X236784
Enter your transmittal number
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
1. Please type or
print. A separate
Transmittal Form
must be completed
for each permit
application.
A. Permit Information
BRP WW 08
Water Quality Certification
1. Permit Code: 7 or 8 character code from permit instructions
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
2. Make your
check payable to B. Applicant Information – Firm or Individual
the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Highway Division
and mail it with a
1. Name of Firm - Or, if party needing this approval is an individual enter name below:
copy of this form to:
DEP, P.O. Box
2. Last Name of Individual
3. First Name of Individual
4062, Boston, MA
10 Park Plaza, Room 4260
02211.
5. Street Address
3. Three copies of
Boston
MA
02116
this form will be
6. City/Town
7. State
8. Zip Code
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:
4. MI
617-973-7434
9. Telephone #
Susan McArthur
Susan.McArthur@state.ma.us
11. Contact Person
12. e-mail address (optional)
10. Ext. #
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
MA
02116
3. City/Town
4. State
5. Zip Code
8. DEP Facility Number (if Known)
9. Federal I.D. Number (if Known)
6. Telephone #
7. Ext. #
10. BWSC Tracking # (if Known)
D. Application Prepared by (if different from Section B)*
MassDEP
P.O. Box 4062
Boston, MA
02211
Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Highway Division
1. Name of Firm Or Individual
10 Park Plaza, Room 4260
2. Address
* Note:
For BWSC Permits,
enter the LSP.
Boston
MA
02116
617-973-7727
3. City/Town
4. State
5. Zip Code
6. Telephone #
7. Ext. #
Erin Burnham
8. Contact Person
9. LSP Number (BWSC Permits only)
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
Special Provisions:
1.
Fee Exempt (city, town or municipal housing authority)(state agency if fee is $100 or less).
Permit No:
Rec’d Date:
2.
3.
4.
There are no fee exemptions for BWSC permits, regardless of applicant status.
Hardship Request - payment extensions according to 310 CMR 4.04(3)(c).
Alternative Schedule Project (according to 310 CMR 4.05 and 4.10).
Homeowner (according to 310 CMR 4.02).
Reviewer:
Check Number
transmittal form • rev. 1/07
Dollar Amount
Date
Page 1 of 1
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands and Waterways
X236784
BRP WW 07, 08 Dredging
Transmittal Number #
401 Water Quality Certification – Projects Proposing More Than 100 Cubic Yards
Dredging or Disposal of Dredged Material
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
Important:
When filling out
forms on the
computer, use
only the tab key
to move your
cursor - do not
use the return
key.
10 Park Plaza, Room 4260
Street Address
Boston
MA
City
State
02116
Susan McArthur
Zip Code
Contact person
Telephone Number (home)
Telephone Number (work)
617-973-7434
3. Authorized Agent:
Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Highway Division
Name
10 Park Plaza, Room 4260
Street Address
Boston
MA
City
State
02116
Erin Burnham
Zip Code
Contact person
Telephone Number (home)
Telephone Number (work)
(617-973-7727
B. Project Information
1. Project Location:
Elm Street
Kingston
Street Address
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
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
X236784
BRP WW 07, 08 Dredging
Transmittal Number #
401 Water Quality Certification – Projects Proposing More Than 100 Cubic Yards
Dredging or Disposal of Dredged Material
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.):
4801 (2582 permanent; 2219 temporary)
a. Land under water:
square feet
b. Other Resources:
square feet
0
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.
ww0789ap 2-15-2011 Revised.doc • rev. 9/01
BRP WW 07,08 Dredging • Page 2 of 7
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands and Waterways
X236784
BRP WW 07, 08 Dredging
Transmittal Number #
401 Water Quality Certification – Projects Proposing More Than 100 Cubic Yards
Dredging or Disposal of Dredged Material
C. Description of Proposed Dredging Site (cont.)
b. Date activity is to commence:
c.
What is the expected frequency of
maintenance dredging of this project?
Summer 2012
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.
Graphic and numerical scale.
North arrow.
Mean high and low water lines if the
proposed activity is located in tidal areas.
Water depths around the project.
Ordinary high water line for inland water.
Principal dimensions of the structure or work
and extent of encroachment beyond the
applicable high water line.
Seaward distance from an existing
permanent fixed structure or object.
Distance between proposed activity and
navigation channel, where applicable.
Location of structures, if any, in navigable
waters immediately adjacent to the
proposed activity
Harbor lines, if established and known.
Location of any vegetated wetlands or
wetland resource areas.
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.
Cross-section of excavation including
approximate side slopes.
Graph and numerical scale.
3. a. What are the length, width, depth and volume of the proposed project?
Length:
SW Embankment 150l.f.
Width:
Abutments 27 ft ea
SW Embankment 18 ft Abutments 8 ft ea
Feet
Feet
Depth:
Volume:
SW Embankment 1 ft Abutments 30 ft ea
SW Embankment 75 cy Abutments 231 cy
Feet
Cubic yards
ww0789ap 2-15-2011 Revised.doc • rev. 9/01
BRP WW 07,08 Dredging • Page 3 of 7
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands and Waterways
X236784
BRP WW 07, 08 Dredging
Transmittal Number #
401 Water Quality Certification – Projects Proposing More Than 100 Cubic Yards
Dredging or Disposal of Dredged Material
C. Description of Proposed Dredging Site (cont.)
b. Is the proposed project considered:
i. a new project,
Yes
ii.
maintenance of an existing project?
No
iii. when was the project last dredged?
Yes
No
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
Yes
No
c.
chronic pollutant loading from port or harbor
use and/or other sources of pollutants? (eg.
CSO or POTW discharges)
ww0789ap 2-15-2011 Revised.doc • rev. 9/01
BRP WW 07,08 Dredging • Page 4 of 7
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands and Waterways
X236784
BRP WW 07, 08 Dredging
Transmittal Number #
401 Water Quality Certification – Projects Proposing More Than 100 Cubic Yards
Dredging or Disposal of Dredged Material
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)
7 (KS1); 14 (KS2)
No. 4 Sieve
No. 60 Sieve
72 (KS1); 80 (KS2)
1.2 (KS1); 0.8 (KS2)
No. 10 Sieve
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)
0.079 (KS1); 0.087 (KS2)
arsenic
cadmium
5.79 (KS1); 7.7 (KS2)
3.53 (KS1); 5.65 (KS2)
chromium
copper
20.9 (KS1); 44.4 (KS2)
0.022 (KS1); 0.014 (KS2)
lead
mercury
2 (KS1); 4.04 (KS2)
31.4 (KS1); 26.1 (KS2)
nickel
zinc
0.04 (KS1); 0.03 (KS2)
4.63 (KS1); 251.5 (KS2)
PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls)
PAHs (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons)
3137 (KS1); 12.18 (KS2)
<2990 (KS1); undetected (KS2)
TPH (total petroleum hydrocarbons)
EPH (extractable petroleum hydrocarbons
see Table 1
33.1 (KS1); 20.7 (KS2)
volatile solids (percent)
water (percent)
ww0789ap 2-15-2011 Revised.doc • rev. 9/01
BRP WW 07,08 Dredging • Page 5 of 7
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands and Waterways
X236784
BRP WW 07, 08 Dredging
Transmittal Number #
401 Water Quality Certification – Projects Proposing More Than 100 Cubic Yards
Dredging or Disposal of Dredged Material
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?
ww0789ap 2-15-2011 Revised.doc • rev. 9/01
BRP WW 07,08 Dredging • Page 6 of 7
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
1.0
Introduction
2.0
Existing Site Conditions
3.0
Proposed Construction Activities
Secant Wall Construction
Road Reconstruction and Resurfacing
4.0
Construction Sequence
Demolition
Construction
5.0
Wetland Impacts
Permanent Land Under Water Impacts
Temporary Land Under Water Impacts
100 Year Floodplain
6.0
Sedimentation Control
Siltation Barriers
Silt Boom
Protective Shielding
Containment Systems
7.0
Dewatering
8.0
Removal of Organic Sediment, Native Gravel and Rock
9.0
Stormwater Management
10.0 Fisheries and Wildlife
11.0 Alternative Analysis
No-Build Alternative
In-Kind Bridge Replacement
Longer Bridge Replacement
Preferred Alternative
12.0 Specifications to be included into the contract
Elm Street Bridge– Jones River
i
1
1
1
2
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
8
9
9
10
10
10
10
11
11
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
Elm Street Bridge– Jones River
2
Project Narrative
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.
Elm Street Bridge– Jones River
3
Project Narrative
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
Elm Street Bridge– Jones River
4
Project Narrative
Construction
The following activities are associated with the construction of the existing bridge:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.0
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.
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.
Elm Street Bridge– Jones River
5
Project Narrative
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.
Elm Street Bridge– Jones River
6
Project Narrative
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.
Elm Street Bridge– Jones River
7
Project Narrative
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:
8.0
•
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.
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).
Elm Street Bridge– Jones River
8
Project Narrative
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
Elm Street Bridge– Jones River
9
Project Narrative
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
Elm Street Bridge– Jones River
10
Project Narrative
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
Elm Street Bridge– Jones River
11
Project Narrative
ATTACHMENT B
KINGSTON – ELM STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION APPLICATION
FIGURES
G:\Projects2\MA\Kingston\2757\usgs.mxd
Scale 1:12,000
1 inch = 1,000 feet
0
250 500
1,000
Feet
Basemap: USGS Quadrangle
Project Locus
Elm Street Bridge Replacement
Kingston, MA
Figure 1
USGS Locus Map
G:\Projects2\MA\Kingston\2757\aerial.mxd
Scale 1:1,800
1 inch = 150 feet
0
50
100
200
Feet
Basemap: 2008 Orthophotography, MassGIS
Project Area
Jones River
Elm Street Bridge Replacement
Kingston, MA
Figure 2
Aerial Locus Map
G:\Projects2\MA\Kingston\2757\aerial.mxd
LEGEND
Hydrologic Connections
OPEN WATER
WOODED SWAMP DECIDUOUS
Scale 1:1,800
1 inch = 150 feet
0
50
100
200
Feet
Basemap: 2008 Orthophotography, MassGIS
Project Location
Jones River
Elm Street Bridge Replacement
Kingston, MA
Figure 3
MassGIS Wetlands Map
G:\Projects2\MA\Kingston\2757\aerial.mxd
LEGEND
NHESP 2008 Priority Habitats for State-Protected
Rare Species
NHESP 2008 Estimated Habitats for Rare Wildlife:
For Use with the MA Wetlands Protection Act
Regulations (310 CMR 10)
Scale 1:1,800
1 inch = 150 feet
0
50
100
200
Feet
Basemap: 2008 Orthophotography, MassGIS
Project Location
Jones River
Elm Street Bridge Replacement
Kingston, MA
Figure 4
NHESP Map
G:\Projects2\MA\Kingston\2757\aerial.mxd
LEGEND
A
AE
X500
Scale 1:1,800
1 inch = 150 feet
0
50
100
200
Feet
Basemap: 2008 Orthophotography, MassGIS
Project Location
Jones River
Elm Street Bridge Replacement
Kingston, MA
Figure 5
FEMA Q3 Flood Zones
FIGURE 6
ATTACHMENT C
KINGSTON – ELM STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION APPLICATION
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo 1: View of Elm Street Bridge looking north.
Photo 2: View of east side of bridge with dam/spillway and fish ladder.
Elm Street Bridge # K0-01-001
Kingston, MA
Attachment C
Site Photographs
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.
Elm Street Bridge # K-01-001
Kingston, MA
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.
Elm Street Bridge # K-01-001
Kingston, MA
Attachment C
Site Photographs
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
Paul J. Diodati
Director
(617)626-1520
Fax (617)626-1509
February 24, 2010
Mr. Frank A. Tramontozzi, Chief Engineer
MassDOT Highway Division
10 Park Plaza
Boston, MA 02116
Re:
Alyssa Jacobs
Epsilon Associates, Inc
3 Clock Tower Place, Suite 250
Maynard, MA 01754
Deval Patrick
Governor
Ian A. Bowles
Secretary
Mary B. Griffin
Commissioner
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
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Wayne F. MacCallum, Director
November 30, 2009
Timothy Dexter
Environmental Division
Massachusetts Highway Department
10 Park Plaza, Room 4260
Boston, MA 02116
RE:
Project Description:
Project Location:
NHESP File No.:
MassHighway Bridge No:
Bridge Replacement – Elm Street over the Jones River
Elm Street, Kingston
09-27488
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) 3896386 (michael.t.jones@state.ma.us) with any questions or comments you may have.
www.masswildlife.org
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
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
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.
Elm Street Bridge # K0-01-001
Kingston, MA
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.
Elm Street Bridge # K-01-001
Kingston, MA
Attachment A
Site Photographs
Attachment B
Plant Species List
Dominant Vegetation Species List
Common Name
Scientific Name
Tree/Sapling
White Oak
Red Maple
White Pine
Grey Birch
Black Locust
Willow
Quercus alba
Acer rubrum
Pinus strobus
Betula populifolia
Robinia pseudoacacia
Salix sp.
Shrub
Sweet pepperbush
Speckled alder
Silky dogwood
Highbush blueberry
Elderberry
Clethra alnifolia
Alnus rugosa
Cornus amomum
Vaccinium corymbosum
Sambucus canadensis
Groundcover
Woolgrass
Soft rush
Goldenrod
Tussock Sedge
Scirpus cyperinus
Juncus effusus
Solidago sp.
Carex stricta
Vines
Oriental bittersweet
Celastrus orbiculatus
Attachment C
Army Corps Data Sheets
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
2.1
Physical Results
2.2
Chemical Results and Screening Criteria
3
3
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.
Elm Street Bridge – Jones River
2
Kingston, MA
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.
detected in the KS2 sample; half were detected in the KS1 sample.
None were
♦ 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.
Elm Street Bridge – Jones River
3
Kingston, MA
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 #COMM94-007: 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.
Elm Street Bridge – Jones River
4
Kingston, MA
feet of an unpaved surface), where use by children is possible but infrequent 3 , 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.
Elm Street Bridge – Jones River
5
Kingston, MA
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.
Elm Street Bridge – Jones River
6
Kingston, MA
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.
Elm Street Bridge – Jones River
7
Kingston, MA
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 S3/ 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.
Elm Street Bridge – Jones River
8
Kingston, MA
G:\Projects2\MA\Kingston\2757\locus.mxd
Scale 1:3,600
1 inch = 300 feet
0
150
300
Feet
Basemap: 2008 Orthophotography, MassGIS
Mai
n
Stre
et
Project Site
Elm
Stre
et
Jones River
Brook
Elm Street Bridge Replacement
St reet
Kingston, Massachusetts
Figure 1
Locus Map
G:\Projects2\MA\Kingston\2757\sampling.mxd
Legend
!
(
Sampling Locations
Approximate Areas to Be Dredged
Scale 1:600
1 inch = 50 feet
0
25
50
Feet
°
Elm
S tr
eet
Basemap: 2008 Orthophotography, MassGIS
Jones River
!
(
KS2
!
(
Elm Street Bridge Replacement
KS1
Elm
S
treet
Jones River
Kingston, Massachusetts
Figure 2
Sampling Locations
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.
Bridge K-01-002 Kingston, MA
Photographs 1 & 2
Sediment Sampling Photographs
KS2 Sample Location
Photo 3. Photograph of KS2 sample location proximate to bridge.
Photo 4. Photograph of KS2 sample.
Bridge K-01-002 Kingston, MA
Photographs 3 & 4
Sediment Sampling Photographs
Table 1: Sediment Sampling Chemical and Physical Results
Jones River at Elm Street Bridge Sediment Sampling for MassDOT Highway Division (Bridge No. K-01-002), Kingston, Massachusetts
LOCATION
KS-1
KS-2
Trip Blank
Rinse Blank
Freq
Lined
3
DEP
SAMPLING DATE
05-JAN-11
05-JAN-11
05-JAN-11
05-JAN-11
MCP
Criteria
of
Landfill
Units
1
LAB SAMPLE ID
L1100236-02
L1100236-03
L1100236-04
L1100236-01
RL
2
4
Det.
S2/GW2 S3/GW3 Levels
Result Q Result Q
Result Q
Result
Q
mg/L
PHYSICAL RESULTS
Percent Moisture
%
33.1
20.7
Total Organic Carbon (Rep1)
%
2.2
2.11
Total Organic Carbon (Rep2)
%
2.46
1.84
Total Organic Carbon (Average)
%
2.33
1.98
0.58
Grain 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
0.8
TOTAL METALS
mg/L
Arsenic, Total
mg/kg
0.5 100%
20
20
40
4.35
5.84
0.0005 U
Cadmium, Total
mg/kg
0.1 100%
30
30
80
0.079
0.087
0.0005 U
Chromium, Total
mg/kg
1 100%
200
200
1000
5.79
7.7
0.006
Copper, Total
mg/kg
1 100%
3.53
5.65
0.002
Lead, Total
mg/kg
1 100%
300
300
2000
20.9
44.4
0.001 U
Mercury, Total
mg/kg
0.02 100%
30
30
10
0.022
0.014
0.00005 U
Nickel, Total
mg/kg
1 100%
700
700
2
4.04
0.0009
Zinc, Total
mg/kg
1 100%
3000
5000
31.4
26.1
0.011
µg/L
VOLATILE ORGANICS
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.1
300
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.5 U
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
600
3000
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.5 U
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.02
40
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.5 U
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
2
200
0.0013 U
0.18 U
0.0015 U
0.75 U
1,1-Dichloroethane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
5
1000
0.0013 U
0.18 U
0.0015 U
0.75 U
1,1-Dichloroethene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.5 U
1,1-Dichloropropene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.5 U
1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.5 U
1,2,3-Trichloropropane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.009 U
1.2 U
0.01 U
5 U
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
70
900
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.5 U
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.5 U
1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.5 U
1,2-Dibromoethane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0036 U
0.48 U
0.004 U
2 U
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
30
300
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.5 U
1,2-Dichloroethane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.1
300
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.5 U
1,2-Dichloropropane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.1
600
0.0031 U
0.42 U
0.0035 U
1.8 U
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.5 U
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
40
500
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.5 U
1,3-Dichloropropane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.5 U
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
4
2000
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.5 U
1,4-Dichlorobutane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.009 U
1.2 U
0.01 U
5 U
2,2-Dichloropropane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.5 U
2-Butanone
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.009 U
1.2 U
0.01 U
5 U
2-Hexanone
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.009 U
1.2 U
0.01 U
5.00 U
4-Methyl-2-pentanone
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.009 U
1.2 U
0.01 U
5.00 U
Acetone
mg/kg
0.1
0%
50
400
0.032 U
4.3 U
0.036 U
5.00 U
Acrylonitrile
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0036 U
0.48 U
0.004 U
5.00 U
Benzene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
200
900
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.50 U
Bromobenzene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.50 U
Bromochloromethane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.50 U
Bromodichloromethane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.1
500
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.50 U
Bromoform
mg/kg
0.1
0%
1
800
0.0036 U
0.48 U
0.004 U
2.00 U
Bromomethane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.5
30
0.0018 U
0.24 U
0.002 U
1.00 U
Carbon disulfide
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.009 U
1.2 U
0.01 U
5.00 U
Carbon tetrachloride
mg/kg
0.1
0%
5
400
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.50 U
Chlorobenzene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
3
100
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.50 U
Chloroethane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0018 U
0.24 U
0.002 U
1.00 U
Chloroform
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.3
800
0.0013 U
0.18 U
0.0015 U
0.75 U
Chloromethane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.50 U
cis-1,2-Dichloroethene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.50 U
5
cis-1,3-Dichloropropene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.4
100
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.50 U
Dibromochloromethane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.03
500
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.50 U
Dibromomethane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.009 U
1.2 U
0.01 U
5.00 U
Dichlorodifluoromethane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.009 U
1.2 U
0.01 U
5.00 U
Ethyl ether
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.50 U
Ethyl methacrylate
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.009 U
1.2 U
0.01 U
5.00 U
Ethylbenzene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
1000
3000
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.50 U
Hexachlorobutadiene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
90
100
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
0.50 U
Isopropylbenzene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.50 U
Methyl tert butyl ether
mg/kg
0.1
0%
100
500
0.0018 U
0.24 U
0.002 U
1.00 U
Methylene chloride
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.009 U
1.2 U
0.01 U
3.00 U
n-Butylbenzene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.50 U
n-Propylbenzene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.50 U
Naphthalene
mg/kg
0.1 50%
40
3000
0.0045 U
2.6
0.005 U
2.50 U
o-Chlorotoluene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.50 U
6
o-Xylene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
300
3000
0.0018 U
0.24 U
0.002 U
1.00 U
p-Chlorotoluene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.50 U
p-Isopropyltoluene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.50 U
6
p/m-Xylene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
300
3000
0.0018 U
0.24 U
0.002 U
1.00 U
sec-Butylbenzene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.50 U
Styrene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
4
1000
0.0018 U
0.24 U
0.002 U
1.00 U
tert-Butylbenzene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.50 U
Tetrachloroethene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.50 U
Tetrahydrofuran
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.018 U
2.4 U
0.02 U
5.00 U
Toluene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
1000
3000
0.0013 U
0.18 U
0.0015 U
0.75 U
trans-1,2-Dichloroethene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0013 U
0.18 U
0.0015 U
0.75 U
5
trans-1,3-Dichloropropene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.4
100
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.50 U
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.50 U
Trichloroethene
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0009 U
0.12 U
0.001 U
0.50 U
Trichlorofluoromethane
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.0045 U
0.6 U
0.005 U
2.50 U
Vinyl acetate
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.009 U
1.2 U
0.01 U
5.00 U
Vinyl chloride
mg/kg
0.1
0%
0.7
30
0.0018 U
0.24 U
0.002 U
1.00 U
Total VOCS7
10 0.1500
22.3
Page 1 of 2
LOCATION
SAMPLING DATE
Units
LAB SAMPLE ID
PAHs
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)Pyrene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs7
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
PCB CONGENERS
Cl10-BZ#209*
Cl2-BZ#8*
Cl3-BZ#18*
Cl3-BZ#28*
Cl4-BZ#44*
Cl4-BZ#49
Cl4-BZ#52*
Cl4-BZ#66*
Cl5-BZ#101*
Cl5-BZ#105*
Cl5-BZ#118*
Cl5-BZ#87
Cl6-BZ#128*
Cl6-BZ#138*
Cl6-BZ#153*
Cl7-BZ#170*
Cl7-BZ#180*
Cl7-BZ#183
Cl7-BZ#184
Cl7-BZ#187*
Cl8-BZ#195*
Cl9-BZ#206*
8
Total PCBs
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
DEP
1
RL
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
MCP Criteria
S2/GW2
3000
600
3000
40
4
40
3000
400
400
4
3000
3000
40
40
1000
3000
3
S3/GW3
5000
10
5000
300
30
300
5000
3000
3000
30
5000
5000
300
3000
3000
5000
Lined
Landfill
4
Levels
100
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0%
0%
0%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
0%
50%
0%
0%
50%
50%
50%
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3
EXTRACTABLE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
C11-C22 Aromatics
mg/kg
25
C11-C22 Aromatics, Adjusted
mg/kg
25
C19-C36 Aliphatics
mg/kg
25
C9-C18 Aliphatics
mg/kg
25
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons9
GENERAL CHEMISTRY
Sulfide, Reactive
Freq
of
Det.2
mg/kg
50% 50%
0%
0%
3000
5000
3000
-
3
5000
5000
5000
-
KS-2
Trip Blank
05-JAN-11
05-JAN-11
05-JAN-11
L1100236-02
L1100236-03
L1100236-04
L1100236-01
Result
Result
-
Q
0.03
0.113
0.091
0.373
0.313
0.329
0.218
0.245
0.581
0.0731
0.725
0.0575
0.197
0.0136
0.433
0.837
4.63
0.00107
0.00107
0.00107
0.00123
0.00227
0.00178
0.00188
0.00232
0.00173
0.00107
0.00168
0.00107
0.00107
0.00211
0.00147
0.0013
0.00203
0.00107
0.00107
0.00107
0.00107
0.00107
<2
0.04
5000
0%
KS-1
05-JAN-11
Q
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
2990
2200
147 U
147 U
3137
10 U
Q
Result
ng/L
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
13.1
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
3.5
4
7.44
19.2
12.5
10.2
5.78
5.54
22.6
2.37
38.2
15.1
5.17
1.33
57.3
41.3
251.5
U
U
U
Result
Rinse Blank
Q
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.0018
0.03
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
ng/L
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
8.12
8.12
8.12
8.12
12.18
U
U
U
U
µg/L
100
100
100
100
U
U
U
U
10 U
mg/L
0.1 U
Page 2 of 2
Notes:
E - Estimated
J - Estimated, detected below DEP Reporting Limit listed in Column C.
MCP - Massachusetts Contingency Plan
RL - Reporting Limit
U - The analyte was analyzed for but not detected at the sample-specific level reported.
Q - Qualifier
"-" No criteria recommendation
1. Frequency of detection calculated as those parameters detected above the DEP Reporting Limit.
2. DEP Reporting Limit from 314 CMR 9.0792)(b)6.
3. MCP Criteria are from 310 CMR 40.0975(6)(b) Table 3 and 310 CMR 40.0975(6)(c) Table 4.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
MassDOT – Highway Division
Elm Street over Jones RIver
Amendment to Hydraulic Report dated February 2010
August, 2010
AMENDMENT
TO
HYDRAULIC REPORT DATED FEBRUARY 2010
Greenman - Pedersen, Inc.
Engineering and Construction Services
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
Sec ID
20 (A) weir
10 year
50 year
100 year
500 year
640
830
960
1220
19.83
20.69
21.19
22.05
(ft)
NGVD1929
Sec ID
0.001 (B)
DS
face
bridge
20.10
20.80
21.25
22.08
(ft)
NGVD1929
Sec ID
0.004(B)
US
face
bridge
20.18
20.93
21.35
22.11
(ft)
NGVD1929
Sec ID
0.023(C)
100 ft US
bridge
20.28
21.05
21.48
22.26
The adopted FEMA CWSEL elevations adjusted to datum NAVD 1988 are as follows:
STORM
10 year
50 year
100 year
500 year
DISCHARGE(cfs)
*CWSEL to be used
as starting boundary
WS in new model
(ft) NAVD
1988
Sec ID
20 (A) weir
(ft) NAVD
1988
Sec ID
0.001 (B)
DS
face
bridge
(ft)
NAVD1988
Sec ID
0.004 (B)
US
face
bridge
(ft)
NAVD1988
Sec ID
0.023(C)
100 ft US
bridge
640
830
960
1220
19.01 *
19.87 *
20.37 *
21.23 *
19.28
19.98
20.43
21.26
19.36
20.11
20.53
21.29
19.46
20.23
20.66
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
Configuration
Abutment to abutment distance
2 spans with
center pier
46 feet
Bridge length
20 feet
Low Chord
19.6 (NGVD)
18.78 (NAVD)
20.6 (NGVD)
19.78 (NAVD)
17.4 (NGVD)
16.58 (NAVD)
12.5 (NGVD)
11.68 (NAVD)
Low point
of
overtopping
Weir elevation
Lake bottom
road
for
Existing
bridge
Proposed
Bridge **
45 feet
47’-4”
24 ft curb-to-curb
26 ft curb-to-curb,
34’-6” out to out
18.4 (NAVD)
18.45/18.7(NAVD)
19.8 (NAVD)
20.4 (NAVD)
16.25 (NAVD)
Variable 11 to 12
(NAVD)
16.25 (NAVD)
Variable 11 to 12,
Rock at 6 to 8
Single Span
Single span
** 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 1 of 4
Greenman - Pedersen, Inc.
Engineering and Construction Services
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:
Sec ID
20
(A)
weir
FEMA &
Starting
WS
Sec ID
0.001 (B) DS face
bridge.
NEW ID 4
COMPUTED
FEMA
Sec ID
0.004 (B)
US face bridge
NEW ID 5
COMPUTED
FEMA
Sec ID
0.023(C)
100 ft US bridge
NEW ID 6
COMPUTED
FEMA
640
830
960
1220
19.01 *
19.87 *
20.37 *
21.23 *
19.28
19.98
20.43
21.26
19.36
20.11
20.53
21.29
19.46
20.23
20.66
21.44
STORM
DISCHARGE
10 year
50 year
100 year
500 year
640
830
960
1220
Sec ID
0.174 (D)
NEW ID 7
FEMA
19.47
20.24
20.67
21.45
STORM
10 year
50 year
100 year
500 year
DISCHARGE
(cfs)
*WS to be
used
as
starting
boundary WS
in new model
(Datum
NAVD1988)
(cfs)
NEW ID 3
19.32
19.98
20.44
21.26
COMPUTED
19.54
20.28
20.70
21.46
19.44
20.15
20.56
21.28
Sec ID
0.598 (E)
NEW ID 8
COMPUTED
FEMA
19.62
19.69
20.39
20.43
20.82
20.85
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 2 of 4
Greenman - Pedersen, Inc.
Engineering and Construction Services
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 3 of 4
Greenman - Pedersen, Inc.
Engineering and Construction Services
Table 6 (Revised 8/20/10)
Proposed Br. No. K-01-002
Elm Street / Jones River
Kingston, Massachusetts
Hydraulic Data
Drainage Area
Design Discharge (FEMA)
Design Frequency
Design Flood Stage
Design Velocity
19.8 mi2 (or 15.7 mi2 excluding the 4.09 mi2 above
the outlet of Silver Lake)
640 Ft3/s
10 Years
19.42 ft (NAVD1988)
2.28 fps
Basic Flood Data
100 Year Flood Discharge (FEMA)
100 Year Flood Stage
960 Ft3/s
20.72 Ft (NAVD1988)
Flood Of Record
Discharge (at USGS gauge #01105870)
Stage
Date
575 Ft3/s
Unknown
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
Page 4 of 4
River Sta Profile
SUMMARY
Water elevation
EXISTING PROPOSED
Net
Q Total W.S. Elev W.S. Elev
Change
(cfs)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft)
640
19.69
19.67
-0.02
830
20.43
20.45
0.02
960
20.85
20.99
0.14
1220
21.61
21.87
0.26
Velocity
EXISTING PROPOSED
Vel Chnl Vel Chnl
(ft/s)
(ft/s)
0.76
0.77
0.81
0.81
0.85
0.82
0.91
0.87
Net
Change
(ft)
0.01
0
-0.03
-0.04
8
8
8
8
10 year
50 year
100 year
500 year
7
7
7
7
10 year
50 year
100 year
500 year
640
830
960
1220
19.54
20.28
20.7
21.46
19.52
20.3
20.85
21.73
-0.02
0.02
0.15
0.27
0.95
1.05
1.12
1.24
0.95
1.05
1.09
1.18
0
0
-0.03
-0.06
6
6
6
6
10 year
50 year
100 year
500 year
640
830
960
1220
19.53
20.27
20.69
21.44
19.51
20.29
20.84
21.72
-0.02
0.02
0.15
0.28
0.39
0.45
0.49
0.56
0.39
0.45
0.48
0.54
0
0
-0.01
-0.02
5
5
5
5
10 year
50 year
100 year
500 year
640
830
960
1220
19.44
19.42
20.15
20.18
20.56
20.72
21.28
21.59
Overtopping
LP 19.8
LP 20.4
-0.02
0.03
0.16
0.31
2.45
2.77
2.97
3.28
2.28
2.62
2.71
2.94
-0.17
-0.15
-0.26
-0.34
4.5
Bridge
4
4
4
4
10 year
50 year
100 year
500 year
640
830
960
1220
19.32
19.98
20.44
21.26
19.33
19.99
20.45
21.27
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
2.48
2.86
3.04
3.3
2.32
2.7
2.85
3.12
-0.16
-0.16
-0.19
-0.18
3
3
3
3
10 year
50 year
100 year
500 year
640
830
960
1220
19.01
19.87
20.37
21.23
19.01
19.87
20.37
21.23
0
0
0
0
6.24
4.65
4.28
4
6.24
4.65
4.28
4
0
0
0
0
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.