23B-013 Notice of Intent No 21 Facility Dumping Ground Remediation 2014-03-20.pdf Prepared for: Prepared by:
Massachusetts Department AECOM
of Transportation – Highway Division Chelmsford, MA
60137198.1105
March 2014
Environment
Notice of Intent
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Highway Division
Northampton Facility No. 21
Dumping Ground Remediation Project
155 Locust Street (Route 9)
Northampton, MA
Prepared for:
Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Massachusetts Department AECOM
of Transportation – Highway Division Chelmsford, MA
60137198.1105
March 2014
Environment
Notice of Intent
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Highway Division
Northampton Facility No. 21
Dumping Ground Remediation Project
155 Locust Street (Route 9)
Northampton, MA
_________________________________
Prepared By Ashley N. B. Hildt
_________________________________
Reviewed By Thomas J. Keough
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
i
Contents
WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent
Project Narrative
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Project Background and Overview ...................................................................................... 1-1
2.0 Existing Environment .................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 General Site Description ...................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Description of Wetland Resource Areas ............................................................................. 2-1
2.3 Soil Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 2-2
2.4 Rare Species ........................................................................................................................ 2-2
2.5 Wildlife Habitat Evaluation ................................................................................................... 2-2
3.0 Project Description ........................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1 Proposed Activities .............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Sequence of Work ............................................................................................................... 3-1
3.3 Access, Staging and Site Preparation ................................................................................ 3-2
3.4 Remedial Excavation ........................................................................................................... 3-2
3.4.1 Backfill ................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.4.2 Waste Disposal ..................................................................................................... 3-2
3.5 Protective Measures ............................................................................................................ 3-3
3.6 Dewatering ........................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.7 Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan .............................................................................. 3-3
3.8 Restoration Activities ........................................................................................................... 3-3
3.9 Summary of Jurisdictional Activities .................................................................................... 3-3
4.0 Upland and Wetland Restoration Plan ........................................................................ 4-1
4.1 Upland Restoration .............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Wetland Restoration Plan .................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.1 Grading & Hydrology ............................................................................................ 4-3
4.2.2 Soil Structure ......................................................................................................... 4-3
4.2.3 Planting Plan ......................................................................................................... 4-3
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
ii
4.2.4 Course Woody Debris and Other Features ......................................................... 4-5
4.3 Monitoring............................................................................................................................. 4-5
4.4 Wildlife Habitat ..................................................................................................................... 4-6
4.5 Invasive Species Control Plan ............................................................................................. 4-6
4.5.1 Proposed Control Methods, Monitoring, and Reporting ...................................... 4-6
5.0 Alternatives Analysis .................................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Alternative 1A ....................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Alternative 1B ....................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.3 Alternative 1C ....................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.4 Alternative 2 ......................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.5 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative) .................................................................................... 5-2
5.6 Alternative 4 ......................................................................................................................... 5-2
5.7 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 5-2
6.0 Demonstration of Compliance ..................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Limited Project Status .......................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Resource Area General Performance Standards ............................................................... 6-1
6.3 Compliance with Massachusetts Stormwater Policy .......................................................... 6-2
7.0 Summary ........................................................................................................................ 7-1
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
iii
List of Appendices
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Project Drawings
Appendix C Site Photographs
Appendix D Statement of Agency Exclusion from Abutter Notification Process
Appendix E Data Forms and WHE Forms
Appendix F Stormwater Management Checklist
List of Tables
Table 3-1. Summary of Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas ........................................................................... 3-3
Table 4-1. Proposed Native Seed Mixture for Restoration1, 2 ................................................................... 4-2
Table 4-2. Proposed Riverfront Area Restoration Area Shrub and Tree Planting1 ................................. 4-2
Table 4-3. Proposed BVW Seed Mixture (New England Wetmix) ........................................................... 4-4
Table 4-4. Proposed BVW Planting Schedule1 ......................................................................................... 4-5
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
WPA Form 3 – Notice of Intent
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
Project Narrative
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
1-1
1.0 Introduction
This Notice of Intent (NOI) is being submitted to the Northampton Conservation Commission (NCC)
on behalf of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) Highway Division for a
landfill closure project at the MassDOT Facility No. 21 (Facility) located at 155 Locust Street (Route 9)
in Northampton, Massachusetts. A site locus map is provided in Appendix A for reference. The
proposed project is jurisdictional under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (MGL Ch. 131 s.
40), pursuant to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Regulations (MWPR) 310 CMR 10.00. It
should be noted that as a state agency, MassDOT is exempt from the Northampton Local Wetlands
Ordinance, Chapter 337: Wetland Protection. Additionally, pursuant to the April 8, 1994 MassDEP
Guide to Abutter Notification, MassDOT is excluded from the abutter notification requirement
(documentation provided in Appendix D).
1.1 Project Background and Overview
A small, historic solid waste dumping ground (landfill) exists at the above-mentioned facility and is
located at the rear of the property along both sides of a small unnamed perennial stream. The landfill
is approximately 0.7 acres in size and materials are buried at depths ranging from five to ten feet
below ground surface (bgs). Buried materials consist of soil fill, street sweepings, concrete, asphalt,
wood, metal, and glass. MassDOT proposes to close this landfill in accordance with 310 CMR 19.000
by removing solid waste materials on site and disposing of them at an appropriate off-site facility.
Further information regarding site assessment findings can be found in the Corrective Action
Alternatives Analysis (April 2005) for the property which is on file with MassDEP. MassDOT is
currently preparing a Corrective Action Design (CAD) plan for approval by MassDEP prior to the start
of work.
This project constitutes a limited project per 310 CMR 10.53(3)(p), “the closure of landfills when
undertaken to comply with the requirements of 310 CMR 19.000…” The proposed remedial
construction involves excavating the former landfill, removing the buried wastes, and restoring the
area to its pre-construction conditions. Construction related activities associated with the landfill
closure will partially occur within Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (BVW) and the 200-foot Riverfront
Area (RFA) of an on-site unnamed perennial stream. Debris visible within the stream will be removed
with an excavator thumb from a machine located in the upland area. All areas will be restored in situ
once work is complete and no permanent impacts to wetland resource areas will result.
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
2-1
2.0 Existing Environment
2.1 General Site Description
The facility encompasses approximately seven acres along the north side of Locust Street (Route 9)
in the northern portion of the City (see Figure 1, Appendix A). The site is bounded by the
Northampton Bikeway to the North, the Northampton Department of Public Works Locust Street
Transfer Station to the East, and the Florence Animal Clinic to the West. A gas pipeline and
easement is located along the north and west perimeter of the property.
According to previous reports, there are no public or private water supply wells in the vicinity of the
facility, and all properties in the surrounding area are serviced by the City of Northampton's municipal
water supply system.
2.2 Description of Wetland Resource Areas
Field investigations were conducted to delineate jurisdictional wetlands and waters on May 29 and
May 30, 2013 by an AECOM wetland scientist in accordance with the Massachusetts Wetlands
Protection Act (MWPA-MGL c. 131 § 40) and its implementing regulations (310 CMR 10.00), and the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and
Northeast Regions (January 2012). Wetlands delineated in the field were marked with pink flagging
tape, labeled alphanumerically, and located using a Global Positioning System (GPS) Trimble GeoXT
data logger, with sub-meter accuracy. Refer to Appendix E for the USACOE Delineation Forms.
Wetland A and Perennial Stream
An unnamed perennial stream channel enters the site via a culvert located at the base of the steep
slope of the Northampton Bikeway in the north-central portion of the site and flows in a southerly
direction for approximately 135-feet until it enters another culvert. This culvert, which is approximately
600 feet in length, conveys the flow south under the remainder of the site and daylights again on the
south side of Locust Street. There is a 200-foot RFA associated with this stream, however the RFA
stops at the upstream end of the culvert as flow is conveyed within the culvert for over 200 feet (310
CMR 10.58(2)(a)3.). Wetland A (flags A-1 through A-12) is characterized by a forested/scrub shrub
Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW) which borders on the stream. Steeply cut slopes define the
boundary of the wetland which is vegetated with red maple (Acer rubrum), silky dogwood (Cornus
amomum), honeysuckle (Lonicera tatarica), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), spicebush (Lindera
benzoin), few burning bush (Euonymous atropurpureus), skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus),
sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
Wetland B
Wetland B (flags B-1 through B-30) is situated in the western portion of the site and includes wet
meadow, emergent marsh, scrub shrub, and forested BVW habitats. The wetland receives
stormwater runoff from the surrounding areas as well as groundwater discharge. This wetland is
located along the northwestern corner of the site. Much of the project site has been disturbed from
historical disturbance associated with site work and years of use and the eastern margin of the
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
2-2
wetland demonstrates disturbed characteristics such as atypical soil profile and evidence of prolonged
ponding. Ponding and frequent flooding is evident with a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation as well
as hydric indicators found within the upper soil profile. Vegetation within includes scattered red maple,
American elm (Ulmus americana), and aspen (Populus tremuloides) with minimal canopy coverage in
the forested portions while pussy willow (Salix discolor), silky dogwood, honeysuckle, multiflora rose,
and winterberry holly (Ilex verticillata) are sporadically present in the shrub layer. Reed canary grass
(Phalaris arundinacea), purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria), soft stem bulrush (Schoenoplectus
tabernaemontani), bebbs sedge (Carex bebbii), fringed sedge (Carex crinita), wool grass (Scirpus
cyperinus), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), and tussock sedge (Carex stricta) dominate the wet
meadow portion of the wetland.
Wetland C
Wetland C (flags C-1 through C-8) is an isolated vegetated wetland (IVW) as defined by the City of
Northampton Wetlands Protection Ordinance. The feature is located along the eastern property
boundary and is fairly flat. Stormwater runoff from the adjacent property collects in the wetland and
provides the hydrologic conditions. The wetland consists of wet meadow, a small portion of emergent
marsh, scrub shrub, and forested wetland habitats. Dominant vegetation includes red maple,
American elm, multiflora rose, autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata), common reed (Phragmites
australis), American witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), and wood aster (Eurybia divaricata).
Bordering Land Subject to Flooding
According to the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panel No. 250167 0002A
(effective date: April 3, 1978), the proposed project is not located within Bordering Land Subject to
Flooding (BLSF - areas of 100-year flooding). Therefore, no work will occur within this resource area
(See Figure 2, Appendix A, for the FEMA Firmette associated with the site).
2.3 Soil Conditions
USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soils mapping for the site include Pits, gravel
associated with Wetland A, Boxford silt loam and Udorthents associated with Wetland B, and
Udorthents associated with Wetland A. Soil conditions observed during AECOM’s site investigation
confirmed the NRCS mapping for the site particularly within disturbed areas typically observed with
Udorthents. Much of the soils within wetland areas were characteristic of mapped soil units with
hydric features (see wetland data sheets attached).
2.4 Rare Species
Review of the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program’s (NHESP) mapping for priority and
estimated habitats of rare species (accessed using the OLIVER MassGIS online data viewer on June
11, 2013), concludes that the project site is not located within designated rare species habitat.
2.5 Wildlife Habitat Evaluation
A Wildlife Habitat Evaluation (WHE) was conducted in accordance with 310 CMR 10.60 on November
6, 2013 by a qualified wetland/wildlife ecologist (Refer to Appendix E for the Wildlife Habitat
Evaluation form). The project will temporarily impact two of the wetlands located at the Facility.
Wetland A, which is a palustrine forested wetland system, and Wetland B which is a wetland system
with a combination of three habitats: emergent, scrub-shrub, and forested. The impacts to Wetland B
are limited to primarily the emergent habitat portion. Both of the wetlands are within the context of the
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
2-3
disturbed RFA associated with the project site. Wetland systems are underlain by varying amounts of
fill material as a result of historical land use practices coupled with irregular drainage throughout the
project site. In addition, the storage of large debris including concrete, steel, and iron structures have
further reduced the capacity for the wetlands and uplands (collectively, the RFA) to provide important
wildlife habitat function and characteristics. While the wetlands have the capacity to provide important
wildlife habitat, given the surrounding land use and undeveloped nature of the project site, the lack of
habitat structure and quality mast trees and shrubs limits the provision of important wildlife habitat
functions.
It is likely that the site has the capacity as a stopover area for small and large mammals as the
adjacent Northampton Bikeway represents a travel corridor appropriate for diurnal and/or nocturnal
travel and migration. It is anticipated that following the proposed dumping ground remediation, the
improvement to the upland and wetland systems will provide a more suitable refuge and stopover
habitat for animals utilizing the Northampton Bikeway as a travel and/or migration corridor. In
addition, the general public utilizing the Northampton Bikeway, adjacent to the project site to the north,
will have the benefit of a more aesthetically pleasing view of the restored wetland.
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
3-1
3.0 Project Description
The integrated remedial program has been designed so that cleanup activities will result in an overall
benefit to the environment by improving the local ecological habitat functions and values by removing
the solid waste associated with the dumping grounds in accordance with 310 CMR 19.000. The
primary components of the integrated remedial program include the following:
Removal of buried waste through the excavation, sifting of material to separate waste, and
off-site waste disposal.
Wetland and terrestrial habitat restoration.
3.1 Proposed Activities
The project will involve the removal, stockpiling, and sifting, of 100% of the entire solid waste mass
on-site. The Contractor will excavate all materials to the depth of native soil within the limit of waste
which has been determined to be up to 10 feet deep in some areas. It is anticipated that all materials
excavated will be solid waste and uncontaminated soil; however, if evidence of oil and/or hazardous
materials is encountered, special handling methods will be carried out as noted in Section 3.5 –
Hazardous Materials Contingency Planning. The work will also include decommissioning three
monitoring wells including MW-3, TB-121, and TB-221. TB-221 is located within Wetland B and TB-
121 and MW-3 are located within the outer 50 feet of the 100-foot buffer zone to Wetland B and
Wetland C, respectively. The wells will be accessed by foot.
3.2 Sequence of Work
The following list includes the key design and operation procedures for the remedial program in the
approximate order of their implementation. A more detailed explanation of the major construction
components can be found in the sections following the list:
1. The Contractor will install a hay bale and silt fence barrier (hay bales will be installed on the
work-side of the silt fence) around the work area and stockpile location as shown on the
Project Drawings in Appendix B. The hay bales and silt fence will be maintained throughout
construction until the site has been stabilized with permanent vegetated cover;
2. Earthen embankments and similar barriers will be constructed in and around excavations to
prevent flooding by runoff of storm water from heavy rains;
3. Excavating equipment (i.e., a track excavator) will remove solid waste materials from the
landfill area. Debris visible within the stream will be removed with an excavator thumb from a
machine located in the upland area. These materials will be stockpiled on-site for testing, but
out of wetland resource areas and buffer zone as shown in the Project Drawings in Appendix
B;
4. At the end of each working day, a six-inch deep cover of soil or geosynthetic material will be
installed over any exposed solid waste;
5. Excavated areas will be backfilled with clean fill;
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
3-2
6. Three monitoring wells (MW-3, TB-121 and TB-221) will be decommissioned; and,
7. All disturbed areas will be restored (see Section 4.0 below).
3.3 Access, Staging and Site Preparation
A temporary roadway will need to be constructed at the Facility to provide vehicle access to wetland
areas to be remediated. This access will be located outside of wetland resource areas and the exact
location will be determined by the Contractor. A stockpile/staging area will be established in the
central portion of the Facility with direct access to the work area and existing Facility access roads.
Construction equipment and water treatment equipment will be staged in this location. Trucks used to
transport excavated materials, fill, and equipment also will be staged at the Facility, as will a limited
number of personal vehicles.
3.4 Remedial Excavation
The Contractor will use an excavator to remove solid waste and subsequently screen the waste
materials on-site given the anticipated volume of silts, sands, and gravels comingled in the waste.
Debris visible within the stream will be removed with an excavator thumb from a machine located in
the upland area. The stockpiles of screened soil will be sampled and analyzed per the requirements
of MassDEP’s Policy COMM-97-001, Reuse and Disposal of Contaminated Soil at Massachusetts
Landfills to determine appropriate re-use or disposal options.
Once the underlying native soils have been exposed, the Contractor will collect samples of the native
soils to confirm there are no residual impacts. To accomplish this, soil samples will be collected in a
grid style pattern every 50 feet by 50 feet and analyzed for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs),
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals, Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (MassDEP EPH Method). The Contractor will provide copies of
the laboratory reports to MassDOT and the Engineer for review in order to determine if the excavation
can be backfilled. The sample results will be compared to the applicable Method 1 Risk
Characterization Standards for S1/GW1 soils referenced in the Massachusetts Contingency Plan -
310 CMR 40.0000 (MCP). If any analyte exceeds the applicable Method 1 standard, the particular
grid will be over-excavated and another sample will be taken. Over-excavation will continue until the
S1/GW1 standard has been achieved for each grid area. Once material removal is complete, the
excavation will be visually examined by MassDOT and the Engineer for the presence of waste
materials. The excavation will not be backfilled until MassDOT and the Engineer have determined the
excavation is free of solid waste based upon the recorded visual observations of the excavation.
3.4.1 Backfill
The excavation will be backfilled with clean fill material “sifted” from the waste removal activities.
Since the amount of material to be removed, versus re-used within the landfill will not be known until
excavation has been completed, an as-built plan will be created which will show the final depth of
excavation, and areal extent and contours of the final grade. Refer to Section 4.0 for information
regarding wetland restoration activities.
3.4.2 Waste Disposal
The Contractor will be responsible for coordinating and disposing any waste materials at the
appropriate permitted disposal facilities.
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
3-3
3.5 Protective Measures
Wetland resource areas on the site will be protected by hay bales and/or silt fence and/or silt socks
where appropriate (refer to the Project Drawings in Appendix B). These erosion and sedimentation
controls will be placed around the excavation area, access ways, and stockpile locations to demarcate
limits of work and to prevent the movement of disturbed material toward nearby wetland resource
areas. All erosion controls are depicted on the plan sheets in Appendix B.
3.6 Dewatering
Groundwater is expected to be present within the zone of buried waste and therefore dewatering the
excavation is likely to be necessary in order to remove the solid waste materials. No untreated
groundwater will be discharged to wetlands or water bodies. Standard dewatering measures will be
employed when necessary to keep the work area dry. Excess water will be discharged overland in
upland areas and allowed to infiltrate naturally into well-drained soils, or discharged to wetlands only
after passing through filtration sacks. If water is discharged to wetland areas, a splash plate will be
used to dissipate flow velocities.
3.7 Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan
In the event that materials other than solid waste are encountered during work, the Contractor shall
stop work and notify MassDOT and the Engineer of the discovery. Together, all parties will decide on
the appropriate course of action in the event said materials may require special handling or there is
evidence of a release to the environment (such as evidence of separate-phase oil in the excavation,
or olfactory or visual evidence of contaminated soil or groundwater). The Engineer and MassDOT will
determine the necessary measures to be taken to abate the situation and what applicable regulatory
reporting requirements may apply.
3.8 Restoration Activities
Once the results from the basal soil samples demonstrate that analyte concentrations are below
Method 1 S1/GW1 risk characterization standards, the excavation area will be restored as discussed
below in Section 4.0.
3.9 Summary of Jurisdictional Activities
A total of approximately 22,650 square feet of work in the RFA and 5,500 square feet of work in BVW
are proposed. All anticipated direct impacts within jurisdictional wetland resource areas will be
temporary. Table 3-1 below provides a summary of the anticipated temporary impacts proposed in
each resource area.
Table 3-1. Summary of Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
Resource Area
Affected Activity Proposed impacts
Temporary (sq. ft.) Permanent (sq. ft.)
Riverfront Area Excavation Activities 22.650 +/- 0
BVW A Excavation Activities 1,326 +/- 0
BVW B Excavation Activities 4,174 +/- 0
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
3-4
As noted in Table 3-1, impacts within wetland resource areas will be due to excavation activities. No
other work is proposed in wetland areas and therefore, no secondary impacts to additional areas will
occur.
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
4-1
4.0 Upland and Wetland Restoration Plan
The goal of the restoration plan will be to restore, at a restoration to disturbance ratio of at least 1:1,
any wetland functions and values that may have been directly affected by soil excavation, or those
functions and values indirectly affected by the associated dewatering. A qualified wetland scientist will
oversee grading and planting operations and identify any necessary field-adjustments and review
permit ramifications with the interested parties, prior to implementation or to confirm whether they
warrant amendments to existing permit. The wetland restoration design has been prepared in
accordance with the Massachusetts Inland Wetland Replication Guidelines and with the ACOE
Guidance for the New England District Mitigation Plan Checklist. The Wetland Restoration and
Replication Plan include:
Restoration of wetland and bank topography;
Restoration wetland soil textures to approximately replicate pre-remediation soils;
Stabilization of riverbank; and,
Re-vegetation of disturbed areas.
4.1 Upland Restoration
A clean fill material will be used to establish post-remediation grades matching those of the adjacent
upland areas. The upper course of fill material (top one to two feet) will likely consist of a screened
loam with a Total Organic Content similar to that of the excavated material. To stabilize soils and
restore the vegetative communities within the upland impact areas, a seed mix as well as plantings
will be installed. The planting plan shown below and in the restoration drawings at Appendix B has
been developed to complement the existing vegetative community, with a bias toward species that
currently dominate and species of high value to wildlife, and exclude invasive and other unacceptable
plant species. No non-native genotypes or cultivars will be used and all plant material will be procured
from established, commercial nurseries. Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 show the composition of the
Proposed Native Seed Mixture for Restoration and the Proposed Riverfront Area Restoration Shrub
and Tree Planting schedule, respectively.
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
4-2
Table 4-1. Proposed Native Seed Mixture for Restoration1, 2
Scientific Name Common Name Indicator
Status
Elymus virginicus Virginia Wild Rye FACW-
Schizachyrium scoparium Little Bluestem FACU
Andropogon gerardii Big Bluestem FAC
Festuca rubra Creeping Red Fescue FACU
Panicum virgatum Switch Grass FAC
Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea FACU
Panicum clandstinum Deer Tongue FAC+
Sorghastrum nutans Indian Grass UPL
Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed FACU-
Heliopsis helianthoides Ox Eye Sunflower UPL
Eupatorium purpureum Purple Joe Pye Weed FAC
Euthamia graminifolia Grass Leaved Goldenrod FAC
Verbena hastate Blue Vervain FACW
Zizia aurea Golden Alexanders FAC
Aster umbellatus Flat Topped/Umbrella Aster FACW
Solidago juncea Early Goldenrod NI
1New England Conservation/Wildlife Mix
2Application rate = 25 lb/acre
In addition, 20 trees and 60 shrubs will be planted in a random pattern throughout the upland
restoration area that was previously forested (see Table 4-2 below and Restoration Plan in Appendix
B)3.
Table 4-2. Proposed Riverfront Area Restoration Area Shrub and Tree Planting1
Scientific Name Common Name Indicator
Status
Number of
Individuals
Trees
Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen FACU 10
Acer rubrum Red Maple FAC 10
Shrubs
Viburnum acerifolium Maple Leaf Viburnum UPL 30
Corylus cornuta Beaked Hazelnut FACU- 30
1 Trees will be installed as 4’-6’-high saplings and planted no closer together than 20 feet at center. Shrub height
at installation will be 3-4 feet and planted no closer together than 8 feet at center.
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
4-3
4.2 Wetland Restoration Plan
4.2.1 Grading & Hydrology
In order to restore the pre-remediation hydrologic conditions, the final grades of the restoration area
have been designed to mimic the pre-remediation elevations. The existing grades range from 90 feet
(NAVD88) along the upland edge of the BVW to 84 feet in the vicinity the BVW associated with the
unnamed perennial stream.
The planned hydrology for the mitigation area will be primarily supplied by the flows in the adjacent
waterbody and the return to the original specified elevations combined with the return of the original
surface hydrology and groundwater discharge will provide suitable root zone saturation and inundation
to successfully restore palustrine wetland hydrological conditions.
4.2.2 Soil Structure
The existing hydric soil will be segregated and stockpiled for later use. To supplement this existing
hydric soil, if necessary, replacement wetland soil will be procured from a suitable vendor and
fabricated to meet as closely as practicable the specific textures and contents of the excavated
materials. The man-made soils being brought onto the Site will consist of a mineral topsoil and leaf
compost organic admixture, will have textures consistent with the pre-remediation sediments and soils
(based on previously collected sediment and soil logs), and will be void of invasive species seed. This
material will be both physically and chemically clean, and efforts will be made to ensure material
brought in adheres to the appropriate organic carbon and matter content. For the disturbed wetland
areas, since they are primarily wet meadows (emergent wetlands), approximately 12 percent organic
carbon and up to 21 percent organic matter will be appropriate.
If the wetland soil replacement material must be brought on-site before it is ready to be placed into
position, the material will be kept moist. In addition, the stockpiles will be protected from surface water
flow and will be contained within hay bales and/or a silt fence. They will be adequately covered to
protect against erosion and will not be piled over four feet in height. These measures will be checked
regularly prior to and after storm events, and if needed, repairs will be conducted promptly.
4.2.3 Planting Plan
The goal of the proposed Restoration Plan is to restore the functions and values of the freshwater
wetlands (BVW) and RFA that were temporarily lost or adversely affected by remediation activities
(excavation, stabilization, or associated dewatering, and construction access and staging). Therefore,
restoration will, to the extent practicable, replace the existing wetland resource area habitats in the
same locations and the same configurations as they currently occur under pre-remediation conditions.
The locations and configurations of the proposed vegetative community zones are presented in
Appendix B.
To stabilize soils and restore the vegetative communities within the remediated areas, seed mixes as
well as plantings are proposed. For each vegetative community zone, proposed species were
selected to enable recreation of the existing mix of plants, with a bias toward species that currently
dominate and species of high value to wildlife, and excluding invasive and other unacceptable plant
species. No non-native genotypes or cultivars will be used. All plant material will be procured from
established, commercial nurseries. The PSS/PEM wetland areas will be planted with red maples and
clustered on 15 foot centers as groups with winterberry holly and northern arrow wood, while areas
between tree-shrub clusters will take on herbaceous habitat, with variable densities depending on the
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
4-4
microtopography that may be created by the water table over time. Tables 4-3 and 4-4 summarize the
seeding and planting plans proposed for BVW restoration areas.
Table 4-3. Proposed BVW Seed Mixture (New England Wetmix)
Scientific Name Common Name Wetland Indicator
Status
Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge OBL
Carex lurida Lurid Sedge OBL
Carex scoparia Blunt Broom Sedge FACW
Verbena hastata Blue Vervain FACW
Scirpus atrovirens Green Bulrush OBL
Carex lupulina Hop Sedge OBL
Bidens cernua Nodding Bur Marigold OBL
Carex comosa Bristly/Cosmos Sedge OBL
Carex crinita Fringed Sedge OBL
Juncus effusus Soft Rush FACW+
Scirpus cyperinus Wool Grass FACW
Glyceria grandis American Manna Grass OBL
Eupatorium maculatum Spotted Joe Pye Weed FACW
Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset FACW
Alisma subcordatum Mud Plantain OBL
Aster puniceus Purple Stemmed Aster OBL
Glyceria canadensis Rattlesnake Grass OBL
Scirpus validus Soft Stem Bulrush OBL
Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed OBL
Mimulus ringens Square Stemmed Monkey
Flower OBL
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
4-5
Table 4-4. Proposed BVW Planting Schedule1
Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status Number of
Individuals
Trees
Acer rubrum Red Maple FAC 19
Shrubs
Viburnum dentatum Arrowwood FAC 19
Ilex verticillata Winterberry Holly FACW 19
1 Trees will be installed as 4’-6’-high saplings and planted on 15-foot centers with winterberry holly and
arrowwood (Shrub height at installation will be 3-4 feet).
4.2.4 Course Woody Debris and Other Features
A supply of dead and dying woody debris will cover at least four percent of the ground throughout the
scrub-shrub vegetative community zones after the completion of construction of the restoration areas.
Because of the presence of forest and scrub-shrub habitat within or adjacent to the disturbed areas,
snags or standing dead trees will be incorporated in appropriate locations where possible. In addition,
any large rocks or boulders encountered during excavation of the wetlands will be removed, and as
feasible, cleaned, temporarily stockpiled, and subsequently repositioned within the restoration area.
The purpose of the inclusion of scattered various sized boulders and woody debris is to increase the
structure and habitat within the restored wetlands. In addition, to supplement organic material within
the sediment and soil fill, course woody debris scattered on the disturbed areas will create a long-term
source of decaying organic material. A wetland scientist will be on-site to properly screen any course
woody debris placed within mitigation areas to ensure they are not a source of invasive species.
4.3 Monitoring
A project monitor with experience in the construction of wetland replication/restoration areas and
general construction practices shall be on-site to monitor grading and planting of the restoration area.
Post-construction monitoring will be conducted by or supervised by a qualified project monitor to
determine the success of the restoration in accordance with an Order of Conditions (OOC) issued by
the NCC. For each of the first five full growing seasons following construction of the restoration sites
(per Federal Corps guidelines), the sites will be monitored and annual monitoring reports submitted.
Observations will occur at least two times during the growing season – in late spring/early summer
and again in late summer/early fall. Each annual monitoring report will be submitted to the NCC and
Corps, Regulatory Division, Policy Analysis and Technical Support Branch, no later than December 15
of the year being monitored. Failure to perform the monitoring and submit monitoring reports
constitutes permit non-compliance. A self-certification form will be completed, and signed as the
transmittal coversheet for each annual monitoring report and will indicate the permit number and the
report number (Monitoring Report 1 of 5, for example). The reports will address success standards
listed in the New England District Compensatory Mitigation Guidance (7/20/2010).
The first year of monitoring will be the first year that the site has been through a full growing season
after completion of construction and planting. A growing season starts no later than May 31.
However, if there are problems that need to be addressed and if the measures to correct them require
prior approval from the Corps, the permittee will contact the Corps by phone or letter as soon as the
need for corrective action is discovered.
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
4-6
Remedial measures will be implemented – at least two years prior to the completion of the monitoring
periods – to attain the success standards described below within five growing seasons after
completion of construction of the mitigation sites. Should measures be required within two years of
the end of the monitoring period, the monitoring period will be extended to ensure two years of
monitoring after the remedial work is completed. Measures requiring earth movement or changes in
hydrology will not be implemented without written approval from the NCC and/or Corps.
4.4 Wildlife Habitat
The PFO/PSS Wetland B restoration will be improved by the addition of fruit-bearing silky dogwood
shrubs along the narrow fringe margins of the small unnamed perennial stream. Currently, the
amount of debris and existing shrub community (glossy buckthorn and burning bush) limits the
capacity to provide important wildlife habitat characteristics. In the short term, erosion control blankets
(jute matting) will be employed for optimum stability and allow the bank to, over time, develop
naturally-occurring cuts and undercut banks as wildlife habitat structure for foraging, resting, nesting,
and feeding habitat. More naturally occurring banks may form as a result of groundwater breakout
and slowly form natural bank cuts with the potential to provide riparian habitat for nesting birds and
amphibians along the small stream.
In the post-remediation condition, the wildlife habitat of the PFO/PSS/PEM Wetland A will be improved
and enhanced in the form of food source and herbaceous cover. This will be achieved with the
broadcast application of wetland seed mix in the restored grade of the emergent wetland. It is
anticipated that the adjacent seed source associated with silky dogwood and pussy willow will provide
for rapid colonization and increased biomass, providing a woody component within two growing
seasons. In addition, various sedges will also colonize the restored wetland resulting from seed
consumption, via small mammal species and passerine suburban birds, and subsequent germination.
It is anticipated that the proposed dumping ground remediation and cleanup of the site will result in
an improvement to the wetland systems and provide a more suitable refuge and stopover habitat for
animals utilizing the Northampton Bikeway as a travel and/or migration corridor. In addition, the
general public utilizing the Northampton Bikeway will have the benefit of a more aesthetically
pleasing view and perspective of the restored wetland and upland RFA. The restoration of the RFA
and the two wetland areas represents an opportunity to increase the functions and values of an
extremely degraded wetland with more suitable habitat for common suburban passerine songbirds,
large and small mammals, amphibians, and result in an overall improvement to the food chain
dynamic and overall ecosystem function of the project area.
4.5 Invasive Species Control Plan
4.5.1 Proposed Control Methods, Monitoring, and Reporting
MassDOT intends to implement an Invasive Species Control Plan (Plan) within the remediation
footprint of the project site. As discussed, there are numerous glossy buckthorn, tartarian
honeysuckle, and burningbush shrubs located throughout the project area. One of the goals of the
wetland and associated upland (RFA) restoration is to initially remove any invasive shrubs and to re-
vegetate the project site to a higher quality resource without any invasive shrubs.
During routine annual wetland and RFA restoration monitoring events (five year duration),
observations of invasive vegetation seedlings will be made and hand-removed to halt their
establishment and prevent proliferation in the restored areas. Should it become apparent that
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
4-7
additional measures are required to supplement the hand-removal of seedlings, an agreed–upon
method will be implemented for invasive species control. This may involve the application of
approved herbicide products appropriate and safe for aquatic sites. Application will be conducted by a
licensed professional working on behalf of MassDOT. The herbicide may be used as either a foliar
spray, or applied to cut stems (wicking).
Monitoring will occur for five years following initial restoration determine the success of the restoration.
A summary of findings and recommendations will be included in the yearly wetland mitigation reports.
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
5-1
5.0 Alternatives Analysis
A comprehensive alternatives analysis has been completed as required by the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (MADEP). As described below, alternatives have been
evaluated which would avoid potential adverse impacts to resource areas, and the proposed
remedial construction activities as described in Section 3.0 demonstrate the steps that have been
taken to minimize unavoidable temporary impacts. In addition, for review consistency, appropriate
and practicable steps have been taken which will avoid and minimize potential adverse impacts to
wetland resource areas, freshwater wetlands (BVW) as described in 314 CMR 9.06(2). The
wetland restoration plan as described in Section 6.0 provides 1:1 restoration for all resource areas
altered.
To analyze possible remediation alternatives, a general emphasis was placed on the following: (1)
evaluating avoidance of wetland and RFA impacts; (2) minimization of necessary impacts; and (3)
mitigation of those impacts not able to be avoided or minimized. The complete avoidance of impacts
is not possible because there is no alternative that meets the overall project purpose without
temporarily impacting jurisdictional resource areas. Thus, the focus of the alternative analysis was on
determining which of the discussed alternatives that meet the overall project purpose contains the
least amount of adverse impacts to the environment. The following alternatives assessed for
remediation of the dumping ground were evaluated and presented in the Corrective Action
Alternatives Analysis (Fuss & O’Neill, Inc., April 2005) on file with the MassDEP.
5.1 Alternative 1A
Removal and regrading of exposed waste materials along the stream bank and relocation within the
dumping ground, and capping of the dumping ground with a standard impermeable landfill cap, in
accordance with the existing regulations at 310 CMR 19.112, utilizing low-permeability soils.
5.2 Alternative 1B
Removal and regrading of exposed waste materials along the stream bank and relocation within the
dumping ground, and capping of the dumping ground with a standard impermeable landfill cap, in
accordance with the existing regulations at 310 CMR 19.112, utilizing a flexible membrane liner.
5.3 Alternative 1C
Removal and regrading of exposed waste materials along the stream bank and relocation within the
dumping ground, and capping of the dumping ground with an alternative, 1971-style soil cap, namely
18 inches of relatively impermeable soil (i.e. – 1 x 10-5 centimeters/second maximum permeability)
covered by 6 inches of topsoil).
5.4 Alternative 2
Removal and regrading of exposed waste materials along the stream bank, with off-site disposal of
the excavated waste at a municipal landfill, and capping of the dumping ground, with an alternative,
1971-style soil cap, namely 18 inches of relatively impermeable soil (i.e. – 1 x 10-5 centimeters/second
maximum permeability) covered by 6 inches of topsoil).
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
5-2
5.5 Alternative 3 (Preferred Alternative)
Excavation and complete removal of buried waste within the dumping ground, with off-site disposal of
the excavated material at a municipal landfill. Restore disturbed area to preconstruction condition.
5.6 Alternative 4
Removal and regrading of exposed waste materials along the stream bank and relocation within the
dumping ground, extension of the existing 48-inch diameter pipe to contain the day lighted portion of
the stream within the dumping ground, filling of the former streambed with clean fill, and capping of the
entire dumping ground and piped stream with an alternative cap, namely an 8-inch thick layer of
reclaimed asphalt or gravel borrow, covered by a 4-inch thick layer of asphalt base material, covered
by a 3-inch thick top course of asphalt.
5.7 Summary
Alternative 3 (Excavation and complete removal of buried waste) has been selected as the preferred
alternative. Although the alternatives described above involve a similar degree of impacts to the
jurisdictional resources areas, buried wastes would remain in place thereby failing to meet the projects
objective. Additionally, the installation of a cap, whether it is a standard impermeable landfill cap or a
1971-style soil cap, would alter the grading and hydrology of the site creating permanent impacts to
the adjacent wetland resource areas.
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
6-1
6.0 Demonstration of Compliance
6.1 Limited Project Status
This project constitutes a limited project per 310 CMR 10.53(3)(p):
“The closure of landfills when undertaken to comply with the requirements of 310 CMR 19.000…”
As proposed, this project aims to improve resource areas (RFA and BVW) on site by closing a solid
waste landfill. The project has been designed to minimize impacts to wetland resource areas;
however, given the remedial nature of this work, some temporary impacts to resource areas are
unavoidable. We request that the Commission take into account the limited project status of this work
during review and consider the magnitude of the alteration and the significance of this area to the
interests identified by the Act as all performance standards will not be met.
6.2 Resource Area General Performance Standards
As a limited project, performance standards associated with the resource areas located within the
limits of the proposed work are required to be met to the extent practical. Below is a discussion of
compliance to the Riverfront Area and BVW general performance standards.
Riverfront Area (310 CMR 10.58(4))
(a) Protection of Other Resource Areas. See below for a discussion of compliance to the BVW
and RFA performance standards.
(b) Protection of Rare Species. This project is not located within areas designated by NHESP as
Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife or Priority Habitats of Rare Species.
(c) Practicable and Substantially Equivalent Economic Alternatives. To meet the requirements of
this standard and the limited project provisions, an alternatives analysis has been prepared
for this project and is provided in Section 5.0 above.
(d) No Significant Adverse Impact. A project is presumed to have no significant adverse impact
to the interests if it disturbs no more than 5,000 square feet of the Riverfront Area or no more
than 10% of the Riverfront Area within “the lot”, whichever is greater. The proposed work
anticipates temporary impacts to 22,650 square feet of Riverfront Area. This number is
approximately 50% of the total Riverfront Area on site (44,559 square feet). However, these
temporary alterations should be considered positive impacts as they aim to restore the site to
more natural conditions and enhance existing Riverfront Area functions.
Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (310 CMR 10.55(4))
(a) Though the majority of the work associated with this project will occur outside of this resource
area, some temporary impacts are unavoidable. This project will include approximately 5,500
square feet of temporary impacts to BVW. All temporarily impacted areas will be restored
once excavation work is complete. We request that the Commission take into account the
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
6-2
limited project status of this work during review and considers the magnitude of the alteration
and the significance of this area to the interests identified by the Act.
(b) Under the most practicable alternative for this project, approximately 5,500 square feet of
temporary impacts will occur within BVW. All temporarily impacted areas will be restored
once excavation work is complete. We request that the Commission take into account the
limited project status of this work during review and considers the magnitude of the alteration
and the significance of this area to the interests identified by the Act.
(c) This project will result in the alteration of approximately than 5,500 square feet of BVW. As
discussed in the alternatives provided above, it is not reasonable to scale down, redesign, or
otherwise change the proposed activities to complete the work without the proposed impacts
of said wetland.
(d) This project is not located within areas designated by NHESP as Estimated Habitats of Rare
Wildlife or Priority Habitats of Rare Species.
(e) The project site is not located within an Area of Critical Environmental Concern.
6.3 Compliance with Massachusetts Stormwater Policy
This project is not exempt from MassDEP’s Stormwater Management Policy and standards at 310
CMR 10.05(6)(k); however, most of those standards are not applicable because the project is not
creating any new impervious surfaces, stormwater conveyances, or stormwater management systems
covered by the standards. The MassDEP’s Stormwater Checklist is provided in Appendix F. The
Stormwater standards and the manner the Project complies with them are summarized as follows:
Standard 1: As no new impervious surfaces will be constructed, there will be no new stormwater
point source discharges to untreated stormwater into, or causing erosion to, wetlands
and waters.
Standard 2: Post-development peak discharge rates will not exceed pre-development peak
discharge rates.
Standard 3: This Project will not result in an increase in impervious area and no groundwater
recharge alteration is expected.
Standard 4: This Project will not result in an increase in impervious area and therefore does not
require Total Suspended Solids (TSS) removal facilities.
Standard 5: This Project does not contain land use plans with higher potential pollutants as
described in MassDEP’s Stormwater Management Policy.
Standard 6: This Project will not result in any new point source discharges and will not, therefore,
discharge to or affect a critical area.
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
6-3
Standard 7: This Project will not result in new impervious areas or point source discharges and
therefore, Standards 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are generally not applicable.
Compliance with Standard 8 is discussed below.
Standard 8: Erosion and sedimentation controls for construction and land disturbance activities
have been incorporated into the project design (see Section 3.2). Proposed locations
and details of these controls are depicted on the Project Drawings in Appendix B.
Standard 9: No structural stormwater treatment devices are warranted or proposed for this project
(because no increase in impervious surfaces will occur), therefore, an Operation and
Maintenance Plan is not necessary.
Standard 10: No illicit discharges to a stormwater management system will occur.
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
7-1
7.0 Summary
The project has been designed to minimize temporary impacts to the BVW and RFA to the extent
practicable and prevent permanent impacts. In addition, all temporary impacts have been
appropriately mitigated for through the use of BMPs and development of planting schedules and plans
as mitigation for the temporary impacts and stabilization of the site following construction. In many
cases, proposed mitigation will improve the overall wildlife habitat, while impacts to the wetland
functions and values will be temporary. As such, MassDOT respectfully requests that the NCC find
these measures adequately protective of the interests identified in the WPA and issues an Order of
Conditions approving the work described in this NOI and shown on the Project Drawings.
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
Appendix A
Figures
March 2013 J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016
- 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\CAD Plan (Aug-12)\Fig 1 Site locus.docx
Mass DOT
155 Locust Street (Rte. 9)
Northampton, Massachusetts
Site Location Map
60137198 Figure 1
Site
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
Appendix B
Project Drawings
AECOM
DRAWING NUMBER:
SHEET NUMBER:
EXISTING CONDITIONS C-01
060137198.1105
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
155 LOCUST STREET
NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS
250 APOLLO DRIVE
CHELMSFORD, MA 01824
www.aecom.com
AECOM
DRAWING NUMBER:
SHEET NUMBER:
PROPOSED CONDITIONS C-02
060137198.1105
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
155 LOCUST STREET
NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS
250 APOLLO DRIVE
CHELMSFORD, MA 01824
www.aecom.com
AECOM
DRAWING NUMBER:
SHEET NUMBER:
RESTORATION PLAN C-03
060137198.1105
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
155 LOCUST STREET
NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS
250 APOLLO DRIVE
CHELMSFORD, MA 01824
www.aecom.com
TABLE 1. NEW ENGLAND WETMIX.
Scientific Name Common Name Wetland Indicator Status
Carex vulpinoidea Fox Sedge OBL
Carex lurida Lurid Sedge OBL
Carex scoparia Blunt Broom Sedge FACW
Verbena hastata Blue Vervain FACW
Scirpus atrovirens Green Bulrush OBL
Carex lupulina Hop Sedge OBL
Bidens cernua Nodding Bur Marigold OBL
Carex comosa Bristly/Cosmos Sedge OBL
Carex crinita Fringed Sedge OBL
Juncus effusus Soft Rush FACW+
Scirpus cyperinus Wool Grass FACW
Glyceria grandis American Manna Grass OBL
Eupatorium maculatum Spotted Joe Pye Weed FACW
Eupatorium perfoliatum Boneset FACW
Alisma subcordatum Mud Plantain OBL
Aster puniceus Purple Stemmed Aster OBL
Glyceria canadensis Rattlesnake Grass OBL
Scirpus validus Soft Stem Bulrush OBL
Asclepias incarnata Swamp Milkweed OBL
Mimulus ringens Square Stemmed Monkey
Flower OBL
TABLE 2. PROPOSED BVW SEED MIXTURE (NEW ENGLAND CONSERVATION/WILDLIFE MIX).
Scientific Name Common Name Indicator
Status
Elymus virginicus Virginia Wild Rye FACW-
Schizachyrium scoparium Little Bluestem FACU
Andropogon gerardii Big Bluestem FAC
Festuca rubra Creeping Red Fescue FACU
Panicum virgatum Switch Grass FAC
Chamaecrista fasciculata Partridge Pea FACU
Panicum clandstinum Deer Tongue FAC+
Sorghastrum nutans Indian Grass UPL
Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed FACU-
Heliopsis helianthoides Ox Eye Sunflower UPL
Eupatorium purpureum Purple Joe Pye Weed FAC
Euthamia graminifolia Grass Leaved Goldenrod FAC
Verbena hastate Blue Vervain VACW
Zizia aurea Golden Alexanders FAC
Aster umbellatus Flat Topped/Umbrella Aster FACW
Solidago juncea Early Goldenrod NI
TABLE 4. PROPOSED BVW PLANTING SCHEDULE.
Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status Number of
Individuals
Trees
Acer rubrum Red Maple FAC 19
Shrubs
Viburnum dentatum Arrowwood FAC 19
Ilex verticillata Winterberry Holly FACW 19
TREES WILL BE INSTALLED AS 4’ TO 6’ SAPLINGS TO BE PLANTED ON 15 FOOT CENTERS AS
GROUPS SHRUB (HEIGHT WILL BE 3’ TO 4’).
TABLE 3. PROPOSED RIVERFRONT RESTORATION AREA SHRUB AND TREE PLANTING
SCHEDULE.
Scientific Name Common Name Indicator Status Number of
Individuals
Trees
Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen FACU 10
Acer rubrum Red Maple FAC 10
Shrubs
Viburnum acerifolium Maple Leaf Viburnum UPL 30
Corylus cornuta Beaked Hazelnut FACU- 30
TREES WILL BE INSTALLED AS 4’-6’-HIGH SAPLINGS AND PLANTED NO CLOSER TOGETHER THAN
20 FEET AT CENTER. SHRUB HEIGHT AT INSTALLATION WILL BE 3-4 FEET AND PLANTED NO
CLOSER TOGETHER THAN 8 FEET AT CENTER.
AECOM
DRAWING NUMBER:
SHEET NUMBER:
CROSS SECTIONS AND DETAILS C-04
060137198.1105
MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
155 LOCUST STREET
NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS
250 APOLLO DRIVE
CHELMSFORD, MA 01824
www.aecom.com
STRAW BALE/SILT FENCE
SCALE: NTS
A-A' PROFILE - EXISTING CONDITIONS
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
Appendix C
Site Photographs
Project Photographs – 155 Locust Street, Northampton, MA
June 2013
AECOM Environment
PHOTO 1 Wetland/Stream A – view of northern culvert at flags A-11 and
A-12.
PHOTO 2 Wetland/Stream A – view north from southern culvert at flags
A-4 And A-5.
Project Photographs – 155 Locust Street, Northampton, MA
June 2013
AECOM Environment
PHOTO 3 Wetland/Stream A – view south from northern culvert at flags
A-11 and A-12.
PHOTO 4 Representative view of Wetland B.
Project Photographs – 155 Locust Street, Northampton, MA
June 2013
AECOM Environment
PHOTO 5 Representative view of Wetland B.
PHOTO 6 Representative view of Wetland B.
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
Appendix D
Statement of Agency
Exclusion from Abutter
Notification Process
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
Appendix E
Data Forms and WHE Forms
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
If yes, optional Wetland Site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10)
High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Interim Version
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH
and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B)
Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L)
Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Interim Version
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Northcentral and Northeast Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
If yes, optional Wetland Site ID:
Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.)
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Drainage Patterns (B10)
High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Saturation (A3) Marl Deposits (B15) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Other (Explain in Remarks) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Interim Version
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Vegetation Strata:
Tree – Woody plants 3 in. (7.6 cm) or more in diameter
at breast height (DBH), regardless of height.
Sapling/shrub – Woody plants less than 3 in. DBH
and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vines – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
= Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
= Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
US Army Corps of Engineers Northcentral and Northeast Region – Interim Version
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR R, 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR K, L, MLRA 149B)
Histic Epipedon (A2) MLRA 149B) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) (LRR K, L, R)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR K, L) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L)
Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR K, L)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Matrix (F3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR K, L)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149B)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Redox Depressions (F8) Mesic Spodic (TA6) (MLRA 144A, 145, 149B)
Sandy Redox (S5) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Stripped Matrix (S6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR R, MLRA 149B) Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
AECOM Environment
J:\Indl_Service\Project Files\MassHighway-04489\04489016 - 55608 On-Call Oversight\1. Northampton\4. Reports\Notice of Intent (Jun-13)\NOI Application\Final for
Submittal\Project Narrative AHSB DS FINAL 2014 03 18.doc March 2014
Appendix F
Stormwater Management
Checklist
G - swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 1 of 8
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
Checklist for Stormwater Report
A. Introduction
Important: When
filling out forms
on the computer,
use only the tab
key to move your cursor - do not
use the return
key.
A Stormwater Report must be submitted with the Notice of Intent permit application to document
compliance with the Stormwater Management Standards. The following checklist is NOT a substitute for
the Stormwater Report (which should provide more substantive and detailed information) but is offered
here as a tool to help the applicant organize their Stormwater Management documentation for their
Report and for the reviewer to assess this information in a consistent format. As noted in the Checklist,
the Stormwater Report must contain the engineering computations and supporting information set forth in
Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The Stormwater Report must be prepared and
certified by a Registered Professional Engineer (RPE) licensed in the Commonwealth.
The Stormwater Report must include:
The Stormwater Checklist completed and stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer (see
page 2) that certifies that the Stormwater Report contains all required submittals.1 This Checklist
is to be used as the cover for the completed Stormwater Report.
Applicant/Project Name
Project Address
Name of Firm and Registered Professional Engineer that prepared the Report
Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan required by Standards 4-6
Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan required
by Standard 82
Operation and Maintenance Plan required by Standard 9
In addition to all plans and supporting information, the Stormwater Report must include a brief narrative
describing stormwater management practices, including environmentally sensitive site design and LID
techniques, along with a diagram depicting runoff through the proposed BMP treatment train. Plans are
required to show existing and proposed conditions, identify all wetland resource areas, NRCS soil types,
critical areas, Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPL), and any areas on the site
where infiltration rate is greater than 2.4 inches per hour. The Plans shall identify the drainage areas for
both existing and proposed conditions at a scale that enables verification of supporting calculations.
As noted in the Checklist, the Stormwater Management Report shall document compliance with each of
the Stormwater Management Standards as provided in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The
soils evaluation and calculations shall be done using the methodologies set forth in Volume 3 of the
Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook.
To ensure that the Stormwater Report is complete, applicants are required to fill in the Stormwater Report
Checklist by checking the box to indicate that the specified information has been included in the
Stormwater Report. If any of the information specified in the checklist has not been submitted, the
applicant must provide an explanation. The completed Stormwater Report Checklist and Certification
must be submitted with the Stormwater Report.
1 The Stormwater Report may also include the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement required by Standard 10. If not included in the Stormwater Report, the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement must be submitted prior to the discharge of stormwater runoff to
the post-construction best management practices.
2 For some complex projects, it may not be possible to include the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan in
the Stormwater Report. In that event, the issuing authority has the discretion to issue an Order of Conditions that approves the
project and includes a condition requiring the proponent to submit the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan
before commencing any land disturbance activity on the site.
G - swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 2 of 8
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
Checklist for Stormwater Report
B. Stormwater Checklist and Certification
The following checklist is intended to serve as a guide for applicants as to the elements that ordinarily
need to be addressed in a complete Stormwater Report. The checklist is also intended to provide
conservation commissions and other reviewing authorities with a summary of the components necessary
for a comprehensive Stormwater Report that addresses the ten Stormwater Standards.
Note: Because stormwater requirements vary from project to project, it is possible that a complete
Stormwater Report may not include information on some of the subjects specified in the Checklist. If it is
determined that a specific item does not apply to the project under review, please note that the item is not
applicable (N.A.) and provide the reasons for that determination.
A complete checklist must include the Certification set forth below signed by the Registered Professional
Engineer who prepared the Stormwater Report.
Registered Professional Engineer’s Certification
I have reviewed the Stormwater Report, including the soil evaluation, computations, Long-term Pollution
Prevention Plan, the Construction Period Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (if included), the Long-
term Post-Construction Operation and Maintenance Plan, the Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement (if
included) and the plans showing the stormwater management system, and have determined that they
have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Stormwater Management Standards as
further elaborated by the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. I have also determined that the
information presented in the Stormwater Checklist is accurate and that the information presented in the
Stormwater Report accurately reflects conditions at the site as of the date of this permit application.
Registered Professional Engineer Block and Signature
Signature and Date
Note: This Stormwater Checklist and the Stormwater management discussion provided in Appendix A of the
NOI have not been prepared or stamped by an RPE since this project does not propose any new
impervious areas so no new untreated stormwater discharges will occur. See Narrative in Appendix A
for more detailed information regarding the Stormwater Management Standards.
Checklist
Project Type: Is the application for new development, redevelopment, or a mix of new and
redevelopment?
New development
Redevelopment
Mix of New Development and Redevelopment
G - swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 3 of 8
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
Checklist for Stormwater Report
Checklist (continued)
LID Measures: Stormwater Standards require LID measures to be considered. Document what
environmentally sensitive design and LID Techniques were considered during the planning and design of
the project:
No disturbance to any Wetland Resource Areas
Site Design Practices (e.g. clustered development, reduced frontage setbacks)
Reduced Impervious Area (Redevelopment Only)
Minimizing disturbance to existing trees and shrubs
LID Site Design Credit Requested:
Credit 1
Credit 2
Credit 3
Use of “country drainage” versus curb and gutter conveyance and pipe
Bioretention Cells (includes Rain Gardens)
Constructed Stormwater Wetlands (includes Gravel Wetlands designs)
Treebox Filter
Water Quality Swale
Grass Channel
Green Roof
Other (describe):
Standard 1: No New Untreated Discharges
No new untreated discharges
N/A Outlets have been designed so there is no erosion or scour to wetlands and waters of the
Commonwealth.
N/A Supporting calculations specified in Volume 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook included.
G - swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 4 of 8
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
Checklist for Stormwater Report
Checklist (continued)
Standard 2: Peak Rate Attenuation
N/A Standard 2 waiver requested because the project is located in land subject to coastal storm flowage
and stormwater discharge is to a wetland subject to coastal flooding.
N/A Evaluation provided to determine whether off-site flooding increases during the 100-year 24-hour
storm.
N/A Calculations provided to show that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-
development rates for the 2-year and 10-year 24-hour storms. If evaluation shows that off-site
flooding increases during the 100-year 24-hour storm, calculations are also provided to show that
post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development rates for the 100-year 24-
hour storm.
Standard 3: Recharge
N/A Soil Analysis provided.
N/A Required Recharge Volume calculation provided.
N/A Required Recharge volume reduced through use of the LID site Design Credits.
N/A Sizing the infiltration, BMPs is based on the following method: Check the method used.
Static Simple Dynamic Dynamic Field1
N/A Runoff from all impervious areas at the site discharging to the infiltration BMP.
N/A Runoff from all impervious areas at the site is not discharging to the infiltration BMP and calculations
are provided showing that the drainage area contributing runoff to the infiltration BMPs is sufficient to
generate the required recharge volume.
N/A Recharge BMPs have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume.
N/A Recharge BMPs have been sized to infiltrate the Required Recharge Volume only to the maximum
extent practicable for the following reason:
Site is comprised solely of C and D soils and/or bedrock at the land surface
M.G.L. c. 21E sites pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0000
Solid Waste Landfill pursuant to 310 CMR 19.000
Project is otherwise subject to Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum extent
practicable.
N/A Calculations showing that the infiltration BMPs will drain in 72 hours are provided.
N/A Property includes a M.G.L. c. 21E site or a solid waste landfill and a mounding analysis is included.
1 80% TSS removal is required prior to discharge to infiltration BMP if Dynamic Field method is used.
G - swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 5 of 8
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
Checklist for Stormwater Report
Checklist (continued)
Standard 3: Recharge (continued)
N/A The infiltration BMP is used to attenuate peak flows during storms greater than or equal to the 10-
year 24-hour storm and separation to seasonal high groundwater is less than 4 feet and a mounding
analysis is provided.
N/A Documentation is provided showing that infiltration BMPs do not adversely impact nearby wetland
resource areas.
Standard 4: Water Quality
The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan typically includes the following:
Good housekeeping practices;
Provisions for storing materials and waste products inside or under cover;
Vehicle washing controls;
Requirements for routine inspections and maintenance of stormwater BMPs;
Spill prevention and response plans;
Provisions for maintenance of lawns, gardens, and other landscaped areas;
Requirements for storage and use of fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides;
Pet waste management provisions;
Provisions for operation and management of septic systems;
Provisions for solid waste management;
Snow disposal and plowing plans relative to Wetland Resource Areas;
Winter Road Salt and/or Sand Use and Storage restrictions;
Street sweeping schedules;
Provisions for prevention of illicit discharges to the stormwater management system;
Documentation that Stormwater BMPs are designed to provide for shutdown and containment in the
event of a spill or discharges to or near critical areas or from LUHPPL;
Training for staff or personnel involved with implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan;
List of Emergency contacts for implementing Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan.
N/A A Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan is attached to Stormwater Report and is included as an
attachment to the Wetlands Notice of Intent.
N/A Treatment BMPs subject to the 44% TSS removal pretreatment requirement and the one inch rule for
calculating the water quality volume are included, and discharge:
is within the Zone II or Interim Wellhead Protection Area
is near or to other critical areas
is within soils with a rapid infiltration rate (greater than 2.4 inches per hour)
involves runoff from land uses with higher potential pollutant loads.
N/A The Required Water Quality Volume is reduced through use of the LID site Design Credits.
N/A Calculations documenting that the treatment train meets the 80% TSS removal requirement and, if
applicable, the 44% TSS removal pretreatment requirement, are provided.
G - swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 6 of 8
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
Checklist for Stormwater Report
Checklist (continued)
Standard 4: Water Quality (continued)
N/A The BMP is sized (and calculations provided) based on:
The ½” or 1” Water Quality Volume or
The equivalent flow rate associated with the Water Quality Volume and documentation is
provided showing that the BMP treats the required water quality volume.
N/A The applicant proposes to use proprietary BMPs, and documentation supporting use of proprietary
BMP and proposed TSS removal rate is provided. This documentation may be in the form of the
propriety BMP checklist found in Volume 2, Chapter 4 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook
and submitting copies of the TARP Report, STEP Report, and/or other third party studies verifying
performance of the proprietary BMPs.
N/A A TMDL exists that indicates a need to reduce pollutants other than TSS and documentation showing
that the BMPs selected are consistent with the TMDL is provided.
Standard 5: Land Uses With Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (LUHPPLs)
N/A The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit covers the land use and the Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) has been included with the Stormwater Report.
N/A The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit covers the land use and the SWPPP will be submitted prior
to the discharge of stormwater to the post-construction stormwater BMPs.
N/A The NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit does not cover the land use.
N/A LUHPPLs are located at the site and industry specific source control and pollution prevention
measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate the exposure of LUHPPLs to rain, snow, snow
melt and runoff, and been included in the long term Pollution Prevention Plan.
N/A All exposure has been eliminated.
N/A All exposure has not been eliminated and all BMPs selected are on MassDEP LUHPPL list.
N/A The LUHPPL has the potential to generate runoff with moderate to higher concentrations of oil and
grease (e.g. all parking lots with >1000 vehicle trips per day) and the treatment train includes an oil
grit separator, a filtering bioretention area, a sand filter or equivalent.
Standard 6: Critical Areas
N/A The discharge is near or to a critical area and the treatment train includes only BMPs that MassDEP
has approved for stormwater discharges to or near that particular class of critical area.
N/A Critical areas and BMPs are identified in the Stormwater Report.
G - swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 7 of 8
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
Checklist for Stormwater Report
Checklist (continued)
Standard 7: Redevelopments and Other Projects Subject to the Standards only to the maximum
extent practicable
The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards only to the maximum Extent
Practicable as a:
Limited Project
Small Residential Projects: 5-9 single family houses or 5-9 units in a multi-family development
provided there is no discharge that may potentially affect a critical area.
Small Residential Projects: 2-4 single family houses or 2-4 units in a multi-family development
with a discharge to a critical area
Marina and/or boatyard provided the hull painting, service and maintenance areas are protected
from exposure to rain, snow, snow melt and runoff
Bike Path and/or Foot Path
Redevelopment Project
Redevelopment portion of mix of new and redevelopment.
Certain standards are not fully met (Standard No. 1, 8, 9, and 10 must always be fully met) and an
explanation of why these standards are not met is contained in the Stormwater Report.
N/A The project involves redevelopment and a description of all measures that have been taken to
improve existing conditions is provided in the Stormwater Report. The redevelopment checklist found
in Volume 2 Chapter 3 of the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook may be used to document that
the proposed stormwater management system (a) complies with Standards 2, 3 and the pretreatment
and structural BMP requirements of Standards 4-6 to the maximum extent practicable and (b)
improves existing conditions.
Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control
A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan must include the
following information:
Narrative;
Construction Period Operation and Maintenance Plan;
Names of Persons or Entity Responsible for Plan Compliance;
Construction Period Pollution Prevention Measures;
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Drawings;
Detail drawings and specifications for erosion control BMPs, including sizing calculations;
Vegetation Planning;
Site Development Plan;
Construction Sequencing Plan;
Sequencing of Erosion and Sedimentation Controls;
Operation and Maintenance of Erosion and Sedimentation Controls;
Inspection Schedule;
Maintenance Schedule;
Inspection and Maintenance Log Form.
N/A A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan containing
the information set forth above has been included in the Stormwater Report.
G - swcheck.doc • 04/01/08 Stormwater Report Checklist • Page 8 of 8
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection - Wetlands Program
Checklist for Stormwater Report
Checklist (continued)
Standard 8: Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and Sedimentation Control
(continued)
N/A The project is highly complex and information is included in the Stormwater Report that explains why
it is not possible to submit the Construction Period Pollution Prevention and Erosion and
Sedimentation Control Plan with the application. A Construction Period Pollution Prevention and
Erosion and Sedimentation Control has not been included in the Stormwater Report but will be
submitted before land disturbance begins.
N/A The project is not covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit.
N/A The project is covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit and a copy of the SWPPP is in the
Stormwater Report.
N/A The project is covered by a NPDES Construction General Permit but no SWPPP been submitted.
The SWPPP will be submitted BEFORE land disturbance begins.
Standard 9: Operation and Maintenance Plan
N/A The Post Construction Operation and Maintenance Plan is included in the Stormwater Report and
includes the following information:
Name of the stormwater management system owners;
Party responsible for operation and maintenance;
Schedule for implementation of routine and non-routine maintenance tasks;
Plan showing the location of all stormwater BMPs maintenance access areas;
Description and delineation of public safety features;
Estimated operation and maintenance budget; and
Operation and Maintenance Log Form.
N/A The responsible party is not the owner of the parcel where the BMP is located and the Stormwater
Report includes the following submissions:
A copy of the legal instrument (deed, homeowner’s association, utility trust or other legal entity)
that establishes the terms of and legal responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the
project site stormwater BMPs;
A plan and easement deed that allows site access for the legal entity to operate and maintain
BMP functions.
Standard 10: Prohibition of Illicit Discharges
N/A The Long-Term Pollution Prevention Plan includes measures to prevent illicit discharges;
N/A An Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement is attached;
N/A No Illicit Discharge Compliance Statement is attached but will be submitted prior to the discharge of
any stormwater to post-construction BMPs.