPW (4131 587 -1576 P.6 Department of Conservation and Recreation Office of Dam Safety Phase II Inspection and Investigation Outline I. Review of existing information .................. ............................... II. Updated Detailed Phase I surface inspection in compliance with Office of Dam Safety Phase I Inspection format.................... _ ................................ III. Subsurface Investigations - borings, sampling, analysis................... IV. Topographic Survey, wetlands flagging /delineation, of sufficient detail to support not only the Phase II effort, but sufficient for the future implementation of design phase ............................... ............................... V. Stability analysis - Seismic and static stability evaluation of dam (upstream and downstream slopes, internal materials) ................... VI. Hydrologic /Hydraulic Analysis .................. ............................... VII. Alternatives analysis and presentation of conceptual designs and associated estimated design, permitting and construction costs to bring the dam structure into compliance with Chapter 253 Section 44-48 and 302 CMR 10.00 Darn Safety Regulations by executing a repair, breach or removal plan ....................... VIII. Final Report Presented to the Office of Dam Safety......................................... ............................... DEVAL L. PATRICK Governor TIMOTHY P. MURRAY Lieutenant Governor Mr. James Laurila, P.E. City Engineer 125 Locust Street Northampton, MA 01060 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE 436 Dwight street Springfield, Massachusetts 01103 (413) 784 -1100 IAN A. BOWLES Secretary LAURIE BURT Commissioner July 13, 2009 Re: Northampton— Pre- permitting Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal Dear Mr. Laurila: Representatives of the Western Regional office (WERO) of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), Wetlands and Waterways (W WP), and the Drinking Water Program (DWP) met with representatives of the Northampton Water Department (the "City" or "Northampton°) on May 21, 2009 to discuss pre - permitting of a dam removal project on the Upper Roberts Meadows Reservoir dam. This letter includes a brief summary of the project, and potential options for completion of this project and the permitting issues discussed during the meeting. Project Summary The Roberts Meadow Reservoir system consists of three reservoirs. The Middle Reservoir (Leeds Reservoir) is an Emergency water supply source for the City. Immediately below Middle Reservoir is the Lower Reservoir, the location of Musame Beach, a municipal swimming area. Upper Reservoir is upgradient of and tributary to Middle Reservoir. Flow from the Upper Reservoir to Middle Reservoir is through a manmade stream/channel. Middle Reservoir is part of the Public Water System operated by the Northampton Water Department pursuant to the regulations at 310 CMR 22.00. The dam project was initiated by an inspection that determined the dam at the Upper Reservoir was in poor condition and as a high hazard dam, Northampton is required to remove or repair the dam. In its current state, the Upper Reservoir poses a threat to the health and safety of the general public. In addition, it poses a risk to the water quality and the dam at the Middle Reservoir, consequently the Public Water System. Based on initial engineering alternatives analyses, including site logistics and cost, the decision was made to remove the dam. The current proposal is to breach the dam in stages over approximately a one year period allowing the sediments to flow downstream and be deposited into the Middle Reservoir (Leeds Reservoir) an Emergency water supply source for the City. The general model is that sediments and water would flow through the manmade channel that has a relatively high gradient and is rocklined allowing the sediments to move efficiently down stream. Prior to the breach, the water level in the Leeds Reservoir would be lowered to allow the construction of a forebay, the dam would be breached over time and the sediments would be trapped behind the forebay. After the dam is completely removed, the water Tb6 torormadon is available In aln rnnte format Cell Dooald M. Gomm, ADA Coordioarar el 617- 55&1051. TDD Service -1- 800 -29 &2207. DEP on are World Wide Web: bap:1Mww.mass.gov1dep 0 Printed on Recycled Paper Northampton Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Project Pre permitting Meeting May 21, 2009 Page 1 of 4 level would again be lowered in the Leeds Reservoir and the sediments "dry dredged" and the forebay removed. Northampton and their consultants have already met with the Boston MassDEP staff, Lealdon Langley and Ken Chen regarding the required 401 Water Quality Certification permit. Regulations pertinent to this discussion are as follows: 314 CAM 9.00 401 Water Quality Certification 314 CAM 4.00 Surface Water Quality Standards 310 CAM 11.00 Drinking Water Regulation 310 CMR 10.00 the Wetlands Protection Act Regulation Drioldng Water MassDEP offers the following information with respect to the Drinking Water issues. Northampton was unsure as to whether the project as currently described and proposed requires a Variance from the Commissioner. Northampton's concern that a variance may be required focused on regulation 314 CMR 4.06(1)(d) which stipulates that discharge of dredge materials to "...within 400 feet of the high water mark of a water mark of a Class A surface water (exclusive of its tributaries), unless conducted by a public water system under 310 CA9t 12.00.,. or conducted by a person granted a variance pursuant to 314 CAR 9.08." 1) The dam inspection and the Emergency Action Plan for the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam stated that a failure of the data could result in a "domino failure" of the Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir (1214000 -02S). Therefore the dam was assigned a High Hazard Classification and must be repaired or breached. 2) The Middle Reservoir is designated by the MassDEP DWP as a PWS source (1214000- 02S) with an availability status of Emergency; the City has been maintaining the source as an emergency supply. The DWP under 310 CMR 2225(2) requires the PWS to maintain all sources removed from service as Emergency sources or to submit a permit application for abandonment of the source. The City bas stated to the DWP and the Boston office of MassDEP that it would prefer to maintain the reservoir as an Emergency source and not abandon the reservoir as a PWS source. The infrastructure must be maintained so that the source could be used in the event of a Declared State of Water Emergency. 3) Regulation 314 CMR 4.06 Tables identify Roberts Meadow Reservoir as a Class A Public Water Supply from the source to the outlet in Northampton (Middle Reservoir is identified by the DWP as the " outlef') and those tributaries thereto. 4) The Upper Reservoir is not designated by the DWP as a PWS source and is considered by the DWP to be a "feeder" reservoir and is a tributary to the source reservoir. 5) MassDEP DWP requires a permit application for abandonment of a PWS source. The applicant must demonstrate loss of the source would not impact thew ability to provide adequate water to their customers into the future and if they lost their main source of water. MassDEP DWP does not readily approve the abandonment of a potentially viable water supply. Northampton Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Project May 21, 2009 Pre-permitting Meeting Page 3 of 4 Wetlands The City and its consultants have met with the Boston staff regarding the 401 water quality certification process as indicated under the Drinking Water section. A 401 Water Quality Certification permit is required under regulation 314 CMR 9.00 and references the Water Quality Standards Regulation 314 CMR 4.00. This project will also require permitting through the Wetland Protection Act regulation 310 CMR 10.00. 6) The Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir (1214000 -025) is a public water source and is therefore by regulation 314 CMR 4.06, an Outstanding Resource Water. 7) Although regulation 314 CMR 9.06(4) states that the discharge of dredge or fill material is prohibited within 400 feet of a. reservoir without a variance, 314 CMR 9.06(3)(a) expressly allows work to be conducted by a PWS or private water suppliers to maintain waterworks systems providing alternatives analysis and compliance with 314 CMR 9.06 and 9.07, evaluation of application criteria and management of materials. 8) In addition, Regulation 314 CMR 9.06(8) and 9.07(1)(1) stipulate that notwithstanding the provisions of 314 CMR 9.06, MassDEP may allow a project which will restore or otherwise improve the natural capacity of any wetland or other water of the Commonwealth. Such projects include, but are not limited to, dam removal, salt marsh restoration, stream restoration, nutrient management, control or removal of aquatic nuisance vegetation, or vegetation management to improve wildlife habitat. 9) The discussions during the meeting also included potential alternatives to the currently proposed options and information that will be required in the permit applications and alternatives analyses: • Diverting the strearn to temporarily discharge the sediment to the field downstream of the Upper Reservoir dam. This would eliminate the issue of discharging to a PWS reservoir and avoid the Variance and minimize the reach of stream fisheries and habitat that may be impacted, • Allow the sediments to settle into and remain in the Middle Reservoir and establish wetlands as a habitat restoration project, in lieu of dredging and/or discharge of sediment to a field downstream of the Upper Reservoir dam, • If the project will he proposed as a restoration - stipulate the nature of the restoration such as wetlands habitat, stream cannel, connectivity of upstream cold water fisheries, reestablishment of cold water fishery, etc., • Stipulate how the habitat and fisheries in the stream will be preserved while conducting the work, • Stipulate if this is a natural or man-made channel and discuss the implications, • If the project is proposed a resource improvement under the wetlands protection act, identify the improvements i.e. restoration of channel, bank, fisheries, etc., • Reference how the project complies with the guidance MassDEP Dam Removal and the Wetlands Regulations, and • Allowing the sediments to remain new the inlet of the Middle Reservoir as wetlands habitat restoration may provide mitigation for impacts to or losses of resource areas, understanding that a project permitted as a limited project is not required to meet all of the performance standards. Northampton Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Project May 21, 2009 Pre permitting Meeting Page 4 of Summary Although the option is available to request abandonment of the PWS source in an attempt to eliminate the question of a Variance, MassDEP does not readily approve the abandonment of a water supply source and the abandonment does not immediately change the regulatory designation as an ORW. This project may be eligible for permitting as a preventive measure to protect and maintain the public water supply source Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir, resource improvement and restoration without the requirement of a Variance. However, as an ORW and a PWS source the City would be requ to vigorously demonstrate through alternatives analyses, mitigation measures and restoration how this project will not only protect the existing habitat and fisheries during construction but also significant improvements, restore or rehabilitate habitats and resources. MassDEP is available to discuss these issues further with you, your consultant and the Boston office of MassDEP. Contact Information In closing MassDEP strongly suggests that a follow -up pre - permitting meeting take place to more accurately provide guidance for permitting at this facility. Additional permit information may be found at www.mass. ovg /deo For question regarding the wetlands program please contact David Foulis at 413- 755 -2154 and for questions regarding the drinking water program contact Deirdre Cabral at 413 -2148. To arrange the follow -up meeting, for general questions, or if you need any further assistance, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience at 413- 755 -2119. Sincerely, ,> Catherine V. Skiba, P.G. Service Center Manager MassDEP Western Regional Office Ecc: MassDEP— WERO Brian Harrington, Deirdre Cabral, Robert McCollum, Boston - Lealdon Langley, Kenneth Chen Matthew Taylor, Nathaniel Arai, Paul Davis GZABEC, 296 North Main Street, East Longmeadow, MA 01028 NHMt t5RYbl It tNV1KUNMtNI FAX 4135258348 TEL 4135258348 SER.X BROM4,1175190 DATE,TIME 05/12 14:18 FAX N0. /NAME 16177275128 DURATION 00:01:28 FAGE(5) 03 RESULT OK MODE STANDARD ECM 950 CMR: OFFiCR OF THR. CF.CRRTARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH APPEN A MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD BOSTON, MASS. 02125 617- 727 -5470, FAX: 617- 727 -5125 Lii AK UJ . - Project Name: Ueftr Rahn T$ keeJer✓ R2sRryerr Dy �,agrvp vnl Location /Address: CCLv vre. r44 AJ I City /Town: a off ,- Project Proponent Name:,.,. CrTy N/n'f7+w - LQy. Address: l�fC ;i.c. Citymown0prrelephone: _Emir /rw„w.—J1 *14 plog,W Agency license or funding for the project (lint 911 licenses, perm inq approvals, Qrant¢ nr other enlitlemnnis hrigg sought from state and federal agencies) Agency Name Tr„e „fT jo or 9,ndinn (spwe lul Jsls�t'1..yThs �unser�». �emx lJa9{e«de n �.....� 950 CMR: OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH APPENDIX A MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION 220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD BOSTON, MASS. 02125 617 - 727 -8470, FAX: 617- 727 -5128 PROJECT NOTIFICATION FORM Project Name: UPArr IZA ke°Jn� R0,- crVarr - D. 12oa ,J Location /Address: Ct's STe r41 e(J Ra'� It City / Town: ,�spT .. f Al'4 Project Proponent Name: C y d/ to n, wyF. Address: % 13 fG -T.— A y6. N.n t2, /ysw... ST City7own/Zip/1'elephone: A(4 a o %z, fr Agency license or funding for the project (list all licenses, permits, approvals, grants or other entitlements being sought from state and federal agencies). Aeencv Name 7 of License or fundone (spcci � h7 fl'rn+� errs E :.re+ vef-e rA � uS. f Prolect escriptiun (narrative): £N r is MA d�... .��w.. S's. F� i�5pa -s�.�n .. [+t.GA..r or Tea GqI Gsz °rJ do-m r nc- Ct "1 a /a—f`.,l tv rurS.V t(,, d°'* rvs u' r"T°,.-,� Kc ST'ra „ r`.s era- s'en't r¢s4vwc.ir baSi�- Does the project include demolition? If so, specify nature of demolition and describe the building(s) which are proposed for demolition, Ro,.,.° , k 4 do-« Does the project include rehabilitation of any existing buildings? If so, specify nature of rehabilitation and describe the building(s) which are proposed for rehabilitation. jVo Does the project include new construction? If so, describe (attach plans and elevations if necessary). /V1 5/31/96 (Effective 7/1/91) - canceled 950 CMR - 275 950 CMR: OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH APPENDIX A (continued) To the best of your knowledge, are any historic or archaeological properties known to exist within the project's area of potential impact? If so, specify. ` y 0 What is the total acreage of the project area? Woodland C) acres Productive Resources: Ra,4erv..t� it 2-- Wetland J) acrescserw.Ar Agriculture 0 acres Floodplaln O acres Forestry 0 acres Open space O acres Mining/Extraction 0 acres Developed O acres Total Project Acreage /o acres What is the acreage of the proposed new construction? acres 4, .'re— 16 What is the present land use of the project area? . w.� -,� raste r va is wr.�TyrS4w� 'e�� —) YC.lef v.... h C, +y 6, vP ✓rter f-(r l Please attach a copy of the section of the USGS quadrangle map which clearly marks the project location. S 2R A4 -�, -) This Project Notification Form has been submitted to the MHC in compliance with 950 CMR 71.00. Signature of Person submitting this form: A G •J� Date: s" /2 -a f Name: I� 1 6 � • t3£C Z 6rZA ecsr,.Is x` Address: ;l,4 6 �4 din City/Town/Zip: E I L- ttro- a.Jo-+J y M /} CO / o ;2,8 Telephone: t/ 17 S 2 S REGULATORY AUTHORITY 950 CMR 71.00: M.G.L. c. 9, §§ 26 -27C as amended by St. 1988, a 254. 7/1/93 950 CMR - 276 daitl H ft * Z' i t W v _ HMS Feet 2000 , 1,000 0 2,000 Figure 1: Locus Map Upper Roberts Meadow Dam USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP Northampton, Massachusetts EASTHAMPTON, 1979 - 7 _ /. ?. _ R t e t Hp Upper Roberts Meadow Dam w, Rob crts u T.YNY / y .AD i l✓ X T daitl H ft * Z' i t W v _ HMS Feet 2000 , 1,000 0 2,000 Figure 1: Locus Map Upper Roberts Meadow Dam USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP Northampton, Massachusetts EASTHAMPTON, 1979 f The Commonwealth of Massachusetts William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth June 25, 2009 Massachusetts Historical Commission Paul G. Davis Senior Environmental Scientist Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc. 296 North Main Street East Longmeadow, MA 01028 RE: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal Project, Chesterfield Road, Northampton, MA. MHC# RC.46364. Dear Dr. Davis: Thank you for submitting additional information for the project referenced above to the Massachusetts Historical Commission. The project consists of the removal of the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam located off Chesterfield Road in Northampton. MHC understands that the dam was constructed in 1883 and was taken off line in 1905. MHC understands that the project requires a Section 404 permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers and review by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) office. Review of the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth has indicated that there are no recorded historic or archaeological resources in the project impact area. After review MHC's files and the information submitted, MHC has determined that the project is unlikely to affect any significant historic or archaeological resources. These comments are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CFR 800), Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 9, Sections 26 -27C (950 CMR 71) and MEPA (301 CMR 11). If you have any additional questions, please contact Tim Hollis at this office. Sincerely, Jona Archaeologist/Preservation Planner Massachusetts Historical Commission xc: Karen Kirk Adams, USACOE -NED, Regulatory Kate Atwood, USACOE -NED Secretary Ian A. Bowles, EEA, Attn: MEPA Unit DEP— WERO, Wetlands Department of Conservation and Recreation — Office of Dam Safety Patrice Kish, Department of Conservation and Recreation Northampton Historical Commission Northampton Conservation Commission 220 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts 02125 (617) 727 -8470 • Fax: (617) 727 -5128 wwwsec.state.ma.us/nnhc May 21, 2010 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Edward S. Huntley William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Director Massachusetts Historical Commission Northampton Department of Public Works 125 Locust Street Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal Project, Chesterfield Road, Northampton, MA MHC# RC.46364. Dear Mr. Huntley As you may recall, on June 25, 2009, the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) responded to a submittal from Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc. regarding the project referenced above. MHC recently received additional information that indicates that the project area of potential effect includes the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam, originally called the Hoxie Reservoir Dam, a granite block, gravity arch structure that was constructed in 1883 by the City of Northampton for water supply. The dam may be a significant as a municipal work in the history of the City of Northampton, and may be an historic engineering structure. Because the project will require permitting by the US Army Corps of Engineers, the project requires review by the Corps in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended. The MHC is the office of the State Historic Preservation Officer, with a role as a consulting parry to the Corps' review. The City of Northampton is also a consulting party in this review. The Corps requires its applicants and their consultants to undertake some initial aspects of the Section 106 process, outlined in the regulations at 36 CFR 800. For more information about the Section 106 review process, and a copy of the applicable regulations, please see w}vw.acho.uov To assist the City of Northampton and the Corps, the MHC will review the information that has been submitted, request any additional information that may be required to evaluate the historical significance of the structure using the National Register of Historic Places Criteria of Eligibility (36 CFR Part 60), and offer MHC's opinion to the City of Northampton and the Corps about the historic significance of the dam. If you have not already done so, please provide the Northampton Historical Commission with the project planning information so that they may consider commenting on the proposed project to the Corps. MHC would appreciate to continue receiving copies of any comments to the Corps regarding the project. Sincerely, Edward L. Bell Technical Services Division Massachusetts Historical Commission xc: see attached 220 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts 02125 (617) 727 -8470 • Fax: (617) 727 -5128 www.sec.stacc.ma.us/mhc xc: Karen Kirk Adams, USACOE -NED, Regulatory Kate Atwood, USACOE -NED DEP —WERO, Wetlands Department of Conservation and Recreation — Office of Dam Safety Patrice Kish, Department of Conservation and Recreation Northampton Historical Commission Northampton Conservation Commission Paul G. Davis, Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc. Barbara Pelissier, Friends of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam L � F J June 14, 20 10 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Edward S. Huntley William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Director Massachusetts Historical Commission Northampton Department of Public Works 125 Locust Street Northampton, MA, 01060 RE: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal Project, Chesterfield Road, Northampton, MA. MHC# RC.46364. Dear Mr. Huntley: Staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), office of the State Historic Preservation Officer, have reviewed the information submitted to provide an opinion of National Register of Historic Places eligibility (36 CFR Part 60) for the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam. Enclosed are the results of MHC's staff review, indicating that more information is required for the MHC to provide an opinion. The MHC suggests that the Corps should review the information enclosed and have research undertaken by a qualified historic preservation consultant to assemble the additional documentation required, and prepare an opinion of eligibility for review by the MHC. These comments are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CFR 800). Please contact Edward L. Bell if you have any questions. Sincerely, Brona Simon State Historic Preservation Officer Executive Director Massachusetts Historical Commission Enclosure (MHC 6/2/2010) xc w /encl.: Karen Kirk Adams, USACOE -NED, Regulatory Kate Atwood, USACOE -NED DEP— WERO, Wetlands Department of Conservation and Recreation — Office of Dam Safety Patrice Kish, Department of Conservation and Recreation Northampton Historical Commission Northampton Conservation Commission Paul G. Davis, Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc. Barbara Pelissier, Friends of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam 220 Morrissev Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts 02125 (617) 727 -8470 • Fax: (617) 727 -5128 www.sec.state.ma.us/nahc orginal ydw form: Elip6i0ty fib Copies Inventory twin ✓ Ta ffwwcwrw.) Mw% Nadir c Community: Northampton MHC OPINION• ELIGIBILITY FOR NATIONAL REGISTER Date Received: 4/2612010 Date Due: Date Reviewed: 6/02/2010 Type: X Individual _District (Attach map indicating boundaries) Name: Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam Inventory Form: Address: Opposite 630 Chesterfield Road, Northampton (village of Leeds) Requested by: Action: _Honor _ITC _Grant - i�-R & C _Other: Agency: 45,C INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES Staff in charge of Review: E _ Eligible. _ Eligible, also in district _Eligible only in district _Ineligible X More information needed CRITERIA: _A LEVEL: _Local DISTRICTS _ Eligible _ Ineligible More information needed B _C _D State _National STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE by P.H. Stott The Upper Roberts Meadow Data (originally the Hoxie Reservoir Dam) was constructed in 1883 to the designs of city Engineer Emory C. Davis (c.1835 -1906) and consulting engineer Clemens Herschel (1842 - 1930), then head of the Holyoke Water Power Company. The dam was constructed nine years after the catastrophic collapse of the nearby Mill River Dam in Williamsburg, a factor that undoubtedly influenced the stone design and the selection of Herschel as consulting engineer. However, the granite arch dam is not unusual in this period, and the 6 -acre size of the reservoir is relatively small compared to contemporary water supply reservoirs. In addition, the stone and concrete gatehouse was removed "many years ago." Staff requested more information conceming the history of the Northampton water supply. Although staff acknowledged the significance of the dam design in the aftermath of the Mill River Flood and the involvement of E.C. Davis and Clemens Herschel m its construction, it questioned the primacy of the dam's construction, as there appeared to be a "lower" dam approximately L 4 miles downstream, labeled "Northampton Reservoir" on the 1873 . map of the town, ten years before the Upper Reservoir was bui t. If the Hoxie Reservoir was Northampton s first for "the special purpose of supplying . clean drinking water," what was the "Northampton Reservoir" downstream? In terms of establishing the significance of the dam to Northampton, it would also be important to know what role the reservoir played in the development of the town's (later city's) water supply system. The reservoir was in service for only 22 years. Was it the only water supply for the town at this time? What part of town did it serve and how was the water distributed? When was the water department (or water company ?) organized? How did the system grow? Adams, Karen K NAE From: Barbara Pelissier [bpelissi @smith.edu] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 12:03 PM To: Adams, Karen K NAE Subject: RE: Request to be named a Consultant Party Thanks so much. We appreciate your willingness to keep us in mind. Barbara Pelissier >>> "Adams, Karen K NAE" < Karen.K.Adams(@usace.army.mil > 6/17/2010 12:01 >>> PM >>> We do not have an application on this but will add this email to the file along with the MHC correspondence so that we can address this when the application is submitted. Thank you Karen - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Barbara Pelissier [mailto:bpelissi @smith.edu] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 11:42 AM To: Adams, Karen K NAE Subject: Request to be named a Consultant Party Dear Ms. Adams, I am writing to ask that the Friends of the Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam be officially considered a consultant party to your review of the project i compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. While we have been cc'd on two pieces of correspondence between Mass Historical Commission to the Dir. of the Northampton Dept. of Public Works (as you were, as well), I am not aware of any other correspondence between named consultant parties to date. As concerned citizens who treasure this beautiful and unique dam, reservoir habitat and wildlife /scenic open space, we initiated contact with Mass Historic Commission this spring because the Northampton Historic Commission felt unable to help us or initiate a demolition delay ordinance. We have put in an enormous amount of time, effort and fundraising to date to attend City Council, BPW, NHC meetings, hire hydro experts (Essex Partnership, CT), and undertake historic research as well as to inform the public of the potential loss of this wonderful and scenic spot which has the capacity to generate up to $20k /annually in electricity to pay for its own future maintenance costs as well profit the City. We have also been working closely with the ASCE on a nomination for ASCE 'landmark status' and have had extensive conversations with a retired US Bureau of Reclamations engineer whose research has found the dam to be quite unique for that era. Our work is dogged and ongoing. For all of the above reasons, we ask that you please include us as a consultant party to your review. Sincerely, Barbara Pelissier, Member, Friends of the Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam 96 Stage Road Westhampton, MA 01027 (413) 527 -3209 1 bpelissier (@gmbil.com Adams; Karen K NAE From: Atwood, Kathleen A NAE Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 12:01 PM To: Adams, Karen K NAE Subject: RE: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal Project, Northampton, MA Barbara Pelissier, phone # (413) 584 -2700. It is listed as Smith College on caller id. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Adams, Karen K NAE Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 11:59 AM To: Atwood, Kathleen A NAE Subject: RE: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal Project, Northampton, MA I don't have a message from her and we do not have an application. Please recommend that they write or email with their contact info and interests so we can put it in the file for when the application does come in. Or pass along her tel no. so we can call her. Thanks Karen - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Atwood, Kathleen A NAE Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 11:53 AM To: Adams, Karen K NAE Subject: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal Project, Northampton, MA I received a call from Barbara Pelissier of the Friends of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam requesting that their organization be a consulting party in Section 106 consultation for this project. You and I received copies of a letter from MHC to the Northampton Department of Public Works dated 14 June. MHC is requesting additional information to make a determination of eligibility. Ms. Pelissier said she had left you a message as well. She said her organization has compiled extensive information on the dam and can vouch for its significance. I told her I would check on whether or not the Corps has received a permit application, and where we are in the process and that we would welcome any information on the cultural resources that they have gathered. I guess pending the outcome of the determination of eligibility and determination of effect, I don't see a problem having them be a consulting party. This is just an FYI concerning my phone call. Thanks. Kate 1 UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST �- Archaeological Services Department of Anthropology Machmer Hall 240 Hicks Way Amherst, MA 01003 -9280 Kate Atwood New England District US Army Corps of Engineers 696 Virginia Road Concord, MA 01742 -2751 voice: 413.545.1552 fax: 413.577.1458 19 December 2011 Re: BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND A NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY OPINION FOR THE UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS Dear Ms Atwood: Enclosed please find the draft report for the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam project in Northampton. If you have any questions or comments, please give Eric Johnson, Kathryn Curran, or myself a call at (413) 545 -1626 or 545 -1552. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Broughton Anderson, Editor Archaeological Services at the University of Massachusetts Amherst Cc: Paul Davis, GZA GeoEnvironmental Ed Bell, Massachusetts Historical Commission The University of Massachusetts is an Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunity Institution ® Printed on Recycled Paper of M A,v z y 6 yERST 14 UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST Archaeological Services Department of Anthropology Machmer Hall 240 Hicks Way Amherst, MA 01003 -9280 voice: 413.545.1552 fax: 413.577.1458 19 December 2011 Ed Bell Massachusetts Historical Commission 220 Morrissey Blvd. Boston, MA 02125 Re: BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND A NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY OPINION FOR THE UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS Dear Mr. Bell: Enclosed please find the draft report for the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam project in Northampton. If you have any questions or comments, please give Eric Johnson, Kathryn Curran, or myself a call at (413) 545 -1626 or 545 -1552. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Broughton Anderson, Editor Archaeological Services at the University of Massachusetts Amherst Cc: Kate Atwood, USACE Paul Davis, GZA GeoEnvironmental The University of Massachusetts is an Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunity Institution ® Printed on Recycled Paper The COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS 25,1 Causeway,Strreet, Suite,RQQ, Boston, MA 02114- 2136..1- Tel. (617) 626 1200 Fak (617) 626 -1240 ; Web 'Site: www�mas 's.gov %czm/buar /incfex.htm June 4, 2012 Mr. Paul G. Davis, PhD GZA Environmental, Inc. One Edgewater Drive Norwood, MA 02062 RE: Proposed Removal of Upper Roberts Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA Dear Mr. Davis, The staff of the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources has reviewed the above referenced notice and site locus map provided by GZA Environmental, Inc., on behalf of the City of Northampton. We offer the following comments. The Board has conducted a preliminary review of its files and secondary literature sources to identify known and potential submerged cultural resources in the proposed project area. No record of any underwater archaeological resources was found. Based on the results of this review and previously disturbance during dam construction and repair, the Board expects that this project is unlikely to impact submerged cultural resources. However, the dam is listed as in MHC's MACRIS files (NHT.964). In that record, it was noted that the dam was constructed on the site of bark grinding mill with the mill stone was visible near the foot - of the darn. The potential archaeological feature was not discussed is the report included in file NHT.964. Given this factor, the Board suggest additional consideration be given to potential preservation of remnants of this earlier structure as part of your mitigation documentation. In addition, should heretofore - unknown submerged cultural resources be encountered during the course of the project, the Board expects that the project's sponsor will take steps to limit adverse affects and notify the Board, as well as other appropriate agencies, immediately in accordance with the Board's Policy Guidance for the Discovery of Unanticipated Archaeological Resources (updated 9/28/06). The Board notes the MHC PNF was not included with your submission as required under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' MA General Permit. In future, please submit this completed document to facilitate our review. The Board appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments as part of the review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at the address above, by email at v ictor.mastone C@ state. ina.us, or by telephone at (617) 626 -1141. Sincerely, / / .t, Victor T. Mastone Director /vtm Cc: Brona Simon, MHC Kate Atwood, USACE 0 Printed on Recycled Paper tj June 6 , 2012 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Edward S. Huntley William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth Director Massachusetts Historical Commission Northampton Department of Public Works 125 Locust Street Northampton, MA 01060 RE: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal Project, Chesterfield Road, Northampton, MA. MHC# RC.46364. Dear Mr. Huntley: The Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC), office of the State Historic Preservation Officer, received the copy of the June 4, 2012, letter from the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR), indicating that a submittal to the BUAR to assist in preparing a US Army Corps of Engineers permit for the project referenced above has been provided to the BUAR by GZA Environmental, Inc. Review of the MHC's files indicates that the MHC has not received the project information. Please have the project information submitted to the MHC for review and comment in accordance with the procedures of the Corps. The MHC requests that copies of the project information also be provided to the Northampton Historical Commission and to the Friends of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam so that they may comment if they wish to the Corps. Copies of any written comments to the Corps regarding historic resources should also be provided to the MHC. In the MHC's opinion, the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam (NTH.964) meets the Criteria of Eligibility (36 CFR Part 60) for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and C at the local level of significance. A copy of MHC's opinion is enclosed. These comments are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CFR 800). Please contact Edward L. Bell if you have any questions. Sincerely, , 1 - � S� Brona Simon State Historic Preservation Officer Executive Director Massachusetts Historical Commission Enclosure (MHC 4/5/2012) xc w /enclosure: Karen Kirk Adams, USACOE -NED, Regulatory Kate Atwood, USACOE -NED DEP — WERO, Wetlands Department of Conservation and Recreation — Office of Dam Safety Patrice Kish, Department of Conservation and Recreation Victor T. Mastone, BUAR Sarah 1. Laval ley, City of Northampton, Office of Planning and Development Northampton Historical Commission Northampton Conservation Commission Barbara Pelissier, Friends of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Paul G. Davis, GZA Environmental Consultants, Inc., Norwood Stephen Pendery, UMass Archaeological Services, Attn, Kerry Lynch 220 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts 02125 (617) 727 -8470 • Fax: (617) 727 -5128 www. state. ma. us /sec /mhc Original yellow form: Eligibility file _ {PRIVATE } Copies: Inventory form Town file(w /corresp.) Macris NR director Community: Northampton MHC OPINION: ELIGIBILITY FOR NATIONAL REGISTER Date Received: 2/29/2012 Date Due: - Date Reviewed: 4/5/2012 Type: _ Individual X District (Attach map indicating boundaries) Name: Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam Inventory Form: NTH.964 Address: Opposite 630 Chesterfield Road, Northampton (village of Leeds) Requested by: Action: Agency: INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES Eligible Eligible, also in district _Eligible only in district _Ineligible More information needed CRITERIA: X A Staff in charge of Review: LEVEL: X Local STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE DISTRICTS X Eligible Ineligible More information needed nu X C W State National by P.H. Stott MHC was asked in 2010 to evaluate the eligibility of the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam, constructed in 1883 in the rural northwest of the city of Northampton, west of the village of Leeds. While the dam was an impressive granite - faced structure, it appeared that it was part of the larger story of the development of Northampton's water supply, and MHC asked for mote information concerning the history of the Northampton water supply. Supplementary information provided by consultants for the City and the Army Corps of Engineers indicates that the three dams and reservoirs built on Roberts Meadow Brook between 1871 and 1894 represented the key elements in Northampton's first public water supply, critical to the development of town, which became a city in 1883, the same year that the Upper Reservoir was constructed. Drought conditions, as well as increase in demand following the construction of the first 4 million - gallon reservoir in 1871 led to the construction of the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam and a 16 million - gallon Reservoir in 1883; and to the Middle Dam and 114 million- gallon Reservoir in 1894. After 1900, the city turned away from Roberts Meadow Brook and constructed larger reservoirs in Whately and Williamsburg, and in 1905 discontinued the use of the Roberts Meadow Brook system for all but emergencies. The three dams and their reservoirs remain intact on three contiguous parcels still owned by the city. MHC concludes that the properties meet the criteria for the National Register under criteria A and C at the local level. The system is significant in the areas of Community Planning and Development, Engineering, Government and Social History due to its contribution to the development of Northampton's public water supply system. Furthermore, the dams and reservoir system illustrate distinctive examples of three different 19th - century engineering responses to water supply needs in different topographic locations. Honor ITC Grant X R & C Other: Common ,h ofkn.e , .as Division of -�, Fisheries & Wildlife MASSW/ /d /lfe Wayne F. MacCallam, Director 8/1/2008 Erin Gillen Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc. 296 North Main St East Longmeadow MA 01028 RE: Project Location: Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam Town: NORTHAMPTON NHESP Tracking No.: 08 -25168 To Whom It May Concern: Thank you for contacting the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program ( "NHESP") of the MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife for information regarding state - listed rare species in the vicinity of the above referenced site. Based on the information provided, this project site, or a portion thereof, is located within Priority Habitat 1198 (PH 1198) and Estimated Habitat 573 (EH 573) as indicated in the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (12'" Edition). Our database indicates that the following state - listed rare species have been found in the vicinity of the site: Scientific name Common Name Taxonomic Group State Status Glyptemys insculpta Wood Turtle Reptile Special Concern The species listed above is protected under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) (M.G.L. c. 131A) and its implementing regulations (321 CMR 10.00). State - listed wildlife are also protected under the state's Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) (M.G.L. c. 131, s. 40) and its implementing regulations (310 CMR 10.00). Fact sheets for most state -listed rare species can be found on our website fwww.nhesp.org) Pieme note that projects and activities located within Priority and /or Estimated Habitat must he reviewed by Lite iQHESP for compliance with the state -listed rare species protection provisions of MESA (321 CMR 10.00) and /or the WPA (310 CMR 10.00). Wetlands Protection Act (310 CMR 10.00) If the project site is within Estimated Habitat and a Notice of Intent (NOI) is required, then a copy of the NOI must be submitted to the NHESP so that it is received at the same time as the local conservation commission. If the NHESP determines that the proposed project will adversely affect the actual Resource Area habitat of state - protected wildlife, than the proposed project may not be permitted (310 CMR 10.37, 10.58(4)(b)&10.59). In such a case, the project proponent may request a consultation with the NHESP to discuss potential project design modifications that would avoid adverse effects to rare wildlife habitat. A streamlined joint MESA / WPA review process is now available. When filing a Notice of Intent (NOI), the applicant may now file concurrently under the MESA on the same NOI form and qualify for a 30 -day streamlined joint review. For a copy of the revised NOI form, please visit the MA Department of Environmental Protection's website: htto: / /www.iniss . eov/ den /wa ter /aLProvals /wpaform3.dot Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Field Headquarters, North Drive, Westborough, MA 01581 (508) 389 -6300 Fax (508) 389 -7891 As Agancy ofshe D,,, m,a fF, h and Gnmc NHESP No. 08- 25168, page 2 of 2 MA Endangered Species Act (M.G.L. c. 131A) This project may be exempt from review under the new regulations of the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) (321 CMR 10.14 (11)) which states: "The following Projects and Activities shall be exempt from the requirements of 321 CMR 10.18 through 10.23..." "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" If the proposed project is located within Priority Habitat and is not exempt from review (see 321 CMR 10.14), then project plans, a fee, and other required materiels must be sent to NHESP Environmental Review to determine whether a probable "take" under the MA Endangered Species Act would occur (321 CMR 10.18). Please note that all proposed and anticipated development must be disclosed, as MESA does not allow project segmentation (321 CMR 10.16). For a MESA filing checklist and additional information please see our website: www.nhesp.ore ('Regulatory Review" tab). This evaluation is based on the most recent information available in the Natural Heritage database, which is constantly being expanded and updated through ongoing research and inventory. If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact Emily Holt, Endangered Species Review Assistant, at (508) 389 -6361. Sincerely, 7,1, ,t Thomas W. French, PhD. Assistant Director United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal Official Species -list: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal New England Ecological Services Field Office Following is an official U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species -list from the New England Ecological Services Field Office. The species -list identifies listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat that may be affected by the project "Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal ". You may use this list to meet the requirements of section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). This species -list has been generated by the Service's on -line Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) decision support system based on project type and location information you provided on November 16, 2011, 7:48 AM. This information is summarized below. Please reference our tracking number, 05EINE00- 2012 -SLI -0025, in future reference to this project to assist in expediting the process. Newer information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of listed species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact the office(s) identified below if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential presence of federally proposed, listed, or candidate species, or proposed or designated critical habitat. Please note that under the ESA, a species -list is valid for 90 days. Therefore, the Service recommends that you visit the IPaC site at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species -lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive this list. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http: / /www.fws.gov/ endangered /esa- library /pdf /TOC- GLOS.PDF This list below only addresses federally proposed, listed, or candidate species and federally designated critical habitat. Please contact the appropriate State agencies for information regarding State species of special designation. Also, please feel free to contact the office(s) identified below if you would like information on other important trust resources (such as migratory birds) in your project area. Generated by the Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) System on 11/16/2011 07:48 AM Page 1 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal This Species -list document is provided by: NEW ENGLAND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES FIELD OFFICE 70 COMMERCIAL STREET, SUITE 300 CONCORD, NH 3301 (603) 223 -2541 http://www.fws.gov/newengland TAILS consultation code: 05E1 NE00- 2012 -SLI -0025 Project type: Dam Project Description: Dam Removal Generated by the Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) System on 11/16/2011 07:48 AM Page 2 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Project name: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal Project location map: z� c Y $ �a u 2 ft Project coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((- 72.7322297 42.3374243, - 72.7236252 42.3409219, - 72.7229385 42.33957, - 72.7299552 42.3366518, - 72.7322083 42.3364801, - 72.7322297 42.3374243))) Project counties: Hampshire, MA Q S ':PbWEIF��' Generated by the Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) System on 11/16/2011 07:48 AM Page 3 There are no listed species identified for the vicinity of your project. Generated by the Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) System on 11/16/2011 07:48 AM Page 4 ATTACHMENT SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS, BORINGS PROFILES, AND LAB ANALYSIS RESULTS Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form No. DATE REVISION BY 999M W-4 A A WETLAND BOUNDARY 1A EXISTING PROPERTY LINE EXISTING EDGE OF WATER 10 EXISTING SEDIMENT CONTOURS 1 -B SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION BEC, 08/20/08 SHEET TITLE: PROJECT AND LOCATION: J Upper Robert's Meadow Reservoir Dam NORTHAMPTON PREPARED FOR: AIM 1 inch = 50 ft. City of Northampton Department of Public Works Ciro" BAYSTATE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS INC. J:\O GZA INTERCOMPANY PROJECTS\01.0019547.10 Upper Roberts Meadow Res Dam Breach\01.0019547.10 CAD\dwg\BasePlan—RM—Dam.dwg, 9/12/2008 10:41:48 AM pq,,tD,U 0 FmdIdpod 05 SeP081056 It, _ISS It f ❑ ,VIad R9WOnt %OECI%OM ANALVTICAL, ReC Wannong I AL TECMJOLOCV Lnborvory Report E toward Entimmm mtel C onsirhand Into 296 NOM Meiv9tr art Project Upper Roberts Meadow ResNOAbempbq MA East LOCpneedow,MA 01028 Trotter 01001950710 Aft, Tom Ientkvu' LeEn� C6'mt 9nm4m Ma= Ond9ui w UffiRmm'ed SM349101 1ABC SeAmeW 3)AW081100 21- AW08IS55 SM349102 2ABC SeAmem 3)AW081150 21- AW08IS55 SM349103 3ABC SeAmem 3)AW081530 21- AW08IS55 SM349104 IABCPAH SeAmem 3)AW081100 21- AW08IS55 SM349105 2ABCPAN SeAmem 3)AW081150 21- AW08IS55 SM349106 3ABCPAN SeAmem 3)AW081530 21- AW08IS55 SM3491OA IT SeAmem 3)AW081100 21- AW08IS55 SM349108 2B SeAmem 3)AW081150 21- AW08IS55 SM349109 3C SeAmem 3)AW081530 21- AW08IS55 I atte,t met me m6 mabo, me i,edwNIm me m Wont Fes been m for ¢¢moon add had, d amim'I lM mality, m of mgnimmeW,fionaFmelFOd Ilws emsdw,NteoNnblMmmple(s)esmceiwd All elpl,ab4 NELAC eq,,emems Few been met SWetlrvm AsalyFml FOldsceNY VSlioninlFe Slab o[ NhssazM1USeXS6elFe malylesssinACebdwi0.enRinlFe 'Cert" olnm, wUmm1m,ep,D Pka,mb F tl SlebofM swhnmtls &esmtoffe,,e Yf at,fo,dlmalybs. Pbemwleutl npO,o,av4m Wegesofaal,�&bryus CFemofCnodn &cmnt(s). IltismWOnt menwibe mpmtlwad evaplin[WW "'IIbW wiMneppovel YOm SWectrom A�NlaeW Inc MssaeFUw h'XMMA138MIA1110 Auffio��eiaedbn N,nh# P W XPH -0T(/ co, XB MtiwXMA138 ® qK[(G.,, New HempOlxm# 2538 "W NewlemenXMA0111MA012 New YoN#11393A184) T Hm &dC TeyekPFD Pemgtrmrve# 68O4426168OA24 PnWhe'vsbombgGmdor Rlt USDA# mtl X98 OSEAX #31435 Teduvsl Ferreted Is ldFet VemmmXVi11393 Spnchum Analytlw{ L¢ 1s a NF ACa<vnadd laboratory organ,me,n and r,0, NFGGefihg Sanded, M,&font AC logo tartar done nalilwre thNSpncXUm6 errantly amnAffidr r /hn RnaTic mnaod or analyln,ndpad Pkam rat rto w "tpAhA "web Pad, Nwww spechum anarawL wmjor after SWhg ojov uniwtlm andfidd, ofam,dlat,n Sent SOn wMCh 4,,A,m Anaiutlwl, h¢ holds NF ACureficatlon are AN York. Am Tdg,nle, Mw le..y and FII Ad anaiutlwl workfor added, agent, and AranalyN ad Iwvge nod to and c,Wn ddat w 830 bear Sheet I Wdon (Aff 11840 FZ E87936 and w-MA012) Ma ®.ow ai Donne 8 180 In.flend A. Boueere w zemm 0800 36 1 08 497 � en®anim enx 80) 48&6435 � Sample Identification 1ABC SA83491 -01 Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0811:00 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch CeA Semivoladle Organic Compounds by GC C19 -C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 37.2 mgft dry C11 -C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons 57.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyl Congeners Unadjusted Cl 1-C22 Aromatic 57.7 mgft dry Hydrocarbons 21.4 1 Prepared by method SW846 3550B Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 94.5 mgft dry Unadjusted Total Petroleum 94.9 34883 -43 -7 2,4'- Dichlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kg dry 1.95 0.0592 1 SW846 8082 26- Aug -08 27- Aug -08 8081977 37688 -65 -2 2,2',5- Trichlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0234 1 " 7912 -37 -5 2,4,4' - Trichlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0293 1 " 41464 -39 -5 2,23,5' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0325 1 " 41464 -49 -8 2,2,4,5'- Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0371 1 " 35693 2,2,5,5'- Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0377 1 " 32598-10-9 2,3',4,4' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0442 1 " 32599-19-3 3,3',4,4' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0423 1 " 38386 -92 -8 2,2,3,4,5' - Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0885 1 " 37686 -73 -2 2,2,4,5,5'- Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0514 1 " 32599-14 -4 2,3,3',4,4' - Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0481 1 " 31598 -99 -6 2,3',4,4',5 - Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0442 1 " 39635-39-1 3,3',4,5,5'- Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0501 1 " 57465 -28 -8 3,3',4,4',5 - Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0514 1 " 38380-67 -3 2, 2',3,3',4,4' - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0501 1 " 35665-20-2 2, 2',3,4,4',5' - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0507 1 " 35665-27 -1 2 ,2',4,4'5,5' - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0501 1 " 38386 -98 -4 2,3 ,3',4,4',5 - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0514 1 " 32774 -16.6 3, 3',4,4',5,5' - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0586 1 " 35665-30-6 2,2 ',3,3',4,4',5 - Heptachlorobiphen BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0533 1 " 35665-29-3 2,2' ,3,4,4',5,5' - Heptachlorobiphen BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0507 1 " 52669-69-4 2,2',3 ,4,4',5',6- Heptachlorobiphen BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0507 1 " 74472 -48-3 2,2',3,4,4',6,6' - Heptachlorobiphen BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0579 1 " 52669-60-6 2,2',3 ,4',5,5',6- Heptachlorobiphen BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0586 1 " 52669-70-2 2,2',3 ,3',4,4',5,6- Octachlorobipher BRL U pg /kg dry 1.95 0.0547 1 " 46186 - 2,2',3,3 ',4,4',5,5',6- Nonachlorobipl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0533 1 " yl 2651-24 -3 Decachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.95 0.0527 1 " Surrogate recoveries: 1036684 -2 4,4- DB- Octafluombiphenyl(Sr) 100 Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons EPH Aliphatic /Aromatic Ranges Prepared by method SW846 3545A C9 -C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons BRL 30 -150 U mgft dry C19 -C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 37.2 mgft dry C11 -C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons 57.4 mgft dry Unadjusted Cl 1-C22 Aromatic 57.7 mgft dry Hydrocarbons 21.4 1 mgft dry Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 94.5 mgft dry Unadjusted Total Petroleum 94.9 mgft dry Hydrocarbons 0.330 1 Total Metals by EPA 6000/7000 Series Methods 0.106 1 7446 -38 -2 Arsenic BRL 744943-9 Cadmium 0.191 744647 -3 Chromium 9.61 7446 -59 -8 Copper 4.75 7439 -97-6 Mercury BRL 7446 -92 -9 Nickel 7.88 7439 -92 -1 Lead 6.52 7446 -66 -6 Zinc 29.1 30 -150 U mgft dry 26.9 22.8 1 mgft dry 26.9 24.2 1 mgft dry 26.9 25.5 1 mgft dry 26.9 21.4 1 mgft dry 26.9 21.4 1 mgft dry 26.9 21.4 1 U mgft dry 1.30 0.434 1 J mgft dry 0.434 0.0252 1 mgft dry 0.869 0.239 1 mgft dry 0.869 0.172 1 U mgft dry 0.0267 0.0064 1 mgft dry 0.869 0.254 1 mgft dry 1.30 0.330 1 mgft dry 0.869 0.106 1 +MADEP EPH 27- Aug -08 28- Aug -08 8082042 5/2004 R SW846 6010B 28- Aug -08 03- Sep -08 8082124 SW8467471A 03- Sep - 088082125 SW8466010B 03- Sep- 088082124 This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 2 of 47 Sample Identification 1ABC Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received SA83 491 -01 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0811:00 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert TCLP Metals by EPA 1311 & 6000/7000 Series Methods TCLP Extraction Completed N/A 1 SW846 1311 26- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8081975 744047-3 Chromium BRL a mgA 0.0100 0.0060 1 SW846 27- Aug -08 27- Aug -08 8082049 1311/60108 7439 -01 -0 Mercury BRL a mgA 0.00020 0.00008 1 SW846 28- Aug -08 8082050 1311/7470A 7440 -02 -0 Nickel 0.0094 1 mgA 0.0100 0.0033 1 SW846 27- Aug -08 8082049 1311/60108 General Chemistry Parameters 12 -hour Drying @ 60 C Completed N/A 1 Yankee CAPP 26- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8082022 Solids 98.9 % 1 SM2540 G Mod. 26- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8082000 Total Organic Carbon 9,850 z -2a mg /kg 100 59.7 1 SW846 9060 27- Aug -08 27- Aug -08 8082217 Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 3 of 47 Sample Identification 2ABC SA83491 -02 Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0811:50 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch CeA Semivoladle Organic Compounds by GC C19 -C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 81.5 mgft dry C11 -C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons 92.9 Polychlorinated Biphenyl Congeners Unadjusted Cl 1-C22 Aromatic 94.0 mgft dry Hydrocarbons 21.8 1 Prepared by method SW846 3550B Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 174 mgft dry Unadjusted Total Petroleum 176 34883 -43 -7 2,4'- Dichlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kg dry 1.98 0.0602 1 SW846 8082 26- Aug -08 27- Aug -08 8081977 37688 -65 -2 2,2',5- Trichlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0238 1 " 7912 -37 -5 2,4,4' - Trichlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0297 1 " 41464 -39 -5 2,23,5' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0331 1 " 41464 -49 -8 2,2,4,5'- Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0377 1 " 35693 2,2,5,5'- Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0383 1 " 32598-10-9 2,3',4,4' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0450 1 " 32599-19-3 3,3',4,4' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0430 1 " 38386 -92 -8 2,2,3,4,5' - Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0899 1 " 37686 -73 -2 2,2,4,5,5'- Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0522 1 " 32599-14 -4 2,3,3',4,4' - Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0489 1 " 31598 -99 -6 2,3',4,4',5 - Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0450 1 " 39635-39-1 3,3',4,5,5'- Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0509 1 " 57465 -28 -8 3,3',4,4',5 - Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0522 1 " 38380-67 -3 2, 2',3,3',4,4' - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0509 1 " 35665-20-2 2, 2',3,4,4',5' - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0516 1 " 35665-27 -1 2 ,2',4,4'5,5' - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0509 1 " 38386 -98 -4 2,3 ,3',4,4',5 - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0522 1 " 32774 -16.6 3, 3',4,4',5,5' - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0595 1 " 35665-30-6 2,2 ',3,3',4,4',5 - Heptachlorobiphen BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0542 1 " 35665-29-3 2,2' ,3,4,4',5,5' - Heptachlorobiphen BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0516 1 " 52669-69-4 2,2',3 ,4,4',5',6- Heptachlorobiphen BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0516 1 " 74472 -48-3 2,2',3,4,4',6,6' - Heptachlorobiphen BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0588 1 " 52669-60-6 2,2',3 ,4',5,5',6- Heptachlorobiphen BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0595 1 " 52669-70-2 2,2',3 ,3',4,4',5,6- Octachlorobipher BRL U pg /kg dry 1.98 0.0555 1 " 46186 - 2,2',3,3 ',4,4',5,5',6- Nonachlorobipl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0542 1 " yl 2651-24 -3 Decachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 1.98 0.0535 1 " Surrogate recoveries: 1036684 -2 4,4- DB- Octafluombiphenyl(Sr) 100 Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons EPH Aliphatic /Aromatic Ranges Prepared by method SW846 3545A C9 -C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons BRL 30 -150 U mgft dry C19 -C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 81.5 mgft dry C11 -C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons 92.9 mgft dry Unadjusted Cl 1-C22 Aromatic 94.0 mgft dry Hydrocarbons 21.8 1 mgft dry Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 174 mgft dry Unadjusted Total Petroleum 176 mgft dry Hydrocarbons 0.355 1 Total Metals by EPA 6000/7000 Series Methods 0.114 1 7446 -38 -2 Arsenic 0.967 744943-9 Cadmium 0.603 744647 -3 Chromium 19.3 7446 -59 -8 Copper 12.8 7439 -97-6 Mercury 0.0638 7446 -92 -9 Nickel 15.5 7439 -92 -1 Lead 23.1 7446 -66 -6 Zinc 71.6 30 -150 U mgft dry 27.3 23.2 1 mgft dry 27.3 24.5 1 mgft dry 27.3 25.9 1 mgft dry 27.3 21.8 1 mgft dry 27.3 21.8 1 mgft dry 27.3 21.8 1 J mgft dry 1.40 0.467 1 mgft dry 0.467 0.0271 1 mgft dry 0.935 0.257 1 mgft dry 0.935 0.185 1 mgft dry 0.0303 0.0072 1 mgft dry 0.935 0.274 1 mgft dry 1.40 0.355 1 mgft dry 0.935 0.114 1 +MADEP EPH 27- Aug -08 28- Aug -08 8082042 5/2004 R SW846 6010B 28- Aug -08 03- Sep -08 8082124 SW8467471A 03- Sep - 088082125 SW8466010B 03- Sep- 088082124 This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 4 of 47 Sample Identification 2ABC Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received SA83 491 -02 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0811:50 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert TCLP Metals by EPA 1311 & 6000/7000 Series Methods TCLP Extraction Completed 744047-3 Chromium BRL u 7439-97-6 Mercury BRL u 7440 -02 -0 Nickel 0.0138 General Chemistry Parameters 1 N/A 1 SW846 1311 26- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8081975 mgA 0.0100 0.0060 1 SW846 27- Aug -08 27- Aug -08 8082049 1311/60108 mgA 0.00020 0.00008 1 SW846 28- Aug -08 8082050 1311/7470A mgA 0.0100 0.0033 1 SW846 27- Aug -08 8082049 1311/60108 12 -hour Drying @ 60 C Completed N/A 1 Yankee CAPP 26- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8082022 Solids 96.9 % 1 SM2540 G Mod. 26- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8082000 Total Organic Carbon 29,400 z - 2b mg /kg 100 59.7 1 SW846 9060 27- Aug -08 27- Aug -08 8082217 Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 5 of 47 Sample Identification 3ABC SA83491 -03 Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0815:30 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch CeA Semivoladle Organic Compounds by GC C19 -C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 96.9 mgft dry C11 -C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons 72.4 Polychlorinated Biphenyl Congeners Unadjusted Cl 1-C22 Aromatic 73.7 mgft dry Hydrocarbons 21.8 1 Prepared by method SW846 3550B Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 169 mgft dry Unadjusted Total Petroleum 171 34883 -43 -7 2,4'- Dichlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kg dry 2.15 0.0652 1 SW846 8082 26- Aug -08 27- Aug -08 8081977 37688 -65 -2 2,2',5- Trichlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0258 1 " 7912 -37 -5 2,4,4' - Trichlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0322 1 " 41464 -39 -5 2,23,5' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0358 1 " 41464 -49 -8 2,2,4,5'- Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0408 1 " 35693 2,2,5,5'- Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0415 1 " 32599-10-9 2,3',4,4' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0487 1 " 32599-19-3 3,3',4,4' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0465 1 " 38386 -92 -8 2,2,3,4,5' - Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0974 1 " 37686 -73 -2 2,2,4,5,5'- Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0566 1 " 32599-14 -4 2,3,3',4,4' - Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0530 1 " 31598 -99 -6 2,3',4,4',5 - Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0487 1 " 39635-39-1 3,3',4,5,5'- Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0551 1 " 57465 -28 -8 3,3',4,4',5 - Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0566 1 " 38380-67 -3 2, 2',3,3',4,4' - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0551 1 " 35665-20-2 2, 2',3,4,4',5' - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0558 1 " 35665-27 -1 2 ,2',4,4'5,5' - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0551 1 " 38386 -98 -4 2,3 ,3',4,4',5 - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0566 1 " 32774 -16.6 3, 3',4,4',5,5' - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0644 1 " 35665-30-6 2,2 ',3,3',4,4',5 - Heptachlorobiphen BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0587 1 " 35665-29-3 2,2' ,3,4,4',5,5' - Heptachlorobiphen BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0558 1 " 52669-69-4 2,2',3 ,4,4',5',6- Heptachlorobiphen BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0558 1 " 74472 -48-3 2,2',3,4,4',6,6' - Heptachlorobiphen BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0637 1 " 52669-60-6 2,2',3 ,4',5,5',6- Heptachlorobiphen BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0644 1 " 52669-70-2 2,2',3 ,3',4,4',5,6- Octachlorobipher BRL U pg /kg dry 2.15 0.0601 1 " 46186 - 2,2',3,3 ',4,4',5,5',6- Nonachlorobipl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0587 1 " yl 2651-24 -3 Decachlorobiphenyl BRL U pg /kgdry 2.15 0.0580 1 " Surrogate recoveries: 1036684 -2 4,4- DB- Octafluombiphenyl(Sr) 105 Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons EPH Aliphatic /Aromatic Ranges Prepared by method SW846 3545A C9 -C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons BRL 30 -150 U mgft dry C19 -C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 96.9 mgft dry C11 -C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons 72.4 mgft dry Unadjusted Cl 1-C22 Aromatic 73.7 mgft dry Hydrocarbons 21.8 1 mgft dry Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 169 mgft dry Unadjusted Total Petroleum 171 mgft dry Hydrocarbons 0.382 1 Total Metals by EPA 6000/7000 Series Methods 0.123 1 7446 -38 -2 Arsenic 1.14 744943-9 Cadmium 0.668 744647 -3 Chromium 21.1 7446 -59 -8 Copper 14.0 7439 -97-6 Mercury 0.0838 7446 -92 -9 Nickel 17.3 7439 -92 -1 Lead 24.4 7446 -66 -6 Zinc 79.6 30 -150 U mgft dry 27.3 23.2 1 mgft dry 27.3 24.6 1 mgft dry 27.3 25.9 1 mgft dry 27.3 21.8 1 mgft dry 27.3 21.8 1 mgft dry 27.3 21.8 1 J mgft dry 1.51 0.502 1 mgft dry 0.502 0.0291 1 mgft dry 1.00 0.276 1 mgft dry 1.00 0.199 1 mgft dry 0.0302 0.0072 1 mgft dry 1.00 0.294 1 mgft dry 1.51 0.382 1 mgft dry 1.00 0.123 1 +MADEP EPH 27- Aug -08 28- Aug -08 8082042 5/2004 R SW846 6010B 28- Aug -08 03- Sep -08 8082124 SW8467471A 03- Sep - 088082125 SW8466010B 03- Sep- 088082124 This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 6 of 47 Sample Identification 3ABC Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received SA83 491 -03 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0815:30 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert TCLP Metals by EPA 1311 & 6000/7000 Series Methods TCLP Extraction Completed 744047 -3 Chromium BRL u 7439-97-6 Mercury BRL u 7440 -02 -0 Nickel 0.0180 General Chemistry Parameters 12 -hour Drying @ 60 C Completed Solids 97.1 Total Organic Carbon 33,800 z -2 N/A 1 SW846 1311 26- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8081975 mgA 0.0100 0.0060 1 SW846 27- Aug -08 27- Aug -08 8082049 1311/60108 mgA 0.00020 0.00008 1 SW846 28- Aug -08 8082050 1311/7470A mgA 0.0100 0.0033 1 SW846 27- Aug -08 8082049 1311/60108 N/A 1 Yankee CAPP 26- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8082022 % 1 SM2540 G Mod. 26- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8082000 mg /kg 100 59.7 1 SW846 9060 27- Aug -08 27- Aug -08 8082217 Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 7 of 47 Sample Identification lABC -PAH Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received SA83491 -04 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0811:00 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert Semivoladle Organic Compounds by GCMS PAHs by SW846 8270C Prepared by method SW846 3550B 83 -32-9 Acenaphthene BRL a pg /kg dry 190 0.172 1 SW846 8270C 26- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8081957 208 -96 -8 Acenaphthylene BRL a pg /kg dry 190 0.214 1 " 120 -12 -7 Anthracene BRL a pg /kg dry 190 0.214 1 " 56-55-3 Benzo (a) anthracene BRL a pg /kg dry 190 0.458 1 " 50-32 -8 Benzo (a) pyrene BRL a pg /kg dry 190 0.243 1 " 205-90 -2 Benzo (b) fluoranthene BRL a pg /kg dry 190 0.944 1 " 191 -24 -2 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene BRL a pg /kg dry 190 0.200 1 " 207 -08-9 Benzo (k) fluoranthene BRL a pg /kg dry 190 0.286 1 " 218 -01-9 Chrysene BRL a pg /kg dry 190 0.100 1 " 53-70-3 Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene BRL a pg /kg dry 190 0.114 1 " 206 -44 -0 Fluoranthene BRL a pg /kg dry 190 0.172 1 " 86 -13 -7 Fluorene BRL a pg /kg dry 190 0.172 1 " 193 -305 Indeno (1,2,3 -cd) pyrene BRL a pg /kg dry 190 0.329 1 " 90 -12 -0 1- Methylnaphthalene BRL a pg /kg dry 190 0.157 1 " 91 -57-6 2- Methylnaphthalene BRL a pg /kg dry 190 0.157 1 " 91-20 -3 Naphthalene BRL a pg /kg dry 190 0.272 1 " 85-01-8 Phenanthrene BRL a pg /kg dry 190 0.329 1 " 129 -00 -0 Pyrene BRL a pg /kg dry 190 0.500 1 " Surrogate recoveries: 321 -60 -8 2- Fluorobiphenyl 79 30-130% " 1718 -91-0 Terphenyl-t14 76 30-130% " General Chemistry Parameters Solids 67.1 % 1 SM2540 G Mod. 22- Aug -08 22- Aug -08 8081807 Moisture 36.0 % 1 SM2540 G Mod. 28- Aug -08 28- Aug -08 8082260 calculation Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 8 of 47 Sample Identification 2ABC -PAH Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received SA83491 -05 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0811:50 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert Semivoladle Organic Compounds by GCMS PAHs by SW846 8270C Prepared by method SW846 3550B 83 -32-9 Acenaphthene BRL a pg /kg dry 353 0.318 1 SW846 8270C 26- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8081957 208 -96 -8 Acenaphthylene BRL a pg /kg dry 353 0.398 1 " 120 -12 -7 Anthracene BRL a pg /kg dry 353 0.398 1 " 56-55-3 Benzo (a) anthracene BRL a pg /kg dry 353 0.849 1 " 50-32 -8 Benzo (a) pyrene BRL a pg /kg dry 353 0.451 1 " 205-90 -2 Benzo (b) fluoranthene BRL a pg /kg dry 353 1.75 1 " 191 -24 -2 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene BRL a pg /kg dry 353 0.371 1 " 207 -08-9 Benzo (k) fluoranthene BRL a pg /kg dry 353 0.531 1 " 218 -01-9 Chrysene BRL a pg /kg dry 353 0.186 1 " 53-70-3 Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene BRL a pg /kg dry 353 0.212 1 " 206 -44 -0 Fluoranthene BRL a pg /kg dry 353 0.318 1 " 86 -13 -7 Fluorene BRL a pg /kg dry 353 0.318 1 " 193 -305 Indeno (1,2,3 -cd) pyrene BRL a pg /kg dry 353 0.610 1 " 90 -12 -0 1- Methylnaphthalene BRL a pg /kg dry 353 0.292 1 " 91 -57-6 2- Methylnaphthalene BRL a pg /kg dry 353 0.292 1 " 91-20 -3 Naphthalene BRL a pg /kg dry 353 0.504 1 " 85-01-8 Phenanthrene BRL a pg /kg dry 353 0.610 1 " 129 -00 -0 Pyrene BRL a pg /kg dry 353 0.928 1 " Surrogate recoveries: 321 -60 -8 2- Fluorobiphenyl 76 30-130% " 1718 -91-0 Terphenyl-t14 73 30-130% " General Chemistry Parameters Solids 36.2 % 1 SM2540 G Mod. 22- Aug -08 22- Aug -08 8081807 Moisture 60.8 % 1 SM2540 G Mod. 28- Aug -08 28- Aug -08 8082260 calculation Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 9 of 47 Sample Identification 3ABC -PAH Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received SA83491 -06 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0815:30 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert Semivoladle Organic Compounds by GCMS PAHs by SW846 8270C Prepared by method SW846 3550B 83 -32-9 Acenaphthene BRL a pg /kg dry 440 0.397 1 SW846 8270C 26- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8081957 208 -96 -8 Acenaphthylene BRL a pg /kg dry 440 0.496 1 " 120 -12 -7 Anthracene BRL a pg /kg dry 440 0.496 1 " 56-55-3 Benzo (a) anthracene BRL a pg /kg dry 440 1.06 1 " 50-32 -8 Benzo (a) pyrene BRL a pg /kg dry 440 0.562 1 " 205-90 -2 Benzo (b) fluoranthene BRL a pg /kg dry 440 2.18 1 " 191 -24 -2 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene BRL a pg /kg dry 440 0.463 1 " 207 -08-9 Benzo (k) fluoranthene BRL a pg /kg dry 440 0.661 1 " 218 -01-9 Chrysene BRL a pg /kg dry 440 0.231 1 " 53-70-3 Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene BRL a pg /kg dry 440 0.264 1 " 206 -44 -0 Fluoranthene BRL a pg /kg dry 440 0.397 1 " 86 -13 -7 Fluorene BRL a pg /kg dry 440 0.397 1 " 193 -305 Indeno (1,2,3 -cd) pyrene BRL a pg /kg dry 440 0.760 1 " 90 -12 -0 1- Methylnaphthalene BRL a pg /kg dry 440 0.364 1 " 91 -57-6 2- Methylnaphthalene BRL a pg /kg dry 440 0.364 1 " 91-20 -3 Naphthalene BRL a pg /kg dry 440 0.628 1 " 85-01-8 Phenanthrene BRL a pg /kg dry 440 0.760 1 " 129 -00 -0 Pyrene BRL a pg /kg dry 440 1.16 1 " Surrogate recoveries: 321 -60 -8 2- Fluorobiphenyl 79 30-130% " 1718 -91-0 Terphenyl-t14 75 30-130% " General Chemistry Parameters Solids 28.9 % 1 SM2540 G Mod. 22- Aug -08 22- Aug -08 8081807 Moisture 68.9 % 1 SM2540 G Mod. 28- Aug -08 28- Aug -08 8082260 calculation Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 10 of 47 Sample Identification 1C SA83491 -07 Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0811:00 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analytels) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert Volatile Organic Compounds VOC Extraction Field extracted N/A 1 VOC Soil 22- Aug -08 22- Aug -08 8081806 Extraction Volatile Organic Compounds Initial weight: 13.8 g Prepared by method SW846 5030 Soil (high level) 76-13 -1 1,1,2 - Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Fre BRL a pg /kg dry 105 43.2 50 SW 84682608 25- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8081900 113) 67 -04 -1 Acetone BRL a pg /kgdry 1050 925 50 " 107 -13 -1 Acrylonitrile BRL a pg /kgdry 105 85.4 50 " 11 -43 -2 Benzene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 11.6 50 " 108 -80 -1 Bromobenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 16.9 50 " 14 -91 -5 Brom ochlorom ethane BRL a pg /kgdry 105 9.5 50 " 15 -21 -4 Brom odichlorom ethane BRL a pg /kgdry 105 6.3 50 " 15 -25 -2 Bromoform BRL a pg /kgdry 105 19.0 50 " 14 -83 -9 Bromomethane BRL a pg /kgdry 211 21.1 50 " 7893 -3 2- Butanone(MEIQ BRL a pg /kgdry 1050 74.9 50 " 104 -51-8 n- Butylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 9.5 50 " 135 -98 -8 sec - Butylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 12.7 50 " 98 -00 -0 tert- Butylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 9.5 50 " 15 -15 -0 Carbon disulfide BRL a pg /kg dry 527 9.5 50 " 50 -23 -5 Carbon tetrachloride BRL a pg /kg dry 105 10.5 50 " 108 -90 -7 Chlorobenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 13.7 50 " 15 -00 -3 Chloroethane BRL a pg /kgdry 211 23.2 50 " 07 -00 -3 Chloroform BRL a pg /kgdry 105 8.4 50 " 14 -87 -3 Chloromethane BRL a pg /kgdry 211 9.5 50 " 95 -49 -8 2- Chlorotoluene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 10.5 50 " 100 -43 -4 4- Chlorotoluene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 12.7 50 " 90 -12 -8 1,2- Dibromo -3- chloropropane BRL a pg /kgdry 211 24.3 50 " 124 -48 -1 Dibromochlorom ethane BRL a pg /kgdry 105 15.8 50 " 100 -93-4 1,2- Dibromoethane(EDB) BRL a pg /kgdry 105 7.4 50 " 14 -95 -3 Dibromomethane BRL a pg /kgdry 105 10.5 50 " 95 -50 -1 1,2- Dichlorobenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 24.3 50 " 541 -73 -1 1,3- Dichlorobenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 10.5 50 " 100 -40 -7 1,4- Dichlorobenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 14.8 50 " 15 -11-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freonl: BRL a pg /kg dry 211 13.7 50 " 75 -34 -3 1,1- Dichloroethane BRL a pg /kgdry 105 7.4 50 " 107 -00 -2 1,2- Dichloroethane BRL a pg /kgdry 105 9.5 50 " 75 -35 -4 1,1- Dichloroethene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 8.4 50 " 150 -59 -2 cis -1,2- Dichloroethene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 7.4 50 " 150 -00 -5 trans- 1,2- Dichloroethene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 10.5 50 " 78 -87 -5 1,2- Dichloropropane BRL a pg /kgdry 105 9.5 50 " 142 -28 -9 1,3- Dichloropropane BRL a pg /kgdry 105 9.5 50 " 594 -20 -7 2,2- Dichloropropane BRL a pg /kgdry 105 78.0 50 " 503 -58 -0 1,1- Dichloropropene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 13.7 50 " 10061 -01 -5 cis -1,3- Dichloropropene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 12.7 50 " 10061 -02 -0 trans-1,3- Dichloropropene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 9.5 50 " 100 -41-4 Ethylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 12.7 50 " 87 -08 -3 Hexachlorobutadiene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 16.9 50 " 591 -78 -0 2- Hexanone(MBIO BRL a pg /kgdry 1050 13.7 50 " 98 -82 -8 Isopropylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 13.7 50 " 99 -87 -0 4- Isopropyltoluene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 12.7 50 " 1034 -044 Methyl tert-butyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 105 10.5 50 " 108 -10 -1 4- Methyl- 2- pentanone(MIBIO BRL a pg /kgdry 1050 11.6 50 " 75 -09 -2 Methylene chloride BRL a pg /kg dry 1050 50.6 50 " Thislaboratory report is notvatidwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 11 of 47 Sample Identification 1C SA83491 -07 Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0811:00 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analytels) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert Volatile Organic Compounds Volatile Organic Compounds Initial weight: 13.8 g Prepared by method SW846 5030 Soil (high level) 91-20 -3 Naphthalene BRL a pg /kg dry 105 19.0 50 SW 846 82608 25- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8081900 103 -65 -1 n- Propylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 14.8 50 " 100 -42 -5 Styrene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 97.0 50 " 630 -20 -6 1,1,1,2 - Tetrachloroethane BRL a pg /kgdry 105 17.9 50 " 19 -34 -5 1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane BRL a pg /kgdry 105 16.9 50 " 121 -18 -4 Tetrachloroethene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 6.3 50 " 108 -88 -3 Toluene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 16.9 50 " 87 -61-6 1,2,3 - Trichlorobenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 13.7 50 " 120 -82 -1 1,2,4 - Trichlorobenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 8.4 50 " 108 -70 -3 1,3,5 - Trichlorobenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 33.7 50 " 71 -55 -6 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane BRL a pg /kgdry 105 55.9 50 " 19 -00 -5 1,1,2 - Trichloroethane BRL a pg /kgdry 105 98.1 50 " 19 -01-6 Trichloroethene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 48.5 50 " 15 -69 -4 Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11 BRL a pg /kg dry 105 50.6 50 " 96 -18 -4 1,2,3- Trichloropropane BRL a pg /kgdry 105 50.6 50 " 95 -63 -6 1,2,4 - Trimethylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 69.6 50 " 108 -67 -8 1,3,5 - Trimethylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 56.9 50 " 15 -01-4 Vinyl chloride BRL a pg /kg dry 105 90.7 50 " 179001- 23 -1rnp- Xylene BRL a pg /kgdry 211 71.7 50 " 95 -41 -6 o- Xylene BRL a pg /kgdry 105 55.9 50 " 109 -99 -9 Tetrahydrofuran BRL a pg /kgdry 1050 43.2 50 " 60 -29 -7 Ethyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 105 39.0 50 " 994 -05 -8 Tert-amyl methyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 105 40.1 50 " 637 -92 -3 Ethyl tert-butyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 105 28.5 50 " 108 -20 -3 Di- isopropyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 105 31.6 50 " 15 -65 -0 Tert- Butanol / butyl alcohol BRL a pg /kg dry 1050 781 50 " 123 -91 -1 1,4- Dioxane BRL a pg /kgdry 2110 514 50 " 110 -51 -6 trans- 1,4- Dichloro -2- butene BRL a pg /kgdry 527 264 50 " 64 -17-5 Ethanol BRL a pg /kgdry 42200 7740 50 " Surrogate recoveries: 466 -66 -4 4- Bromofluorobenzene 106 70-130% " 2637 -26-5 Toluene -t8 110 70-130% " 1766M7-6 1,2- Dichloroethane -d4 114 70 -130% " 1868 -53 -7 Dibromofluoromethane 104 70-130% " Re- analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds 76 -13 -1 1,1,2- Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Fre BRL a pg /kg dry 12.6 5.2 1 SW 84682608 26- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8081976 113) 67 -64 -1 Acetone 255 voc6 pg /kgdry 126 110 1 " 107 -13 -1 Acrylonitrile BRL a pg /kgdry 12.6 10.2 1 " 11 -43 -2 Benzene BRL a pg /kgdry 12.6 1.4 1 " 100 -86 -1 Bromobenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 12.6 2.0 1 " 14 -91 -5 Brom ochlorom ethane BRL a pg /kgdry 12.6 1.1 1 " 15 -21 -4 Brom odichlorom ethane BRL a pg /kgdry 12.6 0.8 1 " 15 -25 -2 Bromoform BRL a pg /kgdry 12.6 2.3 1 " 14 -83 -9 Bromomethane BRL a pg /kgdry 25.2 2.5 1 " 7893 -3 2- Butanone (MEIQ 85.5 1 pg /kg dry 126 8.9 1 " 104 -51-0 n- Butylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 12.6 1.1 1 " 135 -98 -8 sec - Butylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 12.6 1.5 1 " 98 -06 -6 tert- Butylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 12.6 1.1 1 " 15 -15 -0 Carbon disulfide 5.1 1 pg /kg dry 63.0 1.1 1 " Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 12 of 47 Sample Identification 1C SA83491 -07 Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0811:00 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analytels) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert Volatile Organic Compounds Volatile Organic Compounds 12.6 Prepared by method SW846 5035A Soil (low level) Re- analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds 56-23-5 Carbon tetrachloride BRL 108 -90 -7 Chlorobenzene BRL 75 -00 -3 Chloroethane BRL 67 -66 -3 Chloroform BRL 74 -87 -3 Chloromethane BRL 95-49-8 2- Chlorotoluene BRL 106 -43 -4 4- Chlorotoluene BRL 96-12 -8 1,2- Dibromo- 3- chloropropane BRL 124 -48 -1 Dibromochlorom ethane BRL 106 -93-4 1,2- Dibromoethane(EDB) BRL 74-95-3 Dibromomethane BRL 95-59-1 1,2- Dichlorobenzene BRL 541 -73 -1 1,3- Dichlorobenzene BRL 106 -46 -7 1,4- Dichlorobenzene BRL 75-71 -8 Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freonl: BRL 75-34 -3 1,1- Dichloroethane BRL 107 -06 -2 1,2- Dichloroethane BRL 75-35 -4 1,1- Dichloroethene BRL 15659 -2 cis -1,2- Dichloroethene BRL 156 -605- trans -1,2- Dichloroethene BRL 78 -87 -5 1,2- Dichloropropane BRL 443 -28-9 1,3- Dichloropropane BRL 594 -20 -7 2,2- Dichloropropane BRL 56358 -6 1,1- Dichloropropene BRL 10061 -01-5 cis -1,3- Dichloropropene BRL 10061-02-6 trans-1,3- Dichloropropene BRL 400 -44-4 Ethylbenzene BRL 87 -68 -3 Hexachlorobutadiene BRL 591 -78 -6 2- Hexanone (MBO BRL 98 -82 -8 Isopropylbenzene BRL 99 -87 -6 4- Isopropyltoluene BRL 1634 -044 Methyl tert-butyl ether BRL 108 -10 -1 4- Methyl -2- pentanone (MIBO BRL 75 -09 -2 Methylene chloride BRL 91 -29-3 Naphthalene BRL 103 -65 -1 n- Propylbenzene BRL 400 -425 Styrene BRL 630 -20 -6 1,1,1,2 - Tetrachloroethane BRL 79-34 -5 1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane BRL 427 -48-4 Tetrachloroethene BRL 108 -88 -3 Toluene BRL 87 -61 -6 1,2,3 - Trichlorobenzene BRL 120 -82 -1 1,2,4 - Trichlorobenzene BRL 108 -70 -3 1,3,5 - Trichlorobenzene BRL 7155-6 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane BRL 79-005 1,1,2 - Trichloroethane BRL 79 -01-6 Trichloroethene BRL 75 -69 -4 Trichlorofluoromethane(Freon 11 BRL 95 1,2,3- Trichloropropane BRL Initial weight: 3.67 g VC10 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.3 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.6 1 U pg /kg dry 25.2 2.8 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.0 1 U pg /kg dry 25.2 1.1 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.3 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.5 1 U pg /kg dry 25.2 2.9 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.9 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 0.9 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.3 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 2.9 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.3 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.8 1 U pg /kg dry 25.2 1.6 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 0.9 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.1 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.0 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 0.9 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.3 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.1 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.1 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 9.3 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.6 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.5 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.1 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.5 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 2.0 1 U pg /kg dry 126 1.6 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.6 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.5 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.3 1 U pg /kg dry 126 1.4 1 U pg /kg dry 126 6.0 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 2.3 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.8 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 11.6 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 2.1 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 2.0 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 0.8 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 2.0 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.6 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 1.0 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 4.0 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 6.7 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 11.7 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 5.8 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 6.0 1 U pg /kg dry 12.6 6.0 1 SVV 84682608 26- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8081976 Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 13 of 47 Sample Identification 1C Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received SA83491 -07 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0811:00 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert Volatile Organic Compounds 70-130% 98 70-130% 120 70-130% 101 Volatile Organic Compounds 67.1 VC10 Initial weight: 3.67 g Prepared by method SW846 5035A Soil (low level) Re- analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds 95 -63 -6 1,2,4 - Trimethylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 12.6 8.3 1 SW 84682608 26- Aug -08 26- Aug- 088081976 198 -67 -8 1,3,5 - Trimethylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 12.6 6.8 1 " 15 -91-4 Vinyl chloride BRL a pg /kgdry 12.6 10.8 1 " 179691- 23 -1 rnp- Xylene BRL a pg /kgdry 25.2 8.6 1 " 95 -41 -6 o- Xylene BRL a pg /kgdry 12.6 6.7 1 " 199 -99 -9 Tetrahydrofuran BRL a pg /kgdry 126 5.2 1 " 69 -29- Ethyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 12.6 4.7 1 " 994 -95 -8 Tert-amyl methyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 12.6 4.8 1 " 637 -92-3 Ethyl tert-butyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 12.6 3.4 1 " 198 -29- Di- isopropyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 12.6 3.8 1 " 15 -65 -9 Tert- Butanol / butyl alcohol BRL a pg /kg dry 126 93.3 1 " 123 -91-1 1,4- Dioxane BRL a pg /kgdry 252 61.3 1 " 119 -51 -6 trans- 1,4- Dichloro -2- butene BRL a pg /kgdry 63.0 31.5 1 " 64 -17-5 Ethanol BRL a pg /kgdry 5040 925 1 " Surrogate recoveries: 460 -00 -4 4- Bromofluorobenzene 2037 -26-5 Toluene -t8 17060 -07-0 1, 2- Dichloroethane -d4 1868-53 -7 Dibromofluoromethane General Chemistry Parameters % Solids 93 70-130% 98 70-130% 120 70-130% 101 70-130% 67.1 soy % 1 SM2540 G Mod. 22- Aug -08 22- Aug -08 8081807 Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 14 of 47 Sample Identification 2B SA83491 -08 Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0811:50 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analytels) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert Volatile Organic Compounds VOC Extraction Field extracted Volatile Organic Compounds Prepared by method SW846 5030 Soil (high level) 56-13 -1 1,1,2- Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Fre BRL N/A 1 VOC Soil 22- Aug -08 22- Aug -08 8081806 Extraction Initial weight: 12.34 g pg /kg dry 256 105 50 SW 846 82608 25- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8081900 U U pg /kg 113) 2560 61 -64 -1 Acetone BRL 105 -13 -1 Acrylonitrile BRL 51 -4E-2 Benzene BRL 108 -86 -1 Bromobenzene BRL 14 -91 -5 Brom ochlorom ethane BRL 15 -2 -4 Brom odichlorom ethane BRL 75-25-2 Bromoform BRL 14 -83 -9 Bromomethane BRL 7893 -3 2- Butanone (MEIQ BRL 104-51 -8 n- Butylbenzene BRL 135-98 -8 sec - Butylbenzene BRL 98 -06 -6 tert- Butylbenzene BRL 55-15-0 Carbon disulfide BRL 56.235 Carbon tetrachloride BRL 108 -90 -7 Chlorobenzene BRL 15 -00 -3 Chloroethane BRL 61 -66 -3 Chloroform BRL 14 -81 -3 Chloromethane BRL 95-49-8 2- Chlorotoluene BRL 106 -43 -4 4- Chlorotoluene BRL 96.12 -8 1,2- Dibromo -3- chloropropane BRL 124 -48 -1 Dibromochlorom ethane BRL 106 -53-4 1,2- Dibromoethane (EDB) BRL 74-95-3 Dibromomethane BRL 9550-1 1,2- Dichlorobenzene BRL 541 -53 -1 1,3- Dichlorobenzene BRL 106 -46 -7 1,4- Dichlorobenzene BRL 75-71 -8 Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freonl: BRL 75-34 -3 1,1- Dichloroethane BRL 101 -06 -2 1,2- Dichloroethane BRL 55-35-4 1,1- Dichloroethene BRL 156-50 -2 cis -1,2- Dichloroethene BRL 156 -60-5 trans- 1,2- Dichloroethene BRL 18 -81 -5 1,2- Dichloropropane BRL 142 -28-5 1,3- Dichloropropane BRL 504 -20 -5 2,2- Dichloropropane BRL 563-58 -6 1,1- Dichloropropene BRL 10061-01-5 cis -1,3- Dichloropropene BRL 10061-02-6 trans-1,3- Dichloropropene BRL 100 -41-4 Ethylbenzene BRL 81 -68 -3 Hexachlorobutadiene BRL 501 -58 -6 2- Hexanone (MBIO BRL 98 -82 -8 Isopropylbenzene BRL 99 -81 -6 4- Isopropyltoluene BRL 1634 -044 Methyl tert-butyl ether BRL 108 -10 -1 4- Methyl -2- pentanone (MIBIO BRL 15 -09 -2 Methylene chloride BRL N/A 1 VOC Soil 22- Aug -08 22- Aug -08 8081806 Extraction Initial weight: 12.34 g pg /kg dry 256 105 50 SW 846 82608 25- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8081900 U U pg /kg dry 2560 2250 50 U pg /kg dry 256 207 50 U pg /kg dry 256 28.2 50 U pg /kg dry 256 41.0 50 U pg /kg dry 256 23.0 50 U pg /kg dry 256 15.4 50 U pg /kg dry 256 46.1 50 U pg /kg dry 512 51.2 50 U pg /kg dry 2560 182 50 U pg /kg dry 256 23.0 50 U pg /kg dry 256 30.7 50 U pg /kg dry 256 23.0 50 U pg /kg dry 1280 23.0 50 U pg /kg dry 256 25.6 50 U pg /kg dry 256 33.3 50 U pg /kg dry 512 56.3 50 U pg /kg dry 256 20.5 50 U pg /kg dry 512 23.0 50 U pg /kg dry 256 25.6 50 U pg /kg dry 256 30.7 50 U pg /kg dry 512 58.9 50 U pg /kg dry 256 38.4 50 U pg /kg dry 256 17.9 50 U pg /kg dry 256 25.6 50 U pg /kg dry 256 58.9 50 U pg /kg dry 256 25.6 50 U pg /kg dry 256 35.8 50 U pg /kg dry 512 33.3 50 U pg /kg dry 256 17.9 50 U pg /kg dry 256 23.0 50 U pg /kg dry 256 20.5 50 U pg /kg dry 256 17.9 50 U pg /kg dry 256 25.6 50 U pg /kg dry 256 23.0 50 U pg /kg dry 256 23.0 50 U pg /kg dry 256 189 50 U pg /kg dry 256 33.3 50 U pg /kg dry 256 30.7 50 U pg /kg dry 256 23.0 50 U pg /kg dry 256 30.7 50 U pg /kg dry 256 41.0 50 U pg /kg dry 2560 33.3 50 U pg /kg dry 256 33.3 50 U pg /kg dry 256 30.7 50 U pg /kg dry 256 25.6 50 U pg /kg dry 2560 28.2 50 U pg /kg dry 2560 123 50 Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 15 of 47 Sample Identification 2B SA83491 -08 Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0811:50 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analytels) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert Volatile Organic Compounds Volatile Organic Compounds Initial weight: 12.34 g Prepared by method SW846 5030 Soil (high level) 91-20 -3 Naphthalene BRL a pg /kg dry 256 46.1 50 SW 846 82608 25- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8081900 103 -65 -1 n- Propylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 256 35.8 50 " 100 -42 -5 Styrene BRL a pg /kgdry 256 236 50 " 630 -20 -6 1,1,1,2 - Tetrachloroethane BRL a pg /kgdry 256 43.5 50 " 19 -34 -5 1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane BRL a pg /kgdry 256 41.0 50 " 121 -18 -4 Tetrachloroethene BRL a pg /kgdry 256 15.4 50 " 108 -88 -3 Toluene BRL a pg /kgdry 256 41.0 50 " 87 -61-6 1,2,3 - Trichlorobenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 256 33.3 50 " 120 -82 -1 1,2,4 - Trichlorobenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 256 20.5 50 " 108 -70 -3 1,3,5 - Trichlorobenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 256 81.9 50 " 71 -55 -6 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane BRL a pg /kgdry 256 136 50 " 19 -00 -5 1,1,2 - Trichloroethane BRL a pg /kgdry 256 238 50 " 19 -01-6 Trichloroethene BRL a pg /kgdry 256 118 50 " 15 -69 -4 Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11 BRL a pg /kg dry 256 123 50 " 96 -18 -4 1,2,3- Trichloropropane BRL a pg /kgdry 256 123 50 " 95 -63 -6 1,2,4 - Trimethylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 256 169 50 " 108 -67 -8 1,3,5 - Trimethylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 256 138 50 " 15 -01-4 Vinyl chloride BRL a pg /kg dry 256 220 50 " 179601- 23 -1rnp- Xylene BRL a pg /kgdry 512 174 50 " 95 -41 -6 o- Xylene BRL a pg /kgdry 256 136 50 " 109 -99 -9 Tetrahydrofuran BRL a pg /kgdry 2560 105 50 " 60 -29 -7 Ethyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 256 94.7 50 " 994 -05 -8 Tert-amyl methyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 256 97.3 50 " 637 -92 -3 Ethyl tert-butyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 256 69.1 50 " 108 -20 -3 Di- isopropyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 256 76.8 50 " 15 -65 -0 Tert- Butanol / butyl alcohol BRL a pg /kg dry 2560 1900 50 " 123 -91 -1 1,4- Dioxane BRL a pg /kgdry 5120 1250 50 " 110 -51 -6 trans- 1,4- Dichloro -2- butene BRL a pg /kgdry 1280 640 50 " 64 -17-5 Ethanol BRL a pg /kgdry 102000 18800 50 " Surrogate recoveries: 466 -66 -4 4- Bromofluorobenzene 104 70-130% " 2637 -26-5 Toluene -t8 111 70-130% " 1766M7-6 1,2- Dichloroethane -d4 109 70 -130% " 1868 -53 -7 Dibromofluoromethane 99 70-130% " Re- analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds 76 -13 -1 1,1,2- Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Fre BRL a pg /kg dry 27.7 11.4 1 SW 84682608 26- Aug -08 27- Aug -08 8081976 113) 67 -64 -1 Acetone 301 voc6 pg /kgdry 277 243 1 " 107 -13 -1 Acrylonitrile BRL a pg /kgdry 27.7 22.5 1 " 11 -43 -2 Benzene BRL a pg /kgdry 27.7 3.1 1 " 100 -86 -1 Bromobenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 27.7 4.4 1 " 14 -91 -5 Brom ochlorom ethane BRL a pg /kgdry 27.7 2.5 1 " 15 -21 -4 Brom odichlorom ethane BRL a pg /kgdry 27.7 1.7 1 " 15 -25 -2 Bromoform BRL a pg /kgdry 27.7 5.0 1 " 14 -83 -9 Bromomethane BRL a pg /kgdry 55.5 5.5 1 " 7893 -3 2- Butanone (MEIQ 113 1 pg /kg dry 277 19.7 1 " 104 -51-0 n- Butylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 27.7 2.5 1 " 135 -98 -8 sec - Butylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 27.7 3.3 1 " 98 -06 -6 tert- Butylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 27.7 2.5 1 " 15 -15 -0 Carbon disulfide BRL a pg /kg dry 139 2.5 1 " Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 16 of 47 Sample Identification 2B SA83491 -08 Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0811:50 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analytels) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert Volatile Organic Compounds Volatile Organic Compounds 27.7 Prepared by method SW846 5035A Soil (low level) Re- analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds 56-23-5 Carbon tetrachloride BRL 198 -99 -7 Chlorobenzene BRL 15 -99 -3 Chloroethane BRL 67 -66 -3 Chloroform BRL 14 -87 -3 Chloromethane BRL 95-49-8 2- Chlorotoluene BRL 106 -43 -4 4- Chlorotoluene BRL 96-12 -8 1,2- Dibromo- 3- chloropropane BRL 124 -48 -1 Dibromochlorom ethane BRL 186 -93-4 1,2- Dibromoethane (EDB) BRL 54-95-3 Dibromomethane BRL 95-59-1 1,2- Dichlorobenzene BRL 541 -53 -1 1,3- Dichlorobenzene BRL 196 -46 -7 1,4- Dichlorobenzene BRL 15-11 -8 Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freonl: BRL 75-34 -3 1,1- Dichloroethane BRL 197 -96 -2 1,2- Dichloroethane BRL 55-35 -4 1,1- Dichloroethene BRL 15659 -2 cis -1,2- Dichloroethene BRL 156 -695 trans -1,2- Dichloroethene BRL 78 -87 -5 1,2- Dichloropropane BRL 142 -28-9 1,3- Dichloropropane BRL 594 -29 -5 2,2- Dichloropropane BRL 56358 -6 1,1- Dichloropropene BRL 10061 -01-5 cis -1,3- Dichloropropene BRL 10061-02-6 trans-1,3- Dichloropropene BRL 199 -41-4 Ethylbenzene BRL 87 -68 -3 Hexachlorobutadiene BRL 591 -58 -6 2- Hexanone (MBO BRL 98 -82 -8 Isopropylbenzene BRL 99 -87 -6 4- Isopropyltoluene BRL 1634 -944 Methyl tert-butyl ether BRL 198 -19 -1 4- Methyl -2- pentanone (MIBO BRL 15 -99-2 Methylene chloride BRL 91 -29-3 Naphthalene BRL 193 -65 -1 n- Propylbenzene BRL 199 -425 Styrene BRL 639 -29 -6 1,1,1,2 - Tetrachloroethane BRL 5 9-345 1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane BRL 121 -18-4 Tetrachloroethene BRL 198 -88 -3 Toluene BRL 85 -61 -6 1,2,3 - Trichlorobenzene BRL 129 -82 -1 1,2,4 - Trichlorobenzene BRL 198 -79 -3 1,3,5 - Trichlorobenzene BRL 7155-6 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane BRL 79-995 1,1,2 - Trichloroethane BRL 19 -91-6 Trichloroethene BRL 15 -69 -4 Trichlorofluoromethane(Freon 11 BRL 96-184 1,2,3- Trichloropropane BRL Initial weight: 3.65 g VC9 U pg /kg dry 27.7 2.8 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 3.6 1 U pg /kg dry 55.5 6.1 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 2.2 1 U pg /kg dry 55.5 2.5 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 2.8 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 3.3 1 U pg /kg dry 55.5 6.4 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 4.2 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 1.9 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 2.8 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 6.4 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 2.8 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 3.9 1 U pg /kg dry 55.5 3.6 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 1.9 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 2.5 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 2.2 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 1.9 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 2.8 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 2.5 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 2.5 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 20.5 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 3.6 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 3.3 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 2.5 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 3.3 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 4.4 1 U pg /kg dry 277 3.6 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 3.6 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 3.3 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 2.8 1 U pg /kg dry 277 3.1 1 U pg /kg dry 277 13.3 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 5.0 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 3.9 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 25.5 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 4.7 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 4.4 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 1.7 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 4.4 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 3.6 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 2.2 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 8.9 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 14.7 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 25.8 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 12.8 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 13.3 1 U pg /kg dry 27.7 13.3 1 SVV 84682608 26- Aug -08 27- Aug -08 8081976 Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 17 of 47 Sample Identification 2B Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received SA83491 -08 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0811:50 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert Volatile Organic Compounds 70-130% 99 70-130% 111 70-130% 101 Volatile Organic Compounds 36.2 VC10 Initial weight: 3.65 g Prepared by method SW846 5035A Soil (low level) Re- analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds 95 -63 -6 1,2,4 - Trimethylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 27.7 18.3 1 SW 84682608 26- Aug -08 27- Aug- 088081976 198 -67 -8 1,3,5 - Trimethylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 27.7 15.0 1 " 15 -91-4 Vinyl chloride BRL a pg /kgdry 27.7 23.8 1 " 179601- 23 -1 rnp- Xylene BRL a pg /kgdry 55.5 18.9 1 " 95 -41 -6 o- Xylene BRL a pg /kgdry 27.7 14.7 1 " 199 -99 -9 Tetrahydrofuran BRL a pg /kgdry 277 11.4 1 " 69 -29- Ethyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 27.7 10.3 1 " 994 -95 -8 Tert-amyl methyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 27.7 10.5 1 " 637 -92-3 Ethyl tert-butyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 27.7 7.5 1 " 198 -29- Di- isopropyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 27.7 8.3 1 " 15 -65 -9 Tert- Butanol / butyl alcohol BRL a pg /kg dry 277 205 1 " 123 -91-1 1,4- Dioxane BRL a pg /kgdry 555 135 1 " 119 -51 -6 trans- 1,4- Dichloro -2- butene BRL a pg /kgdry 139 69.3 1 " 64 -17-5 Ethanol BRL a pg /kgdry 11100 2040 1 " Surrogate recoveries: 466 -66 -4 4- Bromofluorobenzene 2637 -26-5 Toluene -t8 1706M7-0 1, 2- Dichloroethane -d4 1868-53 -7 Dibromofluoromethane General Chemistry Parameters % Solids 98 70-130% 99 70-130% 111 70-130% 101 70-130% 36.2 soya % 1 SM2540 G Mod. 22- Aug -08 22- Aug -08 8081807 Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 18 of 47 Sample Identification 3C SA83491 -09 Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0815:30 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analytels) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert Volatile Organic Compounds VOC Extraction Field extracted Volatile Organic Compounds Prepared by method SW846 5030 Soil (high level) 56-13 -1 1,1,2- Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Fre BRL N/A 1 VOC Soil 22- Aug -08 22- Aug -08 8081806 Extraction Initial weight: 14.21 g pg /kg dry 305 125 50 SW 846 82608 25- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8081900 U U pg /kg 113) 3050 61 -64 -1 Acetone BRL 105 -13 -1 Acrylonitrile BRL 51 -4E-2 Benzene BRL 108 -86 -1 Bromobenzene BRL 14 -91 -5 Brom ochlorom ethane BRL 15 -2 -4 Brom odichlorom ethane BRL 75-25-2 Bromoform BRL 14 -83 -9 Bromomethane BRL 7893 -3 2- Butanone (MEIQ BRL 104-51 -8 n- Butylbenzene BRL 135-98 -8 sec - Butylbenzene BRL 98 -06 -6 tert- Butylbenzene BRL 55-15-0 Carbon disulfide BRL 56.235 Carbon tetrachloride BRL 108 -90 -7 Chlorobenzene BRL 15 -00 -3 Chloroethane BRL 61 -66 -3 Chloroform BRL 14 -81 -3 Chloromethane BRL 95-49-8 2- Chlorotoluene BRL 106 -43 -4 4- Chlorotoluene BRL 96.12 -8 1,2- Dibromo -3- chloropropane BRL 124 -48 -1 Dibromochlorom ethane BRL 106 -53-4 1,2- Dibromoethane (EDB) BRL 74-95-3 Dibromomethane BRL 9550-1 1,2- Dichlorobenzene BRL 541 -53 -1 1,3- Dichlorobenzene BRL 106 -46 -7 1,4- Dichlorobenzene BRL 75-71 -8 Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freonl: BRL 75-34 -3 1,1- Dichloroethane BRL 101 -06 -2 1,2- Dichloroethane BRL 55-35-4 1,1- Dichloroethene BRL 156-50 -2 cis -1,2- Dichloroethene BRL 156 -60-5 trans- 1,2- Dichloroethene BRL 18 -81 -5 1,2- Dichloropropane BRL 142 -28-5 1,3- Dichloropropane BRL 504 -20 -5 2,2- Dichloropropane BRL 563-58 -6 1,1- Dichloropropene BRL 10061-01-5 cis -1,3- Dichloropropene BRL 10061-02-6 trans-1,3- Dichloropropene BRL 100 -41-4 Ethylbenzene BRL 81 -68 -3 Hexachlorobutadiene BRL 501 -58 -6 2- Hexanone (MBIO BRL 98 -82 -8 Isopropylbenzene BRL 99 -81 -6 4- Isopropyltoluene BRL 1634 -044 Methyl tert-butyl ether BRL 108 -10 -1 4- Methyl -2- pentanone (MIBIO BRL 15 -09 -2 Methylene chloride BRL N/A 1 VOC Soil 22- Aug -08 22- Aug -08 8081806 Extraction Initial weight: 14.21 g pg /kg dry 305 125 50 SW 846 82608 25- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8081900 U U pg /kg dry 3050 2680 50 U pg /kg dry 305 247 50 U pg /kg dry 305 33.6 50 U pg /kg dry 305 48.9 50 U pg /kg dry 305 27.5 50 U pg /kg dry 305 18.3 50 U pg /kg dry 305 55.0 50 U pg /kg dry 611 61.1 50 U pg /kg dry 3050 217 50 U pg /kg dry 305 27.5 50 U pg /kg dry 305 36.6 50 U pg /kg dry 305 27.5 50 U pg /kg dry 1530 27.5 50 U pg /kg dry 305 30.5 50 U pg /kg dry 305 39.7 50 U pg /kg dry 611 67.2 50 U pg /kg dry 305 24.4 50 U pg /kg dry 611 27.5 50 U pg /kg dry 305 30.5 50 U pg /kg dry 305 36.6 50 U pg /kg dry 611 70.2 50 U pg /kg dry 305 45.8 50 U pg /kg dry 305 21.4 50 U pg /kg dry 305 30.5 50 U pg /kg dry 305 70.2 50 U pg /kg dry 305 30.5 50 U pg /kg dry 305 42.8 50 U pg /kg dry 611 39.7 50 U pg /kg dry 305 21.4 50 U pg /kg dry 305 27.5 50 U pg /kg dry 305 24.4 50 U pg /kg dry 305 21.4 50 U pg /kg dry 305 30.5 50 U pg /kg dry 305 27.5 50 U pg /kg dry 305 27.5 50 U pg /kg dry 305 226 50 U pg /kg dry 305 39.7 50 U pg /kg dry 305 36.6 50 U pg /kg dry 305 27.5 50 U pg /kg dry 305 36.6 50 U pg /kg dry 305 48.9 50 U pg /kg dry 3050 39.7 50 U pg /kg dry 305 39.7 50 U pg /kg dry 305 36.6 50 U pg /kg dry 305 30.5 50 U pg /kg dry 3050 33.6 50 U pg /kg dry 3050 147 50 Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 19 of 47 Sample Identification 3C SA83491 -09 Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0815:30 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analytels) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert Volatile Organic Compounds Volatile Organic Compounds Initial weight: 14.21 g Prepared by method SW846 5030 Soil (high level) 91-20 -3 Naphthalene 202 1 pg /kg dry 305 55.0 50 SW 846 8260B 25- Aug -08 26- Aug -08 8081900 103 -65 -1 n- Propylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 305 42.8 50 " 100 -42 -5 Styrene BRL a pg /kgdry 305 281 50 " 630 -20 -6 1,1,1,2 - Tetrachloroethane BRL a pg /kgdry 305 51.9 50 " 19 -34 -5 1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane BRL a pg /kgdry 305 48.9 50 " 121 -18 -4 Tetrachloroethene BRL a pg /kgdry 305 18.3 50 " 108 -88 -3 Toluene BRL a pg /kgdry 305 48.9 50 " 87 -61-6 1,2,3 - Trichlorobenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 305 39.7 50 " 120 -82 -1 1,2,4 - Trichlorobenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 305 24.4 50 " 108 -70 -3 1,3,5 - Trichlorobenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 305 97.7 50 " 71 -55 -6 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane BRL a pg /kgdry 305 162 50 " 19 -00 -5 1,1,2 - Trichloroethane BRL a pg /kgdry 305 284 50 " 19 -01-6 Trichloroethene BRL a pg /kgdry 305 140 50 " 15 -69 -4 Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11 BRL a pg /kg dry 305 147 50 " 96 -18 -4 1,2,3- Trichloropropane BRL a pg /kgdry 305 147 50 " 95 -63 -6 1,2,4 - Trimethylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 305 202 50 " 108 -67 -8 1,3,5 - Trimethylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 305 165 50 " 15 -01-4 Vinyl chloride BRL a pg /kg dry 305 263 50 " 179001- 23 -1rnp- Xylene BRL a pg /kgdry 611 208 50 " 95 -41 -6 o- Xylene BRL a pg /kgdry 305 162 50 " 109 -99 -9 Tetrahydrofuran BRL a pg /kgdry 3050 125 50 " 60 -29 -7 Ethyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 305 113 50 " 994 -05 -8 Tert-amyl methyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 305 116 50 " 637 -92 -3 Ethyl tert-butyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 305 82.5 50 " 108 -20 -3 Di- isopropyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 305 91.6 50 " 15 -65 -0 Tert- Butanol / butyl alcohol BRL a pg /kg dry 3050 2260 50 " 123 -91 -1 1,4- Dioxane BRL a pg /kgdry 6110 1490 50 " 110 -51 -6 trans- 1,4- Dichloro -2- butene BRL a pg /kgdry 1530 763 50 " 64 -17-5 Ethanol BRL a pg /kgdry 122000 22400 50 " Surrogate recoveries: 466 -66 -4 4- Bromofluorobenzene 104 70-130% " 2637 -26-5 Toluene -t8 109 70-130% " 1766M7-6 1,2- Dichloroethane -d4 104 70 -130% " 1868 -53 -7 Dibromofluoromethane 96 70-130% " Re- analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds 76 -13 -1 1,1,2- Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Fre BRL a pg /kg dry 27.6 11.3 1 SW 84682608 26- Aug -08 27- Aug -08 8081976 113) 67 -64 -1 Acetone 351 voc6 pg /kgdry 276 242 1 " 107 -13 -1 Acrylonitrile BRL a pg /kgdry 27.6 22.3 1 " 11 -43 -2 Benzene BRL a pg /kgdry 27.6 3.0 1 " 100 -86 -1 Bromobenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 27.6 4.4 1 " 14 -91 -5 Brom ochlorom ethane BRL a pg /kgdry 27.6 2.5 1 " 15 -21 -4 Brom odichlorom ethane BRL a pg /kgdry 27.6 1.7 1 " 15 -25 -2 Bromoform BRL a pg /kgdry 27.6 5.0 1 " 14 -83 -9 Bromomethane BRL a pg /kgdry 55.2 5.5 1 " 7893 -3 2- Butanone (MEIQ 136 1 pg /kg dry 276 19.6 1 " 104 -51-0 n- Butylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 27.6 2.5 1 " 135 -98 -8 sec - Butylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 27.6 3.3 1 " 98 -06 -6 tert- Butylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 27.6 2.5 1 " 15 -15 -0 Carbon disulfide 7.9 1 pg /kg dry 138 2.5 1 " Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 20 of 47 Sample Identification 3C SA83491 -09 Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0815:30 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analytels) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert Volatile Organic Compounds Volatile Organic Compounds 27.6 Prepared by method SW846 5035A Soil (low level) Re- analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds 56-23-5 Carbon tetrachloride BRL 198 -99 -7 Chlorobenzene BRL 15 -99 -3 Chloroethane BRL 67 -66 -3 Chloroform BRL 14 -87 -3 Chloromethane BRL 95-49-8 2- Chlorotoluene BRL 106 -43 -4 4- Chlorotoluene BRL 96-12 -8 1,2- Dibromo- 3- chloropropane BRL 424 -48 -1 Dibromochlorom ethane BRL 186 -93-4 1,2- Dibromoethane(EDB) BRL 54-95-3 Dibromomethane BRL 95-59-1 1,2- Dichlorobenzene BRL 541 -53 -1 1,3- Dichlorobenzene BRL 196 -46 -7 1,4- Dichlorobenzene BRL 15-11 -8 Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freonl: BRL 55-34 -3 1,1- Dichloroethane BRL 197 -96 -2 1,2- Dichloroethane BRL 75-35 -4 1,1- Dichloroethene BRL 15659 -2 cis -1,2- Dichloroethene BRL 156 -695 trans -1,2- Dichloroethene BRL 78 -87 -5 1,2- Dichloropropane BRL 443 -28 1,3- Dichloropropane BRL 594 -29 -5 2,2- Dichloropropane BRL 56358 -6 1,1- Dichloropropene BRL 10061 -01-5 cis -1,3- Dichloropropene BRL 10061-02-6 trans-1,3- Dichloropropene BRL 499 -41-4 Ethylbenzene BRL 87 -68 -3 Hexachlorobutadiene BRL 591 -58 -6 2- Hexanone (MBO BRL 98 -82 -8 Isopropylbenzene BRL 99 -87 -6 4- Isopropyltoluene BRL 1634 -944 Methyl tert-butyl ether BRL 198 -19 -1 4- Methyl -2- pentanone (MIBO BRL 15 -99-2 Methylene chloride BRL 91 -29-3 Naphthalene BRL 193 -65 -1 n- Propylbenzene BRL 499 -425 Styrene BRL 639 -29 -6 1,1,1,2 - Tetrachloroethane BRL 5 9-345 1,1,2,2 - Tetrachloroethane BRL 423 -48-4 Tetrachloroethene BRL 198 -88 -3 Toluene BRL 85 -61 -6 1,2,3 - Trichlorobenzene BRL 129 -82 -1 1,2,4 - Trichlorobenzene BRL 198 -79 -3 1,3,5 - Trichlorobenzene BRL 7155-6 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane BRL 79-995 1,1,2 - Trichloroethane BRL 19 -91-6 Trichloroethene BRL 15 -69 -4 Trichlorofluoromethane(Freon 11 BRL 95 1,2,3- Trichloropropane BRL Initial weight: 5.65 g U pg /kg dry 27.6 2.8 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 3.6 1 U pg /kg dry 55.2 6.1 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 2.2 1 U pg /kg dry 55.2 2.5 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 2.8 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 3.3 1 U pg /kg dry 55.2 6.3 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 4.1 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 1.9 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 2.8 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 6.3 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 2.8 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 3.9 1 U pg /kg dry 55.2 3.6 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 1.9 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 2.5 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 2.2 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 1.9 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 2.8 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 2.5 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 2.5 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 20.4 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 3.6 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 3.3 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 2.5 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 3.3 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 4.4 1 U pg /kg dry 276 3.6 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 3.6 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 3.3 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 2.8 1 U pg /kg dry 276 3.0 1 U pg /kg dry 276 13.2 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 5.0 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 3.9 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 25.4 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 4.7 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 4.4 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 1.7 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 4.4 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 3.6 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 2.2 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 8.8 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 14.6 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 25.7 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 12.7 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 13.2 1 U pg /kg dry 27.6 13.2 1 SW 846 82608 26- Aug -08 27- Aug -08 8081976 Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 21 of 47 Sample Identification 3C Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received SA83491 -09 01.0019547.10 Sediment 20 -Aug- 0815:30 21- Aug -08 CASNo. Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert Volatile Organic Compounds 70-130% 97 70-130% 116 70-130% 99 Volatile Organic Compounds 28.9 sorb Initial weight: 5.65 g Prepared by method SW846 5035A Soil (low level) Re- analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds 95 -63 -6 1,2,4 - Trimethylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 27.6 18.2 1 SW 84682608 26- Aug -08 27- Aug- 088081976 198 -67 -8 1,3,5 - Trimethylbenzene BRL a pg /kgdry 27.6 14.9 1 " 15 -91-4 Vinyl chloride BRL a pg /kgdry 27.6 23.7 1 " 179691- 23 -1 rnp- Xylene BRL a pg /kgdry 55.2 18.8 1 " 95 -41 -6 o- Xylene BRL a pg /kgdry 27.6 14.6 1 " 199 -99 -9 Tetrahydrofuran BRL a pg /kgdry 276 11.3 1 " 69 -29- Ethyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 27.6 10.2 1 " 994 -95 -8 Tert-amyl methyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 27.6 10.5 1 " 637 -92-3 Ethyl tert-butyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 27.6 7.4 1 " 198 -29- Di- isopropyl ether BRL a pg /kg dry 27.6 8.3 1 " 15 -65 -9 Tert- Butanol / butyl alcohol BRL a pg /kg dry 276 204 1 " 123 -91-1 1,4- Dioxane BRL a pg /kgdry 552 134 1 " 119 -51 -6 trans- 1,4- Dichloro -2- butene BRL a pg /kgdry 138 69.0 1 " 64 -17-5 Ethanol BRL a pg /kgdry 11000 2030 1 " Surrogate recoveries: 460 -00 -4 4- Bromofluorobenzene 2037 -26-5 Toluene -t8 1706M7-0 1, 2- Dichloroethane -d4 1868-53 -7 Dibromofluoromethane General Chemistry Parameters % Solids 93 70-130% 97 70-130% 116 70-130% 99 70-130% 28.9 sorb 1 SM2540 G Mod. 22- Aug -08 22- Aug -08 8081807 Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 22 of 47 Volatile Organic Compounds - Quality Control Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8081900 - SW846 5030 Soil (high level) Blank 18081900 -BLK11 Prepared & Analyzed: 25- Aug -08 1,1,2- Trichlorotrifluoroeth ane(Freon 113) BRL U pgft wet 1.0 Acetone BRL U pgft wet 10.0 Acrylonitrile BRL U pgft wet 1.0 Benzene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 Bromobenzene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 Bromochloromethane BRL U pgft wet 1.0 Bromodichloromethane BRL U pgft wet 1.0 Bromoforn BRL U pgft wet 1.0 Bromomethane BRL U pgft wet 2.0 2- Butanone(MEK) BRL U pgft wet 10.0 n- Burylbenzene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 sec - Butylbenzene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 tert- Butylbenzene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 Carbon disulfide BRL U pgft wet 5.0 Carbon tetrachloride BRL U pgft wet 1.0 Chlorobenzene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 Chloroethane BRL U pgft wet 2.0 Chloroform BRL U pgft wet 1.0 Chloromethane BRL U pgft wet 2.0 2- Chlorotoluene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 4- Chlorotoluene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 1,2- Dibromo -3- chloropropane BRL U pgft wet 2.0 Dibromochloromethane BRL U pgft wet 1.0 1,2- Dibromoethane(EDB) BRL U pgft wet 1.0 Dibromomethane BRL U pgft wet 1.0 1,2- Dichlorobenzene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 1,3- Dichlorobenzene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 1,4- Dichlorobenzene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 Dichlorodifluoromethane(Freonl2) BRL U pgft wet 2.0 1,1- Dichloroethane BRL U pgft wet 1.0 1,2- Dichloroethane BRL U pgft wet 1.0 1,1- Dichloroethene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 cis -1,2- Dichloroethene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 trans -1,2- Dichloroethene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 1,2- Dichloropropane BRL U pgft wet 1.0 1,3- Dichloropropane BRL U pgft wet 1.0 2,2- Dichloropropane BRL U pgft wet 1.0 1,1- Dichloropropene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 cis -1,3- Dichloropropene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 trans -1,3- Dichloropropene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 Ethylbenzene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 Hexachlorobutadiene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 2- Hexanone(MBK) BRL U pgft wet 10.0 Isopropylbenzene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 4- Isopropyltoluene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 Methyl tert-butyl ether BRL U pgft wet 1.0 4- Methyl- 2- pentanone(MIBK) BRL U pgft wet 10.0 Methylene chloride BRL U pgft wet 10.0 Naphthalene BRL U pgft wet 1.0 nislaboratory report is notvalidwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 23 of 47 Volatile Organic Compounds - Quality Control Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8081900 - SW846 5030 Soil (high level) Blank 18081900 -BLK11 Prepared & Analyzed: 25- Aug -08 n- Propylbenzene BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 70 -130 Acetone Styrene BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 Acrylonitrile 19.0 1,1,1,2 - Tetmchloroethane BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 20.5 pg/kg wet 1,1,2,2 - Tetmchloroethane BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 Tetrachloroethene BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 20.0 111 Toluene BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 107 70 -130 1,2,3 - Tdchlorobenzene BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 70 -130 Bromomethane 1,2,4 - Tdchlorobenzene BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 2- Butanone (MEK) 22.1 1,3,5 - Tdchlorobenzene BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 21.2 pg/kg wet 1,1,1 - Tdchloroethane BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 1,1,2 - Tdchloroethane BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 20.0 114 Trichloroethene BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 102 70 -130 Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 70 -130 Chlorobenzene 1,2,3 - Tdchloropropane BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 1,2,4 - Tdmethylbenzene BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 1,3,5 - Tdmethylbenzene BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 Vinyl chloride BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 m,p- Xylene BRL U pg/kg wet 2.0 o- Xylene BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 Tetrahydrofuran BRL U pg/kg wet 10.0 Ethyl ether BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 Tert-amyl methyl ether BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 Ethyl tert-butyl ether BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 Di- isopropyl ether BRL U pg/kg wet 1.0 Tert- Butanol / butyl alcohol BRL U pg/kg wet 10.0 1,4- Dioxane BRL U pg/kg wet 20.0 trans -1,4- Dichloro -2- butene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 Ethanol BRL U pg/kg wet 400 Surrogate: 4- Bromofluorobenzene 29.1 pg/kg wet 30.0 97 70 -130 Surrogate: Toluene -d8 31.1 pg/kg wet 30.0 104 70 -130 Surrogate: 1,2- Dichloroethane -d4 27.9 pg/kg wet 30.0 93 70 -130 Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 25.9 pg/kg wet 30.0 86 70 -130 LCS 18081900 -BS11 Prepared & Analyzed: 25- Aug -08 1,1,2- Trichlorotrifluoroeth ane(Freon 113) 20.7 pg/kg wet 20.0 104 70 -130 Acetone 19.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 97 15.9 -162 Acrylonitrile 19.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 95 70 -130 Benzene 20.5 pg/kg wet 20.0 102 70 -130 Bromobenzene 22.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 112 70 -130 Bromochloromethane 22.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 111 70 -130 Bromodichloromethane 21.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 107 70 -130 Bromofonn 20.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 104 70 -130 Bromomethane 18.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 91 40.8 -154 2- Butanone (MEK) 22.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 111 27.2 -154 n- Butylbenzene 21.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 106 70 -130 sec - Butylbenzene 22.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 110 70 -130 tert- Butylbenzene 22.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 114 70 -130 Carbon disulfide 20.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 102 70 -130 Carbon tetrachloride 20.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 102 70 -130 Chlorobenzene 20.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 104 70 -130 nislaboratory report is notvalidwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 24 of 47 Volatile Organic Compounds - Quality Control Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8081900 - SW846 5030 Soil (high level) LCS 18081900 -BS11 Prepared & Analyzed: 25- Aug -08 Chloroethane 18.9 pgft wet 20.0 95 59.1 -130 Chloroform 18.5 pgft wet 20.0 92 70 -130 Chloromethane 18.7 pgft wet 20.0 93 70 -130 2- Chlorotoluene 20.6 pgft wet 20.0 103 70 -130 4- Chlorotoluene 21.3 pgft wet 20.0 106 70 -130 1,2- Dibromo -3- chloropropane 15.9 pgft wet 20.0 80 70 -130 Dibromochloromethane 19.0 pgft wet 20.0 95 67 -133 1,2- Dibromoethane(EDB) 22.0 pgft wet 20.0 110 70 -130 Dibromomethane 21.4 pgft wet 20.0 107 70 -130 1,2- Dichlorobenzene 21.5 pgft wet 20.0 108 70 -130 1,3- Dichlorobenzene 22.3 pgft wet 20.0 111 70 -130 1,4- Dichlorobenzene 20.6 pgft wet 20.0 103 70 -130 Dichlorodifluoromethane(Freonl2) 21.0 pgft wet 20.0 105 33.9 -180 1,1- Dichloroethane 19.3 pgft wet 20.0 97 70 -130 1,2- Dichloroethane 20.0 pgft wet 20.0 100 70 -130 1,1- Dichloroethene 19.0 pgft wet 20.0 95 70 -130 cis -1,2- Dichloroethene 20.0 pgft wet 20.0 100 70 -130 trans -1,2- Dichloroethene 17.5 pgft wet 20.0 88 70 -130 1,2- Dichloropropane 21.1 pgft wet 20.0 106 70 -130 1,3- Dichloropropane 21.4 pgft wet 20.0 107 70 -130 2,2- Dichloropropane 18.7 pgft wet 20.0 94 70 -130 1,1- Dichloropropene 19.4 pgft wet 20.0 97 70 -130 cis -1,3- Dichloropropene 22.6 pgft wet 20.0 113 70 -130 trans -1,3- Dichloropropene 26.1 pgft wet 20.0 130 70 -130 Ethylbenzene 21.4 pgft wet 20.0 107 70 -130 Hexachlorobutadiene 19.3 pgft wet 20.0 97 57 -138 2- Hexanone(MBK) 21.5 pgft wet 20.0 108 70 -130 Isopropylbenzene 19.9 pgft wet 20.0 100 70 -130 4- Isopropyltoluene 22.0 pgft wet 20.0 110 70 -130 Methyl tert-butyl ether 20.6 pgft wet 20.0 103 70 -130 4- Methyl- 2- pentanone(MIBK) 20.9 pgft wet 20.0 104 55.4 -131 Methylene chloride 20.6 pgft wet 20.0 103 70 -130 Naphthalene 21.8 pgft wet 20.0 109 70 -130 n- Propylbenzene 21.0 pgft wet 20.0 105 70 -130 Styrene 23.4 pgft wet 20.0 117 70 -130 1,1,1,2 - Tetmchloroethane 16.8 pgft wet 20.0 84 70 -130 1,1,2,2 - Tetmchloroethane 21.6 pgft wet 20.0 108 70 -130 Tetrachloroethene 20.2 pgft wet 20.0 101 70 -130 Toluene 20.6 pgft wet 20.0 103 70 -130 1,2,3 - Tdchlorobenzene 23.8 pgft wet 20.0 119 70 -130 1,2,4 - Tdchlorobenzene 21.0 pgft wet 20.0 105 70 -130 1,3,5 - Tdchlorobenzene 18.7 pgft wet 20.0 93 70 -130 1,1,1 - Tdchloroethane 19.2 pgft wet 20.0 96 70 -130 1,1,2 - Tdchloroethane 21.7 pgft wet 20.0 109 70 -130 Trichloroethene 19.5 pgft wet 20.0 97 70 -130 Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) 18.5 pgft wet 20.0 92 52 -154 1,2,3 - Tdchloropropane 23.9 pgft wet 20.0 119 70 -130 1,2,4 - Tdmethylbenzene 22.4 pgft wet 20.0 112 70 -130 1,3,5 - Tdmethylbenzene 21.9 pgft wet 20.0 109 70 -130 nislaboratory report is notvalidwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 25 of 47 Volatile Organic Compounds - Quality Control Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8081900 - SW846 5030 Soil (high level) LCS 18081900 -BS11 Prepared & Analyzed: 25- Aug -08 Vinyl chloride m,p- Xylene o- Xylene Tetrahydrofuran Ethyl ether Tert-amyl methyl ether Ethyl tert-butyl ether Di- isopropyl ether Tert- Butanol / butyl alcohol 1,4- Dioxane trans -1,4- Dichloro -2- butene Ethanol 20.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 -130 42.3 pg/kg wet 40.0 106 70 -130 22.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 112 70 -130 22.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 111 70 -130 19.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 96 65.7 -131 19.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 96 70 -130 22.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 111 70 -130 20.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 102 70 -130 209 pg/kg wet 200 105 70 -130 224 pg/kg wet 200 112 50.9 -140 18.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 90 70 -130 473 pg/kg wet 400 118 70 -130 Surrogate: 4- Bromofluorobenzene Surrogate: Toluene -d8 Surrogate: 1,2- Dichloroethane -d4 Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane LCS Duo 18081900 -BSD11 Prepared & Analyzed: 25- Aug -08 1,1,2- Trichlorotrifluoroeth an (Freon 113) Acetone Acrylonitrile Benzene Bromobenzene Bromochloromethane Bromodi ch lorometh an e Bromofonn Bromomethane 2- Butanone (MEK) n- Butylbenzene sec - Butylbenzene tert- Butylbenzene Carbon disulfide Carbon tetrachloride Chlorobenzene Chloroethane Chloroform Chloromethane 2- Chlorotoluene 4- Chlorotoluene 1,2- Dibromo -3- chloropropane Dibrom och lorometh an e 1,2- Dibromoethane (EDB) Dibromomethane 1,2- Dichlorobenzene 1,3- Dichlorobenzene 1,4- Dichlorobenzene Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freonl2) 1,1- Dichloroethane 1,2- Dichloroethane 1,1- Dichloroethene 31.4 pg/kg wet 30.0 105 70 -130 31.0 pg/kg wet 30.0 103 70 -130 29.7 pg/kg wet 30.0 99 70 -130 29.4 pg/kg wet 30.0 98 70 -130 19.5 pg/kg wet 20.0 98 70 -130 6 25 16.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 82 15.9 -162 17 50 18.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 90 70 -130 5 25 20.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 -130 3 25 20.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 101 70 -130 10 25 21.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 106 70 -130 4 25 21.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 107 70 -130 0.5 25 20.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 -130 4 25 17.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 86 40.8 -154 5 50 21.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 107 27.2 -154 3 50 20.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 105 70 -130 1 25 20.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 102 70 -130 8 25 21.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 106 70 -130 8 25 21.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 106 70 -130 4 25 19.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 96 70 -130 6 25 19.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 -130 5 25 17.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 86 59.1 -130 10 50 18.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 90 70 -130 3 25 17.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 89 70 -130 5 25 19.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 97 70 -130 6 25 20.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 -130 6 25 16.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 83 70 -130 4 25 18.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 91 67 -133 5 50 20.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 -130 9 25 19.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 -130 7 25 21.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 105 70 -130 2 25 20.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 -130 11 25 19.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 99 70 -130 4 25 19.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 95 33.9 -180 9 50 19.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 99 70 -130 2 25 19.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 95 70 -130 5 25 19.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 95 70 -130 0.4 25 This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 26 of 47 Volatile Organic Compounds - Quality Control Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8081900 - SW846 5030 Soil (high level) LCS Duo 18081900 -BSD11 Prepared & Analyzed: 25- Aug -08 cis -1,2- Dichloroethene 19.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 98 70 -130 2 25 trans -1,2- Dichloroethene 16.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 84 70 -130 4 25 1,2- Dichloropropane 20.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 103 70 -130 3 25 1,3- Dichloropropane 20.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 103 70 -130 4 25 2,2- Dichloropropane 19.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 96 70 -130 3 25 1,1- Dichloropropene 19.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 97 70 -130 0.3 25 cis -1,3- Dichloropropene 21.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 109 70 -130 3 25 trans -1,3- Dichloropropene 24.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 120 70 -130 8 25 Ethylbenzene 20.5 pg/kg wet 20.0 103 70 -130 4 25 Hexachlorobutadiene 17.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 86 57 -138 12 50 2- Hexanone(MBK) 20.5 pg/kg wet 20.0 102 70 -130 5 25 Isopropylbenzene 18.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 93 70 -130 7 25 4- Isopropyltoluene 21.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 108 70 -130 2 25 Methyl tert-butyl ether 19.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 96 70 -130 7 25 4- Methyl -2- pentanone (MIBK) 19.7 pg/kg wet 20.0 99 55.4 -131 6 50 Methylene chloride 20.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 -130 3 25 Naphthalene 19.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 99 70 -130 10 25 n- Propylbenzene 19.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 -130 5 25 Styrene 20.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 103 70 -130 13 25 1,1,1,2 - Tetmchloroethane 16.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 81 70 -130 4 25 1,1,2,2 - Tetmchloroethane 20.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 -130 8 25 Tetrachloroethene 18.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 93 70 -130 9 25 Toluene 19.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 97 70 -130 6 25 1,2,3- Tdchlorobenzene 21.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 106 70 -130 11 25 1,2,4- Tdchlorobenzene 18.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 94 70 -130 11 25 1,3,5- Tdchlorobenzene 18.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 90 70 -130 4 25 1,1,1- Tdchloroethane 19.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 98 70 -130 2 25 1,1,2- Tdchloroethane 20.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 103 70 -130 6 25 Trichloroethene 19.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 98 70 -130 0.4 25 Trichloroiluoromethane (Freon 11) 19.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 95 52 -154 3 50 1,2,3- Tdchloropropan a 22.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 111 70 -130 7 25 1,2,4- Tdmethylbenzene 20.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 104 70 -130 7 25 1,3,5- Tdmethylbenzene 20.7 pg/kg wet 20.0 104 70 -130 5 25 Vinyl chloride 18.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 94 70 -130 6 25 m,p- Xylene 39.7 pg/kg wet 40.0 99 70 -130 6 25 o- Xylene 21.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 106 70 -130 6 25 Tetrahydrofuran 19.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 99 70 -130 12 25 Ethyl ether 17.7 pg/kg wet 20.0 88 65.7 -131 8 50 Tert-amyl methyl ether 18.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 93 70 -130 3 25 Ethyl tert-butyl ether 21.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 108 70 -130 3 25 Di- isopropyl ether 20.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 101 70 -130 1 25 Tert- Butanol / butyl alcohol 176 pg/kg wet 200 88 70 -130 17 25 1,4- Dioxane 193 pg/kg wet 200 97 50.9 -140 15 25 trans -1,4- Dichloro -2- butene 20.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 104 70 -130 14 25 Ethanol 413 pg/kg wet 400 103 70 -130 14 30 Surrogate: 4- Bromofluorobenzene 30.9 pg/kg wet 30.0 103 70 -130 Surrogate: Toluene -d8 30.5 pg/kg wet 30.0 102 70 -130 Surrogate: 1,2- Dichloroethane44 29.3 pg/kg wet 30.0 98 70 -130 Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 29.8 pg/kg wet 30.0 100 70 -130 Matrix Spike (8081900 -MS1) Source: SA83491 -09 This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 27 of 47 Volatile Organic Compounds - Quality Control nislaboratory report is notvalidwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 28 of 47 Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8081900 - SW846 5030 Soil (high level) Prepared: 25- Aug -08 Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 Benzene 22.6 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 113 70 -130 Chlorobenzene 23.9 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 120 70 -130 1,1- Dichloroethene 22.5 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 112 70 -130 Toluene 23.8 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 119 70 -130 Trichloroethene 21.6 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 108 70 -130 Surrogate: 4- Bromofluorobenzene 31.6 pgft dry 30.0 106 70 -130 Surrogate: Toluene -d8 31.4 pgft dry 30.0 105 70 -130 Surrogate: 1,2- Dichloroethane -d4 29.8 pgft dry 30.0 99 70 -130 Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 30.6 pgft dry 30.0 102 70 -130 Matrix Spike Dun (8081900 -MSD1) Source: SA83491 -09 Prepared: 25- Aug -08 Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 Benzene 21.5 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 108 70 -130 5 30 Chlorobenzene 23.1 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 115 70 -130 4 30 1,1- Dichloroethene 22.2 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 111 70 -130 0.9 30 Toluene 24.2 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 121 70 -130 2 30 Trichloroethene 20.3 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 101 70 -130 7 30 Surrogate: 4- Bromofluorobenzene 33.1 pgft dry 30.0 110 70 -130 Surrogate: Toluene -d8 32.7 pgft dry 30.0 109 70 -130 Surrogate: 1,2- Dichloroethane -d4 29.1 pgft dry 30.0 97 70 -130 Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 31.0 pgft dry 30.0 103 70 -130 Batch 8081976 - SW846 5035A Soil (low level) Blank (8081976 -BLK1) Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 1,1,2- Trichlorotrifluoroeth ane(Freon 113) BRL U pgft wet 5.0 Acetone BRL U pgft wet 50.0 Acrylonitrile BRL U pgft wet 5.0 Benzene BRL U pgft wet 5.0 Bromobenzene BRL U pgft wet 5.0 Bromochloromethane BRL U pgft wet 5.0 Bromodichloromethane BRL U pgft wet 5.0 Bromoform BRL U pgft wet 5.0 Bromomethane BRL U pgft wet 10.0 2- Butanone(MEK) BRL U pgft wet 50.0 n- Burylbenzene BRL U pgft wet 5.0 sec - Butylbenzene BRL U pgft wet 5.0 tert- Butylbenzene BRL U pgft wet 5.0 Carbon disulfide BRL U pgft wet 25.0 Carbon tetrachloride BRL U pgft wet 5.0 Chlorobenzene BRL U pgft wet 5.0 Chloroethane BRL U pgft wet 10.0 Chloroform BRL U pgft wet 5.0 Chloromethane BRL U pgft wet 10.0 2- Chlorotoluene BRL U pgft wet 5.0 4- Chlorotoluene BRL U pgft wet 5.0 1,2- Dibromo -3- chloropropane BRL U pgft wet 10.0 Dibromochloromethane BRL U pgft wet 5.0 1,2- Dibromoethane(EDB) BRL U pgft wet 5.0 Dibromomethane BRL U pgft wet 5.0 1,2- Dichlorobenzene BRL U pgft wet 5.0 1,3- Dichlorobenzene BRL U pgft wet 5.0 1,4- Dichlorobenzene BRL U pgft wet 5.0 nislaboratory report is notvalidwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 28 of 47 Volatile Organic Compounds - Quality Control Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8081976 - SW846 5035A Soil (low level) Blank 18081976 -BLK11 Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 Dichlorodifluoromethane(Freonl 2) BRL U pg/kg wet 10.0 1,1- Dichloroethane BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 1,2- Dichloroethane BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 1,1- Dichloroethene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 cis -1,2- Dichloroethene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 trans -1,2- Dichloroethene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 1,2- Dichloropropane BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 1,3- Dichloropropane BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 2,2- Dichloropropane BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 1,1- Dichloropropene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 cis -1,3- Dichloropropene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 trans -1,3- Dichloropropene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 Ethylbenzene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 Hexachlorobutadiene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 2- Hexanone(MBK) BRL U pg/kgwet 50.0 Isopropylbenzene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 4- Isopropyltoluene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 Methyl tert-butyl ether BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 4- Methyl- 2- pentanone(MIBK) BRL U pg/kg wet 50.0 Methylene chloride BRL U pg/kg wet 50.0 Naphthalene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 n- Propylbenzene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 Styrene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 1,1,1,2 - Tetmchloroethane BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 1,1,2,2 - Tetmchloroethane BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 Tetrachloroethene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 Toluene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 1,2,3 - Tdchlorobenzene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 1,2,4 - Tdchlorobenzene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 1,3,5 - Tdchlorobenzene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 1,1,1 - Tdchloroethane BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 1,1,2 - Tdchloroethane BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 Trichloroethene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 Tdchlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 1,2,3 - Tdchloropropane BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 1,2,4 - Tdmethylbenzene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 1,3,5 - Tdmethylbenzene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 Vinyl chloride BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 m,p- Xylene BRL U pg/kg wet 10.0 o- Xylene BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 Tetrahydrofuran BRL U pg/kg wet 50.0 Ethyl ether BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 Tert-amyl methyl ether BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 Ethyl tert-butyl ether BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 Di- isopropyl ether BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0 Tert- Butanol / butyl alcohol BRL U pg/kg wet 50.0 1,4- Dioxane BRL U pg/kg wet 100 trans -1,4- Dichloro -2- butene BRL U pg/kg wet 25.0 Ethanol BRL U pg/kg wet 2000 nislaboratory report is notvalidwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 29 of 47 Volatile Organic Compounds - Quality Control Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8081976 - SW846 5035A Soil (low level) Blank 18081976 -BLK11 Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 Surrogate: 4- Bromofluorobenzene 48.5 pgft wet 50.0 97 70 -130 Surrogate: Toluene -d8 49.6 pgft wet 50.0 99 70 -130 Surrogate: 1,2- Dichloroethane -d4 54.8 pgft wet 50.0 110 70 -130 Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 50.1 pgft wet 50.0 100 70 -130 LCS (8081976 -BS1) Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 1,1,2- Trichlorotrifluoroeth ane(Freon 113) 24.2 pgft wet 20.0 121 70 -130 Acetone 16.4 pgft wet 20.0 82 15.9 -162 Acrylonitrile 17.3 pgft wet 20.0 86 70 -130 Benzene 19.8 pgft wet 20.0 99 70 -130 Bromobenzene 20.8 pgft wet 20.0 104 70 -130 Bromochloromethane 20.8 pgft wet 20.0 104 70 -130 Bromodichloromethane 18.4 pgft wet 20.0 92 70 -130 Bromoforn 16.7 pgft wet 20.0 83 70 -130 Bromomethane 18.4 pgft wet 20.0 92 40.8 -154 2- Butanone(MEK) 128 oci pgft wet 20.0 639 27.2 -154 n- Burylbenzene 20.0 pgft wet 20.0 100 70 -130 sec - Butylbenzene 22.4 pgft wet 20.0 112 70 -130 tert- Butylbenzene 22.6 pgft wet 20.0 113 70 -130 Carbon disulfide 19.0 pgft wet 20.0 95 70 -130 Carbon tetrachloride 20.0 pgft wet 20.0 100 70 -130 Chlorobenzene 20.3 pgft wet 20.0 102 70 -130 Chloroethane 19.0 pgft wet 20.0 95 59.1 -130 Chloroform 19.5 pgft wet 20.0 98 70 -130 Chloromethane 19.8 pgft wet 20.0 99 70 -130 2- Chlorotoluene 21.4 pgft wet 20.0 107 70 -130 4- Chlorotoluene 20.9 pgft wet 20.0 105 70 -130 1,2- Dibromo -3- chloropropane 16.9 pgft wet 20.0 84 70 -130 Dibromochloromethane 17.2 pgft wet 20.0 86 67 -133 1,2- Dibromoethane(EDB) 18.4 pgft wet 20.0 92 70 -130 Dibromomethane 19.3 pgft wet 20.0 97 70 -130 1,2- Dichlorobenzene 20.4 pgft wet 20.0 102 70 -130 1,3- Dichlorobenzene 20.9 pgft wet 20.0 105 70 -130 1,4- Dichlorobenzene 20.4 pgft wet 20.0 102 70 -130 Dichlorodifluoromethane(Freonl2) 21.9 pgft wet 20.0 109 33.9 -180 1,1- Dichloroethane 20.0 pgft wet 20.0 100 70 -130 1,2- Dichloroethane 18.9 pgft wet 20.0 94 70 -130 1,1- Dichloroethene 21.6 pgft wet 20.0 108 70 -130 cis -1,2- Dichloroethene 20.3 pgft wet 20.0 101 70 -130 trans -1,2- Dichloroethene 19.9 pgft wet 20.0 100 70 -130 1,2- Dichloropropane 20.0 pgft wet 20.0 100 70 -130 1,3- Dichloropropane 19.2 pgft wet 20.0 96 70 -130 2,2- Dichloropropane 19.5 pgft wet 20.0 98 70 -130 1,1- Dichloropropene 20.7 pgft wet 20.0 103 70 -130 cis -1,3- Dichloropropene 16.4 pgft wet 20.0 82 70 -130 trans -1,3- Dichloropropene 16.6 pgft wet 20.0 83 70 -130 Ethylbenzene 20.9 pgft wet 20.0 104 70 -130 Hexachlorobutadiene 21.6 pgft wet 20.0 108 57 -138 2- Hexanone(MBK) 13.1 oci pgft wet 20.0 66 70 -130 Isopropylbenzene 19.9 pgft wet 20.0 100 70 -130 This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 30 of 47 Volatile Organic Compounds - Quality Control Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8081976 - SW846 5035A Soil (low level) LCS 18081976 -BS11 Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 4- Isopropyltoluene 23.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 115 70 -130 Methyl tert- butyl ether 16.7 pg/kg wet 20.0 83 70 -130 4- Methyl -2- pentanone (MIBK) 14.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 70 55.4 -131 Methylene chloride 19.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 97 70 -130 Naphthalene 15.5 pg/kg wet 20.0 77 70 -130 n- Propylbenzene 21.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 106 70 -130 Styrene 20.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 104 70 -130 1,1,1,2 - Tetmchloroethane 18.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 91 70 -130 1,1,2,2 - Tetmchloroethane 18.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 91 70 -130 Tetrachloroethene 21.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 105 70 -130 Toluene 19.5 pg/kg wet 20.0 98 70 -130 1,2,3 - Tdchlorobenzene 17.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 89 70 -130 1,2,4 - Tdchlorobenzene 17.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 88 70 -130 1,3,5 - Tdchlorobenzene 18.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 92 70 -130 1,1,1 - Tdchloroethane 21.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 107 70 -130 1,1,2 - Tdchloroethane 19.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 95 70 -130 Trichloroethene 20.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 102 70 -130 Tdchlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) 22.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 110 52 -154 1,2,3 - Tdchloropropane 19.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 99 70 -130 1,2,4 - Tdmethylbenzene 21.7 pg/kg wet 20.0 109 70 -130 1,3,5 - Tdmethylbenzene 22.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 110 70 -130 Vinyl chloride 22.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 113 70 -130 m,p- Xylene 42.5 pg/kg wet 40.0 106 70 -130 o- Xylene 21.5 pg/kg wet 20.0 108 70 -130 Tetrahydrofuran 14.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 74 70 -130 Ethyl ether 15.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 77 65.7 -131 Tert-amyl methyl ether 13.8 oci pg/kg wet 20.0 69 70 -130 Ethyl tert-butyl ether 18.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 93 70 -130 Di- isopropyl ether 18.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 91 70 -130 Tert- Butanol / butyl alcohol 150 pg/kg wet 200 75 70 -130 1,4- Dioxane 141 pg/kg wet 200 71 50.9 -140 trans -1,4- Dichloro -2- butene 14.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 75 70 -130 Ethanol 314 pg/kg wet 400 78 70 -130 Surrogate: 4- Bromofluorobenzene 49.3 pg/kg wet 50.0 99 70 -130 Surrogate: Toluene -d8 49.5 pg/kg wet 50.0 99 70 -130 Surrogate: 1,2- Dichloroethane -d4 45.6 pg/kg wet 50.0 91 70 -130 Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 49.3 pg/kg wet 50.0 99 70 -130 LCS Dun (8081976 -BSD1) Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 1,1,2- Trichlorotrifluoroeth ane(Freon 113) 23.5 pg/kg wet 20.0 118 70 -130 3 25 Acetone 18.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 93 15.9 -162 12 50 Acrylonitrile 18.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 95 70 -130 9 25 Benzene 19.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 99 70 -130 0.2 25 Bromobenzene 21.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 105 70 -130 1 25 Bromochloromethane 21.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 106 70 -130 2 25 Bromodichloromethane 18.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 92 70 -130 0.6 25 Bromofonn 18.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 91 70 -130 9 25 Bromomethane 19.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 95 40.8 -154 3 50 2- Butanone(MEK) 15.4 oRS pg/kgwet 20.0 77 27.2 -154 157 50 n- Butylbenzene 19.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 96 70 -130 4 25 nislaboratory report is notvalidwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL= Below Reporting Limit Page 31of47 Volatile Organic Compounds - Quality Control Analyte(s) Result Flag Units Spike Source *RDL Level Result %REC %REC Limits RPD RPD Limit Batch 8081976 - SW846 5035A Soil (low level) LCS Duo 18081976 -BSD11 Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 sec - Butylbenzene 22.0 pgft wet 20.0 110 70 -130 2 25 tert- Butylbenzene 22.1 pgft wet 20.0 111 70 -130 2 25 Carbon disulfde 18.8 pgft wet 20.0 94 70 -130 0.7 25 Carbon tetrachloride 19.5 pgft wet 20.0 98 70 -130 2 25 Chlorobenzene 19.8 pgft wet 20.0 99 70 -130 3 25 Chloroethane 18.7 pgft wet 20.0 93 59.1 -130 2 50 Chloroform 19.4 pgft wet 20.0 97 70 -130 0.6 25 Chloromethane 19.7 pgft wet 20.0 98 70 -130 0.8 25 2- Chlorotoluene 21.8 pgft wet 20.0 109 70 -130 1 25 4- Chlorotoluene 21.3 pgft wet 20.0 107 70 -130 2 25 1,2- Dibromo -3- chloropropane 15.6 pgft wet 20.0 78 70 -130 8 25 Dibromochloromethane 17.5 pgft wet 20.0 88 67 -133 2 50 1,2- Dibromoethane(EDB) 19.6 pgft wet 20.0 98 70 -130 6 25 Dibromomethane 19.8 pgft wet 20.0 99 70 -130 3 25 1,2- Dichlorobenzene 20.5 pgft wet 20.0 102 70 -130 0.2 25 1,3- Dichlorobenzene 21.2 pgft wet 20.0 106 70 -130 1 25 1,4- Dichlorobenzene 20.2 pgft wet 20.0 101 70 -130 0.6 25 Dichlorodifluoromethane(Freonl2) 21.7 pgft wet 20.0 108 33.9 -180 0.9 50 1,1- Dichloroethane 19.6 pgft wet 20.0 98 70 -130 2 25 1,2- Dichloroethane 19.1 pgft wet 20.0 95 70 -130 1 25 1,1- Dichloroethene 21.2 pgft wet 20.0 106 70 -130 2 25 cis -1,2- Dichloroethene 20.3 pgft wet 20.0 101 70 -130 0.05 25 trans -1,2- Dichloroethene 19.7 pgft wet 20.0 99 70 -130 1 25 1,2- Dichloropropane 20.0 pgft wet 20.0 100 70 -130 0.3 25 1,3- Dichloropropane 19.7 pgft wet 20.0 99 70 -130 3 25 2,2- Dichloropropane 18.4 pgft wet 20.0 92 70 -130 6 25 1,1- Dichloropropene 20.3 pgft wet 20.0 102 70 -130 2 25 cis -1,3- Dichloropropene 16.7 pgft wet 20.0 84 70 -130 2 25 trans -1,3- Dichloropropene 16.4 pgft wet 20.0 82 70 -130 1 25 Ethylbenzene 20.5 pgft wet 20.0 102 70 -130 2 25 Hexachlorobutadiene 18.9 pgft wet 20.0 94 57 -138 14 50 2- Hexanone(MBK) 15.6 pgft wet 20.0 78 70 -130 17 25 Isopropylbenzene 20.1 pgft wet 20.0 101 70 -130 0.9 25 4- Isopropyltoluene 22.3 pgft wet 20.0 111 70 -130 3 25 Methyl tert-butyl ether 18.0 pgft wet 20.0 90 70 -130 7 25 4- Methyl- 2- pentanone(MIBK) 15.8 pgft wet 20.0 79 55.4 -131 12 50 Methylene chloride 19.9 pgft wet 20.0 100 70 -130 3 25 Naphthalene 15.1 pgft wet 20.0 75 70 -130 3 25 n- Propylbenzene 21.3 pgft wet 20.0 106 70 -130 0.7 25 Styrene 20.9 pgft wet 20.0 104 70 -130 0.1 25 1,1,1,2 - Tetmchloroethane 18.0 pgft wet 20.0 90 70 -130 2 25 1,1,2,2 - Tetmchloroethane 19.8 pgft wet 20.0 99 70 -130 8 25 Tetrachloroethene 19.8 pgft wet 20.0 99 70 -130 6 25 Toluene 19.5 pgft wet 20.0 97 70 -130 0.2 25 1,2,3 - Tdchlorobenzene 16.9 pgft wet 20.0 85 70 -130 5 25 1,2,4 - Tdchlorobenzene 17.0 pgft wet 20.0 85 70 -130 3 25 1,3,5 - Tdchlorobenzene 16.5 pgft wet 20.0 83 70 -130 10 25 1,1,1 - Tdchloroethane 21.1 pgft wet 20.0 105 70 -130 1 25 1,1,2 - Tdchloroethane 19.4 pgft wet 20.0 97 70 -130 2 25 This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 32 of 47 Volatile Organic Compounds - Quality Control Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8081976 - SW846 5035A Soil (low level) LCS Duo 18081976 -BSD11 Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 Trichloroethene 20.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 102 70 -130 0.05 25 Trichloroiluoromethane (Freon 11) 22.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 110 52 -154 0.2 50 1,2,3 - Tdchloropropane 21.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 105 70 -130 6 25 1,2,4 - Tdmethylbenzene 21.7 pg/kg wet 20.0 108 70 -130 0.09 25 1,3,5 - Tdmethylbenzene 21.7 pg/kg wet 20.0 108 70 -130 2 25 Vinyl chloride 22.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 111 70 -130 2 25 m,p- Xylene 42.3 pg/kg wet 40.0 106 70 -130 0.6 25 o- Xylene 21.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 106 70 -130 2 25 Tetrahydrofuran 15.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 76 70 -130 3 25 Ethyl ether 17.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 85 65.7 -131 10 50 Tert-amyl methyl ether 14.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 74 70 -130 7 25 Ethyl tert-butyl ether 19.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 97 70 -130 4 25 Di- isopropyl ether 18.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 91 70 -130 0 25 Tert- Butanol / butyl alcohol 177 pg/kg wet 200 89 70 -130 16 25 1,4- Dioxane 186 oR2 pg/kg wet 200 93 50.9 -140 27 25 trans -1,4- Dichloro -2- butene 16.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 80 70 -130 7 25 Ethanol 370 pg/kg wet 400 92 70 -130 16 30 Surrogate: 4- Bromofluorobenzene 51.2 pg/kg wet 50.0 102 70 -130 Surrogate: Toluene -d8 49.6 pg/kg wet 50.0 99 70 -130 Surrogate: 1,2- Dichloroethane -d4 47.8 pg/kg wet 50.0 96 70 -130 Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 48.9 pg/kg wet 50.0 98 70 -130 This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL= Below Reporting Limit Page 33of47 Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GCMS - Quality Control Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8081957 - SW846 3550B Blank 18081957 -BLK11 Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 Acenaphthene BRL U pgft wet 66.5 Acenaphthylene BRL U pgft wet 66.5 Anthracene BRL U pgft wet 66.5 Benzo (a) anthracene BRL U pgft wet 66.5 Benzo (a) pyrene BRL U pgft wet 66.5 Benzo (b) fluoranthene BRL U pgft wet 66.5 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene BRL U pgft wet 66.5 Benzo (k) fluoranthene BRL U pgft wet 66.5 Chrysene BRL U pgft wet 66.5 Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene BRL U pgft wet 66.5 Fluoranthene BRL U pgft wet 66.5 Fluorene BRL U pgft wet 66.5 Indeno (1,2,3 -cd) pyrene BRL U pgft wet 66.5 1- Methylnaphthalene BRL U pgft wet 66.5 2- Methylnaphthalene BRL U pgft wet 66.5 Naphthalene BRL U pgft wet 66.5 Phenanthrene BRL U pgft wet 66.5 Pyrene BRL U pgft wet 66.5 Surrogate: 2- Fluorohiphenyl 2380 pgft wet 3330 3330 71 30 -130 Surrogate: Terphenyl -c`14 2610 pgft wet 64 3330 78 30 -130 LCS 18081957 -BS11 Prepared: 26- Aug -08 Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 Acenaphthene 2470 pgft dry 71.6 3590 Acenaphthene 2210 pgft wet 66.5 3330 66 40 -140 Acenaphthylene 2200 pgft wet 66.5 3330 66 40 -140 Anthracene 2220 pgft wet 66.5 3330 67 40 -140 Benzo (a) anthracene 2220 pgft wet 66.5 3330 67 40 -140 Benzo (a) pyrene 2140 pgft wet 66.5 3330 64 40 -140 Benzo (b) fluoranthene 2160 pgft wet 66.5 3330 65 40 -140 Benzo (g,h,i) perylene 2140 pgft wet 66.5 3330 64 40 -140 Benzo (k) fluoranthene 2320 pgft wet 66.5 3330 70 40 -140 Chrysene 2300 pgft wet 66.5 3330 69 40 -140 Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene 2020 pgft wet 66.5 3330 61 40 -140 Fluoranthene 2110 pgft wet 66.5 3330 63 40 -140 Fluorene 2260 pgft wet 66.5 3330 68 40 -140 Indeno (1,2,3 -cd) pyrene 1950 pgft wet 66.5 3330 59 40 -140 1- Methylnaphthalene 2080 pgft wet 66.5 3330 62 40 -140 2- Methylnaphthalene 2080 pgft wet 66.5 3330 62 40 -140 Naphthalene 2150 pgft wet 66.5 3330 64 40 -140 Phenanthrene 2200 pgft wet 66.5 3330 66 40 -140 Pyrene 2280 pgft wet 66.5 3330 68 40 -140 Surrogate: 2- Fluorohiphenyl 2230 pgft wet 3330 67 30 -130 Surrogate: Terphenyl -c`14 2120 pgft wet 3330 64 30 -130 Matrix Spike (8081957 -MS1) Source: SA83611 -01 Prepared: 26- Aug -08 Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 Acenaphthene 2470 pgft dry 71.6 3590 BRL 69 40 -140 Pyrene 2380 pgft dry 71.6 3590 BRL 66 40 -140 Surrogate: 2- Fluorohiphenyl 2150 pgft dry 3590 60 30 -130 Surrogate: Terphenyl -c`14 2080 pgft dry 3590 58 30 -130 Matrix Spike Dun (8081957 -MSD1) Source: SA83611 -01 nislaboratory report is notvalidwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 34 of 47 Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GCMS - Quality Control Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Spike Level Source Result %REC %REC Limits RPD RPD Limit Batch 8081957 - SW846 3550B Prepared: 26- Aug -08 Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 Acenaphthene 2410 pgft dry 70.9 3550 BRL 68 40 -140 1 30 Pyrene 2450 pgft dry 70.9 3550 BRL 69 40 -140 4 30 Surrogate: 2- Flucrohiphenyl 2230 pgft dry 3550 63 30 -130 Surrogate: Terphenyl -c`14 2170 pgft dry 3550 61 30 -130 nislaboratory report is notvalidwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL = Below Reporting Limit Page 35of47 Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC - Quality Control Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8081977 - SW846 3550B Blank 18081977 -BLK11 Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 2,4' -Dich I oro biph enyl 2,2',5 - Trichlorobiphenyl 2,4,4' - Trichlorobiphenyl 2,2'3, 5'- Tetrach I oro biphenyl 2,2',4,5' - Tetrach lorobip h enyl 2,2', 5,5'- Tetrach lorobip h enyl 2,3',4,4'- Tetrach lorobip h enyl 3,3',4,4'- Tetrach lorobip h enyl 2,2', 3,4, 5'- Pentach lorobi ph enyl 2,2',4,5, 5'- Pentach lorobi ph enyl 2,3, 3',4,4'- Pentach lorobi ph enyl 2,3',4,4',5 - Pentachlorobiphenyl 3,3',4,5, 5'- Pentach lorobi ph enyl 3,3',4,4',5 - Pentachlorobiphenyl 2,2', 3,3',4,4' -H exach lorobiph a nyl 2,2', 3,4,4',5' -H exach lorobiph a nyl 2,2',4,4'5, 5' -H exach I orobi ph enyl 2,3, 3',4,4',5 -H exach to robi ph enyl 3,3',4,4', 5,5' -H exach lorobiph a nyl 2,2', 3,3',4,4',5 -H eptach Io robi ph enyl 2,2', 3,4,4',5, 5' -H eptach Io robi ph enyl 2,2', 3,4,4',5',6 -H eptach Io robi ph enyl 2,2', 3,4,4',6, 6' -H eptach Io robi ph enyl 2,2', 3,4', 5,5',6 -H eptach Io robi ph enyl 2,2', 3,3',4,4',5, 6- Octach lorobiph enyl 2,2', 3,3',4,4',5, 5',6 -N on ach I orobiph enyl Decachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 BRL U pgft wet 2.10 Surrogate: 4,4- DB- Octafluorobiphenyl (Sr) LCS (8081977 -BS1) Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 2,4' -Dich I oro biphenyl 2,2',5 - Trichlorobiphenyl 2,4,4' - Trichlorobiphenyl 2,2'3, 5'- Tetrach I oro biphenyl 2,2',4,5'- Tetrach lorobip h enyl 2,2', 5,5'- Tetrach lorobip h enyl 2,3',4,4'- Tetrach lorobip h enyl 3,3',4,4'- Tetrach lorobip h enyl 2,2', 3,4, 5'- Pentach lorobi ph enyl 2,2',4,5, 5'- Pentach lorobi ph enyl 2,3, 3',4,4'- Pentach lorobi ph enyl 2,3',4,4',5 - Pentachlorobiphenyl 3,3',4,5, 5'- Pentach lorobi ph enyl 3,3',4,4',5 - Pentachlorobiphenyl 2,2', 3,3',4,4' -H exach lorobiph a nyl 2,2', 3,4,4',5' -H exach lorobiph a nyl 2,2',4,4'5, 5' -H exach I orobi ph enyl 2,3, 3',4,4',5 -H exach Io robi ph enyl 3,3',4,4', 5,5' -H exach lorobiph a nyl 1.80 pgft wet 2.00 90 30 -150 18.0 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 90 0 -140 17.3 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 86 40 -140 17.6 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 88 40 -140 17.5 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 88 40 -140 17.6 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 88 40 -140 17.1 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 86 40 -140 17.5 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 88 40 -140 19.3 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 96 40 -140 17.3 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 86 40 -140 17.1 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 86 40 -140 18.1 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 90 40 -140 17.5 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 88 40 -140 17.1 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 86 40 -140 17.0 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 85 40 -140 17.6 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 88 40 -140 17.6 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 88 40 -140 17.5 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 88 40 -140 17.8 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 89 40 -140 16.6 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 83 40 -140 nislaboratory report is notvalidwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 36 of 47 Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC - Quality Control Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8081977 - SW846 3550B 19.5 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 LCS 18081977 -BS11 0 -140 8 30 2,2',5 - Trichlorobiphenyl 17.5 Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 2.10 20.0 88 40 -140 1 2,2', 3,3',4,4',5 - Heptachlorobiphenyl 16.7 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 84 40 -140 2,2', 3,4,4',5,5' - Heptachlorobiphenyl 17.6 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 88 40 -140 2,2', 3,4,4',5',6 - Heptachlorobiphenyl 17.4 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 87 40 -140 2,2', 3,4,4',6,6' - Heptachlorobiphenyl 17.5 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 88 40 -140 2,2', 3,4',5,5',6 - Heptachlorobiphenyl 16.3 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 82 40 -140 2,2',3 ,3',4,4',5,6- Octachlorobiphenyl 17.6 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 88 40 -140 2,2',3,3' ,4,4',5,5',6 - Nonachlorobiphenyl 18.1 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 90 40 -140 Decachlorobiphenyl 13.0 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 65 40 -140 Surrogate: 4,4-DB-Octafluorobiphenyl (Sr) 1.90 pgft wet 2.00 95 30 -150 LCS Dun (8081977 -BSD1) Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 2,4'- Dichlorobiphenyl 19.5 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 98 0 -140 8 30 2,2',5 - Trichlorobiphenyl 17.5 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 88 40 -140 1 30 2,4,4' - Trichlorobiphenyl 19.1 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 96 40 -140 8 30 2,2'3,5'- Tetrachloobiphenyl 17.6 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 88 40 -140 0.6 30 2,2',4,5' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl 18.5 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 92 40 -140 5 30 2,2',5,5' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl 16.7 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 84 40 -140 2 30 2,3',4,4' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl 18.2 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 91 40 -140 4 30 3,3',4,4' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl 19.1 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 96 40 -140 1 30 2,2',3,4,5' - Pentachlorobiphenyl 17.2 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 86 40 -140 0.6 30 2,2',4,5,5' - Pentachlorobiphenyl 17.8 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 89 40 -140 4 30 2,3,3',4,4' - Pentachlorobiphenyl 17.9 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 90 40 -140 1 30 2,3',4,4',5 - Pentachlorobiphenyl 17.5 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 88 40 -140 0 30 3,3',4,5,5' - Pentachlorobiphenyl 16.9 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 84 40 -140 1 30 3,3',4,4',5 - Pentachlorobiphenyl 16.7 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 84 40 -140 2 30 2, 2',3,3',4,4' - Hexachlorobiphenyl 17.4 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 87 40 -140 1 30 2, 2',3,4,4',5' - Hexachlorobiphenyl 17.3 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 86 40 -140 2 30 2 ,2',4,4'5,5' - Hexachlorobiphenyl 17.4 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 87 40 -140 0.6 30 2 ,3,3',4,4',5 - Hexachlorobiphenyl 17.6 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 88 40 -140 1 30 3, 3',4,4',5,5' - Hexachlorobiphenyl 16.5 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 82 40 -140 0.6 30 2,2', 3,3',4,4',5 - Heptachlorobiphenyl 16.4 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 82 40 -140 2 30 2,2', 3,4,4',5,5' - Heptachlorobiphenyl 17.4 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 87 40 -140 1 30 2,2', 3,4,4',5',6 - Heptachlorobiphenyl 17.3 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 86 40 -140 0.6 30 2,2', 3,4,4',6,6' - Heptachlorobiphenyl 17.4 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 87 40 -140 0.6 30 2,2', 3,4',5,5',6 - Heptachlorobiphenyl 16.3 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 82 40 -140 0 30 2,2',3 ,3',4,4',5,6- Octachlorobiphenyl 17.3 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 86 40 -140 2 30 2,2',3,3' ,4,4',5,5',6 - Nonachlorobiphenyl 17.9 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 90 40 -140 1 30 Decachlorobiphenyl 12.8 pgft wet 2.10 20.0 64 40 -140 2 30 Surrogate: 4,4-DB-Octafluorobiphenyl (Sr) 2.00 pgft wet 2.00 100 30 -150 Duplicate 18081977 -DUP11 Source: SA83491 -01 Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 2,4'- Dichlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2,2',5 - Trichlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2,4,4' - Trichlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2,2'3,5'- Tetrachloobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2,2',4,5' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2,2',5,5' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2,3',4,4' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 3,3',4,4' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 nislaboratory report is notvaUdwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 37 of 47 Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC - Quality Control Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8081977 - SW846 3550B Duplicate 18081977 -DUP11 Source: SA83491 -01 Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 2,2',3,4,5' - Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2,2',4,5,5' - Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2,3,3',4,4' - Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2,3',4,4',5 - Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 3,3',4,5,5' - Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 3,3',4,4',5 - Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2, 2',3,3',4,4' - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2, 2',3,4,4',5' - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2 ,2',4,4'5,5' - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2 ,3,3',4,4',5 - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 3, 3',4,4',5,5' - Hexachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2,2', 3,3',4,4',5 - Heptachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2,2', 3,4,4',5,5' - Heptachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2,2', 3,4,4',5',6 - Heptachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2,2', 3,4,4',6,6' - Heptachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2,2', 3,4',5,5',6 - Heptachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2,2',3 ,3',4,4',5,6- Octachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 2,2',3,3' ,4,4',5,5',6 - Nonachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 Decachlorobiphenyl BRL U pgft dry 1.95 BRL 40 Surrogate: 4,4-DB-Octafluorobiphenyl (Sr) 1.77 BRL pgft dry 40 -140 1.86 95 30 -150 19.3 Matrix Spike 18081977 -MS11 Source: SA83491 -01 Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 2,4'- Dichlorobiphenyl 18.6 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 98 40 -140 2,2',5 - Trichlorobiphenyl 20.1 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 106 40 -140 2,4,4' - Trichlorobiphenyl 17.3 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 90 40 -140 2,2'3,5'- Tetrachloobiphenyl 19.9 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 104 40 -140 2,2',4,5' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl 17.0 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 89 40 -140 2,2',5,5' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl 17.1 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 89 40 -140 2,3',4,4' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl 20.6 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 108 40 -140 3,3',4,4' - Tetrachlorobiphenyl 20.1 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 106 40 -140 2,2',3,4,5' - Pentachlorobiphenyl 20.4 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 107 40 -140 2,2',4,5,5' - Pentachlorobiphenyl 20.5 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 108 40 -140 2,3,3',4,4' - Pentachlorobiphenyl 17.2 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 90 40 -140 2,3',4,4',5 - Pentachlorobiphenyl 20.4 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 107 40 -140 3,3',4,5,5' - Pentachlorobiphenyl 20.2 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 106 40 -140 3,3',4,4',5 - Pentachlorobiphenyl 19.9 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 104 40 -140 2, 2',3,3',4,4' - Hexachlorobiphenyl 18.9 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 99 40 -140 2, 2',3,4,4',5' - Hexachlorobiphenyl 19.6 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 103 40 -140 2 ,2',4,4'5,5' - Hexachlorobiphenyl 20.3 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 106 40 -140 2 ,3,3',4,4',5 - Hexachlorobiphenyl 19.3 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 101 40 -140 3, 3',4,4',5,5' - Hexachlorobiphenyl 19.3 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 101 40 -140 2,2', 3,3',4,4',5 - Heptachlorobiphenyl 19.8 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 104 40 -140 2,2', 3,4,4',5,5' - Heptachlorobiphenyl 19.8 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 104 40 -140 2,2', 3,4,4',5',6 - Heptachlorobiphenyl 20.3 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 106 40 -140 2,2', 3,4,4',6,6' - Heptachlorobiphenyl 19.8 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 104 40 -140 2,2', 3,4',5,5',6 - Heptachlorobiphenyl 20.5 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 108 40 -140 2,2',3 ,3',4,4',5,6- Octachlorobiphenyl 18.6 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 98 40 -140 2,2',3,3' ,4,4',5,5',6 - Nonachlorobiphenyl 20.2 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 106 40 -140 Decachlorobiphenyl 14.4 pgft dry 2.00 19.1 BRL 75 40 -140 This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 38 of 47 Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC - Quality Control Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8081977 - SW846 3550B Matrix Spike 18081977 -MS11 Source: SA83491 -01 Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 Surrogate: 4,4-DB-Octafluorobiphenyl (Sr) 2.00 pgft dry 1.91 105 30 -150 Matrix Spike Dun (8081977 -MSD1) Source: SA83491 -01 Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 19.3 2,4'- Dichlorobiphenyl 18.1 2,2',5 - Trichlorobiphenyl 19.0 2,4,4' - Trichlorobiphenyl 17.3 2,2'3, 5'- Tetrach I om biph enyl 19.0 2,2',4,5' - Tetrach lorobip h enyl 17.5 2,2', 5,5'- Tetrach lorobip h enyl 19.8 2,3',4,4' - Tetrach lorobip h enyl 18.4 3,3',4,4' - Tetrach lorobip h enyl 19.9 2,2',3,4,5' - Pentachlorobiphenyl 19.2 2,2',4,5,5' - Pentachlorobiphenyl 20.6 2,3,3',4,4' - Pentachlorobiphenyl 16.1 2,3',4,4',5 - Pentachlorobiphenyl 20.0 3,3',4,5,5' - Pentachlorobiphenyl 19.2 3,3',4,4',5 - Pentachlorobiphenyl 17.4 2,2', 3,3',4,4' -H exach lorobiph a nyl 18.5 2,2', 3,4,4',5' -H exach lorobiph a nyl 18.7 2,2',4,4'5, 5' -H exach I orobi ph enyl 18.9 2 ,3,3',4,4',5- Hexachlorobiphenyl 18.3 3,3',4,4', 5,5' -H exach lorobiph a nyl 17.2 2,2', 3,3',4,4',5 -H eptach to robi ph enyl 17.8 2,2', 3,4,4',5, 5' -H eptach Io robi ph enyl 18.8 2,2', 3,4,4',5',6 -H eptach Io robi ph enyl 18.2 2,2', 3,4,4',6, 6' -H eptach Io robi ph enyl 18.7 2,2', 3,4', 5,5',6 -H eptach Io robi ph enyl 17.8 2,2', 3,3',4,4',5, 6- Octach lorobiph enyl 17.4 2,2', 3,3',4,4',5, 5',6 -N on ach I orobiph enyl 19.0 Decachlorobiphenyl 13.2 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 94 40 -140 4 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 98 40 -140 7 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 90 40 -140 1 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 98 40 -140 6 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 91 40 -140 2 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 102 40 -140 14 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 95 40 -140 13 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 103 40 -140 2 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 100 40 -140 7 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 106 40 -140 0.9 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 83 40 -140 8 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 104 40 -140 3 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 100 40 -140 6 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 90 40 -140 15 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 96 40 -140 4 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 97 40 -140 7 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 98 40 -140 9 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 95 40 -140 7 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 89 40 -140 13 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 92 40 -140 12 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 97 40 -140 7 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 94 40 -140 12 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 97 40 -140 7 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 92 40 -140 16 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 90 40 -140 8 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 98 40 -140 8 50 pgft dry 2.03 19.3 BRL 68 40 -140 10 50 Surrogate: 4,4-DB-Octafluorobiphenyl (Sr) 1.84 pgft dry 1.93 95 30 -150 nislaboratory report is notvalidwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 39 of 47 Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Quality Control Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8082042 - SW846 3545A Blank 18082042 -BLK11 Prepared & Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 C9 -C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons BRL U mgft wet 13.4 C19 -C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons BRL U mgft wet 13.4 C11 -C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons BRL U mgft wet 13.4 Unadjusted C11 -C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbon BRL U mgft wet 13.4 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons BRL U mgft wet 13.4 Unadjusted Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons BRL U mgft wet 13.4 LCS 18082042 -BS11 Prepared & Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 18.9 mgft wet 13.4 40.0 C9 -C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 19.7 C19 -C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons mgft wet 13.4 40.0 49 40 -140 C19 -C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 43.7 72 mgft wet 13.4 53.3 82 40 -140 C11 -C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons 72.7 13.4 mgft wet 13.4 113 64 40 -140 LCS 18082042 -BS21 Prepared & Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 C9 -C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 26.7 mgft wet 13.4 40.0 67 40 -140 C19 -C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 41.4 mgft wet 13.4 53.3 78 40 -140 C11 -C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons 75.3 mgft wet 13.4 113 66 40 -140 LCS Dun 18082042 -BSD11 Prepared & Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 C9 -C18 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 18.9 mgft wet 13.4 40.0 47 40 -140 4 25 C19 -C36 Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 38.2 mgft wet 13.4 53.3 72 40 -140 13 25 C11 -C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons 70.0 mgft wet 13.4 113 62 40 -140 4 25 nislaboratory report is notvaUdwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 40 of 47 Total Metals by EPA 6000/7000 Series Methods - Quality Control Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Spike Level Source Result %REC %REC Limits RPD RPD Limit Batch 8082124 - SW846 3050B Blank 18082124 -BLK11 Prepared: 28- Aug -08 Analyzed: 03- Sep -08 Zinc 0.239 1 mgft wet 0.936 Nickel BRL U mgft wet 0.936 Lead BRL U mgft wet 1.40 Cadmium BRL U mgft wet 0.468 Chromium BRL U mgft wet 0.936 Arsenic BRL U mgft wet 1.40 Copper 0.290 1 mgft wet 0.936 Duplicate 18082124 -DUP11 Source: SA83491 -01 Prepared: 28- Aug -08 Analyzed: 03- Sep -08 Nickel 7.92 mgft dry 0.907 7.88 0.5 20 Zinc 28.9 mgft dry 0.907 29.1 0.9 20 Lead 7.12 mgft dry 1.36 6.52 9 20 Cadmium 0.213 mgft dry 0.454 0.191 11 20 Arsenic 0.454 mgft dry 1.36 BRL 20 Copper 5.38 mgft dry 0.907 4.75 13 20 Chromium 9.77 mgft dry 0.907 9.61 2 20 Matrix Spike 18082124 -MS11 Source: SA83491 -02 Prepared: 28- Aug -08 Analyzed: 03- Sep -08 Lead 138 mgft dry 1.54 128 23.1 90 75 -125 Zinc 190 mgft dry 1.02 128 71.6 93 75 -125 Nickel 134 mgft dry 1.02 128 15.5 93 75 -125 Copper 142 mgft dry 1.02 128 12.8 101 75 -125 Cadmium 117 mgft dry 0.512 128 0.603 91 75 -125 Chromium 137 mgft dry 1.02 128 19.3 92 75 -125 Arsenic 119 mgft dry 1.54 128 0.967 92 75 -125 Matrix Spike Dun 18082124 -MSD11 Source: SA83491 -02 Prepared: 28- Aug -08 Analyzed: 03- Sep -08 Nickel 131 mgft dry 0.984 123 15.5 94 75 -125 3 20 Lead 135 mgft dry 1.48 123 23.1 91 75 -125 3 20 Zinc 188 mgft dry 0.984 123 71.6 95 75 -125 1 20 Cadmium 113 mgft dry 0.492 123 0.603 92 75 -125 3 20 Arsenic 117 mgft dry 1.48 123 0.967 94 75 -125 2 20 Chromium 132 mgft dry 0.984 123 19.3 92 75 -125 3 20 Copper 138 mgft dry 0.984 123 12.8 102 75 -125 3 20 Post Spike 18082124 -PS11 Source: SA83491 -02 Prepared: 28- Aug -08 Analyzed: 03- Sep -08 Nickel 124 mgft dry 0.935 117 15.5 93 80 -120 Zinc 178 mgft dry 0.935 117 71.6 91 80 -120 Lead 128 mgft dry 1.40 117 23.1 90 80 -120 Copper 132 mgft dry 0.935 117 12.8 102 80 -120 Arsenic 111 mgft dry 1.40 117 0.967 94 80 -120 Chromium 126 mgft dry 0.935 117 19.3 91 80 -120 Cadmium 108 mgft dry 0.467 117 0.603 92 80 -120 Reference 18082124 -SRM11 Prepared: 28- Aug -08 Analyzed: 03- Sep -08 Nickel 55.0 mgft wet 1.00 60.0 92 80.4 -120.2 Lead 76.2 mgft wet 1.50 84.7 90 81.5 -118.5 nislaboratory report is notvaUdwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL = Below Reporting Limit Page 41 of 47 Total Metals by EPA 6000/7000 Series Methods - Quality Control Matrix Spike 18082125 -MS11 Source: SA83491 -02 Prepared: 28- Aug -08 Analyzed: 03- Sep -08 Mercury 0.497 Matrix Spike Duo 18082125 -MSD11 Source: SA83491 -02 Prepared: 28- Aug -08 Analyzed: 03- Sep -08 Mercury 0.466 Post Spike 18082125 -PS11 Source: SA83491 -02 Prepared: 28- Aug -08 Analyzed: 03- Sep -08 Mercury 0.466 Prepared: 28- Aug -08 Analyzed: 03- Sep -08 Mercury 1.57 mg/kg dry 0.0295 0.410 0.0638 106 75 -125 mg/kg dry 0.0277 0.385 0.0638 105 75 -125 6 mg/kg dry 0.0283 0.392 0.0638 103 80 -120 mg/kg wet 0.0300 1.59 99 71.2 -128.7 20 nislaboratory report is notvaUdwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 42 of 47 Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8082124 - SW846 3050B Reference 18082124 -SRMB Prepared: 28- Aug -08 Analyzed: 03- Sep -08 Zinc 130 mg/kg wet 1.00 141 92 81.1 -119.3 Cadmium 45.6 mg/kg wet 0.500 51.9 88 82.8 -116.8 Copper 75.5 mg/kg wet 1.00 78.1 97 83.2 -116.8 Arsenic 61.2 mg/kg wet 1.50 67.0 91 80.5 -120.3 Chromium 99.0 mg/kg wet 1.00 110 90 81.7 -117.9 Reference 18082124 -SRM21 Prepared: 28- Aug -08 Analyzed: 04- Sep -08 Zinc 128 mg/kg wet 1.00 144 89 81.1 -119.3 Nickel 57.2 mg/kg wet 1.00 61.4 93 80.4 -120.2 Lead 79.0 mg/kg wet 1.50 86.7 91 81.5 -118.5 Cadmium 46.8 mg/kg wet 0.500 53.1 88 82.8 -116.8 Copper 77.1 mg/kg wet 1.00 79.9 96 83.2 -116.8 Chromium 103 mg/kg wet 1.00 113 91 81.7 -117.9 Arsenic 62.0 mg/kg wet 1.50 68.6 90 80.5 -120.3 Batch 8082125 - EPA200 /SW7000 Series Blank 18082125 -BLK11 Prepared: 28- Aug -08 Analyzed: 03- Sep -08 Mercury BRL U mg/kg wet 0.0284 Duplicate 18082125 -DUP11 Source: SA83491 -01 Prepared: 28- Aug -08 Analyzed: 03- Sep -08 Mercury 0.0112 1 mg/kg dry 0.0268 BRL 20 Matrix Spike 18082125 -MS11 Source: SA83491 -02 Prepared: 28- Aug -08 Analyzed: 03- Sep -08 Mercury 0.497 Matrix Spike Duo 18082125 -MSD11 Source: SA83491 -02 Prepared: 28- Aug -08 Analyzed: 03- Sep -08 Mercury 0.466 Post Spike 18082125 -PS11 Source: SA83491 -02 Prepared: 28- Aug -08 Analyzed: 03- Sep -08 Mercury 0.466 Prepared: 28- Aug -08 Analyzed: 03- Sep -08 Mercury 1.57 mg/kg dry 0.0295 0.410 0.0638 106 75 -125 mg/kg dry 0.0277 0.385 0.0638 105 75 -125 6 mg/kg dry 0.0283 0.392 0.0638 103 80 -120 mg/kg wet 0.0300 1.59 99 71.2 -128.7 20 nislaboratory report is notvaUdwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 42 of 47 TCLP Metals by EPA 1311 & 6000/7000 Series Methods - Quality Control nislaboratory report is notvaUdwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL = Below Reporting Limit Page 43of47 Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8082049 - SW846 3010A Blank 18082049 -BLK11 Prepared & Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 Nickel BRL U mgA 0.0100 Chromium BRL U mgA 0.0100 LCS 18082049 -BS11 Prepared & Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 Nickel 2.45 mgA 0.0100 2.50 98 93 -109 Chromium 2.46 mgA 0.0100 2.50 98 87.7 -114 LCS Duo 18082049 -BSD11 Prepared & Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 Nickel 2.42 mgA 0.0100 2.50 97 93 -109 1 20 Chromium 2.43 mgA 0.0100 2.50 97 87.7 -114 1 20 Duplicate 18082049 -DUP11 Source: SA83616 -11 Prepared & Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 Nickel 0.0154 mgA 0.0100 0.0171 10 20 Chromium BRL U mgA 0.0100 BRL 20 Matrix Spike 18082049 -MS11 Source: SA83617 -04 Prepared & Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 Nickel 2.37 mgA 0.0100 2.50 0.0207 94 91.3 -107 Chromium 2.35 mgA 0.0100 2.50 BRL 94 81.8 -116 Matrix Spike Duo 18082049 -MSD11 Source: SA83617 -04 Prepared & Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 Nickel 2.42 mgA 0.0100 2.50 0.0207 96 91.3 -107 2 20 Chromium 2.40 mgA 0.0100 2.50 BRL 96 81.8 -116 2 20 Post Spike 18082049 -PS11 Source: SA83617 -04 Prepared & Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 Nickel 2.45 mgA 0.0100 2.50 0.0207 97 90 -107 Chromium 2.43 mgA 0.0100 2.50 BRL 97 78.1 -119 Batch 8082050 - EPA200 /SW7000 Series Blank 18082050 -BLK11 Prepared: 27- Aug -08 Analyzed: 28- Aug -08 Mercury BRL U mgA 0.00020 LCS 18082050 -BS11 Prepared: 27- Aug -08 Analyzed: 28- Aug -08 Mercury 0.00417 mgA 0.00020 0.00500 83 57 -119 Duplicate 18082050 -DUP11 Source: SA83616 -11 Prepared: 27- Aug -08 Analyzed: 28- Aug -08 Mercury BRL U mgA 0.00020 BRL 20 Matrix Spike 18082050 -MS11 Source: SA83617 -04 Prepared: 27- Aug -08 Analyzed: 28- Aug -08 Mercury 0.00411 mgA 0.00020 0.00500 BRL 82 54.7 -121 Matrix Spike Duo 18082050 -MSD11 Source: SA83617 -04 Prepared: 27- Aug -08 Analyzed: 28- Aug -08 Mercury 0.00374 mgA 0.00020 0.00500 BRL 75 54.7 -121 9 20 Post Spike 18082050 -PS11 Source: SA83617 -04 Prepared: 27- Aug -08 Analyzed: 28- Aug -08 nislaboratory report is notvaUdwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL = Below Reporting Limit Page 43of47 TCLP Metals by EPA 1311 & 6000/7000 Series Methods - Quality Control Batch 8081807 - General Preparation Duplicate 18081807 -DUP11 Source: SA83491 -04 Spike Source %REC RPD Analyte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8082217 - General Preparation Blank 18082217 -BLK11 Prepared & Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 Total Organic Carbon 90.3 1 mgft 100 Batch 8082050 - EPA200 /SW7000 Series Prepared & Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 Total Organic Carbon 11800 Z -2c mg/kg 100 Reference 18082217 -SRMB Post Spike 18082050 -PS11 Source: SA83617 -04 Total Organic Carbon 2570 mg/kg 100 Batch 8082260 - General Preparation Duplicate 18082260 -DUP11 Source: SA83491 -04 Prepared: 27- Aug -08 Analyzed: 28- Aug -08 Prepared & Analyzed: 28- Aug -08 Moisture 42.7 % Mercury 4.19 mgA 5.00 0.0100 84 54.5 -122 General Chemistry Parameters - Quality Control Spike Source %REC RPD Analvte(s) Result Flag Units *RDL Level Result %REC Limits RPD Limit Batch 8081807 - General Preparation Duplicate 18081807 -DUP11 Source: SA83491 -04 Prepared & Analyzed: 22- Aug -08 % Solids 66.0 % Batch 8082000 - General Preparation Duplicate 18082000 -DUP11 Source: SA83491 -01 Prepared & Analyzed: 26- Aug -08 % Solids 98.9 % Batch 8082217 - General Preparation Blank 18082217 -BLK11 Prepared & Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 Total Organic Carbon 90.3 1 mgft 100 Duplicate 18082217 -DUP11 Source: SA83491 -01 Prepared & Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 Total Organic Carbon 11800 Z -2c mg/kg 100 Reference 18082217 -SRMB Prepared & Analyzed: 27- Aug -08 Total Organic Carbon 2570 mg/kg 100 Batch 8082260 - General Preparation Duplicate 18082260 -DUP11 Source: SA83491 -04 Prepared & Analyzed: 28- Aug -08 Moisture 42.7 % 67.1 98.9 2 20 0.04 20 9850 18 20 2490 103 37.35 -180.7 36.0 17 20 nislaboratory report is notvaUdwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 44 of 47 Notes and Definitions J Detected above the Method Detection Limit but below the Reporting Limit; therefore, result is an estimated concentration (CLP J- Flag). Oct Analyte out of acceptance range. QR2 The RPD result exceeded the QC control limits; however, both percent recoveries were acceptable. Sample results for the QC batch were accepted based on percent recoveries and completeness of QC data. QR5 RPD out of acceptance range. SOL This sample was submitted without an unpreserved sample aliquot to determine dry weight. Per client request, the solid weight results from 83491 -04 were used to calculate the results on a dry weight basis. SOLa This sample was submitted without an unpreserved sample aliquot to determine dry weight. Per client request, the solid weight results from 83491 -05 were used to calculate the results on a dry weight basis. SOLb This sample was submitted without an unpreserved sample aliquot to determine dry weight. Per client request, the solid weight results from 83491 -06 were used to calculate the results on a dry weight basis. U Analyte included in the analysis, but not detected VC10 The VOC field preserved soil sample is not within the 1:1 weight to volume ratio as recommended by SW846 methods 5030 and 5035 but may be within the 1:1 volume to volume ratio. This variance may affect the final reporting limit. VOC6 The production of Acetone and other ketones is commonly seen when using the SW 846 5035A extraction technique. Z -2 %RPD = 22.15 Z -2a %RPD = 24.35 Z -2b %RPD = 24.39 Z -2c %RPD = 50.19 BRL Below Reporting Limit - Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit dry Sample results reported on a dry weight basis NR Not Reported RPD Relative Percent Difference A plus sign ( +) in the Method Reference column indicates the method is not accredited by NELAC. This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL = Below Reporting Limit Page 45 of 47 Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) A known matrix spiked with compound(s) representative of the target analytes, which is used to document laboratory performance. Matrix Duplicate An intra- laboratory split sample which is used to document the precision of a method in a given sample matrix. Matrix Spike An aliquot of a sample spiked with a known concentration of target analyte(s). The spiking occurs prior to sample preparation and analysis. A matrix spike is used to document the bias of a method in a given sample matrix. Method Blank An analyte -free matrix to which all reagents are added in the same volumes or proportions as used in sample processing. The method blank should be carried through the complete sample preparation and analytical procedure. The method blank is used to document contamination resulting from the analytical process. Method Detection Limit (MDL) The minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero and is determined from analysis of a sample in a given matrix type containing the analyte. Reportable Detection Limit (RDL) The lowest concentration that can be reliably achieved within specified limits of precision and accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions. For many analytes the RDL analyte concentration is selected as the lowest non -zero standard in the calibration curve. While the RDL is approximately 5 to 10 times the MDL, the RDL for each sample takes into account the sample volume /weight, extract/digestate volume, cleanup procedures and, if applicable, dry weight correction. Sample RDLs are highly matrix- dependent. Surrogate An organic compound which is similar to the target analyte(s) in chemical composition and behavior in the analytical process, but which is not normally found in environmental samples. These compounds are spiked into all blanks, standards, and samples prior to analysis. Percent recoveries are calculated for each surrogate. Validated by: Hanibal C. Tayeh, Ph.D. Nicole Leja Rebecca Merz This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature on the coverpage. * Reportable Detection Limit BRL =Below Reporting Limit Page 46 of 47 TMWb,,,,g Wm,ffi, CSrvEtioosPell PPx mm, .mwaN,d%t,, ffi,, ^ ^I^ ^lebsmis5ressipt ream, cowa�,m ®sascm o ems„ o �,� A9wsus P,nmtm 9WA 0Pt 0P o Ptt v,nld m of m tab CommsW Tempmtms 9Pewrvsasoes ononina at 4 ±2C o otFSC •c Wen sEQAIQCpmwduos6uou ,desmquiodby0, aexmeuodv Y„ Wen ,y,grvfi, tmocrmadebO, H H,,iFOass spcledmSect,, 1139M Wen sEpffCemmnfccehtee stW for required QAlQC pmceam,s eckw,19 Ye, I attest tFetbesednps,my,N,7oOFOs, imTnauels imm,Aemgnsryv'hm6ecbl®rv,g tF,wcmaec, tF, mebdnt conai„d mttosnpo ,,bt bestofmytmowtedgeaMbehe [ wcmatem comwete. A,t],,=dby W xanbilc. Tas b PnD. Pns,lenvL bombgQlncto[ ]RV ww Bee�R Bace®Lm,t BRL —BAOw Betmmg lust �e pffie of of of ` \! \\ \\: a{j IL Wx .d ©•� > ( { \ MIMI !! - _, a \ -> � ` \ ICF 4IM& - - Kp \ } -� \� / {\ G \ © �23 -a - r _ � ;\ i(9 \ [ T � // , ƒ _ - _ \� d A < /y \E r a _ ; c \Tc�-CAm © \ ! Z � -� OF c ) / }�E) ) ,| \ ;(! - -- -- - > \ \ / / \\ \ \\ \ \ /,_, \ no ) {� » (\ q 2 ,| {� » (\ q 2 b 22 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE AND HYDROMETER z > +rz .. no xza ma $o .goo aoo 100 I t I I I ', t I I __ ' I ' I �I I I I � I I I I I I I I I I I< ' I f I I I '. I I I I I I I I I I 80 I '. II 6- I �'� --T T� I �..._ �� -' I �� t :I I I I I .'I 'I I I 70 � I I I I I I t i �� I I_ I I I I I I 60 I I I I '', �.. l.. - I��,�� i I r I' I' �'I t I I I I I L I 5n � � ''� ' 'SAND '. 'I S I �' '', '', 1 A � RZ�IUEL < I I I B I I i I II I II �'I ' I ' '� ' L � 40 - ', '. ', Y c I u I r I II I I i I �� I I 30 . I I I _.I ! _ _ '. I I I � I , I: � :I I 20 II I II I I , I ._ I i I I I I I i— I I I I I i I ' I I ' I I I � I ''i 10 t � I i... i. _ � j '. '. I I 'I i 'I I I II rf9 '', Coarse M dluni Fine '', �Cpars¢ ! I, ' o 19a 10 t 9.1 o.ot o9p1 GraT size (mm) Gravel Sand Fines 5.9% 85.2% 8.9% lab# Exploration Sam le Deth Description WC LL PL PI 5 tABC Brown f -m SAND, trace SI141race Oravel trace Or anics Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Northampton, MA GZA File # 19547.1 G�} Testetl 6y: PEC Date: 8/28/08 Reviewed by: MBP Date: 8/31/08 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE AND HYDROMETER z � >,. .. .,o .ro Wo ..o «� ..� 100 t i 80 I. - '.' P -T��. I K �I i I II I r',, . _.- tl _i. .. �, + ri;_�_�i 1 I 1 '. I I �, I I _�, �� i i_ —fi _._ I I I I I I vo. � i ', r i i i i i 1. r i I i I I I i �� '�� r I ''� i i � —_ —_ '�� '�� i � i � r r L so ��;.. CyRFi�VEL '. ', SAND SI �� "d' i �A � 40 r � � � � 1 �— I t I I I �. —�- d I I [ I II I I I I I I 30 1 '�, �. _ I 10 i ii .. i i � i_ _il '�, '�, ', ', i .i _i ', �, ,. �� '�, a ',, i �, i �. �_ _....: ',� '�� 0 : I I De : i .i Coarse i Medium �. Fine I I iCaarse � 100 10 1 a.1 0.m s.001 Grain S¢e (mm) Gravel Sand Fines 3.6 % 49.2% 47.2 % Lab# Exploration Sample De M Descn lion WC LL PL PI 6 2ABC Brown Rm SAND antl SILT, aaceGravel (trace Or9aniw) Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Northampton, MA G Z\\ 1 / Tested by: GZA File # 19547.1 PEC Date: 828/08 Reviewed by: MBP Date: 8/31/08 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE AND HYDROMETER 100 90 80 )0 - 60 50 E & 40 d 30 20 10 0 mp to t o.t aat Grain Site (mm) Grevel Sand Fines 0.3 °/ 35.4 °h 64.3% o.oaa Lab# Exploration Sample De th Descri lion WC LL PL PI 7 3ABG Brown SILT and 1-m SAND, Uew Grevel (Dace Organics G ATTACHMENT HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION HEC RAS MODELING RESULTS ILLUSTRATING POST DAM REMOVAL WATER ELEVATIONS SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODELING RESULTS AND INNUNDATION STUDY GRAPHICS Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form Figure A - 100 year Profile -Roberts Meadow Brook - Pre and Post Dam Removal Rcberls Mariam 9 Main 490 Lentl e m 1) ]) The1GG -year flootl peilc ivflowan�tl p®kGVtflow fiom Upper RGbM's Meadow Reservoir with the Upper Roberts Mk dow Reservoir Dam iv- 00.year place was estimated to beabGut 2,080 M using the US Army CGrys of Eu ®veers' HEC HMS Coputer softwareas outlived io GZA's Phase ll Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives Analysis for the UpperRobMs m( G Meadow Reservoir DaZA, 2002. ne 2) B eceuse the peak inflow and the peak outflows for the 100yearfloodare 4W _� n the same wth the dam in place the water surface elevation profile along the Roberts Meadow Brook -11 be estentially the same when the Upper ' Rober s M ®dow Reservoir Dam is removed_ ) '� 3) The 100 year flood water surface elevation profile along the Roberts ok bet—, the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservr and Middle Meadow Block o 3 Rob MaM ®tlow Reservoir shown below was estimated by GZA unng the ° m U S Ar CGs of Engineers' HEC RAS computer so ftware p o in my ry }' the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam removed which is ese wool ly 420 the same w.th the dam in place J/ q 400 U v — x a 390 0 2000 4000 0000 BOW 10000 Main Channel ChAriece (fl) Figure A - 100 year Profile -Roberts Meadow Brook - Pre and Post Dam Removal Upper Roberts Dam Removal File No. 19547.10 Printed 6/6/2011 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODEL RESULTS FOR UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM REMOVAL DAM BREACH PHASE Option I - Minimal Dredging Option II - Ongoing Hydraulic Dredging MASS OF SEDIMENTS REMOVED BY DREDGING AT THE DAM MASS OF SEDIMENT DEPOSITED IN MIDDLE ROBERTS 121 APPROXIMATE DURATION ts� MASS OF SEDIMENTS REMOVED BY ONGOING HYDRAULIC DREDGING �a� MASS OF SEDIMENT DEPOSITED IN MIDDLE ROBERTS «' APPROXIMATE DURATION ts� (TONS) (CY) (TONS) (CY) (months) (TONS) (CY) (TONS) (CY) (months) Phase 1 (Dam @ EL 445) 0 0 Minimal Minimal 3.00 0 0 Minimal Minimal 3.00 Interphase (Dam @ El. 445) 399 340 Minimal Minimal 0.25 4,228 3,600 Minimal Minimal 0.75 Phase 2 (Darn @ EL 435) 0 0 8,110 6,905 4.00 8,000 6,811 Minimal Minimal 1.50 Interphase (Dam @ El. 435) 399 340 Minimal Minimal 0.25 3,993 3,400 Minimal Minimal 0.75 Phase 3 (Dam @ EL 426) 0 0 4,111 3,500 3.00 0 0 3,500 2,980 3.00 TOTALS 800 700 12,200 10,400 10.50 16,200 13,800 3,500 3,000 9.00 Option I - Total Approximate Amount of Dredged and Transported Sediment (CY) Option H - Total Approximate Amount of Dredged and Transported Sediment (CY) 11,100 16,800 Qualifying Statement: A sediment transport model is based on a simplification of a very complex process. Many of the assumptions incorporated into the model are weather dependant and therefore are extremely unpredictable. The results of our sediment transport modeling are to be used only for illustration purposes for use in comparing alternatives. Notes: (1) Mass of sediments that is removed by conventional excavation in a limited area (10wide x60long xl5deep) immediately upstream of the dam to mitigate a "first flush" of a wall of sediment that would be exposed after the dam in notched. (2) Mass of sediment that will be transported and deposited in Middle Roberts. (Does not account for mass of sediment removed by any dredging event.) Note that a "Minimal" amount of material (i.e fines and organic matter) may be transported to Middle Roberts at any stage in the breaching. (3) Approximate duration is the estimated time for approximately 90 percent of the sediment to be mobilized during the given dam breach phase. Note that the duration is dependent of the stream flow which is dependent of the weather. These results reflect average stream flows from nearby gages from the last 69 years. (4) Mass of sediment removed by hydraulic dredging to maintain capacity in the "sediment trap" during each phase of the breaching. (6) The sediment transport evaluation was performed using the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' HEC-RAS computer model (Version 4.0). (7) Refer to GZA's Sediment Transport Memorandum for Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir for additional information pertaining to the model methodology and associated assumptions. J:AO GZA INTERCOMPANY PROJECTSV01.0019547.10 Upper Roberts Meadow Res Dam Breach \Engineering\From Norwood \SummaryResults- 2 -11 -09 (2).xls LEGEND ® AREA FLOODED BY UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM FAIR WEATHER FAILURE 1:1 AREA FLOODED BY UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM WET WEATHER FAILURE FLOW DIRECTION w� MATCHLINE 1 3 DISTANCE FROM UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM Q \ RESERVOIR ROAD Cross - Section Location (miles) 1.70 Leading Edge Arrival Time(hcmin) 0:30 Peak Flood AmiralTime,rVinin) 0:50 Maximum Water Surface Elevation (R) 233.1 Peak Discharge (cfs) 31.300 O W 1.20 Ro Wits RESERVOIR ROAD 1 C J I . i �Ut ( COOKS DAM J N Y= ry V, 1 •• A \\ ,,, ffff ' \ I VA I10 LOO MEMORIA PARR -� ' q`` �Iprl 331 - I - III UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW F RESERVOIR DAM m (( �- Roberts y y R. �C Reser-ruri- Meadow Upper: 4- z y f o "gt� vel �/ C NE it rE _ = F L y ` m )> Scr. 1 � (Ij NOTES: � 1) THE INUNDATED AREAS SHOWN ON THIS MAP REFLECT EVENTS OF AN FJ(TREME REMOTE NATURE, THESE RESULTS ARE NOT IN ANY WAY INTENDED TO REFLECT UPON THE INTEGRITY OF UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM. 2) NUMBERS INSIDE CROSS SECTION SYMBOLS INDICATE DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM OF UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM IN MILES, 3) PEAK WATER ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOULD BE USED AS A GUIDELINE FOR ESTABLISHING EVACUATION ZONES. 4) ACTUAL PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS WILL DEPEND ON ACTUAL FAILURE CONDITIONS AND MAY DIFFER FROM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THESE MAPS. 5) FAIR WEATHER INUNDATION AREA SHOWN REFLECTS HYPOTHETICAL DAM FAILURE WITH STARTING WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COINCIDENT TO THE SPILLWAY CREST (450.0 FT) AND A BASE FLOW IN ROBERTS MEADOW BROOK OF 100 CFS, 6) WET WEATHER INUNDATION AREA SHOWN REFLECTS HYPOTHETICAL DAM FAILURE WITH STARTING WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COINCIDENT TO THE SPILLWAY DESIGN FLOOD ELEVATION (462.2 FT), A BASE FLOW IN ROBERTS MEADOW BROOK OF 2,000 CFS, AND A BASE FLOW IN THE CONNECTICUT RIVER EQUAL TO THE 1(-YEAR FLOOD ELEVATION (112,000 CFS). 7) CROSS- SECTION INFORMATION INCLUDING LOCATION, LEADING EDGE ARRIVAL TIME, PEAK FLOOD ARRIVAL TIME, MAXIMUM WATER SURFACE ELEVATION, AND PEAK DISCHARGE ARE GIVEN FOR THE WET WEATHER CONDITION. 8) TOPOGRAPHY (IF SHOWN) IS FROM THE USGS 7.5 -MIN QUADRANGLE MAP. CONTOUR INTERVALS ARE 10 FEET: DATUM IS NGVD. 1Q J 2 a 2 0 M 0 J Q m m Z 00 LLo0C Z r V , o J N O H 0 � H (0 -J � o W N • ( 1 l J 2 a 2 0 M 0 J Q m m Z 00 LLo0C Z r V , o J N O H 0 C at IL � o W N • W LL 0 o V o z o f W o Q N to • c rn f� w a < C O N � �E2 O W W CIO � Z H Q 1 �Wa 06 _ a �W a ,a d' z 1L = N LL— GIA NG. 19230.0 FIWPE C -1 MIDDLE ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM r ,w 18 I I••� /il 1 I° 1 G1 •(t.., - - - -_ftwa WL I I f PINESTREET • o _ Art• o� 1 d �'• 1� / �, f I ' '_ "�� ' it /(_ �A 1 �N • ' •• • / l ' / / 1 �/ LEGEND • p 1 �� ❑ AREA FLOORED BY UPPER MEADOW ,• \ ;+ / ` RESERVOIR DAM FAIR WEATHER THER FAILURE AREA FLOODED BY UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW / (III• ® RESERVOIR DAM WET WEATHER FAILURE $ , y' ��;` . • C}}r�, FLOW DIRECTION �� m ° o u/ yl / � •,• • tiYr MATCHUNE � O Y Y o • DISTANCE FROM UPPER ROBERTS - m m • ` • �` �/ ( t of •• 1 ' 8 MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM .' p O p o bra e) p l 1 ` — it Y P ,' • o Sta r '? nn C �\ \( PINE STREET Cross - Section Location (miles) 4.30 Leading Edge Arrival Time(hr:min) 0:30 Peak Flood Arrival Time (hrmin) 0:50 Madmum Water Surface Elevation (11)) 233.1 Peak Discharge lots) 31.800 \( �z; C? w K W o a s 0� OQ • r D o W LL ` Z t " o W N W W Z o �r o A It NO z o Shopping. Center W g l MalneS �.; ,11 F� 1 ,/ 8f �•'� y //' (n MII • Field �• r i ;,�� / LU • . •a v �� :1 �� (n • 1 O IL O , 1 % S hSoh o w�� LL) (L •. 1 1 i �p� l '� °� I i �' �f .� o_ O �[ y 1 �� 4 _/� i m O j Z Q \ j O � IF O O k -� v 9 wI• Of w � z w�� z lo a 5.1 4 a = LaL — G.+ ng Sta .� '��3 � Sao • 19230.0 , -r- x•1.1, _ J riaunE Is C-2 L J ., � idly ( 1. LIMIT OF ANTICIPATED DAM BREAK ECTEO FLOODING. �'. FAIR WEATHER FLOOD WAVE E %P TO BE DISSIPATED WITHIN CONNECTICUT RIVER. P 2. WET WEATHER DAM BREAK WITHIN 2 -FT OF FEMq ' 100 -YEAR FLOOD IN CONNECTICUT RIVER. REFER TO FEMA FIRM MAPS. u ... �Y� � 6.49 NOTE THAT THE WET WEATHE R I N U N DATIO N AREA ON THI S S HEET IS PRIMARILY DUE TO BACKWATER FROM THE NATURAL 10-YEAR FLOOD IN THE CONNECTICUT RIVER. THE CONTRIBUTION DUE TO THE WET WEATHER DAM BREAK OF UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM IS NOT SIGNIFICANT RELATIVE TO THE AREA FLOODED BY THE CONNECTICUT RIVER BACKWATER. LIVE - OX _ 1 6 I � 1 r 7 LEGEND ❑ AREA FLOODED BY UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM FAIR WEATHER FAILURE ❑ AREA FLOODED BY UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM WET WEATHER FAILURE FLOW DIRECTION Yw MATCHLINE 1 B DISTANCE FROM UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM \ ,, Liicll 1 / 41 i eaa 0 tr / r \ �G I 5 l O 1% BACKWATER TO ELEVATION 125.5 FEET IN CONNECTICUT RIVER RESULTING FROM t� NATURAL 10 -YEAR FLOOD -REFER TO FEMA {j -`� FIRM MAPS. O LL 0 cc `♦1 F o _ W O O O r W. o 4 ° ' •i' C . �V A � In Q w i rt co o � ww¢ _¢ .•:� Boa �z e �2 O ' w o l i ' 0W0 �o E W ELIa aD ' .ico w ELI 2 0' z IL V O' fi 0.1 6.90 t �J 8.14 / 5 ,•,� 5� f FiGUPE ,Pogo:.. n •�' /1 t C -3 • Y I p Q N mm 0 z $ Q �LD w �w O W F LEI 0- o w O o O LL 0 cc `♦1 F o _ W O O O r W. o 4 ° ' •i' C . �V A � In Q w i rt co o � ww¢ _¢ .•:� Boa �z e �2 O ' w o l i ' 0W0 �o E W ELIa aD ' .ico w ELI 2 0' z IL V O' fi 0.1 6.90 t �J 8.14 / 5 ,•,� 5� f FiGUPE ,Pogo:.. n •�' /1 t C -3 • Y I �i Me LEGEND ❑ AREA FLOODED BY UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM FAIR WEATHER FAILURE ❑ AREA FLOODED BY UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM WET WEATHER FAILURE 1.61 JLDm fro FLOW DIRECTION p � Q 9 N MIDDLE ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM r 2. 1p w.l MATCHLINE m m D o DISTANCE FROM UPPER ROBERTS 1'31 I Ur W Q 1.8 MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM I Z S Q 1.2 w IL RESERVOIR ROAD s D, W 0. Q aos On d RESERVOIR ROAD io F o°o LL Cross Lation(miles) 1 .70 ->',r COOKS DAM 2'31 GC 0 0 Leafing Edge Arrival Time (hr:min) 0:30 � o Peak Flood Arrival Tone (hr:min) 050 . � U o0 Maximum Water Surface Elevation (11) 233.1 Peak Discharge (cls) 31,800 _I_ W CZ' y;" Q n t c� I k �. 0.0 0 NOTES: H 1) THE INUNDATED AREAS SHOWN ON THIS MAP REFLECT EVENTS OF AN EXTREMELY REMOTE NATURE, THESE RESULTS ARE NOT IN ANY WAY INTENDED TO REFLECT Q D_ : a UPON THE INTEGRITY OF UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM. _ Q U W 2) NUMBERS INSIDE CROSS SECTION SYMBOLS INDICATE DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM OF uJ UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM IN MILES. cC U Z • w 3) PEAK WATER ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOULD BE USED AS A t GUIDELINE FOR ESTABLISHING EVACUATION ZONES. F 0 Q O F k 0.01 4 ACTUAL PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS WILL DEPEND ON ACTUAL FAILURE q �` ? ' CONDITIONS AND MAY DIFFER FROM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THESE MAPS. W� 1 5) FAIR WEATHER INUNDATION AREA SHOWN REFLECTS HYPOTHETICAL DAM FAILURE WITH STARTING WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COINCIDENT TO THE SPILLWAY CREST Q �. Q $ Z (450.0 Fri AND A BASE FLOW IN ROBERTS MEADOW BROOK OF 100 CFS. a6 6) WET WEATHER INUNDATION AREA SHOWN REFLECTS HYPOTHETICAL DAM FAILURE N P d O WITH STARTING WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COINCIDENT TO THE SPILLWAY DESIGN W W 2 Q O FLOOD ELEVATION (462.2 FT), A BASE FLOW IN ROBERTS MEADOW BROOK OF 0_ D' 2 LL 1: - 2,000 CFS, AND A BASE FLOW IN THE CONNECTICUT RIVER EQUAL TO THE 10 -YEAR D.. F O 0. FLOOD ELEVATION (112,000 CFS). 0 Q . 7) CROSSSECTION INFORMATION INCLUDING LOCATION, LEADING EDGE ARRIVAL TIME, UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW PEAK FLOOD ARRIVAL TIME, MAXIMUM WATER SURFACE ELEVATION, Z RESERVOIR DAM AND PEAK DISCHARGE ARE GIVEN FOR THE WET WEATHER CONDITION. B) TOPOGRAPHY (IF SHOWN) IS FROM THE USGS 7.5 -MIN QUADRANGLE MAP. CONTOUR INTERVALS ARE 10 FEET; DATUM IS NGVD. Grn 19230.0 FlGUFE ,1 1. LIMIT OF ANTICIPATED DAM BREAK FLOODING. BACKWATER TO ELEVATION 125.5 FEET IN FAIR WEATHER FLOOD WAVE EXPECTED BE CONNECTICUT RIVER RESULTING FROM DISSIPATED WITHIN CONNECTICUT RIVER. . NATURAL 10 -YEAR FLOOD -REFER TO FEMA 2. WET WEATHER DAM BREAK WITHIN OFFEMA FIRM MAPS. AR FLOOD IN CONNECTICUT RIVER. REFER TO PE -.' TO FEMA FIRM MAPS. l ` NOTE THAT THE WEI WEATHER INUNDATION AREA ON THIS SHEET IS PRIMARILY DUE TO BACKWATER FROM THE NATURAL 10-YEAR FLOOD IN THE CONNECTICUT RIVER. • THE CONTRIBUTION DUE TO THE WET WEATHER DAM BREAK OF UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM IS NOT SIGNIFICANT RELATIVE TO THE AREA FLOODED BY THE CONNECTICUT RIVER BACKWATER. m o 7 m O � Q J N (D W � o 0 co r a0K O0 Ct W N IJU i I, c 0 0 0 Z ] y LU N 3.1 0 y 9 w a Dan LLl V w0 II y Q U) 0 h 9 m LU >2 r �u F �G.. -'� ' e WOL a LEGEND - LU co rG Q 0 ❑ AREA FLOODED BY UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW ,- d = = LL RESERVOIR DAM FAIR WEATHER FAILURE � O ■ AREA FLOODED BY UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM WET WEATHER FAILURE Z Y FLOW DIRECTION Gm rw 8.9 WI MATCMLNE I � ' � .-,. 19230.0 DISTANCE FROM UPPER ROBERTS M 1.8 MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM { a � w I FIGURE C -6 ATTACHMENTS ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES REPORT. KERRY J. LYNCH, PH.D. BACKGROUND RESEARCH & NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY OPINION FOR THE UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND A NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY OPINION FOR THE UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS By: Kerry J. Lynch, Ph.D. Presented to: Mr. Paul Davis GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. One Financial Plaza 1350 Main Street, Suite 1400 Springfield, Massachusetts 01103 Presented by: Archaeological Services University of Massachusetts Department of Anthropology Machmer Hall, 240 Hicks Way Amherst, MAO 1003 September 2011 Mitchell T. Mulholland, Ph.D. Principal Investigator *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................._..............................._ ............................... _...................m LIST OF FIGURES..._ _. ......... ......._ _....... iv ABSTRACT.............................................. ............................... _......... _.................... _...................... vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................. .. ........ _,....._............ .. ........ .,....._..... ................:_,........._.. uzi CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................... ............................... 1 Scopeof Survey ........................................................................................... ............................... 1 Authorityfor Survey .................................................................................... ............................... 2 Project Area Description .............................................................................. ............................... 3 Personnel...................................................................................................... ............................... 3 CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY ..... ......... .. ........ ......._.....:..:... ........ ::,...... ::....:..:... ........ ::,...... 7 CHAPTER 3: UPPER ROBERT S' MEADOW DAM ................................... ............................... 8 Historyof the Dam ....................................................................................... ............................... 8 Maintenance and repairs ............................................................................ ............................... 14 Twentieth Century Inspections .................................................................. ............................... 16 Historic Context (Late Industrial period 1870 -1915) ................................ ............................... 18 CHAPTER4: RESEARCHRESULTS .......................................................... ............................. 27 Holyoke Water Power Company ............................................................... ............................... 45 CHAPTER 5: OPINION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR INCLUSION IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER.................................................................................................... ............................... 49 CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY .............................................................................. .............................50 REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................. ............................... 51 111 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Project area location in southern New England and the Hampshire County region....... 4 Figure 2. Location of the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam in Northampton, Massachusetts........... 5 Figure 3. View of the dam from downstream on Roberts' Meadow Brook (photo by F. T. Barker, Aug. 8, 2011) ...................................................................................... ............................... 6 Figure 4. Location of the Lower, Middle, and Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoirs on the Easthampton, Massachusetts topographical quadrangle (USGS 1939) ........... ............................... 9 Figure 5. Northampton Water Works plan showing the relationship between the lower (old) and middle (new) reservoirs (Department of Public Works [DPW], Northampton, Massachusetts, 1898: Water Land Book [WLB] 4) ................................................................ ............................... 10 Figure 6. Plans of the Upper or Hoxie Reservoir, Leeds, Mass. (DPW, Northampton, Massachusetts, 1883 [copied]: Water Plate [WP] 4: J) ................................... ............................... 11 Figure 7. Upper Roberts' Meadow dam and north bedrock abutment (photo by F. T. Barker, Aug 8, 2011) ................................................................................................. ............................... 12 Figure 8. Upper Roberts' Meadow dam and south bedrock abutment (photo by F. T. Barker, Aug 8, 2011) ................................................................................................. ............................... 13 Figure 9. Map showing land considered to betaken for the protection of the water supply at the upper reservoir (DPW, Northampton, Massachusetts, 1926: WLB, 22) ....... ............................... 15 Figure 10. Historic map of Northampton (Walling 1860) ............................ ............................... 20 Figure 11. Historic map of the village of Leeds, Nort amptom MA (Walling 1860) . ......... .... ._ 21 Figure 12. Historic map of the village of Florence, Northampton, MA (Walling 1860) ............. 22 Figure 13. Historic map of the Mill River area of Northampton, MA (Beers 1873) ................... 23 Figure 14. Historic map of Bay State /Paper Mill village, Northampton, MA (Beers 1873)....... 24 Figure 15. Historic map of the village of Florence, Northampton, MA (Beers 1873) ................ 25 Figure 16. Historic map of the village of Leeds, Northampton, MA (Beers 1873) ..................... 26 Figure 17. Inventory of existing dams in the City of Northampton, MA (Hampshire Council of Governments [HCG], Northampton, Massachusetts, nd.) ............................. ............................... 30 iv *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA Figure 18. Looking west at the Middle Roberts' Meadow dam from the lower reservoir (photo by F. T. Barker, Aug. 8, 2011) ....................................................................... ............................... 31 Figure 19. Hand drawn map showing the distribution pipes for the Northampton aqueduct extending from the lower (old) reservoir (DPW, Northampton, Massachusetts, rid: WP 1:1)..... 32 Figure 20. Plan of the diversion of Roberts Meadow Brook by E. E. Davis (DPW, Northampton, Massachusetts, 192 1) ..................................................................................... ............................... 33 Figure 21. Historic map showing the vicinity of Round Hill, Elm Street, and Prospect Street in Northampton, MA (Hales 1831) .................................................................... ............................... 34 Figure 22. Plan of the new (upper) Roberts' Meadow reservoir by E. C. Davis (DPW, Northampton, Massachusetts, 1887) .............................................................. ............................... 38 Figure 23. Original, hand drawn plan showing the lower (old) and middle (new) reservoirs with the surrounding landowners (DPW, Northampton, Massachusetts, 1898: [WLB] 4) ................... 39 Figure 24. The lower (first), upper (second), and middle (third) dams of Nortltampton's first public water system (photos by F. T. Barker, Aug. 8, 2011) ........................................................ 40 Figure 25. Location of the West Whately [Northampton] and Mountain Street reservoirs on the Williamsburg, Massachusetts topographical quadrangle (USES 1941) ........ ............................... 41 Figure 26. Williamsburg topographical quadrangle showing the expansion of the West Whately [Northampton] reservoir (USGS 1990) ......................................................... ............................... 42 Figure 27. Map showing the layout of Holyoke Water Power Company property in Holyoke, Massachusetts in 1859 (Barrett 1989) ............................................................ ............................... 48 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA ABSTRACT Historical background research was conducted on the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam (aka Home or Upper Leeds) located in the village of Leeds in Northampton, Massachusetts. This research was undertaken to assist the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) in producing a determination of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The Upper Roberts' Meadow dam was constructed in 1883 in order to create a storage reservoir on Roberts' Meadow Brook as part of the public water supply for the City of Northampton, MA. The dam was recently determined to be in poor condition and required either repair or removal. The MHC attempted to evaluate the site for its potential for eligibility for the National Register. The MHC was unable to offer an opinion of eligibility given available data and requested additional information in the form of a series of questions. The following report presents the findings of eight questions posed by the MHC regarding the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam and its association with the development of Northampton's water supply system, and offers the opinion that the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A and C. vi *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The project archaeologist and principal investigator wish to thank the following people for their assistance and advice on this project: Edward Bell, Senior Archaeologist, Massachusetts Historical Commission, Eric Johnson, Co- Director, Archaeological Services; David Sparks, Water Superintendant, Northampton Department of Public Works; Jim Kelly, W. E. B. DuBois Library at the University of Massachusetts; Lydia King, Hampshire Council of Governments, and the staff at the Forbes Library, Northampton, Massachusetts. vii Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Darn, Northampton, MA CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Scope of Survey Historical background research was conducted on the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam (aka Home or Upper Leeds) located in the village of Leeds in Northampton, Massachusetts (Figure 1). This research was undertakento assist the US Army Corps of Engineers in producing an opinion of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NR), to be reviewed by the MHC. The request for a NR opinion was part of the City of Northampton's response to an order from the Office of Dam Safety to either remove or repair the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam. Archaeological Services at the University of Massachusetts Amherst was retained by the City of Northampton through GZA GeoEnviromental, Inc. of Springfield, Massachusetts to conduct the research project. On June 25, 2009 the MHC wrote to Paul G. Davis, then of Baystate Environmental Consultants (a GZA Company) of East Longmeadow, MA stating that after review of the site inventory, it was determined that the project at the dam site was unlikely to impact significant archaeological resources. Following this, additional information was provided to the MHC and was reviewed in April 2010 by Edward Bell, Senior Archaeologist at the MHC. Mr. Bell then sent a letter to Edward Huntley of the Northampton Department of Public Works, dated May 21, 2010, stating that the dam could be historically significant as a municipal work in the City, and also may be a significant historic engineering structure. Peter Stott of the MHC (report dated April 26, 2010) conducted the review of the potential eligibility of the site for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, referenced in the May 21, 2010 letter. Mr. Stott attempted to evaluate the site for potential eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. State Historic Preservation Officer Brona Simon provided this review to the Northampton Department of Public Works on June 14, 2010. Stott was unable to offer an opinion of eligibility for the National Register at that time, and requested additional information. An MHC letter of June 14, 2010 recommended that the USACE undertake historical research by a qualified historic preservation consultant to assemble the information needed for an effective National Register review, and in so doing, provide answers to the questions posed by Stott. Thus, historical background research was necessary to provide the additional information that will lead to an opinion of whether or not the dam is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The MHC requested the following information in order to determine the historical significance of the dam and reservoir. Some additional questions also are posed below. • The primacy of the dam is in question because a `lower" reservoir is located downstream. The Lower dam was in existence ten years before the "upper" dam was constructed. What was the relationship between the two damslreservoirs, and how does this affect the primacy issue *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northamptm, MA • What role did the reservoir play in the development of Northampton's water supply system? • Between 1$73 and 1905, was the reservoir the only water supply in Northampton? • Whatparts of Northampton did the reservoir supply and how was water distributed? • When was the Northampton Water Department (or water company) organized? • How did the water supply system grow over time? • What was the reason for discontinuance in 1905 • What was the nature of the involvement of the Holyoke Water Power Company in the dam construction? Archaeological Services was retained by GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., of Springfield, Massachusetts, as directed by the City of Northampton, to conduct historical background research and provide answers to the questions posited by the MHC. This research will assist the USACE in producing an opinion of eligibility for the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The MHC's request that the USACE provide an opinion regarding the historic significance of the dam was precipitated by the City's proposal to remove the dam due to its poor condition rating and to comply with the MA Department of Conservation and Recreation's (DCR) Office of Dam Safety regulations. Authority for Survey Archaeological Services conducts archaeological investigations in accordance with federal and state legislation and regulations concerning the impact to archaeological properties from federally funded or permitted activities. Legislation and regulations include the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (PL 89 -665); the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (PL 91 -190, 42 USC 4321); Executive Order 11593 of 1971 (16 USC 470); Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties (36 CFR 800); and the Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974 (PL 93 -291). State legislation dealing with the protection of historical and archaeological resources includes Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 9, Sections 26 -27C; the Underwater Archaeology Act (MGL Ch.6, ss.179 -180, Ch.9, s.26, Ch.12, s.11D, Ch.10, s.61, Ch.91, s.63, Ch.92, s.72 and 312 CMR 2); and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MGL Chapter 30, amended by Chapter 947 of the Acts of 1977). Projects involving the discovery of human remains or cemeteries are conducted in compliance with MGL Ch.9 ss.26 -27C (950 CMR 70 and 71), Ch.9, s.26A and 27C, Ch.18, s.613 and Ch.7, s.38A. Massachusetts archaeological permit regulations are outlined in 950 CMR 70.00. No permit was necessary for this project as it consisted of historic research only. *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA Project Area Description The Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir and dam are located on Chesterfield Road, in Nordtamptom Massachusetts, approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the center of Leeds, a village in Northampton (Figure 2). Once called the Hoxie Reservoir or the Upper Leeds Reservoir, the impoundment covers six acres. A granite arch dam that was constructed in 1883 impounds the reservoir (Figure 3). The reservoir served as part of the water supply system for the City of Northampton, but water supply from the reservoir was discontinued in 1905. The dam has been determined to be in poor condition and has been recommended for repair or breaching. Personnel Kerry J. Lynch was the project archaeologist and Mitchell T. Mulholland was the principal investigator. F. Timothy Barker was responsible for the photography. Kathryn Curran prepared the report graphics. Broughton Anderson was the editor for the report. i .. 'z, I Services Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam, Northampton I ampton 0 Atlantic Ocean 0 Miles 50 0 Kilometers 80 0 10 Ir- - .` Wa ILEVERETTI J9. EN e l- J O I J zo Miles u T WHATELY .:, _ JJ� 3 I 1, Project Area 1 3 r 11 A ICHE I - LA ^iIELO I I PELHAM 1 Z 1 1 I 1 I Cry LEFiELD�- // I AO? I NORTHAMPTON o2 I I CHESTER I i I � i W �1 I HADLEY 1 (� 1 H I GRANBY BELCHERTOWN IOUT AkDLEYI i I Figure 1. Project area location in southern New England and the Hampshire County region. 4 Upper Robert"s' Meadow Location Meatl � � r tI - �� 500 1000 Meters r 0 2000 4000 Fee[ Figure 2. Location of the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam in Northampton, Massachusetts. 5 1 A 0 N on Q x M ou w *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY Archaeological and historical background research consisted of collecting data concerning the development of the Upper Roberts' Meadow Reservoir Dam, and its relationship to the City of Northampton's water supply system. Information about the site was obtained by reviewing the site inventories of the MHC (for information about other water system resources in Northampton and Massachusetts); the Forbes Library; the W.E.B. DuBois Library at the University of Massachusetts (particularly the Special Collections Department); the Hampshire Council of Governments; Historic Northampton Museum and Education Center (Northampton Historical Society); the Northampton Water Department, Northeast Utilities (for information regarding the Holyoke Water Power Company), The Hampshire Gazette newspaper, the Springfield Republican newspaper, and other repositories of historical and archaeological site data. The effort included a thorough review of literature and reports related to the dam, appropriate town records, early USGS topographic quadrangles and other appropriate historic maps. *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA CHAPTER 3: UPPER RORERTS' MEADOW DAM History of the Dam The Upper Roberts' Meadow dam (aka Hoxie or Upper Leeds) was constructed in 1883 at the site of a ravine on Roberts' Meadow Brook off Chesterfield Road in Northampton, Massachusetts. E. C. Davis, engineer, and the Water Commission, chose the location for the Town of Northampton, MA (Northampton Board of Water Commissioners [NBWC] 1883b). The reservoir served as a storage reservoir, supplementing the primary (Lower Roberts' Meadow) reservoir downstream from 1883 to 1894. The primary, or first, town reservoir was constructed about one third of a mile above the confluence of Roberts' Meadow Brook and the Mill River in the village of Leeds, Northampton, MA, and approximately 2 miles downstream from the upper reservoir (Northampton Water Works [NWW] 1870). In 1894, a third reservoir was constructed immediately upstream of the first (or lower) reservoir, and was subsequently named the Roberts' Meadow Middle Reservoir (Figures 4 and 5). The Upper Roberts' Meadow dam is a gravity arch dam with components of cut granite blocks, stone masonry retaining walls, and earthen embankments with a. rock core (Figure 6). Bedrock outcrops abut either side of the dam (Figures 7 and 8). E. C. Davis, a Northampton engineer, was hired to design and oversee the building of the dam (NBWC 1883b; Springfield Republican [SR], 14 May 1883a), local Northampton contractors Jerre Brown and William Kyle were hired to do the stone work (Hampshire Gazette [HG], 29 May 1883a; NBWC 1883b; SR, 9 June 1883c), and Mr. D. W. Axtell of Huntington, MA was hired to `inspect and constantly superintend the work, while the engineer made frequent examinations of the work as it progressed" (NBWC 1883b:6). During construction of the dam, excavators had to dig much deeper than anticipated to reach bedrock. This greatly increased the cost and duration of the construction, and increased the height of the dam (HG, 10 July 1883b; NBWC 1883b; SR, 22 July 1883b). Due to fears that the increased height of the dam would result in instability, a consulting engineer was hired to review the dam design and plan specifications, inspect the work site, and offer his opinion on the dam's construction (NBWC 1883b). Mr. Clemens Herschel, a hydraulic engineer with Holyoke Water Power in Holyoke, Massachusetts, was employed for this purpose. The Water Commissioners and the Town of Northampton were particularly concerned about the quality of the dam's construction due to the failure of a large earthen dam at a reservoir on the East Branch of the Mill River in Williamsburg in 1874 (NBWC 1883b; SR, 22 July 1883b). The failure of the Mill River dam resulted in a catastrophic flood that claimed 145 lives, 15 factories, over 100 homes, and devastated the villages and manufacturing operations in its path, including the village of Leeds (Tercentenary History Committee 1954). Clemens Herschel approved the plans and design of the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam with one recommendation; that the earthen embankment have an elevation of 105 instead of 104. Work on the dam continued without interruption (NBWC 1883b). The capacity of the reservoir was 16,500,000 gallons with an additional 2,000,000 gallons possible through the use of flashboards. The total cost of constructionwas $16,677.32 (NBWC 1883b). Figure 4. Location of the Lower, Middle, and Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoirs on the Easthamptom Massachusetts topographical quadrangle (USGS 1939). C r Archaeological Services Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam, Northampton *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts'Meadow Dann, Northanaptont AGRRgw! \\7 \2 \ \} \ \ \k k4 � � 2 ~ } \ !\ 7 \ \\ z • .�� : w 10 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts'Meadow Dann, Northanaptm \ � \/ ( \ { \ , [ \\ \( �/ { \ ; y ! \ ° « I Y " 'o.. Archaeological Services Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam, Northampton 0 N N r N w 7 S w x m G b0 a N c 13 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA The Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir was in use from 1883 to 1905. After 1905, a new, larger reservoir system constructed in Whately and Williamsburg was used as the Northampton water supply, and the Roberts' Meadow reservoir system was relegated to backup. The following lists show maintenance, repairs, and inspections that were recorded for the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam following its construction. Maintenance and repairs • 1887 (NBWC 1888) Flash planks were placed on the dam prior to the great rain of July Water overflowed the embankment on the north side, and the planks were removed Repairs to the wall and embankment, and the cost of the planks and fixtures was $152.31 • 1593 (NBWC 1593) Upper reservoir cleaned at a cost of $435.02 • 1596 (NBWC 1596) Replaced the apron at the foot of the dam as it had undermined and moved out of place Repaired the top of the dam by relaying and cementing some top stones Repairs done at a cost of $336.42 • 1900 (Held 2003; SR, 9 November 1900) Upper reservoir cleared at a cost of $2,102.87 • 1907 (SR, 17 April 1907) Augustus Hathaway, employed by J. R. Clapp, was fined for leaving the carcasses of six skinned calves in a brook feeding the Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir Although the Roberts' Meadow system is not used for the water supply, an example was made as a warning to those who live near the watersheds of public supplies. • 1911 (SR 1 November 1911) Water drawn down and the upper reservoir cleaned • 1912 (SR, 11 July 1912) Grappling hooks were used to drag the bottom of the upper reservoir to retrieve the body of Fred A. Martin, a suicide victim. • 1926 (NBWC 1926) Land was considered being taken around the Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir for the protection of the water supply (Figure 9) 14 w �i m m d� b n z� b� oa �G g w p; m .'CCY a r� O N m ry N G D b N� 0 G R n b b ti N G , , m m m O i 3 h� Sb ow Si a Fk et v \ j k ;aa and 3� a Services Upper Roberts' Meadow Darn, Northampton 15 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northamptm, MA • 1927 (MHC, document on file, Upper Leeds reservoir & Dam (a.k.a. Howie Reservoir, History from Water Department Records, 2011)) Pointing and cement work on the dam • 1933 (MHC, document on file, Upper Leeds reservoir & Dam (a.k.a. Howie Reservoir, History from Water Department Records, 2011)) Water drawn down and the upper reservoir cleaned Repairs were made • 1941 (MHC, document on file, Upper Leeds reservoir & Dam (a.k.a. Howie Reservoir, History from Water Department Records, 2011)) Stone dam was repaired to stop leaks Washouts under the dam were filled with stone • 1942 (Held 2003; MHC, document on file, Upper Leeds reservoir & Dam (a.k.a. Howie Reservoir, History from Water Department Records, 2011)) Water was drawn down for cleaning, but the work was not completed due to lack of labor Twentieth Century Inspections The Hampshire Council of Governments [HCG] records were accessed June 22, 2011. Multiple letters and documents were located which referenced inspections of the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam and reservoir. In these documents, the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam is referred to as the "Hoxie Reservoir Dam," the lower dam is "Roberts' Meadow Reservoir Dam- Lower," and the middle dam is "Roberts' Meadow Reservoir Dam - Upper." The detailed inspection reports that follow ceased being generated when the Board of Water Commissioners and the Board of Sewer Commissioners stopped functioning as separate entities and were absorbed under the Department of Public Works in the1960s (David Sparks, personal communication 2011). The footbridge, concrete foundation block, and gatehouse described in the 1968 and 1970 inspections have since been removed. No date for this modification to the dam was found. The following is a synopsis of letters and documents on file at the HCG, 15 Gothic Street, Northampton, Massachusetts pertaining to the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam (Hoxie Reservoir): 1. 1930 Davis Engineering Company, Northampton, MA Hoxie Reservoir Dam inspected, no criticisms 2. 1932 Davis Engineering Company, Northampton, MA Hoxie Reservoir Dam, inspected —good condition 3. 1944 Davis Engineering Company, Northampton, MA Hoxie Reservoir Dam, inspected —good condition 16 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA 4. 1946 Davis Engineering Company, Northampton, MA Hoxie Reservoir Dam, inspected —good condition 5. 1945 Davis Engineering Company, Northampton, MA Hoxie Reservoir Dam, inspected —good condition 6. 1950 Davis Engineering Company, Northampton, MA Hoxie Reservoir Dam, inspected —good condition 7. 1952 Davis Engineering Company, Northampton, MA Hoxie Reservoir Dam, inspected —good condition S. 1954 Davis Engineering Company, Northampton, MA Hoxie Reservoir Dam, inspected —good condition 9. 1955 Tighe and Bond, Consulting Engineers, Holyoke, MA Hoxie Reservoir Dam inspected August 29, 1955 —good condition earth dike on North side and upstream of dam was overtopped, erosion negligible 10. 1956 Tighe and Bond, Consulting Engineers, Holyoke, MA Hoxie Reservoir Dam inspected November 10, 1956 —good condition and considered safe no alterations or work in the past year 11. 1955 Tighe and Bond, Consulting Engineers, Holyoke, MA Hoxie Reservoir Dam inspected September 6, 1958 —good condition and considered safe no alterations or work in the past year 12.1960 Tighe and Bond, Consulting Engineers, Holyoke, MA Hoxie Reservoir Dam inspected— good condition and considered safe no alterations or work in the past year 13.1964 Tighe and Bond, Consulting Engineers, Holyoke, MA Hoxie Reservoir Dam inspected earth embankment found to be in very good condition masonry of the dam okay rock toe fill at base of dam in good condition erosion noted at left end of spillway but no worse than last year no changes made at the dam since last inspection and considered safe, 14.1966 Tighe and Bond, Consulting Engineers, Holyoke, MA Hoxie Reservoir Dam inspected— good condition and considered safe no alterations or work in the past year, 17 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northamptm, MA 15.1968 Tighe and Bond, Consulting Engineers, Holyoke, MA Home Reservoir Dam inspected June 6, 1968 earth embankment in fair condition spillway structure is satisfactory surface of the embankment is eroded near the small foot bridge leading to the gate structure concrete foundation block for the end of the foot bridge is failing right abutment wall is undermined and its condition is becoming serious 16.1970 Tighe and Bond, Consulting Engineers, Holyoke, MA earth embankment in satisfactory condition with some surface erosion in the general area of the foot bridge leading to the draw down gate (draw down gate was open andthe pond empty on the day of inspection) concrete foundation block had stabilized and no replacement was deemed necessary spillway structure was okay crest masonry in satisfactory condition spillway abutment masonry okay, some very minor undermining on the right abutment, but the condition is not yet serious enough to require attention bed of the stream below the spillway okay no alterations or changes since last inspection considered safe Historic Context (Late Industrial period 1870 -1915) Northampton was both an industrial center and a major agricultural producer during the late nineteenth century when the municipal water system was being developed. Numerous mills and manufacturing enterprises were located in Northampton, particularly along the Mill River (Figures 10, 11 and 12). The water power of the Mill River was reaching its capacity of exploitation by the late 1850s, and steam engines were used in some locations to supplement the water power (Hannay 1912). Direct water power for manufacturing was gradually being replaced with steam power, and then quickly with electricity, at the end of the nineteenth century (Hannay 1912; Sharpe 2004; Tercentenary History Committee 1954). The growth of steam power is reflected in the number of steam engines used in Northampton, reported by the Water Commissioners: 30 in 1883; 63 in 1893; and 78 in 1903 (NBWC 1883a, 1893, 1903). Villages along the Mill River housed large factories during the Late Industrial period (Figure 13). Bay State /Paper Mill (Figure 14), the closest village to the commercial center of Northampton, was considered a center of cutlery manufacturing, containing Northampton Cutlery Clement Cutlery, and E. E. Wood Cutlery and Eagle Mills Vernon Paper Co. (MHC 1982; Tercentenary History Committee 1954). Florence (Figure 15), located upriver between the village of Bay State and the village of Leeds (the location of the confluence of the Mill River with Roberts' Meadow Brook) thrived as a center of silk manufacturing, the largest being the Nonotuck Silk Company (Hannay 1902; MHC 1982; Tercentenary History Committee 1954). 18 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA The village of Leeds (Figure 16) was devastated by the Mill River flood in 1874, but some industries were rebuilt after the flood including The Mill River Button Co. and The Northampton Emory Wheel Co. (Gay 1888). Northampton's population rose by 113.1 %in the Late Industrial period (MHC 1982). There was also great institutional expansion with the growth of Smith College, the Northampton State Hospital, and Clarke School for the Deaf, which contributed to the population growth (MHC 1982; Tercentenary History Committee 1954). As the population grew, so did the demands for publicalty supplied water. The following table shows the increased use of water for families, baths, and water closets from 1883 -1903; common facilities used by households and institutions (NBWC 1883a; 1893,1903): CONSUMERS 1883 1893 1903 Families 1647 2808 3490 Baths 223 820 1630 Water Closets 578 1667 3248 19 NOR ON / '° k• ' •• `\\ NATIC ill.�„/T mss Iff Figure 10. Historic map of Northampton (Walling 1860). 20 ' LE EDS 1 s m eo ep ay xu r..i.. i •/ �ro_we .Srxx7[•tgx!nlotuwrirrch. , All a MO tva. .1 Gerry B111&WIS8 Direckw . 'i' MiarAr APNurth., Xemhant. APh•itrhbw,Battaa Maaiy AW y7P Rnrilh,/aryeederM ✓oraer wK'a"On.v • S R 5'elrwn. do do Figure 11. Historic map of the village of Leeds, Northampton, MA (Walling 1860). 21 Archaeological Services Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam, Northampton I • � c .i y � ,� $ e i r.;% i � a Vd (m, A a 4 °y sG 1 L � • • .. /�I tom • • �a8 � syyp} I . 4.r oditl („ q . S 22 T b0 F N 4 23 * Archaeological Services 3 � a'a i Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam, Northamptm f ap p f S \ f ~Y L \ R a 2 I AP ` �T x r� N m w 24 Ee Z o ` �T x r� N m w 24 cr I � cv ds IP" r / n � r �tltl''��RR•• ,.,ndf V I P xRra f'u� i e /♦. j 'ilk` � % ti/ L �� «� l �y!! e ! 1 J \' l � Lill' lt. ♦ �i y ' F J r. .r:r n � ® JN �lo�iri� . ]]2�i, _ ti've PARK i ,"' iaPv � R '�6y 3y .rr n yj �1OTO ' Z Figure P P J .w, ✓. r.FU � �f Figure 15. Historic map of the village of Florence, Northampton, MA (Beers 1873). 25 I OF NNhi4a rlpipN r� \ Y 1 1 YN` h•�O Gry T � �� Itlu /u, {/ �'. 4eM Mr fw e a u ucr •4 _ .r ricn,.r �jrv..4,awa . /NiJh,wY� Figure 16. Historic map of the village of Leeds, Nor hamptoq MA (Beers 1873). 26 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northamptoq MA CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH RESULTS Eight questions, asked by the MHC, regarding the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam and its association with Northampton's water supply system were addressed by conducting historic background research. The findings are presented below. The primacy of the dam is in question because a `lower" reservoir is located downstream. The lower dam was in existence ten years before the "upper" dam was constructed. What was the relationship between the two dams /reservoirs, and how does this affect the primacy issue? The Lower Roberts Meadow dam (or first reservoir and dam) was constructed in 1871. The Upper Roberts Meadow dam was constructed in 1883. The upper dam and reservoir (second) were needed due to insufficient supply. It was constructed as a storage reservoir, approximately 2 miles further up Roberts' Meadow Brook. The capacity of the original reservoir was about 4,000,000 gallons, and the capacity of the upper reservoir was about 12,500,000 gallons. There were no pipes associated with the upper reservoir. The stored water was controlled by a sluice gate that could be manipulated to let water flow down stream via the force of gravity to the lower reservoir. Between 1873 and 1905, was the reservoir the only water supply in Northampton? The Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir was one of three reservoirs located on Roberts Meadow Brook between 1873 and 1905 (Figure 2 and 17). The first reservoir (Lower Roberts' Meadow) was constructed in 1871 at "a point about one third of a mile above its junction with Mill River, where the new highway crosses..." (NW W 1870:20). The second reservoir (Upper Roberts' Meadow) was constructed in 1883 to act as a storage reservoir and was located about two miles above the first on Roberts' Meadow Brook (NBWC 1883a). A third reservoir (Middle Roberts' Meadow) was constructed in 1894 immediately above the Lower Roberts' Meadow reservoir (NBWC 1894). It also acted as a storage reservoir and can be easily seen from the lower reservoir (Figure 18). Together these reservoirs acted as the only public system that supplied water to the Northampton area and surrounding communities between 1873 and 1905. Whatparts of Northampton did the reservoir supply and how was water distributed? The Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir was part of a water supply system that provided Northampton and the surrounding villages (Leeds, Florence, and Bay State) with water. Distribution pipes were from the lower reservoir only (Figure 19). The main conducting pipe installed in 1871 ran from the lower reservoir to Florence (16 inches); then to Prospect Street (14 inches), through Elm and Main Streets to the comer of Main and Pleasant (12 inches), ending at the comer of Bridge and Hawley Streets (10 inches) (NWW 1870) (see Figure 10 for street locations and Figure 13 for Northampton Aqueduct). The original reservoir (Lower Roberts' Meadow) built in 1870 had five miles of main, and rune miles of distributing pipe associated with its construction (HG, 12 December 1871b). According to Held (2003), the water pipes associated with the first reservoir: 27 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA went the entire length of South Street to Maple Street. Then down Pleasant Street to Wm. R. Clapp's property. Along Hawley Street and Phillips Place through Bridge Street as far as Lincoln Avenue. Continuing through Union and part of Market Streets, through King and Prospect Streets to the intersection of Spring Street (past Summer Street), through Green Street to the former State Hospital, then crossing Mill River below the dam. Pipes also extended to the Clarke Institution (Held 2003). In addition to the 14 miles of pipe, the first water system also included a total of 74 fire hydrants; 21 single, 58 double, and one at the intersection of Main and Pleasant Streets that had six connections (Held 2003). Distribution pipes continued to be connected to the mains and laid throughout the period of 1871 -1905 when the Roberts' Meadow reservoirs were online, and are recorded in the reports of the Northampton Water Commissioners by the year in which they were constructed. Water from the upper and middle reservoirs was released as necessary and flowed down the course of Roberts' Meadow Brook to the lower reservoir to be distributed. Roberts' Meadow Brook was diverted in the 1920s (Figure 20), and a more direct course was constructed in order to eliminate three bridges, prevent pollution, and limit the erosion of the brook's banks (Held 2003). When was the Northampton Water Department (or water company) organized? The Northampton Water Works was formed in 1870. At a meeting of the Town of Northampton on July 20, 1870, it was voted to form a committee to examine the best way to supply Leeds, Florence, and Northampton with pure water (NWW 1870). The passage of An Act To Authorize. Cities and Towns to Purchase Water- Rights by the State of Massachusetts on March 19, 1870 prompted Northampton to form such committee and develop a legal public utility (Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1870; Held 2003; NWW 1870). A Board of Water Commissioners was officially elected on November 8, 1870 and began the process of developing the Nort ampton Water Works, which consisted of a dam, reservoir, and distribution pipes (Held 2003; HG, 8 November 1870). The Board of Water Commissioners oversaw the continued development of Northampton's water supply with the addition of four more reservoirs by 1905 (Held 2003). In 1961, the transfer of the Board of Water Commissioners to the Board of Public Works was authorized. How did the water supply system grow over time? Prior to the development of a municipal water works in Northampton in 1871, residents of the town relied on hand -dug wells, cisterns, and natural springs (Held 2003; Trumbull 1902). The first aqueduct company was formed c. 1794 by five local men who purchased the rights to natural springs in Thomas Star's pasture, located near Round Hill Road (Held 2003). These men were Asahel Pomeroy, William Lyman, Timothy Mather, Benjamin Prescott, and Ebenezer Hunt (Trumbull 1902). This first aqueduct carried water from the vicinity of Round Hill down Elm Street, to Meeting House Hill, and eventually to the junction of Elm and Prospect Streets (Held 2003; Trumbull 1902; Van Voris 1984) (Figure 21). A second aqueduct company was formed 28 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA shortly after, and water was transported down King Street to Pleasant Street (Held 2003; Trumbull 1902). Shallow trenches and/or cored logs transported the water to small reservoirs 29 1 \NF\TOIZY OF EXISTING DAMS CITY OF NORTHAMPTON 5 a 1. FnIp PLAID PONY DAM P ROpERiS MfAMU VPPFR DAM(NO % /L� 4 6 A ROBER(5 MEAfON cl... .( 4. ROEfAiS PAK LOMPANY D M 5. cHFR* y � (. MMi NAT MAGIME IGMPPNY DPM / { - 17 7 BUITOM MILL DAM •1 / E. BUTTCN Mill IMM FL P 9. CC-0S DAM (GOUMlRY CIOB f� DAAA� /0. PRO -BRU$N fONPANY DAM u. PIORENLE POND DPM IZ. YANKEE Hitt T,a+vANY DAM 9 ID li FAMP If POND DAM [ 14. Mill RVER DIVER 15. ROCK y kI EDND CAM _ P LT HO4PRD5 DAD G It � t5A �i4 �N 6 � J IUE Figure 17. Inventory of exisfing dams in the City of Northampton, MA (Hampshire Council of Governments [HCG], Northunpton, Massachusetts, nd.) 30 S w x m 9 G b0 a N c 31 Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam, Northampton i� cs __ o - �SZ \. rI AM '' \ ` •tom\ ~ L � r L�'mcS� �'� � � �. �. Op. � bem f Scale = 1:960 Figure 19. Hand drawn map showing the distribution pipes for the Northampton aqueduct extending from the lower (old) reservoir (DPW, Northampton, Massachusetts, nd: WP 1:1). 32 - R Archaeolc \ Services Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam, Northampton l I i � v r m o l 5 n C G tl ` Y Y j 4 � n e $ L C �b i e w1 e '3 ro r• 4 y •r 0 Eo w 33 Y Y j 4 � n e $ L C �b i e w1 e '3 ro r• 4 y •r 0 Eo w 33 's1 a N Services Roberts' Meadow Dam, r a 7 ,.. h S � •(' ( .. - Y � } !gyp.:? \-. G� 3 .\ \ l!! a :, �� C � A hInKY' .L " WW�. s o ff, l >5 C`n v+ i 5 s 1 a \\ � 1• q q l• -— . _ .! ^ -. • 1 1 ._ � z; I , 34 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA located near the center of town (Held 2003; Trumbull 1902; Van Voris 1984). The logs were eight inches in diameter and bored with two inch holes. One end was tapered and the other reamed to a slant so multiple lengths could be fitted together (Held 2003; Trumbull 1902; Van Voris 1984). Sections of this old aqueduct were exposed during excavations of a sewer on King Street in 1893 (HG, 15 July 1893) and for an addition to the courthouse in 1973 (Van Voris 1984). The first meeting to discuss a public water system was held in Northampton in 1867 (Held 2003; HG, 18 June 1867; Van Voris 1984). However, it was not until 1870 that two major fires in downtown Northampton initiated the development of a public water system (Held 2003; Van Voris 1984). At a meeting of the Town of Northampton on July 20, 1870, it was voted to form a committee to examine the best way to supply Leeds, Florence, and Northampton with water for extinguishing fires, domestic use, or both (NWW 1870). Five men were elected to the committee; D. W. Bond, Luke Lyman, J. Stebbins Lathrop, Lucius Dimock, and M. M. French (Held 2003; NWW 1870). Additionally, the passage of An Act To Authorize Cities and Towns to Purchase Water- Rights by the State of Massachusetts on March 19, 1870 gave Northampton the legal framework under which to develop a public water utility (1870; Held 2003; NWW 1870). The Act of 1870, Chap. 93 allowed towns and cities in Massachusetts to take water from any of its sources, purchase water rights, aqueduct companies, franchises, estates, properties, and privileges in order to supply their inhabitants with pure water (1870). The authority to exercise this right needed the consent of two -thirds of a city council or a majority of a town's selectmen. Cities and towns could issue bonds to pay for purchasing water and water rights, including additional bonds for the purchase of material, laying pipes, etc. (1870; Held 2003). The Northampton committee reviewed reports from other communities that had established public water works, visited water works in both Waterbury and New Britain, Connecticut, selected civil engineers to assess the feasibility of a reservoir in Northampton and choose a location, and estimated the cost to the town (NWW 1870). The civil engineers hired by the committee were Messrs. Welton and Bonnett, C. E. of Waterbury, CT. Multiple sites were surveyed and examined, and ultimately a supply of water from Roberts' Meadow Brook was recommended (HG, 25 October 1870; NWW 1870; SR, 27 October 1870). The cost was estimated at $180,000 for wrought iron and cement pipes, or $220,000 for cast iron pipes. The cost of land purchases and water damages was not included in this estimate. The Northampton Aqueduct Company was formed and "secured the land necessary for a dam and reservoir, the right of way, and the right to take water from the Roberts' Meadow Brook, so- called, at the place recommended by the Engineers, by written agreements with the several parties in interest" (NWW 1870:4 -5). At a well - attended town meeting on November 8, 1870, residents of the town voted 412 to 160 to purchase the Northampton Aqueduct Company for $20,700, and a Board of Water Commissioners was formed (Held 2003; HG, 8 November 1870). The Board consisted of the same five gentlemen previously elected to the water committee and Oscar Edwards. The Board was then authorized to issue town bonds for $179,300 for purchasing materials, laying pipe, and other work needed to supply residents with pure water (Held 2003; HG 8 November 1870). On February 11, 1871 the Massachusetts Legislature passed An Act for Supplying the Town of Northampton with Pure Water, applied for by the Water Commissioners (1871). On February 18, 1871, the town voted to take action under this act, and approved: That the town take the water from "Roberts' Meadow Brook," at or near the place 35 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northamptm, MA where the new highway from the village of Leeds to Robert's Meadow crosses said brook, and also any land necessary for raising, holding, and preserving such water, and conveying the same to such parts of the town as the Board of Water Commissioners to be hereafter appointed may deem expedient, for the purpose of supplying the inhabitants with water for the extinguishment of fires, generating steam, and for domestic and other uses (HG, 21 February 1871a). The terms of service and officer elections for the Board of Water Commissioners were also voted on during this meeting. The Water Commissioners subsequently chose civil engineers Welton and Bennett, who were responsible for the initial survey and cost estimate, to engineer the construction as well (NWW 1870). Work on the Lower Roberts' Meadow reservoir began in May 1871, and the reservoir was filled by September 1871 (Held 2003). C. L. Goodhue, of Springfield, MA, was contracted to lay 1,800 tons of pipe (HG, 12 December 1871b). The Lower Roberts' Meadow reservoir covered approximately three acres and contained about 4,000,000 gallons (Held 2003; Kneeland and Bryant 1894). In 1883, the Water Commissioners recommended constructing a new reservoir due to dry conditions the previous year and an increase in water usage by the town (Held 2003; HG, 6 March 1883c; NBWC 1883a). E. C. Davis, a local engineer, was hired to survey two locations and to estimate the cost of building a new reservoir at each. A location for the second reservoir was chosen about two miles above the existing one, also on Roberts' Meadow Brook. The cost to build this second reservoir and dam was estimated at about $8,000, but the effort to reach bedrock during its construction increased the cost to $16,677.32 (Held 2003; HG, 6 March 1883c; NBWC 1883a, 1883b). E. C. Davis was then employed as the engineer for the project, and prepared the plans and specifications for the dam (Figures 6 and 22). The reservoir's capacity was 16,500,000 gallons, with an additional 2,000,000 available with the use of flashboards (NBWC 1883b). This reservoir and dam is the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam that is the subject of this report. No pipes were associated with its construction; it was designed as a storage reservoir. In 1892, just time years later, the Water Commissioners favorably considered raising the height of the embankments and dam at the Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir to increase its storage capacity by 8- 10,000,000 gallons (NBWC 1892). The number of families being supplied by the water works had increased by about 78% over nine years, from 1499 families in 1883 to 2673 families in 1892 (NBWC 1892). The commissioners were concerned about the available supply of water in the event of a drought. The estimated cost of modifying the Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir was about $9,000 (NBWC 1892). There was no record of this modification to the reservoir ever taking place. This cost was also not reflected in the following year's report as the Water Works' total cost of all repairs, salaries, maintenance, office expenses, etc. were $5,275.29 for the year 1893 (NBWC 1893). According to the Water Commissioners report for 1893, the water supply that year was inadequate due to increased usage and a drought during the summer months (NBWC 1893). As a temporary solution to the lack of water during the drought in 1893, the Unquomonk Brook in Williamsburg was diverted into Mosquito Brook about two miles above the Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir (HG, 4 August 1893; NBWC 1893). Water was also pumped from Day Brook in Leeds to the lower reservoir (Held 2003; NBWC 1893). Following the summer 36 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northamptm, MA drought in 1893, the commission surveyed for a place to locate a new storage reservoir. Over the next winter plans and specifications were drawn up for a new reservoir that would increase storage capacity by about 114,000,000 gallons. Subsequently, the commissioners applied to the Legislature for water rights above the lower reservoir (1894; NBWC 1894). An Act to Authorize the City of Northampton to Increase its Water Supply and Incur Indebtedness Therefore was enacted on March 30, 1894, granting the water rights to the city (1894). Land was purchased and construction of the Middle Roberts' Brook reservoir began about May 15, 1894 (Held 2003; NBWC 1894) (Figure 23). The Middle Roberts' Meadow reservoir was completed at the end of the year (SR, 12 November 1894). Together, the three Roberts' Meadow dams and reservoirs acted as a system that supplied water to the Northampton area and surrounding communities until 1905 (Figure 24). In 1900 a severe drought, again coupled with increased water use, prompted the Water Commissioners to consider additional sources of water (NBWC 1900). They examined multiple sources and decided to construct an intake reservoir, with a capacity of 16,000,000 gallons, on West Brook in West Whatley; and a storage reservoir, with a capacity of 350,000,000 gallons, on the Beaver Brook drainage in Williamsburg (Board of Water Commissioners 1901). The two reservoirs were connected by a 20 inch supply pipe and are known as the West Whately [Northampton] and Mountain Street Reservoirs (Held 2003) (Figure 25). The state rights were granted in 1901 with the passage ofAn Act to Authorize the City of Northampton to Increase its Water Supply and Incur Indebtedness Therefore on April 5, 1901 (1901). When completed, the capacity of the new system was 24,000,000 gallons at the West Whately reservoir, and 350,000,000 at the Mountain Street reservoir (Held 2003). Pipes running from the Mountain Street reservoir carried water to the mains at Leeds (NBWC 1901). Work on this new water system began in the spring of 1901, and the water was turned into the pipes on March 30, 1905 (Held 2003; NBWC 1901). In the spring of 1905, the Roberts' Meadow system was shut off, and with few exceptions, Northampton and the surrounding villages were supplied with water from the West Whately /Mountain Street system until 1951, when two ground water wells were constructed (Held 2003; Northampton Water Commissioners 1907). In the first half of the twentieth century, the Roberts' Meadow system temporarily supplied water when the West Whately /Mountain Street system was too low (Held 2003; SR, 26 July 1932). Following the construction of the ground water wells in 1951, and a subsequent expansion of the reservoir in West Whately in 1970 (Figure 26), the Roberts' Meadow system ceased to be used (Held 2003). What role did the reservoir play in the development of Northampton's water supply system? The Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir is associated with the history of public works in Northampton, Massachusetts in general, and the development of Northampton's public water supply in particular. The reservoir was created by the construction of a cut granite block and earthenwork dam across a ravine on Roberts' Meadow Brook in 1883. Northampton's first reservoir, or Lower Roberts' Meadow reservoir, was constructed in 1871 approximately two miles downstream from the upper reservoir. The Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir acted as a storage reservoir in order to increase the capacity of Northampton's fledgling water supply system (HG, 6 March 1883c; NBWC 1883a, 1883b). The Upper Roberts' Meadow dam acted to 37 * Archaeological Services Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam, Northamptm �g �i m N N ro 0 �n m m E ro ro m 0 m 38 ( i ) Archaeological Services F \� 4 Y z / Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam, Northampton �q. js Y � ' •' Y T a � i � < i d {� i 0 c ' lJS\ e � w 3 i b 4 � 3t i T o e n 0 t� kVe oo � ' •' Y T a � i � < i d {� 39 0 e � w 3 i b � 3t i T o e n 0 t� kVe oo V ` � � R O b z o t pf 1 Ji. ri 39 Figure 24. The lower (first), upper (second), and middle (third) dams of Northampton's first public water system (photos by F. T. Barker, Aug. 8, 2011). 40 ical Services Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam Figure 25. Location of the West VAmtely [Northampton] and Mountain Street reservoirs on the Willimsbrtrg, Massachusetts topographical quadrangle (USGS 1941). 41 N ' V S 0 1 0 U, R 1 7 0 05 1 Kilometer Figure 25. Location of the West VAmtely [Northampton] and Mountain Street reservoirs on the Willimsbrtrg, Massachusetts topographical quadrangle (USGS 1941). 41 Services d ry O l 'l'---4Kll Roberts' Meadow Darn, 11 ---1 42 4 1 42 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northamptm, MA impound the waters of Roberts' Meadow Brook for storage. Water was conveyed to the lower reservoir through the force of gravity, flowing down the channel of Roberts' Meadow Brook. Arguments made by the water committee for the development of a public water system in 1870 included; 1) irrigation, 2) manufacturing, 3) fire extinguishment, and 4) domestic use (NWW 1870). The village of Florence was to benefit the most from irrigation, as their soil was naturally dry (NWW 1870). It was noted that irrigation was also domestic use since `watering lawns, shrubbery, and grounds, which form so important an element in the beauty of Nortrtampton,... are kept up there as matters of taste by those who would gladly pay a liberal sum to be able to keep up the green and freshness of spring during the months of July, August, and September" (NWW 1870:10). Watering the public streets to keep dust to a minimum was also desired. The water committee believed that small manufacturing operations could be attracted to Northampton given a supply of pure water: "So important a means to encourage the development of manufacturing interests within our limits, ought not to be overlooked" (NWW 1870:11). They offered an increase in manufacturing in New Britain, CT due to their new water works as an example (NWW 1870). The ability to protect homes and businesses from fire was crucial. In 1870 alone, two fires on Main Street, within two months of each other, destroyed numerous buildings and businesses. Prior to these fires, in 1867, a special police force secretly watched the movements of people after dark due to the many disastrous incendiary fires (Van Voris 1984). The water committee stated that the greatest benefit of public water would be for domestic use (NWW 1870). The comfort and convenience water would bring to the inhabitants of Northampton was noted, as was the increase of property values and the desirability of settling in Northampton and contributing to the growth of the town. A rather lengthy examination of the savings in soap and tea that would be afforded the consumers of piped water as opposed to hard well water was presented as an argument in household economy (NWW 1870). The consumption of water for all the above mentioned factors increased rapidly following the construction of the first reservoir. The following table shows the increases between 1873 and 1882, the year before the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam was built (Held 2003; NBWC 1883b): CONSUMERS 1873 1882 Families 517 1499 Baths 46 189 Water closets 90 493 Hones 206 806 Cattle 155 586 Livery stalls 59 193 Stores, offices, banks 57 164 Markets 4 10 Bakeries 1 4 Prinri office 1 5 Restaurants 11 14 Photo ra hers 1 3 43 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Nordantam, MA CONSUMERS 1873 1882 Fountains 6 6 Hotels and boarding houses 6 17 Steam engines 6 25 Manufactories 6 21 Railroad stations 1 3 Townbuildin s 3 7 Public watering troughs 4 7 Fire hydrants 107 141 Sprinklers 143 Laun Greenhouse 1 Church or }tall 1 Clarke Institute 1 State Hospital 1 Private by drants 356 Grocery stores 12 Drug stores 5 Private fire hydrant 10 Meters 3 What was the reasonfor discontinuance in 19052 In 1900, a severe drought and continued increased water use, prompted the Water Commissioners to consider additional sources of water (NBWC 1900). The Water Commissioners 1900 report states `Since the reservoir built in 1894 was completed, it has not been drawn upon practically at all until this year, when with the most protracted drought in our experience it was drawn so low that we were obliged to pump water from Mill River at Leeds... pumping during that time about half the water the City used" (NBWC 1900:4). After surveying multiple sources, an intake reservoir was constructed on West Brook in West Whatley, and a storage reservoir was constructed on the Beaver Brook drainage off Mountain Street in Williamsburg (Board of Water Commissioners 1901). Work on this new water system began in the spring of 1901, and the water was turned into the pipes on March 30, 1905 (Held 2003; NBWC 1901). In the spring of 1905, the Roberts' Meadow system was shut off from the water system and retained as backup supply. What was the nature of the involvement of the Holyoke Water Power Company in the dam construction? The Holyoke Water Power Company (HWP) played a minor role in the construction of the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam. The HWP's hydraulic engineer, Clemens Herschel (1842- 1930), was hired to be a consulting engineer by the Northampton Water Commissioners. The Water Commissioner's annual report for 1883 describes how the excavation at the site chosen for the dam went deeper than expected in order to reach bedrock (NBWC 1883b). It appears that Clemens Herschel was brought on board at that point due to the expanded height of the structure. 44 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northamptm, MA According to the 1883 report: On account of the height of the dam, and the loss to the town in the event of its destruction, as well as the danger to life and property from any insecurity in the work, the Commissioners employed civil engineer Clemens Herschel of Holyoke, engineer of the Holyoke Water Power Co., a man of skill and experience in his profession, as consulting engineer (NBWC 1883b:6 -7). The Hampshire Gazette reported that the contractors expected to find rock bottom within four feet, but didn't hit bedrock until 20 feet (HG, 10 July 1883b). Herschel's report to the Northampton Water Commissioners, in its entirety, is as follows: Agreeable to your request, I visited the site of your Roberts' Meadow reservoir three times, and saw the bottom of the foundation pit for the dam, on two of these occasions, the last time being July 20th. I am satisfied from what I saw, and from what was told me on the spot by your employees, in answer to my questions, that the foundation of your dam has been laid either on the ledge, all the way across; and I state that, in my opinion, you have done exactly right, doing no more and no less, than was proper and prudent, in carrying out this part of the whole work. I also approve of the plans and specifications according to which your dam is being constructed, but make the suggestion, that, as the water level in the reservoir may reach between elevation 103 and 103.5 in high freshets, the earth embankment built in extension of the dam, should have its top on elevation 105, instead of on elevation 104, as originally intended (NBWC 1883b:7). The engineer responsible for the design and original construction of the dam was a Northampton native, E. C. Davis. He was employed by the Water Commissioners to survey sites for a reservoir, estimate the cost to the town for construction once a site was chosen, prepare the plans and specifications for the dam and reservoir at the chosen site, and oversee its construction (NBWC 1883b; SR, 14 May 1883a). Local Northampton contractors Jerre Brown and William Kyle were hired to do the stone work (HG, 29 May 1883a; NBWC 1883b; SR, 9 June 1883c). A brief history of the Holyoke Water Power Company and Clemens Herschel is presented below. Holyoke Water Power Company The Holyoke Water Power Company (HWP) was incorporated in 1859 in the town of Holyoke, located in Hampden County, Massachusetts. Holyoke Water Power outbid Boston investors to acquire the holdings of the Hadley Falls Company (Barrett 1989) which included: 1) a hydraulic system including a dam across the Connecticut River at Hadley Falls, and two and one half miles of power canals complete with a boat lock; 2) real estate consisting of about 1,100 acres of land, the lands of the Proprietors of Locks and Canals in South Hadley, MA, mills, tenements, and an office and machine shop, and 3) a reservoir and pipe system designed for pumping water from the Connecticut River, and a gas plant with a distribution system in place (Barrett 1989). Street plans were designed on a grid pattern that incorporated the power canals 45 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA and established the city center as a planned industrial complex within the boundaries of HWP property (Figure 27). Income for the HWP Company came from the lease of manufacturing space, the rental of water power, the sale of gas and water, and the sale of small lots for residential construction (Barrett 1989). The company continued operations as an independent corporation until it became a subsidiary of Northeast Utilities in 1967. Holyoke grew rapidly as manufacturing enterprises were established under HWP. Within the first 30 years, the population of Holyoke increased from 4,997 in 1860 to 35,674 in 1890, an increase of 614% (Barrett 1989). Between 1862 and 1880, 20 paper mills, 11 textile mills, and numerous miscellaneous industries were constructed on HWP property (Barrett 1989). Water power had to be transmitted mechanically during the first 30 years of operations as electricity had not yet been developed to power industries. Since some manufacturing in Holyoke was located away from a direct water power source, wire ropes or steel shafting was used to transmit energy from waterwheels to the mills (Barrett 1989). The company actively supported the research and development of waterwheels. In 1874, HWP offered James Emerson an area to construct a crude test flume in the old boat lock (Barrett 1989). S. S. Chase, HWP's engineer, wrote him that "the testing of turbines is the only way to perfect them, and this is a matter of importance. Move your works to Holyoke, and use all the water necessary for the purpose free of charge" (Barrett 1989:89). Five years later, in 1879, HWP held a competition for turbine builders and invited five hydraulic engineers to judge and report on the tests. According to the Holyoke Transcript, November 12, 1879, one of the `water wheel men" present that witnessed the competition was Clemens Herschel of Boston (Barrett 1989:91). Herschel graduated from the Lawrence Scientific School of Harvard University in 1860, at the age of 18, and then completed his education in Germany at the Technical School of Karlsruhe (Barrett 1989). He retained to the United States in 1864 and opened an office as a consulting engineer in Boston, MA. Some of his projects during this time included the Albany Street Bridge, the bridge across the Public Garden Pond in Boston, and the Quinnipiac drawbridge in New Haven, Connecticut (Barrett 1989). On December 2, 1879 a committee was appointed within HWP to lure an engineer to measure the water used by the mills and occupants of their land (Barrett 1989). According to the minutes of a Director's meeting on January 6, 1880, Clemens Herschel was hired as a hydraulic engineer to measure the water drawn by each manufacturing concern on HWP's canals (Barrett 1989). Herschel was employed by HWP as a hydraulic engineer for approximately ten years between 1880 and 1889. During his tenure with HWP, he made major contributions to the discipline of hydraulic engineering (Barrett 1989). He developed a method by which water wheels became their own water meters, allowing for the efficient measurement of the amount of water drawn by individual manufacturers; he built the first commercial, water wheel testing flume in Holyoke, which provided HWP with additional income as they charged outside engineers to use it; he designed the ogee shape for the face of overflow dams, providing for increased efficiency in spillway discharge; and he developed the Venturi Meter, a mechanism used to measure the flow of fluid through pipes (Barrett 1989). The Holyoke testing flume was considered the beginning of the scientific study of water turbines (Hopkins 1964). Herschel developed the Venturi Meter in 1886 while at HWP, and it was still considered the standard method for measuring water flow in pipes in the late twentieth century (Barrett 1989). The first practical application of the Venturi Meter was after Herschel 46 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA left HWP for the East Jersey Water Company (Boston Society of Civil Engineers 2011). Herschel was awarded the Elliot Cresson gold medal in 1898 for the development of the Venturi Meter (Marquis Who's Who 1960). The Elliot Cresson gold medal was the highest award given by The Franklin Institute of Pennsylvania and was awarded from 1875 to 1998 (Hepburn 1966). The award was `to be made in all instances made either for some discovery in the Arts or Sciences, or for the invention or improvement of some useful machine, or for some new process or combination of materials in manufactures, or for ingenuity skill or perfection in workmanship" (Hepburn 1966:4). The Clemens Herschel Award is given out annually by the Boston Society of Civil Engineers and recognizes individuals who have published papers that have been useful, commendable, and worthy of grateful acknowledgement. 47 * Archaeological Services Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam, Northamptm w �i m N z 48 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northamptm, MA CHAPTER 5: OPINION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR INCLUSION IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER The Upper Roberts' Meadow dam is significant under both Criteria A and Criteria C of the National Register on the local level (36CFR60). Criterion A states that: properties can be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. In the author's opinion, under Criteria A, the dam is significant in the areas of Community Planning and Development, Engineering, Government, and Social History due to its contribution to the development of Northampton's public water supply system. Criterion B states that: properties may be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. In the author's opinion, the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam is not eligible for the National Register under Criteria B because the length and nature of Clements Hershel's relationship to the dam is not significant. Hershel's contributions to the field of engineering which make him a significant historical figure; the Venturi meter, the ogee overflow design, and innovative water wheel methods were not associated with the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam design or construction. Therefore the structure is not representative of his professional accomplishments. Criterion C states that: properties maybe eligible for the National Register if they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. In the author's opinion, under Criteria C, the dam possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The dam retains the distinctive characteristics of a nineteenth century, hand cut granite, gravity arch dam that has undergone minimum modifications since its construction in 1883. Criterion D states that: properties may be eligible for the National Register if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criterion D is most often applied to archaeological sites, which do not easily fit Criteria A, B or C but may be worthy of preservation or protection. In addition to archaeological sites, however, structures can be considered eligible under Criterion D if they have information to contribute to our understanding of human history and that information is considered important with regards to a specific research question. Important information usually pertains to current gaps in knowledge or missing data, and the structure has to be the principal source of that information. In the author's opinion, the current significance of the dam lies in its role in the development of Northampton's water supply system, and as an example of nineteenth century engineering, rather than in its research potential. However, in the future, the integrity of the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam may encourage the development of significant research questions. 49 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY The Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir is one of three reservoirs located on Roberts' Meadow Brook. The first reservoir (Lower Roberts' Meadow) was constructed in 1871 at about one third of a mile above the confluence of Roberts' Meadow Brook and the Mill River in Leeds, MA. The second reservoir (Upper Roberts' Meadow) was constructed in 1883 to act as a storage reservoir and was located about two miles upstream from the first on Roberts' Meadow Brook. A third reservoir (Middle Roberts' Meadow) was constructed in 1894 immediately above the Lower Roberts' Meadow reservoir. It also acted as a storage reservoir. Together these reservoirs acted as Northampton's first public water system between 1871 and 1905. The Upper Roberts' Meadow dam is a gravity arch dam with components of cut granite blocks, stone masonry retaining walls, earthen embankments with a rock core, and bedrock abutments. Northampton engineer, E. C. Davis designed the dam, and Northampton contractors J. Brown and W. Kyle built it. Clemens Herschel, hydraulic engineer of Holyoke Water Power, consulted on the dam's construction. The dam acted to impound the waters of Roberts' Meadow Brook for storage. Water was conveyed to the lower reservoir through the force of gravity, flowing down the channel of Roberts' Meadow Brook. The dam has had some minor repairs throughout its history and a foot bridge and gatehouse have been removed. The reservoir was cleaned periodically, and the dam inspected regularly, until about 1970. The reservoir and dam are located on Chesterfield Road, west of the intersection of Chesterfield Road, Sylvester Road, and Kennedy Road in Northampton. The surroundings are uninhabited woodlands with some light residential development nearby. Archaeological Services recommends that the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places on the local level under Criteria A and C. Under Criterion A, the dam was a key element in the development of Northampton's public water supply system. Under Criterion C, the dam has retained its integrity and the distinctive characteristics of a nineteenth century engineering structure. Archaeological Services at the University of Massachusetts was contracted by the City of Northampton, MA, through GZA GeoEnviromental, Inc. of Springfield, MA, to conduct historic background research on the Upper Robert's Meadow dam in Northampton, Massachusetts, and to provide a recommendation concerning the dam's eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. This recommendation is respectfully submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to be assisted by staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission, in making a determination of eligibility. Federal agencies (USACE), in cooperation with State Historic Preservation Officers, are responsible for locating, inventorying, and nominating all properties under their ownership or control that may qualify for inclusion in the NR (36CFR60). 50 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northamptm, MA REFERENCES CITED 1870 General Court of Massachusetts, Chapter 93. 1871 General Court of Massachusetts, Chapter 16. 1894 General Court of Massachusetts, Chapter 177 1901 . General Court of Massachusetts, Chapter 261. Barrett, Robert E. 1989 The History of Holyoke Water Power Company. A Subsidiary of Northeast Utilities 1859 -1967. Holyoke, Massachusetts. Beers, F. 1873 Adas of Hampshire County, Massachusetts. F. W. Beers and Co., New York. Boston Society of Civil Engineers 2011 Clemens Herschel Bio File. Electronic document, http: / /www.bsces.org /committees /Awards /, accessed July 20, 2011. Gay, W. B. (editor) 1888 Gazetteer of Hampshire County 1654 -1887. W. B. Gay, Syracuse, New York. Hales, John, G. 1831 Map of the Town of Northampton In the County of Hampshire. Pendleton's Lithography, Boston. Hampshire Gazette (HG) [Northampton Massachusetts] 1870 [Report of the Water Committee] 25 October, Northampton, Massachusetts. 1871 a [Town Meeting] 21 February, Northampton, Massachusetts. 1871b [The Northampton Water Works] 12 December, Northampton, Massachusetts. 1883a [much -in -brief] 10 July. Northampton, Massachusetts. 1883b [much -in -brief] 29 May, Northampton, Massachusetts. 1883c [Water Reports, A New Reservoir Recommended] 6 March, Northampton, Massachusetts. 1893a 15 July, Northampton, Massachusetts. 51 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northamptm, MA (Hampshire Gazette, continued) 1893b [The Water Supply] 4 August, Northampton, Massachusetts. Hannay, Agnes 1912 A Chronicle of Industry on the Mill River. Smith College Studies in History, vol. XXI, Nos. 1 -4, Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts. Held, M. L. 2003 Development of Northampton's Water Supply. Manuscript on file, Northampton Water Department, Northampton, Massachusetts. Hepburn, Joseph S. 1966 Report on the Life and Woks of Elliot Cresson. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 281(3)4. Hopkins, Joseph G. E. (editor) 1964 Concise Dictionary ofAmeriean Biography. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. Kneeland, F.N., and L.P. Bryant 1894 Northampton: The Meadow City. F.N. Kneeland and L.P. Bryant, Northampton, Massachusetts. Marquis Who's Who 1960 Who Was Who inAmerica, Volume I IS97 -1942. Marquis Who's Who, Chicago, Illinois. Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) 1982 MHC Reconnaissance Survey Report: Northampton. Northampton Board of Water Commissioners [NBWC] 1883a Report of the Board of Water Commissioners to the Town of Northampton, [Mass] For the Year Ending February 1, 1883, No. 12. Northampton, Massachusetts. 1883b Report of the Board of Water Commissioners to the City of Northampton For the Year Ending December 31, 1883, No. 13. SCS Engineers, Reston, Virginia. 1888 Report of the Board of Water Commissioners to the City of Northampton, Mass., For the Year Ending November 30, 1887. Wade, Warner & Co., Northampton, Massachusetts. 1892 Twenty - Second Annual Report of the Board of Water Commissioners of Northampton, Mass For the Year Ending November 30, 1892. Springfield Printing and Binding Company, Springfield, Massachusetts. 52 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northamptm, MA (Northampton Board of Water Commissioners, continued) 1893 Twenty -TMrd Annual Report of the Board of Water Commissioners, of Northampton, Mass., For the Year Ending November 30, 1893. Bryant Printing, Florence, Massachusetts. 1894 Twenty -Fourth Annual Report of the Board of Water Commissioners, of Northampton- Mass., For the Year Ending November 30, 1894. Northampton- Massachusetts. 1896 Twenty -Sixth Annual report of the Water Commissioners of the City of Northampton- Mass., For the Year Ending November 30, 1896. 1900 Thirtieth Annual Report of the Water Commissioners of the City of Northampton, Mass., For the Year Ending November 30, 1900. 1901 Thirty -First Annual Report of the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Northampton, Mass., For the year Ending November 30, 1901. 1903 Thirty -TMrd Annual Report of the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Northampton, Mass., For the Yea Ending November 30, 1903. 1907 Thirty- Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of Northampton, Mass., For the Yea Ending November 30, 1907. Northampton Water Works [NW W] 1870 Report of the Committee on the Best Method of Supplying Northampton and Florence with Pure Water. Trumbull and Gere, Steam Printers 1870 -1880, Northampton, Massachusetts. Sharpe, Elizabeth M. 2004 In the Shadow of the Dam: the Aftermath of the Mill River Flood of IS74. Free Press, New York. Springfield Republican (SR) [Springfield, Massachusetts] 1870 [Hampshire County] 27 October, Springfield, Massachusetts. 1883a [Hampshire County] 14 May, Springfield, Massachusetts. 1883b [Hampshire County] 22 July, Springfield, Massachusetts. 1883c [Wanted ad for granite cutters] 9 June, Springfield, Massachusetts. 1894 [Hampshire County] 12 November, Springfield, Massachusetts. 1900 [Hampshire County] 9 November, Springfield, Massachusetts. 53 *Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northamptm, MA (Springfield Republican, continued) 1907 [For Polluting Water Supply, Fine of $15 Was Imposed] 17 April, Springfield, Massachusetts. 1912 [Body Found in Reservoir] 11 July, Springfield, Massachusetts. 1932 [Auxiliary Supply Tapped, Roberts' Meadow Reservoir Used as Water Low] 26 July, Springfield, Massachusetts. The Tercentenary History Committee 1954 The Northampton Book Chapters from 300 Years in the Life of a New England Town 1654 -1954. Northampton, Massachusetts. Trumbull, James. R. 1902 History of Northampton, Massachusettsfrom its Settlement in 1654, Vol. 11. Gazette Printing, Northampton, Massachusetts. United States 2004 Title 36-- Parks, Forests, And Public Property Chapter I-- National Park Service, Department of the Interior Part 60-- National Register of Historic Places. United States Geological Survey 1939 Easthampton, Massachusetts, Quadrangle. 7.5 minute series. 1:31,680 scale. 1941 Williamsburg, Massachusetts, Quadrangle. 7.5 minute series. 1:31,680 scale. 1990 Williamsburg, Massachusetts, Quadrangle. 7.5 minute series, metric. 1:25,000 scale. Van Voris, Jacqueline 1984 The Look ofParadise: apictorial history of Northampton ,Massachusetts. Phoenix Publishing, Canaan, New Hampshire. Walling, H. F. 1860 Map of the County of Hampshire, Massachusetts. H. & C. T. Smith & Co., New York. 54 ATTACHMENT PLAN SET Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Northampton, Massachusetts Expanded Environmental Notification Form PLANS for the UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM REMOVAL NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS SEPTEMBER, 2012 INDEX TO PLAN SHEETS NO. TITLE 3 1 0 II N Y 41 1 - - - COVER SHEET 2 - - - OVERALL SITE PLAN 3 - - - EXISTING CONDITIONS AT DAM 4 - - - EXISTING BATHYMETRY PLAN 5 - - - APPROXIMATE BOTTOM OF SEDIMENTS AND LIMITS OF DREDGING 6 - - - CROSS SECTIONS 7 - - - CROSS SECTIONS 8 - - - DREDGED SEDIMENT CONTAINMENT & DEWATERING PLAN 9 - - - DAM REMOVAL - CONSTRUCTION ACCESS 10 - - - DAM REMOVAL DETAILS SITE LOCUS 1 2,000'± 31 PRELIMINARY PLAN SET FOR PERMITTING 3 Z S =1 PREPARED FOR CITY OF NORTHAMPTON DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS I P _ VA, LA� 4 A � l e f 4 41V . or OF V f PREPARED BY GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Engineers and Scientists One Edgewater Drive Norwood, MA 02062 PHONE (781) 278 -3700 91