Enter your transmittal number - Welcome to MassDOT · Enter your transmittal number X236784 Transmittal Number ... only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key

transmittal form • rev. 1/07 Page 1 of 1

Enter your transmittal number X236784 Transmittal Number

Your unique Transmittal Number can be accessed online: http://mass.gov/dep/service/online/trasmfrm.shtml or call MassDEP’s InfoLine at 617-338-2255 or 800-462-0444 (from 508, 781, and 978 area codes). Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Transmittal Form for Permit Application and Payment A. Permit Information BRP WW 08

1. Permit Code: 7 or 8 character code from permit instructions Water Quality Certification

2. Name of Permit Category Dredging to support reconstruction of Bridge K-01-002, Elm Street over Jones River, Kingston, MA

3. Type of Project or Activity

B. Applicant Information – Firm or Individual Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Highway Division

1. Name of Firm - Or, if party needing this approval is an individual enter name below:

2. Last Name of Individual

3. First Name of Individual

4. MI 10 Park Plaza, Room 4260

5. Street Address Boston

6. City/Town MA

7. State 02116

8. Zip Code 617-973-7434

9. Telephone #

10. Ext. # Susan McArthur

11. Contact Person [email protected]

12. e-mail address (optional)

C. Facility, Site or Individual Requiring Approval Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Highway Division

1. Name of Facility, Site Or Individual 10 Park Plaza, Room 4260

2. Street Address Boston

3. City/Town MA

4. State 02116

5. Zip Code

6. Telephone #

7. Ext. #

8. DEP Facility Number (if Known)

9. Federal I.D. Number (if Known)

10. BWSC Tracking # (if Known)

D. Application Prepared by (if different from Section B)* Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Highway Division

1. Name of Firm Or Individual 10 Park Plaza, Room 4260

2. Address Boston

3. City/Town MA

4. State 02116

5. Zip Code 617-973-7727

6. Telephone #

7. Ext. # Erin Burnham

8. Contact Person

9. LSP Number (BWSC Permits only)

1. Please type or print. A separate Transmittal Form must be completed for each permit application. 2. Make your check payable to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and mail it with a copy of this form to: DEP, P.O. Box 4062, Boston, MA 02211. 3. Three copies of this form will be needed.

Copy 1 - the original must accompany your permit application. Copy 2 must accompany your fee payment. Copy 3 should be retained for your records 4. Both fee-paying and exempt applicants must mail a copy of this transmittal form to:

MassDEP P.O. Box 4062 Boston, MA 02211

* Note: For BWSC Permits, enter the LSP.

E. Permit - Project Coordination

1. Is this project subject to MEPA review? yes no If yes, enter the project’s EOEA file number - assigned when an

Environmental Notification Form is submitted to the MEPA unit: EOEA File Number

F. Amount Due DEP Use Only Permit No:

Rec’d Date:

Special Provisions: 1. Fee Exempt (city, town or municipal housing authority)(state agency if fee is $100 or less). There are no fee exemptions for BWSC permits, regardless of applicant status. 2. Hardship Request - payment extensions according to 310 CMR 4.04(3)(c). 3. Alternative Schedule Project (according to 310 CMR 4.05 and 4.10). 4. Homeowner (according to 310 CMR 4.02).

Reviewer: Check Number

Dollar Amount

Date

ww0789ap 2-15-2011 Revised.doc • rev. 9/01 BRP WW 07,08 Dredging • Page 1 of 7

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands and Waterways

BRP WW 07, 08 Dredging 401 Water Quality Certification – Projects Proposing More Than 100 Cubic Yards Dredging or Disposal of Dredged Material

X236784

Transmittal Number #

A. Applicant Information

1. For which permit category are you applying? BRP WW 07 BRP WW 08

2. Applicant:

Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Highway Division Name

10 Park Plaza, Room 4260 Street Address

Boston City

MA State

02116 Zip Code

Susan McArthur Contact person

Telephone Number (home)

617-973-7434 Telephone Number (work)

3. Authorized Agent:

Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Highway Division Name

10 Park Plaza, Room 4260 Street Address

Important: When filling out forms on the computer, use only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key.

Boston City

MA State

02116 Zip Code

Erin Burnham Contact person

Telephone Number (home)

(617-973-7727 Telephone Number (work)

B. Project Information 1. Project Location:

Elm Street Street Address

Kingston City

Jones River Nearest or Adjacent Waterbody

2. Project Name (if any):

Elm Street Bridge Replacement and Roadway Reconstruction, Bridge # K-01-002, MassDOT Highway Division File No. 24090




X236784


B. Project Information (cont.)

3. Will the proposed project occur in any wetlands or waters designated as “Outstanding Resource Waters”?

Yes No

If yes, has public notice been published in the Environmental Monitor? Yes No

To Be Published March 2011 Date of Publication

4. Identify the loss, or alteration, in square feet of each type of resource area (see Application

instructions for additional information.):

a. Land under water: 4801 (2582 permanent; 2219 temporary) square feet

b. Other Resources: 0 square feet

5. Does this project require a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission? Yes No If yes, see Application Instructions for additional information needed.

6. Is the project categorically subject to MEPA? Yes No

If yes, has final action been taken? Yes No

If yes, please include copy of MEPA certificate.

7. Is any of your proposed work exempt from the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act or taking place in a federal non-state wetland?

Yes No If yes, see Application Instructions for additional information needed.

C. Description of Proposed Dredging Site

1. a. Describe in general the proposed project or activity, including the purpose and intended use of the project, and the duration of the work within any waterbody:

The purpose of this project is to replace the Elm Street bridge over the Jones River. Work on Elm

Street will include roadway reconstruction and resurfacing approximately 50 feet north and approximately 250 feet south of the bridge. Please refer to the Project Narrative for additional details.




X236784


C. Description of Proposed Dredging Site (cont.) b. Date activity is to commence: Summer 2012

c. What is the expected frequency of maintenance dredging of this project?

None.

2. Attach plan(s) of the proposed project as follows: Include a copy of the appropriate portion from the USGS quadrangle map for this project site.

Include the identification number and name of the USGS quad map.

Plan view. The plan view of the proposed activity should show the following:

Existing shorelines. Ebb and flood in tidal waters and direction of flow in rivers.

North arrow. Graphic and numerical scale.

Mean high and low water lines if the proposed activity is located in tidal areas.

Ordinary high water line for inland water.

Water depths around the project.

Seaward distance from an existing permanent fixed structure or object.

Principal dimensions of the structure or work and extent of encroachment beyond the applicable high water line.

Distance between proposed activity and navigation channel, where applicable.

Harbor lines, if established and known.

Location of any vegetated wetlands or wetland resource areas.

Location of structures, if any, in navigable waters immediately adjacent to the proposed activity Proximity to any designated Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern.

Elevation and/or Section View. The elevation and/or section view of the proposed project should show the following:

Same water elevations as the plan view. Depth at waterward face of proposed work. Show dredging grade.

Graph and numerical scale. Cross-section of excavation including approximate side slopes.

3. a. What are the length, width, depth and volume of the proposed project?

Length: Width:

SW Embankment 150l.f. Abutments 27 ft ea Feet

SW Embankment 18 ft Abutments 8 ft ea Feet

Depth: Volume:

SW Embankment 1 ft Abutments 30 ft ea Feet

SW Embankment 75 cy Abutments 231 cy Cubic yards




X236784


C. Description of Proposed Dredging Site (cont.) b. Is the proposed project considered:

i. a new project, Yes No

ii. maintenance of an existing project? Yes No

iii. when was the project last dredged? Date

Permit/License Name and Number

c. Describe in complete detail the physical dredging operation including descriptions of the type of dredge equipment, i.e., hopper dredge, hydraulic dredge, etc., the type of transportation to be used from the dredge site to the disposal site, the method of release of the dredged material into the disposal site, and the name of the contractor if other than the applicant.

See Attachment A - Project Narrative

d. Describe all measures designed to avoid and minimize adverse impacts of the project on aquatic life and the aquatic ecosystem. Where impacts cannot be avoided or minimized, what mitigation measures are proposed? (See Application Instructions.)

See Attachment A - Project Narrative

4. Historical Parameters:

To the best of your knowledge, does the proposed project are have any past history of:

a. chemical or oil spills of discharge? Yes No

b. Upstream or on-site industrial or municipal discharge within 1,000 feet of the proposed project?

Yes No

c. chronic pollutant loading from port or harbor use and/or other sources of pollutants? (eg. CSO or POTW discharges)

Yes No




X236784


C. Description of Proposed Dredging Site (cont.)

If yes to any questions in Item C-4, provide as much historical information as you have, including dates, amounts, concentrations, etc. of such spills or discharge. Attach additional sheets if necessary.

A municipal stormwater discharge is present downstream and within 1000-feet of the project site (the discharge is located just downstream of the dam).

D. Description of Material to be Dredged

1. Grain Size Analysis: See application for sampling and analysis requirements.

Percentage of total by weight passing

80 (KS1); 90 (KS2) No. 4 Sieve

7 (KS1); 14 (KS2) No. 60 Sieve

72 (KS1); 80 (KS2) No. 10 Sieve

1.2 (KS1); 0.8 (KS2) No. 200 Sieve

18 (KS1); 34 (KS2) No. 40 Sieve

2. Chemical Analysis of Sediment: See application instructions for sampling and analysis requirements. List constituents in mg/kg (ppm)

dry weight unless otherwise indicated.

4.35 (KS1); 5.84 (KS2) arsenic

0.079 (KS1); 0.087 (KS2) cadmium

5.79 (KS1); 7.7 (KS2) chromium

3.53 (KS1); 5.65 (KS2) copper

20.9 (KS1); 44.4 (KS2) lead

0.022 (KS1); 0.014 (KS2) mercury

2 (KS1); 4.04 (KS2) nickel

31.4 (KS1); 26.1 (KS2) zinc

0.04 (KS1); 0.03 (KS2) PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls)

4.63 (KS1); 251.5 (KS2) PAHs (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons)

3137 (KS1); 12.18 (KS2) TPH (total petroleum hydrocarbons)

<2990 (KS1); undetected (KS2) EPH (extractable petroleum hydrocarbons

see Table 1 volatile solids (percent)

33.1 (KS1); 20.7 (KS2) water (percent)




X236784


E. Description of the Disposal Site for Dredged Material 1. For ocean disposal sites:

a. Location of proposed disposal site and its physical boundaries.

Not Applicable.

b. Has the site been designated by the state of E.P.A. as a dredge disposal site? Yes No

If no, give a description of the characteristics of the proposed disposal site and an explanation as to why no currently designated site is feasible for this project.

c. Is the anticipated disposal site located within a designated ocean sanctuary as established by federal law or G.L.c. 132A, sec. 13?

Yes No

If yes, which sanctuary?

2. For disposal sites or dewatering sites on land (landward of mean high water), see instructions

a. Location of proposed disposal and dewatering sites and physical boundaries.

b. Indicate drainage characteristics of dewatering and disposal sites from the results of test pits, borings, and percolation tests as applicable.

See Attachment A - Project Narrative for disposal site alternatives.

c. How long are the dewatering and disposal sites estimated to be in use from this project? From future projects?

ATTACHMENT A KINGSTON – ELM STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION APPLICATION

TABLE OF CONTENTS TRANSMITTAL FORM APPLICATION FORM (BRP WW 07, 08 DREDGING CERTIFICATION)

PROJECT NARRATIVE 1 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Existing Site Conditions 1 3.0 Proposed Construction Activities 2 Secant Wall Construction 3 Road Reconstruction and Resurfacing 4 4.0 Construction Sequence 4 Demolition 4 Construction 5 5.0 Wetland Impacts 5 Permanent Land Under Water Impacts 5 Temporary Land Under Water Impacts 6 100 Year Floodplain 6 6.0 Sedimentation Control 6 Siltation Barriers 6 Silt Boom 7 Protective Shielding 7 Containment Systems 7 7.0 Dewatering 7 8.0 Removal of Organic Sediment, Native Gravel and Rock 8 9.0 Stormwater Management 9 10.0 Fisheries and Wildlife 9 11.0 Alternative Analysis 10 No-Build Alternative 10 In-Kind Bridge Replacement 10 Longer Bridge Replacement 10 Preferred Alternative 11 12.0 Specifications to be included into the contract 11

Elm Street Bridge– Jones River i Table of Contents

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A – PROJECT NARRATIVE ATTACHMENT B – Figure 1 – USGS Locus Map

Figure 2 – Aerial Locus Map Figure 3 – MassGIS Wetlands Figure 4 – NHESP Mapping Figure 5 – FEMA Flood Boundaries (MassGIS) Figure 6 – FEMA Flood Boundaries (FEMA-FIRM Map)

ATTACHMENT C – SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ATTACHMENT D – NHESP AND DMF CORRESPONDENCE ATTACHMENT E – FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT ATTACHMENT F – SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYSIS ATTACHMENT G – SITE PLANS ATTACHMENT I – HYDRAULIC REPORT ATTACHMENT H – PUBLIC NOTICE

Elm Street Bridge– Jones River ii Table of Contents

PROJECT NARRATIVE

1.0 Introduction

The Highway Division of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) is submitting this application for Massachusetts Water Quality Certification. MassDOT proposes to reconstruct Bridge No. K-01-002 which carries Elm Street over the Jones River in Kingston, Massachusetts (See attached locus maps). As part of the project, approximately 367 linear feet (l.f.) of Elm Street will undergo reconstruction to allow for adjustments to the vertical and horizontal alignment of the roadway to improve safety and enhance pedestrian facilities. Roadway reconstruction and resurfacing will extend approximately 50 l.f. north and 250 l.f. south of the bridge. The project will remove and replace the existing bridge superstructure, the concrete wingwalls and abutments. The bridge will be closed during construction and traffic will be detoured, so as to expedite the construction activity period and reduce impacts to resource areas by avoiding construction of a temporary bridge. Alternative routes available include using a 3 mile detour from Route 80, making a left onto Route 3A (Mass Ave), left onto Route 106 (Main Street) and then left back onto Elm Street.

A portion of the work will be located in waters of the United States within the Commonwealth. Water Quality Certification (WQC) is required per 314 CMR 9.04(4) because: (1) the project is exempt from review under the Wetlands Protection Act and (2) fill will be placed in Land Under Water (LUW) (approximately 2,582 s.f. of permanent fill and approximately 2,219 s.f. of temporary fill). As explained further below, the placement of fill material in these jurisdictional areas will not cause or contribute to a violation of applicable state surface water quality regulations or standards.

This project is planned and funded through the Commonwealth’s Accelerated Bridge Program. Construction is anticipated to be completed in one season, spring to fall. The existing bridge has been determined to be structurally deficient and the bridge must be upgraded to accommodate the existing load and service capacity to current highway standards along Elm Street.

2.0 Existing Site Conditions

Bridge No. K-01-002 carries Elm Street over a non-tidal portion of the Jones River just west of a concrete dam/spillway and associated fish ladder located across the street from Sampson Park (the river is tidally influenced downstream of the existing dam). The Jones River is approximately 200 feet wide upstream of the dam and 40 feet wide downstream and flows in an easterly direction through the town of Kingston before eventually discharging into the Atlantic Ocean in Kingston Bay Harbor. The Jones River is part of the South Shore Coastal Watershed. The Jones River, and any tributaries, are not classified as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW).

Elm Street Bridge– Jones River 1 Project Narrative

The area immediately surrounding the Project location consists of a larger, open area of the Jones River and Sampson Park to the west. East (or down stream) of the bridge, the Jones River is much narrower and contains a dam/spillway and associated fish ladder. For approximately 200 feet on either side downstream of the dam, concrete and stone masonry walls constitute the bank of the river. Several buildings exist northeast of the bridge, abutting the waters edge on either side.

According to the applicable FEMA-FIRM Map, Community Panel 250270 0004 C, dated July 2, 1992, the project site is within a Zone AE- 100 year flood elevation, mapped at elevation 21 feet (NGVD 1929) upstream of the dam and elevation 11 feet (NGVD 1929) downstream of the dam.

Sediment sampling was completed on January 5, 2011 by Epsilon Associates, Inc. and samples were sent to a laboratory for analysis. Samples were taken from two locations proximate to the site of the proposed rip rap slope and new abutments and wingwalls. Analysis results are provided in Attachment F.

The older existing Pratt truss structure bridge was originally built in 1889 and was later modified in 1930 to a four span stringer bridge. The total length between truss bearings was approximately 49 feet, and the roadway width over the bridge was approximately 20 feet. This bridge had a concrete slab, timber planking and a bituminous wearing surface. In 1988, a panelized, steel truss bridge with one lane of alternating traffic was erected over the older bridge measuring in overall length at 60.7 feet and 12.5 feet between curbs. Steel guardrails exist on either side of the bridge. Currently, there are no sidewalks on the bridge nor the approach roadways.

3.0 Proposed Construction Activities

As discussed above, the proposed project includes demolition and reconstruction of Bridge No. K-01-002 (otherwise referred to herein as the Elm Street bridge). The demolition work includes the superstructure, the wingwalls and the abutments of the bridge. The proposed new structure will be a single-span separated pre-stressed concrete NEXT-beam superstructure supported by a secant wall system with a precast abutment cap. The deck of the bridge will be concrete with an asphalt surface. Related improvement activities associated with the new bridge include roadway reconstruction and resurfacing, grading of side slopes and installation of guardrails. With regard to the Jones River, the new bridge will be built in the same approximate location as the existing bridge. The new bridge will contain a span of approximately 50 feet between the new abutments and a travel lane width of 26 feet curb to curb. The travel lane will be bordered by a concrete curb and steel rail on the east side and a 5.5 foot wide sidewalk and steel rail on the west side for a total deck width of approximately 34.5 feet (approximately 12 feet wider than the current deck). The new sidewalk will extend approximately 195 feet to the south and end at the entrance to Sampson Forest and Memorial Park. The new sidewalk will also extend approximately 60 feet to the north of


the bridge. The new abutments will be located approximately in the same space as the existing abutments but at a slightly different angle to accommodate the realigned bridge deck.

Prior to bridge demolition, erosion control measures will be installed to prevent sedimentation from entering the Jones River and adjacent wetlands. Bridge demolition will be conducted from the upland road areas. All materials associated with the existing bridge demolition including the wingwalls, abutments and the superstructure will be removed and disposed of properly by the contractor. However, a portion of the old truss will be reinstalled on the face of the new bridge.

Along the southwestern side of the roadway reconstruction along Elm Street, a rip rap slope will be constructed in order to accommodate the widened travel lanes and sidewalk. Dredging in this area of up to 1’ deep will be required for rip rap placement. This work will be conducted from the upland road area.

Secant Wall Construction

A Secant wall system will be utilized to construct the new bridge abutments and wingwalls. This system consists of interlocking drilled shafts. To install this system, approximately 6250 cubic feet of sediment and subsurface material (excluding bedrock) will be removed for both the northern and southern abutments.

Secant piles are formed by constructing intersecting reinforced circular cast-in-place concrete piles. Secant pile walls are constructed in two stages. Initially, the secondary piles are augered and concrete placed. After the concrete has gained sufficient strength, the primary secant piles are installed with the steel reinforcement. The secant pile spacing is selected so that the primary piles overlap the secondary piles, with the auger cutting into the secondary piles on either side. This process is repeated until a continuous wall of interlocking concrete shafts is constructed. For this particular project, the secondary piles will extend to the top of the bedrock at approximately Elevation 0.0. The primary piles will be reinforced by placing a steel H-Pile section in the middle of the concrete pile. The primary pile and steel H-Pile will extend approximately 10 feet into the bedrock and terminate at Elevation -10.0.

LUW impacts will occur during the construction period as a result of the use of a temporary coffer dam. The cofferdam will be placed prior to demolition of the bridge abutments. Once the bridge abutments have been demolished, the area will be backfilled to create a level working surface for the secant wall installation. Once secant wall installation is completed, any material between the secant wall and the cofferdam will be removed to original ground elevation before the cofferdam is removed.


Road Reconstruction and Resurfacing

As discussed above, the project will include reconstruction and resurfacing of the existing roadway. The current roadway consists of a 12 foot wide curb-to-curb layout with alternating traffic running over the existing bridge. Alternating traffic is currently controlled by a span wire traffic signal system hung on utility poles on the north and south sides of the bridge. Approximately 367 feet of Elm Street will be reconstructed and resurfaced. The majority of the reconstruction of Elm Street will be full depth with pavement transitions at the northern and southern limits of the project which will consist of cold planing/overlay of approximately 50 feet. Roadway reconstruction and resurfacing will extend approximately 250 feet south and 50 feet north of the existing bridge.

The available right-of-way on Elm Street at the bridge is 50 feet wide with a bridge alignment closer to the easterly right-of-way line. The majority of the roadway widening will occur along the west side of Elm Street to accommodate the new bridge layout of approximately 34.5 feet. The roadway will be widened by approximately 12 feet immediately adjacent to the bridge approaches. To accommodate the widening of the roadway approaches, re-grading of the northern and southern roadway shoulders will be required. Along the southwestern side of the roadway reconstruction along Elm Street, a rip rap slope will be constructed in order to accommodate the widened travel lanes and sidewalk. Activities associated with the shoulder re-grading and rip-rap slope construction will result in impacts to LUW.

4.0 Construction Sequence

A typical MassDOT construction sequence for a bridge replacement project such as that which is proposed herein is as follows:

Demolition

The following activities are associated with the demolition of the existing bridge:

• Compliance with any pre-construction conditions outlined in the Water Quality Certification and any other required permits;

• Placement of temporary traffic control devices for road closure; • Installation of erosion control measures including haybales and silt fence; • Installation of a shielding system to prevent debris from falling into the

waterbodies; installation of sandbag dam structures and in-water sedimentation boom system (if necessary);

• Removal of existing steel bridge components utilizing a crane placed on Elm Street;

• Removal of the abutments, wingwalls and existing gabion wall embankments


Construction

The following activities are associated with the construction of the existing bridge:

• Construction of proposed secant wall system abutments and wingwalls; • Placement of proposed placed rip-rap; • Installation of proposed prestressed concrete NEXT beams; • Removal of any dewatering structures and any in-water dewatering devices; • Construction of concrete deck; • Construction of approach slabs; • Construction of safety curbs and guardrail transitions; • Installation of bridge railing; • Full depth roadway reconstruction and sideslope grading; • Cleaning and grubbing; • Construct asphalt pavement and driveways; • Installing highway guardrail; • Pavement marking; • Finalize slopes with seeding.

5.0 Wetland Impacts

Permanent Land Under Water Impacts

Bridge reconstruction will require the placement of approximately 2,582 s.f. of permanent fill in LUW. The fill is necessary to construct the proposed rip rap slope, new sidewalk and related roadway and bridge work.

Permanent LUW impacts will occur in two separate areas within the Jones River. The first impact area is associated with the construction of a new cement concrete sidewalk and rip rap slope to the southwest of the new bridge. Approximately 2,550 s.f. of LUW will be filled for construction of the sidewalk and placement of rip-rap to stabilize the slope along the Jones River. The second permanent LUW impact area will occur near the northeastern corner of the bridge by the Kingston Water Department. Approximately 32 s.f. of LUW will be filled by the construction of the new bridge abutment and the limits of the bridge structure.

The realignment of the bridge and the placement of the proposed secant abutment walls will create new areas of land under water. Approximately 124 s.f. of LUW will be created in the Jones River.

The proposed areas of land under water will occur in three separate locations. The first proposed area of LUW is approximately 9 s.f. located on the southeast corner of the existing bridge. The second proposed area of LUW is approximately 110 s.f. located along the north abutment wall of the existing bridge. The third proposed area of LUW is approximately 5 s.f. located on the northeast corner of the bridge.


Temporary Land Under Water Impacts

The proposed work along the Jones River will require the placement of temporary portable cofferdams to facilitate the construction of the rip rap slope and secant abutment wall system. Approximately 2,219 s.f. of LUW will be temporarily impacted during the construction.

Two separate temporary LUW impact areas are necessary to construct the proposed rip rap slope and bridge abutments. The first temporary impact area is associated with the construction of a rip rap slope and the southern bridge abutment. Approximately 1,568 s.f. of LUW will be temporarily de-watered utilizing a portable cofferdam system located adjacent to the rip rap slope and contained by turbidity screens. The second temporary LUW impact area is associated with the construction of the northern secant abutment wall system. Approximately 651 s.f. of LUW will be temporarily de-watered utilizing a portable cofferdam system. The portable cofferdam systems will facilitate the removal of the existing granite abutments and the construction of the secant abutment wall system while preventing sedimentation from entering the Jones River.

There will be no impacts to Bordering Vegetated Wetlands as part of this project.

100 Year Floodplain

The new bridge configuration and hydraulic opening have been studied and reviewed with MassDOT to show that no significant change will occur in the flood elevations due to this project. Any increases in water elevations are minor and are beyond the level of accuracy of measurement during a storm event. Given the undeveloped nature of the upstream corridor, adverse impacts would not be anticipated. Therefore, there is no 100 year floodplain impact as a result of this project. See Hydraulic Report in Attachment I for additional information.

6.0 Sedimentation Control

Siltation Barriers

Siltation barriers composed of staked haybales and silt fence will be installed between the boundaries of wetlands and the Jones River and proposed construction limits of work as shown on the site plans. These siltation barriers will demarcate the limit of work, form a work envelope and provide additional assurance that construction equipment will not enter the wetland and/or waterbody. All barriers will remain in place until disturbed areas are stabilized. Sediment barriers will be inspected regularly during construction and repaired or replaced when necessary.


Silt Boom

A silt boom will be placed in the water at the outer limits of the proposed riprap slope. The boom will contain any turbidity associated with the installation of the rip rap.

Protective Shielding

Prior to construction, the contractor will place a temporary protective shielding under the existing bridge so as not to allow any debris to fall into the Jones River during demolition. Any material which inadvertently falls into the river, either during demolition or construction, will be immediately removed.

Containment Systems

Containment and recovery of paint chips and debris generated from project demolition and construction is required during cleaning and any necessary de-leading operations and will be the responsibility of the contractor. During over-water work, the containment system will control and capture all cleaning water and debris to ensure that it does not enter the waterway. All work will be conducted in accordance with MassDOT’s specifications associated with the mechanical disassembly of lead-coated steel structures.

7.0 Dewatering

During demolition and bridge construction, dewatering will be conducted on an as needed basis as determined by the contractor. Dewatering activities may include pumping, sandbagging, and other measures, exclusive of sheeting, necessary for sufficient water control to accomplish demolition of the existing structure and construction of the proposed structure in the dry. It will be the responsibility of the contractor to determine the need and extent of dewatering required and to propose the most suitable methods and materials for dewatering that will ultimately be approved by the project engineer. Plans and calculations for all water control measures will be developed by the contractor. Plans and calculations will be prepared and stamped by a Professional Civil Engineer registered in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and will be submitted for approval to MassDOT’s project engineer prior to the start of construction.

A temporary, portable dam will be installed within the Jones River to control water levels within the work area associated with installation of both the northern and southern abutments. Areas being excavated will be kept dry by such means to prevent water entering from adjacent soils and adversely affecting the stability of the foundation material or supporting soils. All dewatering and related earthwork will be conducted in such a manner as to prevent siltation or contamination of the waterway. Any pumping discharge will not be allowed to enter directly into the Jones River or adjacent wetlands.


Water from the work area will be pumped to a settling tank, which will be located in upland areas. Tanks will be constructed so as to allow for the pumped water to pass through tanks with sediments settling out before discharging to an area enclosed by hay bales. Portable fractionation tanks may be constructed of concrete, fiberglass or any other material that will meet the following requirements:

• Approximately 70 percent sedimentation trapping efficiency shall be achieved with a typical tank. Tanks will be adequately sized to prevent overtopping from dewatering and to provide the required filtering.

• The outlet from a settling tank shall not cause erosion of the surrounding area.

An approved method of controlling erosion, such as an erosion control blanket, stone, etc., shall be used at the outlet of all tanks.

8.0 Removal of Organic Sediment, Native Gravel and Rock

The secant wall system consists of a series or interlocking drilled shafts. In order to provide lateral stability, the drilled shafts will need to be continued into the bedrock. This will be performed by auguring and excavating the rock. The dredging is necessary to (1) construct the roadway side slope (made of rip rap) along the southwest bank and (2) remove the existing abutments and install the new bridge abutments. All dredged material will be removed from the site and disposed of at an appropriate facility.

♦ Dredging along the southwest embankment is required to a depth of approximately 1-foot. Dredging will be accomplished most likely using traditional excavators and backhoe type equipment. The total amount of sediment removed from this area is approximately 75 cubic yards (cy).

♦ Dredging will be required to remove the existing abutments and install the secant wall system, which will be utilized to construct the new bridge abutments and wingwalls. This system consists of interlocking drilled shafts. To install this system, approximately 231 cy of sediment and subsurface material will be removed for both the northern and southern abutments. Dredging associated with the abutments will be accomplished using a combination of equipment. The initial abutment demolition and excavation within the top 3 to 4 feet will be completed using excavators. The installation of the secant wall system will be accomplished using truck-mounted auger equipment that will core 3 foot diameter circles into the ground. The depth of the secant pile system will be approximately 20 feet below the existing surface until bedrock is encountered. It is then anticipated that the excavation will continue 5 to 10 feet into the bedrock (the volume estimate does not include bedrock).


9.0 Stormwater Management

Currently, Elm Street north of the bridge utilizes a closed drainage system that outlets into a stormwater management system. South of the bridge, Elm Street does not have a stormwater treatment system. Stormwater sheet flows across the paved surfaces and over the vegetated roadway shoulders where limited pre-treatment is provided by vegetative cover and infiltration before excess stormwater runoff reaches the Jones River. The existing bridge portion consists of an open grate deck which allows untreated stormwater to flow directly into the Jones River.

The project will maintain the existing drainage and stormwater system north of the bridge and install a new stormwater system south of the bridge. The new system will contain a single outlet with a rip rap drainage swale on the southwest side of the project on Elm Street. A total of four (4) new catch basins with 4-foot deep sumps will be installed. The new system will allow for the pretreatment of stormwater flowing southerly over the new solid bridge deck surface. The system will comply with DEP stormwater standards as specified in the Water Quality Certification regulations (314 CMR 9.06(6)). The existing drainage system to the north of the bridge flows into a series of four pre-treatment structures located behind the Kingston Water Department building. Although the existing system is outside of the limits of work, the existing pre-treatment system will be cleaned and purged per manufacturer guidelines.

10.0 Fisheries and Wildlife

Rare and endangered species habitats are those areas identified by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife's Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) in the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas at the time an application is submitted (see 314 CMR 9.02).

According to the current NHESP Atlas, the project site occurs within Priority Habitats for State-Protected Rare Species and Estimated Habitats for Rare Wildlife, specifically Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina), a state-listed species of special concern. The NHESP has reviewed the project plans and has issued a letter that reconstruction of the Elm Street bridge, as proposed, does not require additional NHESP review under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) at this time.

The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (“MDMF”) stated in a letter (dated February 24, 2010) that the project is located over the Jones River which supports anadromous fish populations. Just downstream of the Elm Street dam is a habitat that supports smelt spawn. Trout are also stocked within the river, however, there is an impassable dam just downstream of the stocking location. All in-water work will involve appropriate turbidity containment to protect the above mentioned fisheries resources. In addition, the MDMF recommends that where feasible, work is to be performed outside


the diadromous fish passage, migration and spawning season from March 1 to June 30 of any year.

11.0 Alternative Analysis

Alternatives to the preferred bridge construction design were fully considered by MassDOT and are discussed below.

No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative would allow the existing bridge to remain in place without repairs. Presently, vehicle traffic conditions are hazardous, and there are not provisions for pedestrian accommodation. The bridge is located at the bottom of a steep roadway approach with only one lane under signal control. During poor weather conditions, vehicles traveling south have difficulty stopping. Numerous accidents have occurred, resulting in damage to the bridge. Furthermore, the current weight limit on the bridge is 10 tons. This is not a feasible alternative, as the No-Build scenario would compromise public safety, and the existing bridge would continue to deteriorate and eventually have to be closed. Existing roadway geometry creates unsafe travel conditions for motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The present bridge, originally built in 1930, must be completely upgraded to accommodate the existing load and service capacity in order to meet current highway standards (which includes provisions for non-motorized travel) along Elm Street. Repair work alone would not enable the bridge structure to meet current standards.

In-Kind Bridge Replacement

This alternative would replace the existing bridge with a similar one lane bridge on the same alignment. As noted in the No-Build Alternative, the roadway is currently unsafe for vehicular and non-motorized traffic and is subject to numerous accidents. Replacing a new bridge structure in the approximate location of the existing structure will not improve the impaired safety conditions and is not being pursued.

Longer Bridge Replacement

This alternative includes a similar bridge design as described in this application but has a footprint approximately 4 feet wider and a 25-foot longer span with an additional 200 feet of roadway reconstruction. The longer span would necessitate additional roadway reconstruction, involving significantly raising the grade of the road bed associated with the northern approach to the bridge. This would result in substantially greater land disturbance, and would adversely impact access to Elm Street via private driveways along this stretch of roadway due to steep grades necessary to meet the higher roadbed. In addition, this alternative would require the installation of a 200-foot long retaining wall in the Jones River on the southern approach. This alternative was not pursued further


due to traffic safety concerns and public concerns voiced at the 25% design hearing where this alternative was initially introduced.

Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative, which is described in this application for Water Quality Certification, includes construction of a single-span pre-stressed concrete NEXT-beam superstructure supported by Secant wall abutments. This particular bridge design has been developed to adequately accommodate future vehicular and non-vehicular traffic volumes and anticipated weight loads. The proposed bridge design, which is wider than the existing bridge, is necessary to safely accommodate both vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the area. Vertical realignment of the roadway is necessary to provide safer movement of vehicles in addition to providing better sight and stopping distances. The preferred alternative spans over the existing bridge abutments so as to avoid changing the width of the waterway under the bridge. A rip rap slope along the western edge of the roadway south of the bridge will be installed to minimize impacts to LUW. Erosion control and dewatering measures will be implemented during construction so as to reduce impacts to resource areas to the extent practicable.

12.0 Specifications to be included into the contract

Demo Wetland Replication Mussel Survey/Transplant Protocol Vegetation Survey/Transplant Protocol


ATTACHMENT B KINGSTON – ELM STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION APPLICATION

FIGURES

Figure 1USGS Locus Map

Elm Street Bridge Replacement Kingston, MA

G:\Projects2\MA\Kingston\2757\usgs.mxd

Basemap: USGS Quadrangle

Scale 1:12,0001 inch = 1,000 feet

0 500 1,000250Feet

Project Locus

Figure 2Aerial Locus Map


G:\Projects2\MA\Kingston\2757\aerial.mxd

Basemap: 2008 Orthophotography, MassGIS

Scale 1:1,8001 inch = 150 feet

0 100 20050Feet

Project Area

Jones River

Figure 3MassGIS Wetlands Map



LEGEND



0 100 20050Feet

Project Location

Jones River

Hydrologic Connections

OPEN WATER

WOODED SWAMP DECIDUOUS

Figure 4NHESP Map



LEGEND

NHESP 2008 Estimated Habitats for Rare Wildlife: For Use with the MA Wetlands Protection Act Regulations (310 CMR 10)

NHESP 2008 Priority Habitats for State-Protected Rare Species



0 100 20050Feet

Project Location

Jones River

Figure 5FEMA Q3 Flood Zones



LEGEND



0 100 20050Feet

Project Location

Jones River

A

AE

X500

ajacobs

Typewritten Text

FIGURE 6

ATTACHMENT C KINGSTON – ELM STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION APPLICATION

SITE PHOTOGRAPHS

Attachment C

Site Photographs

Elm Street Bridge # K0-01-001 Kingston, MA

Photo 2: View of east side of bridge with dam/spillway and fish ladder.

Photo 1: View of Elm Street Bridge looking north.

Attachment C

Site Photographs

Elm Street Bridge # K-01-001 Kingston, MA

Photo 3: View of southwest side of Elm Street in vicinity of Sampson Park (wooden overlook).

Photo 4: View of west side of Elm Street in vicinity of bridge replacement, retaining wall construction and roadway work.

Attachment C

Site Photographs


Photo 5: View of northwest side of Elm Street in vicinity of bridge replacement work and LUW and BVW impact area.

Photo 6: View of northwest bank of the Jones River.

ATTACHMENT D KINGSTON – ELM STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION APPLICATION

NHESP AND DMF CORRESPONDENCE

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 251 Causeway Street, Suite 400 Boston, Massachusetts 02114

(617)626-1520 Fax (617)626-1509

February 24, 2010 Mr. Frank A. Tramontozzi, Chief Engineer Alyssa Jacobs MassDOT Highway Division Epsilon Associates, Inc 10 Park Plaza 3 Clock Tower Place, Suite 250 Boston, MA 02116 Maynard, MA 01754 Re: Kingston – Elm Street Bridge over the Jones River MassDOT Project Number 24090 Dear Mr. Tramontozzi and Ms. Jacobs: In response to your inquiry, MarineFisheries biologists have reviewed the Elm Street Bridge Project over the Jones River in the Town of Kingston. MassDOT is anticipating that activities associated with the reconstruction of the bridge will result in direct impacts to the Jones River. Because MassDOT is in the initial design stages of the project, potential impacts to marine fisheries resources and habitats cannot be completely assessed. However, the Jones River supports anadromous populations of alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), white perch (Morone americana), American eel (Anguilla rostrata), tomcod (Microgadus tomcod), and occasionally American shad (Alosa sapidissima). Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) are also stocked in the system above Rt 80, however, there is currently an impassable dam (Wapping Road Dam) by the Rt 106 crossing. Smelt spawn just downstream of the Elm Street Bridge where their habitat is likely to be impacted. Also, the migration of the alewives, blueback herring, and American shad may be impeded. Our anadromous fishery biologists recommend a time-of-year (TOY) restriction for all in-water work from March 1 through June 30 of any year to protect diadromous fish passage, migration and spawning of these species. Questions regarding this review may be directed to Eileen Feeney in our New Bedford office at (508) 990-2860 ext 117. Sincerely,

Paul J. Diodati Director cc: Kingston Conservation Commission John Sheppard, DMF

Tay Evans, DMF Christian Petitpas, DMF

PD/EF/cmp

Paul J. Diodati Director Deval Patrick

Governor Ian A. Bowles

Secretary Mary B. Griffin

Commissioner

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Wayne F. MacCallum, Director

Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Field Headquarters, One Rabbit Hill Road, Westborough, MA 01581 (508) 389-6300 Fax (508) 389-7891 An Agency of the Department of Fish & Game

www.masswildlife.org

November 30, 2009 Timothy Dexter Environmental Division Massachusetts Highway Department 10 Park Plaza, Room 4260 Boston, MA 02116 RE: Project Description: Bridge Replacement – Elm Street over the Jones River Project Location: Elm Street, Kingston NHESP File No.: 09-27488 MassHighway Bridge No: K-01-002 Dear Ms. Dexter: The Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program (NHESP) of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife has received your request for a jurisdictional determination and additional rare species information related to the above-referenced project in Kingston. Materials submitted to the NHESP include a locus map and project description (“Bridge Scope of Work for Consultant Design Services” dated September 2009). We have reviewed your project location and project description with regard to its compliance with the MA Endangered Species Act (MESA) (MGL c131A) and its implementing regulations (321 CMR 10.00). Your project consists of reconstruction and widening of the Elm Street Bridge over the Jones River in Kingston. Based on an assessment of the information provided and the information contained in our database, we have determined that the proposed project is near or adjacent to the mapped habitat of Eastern Box Turtle (Terrapene carolina), a state-listed species of special concern. However, the reconstruction of the Elm Street bridge, as proposed, does not require additional NHESP review under the MESA at this time. The NHESP notes that any activity not included in the current filing (e.g., expansion of the scope of the project, change in work plan or timing, installation of additional structures, soil or vegetation disturbance) and located within Priority Habitat may require an additional filing with the NHESP for review if not otherwise exempt. If no physical work is commenced on the above proposed project within three years from the date of issuance of this letter or there is a material change in the plans that were submitted to the NHESP, updated information and/or plans must be sent to the NHESP for review prior to any work.

Please do not hesitate to contact Michael T. Jones, Ph.D., Endangered Species Review Biologist, at (508) 389-6386 ([email protected]) with any questions or comments you may have.

NHESP No. 09-27488, November 2009, Page 2 of 2

Sincerely,

Thomas W. French, Ph. D. Assistant Director cc: Derek Standish, DEP

ATTACHMENT E KINGSTON – ELM STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION APPLICATION

FUNCTIONS AND VALUES ASSESSMENT

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Highway Methodology Workbook Supplement

Wetland Functions and Values Assessment Category I GP for Massachusetts

Replacement of Elm Street Bridge over the Jones River Bridge # K-01-002

December 10, 2009

Attachment A

Site Photographs

Attachment A

Site Photographs

Elm Street Bridge # K0-01-001 Kingston, MA

Photo 1: View of west side of Elm Street in vicinity of bridge replacement and roadway work.

Photo 2: View of Land Under Water in impact area.

Attachment A

Site Photographs


Photo 3: View of northwest side of Elm Street in vicinity of bridge replacement work and LUM and BVW impact area.

Photo 2: View of Land Under Water in impact area.

Photo 4: View of BVW Impact area proximate to roadway.

Attachment B

Plant Species List

Dominant Vegetation Species List

Common Name Scientific Name Tree/Sapling White Oak Quercus alba Red Maple Acer rubrum White Pine Pinus strobus Grey Birch Betula populifolia Black Locust Robinia pseudoacacia Willow Salix sp. Shrub Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia Speckled alder Alnus rugosa Silky dogwood Cornus amomum Highbush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum Elderberry Sambucus canadensis Groundcover Woolgrass Scirpus cyperinus Soft rush Juncus effusus Goldenrod Solidago sp. Tussock Sedge Carex stricta Vines Oriental bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus

Attachment C

Army Corps Data Sheets

ajacobs

Typewritten Text

Wetland Series A

ATTACHMENT F KINGSTON – ELM STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION APPLICATION

SEDIMENT SAMPLING ANALYSIS

RESULTS OF SEDIMENT EVALUATION

Elm Street Bridge Replacement (Bridge No. K-01-002) Kingston, Massachusetts

Massachusetts Highway Administration

February 10, 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS I

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

2.0 RESULTS OF SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION 3 2.1 Physical Results 3 2.2 Chemical Results and Screening Criteria 3

3.0 CONCLUSIONS 8

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Locus Map Figure 2: Sampling Locations LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 1: Photograph of KS1 sample location proximate to Elm Street Photo 2: Photograph of KS1 sample with a close-up of the sample in the core. Photo 3: Photograph of KS2 sample location proximate to bridge. Photo 4: Photograph of KS2 sample. LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Sediment Sampling Chemical and Physical Results

Elm Street Bridge – Jones River i Kingston, MA

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Highway Division of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) proposes to reconstruct Bridge No. K-01-002, which carries Elm Street over the Jones River in Kingston, Massachusetts (the “Project”) (Figure 1). The Project will remove and replace the existing bridge superstructure, the concrete wingwalls and abutments. The proposed new structure will be a single-span separated pre-stressed concrete NEXT-beam superstructure supported by a secant wall system with a precast abutment cap. Related improvement activities associated with the new bridge include roadway reconstruction and resurfacing, grading of side slopes and installation of guardrails.

With regard to the Jones River, the new bridge will be built in the same approximate location as the existing bridge. The new abutments will be located approximately in the same space as the existing abutments but at a slightly different angle to accommodate the realigned bridge deck. Along the southwestern side of the roadway reconstruction along Elm Street, a rip rap slope will be constructed in order to accommodate the widened travel lanes and sidewalk. This work will be conducted from the upland road area.

Dredging is necessary to (1) construct the roadway side slope (made of rip rap) along the southwest bank and (2) remove the existing abutments and install the new bridge abutments. The total dredge volume is approximately 300 cubic yards (cy), of which approximately 75 cy of sediment are associated with construction of the roadway side slope and approximately 231 cy of sediment are associated with replacement of the bridge abutments. In support of proposed dredging activities, MassDOT conducted a sediment sampling evaluation in accordance with a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) approved by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

Sediment sampling was conducted on January 5, 2011. Sediment sampling was performed using a combination of a hand-held Geoprobe continuous coring apparatus and collection with a shovel. Sampling was first attempted using the Geoprobe. Sediment samples were collected within a 2 inch inert plastic liner. Sediment cores were opened in the field and detailed photographs of each sample were taken (see Photos 1-4). Sampling was performed to dredge depth (1-foot along the southwest embankment) or refusal and recovered lengths of samples ranged from 6 to 18 inches. Due to the sandy nature of the substrate material, a shovel was used to collect the required volume for analyses after two attempts were made with the Geoprobe at each sampling location.

Two individual samples, KS1 and KS2, were generated for the physical and chemical analyses. KS1 was located along the southwest embankment; KS2 was located near the southern bridge abutment (see Figure 2). No compositing between sample locations was performed. The KS1 and KS2 samples were analyzed for the parameters directed by DEP and/or listed in 314 CMR 9.07: grain size, % water, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), metals, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons

Elm Street Bridge – Jones River 1 Kingston, MA

(EPH), Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), and reactive sulfide. The physical and chemical results are detailed in Section 2.0.

The preferred alternative is to reuse all sediments on-site if they have suitable chemical and physical characteristics. Sediments will be determined to be suitable for reuse at the site as part of the roadway embankment fill if they have (1) low silt and organic content and (2) chemical concentrations less than applicable screening criteria for the site under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan. If the sediments have physical or chemical characteristics rendering them unsuitable for on-site reuse, they will be reused or disposed of at an approved upland disposal facility. No material is proposed for ocean disposal, disposal in waters of the United States, or disposal in New England waters.


2.0 RESULTS OF SEDIMENT CHARACTERIZATION

2.1 Physical Results

The two samples are predominantly sandy sediments. KS1 consisted of 20% fine gravel, 79% sand, and 1% silt. KS2 consisted of 10% fine gravel, 89% sand, and 1% silt. Total organic carbon averaged 2.3% in KS1 and 1.98% in KS2; percent moisture was 32% in KS1 and 21% in KS2 (Table 1).

2.2 Chemical Results and Screening Criteria

Chemical results were first evaluated to determine which parameters had been detected above the Reporting Limits (as listed in 314 CMR 9.07(2)(b)6.). All detected parameters were then compared to further screening criteria available for (1) upland placement under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) and (2) reuse at lined landfills under DEP policy. Details are described below.

2.2.1 Detected Chemical Parameters

The chemical analyses indicated that metals and PAHs were frequently detected; PCBs and EPH were found only in the KS1 sample; and only one VOC (in the KS2 sample) was detected. Reactive sulfide was not detected in either sample. Results are detailed on Table 1 and summarized below:

♦ Metals: A total of 8 metals were analyzed; all were detected in both samples.

♦ VOCs: A total of 72 VOCs were analyzed. Of these 72 compounds, only naphthalene was detected, in only the KS2 sample.

♦ PAHs: A total of 16 individual PAHs were analyzed. All PAHs were detected in both samples, though concentrations were notably higher in the KS2 sample.

♦ PCBs: A total of 22 individual PCB congeners were analyzed. None were detected in the KS2 sample; half were detected in the KS1 sample.

♦ EPH: Four fractions of EPH were analyzed. None were detected in the KS2 sample; only the C11-C22 Aromatics were detected in the KS1 sample.

♦ Reactive Sulfide: This parameter was not detected in either sample.

Additionally, the metals concentrations in all tested sediments indicated that the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) test was not required.



2.2.2 Description of Screening Criteria

Chemical results from each sample were compared to the following criteria to provide a general assessment of the material’s suitability for upland reuse or disposal:

(1) The Massachusetts Contingency Plan (“MCP”) (310 CMR 40.0000) Method 1 Standards: As described by DEP, The MCP Method 1 Standards represent levels of oil or hazardous materials at which no further remedial response actions would be required based upon the risk of harm posed by these chemicals. The standards are protective of public health, public welfare, and the environment (i.e., represent a condition of "no significant risk"), given the exposures assumed, and are measurable. Method 1 standards are, by nature, generic, and are derived in a manner to be protective at a wide range of disposal sites across the state.1 The Method 1 Standards are available for a range of groundwater uses and potential impacts (GW-1 through GW-3), as described in 310 CMR 40.0932, and soil uses and conditions (S-1 through S-3), as described in 310 CMR 40.0933.

(2) The maximum allowable contaminant levels for sediment reuse at lined landfills (referred to herein as “lined landfill levels”). These standards identify concentrations at or below which qualifying soils and sediments are exempted from DEP review for reuse at a landfill with a DEP approved, functioning liner with a leachate collection system. These criteria were obtained from Table 1 of DEP Interim Policy #COMM-94-007: Sampling, Analysis, Handling & Tracking Requirements for Dredged Sediment Reused or Disposed at Massachusetts Permitted Landfills.2

2.2.3 Comparison with the MCP Method 1 Standards – Upland Disposal

Comparison with the MCP Method 1 Standards provides a general assessment of the dredged sediment’s suitability for upland disposal and/ or reuse. The chemical results for samples KS1 and KS2 were compared to both the S-2/GW-2 and S-3/GW-3 standards, as a preliminary review of the Project site indicates it would likely be classified under one of these designations. Additionally, on-site reuse of material with chemical concentrations less than existing or background conditions at the site may be allowable under the MCP.

MCP Soil Categories: As further described in 310 CMR 40.0933 and Table 40.933(9), the S-2 designation applies to areas where the soil is “accessible” (placed within three

1 http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/laws/standard.htm

2 http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/laws/dredge.htm, last accessed March 25, 2009.


feet of an unpaved surface), where use by children is possible but infrequent3, and intensity of use is “low” per the definition 310 CMR 40.0933(4)(a)5.(b). The S-3 designation applies to areas where the soil is “potentially accessible,” meaning it is within 3-15 feet of the surface or 0-15 feet of a paved surface, where children and adults are only infrequently present, and intensity of use is “low.” The S-3 designation can also be applied to areas where the soil is “accessible” but where it can be demonstrated that children are highly unlikely to be present.4

MCP Groundwater Categories: Per 310 CMR 40.0932, groundwater is categorized as GW-3 at a minimum; current and potential drinking water source areas are classified as GW-1; and the GW-2 designation applies to groundwater that does not qualify as a current or potential drinking water source but is within 30 feet of an existing or planned building or structure that is or will be occupied, and the average annual depth to groundwater in the area is 15 feet or less. The Project site does not appear to serve as a current or potential drinking water source - though additional site-specific information would need to be collected to review the criteria in 310 CMR 40.0932 and the definitions in 310 CMR 40.0006 - but may be within 30 feet of an existing building at the bridge; therefore, both the GW-2 and GW-3 criteria are reviewed.

Comparison with the MCP Method 1 Standards:

• The comparison with the S-2/GW-2 standards indicated that all parameters in the KS1 sample were below the criteria. Most parameters in the KS2 sample were below the criteria, except for Benzo(a)pyrene, which exceeded the S-2/GW-2 criterion by over a factor of three. The presence of PAHs in the KS2 sample is consistent with the sample’s proximity to the bridge abutment, as PAHs can be generated by the incomplete combustion of automobile fuel and the existing bridge has open grating on the deck.

• The comparison with the S-3/GW-3 standards indicated that all parameters in both samples were below all criteria.

In conclusion, utilizing the MCP Method 1 Standards, all sediment would be considered acceptable for upland disposal at a site designated as S-3/GW-3. The sediments associated with sample KS1 would be considered acceptable for upland disposal at a site designated as S-2/GW-2, though the sediments associated with sample KS2 exceed

3 Per 310 CMR 40.0933(4)(a)3., it shall be presumed that children may be present at the disposal site unless it can be demonstrated that access by children age 15 and younger is specifically restricted or that such children are highly unlikely to be present…

4 At present, it is unclear whether the proposed rip rap slope would be considered “paved” and whether it can be demonstrated that no children would visit the Project site, particularly the southwest embankment since access is not completely restricted.


the S-2/GW-2 criterion for Benzo(a)pyrene. Finally, the MCP may have additional allowances for reuse of the dredged sediment on-site. Additional consultation with a Licensed Site Professional (LSP) may be necessary.

2.2.4 Comparison with Lined Landfill Levels

Chemical results from each sample were compared to the maximum allowable contaminant levels for sediment reuse at lined landfills (referred to herein as “lined landfill levels”). These standards identify concentrations at or below which qualifying soils and sediments are exempted from DEP review for reuse as cover or pre-capping contour material at a landfill with a DEP approved, functioning liner with a leachate collection system. These criteria were obtained from Table 1 of DEP Interim Policy #COMM-94-007: Sampling, Analysis, Handling & Tracking Requirements for Dredged Sediment Reused or Disposed at Massachusetts Permitted Landfills.5

Sediment concentrations in the KS1 sample were below all available regulatory lined landfill levels, and sediment concentrations in the KS2 sample were below most available regulatory lined landfill levels, as detailed below:

♦ Metals: Regulatory lined landfill standards were available for 5 of the 8 metals (all except copper, nickel, and zinc.) Concentrations of metals in both KS1 and KS2 were well below the lined landfill levels.

♦ VOCs: A regulatory lined landfill standard was available for Total VOCs. The total VOCs concentration in KS1 was below the lined landfill level. While all VOCs other than naphthalene were not detected in the KS2 sample, the total VOCs concentration in KS2 was artificially elevated above the lined landfill level due to the conventional summation of undetected values using half of each one’s Reporting Limit value. Accordingly, it is likely that the sediments associated with KS2 would not be determined to exceed the total VOCs criterion.

♦ PAHs: A regulatory lined landfill standard was available for total PAHs. The total PAHs concentration in KS1 was below the lined landfill level, though the total PAHs concentration in KS2 exceeded the lined landfill level by over a factor of 2.

♦ PCBs: A regulatory lined landfill standard was available for total PCBs. The total PCBs concentration in both samples was below the lined landfill level.

♦ TPH: A regulatory lined landfill standard was available for TPH. In accordance with DEP protocol, TPH was determined by summing the following EPH fractions: C9-C18 Aliphatics + C19-C36 Aliphatics + C11-C22 unadjusted

5 http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/laws/dredge.htm, last accessed March 25, 2009.

Aromatics (which include target PAHs). The TPH concentration in both samples was below the lined landfill level.

In conclusion, the sediments associated with the KS1 sample are exempted from DEP review for reuse as cover or pre-capping contour material at a landfill with a DEP approved, functioning liner with a leachate collection system. The sediments associated with the KS2 sample would require DEP review and approval prior to reuse or disposal at a landfill, primarily due to the presence of elevated PAH concentrations. Finally, in addition to the published lined landfill levels, individual landfill operators may have specific requirements and should be consulted to determine if additional analyses are needed. Also, DEP typically requires conductivity to be tested.


3.0 CONCLUSIONS

The sediment samples from the proposed dredge areas of the Jones River near the Elm Street Bridge in Kingston, MA underwent a comprehensive physical and chemical characterization in accordance with 314 CMR 9.07. The results of this analysis are summarized as:

♦ Two sediment samples were collected and analyzed. Sample KS1 was located along the southwest embankment. Sample KS2 was located near the southern bridge abutment.

♦ The tested sediments are predominantly sandy sediments with 10-20% fine gravel and less than 1.2% silt.

♦ Metals and PAHs were frequently detected (with notably higher PAH concentrations in the KS2 sample); PCBs and EPH were found only in the KS1 sample; and only one VOC (in the KS2 sample) was detected. Reactive sulfide was not detected in either sample.

♦ All tested sediment meet the criteria for upland disposal at a site classified as S-3/ GW-3. The sediments associated with sample KS1 would also be considered acceptable for upland disposal at a site designated as S-2/GW-2, though the sediments associated with sample KS2 exceed the S-2/GW-2 criterion for Benzo(a)pyrene. The MCP may have additional allowances for reuse of the dredged sediment on-site. Additional consultation with a Licensed Site Professional (LSP) may be necessary.

♦ The sediments associated with the KS1 sample are exempted from DEP review for reuse as cover or pre-capping contour material at a qualifying landfill. The sediments associated with the KS2 sample would require DEP review and approval prior to reuse or disposal at a landfill, primarily due to the presence of elevated PAH concentrations. Conductivity testing may be required.


Jones River

Elm

Str

eet

Brook Street

Main Street

Project Site

Figure 1Locus Map

Elm Street Bridge Replacement Kingston, Massachusetts

G:\Projects2\MA\Kingston\2757\locus.mxd



0 150 300Feet

!(

!(Jones River

Elm St

reet

Elm S

treet

Jones River

KS2

KS1

Figure 2Sampling Locations

Elm Street Bridge Replacement Kingston, Massachusetts

G:\Projects2\MA\Kingston\2757\sampling.mxd


Scale 1:6001 inch = 50 feet °0 25 50

Feet

Legend!( Sampling Locations

Approximate Areas to Be Dredged

Photographs 1 & 2Sediment Sampling Photographs

Bridge K-01-002 Kingston, MA

KS1 Sample Location

Photo 1. Photograph of KS1 sample location proximate to Elm Street.

Photo 2. Photograph of KS1 sample with a close-up of the sample in the core.

Photographs 3 & 4Sediment Sampling Photographs

Bridge K-01-002 Kingston, MA

KS2 Sample Location

Photo 3. Photograph of KS2 sample location proximate to bridge.

Photo 4. Photograph of KS2 sample.

Page 1 of 2

LOCATIONSAMPLING DATE

LAB SAMPLE IDS2/GW2 S3/GW3 Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q

PHYSICAL RESULTS mg/LPercent Moisture % 33.1 20.7Total Organic Carbon (Rep1) % 2.2 2.11Total Organic Carbon (Rep2) % 2.46 1.84Total Organic Carbon (Average) % 2.33 1.98 0.58Grain Size Analysis % Cobbles % 0.1 U 0.1 U% Coarse Gravel % 0.1 U 0.1 U% Fine Gravel % 20.2 10.3% Coarse Sand % 8.1 9.3% Medium Sand % 53.6 46.8% Fine Sand % 16.9 32.8% Total Fines (silt/clay) % 1.2 0.8TOTAL METALS mg/LArsenic, Total mg/kg 0.5 100% 20 20 40 4.35 5.84 0.0005 UCadmium, Total mg/kg 0.1 100% 30 30 80 0.079 0.087 0.0005 UChromium, Total mg/kg 1 100% 200 200 1000 5.79 7.7 0.006Copper, Total mg/kg 1 100% - - - 3.53 5.65 0.002Lead, Total mg/kg 1 100% 300 300 2000 20.9 44.4 0.001 UMercury, Total mg/kg 0.02 100% 30 30 10 0.022 0.014 0.00005 UNickel, Total mg/kg 1 100% 700 700 - 2 4.04 0.0009Zinc, Total mg/kg 1 100% 3000 5000 - 31.4 26.1 0.011VOLATILE ORGANICS µg/L1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/kg 0.1 0% 0.1 300 - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.5 U1,1,1-Trichloroethane mg/kg 0.1 0% 600 3000 - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.5 U1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane mg/kg 0.1 0% 0.02 40 - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.5 U1,1,2-Trichloroethane mg/kg 0.1 0% 2 200 - 0.0013 U 0.18 U 0.0015 U 0.75 U1,1-Dichloroethane mg/kg 0.1 0% 5 1000 - 0.0013 U 0.18 U 0.0015 U 0.75 U1,1-Dichloroethene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.5 U1,1-Dichloropropene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.5 U1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.5 U1,2,3-Trichloropropane mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.009 U 1.2 U 0.01 U 5 U1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene mg/kg 0.1 0% 70 900 - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.5 U1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.5 U1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.5 U1,2-Dibromoethane mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0036 U 0.48 U 0.004 U 2 U1,2-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg 0.1 0% 30 300 - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.5 U1,2-Dichloroethane mg/kg 0.1 0% 0.1 300 - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.5 U1,2-Dichloropropane mg/kg 0.1 0% 0.1 600 - 0.0031 U 0.42 U 0.0035 U 1.8 U1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.5 U1,3-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg 0.1 0% 40 500 - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.5 U1,3-Dichloropropane mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.5 U1,4-Dichlorobenzene mg/kg 0.1 0% 4 2000 - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.5 U1,4-Dichlorobutane mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.009 U 1.2 U 0.01 U 5 U2,2-Dichloropropane mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.5 U2-Butanone mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.009 U 1.2 U 0.01 U 5 U2-Hexanone mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.009 U 1.2 U 0.01 U 5.00 U4-Methyl-2-pentanone mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.009 U 1.2 U 0.01 U 5.00 UAcetone mg/kg 0.1 0% 50 400 - 0.032 U 4.3 U 0.036 U 5.00 UAcrylonitrile mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0036 U 0.48 U 0.004 U 5.00 UBenzene mg/kg 0.1 0% 200 900 - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.50 UBromobenzene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.50 UBromochloromethane mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.50 UBromodichloromethane mg/kg 0.1 0% 0.1 500 - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.50 UBromoform mg/kg 0.1 0% 1 800 - 0.0036 U 0.48 U 0.004 U 2.00 UBromomethane mg/kg 0.1 0% 0.5 30 - 0.0018 U 0.24 U 0.002 U 1.00 UCarbon disulfide mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.009 U 1.2 U 0.01 U 5.00 UCarbon tetrachloride mg/kg 0.1 0% 5 400 - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.50 UChlorobenzene mg/kg 0.1 0% 3 100 - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.50 UChloroethane mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0018 U 0.24 U 0.002 U 1.00 UChloroform mg/kg 0.1 0% 0.3 800 - 0.0013 U 0.18 U 0.0015 U 0.75 UChloromethane mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.50 Ucis-1,2-Dichloroethene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.50 Ucis-1,3-Dichloropropene5 mg/kg 0.1 0% 0.4 100 - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.50 UDibromochloromethane mg/kg 0.1 0% 0.03 500 - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.50 UDibromomethane mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.009 U 1.2 U 0.01 U 5.00 UDichlorodifluoromethane mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.009 U 1.2 U 0.01 U 5.00 UEthyl ether mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.50 UEthyl methacrylate mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.009 U 1.2 U 0.01 U 5.00 UEthylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 0% 1000 3000 - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.50 UHexachlorobutadiene mg/kg 0.1 0% 90 100 - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 0.50 UIsopropylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.50 UMethyl tert butyl ether mg/kg 0.1 0% 100 500 - 0.0018 U 0.24 U 0.002 U 1.00 UMethylene chloride mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.009 U 1.2 U 0.01 U 3.00 Un-Butylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.50 Un-Propylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.50 UNaphthalene mg/kg 0.1 50% 40 3000 - 0.0045 U 2.6 0.005 U 2.50 Uo-Chlorotoluene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.50 Uo-Xylene6 mg/kg 0.1 0% 300 3000 - 0.0018 U 0.24 U 0.002 U 1.00 Up-Chlorotoluene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.50 Up-Isopropyltoluene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.50 Up/m-Xylene6 mg/kg 0.1 0% 300 3000 - 0.0018 U 0.24 U 0.002 U 1.00 Usec-Butylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.50 UStyrene mg/kg 0.1 0% 4 1000 - 0.0018 U 0.24 U 0.002 U 1.00 Utert-Butylbenzene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.50 UTetrachloroethene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.50 UTetrahydrofuran mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.018 U 2.4 U 0.02 U 5.00 UToluene mg/kg 0.1 0% 1000 3000 - 0.0013 U 0.18 U 0.0015 U 0.75 Utrans-1,2-Dichloroethene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0013 U 0.18 U 0.0015 U 0.75 Utrans-1,3-Dichloropropene5 mg/kg 0.1 0% 0.4 100 - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.50 Utrans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.50 UTrichloroethene mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0009 U 0.12 U 0.001 U 0.50 UTrichlorofluoromethane mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.0045 U 0.6 U 0.005 U 2.50 UVinyl acetate mg/kg 0.1 0% - - - 0.009 U 1.2 U 0.01 U 5.00 UVinyl chloride mg/kg 0.1 0% 0.7 30 - 0.0018 U 0.24 U 0.002 U 1.00 UTotal VOCS7 10 0.1500 22.3

05-JAN-11

L1100236-04

05-JAN-11

L1100236-01

05-JAN-11Lined

Landfill Levels4

05-JAN-11

L1100236-03L1100236-02

Table 1: Sediment Sampling Chemical and Physical Results

Units

Trip BlankKS-2Jones River at Elm Street Bridge Sediment Sampling for MassDOT Highway Division (Bridge No. K-01-002), Kingston, Massachusetts

Rinse BlankDEP RL1

KS-1Freq of

Det.2MCP Criteria3

Page 2 of 2

LOCATIONSAMPLING DATE

LAB SAMPLE IDS2/GW2 S3/GW3 Result Q Result Q Result Q Result Q

05-JAN-11

L1100236-04

05-JAN-11

L1100236-01

05-JAN-11Lined

Landfill Levels4

05-JAN-11

L1100236-03L1100236-02Units

Trip BlankKS-2 Rinse BlankDEP RL1

KS-1Freq of

Det.2MCP Criteria3

PAHs ng/LAcenaphthene mg/kg 0.02 100% 3000 5000 - 0.03 3.5 10.9 UAcenaphthylene mg/kg 0.02 100% 600 10 - 0.113 4 10.9 UAnthracene mg/kg 0.02 100% 3000 5000 - 0.091 7.44 10.9 UBenz(a)anthracene mg/kg 0.02 100% 40 300 - 0.373 19.2 10.9 UBenzo(a)pyrene mg/kg 0.02 100% 4 30 - 0.313 12.5 10.9 UBenzo(b)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.02 100% 40 300 - 0.329 10.2 10.9 UBenzo(ghi)perylene mg/kg 0.02 100% 3000 5000 - 0.218 5.78 10.9 UBenzo(k)fluoranthene mg/kg 0.02 100% 400 3000 - 0.245 5.54 10.9 UChrysene mg/kg 0.02 100% 400 3000 - 0.581 22.6 10.9 UDibenz(a,h)anthracene mg/kg 0.02 100% 4 30 - 0.0731 2.37 10.9 UFluoranthene mg/kg 0.02 100% 3000 5000 - 0.725 38.2 13.1Fluorene mg/kg 0.02 100% 3000 5000 - 0.0575 15.1 10.9 UIndeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene mg/kg 0.02 100% 40 300 - 0.197 5.17 10.9 UNaphthalene mg/kg 0.02 100% 40 3000 - 0.0136 1.33 10.9 UPhenanthrene mg/kg 0.02 100% 1000 3000 - 0.433 57.3 10.9 UPyrene mg/kg 0.02 100% 3000 5000 - 0.837 41.3 10.9 UTotal PAHs7 100 4.63 251.5

PCB CONGENERS ng/LCl10-BZ#209* mg/kg 0.01 0% 0.00107 U 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl2-BZ#8* mg/kg 0.01 0% 0.00107 U 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl3-BZ#18* mg/kg 0.01 0% 0.00107 U 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl3-BZ#28* mg/kg 0.01 50% 0.00123 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl4-BZ#44* mg/kg 0.01 50% 0.00227 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl4-BZ#49 mg/kg 0.01 50% 0.00178 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl4-BZ#52* mg/kg 0.01 50% 0.00188 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl4-BZ#66* mg/kg 0.01 50% 0.00232 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl5-BZ#101* mg/kg 0.01 50% 0.00173 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl5-BZ#105* mg/kg 0.01 0% 0.00107 U 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl5-BZ#118* mg/kg 0.01 50% 0.00168 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl5-BZ#87 mg/kg 0.01 0% 0.00107 U 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl6-BZ#128* mg/kg 0.01 0% 0.00107 U 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl6-BZ#138* mg/kg 0.01 50% 0.00211 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl6-BZ#153* mg/kg 0.01 50% 0.00147 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl7-BZ#170* mg/kg 0.01 50% 0.0013 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl7-BZ#180* mg/kg 0.01 50% 0.00203 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl7-BZ#183 mg/kg 0.01 0% 0.00107 U 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl7-BZ#184 mg/kg 0.01 0% 0.00107 U 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl7-BZ#187* mg/kg 0.01 0% 0.00107 U 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl8-BZ#195* mg/kg 0.01 0% 0.00107 U 0.0018 U 1.09 UCl9-BZ#206* mg/kg 0.01 0% 0.00107 U 0.0018 U 1.09 UTotal PCBs8 3 3 <2 0.04 0.03

EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS µg/LC11-C22 Aromatics mg/kg 25 50% - 2990 8.12 U 100 UC11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted mg/kg 25 50% 3000 5000 2200 8.12 U 100 UC19-C36 Aliphatics mg/kg 25 0% 5000 5000 147 U 8.12 U 100 UC9-C18 Aliphatics mg/kg 25 0% 3000 5000 147 U 8.12 U 100 UTotal Petroleum Hydrocarbons9 5000 3137 12.18

GENERAL CHEMISTRY mg/LSulfide, Reactive mg/kg 0% - - - 10 U 10 U 0.1 U

Q - Qualifier

4. Lined Landfill Levels are from Table 1 of the MassDEP Interim Policy #COMM-94-007: Sampling, Analysis, Handling & Tracking Requirements for Dredged Sediment Reused or Disposed at Massachusetts Permitted Landfills.

Notes:E - EstimatedJ - Estimated, detected below DEP Reporting Limit listed in Column C.

RL - Reporting LimitU - The analyte was analyzed for but not detected at the sample-specific level reported.

"-" No criteria recommendation1. Frequency of detection calculated as those parameters detected above the DEP Reporting Limit.

MCP - Massachusetts Contingency Plan

3. MCP Criteria are from 310 CMR 40.0975(6)(b) Table 3 and 310 CMR 40.0975(6)(c) Table 4.2. DEP Reporting Limit from 314 CMR 9.0792)(b)6.

9. Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons calculated by summing C11-C22 Aromatics, Unadjusted + C19-C36 Aliphatics + C9-C18 Aliphatics. For nondetected parameters, one half of the Reporting Limit is used in the summation.

5. MCP Method 1 Criteria listed for 1,3-Dichloropropene.6. MCP Method 1 Criteria listed for mixed isomers.7. For nondetected parameters (i.e., U qualified), half of the Reporting Limit is used in the summation.8. Total PCBs are calculated by summing the congeners marked by an asterisk and multiplying by two, in accordance with the USACE/EPA 2004 Regional Implementation Manual Table 3. For nondetected congeners, one-half the value of the Reporting Limit is used in the summation.

ATTACHMENT G KINGSTON – ELM STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION APPLICATION

SITE PLANS

ATTACHMENT H KINGSTON – ELM STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION APPLICATION

HYDRAULIC REPORT

AMENDMENT

TO

HYDRAULIC REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 2010

REPLACEMENT OF ELM STREET OVER SCOTT

JONES RIVER

BRIDGE NO. K-01-002

KINGSTON, MA

105 Central Street, Suite 4100

Stoneham, Massachusetts 02180

(781) 279-5500

SUBMITTED TO:

MASSDOT – HIGHWAY DIVISION

10 PARK PLAZA

BOSTON, MA 02116

August 2010 MassD

OT – H

ig

hw

ay D

ivis

io

n

Elm

S

tre

et o

ve

r Jo

ne

s R

Ive

r

Am

en

dm

en

t to

H

yd

rau

lic

R

ep

ort d

ate

d Fe

bru

ary 2010

Au

gu

st, 201

0

Greenman - Pedersen, Inc.

Engineering and Construction Services

Page 1 of 4

At the request of MassDOT we have obtained and reproduced the FEMA HEC-2 Model. As noted in our prior correspondence to MassDOT on 4/1/10, the FEMA HEC-2 model is flawed and will not run in HEC-2 (see Attachment A-“Effective model”); however, the elevations established by FEMA have been adopted and will therefore govern. The adopted FEMA NGVD1929 CWSEL elevations are as follows:

STORM DISCHARGE(cfs) (ft) NGVD1929

(ft) NGVD1929

(ft) NGVD1929

(ft) NGVD1929

Sec ID 20 (A) weir

Sec ID 0.001 (B) DS face bridge

Sec ID 0.004(B) US face bridge

Sec ID 0.023(C) 100 ft US bridge

10 year 640 19.83 20.10 20.18 20.28 50 year 830 20.69 20.80 20.93 21.05 100 year 960 21.19 21.25 21.35 21.48 500 year 1220 22.05 22.08 22.11 22.26

The adopted FEMA CWSEL elevations adjusted to datum NAVD 1988 are as follows:

STORM DISCHARGE(cfs) (ft) NAVD 1988

(ft) NAVD 1988

(ft) NAVD1988

(ft) NAVD1988

*CWSEL to be used as starting boundary WS in new model

Sec ID 20 (A) weir

Sec ID 0.001 (B) DS face bridge

Sec ID 0.004 (B) US face bridge

Sec ID 0.023(C) 100 ft US bridge

10 year 640 19.01 * 19.28 19.36 19.46 50 year 830 19.87 * 19.98 20.11 20.23 100 year 960 20.37 * 20.43 20.53 20.66 500 year 1220 21.23 * 21.26 21.29 21.44

The bridge geometry using in the FEMA model as compared to the surveyed filed conditions and proposed bridge is summarized as follows:

Geometry: FEMA Bridge

Existing bridge

Proposed Bridge **

Configuration 2 spans with center pier

Single Span Single span

Abutment to abutment distance 46 feet 45 feet 47’-4”

Bridge length 20 feet 24 ft curb-to-curb 26 ft curb-to-curb, 34’-6” out to out

Low Chord 19.6 (NGVD) 18.78 (NAVD)

18.4 (NAVD)

18.45/18.7(NAVD)

Low point of road for overtopping

20.6 (NGVD) 19.78 (NAVD)

19.8 (NAVD)

20.4 (NAVD)

Weir elevation 17.4 (NGVD) 16.58 (NAVD)

16.25 (NAVD)

16.25 (NAVD)

Lake bottom 12.5 (NGVD) 11.68 (NAVD)

Variable 11 to 12 (NAVD)

Variable 11 to 12, Rock at 6 to 8

** Note that the proposed bridge geometry has been revised since the prior Hydraulic Report was issued in February 2010

We imported the HEC2 model into HEC RAS, adjusted the bridge offset distances (as required for RAS), yet the errors related to the coding of the spillway weir (which was coded as a bridge) still remained unabated (See Attachment B-“Duplicate Effective Model”).



Page 2 of 4

We therefore performed the following edits on the Duplicate Effective model to generate the Corrected Effective model (see Attachment C):

Truncated the model below the spillway weir cross section to eliminate the errors being generated by the 10 foot vertical drop between the spillway weir (17.4) and the invert of the river channel cross section(7.0)

Adjusted the FEMA Datum (NGVD1929) to our plan datum of NAVD1988 by subtracting 0.82 feet from the 1929 datum.

Deleted FEMA cross sections 121 and 21 (below the spillway) Deleted “Bridge #2” (at the weir) and left the associated GR cards at FEMA cross

section 20 to remain as the starting cross section Set the starting boundary condition for subcritical flow as the adopted FEMA

elevations at the spillway weir (adjusted to datum NAVD 1988) The resultant water elevations are as follows:

STORM DISCHARGE (cfs)

Sec ID 20 (A) weir FEMA & Starting WS NEW ID 3

Sec ID 0.001 (B) DS face bridge. NEW ID 4

Sec ID 0.004 (B) US face bridge NEW ID 5

Sec ID 0.023(C) 100 ft US bridge NEW ID 6

*WS to be used as starting boundary WS in new model (Datum NAVD1988)

FEMA COMPUTED FEMA COMPUTED FEMA COMPUTED

10 year 640 19.01 * 19.28 19.32 19.36 19.44 19.46 50 year 830 19.87 * 19.98 19.98 20.11 20.15 20.23 100 year 960 20.37 * 20.43 20.44 20.53 20.56 20.66 500 year 1220 21.23 * 21.26 21.26 21.29 21.28 21.44

STORM DISCHARGE

(cfs) Sec ID 0.174 (D) NEW ID 7

Sec ID 0.598 (E) NEW ID 8

FEMA COMPUTED FEMA COMPUTED 10 year 640 19.47 19.54 19.62 19.69 50 year 830 20.24 20.28 20.39 20.43 100 year 960 20.67 20.70 20.82 20.85 500 year 1220 21.45 21.46 21.61 21.61

Since the deviations between the FEMA computed elevations and those computed using the Corrected Effective model are deminimus, the Corrected Effective model will be considered to be the “Existing” conditions for comparison to the new bridge even though there is not a “pier” in the field for existing conditions. There is a 3 inch difference between the FEMA spillway invert (16.58) and the field measured spillway invert (16.25); however, the spillway actually varies across its length. In addition, the starting water elevation will be assumed to be the FEMA adopted elevation at the spillway; therefore the spillway elevation becomes irrelevant.



Page 3 of 4

No changes are proposed to the channel under the bridge. Bedrock is at approximately +6 to +8 at the bridge, therefore scour is not critical and since the channel is submerged at all times by the level pool of the lake, the channel bottom is not critical for this analysis. The road profile for the proposed bridge is taken looking upstream from the spillway, therefore the road profile needed to be adjusted to look downstream for use in HECRAS. For simplicity, the proposed bridge has been assumed to be a) centered over the existing pier, b) the (non-existant) pier removed, and c) the span widened symmetrically about the centerline at FEMA station 2000. Skew has been ignored. The two existing bounding cross sections (4 and 5) have been re-stationed and re-used as the bounding cross sections for the new, wider bridge. (See Attachment D - “Proposed Model”) for supporting computations. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon the analysis, the new bridge will slightly reduce the water elevations for the 10 year and slightly increase the water elevations for the 50, 100 and 500 year storms. This is due to the increase in the low point overtopping elevation, from 19.8 to 20.4, which is proposed for the new road profile. As a result of the elevated low point, the road theoretically will overtop later (at >50 year storm) and therefore less frequently than under the existing conditions (>10 year). The increases in water elevation are minor and are beyond the level of accuracy of measurement during a storm event. Given the undeveloped nature of the upstream corridor, adverse impacts would not be anticipated. **SUMMARY TABULATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOLLOWS**



Page 4 of 4

Table 6 (Revised 8/20/10)

Proposed Br. No. K-01-002

Elm Street / Jones River

Kingston, Massachusetts

Hydraulic Data

Drainage Area 19.8 mi2 (or 15.7 mi

2 excluding the 4.09 mi

2 above

the outlet of Silver Lake)

Design Discharge (FEMA) 640 Ft3/s

Design Frequency 10 Years

Design Flood Stage 19.42 ft (NAVD1988)

Design Velocity 2.28 fps

Basic Flood Data

100 Year Flood Discharge (FEMA) 960 Ft3/s

100 Year Flood Stage 20.72 Ft (NAVD1988)

Flood Of Record

Discharge (at USGS gauge #01105870) 575 Ft3/s

Stage Unknown

Date March 19, 1968

History Of Ice Floes: None Documented In NBIS Database

Evidence Of Scour Or Erosion: None Documented In NBIS Database

I:\MAX 2009017 Elm St Bridge-Dam\hydraulics report\2010-08-23 FINAL AMENDMENT\2010-08-23 SUPPLEMENT.VAH.docx

EXISTING PROPOSED Net EXISTING PROPOSED Net

River Sta Profile Q Total W.S. Elev W.S. Elev Change Vel Chnl Vel Chnl Change

(cfs) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft/s) (ft)

8 10 year 640 19.69 19.67 -0.02 0.76 0.77 0.01

8 50 year 830 20.43 20.45 0.02 0.81 0.81 0

8 100 year 960 20.85 20.99 0.14 0.85 0.82 -0.03

8 500 year 1220 21.61 21.87 0.26 0.91 0.87 -0.04

7 10 year 640 19.54 19.52 -0.02 0.95 0.95 0

7 50 year 830 20.28 20.3 0.02 1.05 1.05 0

7 100 year 960 20.7 20.85 0.15 1.12 1.09 -0.03

7 500 year 1220 21.46 21.73 0.27 1.24 1.18 -0.06

6 10 year 640 19.53 19.51 -0.02 0.39 0.39 0

6 50 year 830 20.27 20.29 0.02 0.45 0.45 0

6 100 year 960 20.69 20.84 0.15 0.49 0.48 -0.01

6 500 year 1220 21.44 21.72 0.28 0.56 0.54 -0.02

5 10 year 640 19.44 19.42 -0.02 2.45 2.28 -0.17

5 50 year 830 20.15 20.18 0.03 2.77 2.62 -0.15

5 100 year 960 20.56 20.72 0.16 2.97 2.71 -0.26

5 500 year 1220 21.28 21.59 0.31 3.28 2.94 -0.34

4.5 Bridge LP 19.8 LP 20.4

4 10 year 640 19.32 19.33 0.01 2.48 2.32 -0.16

4 50 year 830 19.98 19.99 0.01 2.86 2.7 -0.16

4 100 year 960 20.44 20.45 0.01 3.04 2.85 -0.19

4 500 year 1220 21.26 21.27 0.01 3.3 3.12 -0.18

3 10 year 640 19.01 19.01 0 6.24 6.24 0

3 50 year 830 19.87 19.87 0 4.65 4.65 0

3 100 year 960 20.37 20.37 0 4.28 4.28 0

3 500 year 1220 21.23 21.23 0 4 4 0

Water elevation Velocity

SUMMARY

Overtopping

summary.xlsx COMPARE 8/20/10

ATTACHMENT I KINGSTON – ELM STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION APPLICATION

PUBLIC NOTICE

Public Notice

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Division of Wetlands and Waterways

Boston Region One Winter Street

Boston, MA 02108 Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. 1341 M.G.L. c. 21 S 43, notice is given of a 401 Water Quality Certification application for the replacement of Bridge K-01-002 on Elm Street over the Jones River in the town of Kingston, Massachusetts by the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT), Highway Division, Ten Park Plaza, Room 4260, Boston, MA 02116. This project will involve replacing the bridge. Additional information may be obtained from the MassDOT at the above address, Attention Erin Burnham, (617) 973-7727. Written comments should be sent to DEP, Division of Wetlands and Waterways, Attention Ken Chin, Boston Region, One Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108 within 21 days of this notice. Any group of ten persons, any aggrieved person, or any governmental body or private organization with a mandate to protect the environment who submits written comments may appeal the Department’s Certification. Failure to submit written comments before the end of the public comment period may result in the waiver of any right to an adjudicatory hearing.

Documents

Enter your transmittal number - Welcome to MassDOT · Enter your transmittal number X236784 Transmittal Number ... only the tab key to move your cursor - do not use the return key