14-005 Upper Roberts Meadow Dam EENF MEPA Filing

Submitted to:
Executive Office of Energy &

Environmental Affairs
January, 2013
Submitted by:
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
1 Edgewater Drive
Norwood, MA
02062
781 -278 5803

-
GZA Engineers and
GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Scientists
January 15, 2013

File No. 10
01.
019547.
Secretary Richard K. Sullivan Jr.

Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900
Boston, MA 02114
Attention: MEPA Office
G Re: Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal

MEPA Expanded Environmental Notification Form
Dear Secretary Sullivan:
On behalf of the City of Northampton, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. is pleased to submit this
Expanded Environmental Notification Form ( EENF) for the removal of the Upper Roberts
Meadow Reservoir Dam in Northampton, Massachusetts. The Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir
One Edgewater Drive dam is an earthen embankment with a curved stone masonry spillway that was constructed in 1883.
Norwood
The reservoir was originally constructed as p art of the Cy water
t sup
pp1y system.
y t It is no longer
on g
Massachusetts 02062
Phone: 781-278 3700
- used for water supply purposes reservoir. Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir has no potential to
Fax: 781-278 5701
-
provide water supply, even on an emergency basis. Therefore, the dam currently serves no purpose
http:
gza.iiwww.
c
relative to the water supply for the City of Northampton.
The condition of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam has been rated as PoorUnsafe / since
the 1970's. The condition of the dam was again rated as "Poor" condition by the City's dam
engineering consultant, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. GZA) ( as stated in the 2006 Phase I Dam
Safety Inspection Report. GZA had continued to assign the "Poor"condition rating to the dam in
the subsequent 6 month
- follow up inspections (2007, 2009, and 2011) and Phase I Inspections
2008 and 2010). The "Poor"condition rating was assigned to the dam mainly due to significant
leakage through the spillway and abutments, displacement of masonry stone, potential internal
erosion, and other factors. As a result of the "Poor"condition rating in the 2006 Phase I Inspection
Report, the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation — Office of Dam Safety
issued a Certificate of Non -Compliance and Dam Safety Order to the City of Northampton on June
8, 2007 because the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam was a High Hazard Class (Class I)
structure in "Poor" condition. The Order requires that the City perform 6 month - follow up
-
inspections of the dam, perform a Phase II Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives Analyses, and
to bring the dam into compliance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts - Dam Safety
Regulations (302 CMR 10.00).After considerable engineering evaluation, alternatives analyses,
public input/ involvement, and pre-application discussions with environmental regulators, the City
selected dam removal as the preferred option to comply with the Order.
The dam will be removed and the stream within the existing reservoir basin will be restored.
The proposed Project will have the added benefit of connecting restoring
/ an upgradient cold water
fisheries stream in the area between Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and Middle Roberts
Meadow Reservoir. Each of these project elements is discussed in detail in the enclosed Expanded
Environmental Notification Form.
Copyright 2013 GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

An Equal Opportunity Employer M F
/ V
/H/
EOEEA MEPA
/ January 15, 2013
File No. 10.
01.
019547.
0 0 Page
This project triggers mandatory EIR thresholds under 301 CMR 4),
1I.
3)( 03(namely alteration
a)(
of an existing dam that decreases impoundment capacity. Based on the environmental analyses
completed to date, we are requesting waiver of the requirement for an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR).It is our belief that preparation of an EIR would not "serve to avoid or minimize
damage to the environment ", as described under 301 CMR 1),
11.11(or provide increased benefit to
the project and the environment, as described under 301 CMR 2).
11.11(The analyses completed
G to-date demonstrate that the project meets the EIR waiver thresholds as identified in
301 CMR 3).11.11(Specifically,
1. the project does not cause damage to the environment and

2. "ample and unconstrained infrastructure and services"exist to support the project.
While the project results in a change to the local environment, we do not believe that the project as
planned and implemented with various mitigation measures will result in damage to the
environment as defined by the MEPA regulations. The structure has also been determined to be
potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. As such, Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act compliance documentation will be completed as part of
future permitting work prior to any removal of the structure, and this mitigation work will be
performed in direct coordination with the MA Historical Commission.
As documented in the EENF, the dam removal will result in a multitude of long term - benefits to
local resources, including: restoration of connectivity of Roberts Meadow Brook to allow migration
of brook trout and other aquatic organisms from a lower segmented portion of the brook to the
upper reaches of the brook; restoration of natural flow patterns; reestablishment of natural sediment
and nutrient transport; improvement of water quality; and enhancement of habitat value and
long term
- sustainable benefits for aquatic organisms. The loss of open water area associated with
the current reservoir would be offset by these long term - environmental benefits. The second
condition is met because the project does not require infrastructure and services. This project will
improve public safety and will not result in a loss of public water supply, flood storage facility, or
any recreational opportunity. Also, this project relieves the City of Northampton of an ongoing
financial burden and risk to public safety. The proposed project will still require the issuance of
several permits, imposing the standards and conditions of these permits, and will receive full public
process under these permit processes. Therefore, the additional public review and analysis that
would accompany an EIR will, in effect, be accomplished as part of these public permit review
processes and the additional requirement for an EIR would not serve to better protect the
environment or provide public review.
In the event that the Secretary cannot make a determination that a waiver can be issued for the
requirement of an EIR, the ENF has been submitted as an Expanded ENF with the intent of
potentially being approvable under Single EIR process (301CMR11.
7)). 05(Therefore, if the
waiver is not granted, we respectfully request that the remaining MEPA documentation and review
be processed as a Single EIR.
EOEEA MEPA
/ January 15, 2013
File No. 10.
01.
019547.
0 0 Page
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Matthew Taylor at (781) 279 5803,
- Paul
Davis at (413)726 2100
- or Anders Bjarngard at (781)278 4802.
-
Sincerely,
GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

ZA
AafthewA. Taylor, P.E.
Senior Project Manager
Paul G. Davis, Ph.D.,
CPSSc
Principal Environmental Scientist
Anders B.Bjarngar , P.E.
Principal In-
- Charge
J:19,
\ 000 20,
- 999\19547\19547 10.
- MAT EENF\
Pmnitting\
\ Minal
F EPA\URMD
\ EENF Coverletter - Final - GZA Letterhead.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER PAGE
COVER LETTER
ENF FORM
ATTACHMENT 1. EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM NARRATIVE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................

1 ..............................
GZ\ 1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVE AND BENEFITS .........................................4

..............................
1.
11. Project Objective ................................................................................. 4
..............................
1.
21. Project Benefits .................................................................................... 4
..............................
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................. ...............................

6
2.1 Project Site Description .......................................................................6

..............................
2.2 7
Previous Dam Safety Inspections and Engineering Analyses ............. ..............................
3.0 11
Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................ ...............................
3.1 Alternatives Analysis Approach .........................................................11

.............................
3.2 Alternatives Analysis in Response to 2007 Dam Safety Order .......... 11

.............................
3.
12. Alternative No. 1 — No Action ............................................................
12 .............................
3.
22. Alternative No.2 — Dam Rehabilitation —Dam Modification ............12
.............................
3.
32. Alternative No. 3 — Full Dam Rehabilitation ......................................14
.............................
3.
2.
1 15
Hydropower Considerations ............................................................... .............................
3.
42. Alternative No.4 —
Dam 15
Removal (Preferred Alternative) ................. .............................
3.3 Conceptual Design —Dam Removal Alternative ................................

17 .............................
3.
13. Initial Sediment Management Alternatives Evaluation ......................18
.............................
3.
23. 20
Pre-Permitting Activities .................................................................... .............................
3.
33. Sediment Management Alternatives Analysis ....................................20
.............................
3.
43. Public Outreach Process ..................................................................... .............................
22
3.
53. Public Opposition for Dam Removal ..................................................36
.............................
4.0 Preliminary Design of Preferred Alternative: Dam Removal and Stream Restoration ...
38
4.1 Sediment Management —Hydraulic Dredging ................................. ...............................38

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
4.
11. 39
Grading — Stabilization of Sediments ................................................. .............................
4.
21. Stream Bed and Bank Features ........................................................... .............................
39
4.
31. Riparian Vegetation Planting ............................................................ ...............................40
4.2 41
Construction Approach & Sequencing ............................................... .............................
4.
12. Construction Approach ..................................................................... ...............................41
CJZX) 4.
22. Anticipated Construction Sequence - Sediment Containment Basin Construction .........
42
4.
32. Anticipated Construction Sequence - Hydraulic Dredging And Dam Removal .............
43
4.3 Schedule and Cost ............................................................................... .............................

47
5.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ............................................................

48 .............................
5.1 48
Topography, Geology, Soils and Sediments ....................................... .............................
5.
11. 53
Sediment Analysis ............................................................................ ...............................
5.2 Wetland Resource Areas ..................................................................... .............................

59
5.3 67
Watershed and Hydrology ................................................................ ...............................
5.4 Vegetation .......................................................................................... 69

.............................
5.5 Fish and Wildlife Resources ............................................................. ............................... 70
5.6 75
Rare Species ........................................................................................ .............................
5.7 75
Historic Structures or Districts and Archaeological Sites ................... .............................
5.8 Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................... 77

.............................
5.9 Noise .......................................................................................... .............................

78
5.
10 Hazardous Materials Review ............................................................ ...............................78
5.
11 Aesthetic Resources Open
/ Space Recreational
/ Resources ............... ............................... 80
5.
12 Socioeconomic Characteristics ......................................................... ............................... 81
6.0 IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT .............................................. 82

.............................
6.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils ...................................................... ............................... 82
6.2 Wetland Resource Areas ..................................................................... .............................

83
6.
12. 84
Land Under Waterway & Waterbody (LUWW) .............................. ...............................
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal

Northampton, Massachusetts
Expanded Environmental Notification Form
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
6.
22. Inland Bank ......................................................................................... 84
.............................
6.
32. 85
Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW) ............................................... .....................
6.
42. 86
Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF) ................................... ..............................
6.
52. 200 foot
- 87
Riverfront Area ( RFA) ......................................................... .............................
6.3 88
Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................... ...............................
6.4 Vegetation .......................................................................................... 89

.............................
6.5 Fisheries and Wildlife .........................................................................

89 .............................
6.6 90
Special Concern, Threatened and Endangered Species ...................... .............................
6.7 91
Historic Structures or Districts and Archaeological Sites ................... .............................
6.8 91
Air Quality ........................................................................................ ...............................
6.9 Noise .......................................................................................... .............................

92
6.
10 Hazardous Materials ......................................................................... ...............................92
6.
/ Space Recreational
/ Resources ............... ............................... 80
6.
12 Socioeconomic Characteristics ......................................................... ............................... 93
7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................

94 .............................
8.0 REQUESTS FOR WAIVER OF EIR OR FOR SINGLE EIR IN ALTERNATIVE

95
IF WAIVER NOT GRANTED) ...................................................... ...............................
9.0 REQUIRED PERMITS ......................................................................97

.............................
10.0 MITIGATION SUMMARY ...............................................................

99 .............................
11.0 REFERENCES ................................................... ...............................102

............................

TABLE OF CONTENTS (conk)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3 1:
- URMR Dam Removal Pre-Pemutting Activities Summary ............. ............................... 21
Table 3 2:
- URMR Dam Removal —Alternatives Analysis of Sediment Management Sub-
Alternatives..........
23
Table 3 3:Chronology
- of Public Meetings ........................................................ ............................... 25
rxzx Table 4 1:
-
Table 5 1
Proposed Riparian Zone Plantings ..................................................... .............................
- :Basic Limnological Characteristics of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir 48

.....................
40
Table 5 2:Reservoir
- 52
Depth and Volume ............................................................ ...............................
Table 5 3:US
- Riverways Program Sediment Sampling at Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir
November 2, 2005) Compared to MA Contingency and Background Levels ............... 54
- Sediment Testing Results — Soil Characteristics ............................... ............................... 55

Table 5 4:
- Sediment Testing Results — Particle Size Analysis Percent Passing, by weight ..............55
Table 5 5:
Table 5 6: 56
- Sediment Testing Results — Total Metals ..................... ....................................... ,............
Table 5 7:
- Sediment Testing Results — Metals Total Characteristics Leachate Procedure [mg/kg
56
ppm)] ........................................................................................ .......
Table 5 8:
- Sediment Sampling Results—
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) mg/kg (ppb)57
........
Table 5 9:
- Sediment Testing Results—Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPHs) ..................
58
Table 5 10:
- Wetland Resources in Proximity to Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir ........................59
Table 5 11:Hydrological
- Characteristics & Features of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir...........
67
Table 5 12:
- Land in Use in Reservoir Watershed ............................... _.............. ...............................67
Table 5 13:
- Characterization of Aquatic Habitat of Roberts Meadow Brook between Upper Roberts
Meadow Reservoir and Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir, 2009 Observations...........
73
Table 6 1:
- Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Wetland Resource Impact Summary 83
Upper Roberts Akadow Reservoir Dam Removal iv
Northamp04 Massachusetts
Expanded Environmental Aaafiication Form
TABLE OF CONTENTS (conk)
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure1 1
- Locus ........................................................ ..........................._... ................. ................
3
Figure2 1 8
- : Watershed .......................................................................................... ..............................
Figure 5 5
- :Wetlands Downgradient of URMR ................................................. 64
Figure5 6:FEMA
- Map ...................................................................................... 66
Figure 5 7
- :Watershed Land.Use ................................................................ 68
Figure 5 8
- :Stream Reaches _. ......... _. _....... ......._ 74.
Figure5 9:NHESP
- Map .................................................................................... 76.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 2—
Agency and Other Correspondence
ATTACHMENT 3 — Sediment Sampling Locations, Boring Plans, and Lab Analysis Results
ATTACHMENT 4 — Hydrologic Information. NEC RAS Modeling Results Illustrating Post Dam
Removal Water Elevations. Sediment Transport Modeling Results and Innundation
Study Graphics
ATTACHMENT 5 — Archaeological Services Report. Kerry J. Lynch, Ph.D.Background Research

and a National Register Eligibility Opinion for the The Upper Roberts Meadow
Reservoir Dam Northampton, Massachusetts
ATTACHMENT 6 — Preliminary Design Plan Set
ATTACHMENT 7—
EENF Distibution List
Upper Roberts Akadow Reservoir Darn Removal v
Northaram Massachusetts
Expanded Environmental Aaafiication Form
ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)Office
Environmental Notification Form
For Office Use Only

EEA #:
MEPA Analyst:
The information requested on this form must be completed in order to submit a document
electronically for review under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act, 301 CMR 11.00.
Project Name: Dam Removal at Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir

Street Address: Chesterfield Rd
Municipality: Northampton Watershed: Connecticut River
Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: Latitude: 42 56"
20'
17.
Longitude: 72 51"
43'40.
Estimated commencement date: 2013 Estimated completion date: 2015
Project Type: Dam Removal & Stream Status of project design: 25 % complete
Restoration
Proponent: City of Northampton, DPW
Street Address:125 Locust Street
Municipality: Northampton State: MA Zip Code: 01060

Name of Contact Person: Mr. Matthew Ta for
Firm Agency:
/ GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc.1 Street Address: One Edgewater Dr
Municipality: Norwood I State: MA Zi Code:02062
Phone: 781 -278 5803
- Fax: 6701
781-
278- E mail:
-
matthew.ta l or0aza.com
Does this project meet or exceed a mandatory EIR threshold (see 301 CMR 11.03)?
Yes No
If this is an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF)see

( 301 CMR 7))
11.05(or a
Notice of Project Change (N PC),are you requesting:
Single EIR?see
( 301 CMR 8))
11.06( Yes No Yes if Waiver not granted
Special Review Procedure?see ( 301CMR 11.09) Yes ®
No
Waiver of mandatory EIR?see ( 301 CMR 11.11) ® Yes No
Phase I Waiver?see( 301 CMR 11.11) Yes No
Note: Greenhouse Gas Emissions analysis must be included in the Expanded ENF.)
Which MEPA review threshold(s)

does the project meet or exceed (see 301 CMR 11.03)?
Structural alteration of an existing dam that causes .....any decrease in impoundment capacity
Which State Agency Permits will the project require?401 Water Quality Certification; Chap.
253 Dam Safety Permit; Chapter 91 Waiver Letter
Identify any financial assistance or land transfer from an Agency of the Commonwealth,
including the Agency name and the amount of funding or land area in acres: MEMA Grant
pending
Effective January 2011

Summary of Project Size Existing Change Total
Environmental Impacts
11±
Total site acreage
New acres of land altered 4.2 ac. open water
converted to stream &
Rivertront Area
riparian area
4.95 ac. temporary
sedimentation basin
0.
013 a
± c temporary 0.
0
Acres of impervious area
Square feet of new bordering 600 SF
± temporary for
access crossing
vegetated wetlands alteration
183,000 sf conversion
Square feet of new other wetland of Land Under Water
alteration to Rivertront Area
4.
2 conversion of Land
Acres of new non water
- dependent Under Water to
use of tidelands or waterwa yS Rivertront Area
STRUCTURES
Gross square footage 100 SF of existing 100 SF)dam removal ( 100 SF) removal
dam
0 0 0
Number of housing units
NA NA NA
Maximum height (feet)
TRANSPORTATION
NA NA NA
Vehicle trips per day
NA NA NA
Parking spaces
WASTEWATER
NA NA NA
Water Use (Gallons per day)
NA NA NA
Water withdrawal (GPD)
NA NA NA
Wastewater generation treatment
/
GPD)
NA NA NA
Length of water mains (miles)
NA NA NA
Length of sewer mains (miles)
Has this project been filed with MEPA before?

Yes (EEA# ) ® No
Has any project on this site been filed with MEPA before?
Yes (EEA# ) ® No
2-
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION - all proponents must fill out this section
PROJECT DESCRIPTION See Attachment 1 for full project description, alternatives analysis, existing
conditions, and anticipated impacts.
Describe the existing conditions and land uses on the project site:_
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is a 4.8 acre impoundment of Roberts Meadow Brook
located entirely on land owned by the City of Northampton DPW Water- Division. The reservoir is
within watershed lands upgradient of Middle Roberts Reservoir which is an emergency
water supply to the City of Northampton.
Describe the proposed project and its programmatic and physical elements:
In compliance with an Office of Dam Safety Order, the existing dam will be removed.
The reservoir will first be hydraulically dredged to remove most sediments that might be
mobilized upon dam removal. The temporary dredging sedimentation basin will be located
partially within riverfront area and floodplain downgradient of the dam, and will be restored
upon completion of the dredging. Roberts Meadow Brook will be reestablished within the
existing reservoir after being dewatered and the existing reservoir basin will be vegetated by seeding
and plantings with herbaceous and woody growth within the newly exposed riparian area. The
entire basin will become regulated Riverfront Area (RFA)for a net increase of 680,000 SF of RFA,
offsetting the loss of 183,000 SF of Land Under Water Bodies and Waterways (LUWW).The existing
high quality cold water stream habitat upgradient of the reservoir will be extended into the reservoir
and connectivity to a segmented 5900 linear feet of downgradient stream will be reestablished
as a result of this project. (Attachment 1)
Describe the on site

- project alternatives (and alternative off site
- locations, if applicable),considered
by the proponent, including at least one feasible alternative that is allowed under current zoning,
and the reasons(s) that they were not selected as the preferred alternative:
Alternatives considered as part of this project included repair of the dam, use of the dam for
hydropower a ( s a value added for dam repair),and different scenarios for dam removal. As
part of the dam removal alternative, different sediment management techniques were considered
sluicing of sediments, capture of sediments within the downgradient reservoir or stream diversion/
sedimentation basins, and pre-dredging the sediments. The alternatives were discussed at length
with regulators and the public, including discussion and public meeting with City
officials, residents, State and Federal regulatory officials, and public interest groups. While a
local dam restoration advocacy group remains in opposition to dam removal, it was determined
that dam removal would provide the greatest safety to the human and natural environment,
by addressing the identified dam safety issue, lowest cost, and greatest environmental benefit
associated with the project stream due to the stream restoration). S ( ee Attachment 1)
Summarize the mitigation measures proposed to offset the impacts of the preferred alternative:
Dam removal and stream restoration are an environmental mitigation measure relative to stream/
aquatic habitat connectivity and restoration of cold water fish habitat. Loss of limited warm
water fish habitat is an unavoidable consequence. Hydraulic dredging of accumulated sediments
will minimize sedimentation impacts during dam removal. Riparian areas will be restored with
vegetation. An invasive species control plan will be implemented. Follow up - monitoring will
address aquatic habitat and riparian zone restoration, and control of invasive species.
In addition, the dam has been identified as being potentially eligible for listing on the National
3-
Register of Historic Places. Therefore, the Section 404 permit will require compliance with
Section 106(f) National Historic Preservation Act which will require engineering and historic
documentation for archival purposes in coordination with the MA Historical Commission.
If the project is proposed to be constructed in phases, please describe each phase:

1. Invasive species control initiated
2. Pre -construction hydraulic dredging phase
3. Removal of dam in sections
4. Stream and riparian habitat restoration
5. Post construction monitoring
AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN:

Is the project within or adjacent to an Area of Critical Environmental Concern?
Yes S
( pecify )
No
if yes, does the ACEC have an approved Resource Management Plan? Yes _ No,
If yes, describe how the project complies with this plan.
Will there be stormwater runoff or discharge to the designated ACEC? Yes No,
If yes, describe and assess the potential impacts of such stormwater runoffdischarge
/ to the designated ACEC.
RARE SPECIES
Does the project site include Estimated and or
/ Priority Habitat of State -Listed Rare Species? see
(
http: www.
// mass.gov dfwel
/ e dfw
/ nhesp
/ regulatory
/ review
_ prio
/ rity_habitat prio
/ rity_
ho habitat_me.htm)
Yes ® No(But Wood Turtle habitat exists at headwaters of Reservoir
HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Does the project site include any structure, site or district listed in the State Register of Historic Place
or the inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth?
Yes S
( pecify ) ® No See attached report/
investigation.
Structure judged to be locally significant, likely requiring historical research documentation and
development of an engineering historical record in coordination with MA Historical Commission.
If yes, does the project involve any demolition or destruction of any listed or inventoried historic
or archaeological resources?Yes S
( pecify ) ® No However, site
recommended for listing.
WATER RESOURCES:
Is there an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) on or within a half mile
- radius of the project site?X Yes No,
if yes, identify the ORW and its location. Roberts Meadow Brook and Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is
Tributary to Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir which is an emergency back up municipal water supply to
the City of Northampton.
NOTE: Outstanding Resource Waters include Class A public water supplies, their tributaries, and bordering
wetlands, active and inactive reservoirs approved by MassDEP, certain waters within Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern, and certified vernal pools. Outstanding resource waters are listed in the
Surface Water Quality Standards, 314 CMR 4.00.)
Are there any impaired water bodies on or within a half mile

- radius of the project site?Yes
_ X_
No, if yes,
identify the water body and pollutant(s)
causing the impairment:
Is the project within a medium or high stress basin, as established by the Massachusetts
Water Resources Commission? Yes X No
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT:
Generally describe the project's stormwater impacts and measures that the project will take to comply
4-
with the standards found in MassDEP's Stormwater Management Regulations: NA. A local stormwater permit
will be required under City ordinance, and a construction NOI SWPPP
/ will be required due to construction
of sedimentation basin.
MASSACHUSETTS CONTINGENCY PLAN:

Has the project site been, or is it currently being, regulated under 21
M.
L. G.
c .E or the Massachusetts Contingency Plan?
Yes No X ; if yes, please describe the current status of the site (including Release Tracking Number (RTN),
cleanup phase, and Response Action Outcome classification):
Is there an Activity and Use Limitation (AUL)on any portion of the project site?Yes No
if yes, describe which portion of the site and how the project will be consistent with the AUL:
Are you aware of any Reportable Conditions at the property that have not yet been assigned an RTN?
Yes No ; if yes, please describe:
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE:
If the project will generate solid waste during demolition or construction, describe alternatives considered
for re u
- se, recycling, and disposal of, e.
g., asphalt, brick, concrete, gypsum, metal, wood:
Sediment from hydraulic dredging will be removed and disposed of on upland City property.
NOTE: Asphalt pavement, brick, concrete and metal are banned from disposal at Massachusetts
landfills and waste combustion facilities and wood is banned from disposal at Massachusetts landfills.
See 310 CMR 19.017 for the complete list of banned materials.)
Will your project disturb asbestos containing materials?Yes No X_

if yes, please consult state asbestos requirements at http: mass.
/ / gov MassDEP
/ air
/ asbhom0l.
/ htm
Describe anti -idling and other measures to limit emissions from construction equipment
DESIGNATED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER:
Is this project site located wholly or partially within a defined river corridor of a federally
designated Wild and Scenic River or a state designated Scenic River?Yes No X_
if yes, specify name of river and designation:
If yes, does the project have the potential to impact any of the "outstandingly remarkable"
resources of a federally Wild and Scenic River or the stated purpose of a state designated Scenic River?
Yes No if yes, specify name of river and designation:
if yes, will the project will result in any impacts to any of the designated "outstandingly remarkable"
resources of the Wild and Scenic River or the stated purposes of a Scenic River.
Yes No ;
if yes,describe the potential impacts to one or more of the "outstandingly remarkable" resources or
stated purposes and mitigation measures proposed
ATTACHMENTS:
1. List of all attachments to this document.
Attachment 1
Expanded Environmental Notification Form Narrative
Attachment 2
Agency and Other Correspondence
Attachment 3
Sediment Sampling Locations, Boring Profiles, and Lab Analysis Results
Attachment 4
HEC RAS
- Modeling Results Illustrating PostDam
- Removal
Water Elevations, Sediment Transport Modeling Results and Inundation
Mapping.
Attachment 5 Archaeological Services Report. Kerry J. Lynch, Ph.D. Background
5-
Research And National Register Eligibility Opinion For The Upper
Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Northampton, Massachusetts
Attachment 6 Plan Set
Attachment 7 EENF Distribution List
2. G.
U. S.map (good quality color copy, 8 -% x 11 inches or larger, at a scale of 000)1: 24,
indicating the project location and boundaries. Attachment 1
3.. Plan, at an appropriate scale, of existing conditions on the project site and its immediate
environs, showing all known structures, roadways and parking lots, railroad rights of - way,
-
wetlands and water bodies, wooded areas, farmland, steep slopes, public open spaces, and
major utilities. Attachment 6
4 Plan, at an appropriate scale, depicting environmental constraints on or adjacent to the
project site such as Priority and or
/ Estimated Habitat of state -listed rare species, Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern, Chapter 91 jurisdictional areas, Article 97 lands,
wetland resource area delineations, water supply protection areas, and historic resources
and or
/ districts. Attachment 1
5. Plan, at an appropriate scale, of proposed conditions upon completion of project (if
construction of the project is proposed to be phased, there should be a site plan showing
conditions upon the completion of each phase). Attachment 6
6. List of all agencies and persons to whom the proponent circulated the ENF, in accordance
with 301 CMR 2).11. 16( Attachment 7
7. List of municipal and federal permits and reviews required by the project, as applicable.
Attachment 1, Section 9.
6-
LAND SECTION —all proponents must fill out this section
I. Thresholds / Permits
A. Does the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to land (see 301 CMR 1)
11.
03(
Yes X_ No, if yes, specify each threshold:
Impacts and Permits

A. Describe, in acres, the current and proposed character of the project site, as follows:
Existing Change Total
Footprint of buildings
Internal roadways
Parking and other paved areas
Other altered areas
Undeveloped areas 4.8 reservoir 4.2 conversion 0.0 loss regulated area
to Riverfront Area
5.
0 woodland 5.0 temp sed basin 0.0 (restoration)
Total: Project Site Acreage 9.

8 9.8 temp 0.
0
B. Has any part of the project site been in active agricultural use in the last five years?
Yes _X_ No, if yes, how many acres of land in agricultural use (with prime state or
locally important agricultural soils) will be converted to nonagricultural use?
C. Is any part of the project site currently or proposed to be in active forestry use?
Yes _ X_ No, if yes, please describe current and proposed forestry activities and
indicate whether any part of the site is the subject of a forest management plan approved by
the Department of Conservation and Recreation: A forest stewardship plan will be
prepared for all water supply property owned by the City surrounding the 3 Roberts
Meadow reservoirs.
D. Does any part of the project involve conversion of land held for natural resources purposes in
accordance with Article 97 of the Amendments to the Constitution of the Commonwealth to
any purpose not in accordance with Article 97? Yes _
X _ No, if yes, describe:
E. Is any part of the project site currently subject to a conservation restriction, preservation
restriction, agricultural preservation restriction or watershed preservation restriction?X _
Yes_ No, if yes, does the project involve the release or modification of such restriction?
Yes _X_ No, if yes, describe: Temporary use of land for dam removal and
sedimentation basin consistent with City of Northampton reservoir watershed protections.
F. Does the project require approval of a new urban redevelopment project or a fundamental change
in an existing urban redevelopment project under 121
M.
L. G.
c .
A? Yes _X_ No, if yes,
describe:
G. Does the project require approval of a new urban renewal plan or a major modification of an
existing urban renewal plan under 121
M.
L. G.
c .B?Yes No _X_; if yes, describe:
III. Consistency
A. Identify the current municipal comprehensive land use plan
Title: Open Space Plan, Recreation & Multi Use
- Trail Plan Date 6 23
- 2011
-
N Describe the project's consistency with that plan with regard to:
1) economic development NA
2) adequacy of infrastructure NA
3) open space impacts _
dam removal and stream restoration consistent with
open space protection goals relative to goal EEC 3,
- OS 3.
-
4) compatibility with adjacent land uses All land is within City Protected
Watershed Protection Lands. Dam removal is compatible with watershed protection
goals for Middle Roberts Reservoir.
C. Identify the current Regional Policy Plan of the applicable Regional Planning Agency (RPA)
RPA: Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
Title:Valley Vision 2: New Regional Land Use Plan for the Pioneer Valley:
Date July 2011
D. Describe the project's consistency with that plan with regard to:
1) economic development NA
2) adequacy of infrastructure NA
3) open space impacts _ dam removal and stream restoration consistent with Goal
Eight to "Protect, restore, and enhance our regions' key environmental assets ".
RARE SPECIES SECTION
I. Thresholds f Permits
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to rare species or habitat (see
301 CMR 2))?
11. 03( Yes X No, if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
The reservoir is immediately downgradient of wood turtle habitat. Preliminary consultation

with NHESP does not suggest that a determination of t" ake"is likely and that the dam
removal will likely be of benefit to the species. However, additional review and consultation
will occur with the filing of the MA Wetlands Protection Act Notice of Intent. NHESP will
complete its review of the project once the MWPA NOI is filed with the Northampton
Conservation Commission, DEP and NHESP.
NOTE: If you are uncertain, it is recommended that you consult with the Natural Heritage and
Endangered Species Program (NHESP)prior to submitting the ENF.)
B. Does the project require any state permits related to rare species or habitat? Yes _X_ No
Coordination via MA Wetlands Protection Act permitting.
C. Does the project site fall within mapped rare species habitat (Priority or Estimated Habitat?)
in the
current Massachusetts Natural Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? Yes _ X_ No.
Immediately adjacent at upper reaches of reservoir.
D. If you answered "No"to all questions A, B and C, proceed to the Wetlands, Waterways, and
Tidelands Section. If you answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the
remainder of the Rare Species section below.
Impacts and Permits

A. Does the project site fall within Priority or Estimated Habitat in the current Massachusetts Natural
Heritage Atlas (attach relevant page)? Yes No. If yes,
1. Have you consulted with the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife Natural Heritage and
Endangered Species Program (NHESP)? Yes
_ No,
_ if yes, have you received a
determination as to whether the project will result in the "take"of a rare species?
Yes No, if yes, attach the letter of determination to this submission.
2. Will the project "take"an endangered, threatened, and or

/ species of special concern in
accordance with L.M. G.c. 131A (see also 321 CMR 10.04)? Yes _ No, if yes, provide
a summary of proposed measures to minimize and mitigate rare species impacts
3. Which rare species are known to occur within the Priority or Estimated Habitat?
4. Has the site been surveyed for rare species in accordance with the Massachusetts
Endangered Species Act? _ Yes No
4. If your project is within Estimated Habitat, have you filed a Notice of Intent or received an
8-
Order of Conditions for this project? _ Yes No, if yes, did you send a copy of the
Notice of Intent to the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, in accordance
with the Wetlands Protection Act regulations? Yes _ No
B. Will the project "take"an endangered, threatened, and or

/ species of special concern in
accordance with L.
M. G.c.1 31A (see also 321 CMR 10.04)? _Yes No, if yes,
provide a summary of proposed measures to minimize and mitigate impacts to significant
habitat:
WETLANDS, WATERWAYS, AND TIDELANDS SECTION
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wetlands, waterways, and
tidelands (see 301 CMR 3))?
11. 03(X Yes No, if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
Alteration of > 500 LF of Inland Bank. Relocation of Bank within reservoir (3660 LF)to
stream (3450 LF)reestablished within current base of waterbody.
Alteration of > 0.
5 acres of other wetlands.
Conversion of 183,000 SF of LUWW to Rivertront Area, with additional 500,000 SF
of Rivertront Area creation.
Temporary conversion of Rivertront Area and Bordering Land Subject to Flooding
to Sedimentation Basin for use in hydraulically dredging of reservoir to minimize
impacts associated with sediment release from dewatered reservoir.
B. Does the project require any state permits (or a local Order of Conditions) related to wetlands,
waterways, or tidelands?X Yes No, if yes, specify which permit:
MA Wetlands Protection Act Notice of Intent & Order of Conditions

Section 401 Water Quality Certification
Chapter 91 Certification Waiver Letter
C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Water Supply Section. If you
answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Wetlands,
Waterways, and Tidelands Section below.
II.Wetlands Impacts and Permits

A. Does the project require a new or amended Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection
Act (M.
L. G.c. 131 A)?X_ Yes No, if yes, has a Notice of Intent been filed? Yes X_ No, if
yes, list the date and MassDEP file number: , if yes, has a local Order of Conditions been
issued? Yes No, Was the Order of Conditions appealed? Yes No. Will the
project require a Variance from the Wetlands regulations? Yes No.
B. Describe any proposed permanent or temporary impacts to wetland resource areas located on
the project site:
9-
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Wetland Resource Impact Summar
Construction Access & Total
Resource Area Reservoir Basin Area Dredging Containment Basin Permanent
Temporary Permanent Created Temporary Permanent Change

L d Under
r
25,500 SF stream 183,000 SF 157,500 SF
a Y 0 0 0
restoration decrease decrease
Waterbody
20 LF
210 LF
construction 3660 LF 3450 LF 35±
LF 0
Bank decrease
access)
Bordering 600±SF
Vegetated 0 0 0 construction 0 0
Wetland I access with mats
Bordering Land
Subject to 0 0 0 216,000±SF 0 0
Floodin
17,400 SF
construction
680,000
access from 680,000 SF
Riverfrord Area 0 SF 180,000±SF 0
Kennedy Road increase
increase
on north side of
brook)
C. Estimate the extent and type of impact that the project will have on wetland resources, and
indicate whether the impacts are temporary or permanent:
Coastal Wetlands Area (square feet) or Temporary or

Length (linear feet) Permanent Impact?
Land Under the Ocean

Designated Port Areas
Coastal Beaches
CoastalCoastal DunesDunes
Barrier Beaches
Coastal Banks
Rocky Intertidal Shores
SaltSalt MarshesMarshes
Land Under Salt Ponds
Land Containing Shellfish
Fish Runs
LandLand Subject Subject toto CoastalCoastal StormStorm Flowage Flowage
InlandInland WetlandsWetlands
( ( seesee TableTable insertedinserted aboveabove forfor breakdownbreakdown ofof temp.temp. and permanent impacts)
BankBank
( ( If)If) 210210 netnet lossloss 36603660
BorderingBordering VegetatedVegetated WetlandsWetlands 0 600 SF
Isolated Vegetated Wetlands 0 0
Land under Water 183.000 SF 208,500 SF
IsolatedIsolated LandLand Subject Subject toto FloodingFlooding 0 00
BorderingBordering LandLand Subject Subject toto FloodingFlooding 216.000 SFSF
Riverfront Area
D. Is any part of the project

1. proposed as a limited project?X_
_ Yes No, if yes, what is the area (in sf)?_
See Table Above
2. the construction or alteration of a dam?X_ _ Yes No, if yes, describe: Removal
3. fill or structure in a velocity zone or regulatory floodway? Yes X
_ _No
to-
4. dredging or disposal of dredged material?X_ _ Yes _ No, if yes, describe the volume
of dredged material and the proposed disposal site: Approx. 10,000 CY of
sediment will be dredged from the pond with dewatering located northeast and downstream of the
reservoir. After dewatering, the material will either be left in place or transported for reuse.
5. a discharge to an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW)or an Area of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC)? X_ Yes No
return flow of hydraulic dredging flow to stream post treatment. As per 314
CMR 0. 07 DEP may allow dam removal
6. subject to a wetlands restriction order? Yes _
X_ No, if yes, identify the area (in sf):
7. located in buffer zones?Yes_ X
_ No, if yes, how much (in sf) _
All work within Riverfront Area which extends beyond buffer zones
E. Will the project:

1. be subject to a local wetlands ordinance or bylaw?X _ Yes No
2. alter any federally-protected wetlands not regulated under state law? Yes _
X_No, if
yes, what is the area (sf)?
III. Waterways and Tidelands Impacts and Permits

A. Does the project site contain waterways or tidelands (including filled former tidelands) that are
subject to the Waterways Act, 91?
M.
L. G.
c . X Yes No, if yes, is there a current Chapter 91
License or Permit affecting the project site? Yes _
X No, if yes, list the date and license or
to
permit number and provide a copy of the hisric map used to determine extent of filled
tidelands: Chapter 91 waiver will be requested. State Policy indicates that dam removal
and stream restoration can qualify as a public benefit.
B. Does the project require a new or modified license or permit under 91? M.
L. G.
c . Yes X No,
if yes, how many acres of the project site subject to 91 M.
L. G.
c . will be for non -water -dependent
use? Current — Change Total _0_
If yes, how many square feet of solid fill or pile -supported structures (in sf)?
C. For non -water -dependent use projects, indicate the following:

Area of filled tidelands on the site 0
Area of filled tidelands covered by buildings:0
For portions of site on filled tidelands, list ground floor uses and area of each use
Does the project include new non -water -dependent uses located over flowed tidelands?
Yes No _X_
Height of building on filled tidelands_X
Also show the following on a site plan: Mean High Water, Mean Low Water, Water -
dependent Use Zone, location of uses within buildings on tidelands, and interior and
exterior areas and facilities dedicated for public use, and historic high and historic low
water marks.
D. Is the project located on landlocked tidelands? Yes _X No, if yes, describe the project's
impact on the public's right to access, use and enjoy jurisdictional tidelands and describe
measures the project will implement to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impact:
E. Is the project located in an area where low groundwater levels have been identified by a
municipality or by a state or federal agency as a threat to building foundations? Ye=.
X_ No, if yes, describe the project's impact on groundwater levels and describe
measures the project will implement to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse impact:
F. Is the project non -water -dependent and located on landlocked tidelands or waterways or
tidelands subject to the Waterways Act and subject to a mandatory EIR?Yes _ X_No,
NOTE: If yes, then the project will be subject to Public Benefit Review and
11-
Determination.)
G. Does the project include dredging? X_ Yes_ No; if yes, answer the following questions:
What type of dredging?Improvement X Maintenance Both
What is the proposed dredge volume, in cubic yards (cys)10, < 000 CY
What is the proposed dredge footprint?1300 ft length, 100 ft width, 13 ft max depth
Will dredging impact the following resource areas?
Intertidal Yes_ No X_; if yes, sq ft
Outstanding Resource Waters Yes X_ No_; if yes, 160,000 sq ft
Other resource area (i. e. shellfish beds, eel grass beds) Yes_ No_ X_; if yes
sq ft
If yes to any of the above, have you evaluated appropriate and practicable steps
to: 1)avoidance; 2)if avoidance is not possible, minimization; 3)if either
avoidance or minimize is not possible, mitigation? YES
If no to any of the above, what information or documentation was used to support
this determination?
Provide a comprehensive analysis of practicable alternatives for improvement dredging in
accordance with 314 CMR 1)(9. 07( Physical and chemical data of the
b).
sediment shall be included in the comprehensive analysis. SEE ATTACHMENTS
Sediment Characterization SEE ATTACHMENTS
Existing gradation analysis results?X_ Yes No: if yes, provide results.
Existing chemical results for parameters listed in 314 CMR 6? 9.
2)( 07(
b) X_ Yes
No; if yes, provide results. SEE ATTACHMENTS
Do you have sufficient information to evaluate feasibility of the following management
options for dredged sediment? If yes, check the appropriate option.
Beach Nourishment_
Unconfined Ocean Disposal
Confined Disposal:
Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD)
Confined Disposal Facility (CDF)
Landfill Reuse in accordance with COMM 97
- 001
-
Shoreline Placement
Upland Material Reuse X
In State
- landfill disposal_
Out of
- state
- landfill disposal
NOTE: This information is required for a 401 Water Quality Certification.)
IV. Consistency:
A. Does the project have effects on the coastal resources or uses, and or / is the project located
within the Coastal Zone? Yes X_ No, if yes, describe these effects and the projects consistency
with the policies of the Office of Coastal Zone Management:
B. Is the project located within an area subject to a Municipal Harbor Plan? Yes X_ No, if yes,
identify the Municipal Harbor Plan and describe the project's consistency with that plan:
WATER SUPPLY SECTION
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to water supply (see 301 CMR
11.
4))?03( Yes X_ No, if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to water supply?Yes X_
No, if yes,
specify which permit:
12-
C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Wastewater Section. If you
answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Water Supply Section
below.
Impacts and Permits

A. Describe, in gallons per day (gpd),the volume and source of water use for existing and proposed
activities at the project site:
Municipal or regional water supply
Withdrawal from groundwater
Withdrawal from surface water
Interbasin transfer
NOTE: Interbasin Transfer approval will be required if the basin and community where the proposed
water supply source is located is different from the basin and community where the wastewater
from the source will be discharged.)
B. If the source is a municipal or regional supply, has the municipality or region indicated that there
is adequate capacity in the system to accommodate the project? Yes No
C. If the project involves a new or expanded withdrawal from a groundwater or surface water
source, has a pumping test been conducted? Yes No, if yes, attach a map of the drilling
sites and a summary of the alternatives considered and the results.
D. What is the currently permitted withdrawal at the proposed water supply source (in gallons per
day)? Will the project require an increase in that withdrawal?Yes
_ No, if yes, then how
much of an increase (gpd)?
E. Does the project site currently contain a water supply well, a drinking water treatment facility,
water main, or other water supply facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility?
Yes No. If yes, describe existing and proposed water supply facilities at the project site:
Permitted Existing Avg Project Flow Total

Flow Daily Flow
Capacity of water supply well(s)gpd)(
Capacity of water treatment plant (gpd)
F. If the project involves a new interbasin transfer of water, which basins are involved, what is the
direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or proposed?
G. Does the project involve:

1. new water service by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority or other agency of
the Commonwealth to a municipality or water district? _ Yes No
2. a Watershed Protection Act variance? Yes No, if yes, how many acres of
alteration?
3. a non -bridged stream crossing 1, 000 or less feet upstream of a public surface drinking
water supply for purpose of forest harvesting activities? Yes No
III. Consistency
Describe the project's consistency with water conservation plans or other plans to enhance water
resources, quality, facilities and services:
WASTEWATER SECTION
13-
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to wastewater (see 301 CMR
11.
B. Does the project require any state permits related to wastewater? Yes X_
No, if yes,
specify which permit:
C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Transportation -- Traffic
Generation Section. If you answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder
of the Wastewater Section below.
II. Impacts and Permits

A. Describe the volume (in gallons per day) and type of disposal of wastewater generation for
existing and proposed activities at the project site (calculate according to 310 CMR 15.00 for septic
systems or 314 CMR 7.00 for sewer systems):
Discharge of sanitary wastewater

Discharge of industrial wastewater
TOTAL

Discharge to groundwater
Discharge to outstanding resource water
Discharge to surface water
Discharge to municipal or regional wastewater
facility
TOTAL
B. Is the existing collection system at or near its capacity? Yes No, if yes, then describe
the measures to be undertaken to accommodate the project's wastewater flows:
C. Is the existing wastewater disposal facility at or near its permitted capacity?Yes _ No, if
yes, then describe the measures to be undertaken to accommodate the project's wastewater flows:
D. Does the project site currently contain a wastewater treatment facility, sewer main, or other
wastewater disposal facility, or will the project involve construction of a new facility?Yes
No, if yes, describe as follows:
Permitted Existing Avg Project Flow Total

Daily Flow
Wastewater treatment plant capacity
in gallons per day)
E. If the project requires an interbasin transfer of wastewater, which basins are involved, what is the
direction of the transfer, and is the interbasin transfer existing or new?
NOTE: Interbasin Transfer approval may be needed if the basin and community where wastewater
will be discharged is different from the basin and community where the source of water supply is
located.)
14-
F. Does the project involve new sewer service by the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
MWRA) or other Agency of the Commonwealth to a municipality or sewer district? _ Yes No
G. Is there an existing facility, or is a new facility proposed at the project site for the storage,
treatment, processing, combustion or disposal of sewage sludge, sludge ash, grit, screenings,
wastewater reuse (gray water) or other sewage residual materials? Yes No, if yes, what is
the capacity (tons per day):

Storage
Treatment
Processing
Combustion
Disposal
H. Describe the water conservation measures to be undertaken by the project, and other
wastewater mitigation, such as infiltration and inflow removal.
III. Consistency
A. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with applicable state, regional, and
local plans and policies related to wastewater management:
B. If the project requires a sewer extension permit, is that extension included in a comprehensive
wastewater management plan? Yes No, if yes, indicate the EEA number for the plan
and whether the project site is within a sewer service area recommended or approved in that
plan:
TRANSPORTATION SECTION (TRAFFIC GENERATION)
I. Thresholds / Permit
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to traffic generation (see 301 CMR
11.
C. Does the project require any state permits related to state -controlled roadways? _Yes X_
No,
if yes, specify which permit:
C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Roadways and Other
Transportation Facilities Section. If you answered 'Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out
the remainder of the Traffic Generation Section below.
II.Traffic Impacts and Permits

A. Describe existing and proposed vehicular traffic generated by activities at the project site:
Number of parking spaces
Number of vehicle trips per day
ITE Land Use Code(s):
B. What is the estimated average daily traffic on roadways serving the site?
Roadway Existing Change Total
1.
2.
3.
15-
C. If applicable, describe proposed mitigation measures on state -controlled roadways that the
project proponent will implement:
D. How will the project implement and or

/ promote the use of transit, pedestrian and bicycle facilities
and services to provide access to and from the project site?
C. Is there a Transportation Management Association (TMA)that provides transportation demand

management (TDM)services in the area of the project site? Yes No, if yes, describe
if and how will the project will participate in the TMA:
D. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water, rail, or air transportation
facilities? Yes No, if yes, generally describe:
E. If the project will penetrate approach airspace of a nearby airport, has the proponent filed a
Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission Airspace Review Form (780 CMR 111.7)and a Notice
of Proposed Construction or Alteration with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
CFR Title 14 Part 77.13, forms 7460 1- and 7460 2)? -
III. Consistency
Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with municipal, regional, state, and federal
plans and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and
services:
TRANSPORTATION SECTION (ROADWAYS AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION

FACILITIES)
I. Thresholds
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to roadways or other
transportation facilities (see 301 CMR 6))?
11. 03(Yes X_ No, if yes, specify, in quantitative
terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to roadways or other transportation
facilities? Yes _X No, if yes, specify which permit:
C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Energy Section. If you
answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Roadways Section
below.
II.Transportation Facility Impacts

A. Describe existing and proposed transportation facilities in the immediate vicinity of the project
site
B. Will the project involve any

1. Alteration of bank or terrain (in linear feet)?
2. Cutting of living public shade trees (number)?
3. Elimination of stone wall (in linear feet)?
III. Consistency -- Describe the project's consistency with other federal, state, regional, and local plans
and policies related to traffic, transit, pedestrian and bicycle transportation facilities and services,
including consistency with the applicable regional transportation plan and the Transportation
Improvements Plan (TIP),the State Bicycle Plan, and the State Pedestrian Plan:
16-
ENERGY SECTION
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to energy (see 301 CMR 7))?
11.
03(
Yes X_ No, if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to energy? Yes X_
No, if yes, specify
which permit:
C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Air Quality Section. If you
answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Energy Section
below.

A. Describe existing and proposed energy generation and transmission facilities at the project site:
Capacity of electric generating facility (megawatts)
Length of fuel line (in miles)
Length of transmission lines (in miles)
Capacity of transmission lines (in kilovolts)
B. If the project involves construction or expansion of an electric generating facility, what are:
1. the facility's current and proposed fuel source(s)?
2. the facility's current and proposed cooling source(s)?
C. If the project involves construction of an electrical transmission line, will it be located on a new,
unused, or abandoned right of way?Yes _ No,
_ if yes, please describe:
D. Describe the project's other impacts on energy facilities and services:
III. Consistency
Describe the project's consistency with state, municipal, regional, and federal plans and policies for
enhancing energy facilities and services:
AIR QUALITY SECTION
I. Thresholds
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to air quality (see 301 CMR
11.
8))?03( Yes X No, if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to air quality? Yes X
_ No, if yes, specify
which permit:
C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Solid and Hazardous Waste
Section. If you answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the remainder of the Air
Quality Section below.

A. Does the project involve construction or modification of a major stationary source (see 310 CMR
7.00, Appendix A)? Yes _ No, if yes, describe existing and proposed emissions (in tons
per day)of
17-
Particulate matter
Carbon monoxide
Sulfur dioxide
Volatile organic compounds
Oxides of nitrogen
Lead
Any hazardous air pollutant
Carbon dioxide
B. Describe the project's other impacts on air resources and air quality, including noise impacts:
III. Consistency
A. Describe the project's consistency with the State Implementation Plan:
B. Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with other federal, state, regional, and
local plans and policies related to air resources and air quality:
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE SECTION
A. Will the project meet or exceed any review thresholds related to solid or hazardous waste (see
301 CMR 9))?
11. 03(Yes X_ _ No, if yes, specify, in quantitative terms:
B. Does the project require any state permits related to solid and hazardous waste? _
Yes X No,
if yes, specify which permit:
C. If you answered "No"to both questions A and B, proceed to the Historical and Archaeological
Resources Section. If you answered "Yes"to either question A or question B, fill out the
remainder of the Solid and Hazardous Waste Section below.

A. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, treatment, processing,
combustion or disposal of solid waste? Yes No, if yes, what is the volume (in tons per day)
of the capacity:
Storage
Treatment, processing
Combustion
Disposal
B. Is there any current or proposed facility at the project site for the storage, recycling, treatment or
disposal of hazardous waste? Yes No, if yes, what is the volume (in tons or gallons per day)
of the capacity:

Storage
Recycling
Treatment
Disposal
C. If the project will generate solid waste (for example, during demolition or construction),describe
alternatives considered for re use,
- recycling, and disposal:
D. If the project involves demolition, do any buildings to be demolished contain asbestos?
18
Yes No
E. Describe the project's other solid and hazardous waste impacts (including indirect impacts):
III. Consistency
Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with the State Solid Waste Master Plan:
HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SECTION
I. Thresholds / Impacts
A. Have you consulted with the Massachusetts Historical Commission? X_ Yes _ No if yes,
attach correspondence. For project sites involving lands under water, have you consulted with the
Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources?X _ Yes —No,if yes, attach
correspondence
B. Is any part of the project site a historic structure, or a structure within a historic district, in either
case listed in the State Register of Historic Places or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological
Assets of the Commonwealth? _ Yes _X_ No, if yes, does the project involve the demolition of
all or any exterior part of such historic structure? Yes No; if yes, please describe:
C. Is any part of the project site an archaeological site listed in the State Register of Historic Places
or the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth? Yes X_ _ No,
Judged to be potentially eligible.
if yes, does the project involve the destruction of all or any part of such archaeological site?X_ _
Yes No, if yes, please describe:
Dam, which was judged potentially eligible will be removed.
D. If you answered "No"to all parts of both questions A, B and C, proceed to the Attachments and
Certifications Sections. If you answered "Yes"to any part of either question A or question B, fill out
the remainder of the Historical and Archaeological Resources Section below.
II. Impacts
Describe and assess the project's impacts, direct and indirect, on listed or inventoried historical and
archaeological resources:
Due to questions raised during the initial agency consultation relative to the potential for
historic resources on site,
- a Phase 1 analysis has been performed and the results are summarized
and presented in the EENF (Attachment 1).Based upon this analysis,the dam was judged to be
potentially eligible structure based upon local significance and structural integrity. The full report is
given in Attachment 5 and has been submitted to MHC and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.
Assuming they concur with the findings, removal will likely require more extensive engineering
documentation of the existing structure for archival purposes in addition to the historic research
performed as part of the Phase 1 analysis. All such work will be done in conformance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and in coordination with the MA Historical Commission.
III. Consistency
Describe measures that the proponent will take to comply with federal, state, regional, and local
plans and policies related to preserving historical and archaeological resources:
The City will coordinate with MHC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to satisfy any
requirements for documentation of the historic engineering features prior to dam removal.
19
CERTIFICATIONS:
The Public Notice of Environmental Review has been will

/ be published in the following
newspapers in accordance with 301 CMR 1):11.15(
Name) Daily Hampshire Gazette ( Date) January 15, 2013
2. This form has been circulated to Agencies and Persons in accordance with 301 CMR 2).
11.16(
Signatures:
I
Date Signature of Responsibletfficer - Date Signdture of person preparing
or Proponent NPC (if different from above)
Edward S. Huntley, P.E. Director Matthew A.Taylor, P.E.

Name (print or type) Name (print or type)
City of Northampton Public Works GZA GeoEnviron mental, Inc.

Firm Agency
/ Firm Agency
/
125 Locust Street One Edgewater Drive

Street Street
Northampton, MA 01060 Norwood, MA 02062

MunicipalityState
/ Zip
/ Municipality State
/ Zip
/
413 587
- 1570
- 781-278 5803
-
Phone Phone
20
ATTACHMENT
EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM
E:"
WI

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Project proposes to remove the Upper

Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, which
impounds Upper Roberts Meadow
Reservoir in the Village of Leeds in
Northampton, Massachusetts (Figure 1 1
- ).
The documentation in this Attachment is
submitted in support of the MEPA
rizk) Expanded Environmental Notification

Form (EENF)and request for waiver of the
requirement for an Environmental Impact
Report. The proposed Upper Roberts
Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Project
will exceed the following Mandatory
Environmental Impact Report ( EIR)
review threshold criteria: removal of an
existing dam that would result in a
decrease in impoundment capacity

301 CMR 4). 11.
3)( 03( The City of
a)(
Northampton is requesting a waiver from
the mandatory EIR requirement. The
information contained in this Expanded
Environmental Notification Form (EENF)
is intended to provide sufficient
information to allow the Secretary to grant the EIR waiver. In the event that the Secretary
finds that an EIR continues to be required for this project, we request approval for
processing this filing as a Single EIR. The justification for these requests is summarized in
greater detail in Section 8.0 of this Attachment.
The Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir dam is an earthen embankment with a curved stone
masonry spillway that was constructed in 1883. The reservoir was originally constructed as
part of the City's water supply system, to control flows to Middle Roberts Reservoir, but
no longer is used as a water supply reservoir. Around 1905, the reservoir was taken off
line with the construction of Mountain Street Reservoir in Williamsburg, MA. While the
piping still exists, potentially allowing utilization of Middle Roberts Reservoir as a public
drinking water supply, the Middle Roberts Reservoir currently only provides an emergency
backup water supply reservoir to the existing municipal water supply. Upper Roberts
Meadow Reservoir has no potential to provide water supply, even on an emergency basis.
Therefore, the dam currently serves no purpose relative to the water supply for the City of
Northampton. However, Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is still considered an
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)314 ( CMR 2))
4. 06(because it ultimately discharges
to the Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir.

The condition of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam has been
rated as Poor/Unsafe since the 1970's. The condition of the dam was
again
rated as "Poor"condition by the City's dam engineering consultant,
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. GZA)
( as stated in the 2006 Phase I Dam Safety Inspection
Report. GZA had continued to assign the "Poor" condition rating to the dam in the
subsequent 6 month
- Follow up Inspections (2007, 2009, and 2011) and Phase I Inspections
2008, 2010 and 2012). The "Poor"condition rating was assigned to the dam mainly due
to significant leakage through the masonry spillway and its abutments, displacement of
a4n I
masonry stone, a surface depression on the right embankment near the right training wall,
trees and brush on the dike, inadequate factors of safety against sliding and overturning
and inadequate spillway capacity.
As a result of the "Poor" condition rating in the 2006 Phase I Inspection Report, the
Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation — Office of Dam Safety issued
a Certificate of Non -Compliance and Dam Safety Order to the City of Northampton on
June 8, 2007 because the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam was a High Hazard Class
Class I)structure in "Poor"condition. The Order requires that the City perform 6 m
- onth
follow up
- inspections of the dam, performs a Phase II Engineering Evaluation and
Alternatives Analyses, and to bring the dam into compliance with the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts - Dam Safety Regulations (302 CMR 10.00).
After considerable engineering evaluation, alternatives analyses, public input/

involvement,
and pre -application discussions with environmental regulators, the City selected dam
removal as the preferred option to comply with the dam safety order. The Phase II Study
has been completed and the follow up- inspections are being performed every six months.
The dam will be removed and the stream within the existing reservoir basin will be
restored. The proposed Project will have the added benefit of connecting restoring
/ an
upgradient cold water fisheries stream in the area between Upper Roberts Meadow
Reservoir and Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir.
The proposed method of dam removal has been developed to minimize impacts associated
with the breaching of the dam. The reservoir basin is currently an average depth of 4
< feet
with accumulated soft sediments that are up to 15 feet thick for a total quantity of about
27,000 cubic yards within the impoundment. To control sediment release during the dam
removal, a portion of the reservoir basin will be hydraulically dredged prior to removal of
the dam. The actual removal of the dam structure will be performed in stages to further
assist in the control of sediment. The hydraulically dredged sediment will be pumped to a
containment basin that will be constructed on the north side of Roberts Meadow Brook and
east side of Kennedy Road, downgradient of the dam.
The dredged sediment basin will be located on a property owned by the City of
Northampton - Water Division, which is also within the 100 year- FEMA floodplain of the
Roberts Meadow Brook. Upon completion of the dam removal, the dredged sediment
basin area will be revegetated and graded upon completion of the project, preserving the
floodplain storage and function. As a result, there will be a need to remove some
combination of existing soils and sediment from the site to eliminate any fill in floodplain.

Expanded Environmental Notification Form 2
J%
I r
N
I
J WE
Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir 9

i
r!
I
oberts
Ij
1 Dewatering Area I J i-
try c
may l .,
e ..riil M1r
l /
r
Rohhe is I
Meadow 1,\ 6
I'
Upper
pp berts Meadow Reservoir
Roberts
Tr
Mtn
nd
rr
r r!
ll''
IA
reRq,PVt;
tsr
Feet Project No:

2,
000 1,
000 0 2,
000
LOCUS MAP 01.
100019547.
Drawn by:
ERH
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Checked by:
Dam Removal Project PGD
Date:
Northampton, MA 311712011
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP Figure No:

111 EASTHAMPTON, 1979
6io GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc.

Data obtained from MASS GIS, Commowealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)
11
3
1.1 Project Objective And Benefits
1.
11. Project Objective
The primary project objective of the Project is to satisfy the requirements of the
June 8, 2007 Certificate of Non -Compliance Dam - Safety Order issued by the
MADCR-Office of Dam Safety to the City. The Order states that the City must bring the
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam into compliance with the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Dam Safety Regulation (302 CMR 10.00).A copy of the Order is included
in Attachment 2. An added benefit of the Project will be the restoration of the Roberts
Meadow Brook stream habitat within the existing reservoir basin.
1.
21. Project Benefits
The removal of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam will have immediate benefits
for the City, the community, City's water rate payers and the environment. First and
foremost, the removal of the dam will allow the City to come into compliance with the
dam safety regulations. The dam no longer serves its intended function as a component in
the City's water supply system. The removal of the dam will reduce the City's risk and
liability associated with owning a High Hazard dam and the threat to the downstream
residents. The dam removal alternative (as opposed to dam rehabilitation)is the most cost
effective solution, thus allowing the City to direct future spending on projects, which will
provide a greater benefit to the community, and specifically, the water rate payers within
the City of Northampton.
In addition, the dam removal will also provide a potential benefit to the environment by
restoring the stream habitat that once existed in the area. The stream restoration will also
reconnect an upgradient high quality brook trout stream to the potential trout habitat in the
stream between the Upper and Middle Reservoirs on the Roberts Meadow Brook.
The dam removal has received verbal support from the American Rivers and the
MA Department of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW). The dam removal will provide the
following specific benefits to the environment:
The dam removal will restore stream connectivity between the high quality
upgradient brook trout stream and the potential trout habitat located within the
stream between the upper and middle reservoirs along the Roberts Meadow
Brook.
The dam removal will improve water quality by eliminating an area where the
cold water
- stream is warmed in the existing reservoir, and maintain high natural
dissolved oxygen levels within the stream regime.
The dam removal will provide a continuous vegetated riparian corridor between
Reservoir Road and the re-established stream, whereas currently the open water
extends to the immediate margin of the road along a 500±foot segment.

Currently, the habitat for wood turtle is considered to end at the upper reaches
of the reservoir. It is likely that this habitat will follow the stream
downgradient with the restoration of the stream within the reservoir basin,
potentially resulting in an increase in wood turtle habitat.
The beneficial environmental changes listed above will result in transitioning the existing
impounded reservoir, which functions as a small, shallow warm water - pond habitat, into
the pre-existing cold water stream and riparian habitat. The stream connectivity and
Z)k
habitat improvements will restore the local landscape more closely to the historic
conditions that existed prior to the construction of the dam and will be viewed as a net
benefit to the environment (See Section 6.0 for greater detail on project impacts).

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following section provides a project site description, identification of the project
purpose, a summary of the previous studies, a summary of the decision process used to
select the dam removal alternative including the public involvement, discussion of the
conceptual and preliminary design phases, and anticipated construction activities that will
be required.
2.1 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION
Upper Robert's Meadow Reservoir Dam ( Dam) (NID No. MA 00760, State ID
No. 214-
2- 8
1 5) - is located on Roberts Meadow Brook in the Leeds section of
Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts. The dam is situated off Chesterfield
Road (Figure 1 1
- :Locus Map).
The dam is an earthen embankment with a curved stone masonry spillway. The dam has a
structural height of about 35 feet and a length of about 125 feet. The dam has an
approximately 65-feet long,
- curved, stone block masonry broad -crested spillway that is
located near the dam's left abutment. The breadth of the spillway crest is about 4.5 feet.
A 27 foot
- long portion of the spillway near its left abutment is notched about 6 inches
lower than the remainder of the spillway crest. A stone masonry and concrete gatehouse
was formerly located at the right side of the spillway and reportedly removed many years
ago. Remnants of the gatehouse foundation and gate chamber are still visible, including
the steel tie rods
- and 24- square inch sluiceway. The gatehouse remnants also contains
12-inch -diameter cast iron gate valve, which is reportedly inoperable.
The downstream slope of the dam embankment is about two horizontal to one vertical
2H:1V)and the upstream slope is about 3H:IV. A portion of the earthen embankment
downstream slope, right of the spillway, is formed by a near -vertical stone masonry
retaining wall supported on bedrock. The spillway's left abutment consists of a bedrock
outcrop. The spillway's right abutment is formed by the earthen embankment with a stone
masonry training wall over a bedrock outcrop. An earthen dike, about 4 feet - high and
175 f-eet long with 2H:IV upstream and downstream slopes, is located left and upstream of
the stone masonry spillway. The total length of the dam and dike is about 300 feet.
The dam's impoundment is referred to as Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir as well as the
Upper Leeds Reservoir and the Hoxie Reservoir. The reservoir is a small (4. 8± acre)
impoundment located in the Leeds portion of Northampton near the border of
Westhampton. It is located on the north side of Chesterfield Rd.,900±feet west of the
intersection of Kennedy Road. While the Reservoir is small, it is a relatively long and
linear "run of the river"impoundment, roughly 1, 600 feet long and up to 200 feet wide, but
generally with a width of about 100 to 150 feet. The reservoir floods a steep river valley
with bedrock cliffs that once framed portions of the original stream.
Roberts Meadow Brook enters the reservoir at its west end and exits over the dam at the
eastern end. The brook extends upgradient, westerly into Westhampton and continues into
Chesterfield. Marble Brook is a tributary to Roberts Meadow Brook, having its confluence
approximately 600 feet upgradient of the western-most portion of the reservoir.

Marble Brook flows from north to south, and extends upgradient into Williamsburg.
The watershed of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is approximately 8.8± square miles in
size encompassing the northwest corner of the Northampton, the northeast portion of
Westhampton, and portions of Williamsburg and Chesterfield (Figure 2 1). - The reservoir
is largely located within uninhabited woodlands, with the exception of a single nearby
house located on Chesterfield Road opposite the south side of the waterbody.
Flow over the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam spillway continues via Roberts Meadow
Brook (a combination of a natural stream and manmade channel) in an easterly direction
rjZX) along the north side of Chesterfield Road and passes under Kennedy Road, again following
the northerly side of Reservoir Road, to its confluence with Middle Roberts Meadow
Reservoir approximately 5, 900 feet downstream from the dam. Flow over the spillway at
the Middle Roberts Reservoir flows in northeast direction to the Lower Roberts Meadow
Reservoir. Outflow from Lower Roberts Meadow Reservoir eventually reaches the Mill
River within the Village of Leeds in Northampton.
2.2 Previous Dam Safety Inspections And Engineering Analyses
The condition of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam has been rated as
Poor/Unsafe" since being inspected by the Massachusetts Department of Public Works in
the 1970's,the US Army Corps of Engineers in June 1980 ( USACE, 1980),the
Department of Environmental Management, Office of Dam Safety in the 1980's & 1990's
DEM 1998, 1993, 1987),and by the City of Northampton's dam engineering consultant
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.)beginning in 2006 until the present (GZA, 2006, 2008,
2010 and 2012). The "Poor"condition rating has been assigned to the dam due to several
deficiencies which include the following:
Significant leakage through the downstream face of the stone masonry at

the overflow section, at the left spillway abutment, and at the right
embankment training wall;
Horizontal displacement of top masonry spillway block by approximately
45- inches;
Growth of brush and trees on embankment and dike;
Growth of weeds on spillway crest;
Surface depression extending from upstream slope to downstream slope
near right spillway abutment (may have worsened since the last inspection);
A 6 inch
- diameter sinkhole on the upstream slope of the right embankment
within the observed surface depression;
Inadequate factors of safety against sliding and overturning in accordance
with 302 CMR 9); 10.14(and
Inadequate spillway capacity under the regulatory Spillway Design Flood
SDF).

N
IT
I Upper Roberts Meadow +' l iiJ If ll

Reservoir Watershed (
ILI
Ei I N' I L I. I A
1 :, ,,
ORTHAMPTON
WESTHAMPTON
w„
CHFSERFL
fc ti
Ai= UpperUpper Roberts Roberts Meadow Meadow ReservoirReservoir
3,
000 15001500 00 3,
000 FeetFeet OfeiNOfeiN
RESERVOIRRESERVOIR WATERSHEDWATERSHED
" " 01.
10
0091457.
0091457.
01.
1 0
DrawnDrawn by:by:
ERRERR
UpperUpper RobertsRoberts MeadowMeadow ReservoirReservoir CbecketlCbecketl by:by:
DamDam RemovalRemoval ProjectProject PGDPGD
pacepace
Northampton,Northampton, MassachusettsMassachusetts
4/
17
19/4/
1 9/
7
BASEBASE MAPMAP USGSTOPOGRAPHICQUADRANGLEMAP USGSTOPOGRAPHICQUADRANGLEMAP
FigureFigure No:No:
DataData obtainedobtained frofro inin MASSMASSEASTHAM

STSTEASTHAM
ComCom PTOPTON,PTOPTON,NalNal MASS.ofofMASS.
SS 197M1sack197M1
Massachuset tsacks Massachusetts ExecutiveExecutive OfficeOffice
GZAGZA GeoEnvironmental,GeoEnvironmental, Inc.Inc. ofof EtlergyEtlergy amam EnvironmentalEnvironmental AffairsAffairs
UU
The Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir dam has been classified as a High hazard dam in
accordance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts dam safety rules and regulations
302 CMR 10.00).High hazard is defined as "dams located where failure will likely cause
loss of life and serious damage to home(s), industrial or commercial facilities, important
public utilities, main highway(s) or railroad(s)." The High Hazard rating of Upper Roberts
Meadow Reservoir Dam was originally assigned to the dam in 1987 in a Department of
Environmental Management — Office of Dam Safety Inspection/Evaluation Report and is
based on the premise that the failure of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam could
result in a "domino failure" of Middle and Lower Roberts Meadow Dams thus causing
serious flooding to the downstream roadways and residential sections in the Village of
Leeds. The flood wave would likely result in serious damage to homes, public roadways,
industrial and commercial facilities and possibly the loss of life.
In 2012, GZA updated the Emergency Action Plan (EAP)for the Upper Roberts Meadow
Reservoir Dam (GZA, 2012). The EAP outlines the general responsibilities of the City of
Northampton and state agencies in response to a dam failure, which would result in a
sudden and rapid uncontrolled release of water from the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir
Dam. GZA utilized the National Weather Services (NWS)DAMBRK computer program
to predict the hypothetical dam break wave formation at Upper Roberts Meadow Dam and
the downstream progression via Roberts Meadow Brook through the Middle and Lower
Roberts Meadow Reservoirs, the Village of Leeds and then the Mill River. The DAMBRK
computer model was used to develop Inundation Maps for the downstream areas.
The Inundation Maps were developed for both dry weather and wet weather dam failure
scenarios. Copies of the Inundation Maps for the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam
are included in Attachment 4.
In response to the "Poor"condition rating presented in the 2006 Phase I Inspection Report,
the MA Department of Conservation and Recreation — Office of Dam Safety issued a
Certificate of Non -Compliance and Dam Safety Order to the City of Northampton on
June 8, 2007. The Order required that the City perform 6 month
- Follow Up
- Inspections of
the dam, perform a Phase II Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives Analyses, and bring
the dam into compliance with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts - Dam Safety
Regulations (302 CMR 10.00).
In August 2007, GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc. was authorized by the City of Northampton
to perform 6 month
- Follow Up- Dam Inspections and to perform the Phase II Engineering
Evaluation and Alternatives Analysis. GZA's Phase H work included fieldwork activities
topographic survey, test borings, and wetland delineation), engineering analyses
structural stability and detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analyses),and an alternatives
analysis of options to bring the dam in to compliance with the dam safety regulations.
GZA concluded through detailed engineering analyses that the dam did not have adequate
factors of safety for its structural stability nor did it have adequate spillway capacity (i.
e.it
could only pass 56% of the 500 yr
- Spillway Design Flood).The results of the detailed
engineering evaluations, coupled with the deteriorated physical condition of the dam,
confirmed the "Poor"condition rating of the dam.
The Phase 11 studies included an alternatives analysis that considered four options: no
action, dam removal, dam modification and full dam rehabilitation. The advantages and
disadvantages of each alternative were considered by GZA and discussed with the City.
Ultimately, GZA recommended, and the City concurred, that the preferred alternative was
dam removal. The dam removal alternative was selected over the various dam repair
alternatives mainly due to the following considerations: overall project cost, long term-
maintenance requirements, risk management, outside funding opportunities, asset
allocation, water rate payer impacts, and the environmental benefits relative to stream
restoration. GZA issued the final Phase II Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives
Analysis Report for Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam in March 2008 (GZA, 2008).
A detailed discussion of the alternatives considered for the project is provided below.
G79

3.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
3.1 Alternatives Analysis Approach
As stated previously, GZA recommended the Dam Removal Alternative in the March 2008
Phase II Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives Analysis Report for the Upper Roberts
Meadow Reservoir. On April 23, 2008, the Northampton Board of Public Works voted to
breach the dam.
The dam removal project will eliminate the potential for dam failure and the downstream
flooding associated with a sudden and uncontrolled release of water from the failure of the
Upper Roberts Reservoir Dam. The project would mitigate potential dam failure induced
flooding and damage to Chesterfield Road, Kennedy Road and bridge, two downstream
dams, and the residential and commercial properties in the Village of Leeds.
Once dam removal was selected as the preferred alternative, GZA was contracted by the
City to provide preliminary design and pre -permitting activities for the project. During
preliminary design, the issue of sediment management became a key factor in the scope of
the project, both from design and permitting perspectives. A supplement alternative
analysis focused solely on sediment management was performed as described in
Section 3.3.
As a result of a multi year

- preliminary design process which included re-evaluation of
viable dam safety alternatives, public discourse and meetings, additional studies and
regulatory agency coordination, the City has reconfirmed their desire to pursue the
alternative of full dam removal for the project. The preferred alternative will involve
hydraulic dredging to selectively remove the sediments from the new stream channel area
within the impoundment area to minimize downgradient impacts associated with sediment
transport and relocation. The following is a description of the consideration of these
various alternatives and sub -alternatives, and the range of anticipated environmental
impacts associated with each alternative.
3.2 Alternatives Analysis in Response to 2007 Dam Safety Order
Four alternatives were considered to address the dam safety issues identified at the Upper
Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam in the Phase II Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives
Analysis (GZA, 2008). The alternatives considered included the following: No Action,
Dam Removal, Dam Modification, and Full Dam Rehabilitation. The No Action
alternative was immediately dismissed since it was not a viable option given the condition
rating of the dam and potential liability exposure for the City if the dam were to fail.
The remaining three alternatives considered addressed the deficiencies at the dam and
reducedeliminated
/ the potential for downstream flooding as a result of dam failure and
would bring the dam into compliance with the dam safety regulation as required per the
June 8, 2007 Certificate of Non -Compliance and Dam Safety Order issued by the
MADCR -Office of Dam Safety.

The following facts about the dam apply to all three viable alternatives:
Source of Hazards: Failure of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam
Risks: Flooding of private property, flooding of public road,

damages to infrastructure, interruptions of public
service, potential human injuries and loss of life.
Avoided Physical Damages: Buildings, Contents, Infrastructure, Landscaping,
6ZX) Vehicles,
Equipment
Avoided Loss of-

- Function: Disruption time for residents, Loss of public services,
Economic impact of loss of utility services and of
road closures
Avoided Casualties: Potential Loss of Life and human injuries
Other than the No Action alternative which was dismissed, all alternatives are consistent
with the following specific goals of the City of Northampton's Multi-Hazard Mitigation
Plan:
1. Prevent and reduce the potential for loss of life,injury, public health impacts and
property damages resulting from all major natural hazards.
2. Identify and seek funding for measures to mitigate or eliminate each known
significant flood hazard area.
3. Prevent and reduce the damage to public infrastructure resulting from all
hazards.
A description of each alternative is as follows:
3.
12. Alternative No. I No
— Action
Alternative No. 1 - No Action was not considered to be a viable option due to the observed
dam safety deficiencies at the dam and its overall "Poor"conditions. Failure to address the
identified deficiencies would be a violation of Massachusetts law (GL . >c. 253, § 44 49
- as
amended by Chapter 330 of the Acts of 2002) and Massachusetts regulations
302 CMR 10.00) which require an Owner to properly maintain his her / dam such that it
meets minimum dam safety standards. Failure to correct the dam safety deficiencies
identified at the Upper Robert's Meadow Reservoir Dam could endanger downstream
public safety and property.
3.
22. Alternative No. 2 —Dam Rehabilitation —Dam Modification
Alternative No. 2 addresses the dam safety issues by rehabilitating the dam through
modifications that lower the spillway crest. This alternative involved two options:
Alterative 2A: lowering the spillway crest to Elevation 446 (i.
e. 4 feet below the current
normal pool) and Alternative 213: lowering the spillway to Elevation 435 (i. e. 15 feet
below the current normal pool). Each option results in a smaller impoundment size
because the spillway crest is lowered.
Alternative 2A requires the use of post -tensioned tie down

- anchors and a reinforced
concrete cap beam over the masonry spillway to provide an adequate factor of safety
against sliding and to mitigate overturning. Alternative 2B does not require the use of
tie down
- anchors to meet the minimum factors of safety. There is a cost saving by
eliminating the need for tie down
- anchors; however, the amount of open water is also
reduced as the spillway crest elevation is lowered.
Limited dewatering of the reservoir would be required to allow the spillway crest lowering
construction to occur in the dry. Dewatering could be done by installing a siphon over the
right embankment that discharges downstream of the spillway. The siphon could be left in
place to function as part of a permanent low level
- outlet for the dam. Lowering the
spillway would be done with excavators equipped with hydraulic hammers to break apart
the stone masonry. The masonry would have to be loaded on to trucks and hauled and
disposed of offsite.
- Repointing of the remaining portions of the masonry spillway along
with abutment grouting will be required to address the leakage and deteriorating conditions
of the masonry spillway. The lowering of the spillway crest will provide sufficient
hydraulic capacity to safely pass the 500 year
- spillway design flood (SDF).
The advantages of the Dam Rehabilitation —Dam Modification Alternative include
Provides sufficient hydraulic capacity for the spillway to safely pass the 500 yr
-
SDF without the need for the construction of an additional emergency spillway.
Adequately addresses the stability issues of the spillway and embankment sections.
Removes the upper portions of the spillway where most of the leakage has been
observed.
The hazard classification of the dam may be reduced thus reducing some of the
City's obligations with regard to maintenance and inspection of the dam.
Lowest short term cost when compared to full dam rehabilitation.
The disadvantages of the Dam Rehabilitation —Dam Modification Alternative include:
The threat of a dam failure induced flooding event is still possible.

The City of Northampton will lose a significant portion of the current capacity of
the Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir.
Loss of surface area and capacity of the reservoir may impact potential future
recreational use.
It will require significant modification of a potential historic structure of local

significance (see Section 5.7).
The dam will remain on line
- and thus will require maintenance and inspection in
accordance with the dam safety regulations of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
High repair costs compared to dam removal with no immediate increase in the
water supply capabilities of the City.

In addition to the construction costs, future costs including dam safety inspections,
masonry repointing, annual operation and maintenance of the dam, and reservoir dredging
were also included in the evaluation of this alternative. It was recognized, that for the
potential alternative of dam restoration, sediment management was still an issue because
the primary motivation for preserving the dam would be to preserve the open water.
The reservoir currently has an average depth of less than 3 feet, has lost half of its original
volume, and supports an alluvial island which is rapidly advancing into the central pond
tws basin filling the pond. Therefore, lowering the spillway at least 4 feet is unlikely to
preserve a significant amount of open water.
l
rj 3.
3
' Alternative No. 3 —Full Dam Rehabilitation
2.
Alternative No. 3 involves the full dam rehabilitation which would require restoring and
improving the dam and its appurtenant structures to a condition, which meets the current
regulations. The full dam rehabilitation would be the most comprehensive and expensive
option; however, this alternative would fully address the dam safety issues while
preserving the current storage capacity of the reservoir.
Lowering the reservoir with a siphon will allow the work to occur in the dry. The spillway
repairs would involve removal of the upper 3 feet of the masonry spillway, replacing it
with a reinforced concrete cap beam. Spillway abutment grouting would be required to
reduce abutment leakage and to improve overall stability of the spillway. Reconstruction
of the embankment to raise the crest height and improve slope stability would be required.
To provide sufficient hydraulic capacity, overtopping protection would be added to the

dike to allow the dam to safely pass the 500 year
- SDF. The overtopping protection would
consist of large riprap or articulating concrete mats placed over approximately 145 feet of
the dike. A discharge channel would be constructed from the toe of the dike and would
lead to Roberts Meadows Brook downstream of the current spillway. Due to the
topography in the area, some rock removal may be required for the construction of the
discharge channel.
The advantages of the Full Dam Rehabilitation Alternative include:
It provides sufficient hydraulic capacity for the structure to safely pass the SDF;
It adequately addresses the stability issues of the spillway and embankment
sections;
It removes the upper portions of the spillway where most of the spillway leakage
has been observed; and
It preserves the structure and the Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir at its current
normal pool, maintaining the current shallow waterbody and associated wetland
resources.
The disadvantages of the Full Dam Rehabilitation Alternative include:
The threat of a dam failure induced flooding event is still possible;

It requires construction of overtopping protection at the dike and raising the right
embankment to allow the dam to safely pass the SDF;

It will likely require direct permanent impact to Bordering Vegetated Wetland and
Riverfront Area for the construction of the new overflow spillway and structure;
It will require significant modification of a potential historic structure of local
significance (see Section 5.7);
The dam will remain a High Hazard structure and will thus require maintenance
and inspection in accordance with the dam safety regulations of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts; and
The repair costs will be relatively high and the option does not provide the City an
increase in the water supply capabilities.
In addition to the construction costs, future costs including dam safety inspections,
masonry repointing, annual operation and maintenance of the dam, and reservoir dredging
were also included in the evaluation of this alternative.
3.
2.Hydropower Considerations
1
As a subset of the full dam rehabilitation alternative, GZA was contracted by the
City to evaluate the hydropower potential at the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam as
a means to potential offset some of the repair costs.
In May June
/ of 2009 (after the Phase 11 Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives
Analysis was completed),the City asked GZA to perform a pre -feasibility level evaluation
of the hydropower potential at the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam as part of the
evaluation of the Full Dam Rehabilitation alternative for the project. GZA concluded that
based on the flow conditions, the dam's geometry (i. e. available head),and the lack of an
end user for power generated at the dam, the project was not economically feasible.
In August/September of 2009, the City requested GZA refine the June 2009
pre-feasibility hydropower evaluation of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam and
prepare a more detailed preliminary evaluation. In September 2009, GZA issued a
Preliminary Hydropower Evaluation letter report ( GZA, 2009),which stated adding
hydropower to the dam was technically feasible; however, it was not economically feasible
and therefore not recommended. The main issues being the potential annual energy
generated was very small (i. e. energy to power about 30 homes),the City does not have
need for the energy at the dam so the power would need to be put back into the grid at a
wholesale rate which is about 1/3 of the retail value),the annual value of the power was
estimated to be worth only about $13K. The cost of the hydropower installation, which is
in addition to the full dam rehabilitation costs, was about $750K to $1M,and the estimated
payback period was approximately 58 to 77 years. The City concluded that the payback
period was too long to be considered economically viable and therefore chose not to pursue
the development of hydropower at Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam.
3.
42. Alternative No.4 —Dam Removal (Preferred Alternative)
Alternative No. 4 is to remove the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam in order to
address the identified dam safety deficiencies. Dam removal will require an alternating
process of hydraulic dredging and incremental removal of the dam structure. Hydraulic
dredging will be performed prior to each removal of 5 to 10 feet of the granite block
masonry dam. Removing the dam in sections and performing a phased hydraulic dredging
operation will allow a significant amount of the approximately 27,000 cubic yards of
sediment that is currently impounded in the reservoir, to be stabilized in-place, thereby
reducing the amount of sediment to be dredged and thus limiting the overall cost of the
proj ect.
Dredging must be conducted prior to each stage of dam removal in order to dredge shallow
areas in the upper reaches of each stage impoundment. The undredged sediments
impounded in the upper reaches of the reservoir will be exposed as the reservoir level is
GZVlowered and will be stabilized with wetland seeding and plantings, as necessary. Hydraulic
dredging will be used to establish the alignment of the proposed stream channel, which has
been estimated from the bathymetric survey and original topography plans. The dam will
be utilized as a temporary sediment trap to limit downstream releases of sediment during
the work and to maintain a working pool level for each phase of hydraulic dredging.
A temporary storage (dewatering) basin will be constructed on City owned

- property to
contain the sediment in the woodlands off of Kennedy Road Chesterfield
/ Road
see Figure 1 1
- ).
The existing masonry from the dismantled spillway section would likely
be hauled off site or possibly incorporated into an interpretive display at the dam site.
The advantages of the Dam Removal Alternative include:
Eliminates the threat of a dam failure induced flooding event;

Reduces the City's responsibility and liability with regard to dam safety, dam
maintenance and dam inspections;
Restores the wildlife habitat and stream channel to the natural condition that
existed before the dam was constructed;
Restores stream connectivity on the Roberts Meadow Brook thereby improving fish
passage;
Eliminates the need and cost associated with future dam inspections and
maintenance;
Grant funding may be available; and
The dam removal is the lowest cost alternative even before considering any outside
funding sources.
The disadvantages of the Dam Removal Alternative include:
The City of Northampton will lose the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir as
potential backup water supply resource;
The dam removal process will likely result in discharge of some sediment from the
reservoir impoundment;
There is risk associated with the possibility of finding contaminants in sediment
and thereby triggering additional studies and higher offsite
- disposal costs;
There may be increased flows downstream of the dam during storm events;
It will require the removal of a potential historic structure of local significance
see Section 5.7);
and
The Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir would be lost as a small open water
impoundment with a view of the open water from Chesterfield Road.

The Dam Removal Alternative was selected over the other alternatives because it:
1. Allows the City to comply with the Dam Safety Order;

2. Eliminates the potential for dam failure and the resulting downstream flooding
associated with such an event; and
3. Is the lowest cost short and long term alternative for the City.
3.3 Conceptual Design —Dam Removal Alternative
After the Phase 11 — Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives Analysis report was issued in
2008 and the City had selected Dam Removal as the preferred alternative to address the
Dam Safety Orders issued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the City contracted
GZA to perform conceptual level engineering design for the dam removal alternative.
The conceptual level design was presented to various regulatory agencies as well as to the
public via a series of public presentations in an effort to gather input from the various
stakeholders to facilitate the advancement of the design from the conceptual level to the
preliminary design level.
In 2008, GZA performed additional fieldwork including reservoir bathymetry, sediment

sampling with analytical testing, and wetland delineation. The results of the additional
fieldwork indicated that the amount of sediment within the impoundment was significantly
more than originally anticipated. However, the sediment, which is comprised of a layered
configuration of leaf litter within fine and coarse soils, did not contain appreciable amount
of contamination. Concurrently, GZA performed due diligence activities to assess the
historic and current land use in the area. GZA also contacted Natural Heritage and
Endangered Species Program (NHESP) regarding the presence of rare and endangered
species within the project area. The only Estimated or Priority Habitat in the vicinity is
located immediately upgradient of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir, and is associated
with wood turtle within this riparian corridor.
The initial conceptual design was based on removing the dam in stages. Based on the
bathymetric survey which revealed approximately 27,400 cubic yards of sediment within
the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir, the issue of sediment management during the dam
removal was identified as a key component in the project. Full scale conventional
dredging of the entire impoundment ( i. e. draining the reservoir and excavating the
sediments with excavators and hauling it away with dump trucks was initially dismissed
due to the high costs and constructability issues resulting from the lack of truck access to
the reservoir and the steep hard bottom profile of the overall impoundment. Consequently,
the sediment management issue was initially evaluated using two approaches: limited
hydraulic dredging techniques and minimal conventional dredging in the immediate
vicinity of the dam.

3.
13. Initial Sediment Management Alternatives Evaluation
Two sediment management alternatives were evaluated, using conceptual sediment

transport modeling as part of the analysis:
1. Dam removal with minimal conventional dredging, and

2. Dam removal with limited hydraulic dredging.
GZA performed a conceptual level sediment transport modeling analysis using the
6Z)k U.S.Army Corps of Engineers' HEC RAS- computer model (Version 4.0).The HEC RAS -
computer model contains sediment transport routing routines based on sediment continuity
mass balance theory.
The first sediment management option initially considered was to perform only minimal
conventional dredging near the dam itself and rely on the lowering of the water level in the
impoundment to allow the stream channel to naturally erode its alignment within the
impoundment. Limited or minimal conventional dredging would be performed
immediately upstream of the dam only to create a catchment area to collect the sediments
that were eroded along the stream alignment within the former impoundment area as the
reservoir level was drawn down. The dam would be removed in stages; however, the
stream channel would be formed through the natural migration of sediments within the
impoundment resulting from the lowered reservoir level. The obvious benefit of the
minimal conventional dredging" scenario was the cost savings realized by not needing to
implement the hydraulic dredging operation.
The second sediment management option initially considered was the implementation of
limited hydraulic dredging along the proposed stream alignment through a significant
portion of the Upper Roberts Meadow impoundment. The goal would be to use the
hydraulic dredging to create a pilot channel to eventually form the stream channel.
Hydraulic dredging would be performed within the estimated historic stream channel as
defined by the hard bottom bathymetry developed through document research and field
investigations. Dredging would be performed in phases tied to the staged removal of the
dam. The hydraulically dredged material would be pumped to a dewatering site southeast
of the intersection of Chesterfield Road and Sylvester Road, approximately 1, 300 feet
downgradient from Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir, a site identified early in the
alternatives evaluation. The sediments could be either dewatered using a geotubes
i.e.large fabric bags) or removed via gravity settling within a containment basin.
The dredged sediments would be dewatered, excavated, hauled and disposed of offsite.
-
The results of the initial conceptual level sediment transport modeling indicated that under
either dredging option, a significant amount of sediment would be transported over the
dam and eventually deposited in the Middle Roberts Reservoir. Even with the added
expense of implementing a hydraulic dredging operation in the Upper Roberts Meadow
Reservoir at a cost of about $500,000, the City would still need to implement a sediment
removal project in the Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir.

Refer to Attachment 4 for Table titled "Sediment Transport Model Results for the Upper
Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal" for a summary of the two sediment
management options considered during the conceptual design phase of the project.]
During a project status meeting with the City on February 12, 2009, GZA presented the
two sediment management options. During the meeting, the City offered a third alternative
which involved sluicing sediments from the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir via the
Roberts Meadow Brook to a temporary forebay constructed within Middle Roberts
Meadow Reservoir. The temporary forebay would be used to capture sediment transported
over the dam during the dam removal. The City was concerned about the cost of the
hydraulic dredging and the limitation of vernal pools that could be impacted by the
construction of a containment basin (at that time the location was southeast of the
intersection of Chesterfield and Sylvester Roads) needed to dewater and facilitate the
disposal of the dredged sediment. The City also indicated that the hydraulic dredging
option was too expensive given the uncertainty associated with funding availability. At the
conclusion of the meeting, it was agreed that the preferred alternative would be to sluice
the sediment from the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir via the Roberts Meadow Brook to
a proposed temporary forebay constructed in Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir.
Conceptual Design - Dam Removal with Temporary Forebay
The objective of the temporary forebay was to create a containment area in the Middle
Roberts Meadow Reservoir to manage and limit the potential impact of sediment transport
resulting from the removal of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam. The concept
would allow the sediments to be eroded from the stream alignment within the Upper
Roberts Meadow Reservoir, be put into suspension, transported to Middle Roberts
Meadow Reservoir via the high energy channel (Roberts Meadow Brook) and then settle
out in the temporary forebay in Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir. This conceptual
design approach was about $500,000 less expensive than the other concepts which
involved hydraulic dredging.
The temporary forebay in Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir would be constructed by

partially dewatering Middle Roberts Reservoir and building an earthen embankment dike
within a portion of the impoundment where the Robert Meadow Brook discharges to the
Middle Reservoir. As the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam is removed in 5 to
10 foot tall sections, the new stream alignment would become established within the upper
reaches of the impoundment. The newly exposed sediments beyond the new stream
alignment would re-vegetate and therefore become stabilized prior to the removal of the
5 to 10 foot tall section of the dam.
Periodically during the removal of the dam, the temporary forebay at Middle Roberts
Meadow Reservoir would be dewatered and sediments would be excavated and removed
using conventional excavation techniques. The City envisioned being able to accomplish
some of the sediment removal with their own forces, which would likely result in a lower
project cost. Based on the topography around the reservoir, the temporary forebay location
in Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir provides more accessible location for a conventional
dredging operation when compared to the limited accessibility at Upper Roberts Meadow
Reservoir. The temporary forebay also provided a means to contain the sediment.
A set of conceptual level design plans for the dam removal and the construction of the
temporary forebay in Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir were developed by GZA and
presented to the City in March 2009. The City elected to present the conceptual design to
various regulatory agencies and to the public to solicit input as the project moved from the
conceptual design stage to the preliminary design stage.
3.
23. Pre-Permitting Activities
rJzX) After completing the conceptual design, the City and GZA began a series of pre -permitting
discussions and meetings with the various environmental regulatory agencies to identify
issues or concerns that the regulators may have with the conceptual dam removal design
approach. Table 3 1 - provides a summary of the various pre -permitting activities
conducted as part of the project.
In general, each of the regulatory agencies concurred with the overall project objectives
and understood the City's decision to move forward with the dam removal alternative.
However, the sediment management approach involving the sluicing of sediment from the
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir to the Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir and
ultimately capturing it using a temporary forebay in Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir
was deemed unacceptable by the MADEP WERO.
MADEP WERO expressed concerns about constructing the temporary forebay with
Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir given the ORW and PWS designations of both Upper
and Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoirs. MADEP WERO suggested the City consider an
alternative that involved sluicing the sediment to a containment basin constructed in an
adjacent farm field. At the conclusion of the May 21, 2009 meeting, MADEP WERO
strongly suggested that the City perform a detailed alternatives analysis for several
sediment management options to determine the most appropriate solution for the project.
3.
33. Sediment Management Alternatives Analysis
As such, the City directed GZA to perform an alternatives analysis of several sediment
management options for the project. GZA prepared an alternative matrix for several
sediment management alternatives. ( See Table 3 2 - — URMR Dam Removal -
Alternative Analysis of Sediment Management Sub -Alternatives) In addition to the
No Action" and "Dam Repair"Alternatives, the Dam Removal Alternative was evaluated
with several Sub -Alternatives related to sediment management which included:
Hydraulic Dredging
Sluicing of Sediments to Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir —No Forebay
Sluicing of Sediments to Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir —With Forebay
Sluicing of Sediment to an off stream basin in woodland ( City owned
property)

Table 3 1:
- URMR Dam Removal Pre -Permitting Activities Summary
Date Regulatory Agency Key Outcomes

4/
09
9/ Northampton GZA and the City presented the project and the forebay in Middle
Conservation Roberts option.
Commission Agent Agent indicated the Commission would be interested in sediment testing,
impact to environment
Suggested public forum be conducted
5/
09
4/ MADEP —Boston GZA and the City presented the project and the forebay option for
Middle Roberts.
GZ Office
MADEP initially found forebay potentially acceptable.
MADEP expressed concerns about water supply related issues.
Suggested additional sediment testing.
Suggested changing the term " Foreba " to a "temporary measure"
5/
09
6/ US Army Corps of USACE did not provide an opinion of which approach (forebay vs.
Engineers (USACE) hydraulic dredging)would be accepted/endorsed by the USACE.
USACE indicated the application for the 404 should include
contingencies and mitigations as well as stabilization procedures to be
used upstream of the dam within the proposed stream channel.
USACE indicated a project monitor will likely be required to recommend
when stabilization options should be implemented.
5/
09
21/ MADEP —WERO 0
GZA and the City presented the project to MADEP WERO with a focus
on the forebay concept.
MADEP WERO was concerned about the forebay placement within
Outstanding Resource Water O( RW)and Public Water Supply (PWS)
designations and the associated issues with those designations.
MADEP WERO suggested at the meeting and in a follow up letter (7 13--
09 in Attachment 2)additional alternatives to address sedimentation
issues.
9/
09
11/ MADEP —
WERO 0
GZA presented second alternatives analysis with additional sediment
management options including the offline- sedimentation basin in an
adjacent farm field suggested by MADEP WERO.
MADEP WERO did not give a clear recommendation for the preferred
alternative, although constructing a forebay to collect re-positioned
sediments in the Middle Roberts Reservoir was clearly their least
preferred alternative.
MADEP WERO had the least objection to the hydraulic dredging option
with temporary disposal in the City owned woodland or the adjacent
privately owned farm field. MADEP WERO indicated that the farm field
was more acceptable, but recognized it was not City owned
- land.
Temporary storage of excavated soils in floodplain was considered
acceptable.
MADEP WERO indicated a more detailed alternative analysis for the
sediment management options to "vigorously demonstrate"through
engineering analysis the conclusions and recommendations.
11/
1022/ MEPA Office, Dam removal categorically included for EIR;but most dam removal
meeting with Richard projects submit EENF requesting and receiving a waiver from EIR.
Bourre Pre -application contacts with regulators were well received.
Alternatives analyses and public discussion acknowledged as good initial
steps, including coordination/ response to the Friends of Upper Roberts.
Historical study needs to be completed and presented in EENF.

The alternatives analysis considered the following factors: Compliance with Dam Safety
Orders, Engineering Feasibility, Long Term Impacts, Short Term Impacts, Environmental
Permitting, and Conceptual Cost Estimates. Refer to the Table 3.2 for each of the
evaluation criteria used to assess and evaluate the Long Term and Short Term Impacts of
each sediment management sub -alternative.
The City and GZA met with MADEP WERO on September 11, 2011 and presented the
results of the sediment management alternatives analysis for the project. The City and
GZA again contended the sluicing of the sediment to the temporary forebay in Middle
Roberts Meadow Reservoir was the preferred alternative because it was the lowest cost and
it had similar environmental impacts as each of the other sediment management
alternatives evaluated.
At the conclusion of the September 11, 2009 meeting, MADEP WERO indicated that the
option of constructing a temporary forebay in Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir was the
least desirable of the options presented. MADEP WERO indicated that the hydraulic
dredging of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir was the sediment management option they
objected to the least. However, MADEP WERO indicated that detailed engineering
analyses of the various sediment management options should be performed to serve as the
justification of the project approach. The City remains concerned about the need to clear
land and associated woodland and habitat impacts necessary to build a temporary sediment
basin under the MA DEP WERO preferred option.
As a result of this pre -application meeting, the City directed GZA to advance the design of
the project from the conceptual level to the preliminary design level based on the use of
hydraulic dredging techniques in Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir to limit the amount of
sediment transport to Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir.
3.
43. Public Outreach Process
Concurrent with the pre -permitting activities, the City and GZA held three public
presentation forums
/ as part of the public outreach efforts during the conceptual design
phase of the project.
The first public presentation was held on May 20, 2009 in the Community Room in the
K
T. F. Middle School in Florence, Massachusetts. The City and GZA provided a
description of the dam and site setting, the dam safety inspection history, a description of
the current condition of the dam, the engineering studies completed to date, an overview of
the dam safety alternatives analysis (i.e. dam removal vs. dam repair) conducted, and a
summary of the preferred alternative of dam removal, the proposed construction approach,
and the proposed impacts to the environment. The project approach presented in the
May 20, 2009 presentation was the dam removal with sediment sluiced to a temporary
forebay in Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir.

Table 3 2:
- URMR Dam Removal —Alternatives Analysis of Sediment Management Sub -Alternatives
Approach to Compliance with Dam Safety

Order Long Term Impacts Short Term Impacts
Potential
for loss of Gain of Clearing
Primary Environmental
Office of life and Loss of warm vegetatively Sediment and
Dam Safety Sediment
Dam Safety MRMR water Gain ofcold restored Control of Amount of impact to Streambed Sediment excavation
Permits
Compliance Management Order dam due fisheries water trout Gain of riverfront invasive sediment sluiced stream and stream Stream Stream impact to of RFA
Alternative Sub -Alternative Description Compliance to failure habitat stream riverfront area area species downstream length flow anoxia backwatering clewatering MRMR woodland Required
Do notlung. Allow
possibility of failure.
Continued non -
No Action NA NO High Not Applicable —NotaFeasible Option
compliance with
Office of Dam Safety
Order.
Dredge hydraulically
Dam Dewater 5f feet and prior to dam repair YES Low None None None None None 500 CY 5900 LF 5900 LF None None Minimal 2 Acres
WPA/
Northampton
minimizing sediment Order of Conditions,
Repair repair erosion and restore 401WQC,404 ACOE
reservoir basin
Dredge
8 hydraulically
Y Y gain of 1300- Gain of H±
1600 LF with 56
- acres in Control
prior to dam removal Loss of St connection to
acres, with >
5 WPA/
Northampton
acres of new
exposed pond needed in
Pre -dredging minimizing sediment YES None
acres bottom exposed
3000 CY 5900 LF 5900 LF None None Yes 2 Acres Order of Conditions,
erosion and restore resource area 401WQC,404 ACOE
LFLF of isolated
fated riparian area. sediments
reservoir basin stream
jurisdiction
Allow movement of
Allow sediment gain
g of 1300 - Gain of l It
sediment from to 1600 LF with 56
- acres in Control
sluicing to Middle acres, with >
5 WPA/
Northampton
Roberts Meadow
MRMR, minimized Loss of 5t connection to
acres of new
exposed pond needed in
YES None
bottom
10,000 CY 5900 LF 5900 LF None None Yes None Order of Conditions,
by gradual removal acres
additional 5900 resource area exposed
osed
Reservoir without LF of isolated sediments 401WQC, 404 ACOE
Dam of dam in a few riparian area.
mitigation stream
jurisdiction
Removal vertical feet at a time
Construct temporary
Allow sediment sediment forebay in
sluicing to Middle MRMR to collect gain of 1300- Gain of l It
1600 LF with 56
- acres in Control Temporary
Roberts Meadow sediment from acres, with >
5 WPA/
Northampton
Loss connection to exposed pond needed in within forebay;
Reservoir with URMR. Remove by YES None acres of new 10,000 CY 5900 LF 5900 LF None None None Order of Conditions,
acresacres bottom exposed limited turbidity
construction/ dredging after ofon fated
LF of isolated
resource area
jurisdiction
riparian area. sediments beyond forebay.
401WQC,404 ACOE
maintenance of project,lowering stream
sediment forebay water level in

MRMR

The second public forum was held on January 20, 2010 at the Leeds Elementary School in
the Village of Leeds in Northampton, Massachusetts. GZA presented a summary of the
project and provided additional comments relative to hydropower considerations and
outside funding opportunities. A concerned citizens group called the "Friends of Upper
Roberts & Chesterfield Road Dam" FURCRD
( or Friends) also presented their position
relative to saving the dam via dam rehabilitation. The project approach presented in the
second public forum included the use of hydraulic dredging to limit sediment transport into
Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir.
The third public presentation for the project was held at a City Council meeting on October
27, 2010 in the Community Room in the K J. F.Middle School in Florence, Massachusetts.
The Northampton Board of Public Works and GZA presented the proposed dam removal
project with a focus on hazard reclassification potential, dredging requirements,
hydropower considerations, and a project cost comparison between GZA's cost estimates
and the Friends cost estimates. The Friends along with their consultant presented their
findings relative to the hydropower feasibility, hazard reclassification potential, and their
cost estimates for the various alternatives for the project.
Summary of City Public Meetings
The section provides a summary of public discussions and meetings held relative to the
Upper Roberts Meadow Dam. Generally, public discussions within the City were held
during City Council meetings, Board of Public Works meetings, and Conference
Committee (Joint City Council/Board of Public Works) meetings. Many of the public
discussions were held with representatives of The Friends of the Upper Roberts Meadow
Dam ( Friends). Other public discussions were held at the Northampton Historical
Commission and the Community Preservation Committee as a result of the Friends
advocacy for repairing the Upper Roberts Dam.
Table 3 3
- - Chronology of Public Meetings below summarizes these public meetings held
from 2008 2010.
- The meetings fall into the following five categories:
City Council Meetings — The City Council is the legislative body of the government of
Northampton. Councilors are elected to serve two year
- terms. There are nine City
Councilors, one from each of the City's seven wards, and two elected at-large. City Council
meetings are held on the first and third Thursdays of the month.
Board of Public Works Meetings The Board of Public Works is a citizen committee that
advises the Department of Public Works, sets policy, approves contracts, and provides
oversight of public works matters. The Board consists of seven resident members that are
appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The Board meets twice a
month.
Joint City Council Board

/ of Public Works Conference Committee - This committee
provides the means for the direct exchange of information and regular communication
between the City Council and Board of Public Works. The Conference Committee also
provides a forum for discussion of City wide
- issues that directly or indirectly falls under
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal 24
the jurisdiction of the Board. The committee is composed of three members of the City
Council and three members of the Board of Public Works. Meetings are held at a
minimum of quarterly and as frequently as monthly.
Northampton Historical Commission - The Commission is concerned with the preservation,

promotion and development of the City's historical assets. The commission is the
municipal link to the Massachusetts Historical Commission at the state level and the
Department of Interior at the federal level. The Commission consists of seven resident
members that are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. Meetings are
generally held on the first Monday evening of the month.
Community Preservation Act Committee - The Committee is responsible for establishing

with creating a CPA Plan, review grant applications and make recommendations for
projects to receive funding. The Committee consists of 9 citizen volunteers as follows: two
are elected at-large, 1 appointed by the Mayor, 1 appointed by the City Council and
5 appointed by constituent commissions.
Table 3 3:
- Chronology of Public Meetings
DATE DISCUSSION SUMMARY
March 12, 2008 Preliminary discussion of draft Phase II engineering study. More detailed
information to be presented in future meeting
BPW
April 23, 2008 Board presented with a summary of Phase II study including dam
deficiencies, options and recommendations. Board voted to approve a full
BPW
dam breach.
May 28, 2008 Scope of services for the preliminary design and permitting of the dam
removal was discussed. One Board member requested that a public forum
BPW
be held to discuss the project. Brief discussion of the breach alternative
and impacts to Roberts Meadow Brook. Vote on the contract scope was
tabled.
June 11,2008 Discussion and approval of engineering contract for preliminary design and
permitting of dam removal.
BPW
October 22, 2008 Discussion of the costs to breach the dam which were on the order of about
1 million.
BPW
April 22, 2009 A progress summary about the dam was provided to the Board. A public
meeting date of May 20, 2009 at 7 p.m. was set for a presentation and
BPW
Public Meeting about the dam.
June 10, 2009 A summary of the May 20,2009 was discussed. Limited opposition to the
dam breach was mentioned.
BPW
June 24, 2009 Residents that live near the dam were present and said they hoped to save
the dam and hope to raise money to do so. They said about $400,000 would
BPW
be needed to repair the dam. The DPW stated it was under pressure from
the Office of Dam Safety (ODS)to take action to breach or repair the dam.
Also, funds for long term maintenance of the dam and reservoir would be
needed if the dam was repaired. The Board stated concern about long term
liability of owning a dam that was no longer needed. The Board asked staff
to get input from ODS about the timeline for action on the dam.
July 29, 2009 Staff provided the Board with a status of the dam and also reported that a
review of hydro-electric potential was done and found not to be
BPW
economically feasible. ODS has been notified of Board 084/ 23/decision to
remove the dam. The Board noted that long term maintenance costs would
be great and also that some groups that were in favor of the dam removal.
The Board added that the residents that would like to save the dam would
need to raise about $500,000 in the next couple of months for the Board to
consider repairing the dam. The Board decided not to revisit their 08
4/23/
vote to breach the dam.
September 9,2009 An article in the Valley Advocate about the dam was discussed. A
Conference committee meeting scheduled for 09 9/ 14/would include a
BPW
discussion with the Friends of the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam (Friends).
The Friends have filed a Community Preservation Act (CPA)Grant
Application. Staff posted an update on the status of the dam on the City
website. Brief discussion of the meaning of h" igh hazard"classification and
that it's not related to the condition of the dam.
September 14, 2009 The Friends requested that the dam project be delayed for 6 months to
allow them to pursue grant fundraising and the possibility of developing a
Conference
hydropower project. The Friends said a CPA grant application was
Committee
submitted. They said they received encouragement from Senator Stan
Rosenberg. The Friends said they have a petition to restore the dam that has
over 200 signatures. A committee member stated that the ODS has
designated the dam as a high hazard dam. In addition, a review of
alternatives completed for the BPW revealed that dam breach was the most
cost effective and safest option and this was selected by the BPW. It was
also noted that small scale hydro was found not be feasible. The Committee
asked the BPW to contact ODS and request a 6 month
- extension in order to
allow the Friends to prepare grant applications. BPW members requested
that the Friends submit copies of grant applications, plans and a timeline to
the Board at their next meeting.
September 23, 2009 The City received a letter from ODS granting a 6 month
- extension of time
to comply with the Dam Safety Order. DPW has until 3 3 / 0/2010 to
BPW
determine whether repair or breach will occur. The extension will allow
the Friends to raise funds to restore the dam. Staff noted that $
1.825 million
would be needed for dam repair and long term maintenance. There was
some discussion about sediment management during dam removal. Costs of
different alternatives were discussed. The Friends were present and the
Board requested that they develop and submit to the Board a timeline and
proposal for their actions to raise money. Board discussed dam failure
inundation maps and the risks that are present and also whether it makes
any sense to repair a dam for aesthetics given the risks of a high hazard
dam. If the dam is repaired the Board said a long term mechanism for
maintenance funding would be needed. Further discussion was scheduled
for 09
10/14/Board meeting.
October 14, 2009 At the request of the Friends the Board tabled discussion of the dam until
the next Board meeting scheduled for 09
10/28/
BPW
October 28, 2009 The Friends passed out a list of potential grants. The Friends said they will
raise funds and put it into escrow. They will raise money for long term
BPW
maintenance. They will hire a consultant to verify hydro -electric potential.
If hydro -electric is feasible they will raise money for hydro -power. The
Friends said that if they have not made progress in 6 months they will state
they have not been successful. That would honor an agreement they feel
they have with the Conference Committee. They requested City assistance
with grant applications and also to agree to apply for grants that are
available to municipalities. The Board asked the Friends to prepare and
submit a step by step plan for the next 3 months. The Friends agreed to
have a plan submitted in a couple of days. The Board asked the Friends
about competition for grants and the probability of raising funds. Board
said it seemed unlikely that adequate funding could be raised. Staff was
asked by the CPA to meet to speak about why the Board voted to breach
the dam. Staff sought Board guidance on how to reply. The Board voted to
direct staff to tell the CPA "Although we have voted to remove the dam,
this vote is potentially under reconsideration and the Board is not ready to
advocate one way or the other as to the removal or preservation of the
dam ".
November 18, 2009 The Chair of the Board said he met with Mayor Clare Higgins to discuss
the dam. She asked the Board to give the Friends 6 months to raise funds to
BPW
repair the dam. She asked the Board to seek comments from residents in
Leeds that are in the inundation zone. Staff said a letter would be sent to
abutters and would also be posted at City Hall,the DPW,the City Calendar
and a notice would be placed in the Daily Hampshire Gazette. A public
informational meeting was scheduled for January 20, 2010 at the Leeds
School.
December 14, 2009 Staff reported that a public informational meeting was scheduled for
January 20, 2010 at the Leeds School and that GZA would make a
Conference
presentation about the dam. Staff also reported that ODS issued a 6 month
Committee
timeline extension. Committee members requested that abutters and
residents in the inundation zone be notified of the meeting.
January 6,2010 Staff reported that 240 letters were mailed to resident in the inundation
zone notifying them of the 101/ 20/public meeting. Staff also reported
BPW
submitting a grant application to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
for funding dam removal. The Board requested that large maps of the flood
inundation zone be prepared for the public meeting.
January 20, 2010 Public Forum at Leeds School 7 pm to 9 pm. A presentation was made by
GZA. They presented: facts and figures about the dam, dam safety issues,
BPW
hazard rating, consequences of failure, dam repair and breach alternatives,
Public Forum cost estimates, hydropower potential, project funding, habitat changes, and
decision for dam removal. Questions and comments followed. Topics
included: nice aesthetics of the pond, fire protection, hydropower, trout and
fish in Robert Meadow Brook, support for restoring the Brook and dam
removal, safety should be main concern in decision -making.
February 8,2010 The Committee discussed the history of the dam status for new members on
the committee. A dam safety order had been issued by ODS,the BPW
Conference voted to breach the dam and that the Friends wanted the chance to raise
Committee
money to repair the dam instead. The dam safety order extension ends in
March. The Committee requested the BPW to allow the Friends time to
raise money. Staff indicated a dam inspection by GZA was scheduled for
March.
March 3,2010 The Friends discussed with the CPC a request to change their grant
application related to the dam. 25,
$ 000 is now sought for engineering study
CPC Committee
to prioritize dam repairs. The maintenance fund request was reduced by
25,000. Maintenance funding was discussed as not appropriate for CPA
Grant and was removed from grant request. CPC approved the proposed
amendment to the grant application.
March 8,2010 A discussion about the Friends desire to have BPW endorsement of their
CAP grant application was held. It was indicated that a City Councilor was
Conference
told by the Friends that they would contact ODS about the dam's hazard
Committee
class and if it could be changed from High Hazard to Significant Hazard.
Staff indicated that the BPW needed to respond to ODS by 2010.
3/ 31/Staff
stated that a grant application with MEMA was being considered for dam
removal. A discussion ensued about what if enough funds were raised to
save the dam, what would happen? It was stated that the Friends would
need to raise $650,000 in order for dam repair to be considered. One of the
BPW members said that there are other non cost
- factors such as the long
term risk of owning a high hazard dam and that there will always be
regulatory requirements to comply with as long as there is a dam.
March 10,2010 The Friends asked the Board to support their CPA grant application. The
grant application included $25,000 to study whether the embankment, or
BPW
the dam itself was in greater need of repair and $40,000 for a Historic
Restoration Study that would determine a design for historic dam repair
that will balance repair with historical integrity. The Friends stated that the
dam fits criteria for historic preservation and registration on the National
Historic Registry and they are asking Northampton Historical Commission
for a demolition review. The Friends discussed a desire to reclassify the
dam from High Hazard to Significant Hazard. They felt a change in hazard
class would reduce the cost of repairs.
Staff stated that the masonry and the embankment were leaking and it was
critical for the entire dam to be repaired or removed and that segmenting
repair did not make sense. The dam's deficiencies were reviewed:
inadequate spillway capacity, inadequate structural safety. Staff said that it
was unlikely that the hazard class could be reduced to significant. Staff
added that the spillway capacity in this case would be the same if the dam
is classified as a high hazard or a significant hazard due to "incremental
damage assessment"allowed by ODS. Based on this supporting the CPA
grant was not recommended by staff.
Staff reported that the dam removal may be eligible for flood mitigation
grant funds through the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency
MEMA).The Board did not support the CPA grant application and voted
to have staff submit a grant application to MEMA.
March 17, 2010 Friends told the CPC that the BPW did not vote to approve a support letter
but that several City Councilors indicated support. A councilor was present
CPC Committee
and described support for the historical dam and felt is was well built and
safe. Friends reported progress in other fund raising activity. Some
discussion ensued about hydropower at the dam. The Friends said that
engineering study was needed to prioritize dam repairs. Friends stated that
habitat and scenic vistas at the dam site were a benefit that should be saved.
Discussion about ODS deadlines for City response.
March 22, 2010 The Friends provided a history of the dam to NHC. The Friends indicated
they are seeking to have the dam placed on the state historical register.
NHC
Staff will seek input from the City Solicitor about the applicability of the
demolition delay ordinance. A discussion about the dam condition,
accessibility to the public and the history of the surrounding area was held.
NHC asked how demolition delay would come into play if ODS and BOW
ordered the dam removed for safety reasons.
March 24, 2010 Staff referred to a letter delivered on this date from the Friends stating they
hired Essex Partnership to review hydra -electric feasibility. Staff discussed
BPW
the MEMA grant opportunity and another grant opportunity through Trout
Unlimited. The Board asked the Friends for the detailed plan they
requested and the Friends indicated it was not completed. There was
discussion about whether ODS would issue another extension of time since
the City has until 3 3

/ 0/2010 to confirm a decision about the dam. The
Board voted to request another 6 month extension from ODS.
April 7,2010 CPC said preserving the dam as a historic resource is legitimate, but money
for studies have traditionally not been viewed favorable by CPA since they
CPC Committee
may not lead to ultimate preservation. CPC said the creation of the dam
destroyed the surrounding neighborhood that public access is limited, and
there is evidence that a healthy free -flowing river and dams should be
removed. There was some CPC support for the engineering study. The
CPC showed interest in hydropower aspects of the dam. The CPC wanted
to see the results of a hydropower study before making any decision.
Recommendation tabled to the next meeting April 21, 2010.
April 12,2010 The Friends provided a preliminary report from Essex Partnership about
hydropower at the dam. They requested that meeting be set up- with the
Conference
City Council and BPW,the Mayor and the public. The Friends presented
Committee
some information provided by Essex. It was agreed that dates at JFK
Middle school would be checked to arrange a meeting date. It was noted
that the City had until October 2,2010 to provide a decision to ODS.
April 21, 2010 The CPC asked: Does the long term
- public benefit of keeping the dam
outweigh the benefit of returning the river to its natural state?And if the
CPC Committee
answer is no the CPC can end discussion. Some discussion about
hydropower was held and that CPC interest in hydropower can only be
indirect because CPC interest is in historical preservation and also open
space impacts. These criteria were discussed. It was noted that the
Northampton Historical Commission supported the grant application. The
CPC approved $25,000 to cover the cost between repair and removal of the
dam. No more than $500 for National Register nomination be spent until
the BPW indicates support of dam preservation. If support is not provided
in a year the funds will be returned.
April 28, 2010 Staff summarized discussions held earlier in the week in the Conference
committee regarding the hydropower study completed by Essex

BPW
Partnership. The Conference Committee requested that the Board set up - a
public meeting to discuss the outcome of the Essex study. Consider able
technical discussion ensured comparing the Essex Study results and the
results from the GZA hydropower study that was done for the DPW. It was
noted that the Essex Study was not stamped by a professional engineer in
the Commonwealth of MA. DPW said they had many questions about the
Essex Study and could prepare a list of written questions for Essex to
consider. Staff agreed to send questions to Essex.
May 10,2010 A discussion about the Essex report was held. The city stated why they
wanted the study to be stamped by a Registered Professional Engineer in
Conference
MA. The BPW member also said they were awaiting responses from Essex
Committee
to questions raised by Staff and that a public meeting would not be
scheduled until responses were received.
May 12,2010 The Friends handed the Board a handout of responses to questions that the
staff had sent to Essex. Discussion ensued about why the responses that
BPW
were technical and cost related were not issued by Essex but were on
Friends letterhead. The Friends requested a meeting with DPW, Board of
Public Works, GZA, and Essex to resolve some engineering questions. The
Board declined to setup
- a meeting until such time that DPW questions had
been responded to in detail by Essex.
May 20, 2009 Public Forum at JFK Middle School from 7pm 9
- pm. GZA made a
presentation about the dam including: dam history and description, dam
BPW
safety, hazard rating, consequences of failure, existing environment, dam
Public Forum removal project approach, proposed changes to the environment, regulatory
process, project schedule, and funding considerations. Discussion followed
the presentation.
May 26, 2010 Staff said that the Wildlife Conservation Grant was not funded. Staff also
reported receipt of a letter from Massachusetts Historical Commission

BPW
MHC)indicating that additional information had been submitted about the
dam and they now will require additional historical review of the dam
project. Since the last meeting the Friends send a list of documents and
information from the City records that they would like. Staff reported that
all documents requested were posted on the City's web site.
- Staff told the
Board they were still waiting for responses to the list of question sent to
Essex. The Friends expressed concern that they only had until June 30,
2010 as agreed to with the Mayor to determine if funding for dam repair
was raised. The Friends said they had done some historical research on the
dam that was send the MHC. Detailed discussion about hydro power -
financing ensued. An article researched and published by Northampton
Media agreed with GZA findings and not with Essex. The research
included discussion with National Grid about power pricing. Staff said the
remaining questions for Essex were related to the power revenue, capital
cost of the facility and the payback period.
June 9,2010 The Board noted that it had been about a year since the original vote to
breach the dam and it was 09
9/ 9/when extension of timeframes began.
BPW
Staff indicating that work was being done to again extend the timeframe
with ODS to September 2010. The Board said that unless hydropower
becomes the new purpose of the dam and generates enough revenue to fund
long term maintenance it's not an acceptable alternative. One Board
member said the Conference Committee should be informed that the Board
is about to proceed with the dam breach. Another Board member felt a
meeting should be held with Essex.
June 14,2010 BPW member said the Friends were still seeking a public meeting with
Essex to discuss hydropower. Discussion ensued about the differences in
Conference
capital cost estimates and revenues generated between the Essex Report
Committee
and the GZA report. A BPW member said the hazard class of the dam was
not relevant since the needed repairs would be the same even if the hazard
class was changed. The City Councilors requested the BPW to schedule a
public meeting.
June 21, 2010 Staff read a letter from Mass Historical Commission to the DPW stating
that additional information would be required to determine if the dam is
NHC
eligible for the National Register listing. The Friends stated they hired a
hydropower consultant. NHC discussed the hydropower aspects of the dam,
but noted that hydropower is not a NHC concern. NHC voted that the dam
is of historic interest and importance to the City.
June 23. 2010 Staff reported research that was completed regarding the West Stockbridge
hydropower project that was cited by Essex as a low capital cost example
BPW
of what could be done at Upper Roberts. Details were provided about the
differences between Upper Roberts and West Stockbridge.
June 29, 2010 A special meeting was held to discuss Upper Roberts hydropower. The
Friends and Essex were in attendance. The City's consultant GZA was
BPW
present. Essex presented information about energy and capacity as well as
discussion of costs on the West Stockbridge project. Some discussion of
dam hazard classification was held. Essex admitted to being more familiar
with FERC related dams, not ODS regulated dams. A lengthy discussion
about net -metering ensued. Staff stated that even if net -metering were
feasible and resulted in higher revenue the project payback for hydropower
alone was still about 30 years and thus would not generate excess revenue
to repair the dam. The Friends said they had raised $25,000 as they had
agreed to do. The Board said that it was $625,000 that needed to be raised
as agreed to with the Mayor. Staff reported that ODS required a firm
decision about the dam by 2010.
9/ 30/
July 12, 2010 Staff reported a discussion with MEMA stating the MEMA had
recommended the dam removal project to FEMA for funding with a budget
Conference
of 1.
$ 3 Million.A discussion of the dam's hazard class ensued. The dam
Committee
was determined to be a high hazard dam by the Army Corps of Engineers
and MA Department of Environmental Management in the 1970's.The
hazard class was recently confirmed by GZA in their Phase II study.
July 14,2010 Staff reported a discussion with MEMA stating the MEMA had
recommended the dam removal project to FEMA for funding with a budget
BPW
of 1.
$ 3 Million.
August 11,2010 The Board said the Mayor had received a letter from the Friends stating that
they had accomplished the fund raising goals. The Mayor said she asked
BPW
the City's Energy Officer to hire another engineering company to review
the work done by GZA and Essex about hydropower feasibility. The
Mayor asked that the Water Department pay for this work to be done.
August 19,2010 Discussion of a resolution of the City Council on the preservation of the
Upper Roberts Meadow Dam. Presentation by the Friends about: the
City Council history of the dam, the ecological importance, safety and dam failure
impacts, and other factors. Council discussion about resolution is not about
saving the dam but whether hydropower project there is economically
viable. Some discussion about possible dam hazard classification change.
BPW and DPW staff presented information about history of the dam, the
condition of the dam, flooding concerns, reason and impact of high hazard
classification, funding requirements, a year of public meetings and
discussions with the Friends has occurred. Further discussion and vote on a
resolution postponed to September 2,2010.
September 2,2010 Resolution of the City Council on the preservation of the Upper Roberts
Meadow Dam. Discussion about postponing resolution until the results of
City Council the 3r party review of hydropower studies is completed by City Energy
Officer and Tighe & Bond. Some discussion about grant possibilities and
project funding. Discussion about the desire of some to have a public
meeting. Mayor said that the City council cannot usurp the authority of
BPW in this matter. Voted to postpone first reading of resolution to
October 7,2010.
September 8,2010 Staff reported that the Energy Officer was seeking proposals from
engineers to do a 3r party review of the Essex and GZA hydropower
BPW
studies. The Board asked when ODS would require the City to take action.
Staff said the date was October 2,2010.
September 13, 2010 Staff noted that the Energy Officer was seeking proposals from engineers to
do a 3r party review ofthe Essex and GZA hydropower studies. Staff
Conference
added that ODS requires a response from the City by October 2,2010.
Committee
September 22, 2010 The Board Chair noted that there was an October 2,2010 deadline to
respond to ODS about the dam. Staff noted that Tighe & Bond had been
BPW
hired to do the 3r party review of the hydropower studies. The Board
requested staff to seek a 30 day extension from ODS to allow Tighe &
Bond to complete their review.
October 7,2010 Resolution of the City Council on the preservation of the Upper Roberts
Meadow Dam. Discussion regarding the need for a public forum. Noted
City Council that information from ODS was received and that a decision about the dam
was due by November 1. Tighe & Bond 3r party review was complete.
Agreed to schedule a public forum as soon as possible. Vote to postpone
first reading of the resolution to October 21, 2010.
October 18,2010 The Board Chair said the City Council has looked at various resolutions
about the dam and they are waiting for Tighe & Bonds review before
BPW
proceeding. The Council will hold a forum at JFK Middle School on
October 27, 2010 to discuss the dam. ODS had indicated they need a
decision by the City about the dam by November 1, 2010.
October 21, 2010 Resolution of the City Council on the preservation of the Upper Roberts
Meadow Dam. Stated that the purpose of the resolution was not to save
City Council the dam. Facts have been introduced and the BPW must make an informed
decision. The public forum will address facts and concerns. Stated that all
key players have been invited to the forum and the ODS will also be
present. Stated that BPW will meet on October 28, 2010 and that a decision
is needed about the dam by November 1, 2010. An amended resolution was
passed in the first reading.
October 27, 2010 Public Forum at JFK Middle School at 7 p.

m. Forum started with 10
minute presentation by ODS staff. They discussed the condition of the dam
City Council and the high hazard classification. Potential loss of life and damage if there
Public Forum is a dam breach. Extensions have been granted for 13 months. Current
deadline is November 1, 2010. Northampton has done a great job managing
its dams. Next 20 minutes a presentation by BPW and GZA was made.
GZA discussed: Hazard Classification, dredging, hydropower, project
costs. The next 20 minutes a presentation by the Friends and Essex
Partnership was made. Friends and Essex discussed hydropower aspects
and hazard class factors. The questioned GZA analyses of hydropower
costs. They suggested that the City seek another extension from ODS. The
City Energy officer discussed the results of Tighe & Bond review. For the
next hour questions and comments from the public were heard. Topics
included: dam overtopping, flood inundation maps, cost to study dam
hazard class change, beliefs that GZA work is too conservative and
exaggerates threat, long term maintenance costs are a factor, concerns
about trout in Roberts Brook, and suggestions that the City seek an
extension from ODS.
October 28, 2010 The Board invited discussion from the public about the dam. The Friends
stated the previous night's meeting was good and informative. They asked
BPW
that the Board consider trying to change the hazard class of the dam. Board
members stated that public informational meetings were held on 09,5/ 20/
4/
10 20/and 10 12/23/at cost of about $15,000 to $18, 000. Board members
expressed concern about the amount of water enterprise money being spent
on this project and said they believe that hydropower is not financially
feasible at the dam site. The Board voted to uphold the original vote from
July 2009 (originally 08)
4/ 23/to breach the dam.
November 4,2010 Resolution of the City Council on the preservation of the Upper Roberts
Meadow Dam. Vote to postpone resolution indefinitely passed.
City Council
November 8,2010 The Friends stated they don't agree with the BPW decision to breach the
dam. They added that they want to have input into the plans to remove the
Conference
dam and what the restoration would look like. Staff said that the BPW
Committee
would provide opportunity for public input during the final permitting and
design.
November 16, 2010 During public comment several people spoke about the dam and the fact
that BPW intends on removing the dam. A desire to save some stone block
NHC
and installation of a plaque were discussed. The Commission asked how
much support for these ideas existed in the area. It was not known.
Project Support for Dam Removal
Several professional groups and members of the public have publically expressed their
support of the dam removal. Brian Graber and or / Amy Singler of American Rivers, a
rivers advocacy organization, have attended and spoken in support of the project at each of
the public presentation. Several residents in the village of Leeds have also spoken at the
public presentations in support of the project. Their support was founded in the City's
desire to protect the downstream residents from the flooding potential caused by failure of
a high hazard dam in Poor condition as well as the City's desire to exercise fiscal
responsibility by implementing the lowest cost alternative for the project.
On June 9, 2009, Nat Arai of GZA conducted a site walk with Amy Singler of American
Rivers, Melissa Grader of MA Division of Fish and Wildlife Services, and Patty
Gambarini of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC). Each indicated support
for the project. Ms. Singular spoke of the value of stream restoration and the presence of
brook trout in the area. Ms. Grader indicated that the Roberts Meadow Brook was rated
good" in the National Fish Habitat Action Plan. Ms Grader also suggested that
government agencies such as the US Dept. of Agriculture - Natural Resources
Conservation Services (NRCS) may offer funding for such projects. Ms. Grader further
suggested funding from groups such as Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture and Trout
Unlimited could be sources for funding the project. Ms. Gambarini indicated that PVPC is
working hard to secure funding for dam projects for the cities and towns in the Pioneer
Valley.
3.
53. Public Opposition for Dam Removal
After the May 20, 2009 Public Information Session, a group of concerned residents formed
the group known as the "Friends of Upper Roberts & Chesterfield Road Dam" FURCRD).
(
The FURCRD were opposed to the removal of the dam and the loss of the open water
habitat. The FURCRD argued consistently from the time of the May 2009 public
information session to the last public forum on October 27, 2010, that the dam should be
rehabilitated and the funding for the cost difference between the dam rehabilitation and the
dam removal could be realized through hydropower grants and private fundraising.
Over the course of the next seven months, the City and GZA responded to various
inquiries from the FURCRD pertaining to condition rating of the dam, the alternatives
analysis for dam removal vs. dam rehabilitation, outside funding options for dam
rehabilitation, the hazard classification of the dam, and the feasibility of adding
hydropower to the dam (see relevant correspondence in Attachment 2).The FURCRD
requested and the City complied with their requests to obtain time extension from the
MADCR-Office of Dam Safety to allow the dam rehabilitation option to be re-assessed for
the project. The FURCRD were not convinced that the dam was in "Poor"condition, or
that the reservoir needed to be dredged for the dam rehabilitation. They also suggested that
outside funding sources (i. e. grants) were available to fund the dam rehabilitation, and
hydropower could be added to the dam to help fund the repairs and future maintenance
costs.
As requested by the City, GZA responded to each of the FURCRD requests during the
referenced time frame. Additional hydropower evaluations were conducted by GZA, the
FURCRD and the City's independent consultant ( Tighe & Bond) as described in
Subsection 3. 2.The City also held two additional public forums (January 20, 2010 and
1
October 27, 2010) to allow the FURCRD the opportunity to present their case as outlined
in Paragraph 2.
3. 5. During the public forum held at the October 27, 2010 City Councilor's
meeting, the City and GZA made the following points:
The high hazard classification was appropriate and if the dam were reclassified to
significant hazard, the scope and cost of the dam repairs to bring the dam into
compliance with the dam safety regulations would be similar to those required under
the high hazard classification.
The cost of dredging of the reservoir is appropriate in comparing the dam removal and
dam rehabilitation alternatives because the reservoir will eventually become silted in if
it is not dredged and therefore the "open water"would be eventually lost even if the
dam was rehabilitated. Therefore, maintenance of the dam is necessarily linked to
maintenance of open water within the impoundment.
The hydropower potential of the dam is technically feasible but not economically
feasible. Due to the very long project payback period the City will not move ahead
with a hydropower project. The FURCRD had not been able to identify any viable
source of funding to cover the cost difference between the dam repair and the dam
removal.
After about seventeen months of public involvement consisting of three public information
sessions and responding to the FURCRD's requests for information, time extensions, and
additional studies, the Northampton Board of Public Works voted, on October 28, 2010, to
confirm their initial decision to proceed to with the dam removal. The City notified the
MADCR - Office of Dam Safety and reiterated their intention to move forward with the
dam removal project on October 29, 2010.
4.0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: DAM
REMOVAL AND STREAM RESTORATION
Once the pre -permitting coordination was complete and the preferred alternative selected,
the preliminary dam breach design was initiated. The preliminary dam breach design was
similar to the conceptual dam breach design, which was based on a staged dam removal
construction sequence whereby the sediments within the impoundment were gradually
exposed by lowering the dam structure in stages. Refer to Attachment 6 for the
Preliminary Design Plans for the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal and
Stream Restoration Project. The exposed sediments would be cut via natural erosive
stream processes, redistributing the sediment within the impoundment and to the
downstream of the dam. The seed beds within the sediments within the Upper Roberts
Meadow Reservoir would be allowed to vegetate with each stage of exposure and thus
would provide a self stabilization mechanism for the restored stream channel. Based on
project input gathered through the pre -permitting process, in particular MADEP WERO,
the sediment management option selected for the project is the implementation of
hydraulic dredging prior to and during the gradual removal of the dam in 5- to 10 foot
-
sections.
4.1 Sediment Management —Hydraulic Dredging
The sediment management approach for the preliminary design was based on the sediment
management alternatives analysis performed for the MADEP WERO where the hydraulic
dredging option was identified as the option that was most acceptable to the regulators at
that office. Hydraulic dredging within the alignment of the anticipated stream alignment in
the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir would be performed prior to and during the staged
lowering of the dam. Hydraulically dredged sediments will be pumped to the sediment
containment basin constructed east of Kennedy Road, north of the Robert's Meadow
Brook, within currently wooded City owned
- property. (See Figure 1 1
- and Sheet 8 of 10,
Attachment 6,for the location of the proposed location of the sediment containment basin).
Gravity settling requires the construction of an earthen containment basin where, the slurry
is pumped. The anticipated volume of in place
- sediment to be dredged from the reservoir
is approximately 10,000 cubic yards. The basin is designed to have an appropriate water
volume that provides residence time for primary settling of the gross solids and capacity
for bulking or "fluffing"of the material from its in place
- condition to a dredged condition
in the basin. Adding additional non wet- volume for freeboard above the operating water
level, the basin will have a capacity of about 25,000 cubic yards. An additional, smaller
flocculation" basin is also needed for secondary settling to remove fines remaining in
suspension after primary settling and will have an approximate capacity of 9, 500 cubic
yards. The discharge from the containment basin is taken from the top few inches of water
in the basin pool, the primary clarified water containing only fine suspended particles.
Referred to as the "supernatant ", the discharge is treated with a flocculent in its flow path
into the flocculation basin. The flocculent is typically an anionic polymer, which binds or
coagulates suspended particles to the point in which they become heavy enough to settle
out of suspension. The flocculation basin contains sufficient volume to provide adequate
residence time for secondary settling and clarified water overflows into a discharge pipe
conveying the water to Roberts Meadow Brook.
The preliminary design of the total containment basin was based primarily on the initial
sediment transport modeling and the available land area upon with the basin is to be
constructed. The final design phase of the project will involve a more detailed sediment
transport analysis and bench scale testing of sediment for bulking and settling
characteristics. Based on these updated analyses, the actual size of the basin may need to
be refined. However, control of the dredging and dewatering process can be adjusted to
match the final basin size by controlling the rate of dredging (i.e.,the rate of pumping of
the dredged slurry),directly altering residence times, meeting the capacity requirements of
the basin, and providing the proper settling times. Such adjustments will affect the
efficiency and timing of the hydraulic dredging, and will be affected by:
the variability of the sediment consistency,

the sequence and timing of the staged dam removal, and
the timing of the redistribution of the sediments within the Upper Roberts Meadow
Reservoir as the stream channel carves out its new stream alignment within the
impoundment.
The hydraulic dredging and sediment dewatering operations will be a dynamic process that
will require detailed monitoring and adjustments of the rate of dredging will necessarily be
based on the actual field conditions.
4.
11. Grading —Stabilization ofSediments
Hydraulic dredging, while efficient at removing sediment from the reservoir bottom, will
not create a smooth landscaped surface once the basin is dewatered. Rough, abrupt
sediment edges will be expected upon dewatering, although as the sediments dewater, they
will slump and smooth to some extent. While a perfectly smooth landscaped surface is not
needed or desirable, the rough topography created by hydraulic dredging may need to be
smoothed" by the use of equipment and hand work to create a soil surface that can be
seeded and planted.
The sediments, which consist of sand, silt and organic materials, will likely support natural
riparian growth. To accelerate growth and stabilization, soil testing will be performed and
limestone will be added as a soil amendment to adjust soil pH. Given the rough terrain, we
anticipate that the limestone will be spread by hand.
4.
21. Stream Bed and Bank Features
The stream is likely to be re-established in the historic stream bed that existed prior to the
creation of the dam, and, in this terrain, the brook is largely confined within bedrock and
hardened surfaces. Therefore, a stable stream bed is likely to be achieved fairly readily
once the loose sediments are removed. However, to accelerate the process of stream bank
stabilization, a number of stream bank stabilization techniques will be employed where
needed as the actual stream bank conditions begin to emerge as the stream is established.
Because the precise conditions will not be known until the reservoir is dewatered and the
stream begins to form, these techniques will not be precisely located on the plan sheets, but
instead are provided as standard details for implementation on a case by - case
- basis, as
determined in the field during stream restoration.
The anticipated stream bank stabilization features to be considered as part of the stream
reestablishment may include coir rolls, boulder placement, geotextile and stone boulder
/
placement, geotextile and planting live
/ stakes, and brush layers & fascines.
The stream restoration will utilize natural materials (e. g., tree debris root
/ wattles rock
/ and
gravel) to help ensure facilitation of fish passage within the stream bed. The gravel areas
near the existing alluvial island will likely provide potential brook trout spawning areas.
4.
31.Riparian Vegetation Planting
The former reservoir

bottom will largely
become a vegetated
Table 4 1:
- Pro osed Riparian Zone Plantings
riparian area bordering
Number
upon the reestablished
Type Common Name Scientific Name of Plants
Roberts Meadow Brook. Acer rubrum 50
Red Maple
The exposed sediments Silver Maple Acer saccharum 50
that have not been Green Ash Fraxinus enns lvanica 50
Trees
removed Grey Birch Betula lenta 50
by hydraulic
Pin Oak Quercus palustris 50
dredging will become the
Cottonwood Po ulus deltoides 50
soils. These sediments
totals 300
undoubtedly have a
Winterberry Ilex verticillata 80
residual seed bank. Shrubs Vaccinium cor mbosum
Hi hbush Blueberry 80
However, reliance upon Arrowwood Viburnum dentatum 80
this seed bank for Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum 80
restoration is less assured Red Osier

- Dogwood Cornus stoloni era 80
Speckled Alder Alnus rugosa 80

of rapid reestablishment of
totals 480
vegetative stabilization.
Redtop A rostis alba
Further, it is possible that Creeping Bentgrass A rostis stoloni era
the local seed bank also Chamaecrista asciculata
Partridge Pea
includes some invasive Silky Dogwood Cornus amomum
species given the Riverbank Wild Rye Elymus riparius

proximity of dense Virginia Wild Rye Elymus virginicus
New
Joe e Weed Eu atorium istulosum
invasive species located on England Festuca rubra
the Creeping Red Fescue
upgradient alluvial Roadside
Sensitive Fern Onoclea sensibilis
island. Matrix Wet
Therefore, the Switch Grass Panicum vir atum
Meado w
exposed sediments will be Seed Mix Steeple Bush Spiraea tomentosa
seeded and planted, where Blue Vervain Verbena hastata
Southern Arrow Wood Viburnum dentatum
needed, to encourage rapid 351bs acre
/
reestablishment of the Namyberry Viburnum lentago
riparian zone with an
appropriate vegetative
assemblage ( Table 4 1).
-
Invasive species control
will also be continued
within this area during the period of reestablishment.
Coarse woody debris (e. g., logs and tree stumps roots)
/ will be placed within the former
basin area to provide habitat structure.
4.2 Construction Approach & Sequencing
4.
12. Construction Approach
Hydraulic dredging of the reservoir will be performed prior to each stage of dam removal.
One of the main goals of this construction approach is to minimize sediment transport from
the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir to downstream areas. However, the establishment
of a new stream channel within the current impoundment will require significant additional
sediment management measures. It should be noted that even with hydraulic dredging and
other preventive measures in place, there will still be some unavoidable transport of
sediment downgradient which will be repositioned into Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir
or beyond. Such sediment repositioning is a recognized consequence of dam removal, as
noted in regulatory and policy guidance documents produced for dam removal in
Massachusetts (DFWELE,2003; MADEP, 2007).
The primary sediment management measure will be the removal of sediment in Upper
Roberts Meadow Reservoir by hydraulic dredging prior to the incremental removal of the
dam. Phased dredging will help initiate the re-establishment of the stream channel within
the impoundment by removing much of the sediment that has accumulated within the old
stream channel at the bottom of the reservoir. Hydraulic dredging is necessary due to
limited access to the shorelines of the reservoir and due to the final depths of the areas to
be dredged which would preclude the implementation of conventional dredging
techniques. Hydraulic dredging will also minimize the discharge of suspended solids to
downstream areas.
The dredge will be a barge-mounted machine that operates from the water surface utilizing
a cutter head mounted to an articulating boom. On board
- pumps will draw the sediment -
water slurry through the cutter head and discharge it through a pipeline to an upland
containment area for dewatering. Dewatering of hydraulically dredged material is done by
one of three methods: Mechanical press or filtering, geotextile tube filtering, or gravity
settling. All three methods are effective at removing gross and suspended solids from the
water volume in the slurry and all three typically utilize the introduction of a flocculent to
coalesce fine silty suspended particles. Clarified water will be returned to Roberts
Meadow Brook, upstream of the Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir.
The sediment containment and flocculation basin system will be constructed on the
City owned
- land downgradient of the reservoir and located to the northeast of the
intersection of Chesterfield Road and Kennedy Road (Figure 1 1 - ). The basins will require
the earthwork construction of a 25,000 cubic yard containment basin and a 9, 500 cubic
yard flocculation basin within an area of about 5 acres. Five acres of forested riparian area
must be cleared to construct this basin. On balance, approximately 9, 000 cubic yards of
earth materials would be excavated and formed into engineered earthen berms around the
basin perimeters. Piping and high level
- outlet flow structures would be erected within
each basin to provide for controlled discharges. An additional 3, 000 cubic yards of
earthwork would be required to construct a basin with an approximate volume of
8,
000 cubic yards. Upon completion of all dredging, the City has the choice of excavating
the material from the basins for reuse at another location or the material could remain in
place, provided that the original grades within the floodplain are not exceeded. In either
scenario, any structures and piping would be removed from the site and the site would be
graded over and replanted with trees and other vegetation.
The masonry portion of the dam will be removed in 5-to 10 foot - tall stages or increments
depending on the effectiveness of the hydraulic dredging, mobilization of the sediment
within the impoundment, the effectiveness of the operation to limit discharge of sediment
laden water over the dam, and the settling time required in the containment basin.
The intent will be to lower the water level in the impoundment in a staged, systematic
manner. Hydraulic dredging will be performed prior to each stage removal, establishing
the stream channel alignment. As masonry is removed, the sediments in the upper reaches
of the impoundment will become exposed. It is anticipated that the existing sediments
have a sufficient seed bed that will vegetate quickly once it is exposed to the atmosphere.
The Contractor will be required to hand grade and seed revegetated
/ the exposed basin
bottom as necessary to stabilize portions of the new stream channel that show signs of
erosion during the course of the work.
The staged removal of the masonry portions of the dam will alternate with the hydraulic
dredging until the majority of the masonry dam structure has been removed. Up to about
6 feet of the existing dam structure may be left in place
- as a grade transition feature within
the stream alignment to assist with the sediment management and overall constructability
issues with the dam removal. A portion of the existing dam may be left in place because
the original dam excavation was extended below the original streambed grade to reach a
competent bedrock foundation subgrade. Final design of the dam removal site will include
provisions to accommodate fish passage.
4.
22. Anticipated Construction Sequence - Sediment Containment Basin Construction
Step 1- Site Mobilization: The contractor will mobilize equipment and materials
to the site in the late summer or early fall, utilizing the existing cleared "parking area" at
the southeast corner of the intersection of Chesterfield and Sylvester Roads. Temporary
fencing will be erected to secure the area for storage of contactor materials and equipment
for the construction of the sediment containment basin site.
Step 2- Land Clearing and Grubbing: A 5 a - cre area of existing woods will be
cleared and grubbed for construction of the proposed sediment containment basin system
at the northeast corner of the intersection of Chesterfield and Kennedy Roads and to the
immediate north of Roberts Brook. Stumps and roots will be removed from the site.
A stabilized construction access drive will be constructed off of Kennedy Road leading
immediately to a staging area for the dredging and dam removal operation. Appropriate
interim or longer term
- permanent erosion and sedimentation controls will be installed to
facilitate this initial work.
Step 3-Erosion and Sediment Control: Immediately following the land clearing,
the cleared perimeter will be protected with additional appropriate erosion and sediment
control measures. This will be followed by grubbing of the site. Site construction will be
maintained in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and City of
Northampton requirements for construction site stormwater discharges.
Step 4-Basin Construction: The containment and flocculation basin system will
be constructed primarily of onsite materials. A design phase subsurface investigation will
be performed to confirm this assumption is valid or if offsite
- soils will be required for the
basin construction. Existing topsoil will be stockpiled onsite or removed from site for
temporary storage. Subsoils will be excavated to construct the basin embankments. It is
anticipated that the earthwork volumes will be balanced such that little to no material will
be required for import or export from the site. Embankments will be constructed according
to engineering standards with respect to soil materials and compaction for embankment
construction. Embankment slopes will be seeded and turf established prior to being put
into service for the dredging operation. Alternatively to turf grass, a soil or geo-composite
lining material could be used to cover and stabilize the slopes. The selection of the slope
stabilization material will be made during the final design and will take into account the
time of year when the basin will be put into use. The entire site will be surrounded by
temporary fencing with a locking gate at the Kennedy Road construction entrance.
Two basins are to be constructed: a 25,000±cubic yard sediment containment

basin and an adjoining 9, 500± cubic yard flocculation basin. Within each basin, a
high level
- outlet structure composed of a vertical riser structure and an outlet pipe at the
bottom. Each structure will have stop log guides for controlling the water elevation.
The discharge pipe from the flocculation basin to Roberts Brook will be constructed in the
bank of the brook and an appropriately sized energy dissipating splash pad will be
constructed. The discharge to the brook will be located 870±linear feet downstream of
Kennedy Road.
4.
32. Anticipated Construction Sequence - Hydraulic Dredging And Dam Removal
Step I-Site Mobilization: The contractor will mobilize equipment and materials
to the site during the Spring for both the demolition of the dam and the dredging of the
reservoir. Erosion control measures will be installed in the area of the dam and other areas
of construction to protect the Roberts Meadow Brook and other wetland resource areas in
the vicinity of construction activities.
Dam Removal Setup Access to the right and left abutments will be established
and a staging area primarily for dam deconstruction equipment will be sited on
City owned
- property along Chesterfield Road. Access to the left abutment will
require temporary utilization and improvement of an existing logging road
extending into the area off of Kennedy Road and running parallel to the north side
of the brook. There will be at least one temporary crossing of bordering vegetated
wetland needed to access the abutment. Timber mats or other methods for
temporary use will be employed to minimize impact at the crossing.
A downstream cofferdam will be constructed approximately 40 feet downstream of

the dam to allow the current plunge pool to serve as a secondary sediment trap
during the dam removal process.
Hydraulic Dredging SetuaL The contractor will mobilize a hydraulic dredge to the
site in the late spring after the ice is off the reservoir. The contractor will place the
hydraulic dredge in the reservoir by crane either from the vicinity of the right dam
abutment or directly from Chesterfield Road.
A 10 inch
- to 12 inch
- diameter flexible plastic pipeline will be extended from the
dredge in the reservoir to the containment basin which will require extending the
pipeline through the existing box culvert conveying Roberts Brook beneath
Kennedy Road. The pipeline will rest on the ground and will require little to no
ground disturbance.
Invasive Species Control Prior to the start of dewatering of the impoundment,

measures will be taken around the entire perimeter of the reservoir to control
invasive vegetation, using cutting, hand removal, and direct herbicide application to
the extent allowed by permit. The invasive species control work will be performed
in an appropriate manner and subject to anticipated environmental permit
limitations, given that Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir is an Outstanding
Resource Water.
Step 2-Initial Stream Channel Dredging: Prior to dredging, a turbidity curtain

will be installed across the reservoir approximately 25 feet upstream of the spillway
STAG 25).
+ Initially, with the reservoir at normal pool elevation of 450, the dredge will
cut a 20 foot
- wide channel between STA3 0 + 0 and a distance approximately 1, 000 feet
upstream of the dam to STA10 00. + Approximately 2 to 6 feet of sediment will be dredged
to hard bottom and to about El. 440. Additional slope dredging around the lower reaches
of the reservoir and adjacent to the dredged channel will be done to lessen the slopes and
provide for a new soil surface upon full dewatering of the basin. The initial stream channel
dredging limits are indicated in the preliminary plans (Attachment 6).
The upper reach of the reservoir between about STA10 00 + and STA17 00 + is
shallow, with existing water depths ranging from 1 to 4 feet. This area will not be dredged
and the stream channel will be allowed to form naturally once the area is exposed by
lowering the water level within the reservoir as part of the dam removal.
Step 3- Lower Dam to El. 445: Prior to any alteration of the dam, historic
mitigation will have been completed in compliance with requirement of MHC and the
Army Corps of Engineers, as appropriate. Upon completion of the initial dredging, the
turbidity curtain will be removed, temporarily, and the contractor will begin the removal of
the upper 5 feet of the dam. The contractor will likely use a hydraulic hammer mounted on
tracked excavators sitting on the right and left abutments. The hydraulic hammers will
initially create a 5 f- oot deep "notch"in the crest of the spillway section. A 5 f- t section of
the spillway crest will be lowered an additional 1 f- oot to El. 444 to allow the rest of the
dam above El. 445 to be removed in the dry. Additional dam removal activities for
portions of the dam above El. 445 will be performed at this time. The City may direct the
Contractor to remove and transport intact pieces of the stone masonry to a City owned -
facility for storage.
Step 4-First Stage of Stream Channel Cutting and Dredging: Once the pool
elevation has dropped and stabilized to El. 445, the turbidity curtain will be reinstalled
across the upstream of the dam. Between STAO 00 + and STA9 00, + the hydraulic dredge
will remove 2 to 6 feet of sediment down to the original reservoir bottom in places or to
about elevation 435. Based on our sediment transport model, we anticipate that the
majority of the sediments cut by the natural formation of the stream channel in the upper
reaches of the reservoir between about STA10 00
+ and STA17 00
+ will be re-distributed
within the reservoir and accumulate immediately upstream of the dam for a period
following the initial lowering of the dam to El. 445. We do not anticipate significant
quantities of sediment to be transported to Middle Roberts Reservoir, although sediment
transport cannot be totally eliminated. After a period of about 3 months (i.
e.by early June)
of allowing the upper reach of the stream to establish itself, the stream channel and
reservoir area between STAO 00 + and STA10 00 + (Blue Zone) will be re-dredged to
remove accumulated sediments mobilized from the upper reach and to facilitate additional
sediment transport, underwater side slope sloughing and stream bed backcutting during the
next stage lowering of the dam.
As the newly established river banks and newly exposed reservoir bottom along the
perimeter become exposed in the upper reaches of the reservoir, revegetation will be
encouraged in the area (Section 6.4)and coir logs and other erosion control measures will
be added where necessary to stabilize areas subjected to surface runoff.
Step 5-Lower Dam to El.440: The upstream turbidity curtain will be temporarily
removed. The contractor will "notch"the spillway to allow the reservoir level to drop to
El. 440. Sediment collected between the dam and the downstream cofferdam will be
dredged by conventional excavation equipment as necessary. The rubble masonry
removed will be placed in the downstream plunge pool to re-establish the stream bed in the
area.
Step 6- Second Stage of Stream Channel Cutting and Dredging: Between

STAG 00+ and STA6+ 50,the hydraulic dredge will remove 2 to 6 feet of sediment down to
the original reservoir bottom in places or to about elevation 430. The upper reach of
stream and areas newly exposed between El. 440 and El. 445 will be allowed to stabilize
for another 3 months (i. e.,by early September). The area between the dam and STA6+50
will then be redredged to remove mobilized sediments from the upper reaches of the
stream prior to the next stage of dam lowering.
Step 7-Lower Dam to El.435: The upstream turbidity curtain will be temporarily
removed. The contractor will "notch"the spillway to allow the reservoir level to drop to
El. 435. A 5 f- t wide section of the spillway crest will be notched an additional 1 foot to
El. 434 to allow the rest of the dam to be removed down to El. 435 in the dry. Dredging of
sediment collected between the dam and the downstream cofferdam will be dredged by
conventional excavation equipment as necessary. The rubble masonry removed will be
placed in the downstream plunge pool to re-establish the stream bed in the area.
Step 8- Third Stage of Stream Channel Cutting and Dredging: Between

STAO 00+ and STA2 50, + the hydraulic dredge will remove 2 to 6 feet of sediment down to
the original reservoir bottom in places or about elevation 423. The upper reach of stream
and areas newly exposed between El. 435 and El. 440 will be allowed to stabilize for
another 3 months (i. e.,by early November). The area between the dam and STA6+ 50 will
then be redredged to remove mobilized sediments from the upper reaches of the stream
prior to the final stage of dam lowering. This is anticipated to be the final stage of
hydraulic dredging.
Step 9- Lower Dam to Elevation 425: The upstream turbidity curtain will be
temporarily removed. The contractor will notch the spillway to allow the reservoir level to
drop to El. 425. The top of the dam will be approximately 5 to 6 feet above the bottom of
the dam. Regrading of the stream channel at the former dam site will be required to raise
the stream bed to match the downstream stream channel grades.
Step 10- Final Stream Channel Cutting: The turbidity curtain will be
re-established upstream of the former dam location. The stream channel in the lower reach
of the reservoir leading to the lower remains of the dam is anticipated to be established via
naturally occurring stream bed erosion and side slope sloughing as a result of the reservoir
being lowered to El. 425. The temporary cofferdam will remain in place below the dam to
continue to trap sediment that may discharge from the exposed reservoir bottom.
Accumulated sediments will be intermittently removed from this catchment system, as
necessary. Appropriate seed mix and plantings will be added to the exposed stream banks
and reservoir bottom as needed (see Section 1).4. 3. Coir logs and other erosion control
measures will be added to the stream banks to stabilize areas subjected to surface runoff.
Step 11- Final Reservoir and Dam Site Restoration: The stream banks within
the former impoundment will be inspected. Additional coir logs, root wads, shrub and tree
plantings, or other erosion stabilization measures will be put in place or adjusted as
necessary. Wetland seed mix will be added to areas where vegetation has not yet been
established.
The right embankment of the dam will be removed and soils are either placed along
the sides of the stream or hauled offsite.
- The masonry corewall and training walls are to
be broken up with hydraulic hammers and placed in the plunge pool downstream of the
dam. Wetland seed mix will be placed in the area of the right embankment.
Any sediment collected behind the cofferdam forming the plunge pool will be
dredged after the stream banks and reservoir bottom are allowed to stabilize and become
vegetated. Then the downstream cofferdam will be removed. The stream bed between the
dam and the limits of the cofferdam will be graded with smaller stone to "cap"the masonry
placed in the area and to provide a stable stream channel bed and create appropriate stream
habitat conditions.
The temporary access road and wetland crossing leading to the left dam abutment
will be removed. Topsoil will be replaced and the area will be seeded with an appropriate
cover to match the surrounding areas.
Step 12- Containment Basin Site Restoration: The dredged sediments collected
in the containment basin and flocculation basin will be allowed to dewater before they are
stabilized in place. The stoplogs in the basin outlet structures can be removed
incrementally to lower the water in the basins. Once the basins are dewatered, the outlet
structures can be removed along with the associated piping. A portion of the embankment
soils will be used to cover the sediments; however, there can be no net increase over the
original grades of the floodplain area prior to construction of the basins. Therefore, some
embankment soils will need to be removed from the site. The site will be revegetated with
native grass and seed mix.
4.3 Schedule and Cost
It is anticipated that the City will authorize the final design and final permitting efforts for
the Project during the summerfall/ of 2013. Final design and permitting will likely require
6 to 12 months to complete. If an EIR is required, the project start date will likely be
extended out at least an additional year. Assuming the EIR waiver is granted, the project
could be bid during the summer fall / of 2014. Construction will likely begin in
February/March of 2015. It is anticipated that the majority of the dam removal and stream
restoration will be completed by the winter of 2015/2016. However, some additional
stream restoration activities may be required along the stream bank near the former dam
location along with some additional spot seeding efforts along the stream banks during the
spring of 2016. Therefore, the overall project duration will be about 12 to 18 months.
The actual start as well as the speed of construction will be greatly affected by weather, the
rate of sediment erosion within the impoundment and the ability of the stream banks to
vegetate and stabilize.
The project costs have been estimated by to be approximately $000.

1, 200, The originally
conceptual cost estimate was originally prepared by GZA in the Upper Roberts Meadow
Reservoir Dam in the Phase 11 Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives Analysis of the
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam (GZA, 2008).The cost estimate was later updated
by GZA for the City in preparation for the September 23, 2009 Board of Public Works
Meeting. The breakdown of the conceptual cost estimate is as follows:
1. Dam Removal and Stream Restoration $ 425,000

2. Hydraulic Dredging of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir $ 500,000
3. Estimated Maintenance Costs $ 150,000
4. Final Design and Permitting $ 125,000
Total Cost Estimate= $ 1,
000 200,
5.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
5.1 Topography, Geology, Soils and Sediments
Topography, Geology, & Soils: Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is a roughly 4.8± acre
manmade impoundment formed by a stone masonry and earthen embankment dam. It is
located in Leeds portion of Northampton near the border of Westhampton
Figures 1 -1 & 5 1- )on the north side of Chesterfield Rd.,900±feet west of the intersection
of Kennedy Road (42 45" 20'17.N;72 64" 43'40.W).The Reservoir is roughly 1, 600 feet
long and up to 200 feet wide, but generally with width of 100 to 150 feet. At a point
approximately 1, 600 feet upgradient from the dam, the reservoir impoundment transitions
to Roberts Meadow Brook where the slope of the stream bed steepens with riffles and the
water depth shallows to less than one foot depth during normal stream flow. About
800 feet further upgradient, Roberts Meadow Brook has its confluence with Marble Brook.
Table 5 1:
- Basic Limnolo ical Characteristics of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir
Parameter Quantity (units as noted)
Location Latitude 42 Longitude 72 043'
40.
64"
Type of Reservoir Impoundment of Upper Roberts Meadow Brook
Area 4.
8±acres
Mean Depth 6.0 feet
Maximum Depth 18.0 feet
Maximum Length 1,
600±feet
Width 70 200±
- feet
Shoreline Length 3500±feet
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is located within a glacial till area with steep to
moderately steep local topography that forms the narrow river valley ( Figure 5 2). -
The local landform rises relatively quickly to the north and south to hilltops about 150 feet
above the level of the reservoir. There are numerous boulders and exposed bedrock
throughout the local landscape including along the upper portion of the reservoir where
Upper Roberts Meadow Brook feeds into the reservoir. At this location, there are five to
twenty foot tall exposed vertical bedrock walls that frame portions of the brook just before
the confluence with the reservoir. The narrow river valley at this location provides deep
shade for the stream. There are several natural pools in this area of four to five foot depth.
Based upon Natural Resource Conservation Services data on MassGIS datalayers, the
dominant soil series bordering along Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir are Charlton Fine
Sandy Loam (very stony) to the north and Charlton Rock - Outcrop -Hollis Complex to the
south (Figure 5 3).- Woodbridge fine sandy loam is shown to be on both sides of the
reservoir at the western extreme where the general land slope is less steep. All of these
soils are glacial till soils, typical for this region.
800 400 0 800 eef I AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH I Fro1.001:
01.
100019547.
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir ` "" CM1Elm

Dace
Figure No:
MassGIS Orthophoto (2009)
Data obtained from MASS CIS, Commonwealtlh of MassacM1U5et6 ExecuMe
Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs EEA).
.( 5.1
y/
Dewatedng Area
fL i
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir
SURFICIAL GEOLOGY Of01.1457.10

Surfcial Geology (MassGIS 250k)
Drlby:
ERH
p Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Checked by.
Sand &
Gravel
W Dam Removal Project i
W
J
Till or Bedrock
Dace
3/
11
17/
Floodplaln Alluvium BASE MAP USGSTOPOGRAPHICOUADRANGLEMAP
Figure No:
EASTHAMPTON, MASS. 1979
Data obtained from MASS GIS, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Off to
L)%
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. ofEnergyand Environmental Affairs iEEA7.
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir X_,
Dewatedng Area
Soil Types
1: Water
2: Pootatuck fSL
4: Rippowam fSL
5: Saco SiL
8: Limerick SiL
88: Ridgebury Variant fSL, very stony
253: Hinckley LS
260: SudburyfSL
306: Paxton fSL, very stony
311: Woodbridge fSL, very stony
405: Charlton fSL
406: Charlton fSL, very stony
711: Charlton Rock
- Outcrop -Hollis Complex
400 200 0 400Feer Project No:

v
SOILS MAP 01.
100091457.
Drawn by:
LEGEND I
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Checked by.
Dewatering Area Dam Removal Project pGD

Dace
Soils 3/
11
17/
BASE MAP'. MassGIS ORTHOPHOTO April 2009 Figure No:
5-
J J
Data obtained from MASS CIS, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office L
cio GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA)-USDA NRCS Soil Survey, Hampshire
rov
Water depths were measured throughout the reservoir in July 2008 and a bathymetric map
was developed based upon this data. The resulting area and reservoir volumes by depth are
presented in Table 5 2.
- The maximum existing depth of the reservoir is 18 feet with the
deepest portions immediately upgradient of the dam. However, this maximal depth rapidly
diminishes upgradient as well as to the adjacent shorelines. Most of the current
shallowness is associated with sediment in-filling, which has occurred over the course of
many years of sediment and organic deposition within the reservoir basin. Within the
easterly lower portion of the reservoir, the water depth adjacent to the shoreline increases
quickly due to the steepness of the local topography of this area. However, within 500 feet
of the dam the reservoir depth diminishes to less than 6 feet and thereafter becomes
shallower to a depth of two to three feet for much of the remainder of the reservoir.
Sediments: There is significant
accumulation of soft sediments in
Table 5 2:
- Reservoir Depth and Volume
Depth Area (SF)at Volume Percent
the reservoir basin. The thickness
Increment (ft) lower contour cubic feet) Volume
and volume of sediment was
0 182,762
determined by measuring the depth
02
- 131,493 314,255 37.8%
of the soft sediment (above hard
24
- 71,811 203,304 24.5%
bottom) by using a 20 foot long
steel probing rod marked in 1 1
/ 0th 46
- 40,835 112,646 13.6%
foot increments, probing at over 68

- 31,397 72,232 8.
7%
200 individual points along 14 8 10

- 22,228 53,625 6.
5%
transects, and geo-referencing each 10 12
- 14,134 36,362 4.
4%
of these data points. Water depths 12 14
- 8055 22,189 2.
7%
to the top of the soft sediments 14 16
- 3873 1.
4%
11,928
were measured at each probing
16 18
- 887 4,
760 0.
6%
location by lowering an 8 lb.
mushroom anchor on a tether Total Volume 831,301 100
marked in 1 1
/ 0th foot increments.
At the western end of the reservoir, there is a large deltaic island that has been formed
through the deposition of sediments from the inflowing stream. Gradually, the sediment
island has become vegetated, but there is an evident advancing margin of the sediments
incrementally extending into the more central reservoir basin. The primary channel and
stream is along the southern shoreline. On the northerly shore of the reservoir basin, there
remains a high flow channel with dense overhanging vegetation along the northern
shoreline. The stream channel depth is one to three feet along the area of the sediment
island. However, there are several areas of deeper four to five foot deep scoured pools
along the rock walls where the river narrows and high flow events scour these basin areas.
The thickness of the soft sediments ranges up to 13 feet deep within the central basin.
Immediately upstream of the dam, the soft sediment appears to be five to seven feet thick
Attachment 6: Sheet 3).For the westerly portion of Upper Roberts Meadows Reservoir
where the river narrows, sediment depths are roughly two to four feet thick. There are high
levels of trapped gases within the accumulated organic sediments likely being trapped by
matted layers of partially decomposed leaf litter which form restrictive barriers to vertical
gas transport. The sediments are highly unconsolidated within the central basin area.
Accumulated sediments within the reservoir vary from gravels and sands at the westerly
limits to the deep accumulation of organic materials at the easterly limits of the reservoir
near the dam. The organic in-filling appears to be mostly associated with deep
accumulations of leaf litter.
5.
11. Sediment Analysis
Sediments have been analyzed as part of prior studies and during the preparation of the
current documentation. These results are presented below.
USGS-Riverways Data: In November, 2005, the USGS Riverways Program conducted a

sediment sampling and analysis. While the raw data was obtained from the Northampton
DPW, the exact sampling locations within the reservoir do not appear to have been
documented. Table 5 3 - summarizes the results of the analyses with a comparison to the
Massachusetts Contingency Plan ( MCP) Method 1, Soil Category S 1 - Standards
310 CMR 6)( 40. 0975( and the Background Levels of Polycyclic Aromatic
a))
Hydrocarbons and Metals in Soil ( MADEP, 2002) where they exist. The MCP Soil
Standards represent the levels to attain at remediation sites where a release of hazardous
materials has taken place. The soil standards are divided into three levels which describe
risk exposure levels S 1 - ,S 2
- ,and S 3- ,Level S 1
- being the highest risk of exposure and
Level S 3- representing the lowest. Risk of exposure is described as likelihood of contact
based on the expected use of the site. Additionally, the soil standards are adjusted for sites
where potential for groundwater could also be exposed and thereby pose a risk of exposure
to humans. Accordingly, there are three groundwater exposure standards, GW 1 - to GW 3, -
where GW 3 - represents the lowest risk of exposure. Finally, the MADEP Background Soil
Concentrations were established to be used in lieu of site -specific background levels as
part of site assessments in Massachusetts. While not directly applicable to sediments, the
MCP levels provide information on threshold concentrations in other settings for soils and
the MADEP Background Soil Concentrations do provide a frame of reference for the
concentrations.
Chromium exhibited levels that exceed the S 1

- Soil, S 2
- Soil, GW 1
- and GW 2
- Standards.
Nickel exhibited levels that exceed the S 1
- Soil, S 2
- Soil, GW 1- and GW 2- Standards.
The MADEP background levels in soil were exceeded for barium, but the levels were
lower than the MCP Method 1, Soil Category S 1 - Standard. No testing was done for the
RCRA metals mercury, or selenium. Additionally, although some volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and total polychlorinated biphenyl congeners (PCBs) were analyzed,
the VOCs, PCBs and the Massachusetts extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (EPH)tests
required under the 401 Water Quality Certification program administered by MADEP were
not done. Some of the raw data showed results such as " E220 ", with no
explanation interpretation
/ of the "E ".These may have been test errors, but no explanation
was given.
GZA Sediment Analysis: GZA personnel conducted reservoir bottom sediment

collections in August of 2008. Within each of three reservoir regions, one (1)composite
sediment sample was obtained by combining full depth
- aliquots of three (3)sub -samples
taken with a benthic core sampler at various stations ( see sampling locations,
Attachment 3). Sediment Sample lABC was obtained from the upper third of the
reservoir area nearest the inlet from Roberts Brook. Sediment Sample 2ABC was obtained
from the middle third of the reservoir area and Sediment Sample 3ABC was taken from the
lower third of the reservoir area nearest the dam. Each acquired sub -sample and composite
was representative of the entire sediment column in the sample region, from the top of
sediments to the firm underlying strata below.
Table 5 3:
- US Riverways Program Sediment Sampling at Upper Roberts Meadow
Reservoir (November 2,2005) Compared to MA Contingency and Background Levels
310 CMR 40 Mass Contingency MADEP

Plan Re 1 ory Levels Background
r
Results for Three S1
- S1
-
Concentrations
Sediment Samples RCS 1
- RCS 2
- Soil & Soil &
in "Natural"
sample labels not Soil Soil GW 1
- GW 2
-
Parameter Units rovided) I I Soil
Benzo (a)pyrene mg/kg 0.
140 2 4 2 2 2,
000
Benzo (ghi) 1,
000
peiylene m /k 0.
130 1,
000 3,
000 1,
000 1,
000
Chiysene mg/kg 0.
150 70 400 70 70 1,
000
Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.
320 1,
000 3,
000 1,
000 1 1,
000
Phenanthrene m /k 0.
200 10 1,
000 10 50 1,
000
Pyrene m /k 0.
270 1,
000 3,
000 1,
000 1,
000 1,
000
4,
DDE
4'-( p') m /k 0.
008 3 20 3 3
4,4'DDT
- ( p') mg/kg 0.
006 3 20 3 3
Phenanthrene mg/kg 0.
200 10 1,
000 10 500
Fluoranthene mg/kg 0.
320 1 1,
000 3,
000 1 1,
000 1,
000
Pyrene mg/kg 0.
270 1,
000 3,
000 1,
000 1,
000
Chiysene mg/kg 0.
150 70 400 70 70
Benzo (a)pyrene mg/kg 0.

140 2 4 2 2
Arsenic mg/kg 3 3 3 20 20 20 1 20 20
Barium mg/kg 80 97 76 1 1,
000 3,
000 1,
000 1,
000 50
Beryllium mg/kg 0.8 0.9 0.9 100 200 100 100
Cadmium mg/kg 1 1 1 2 30 2 2 2
Chromium mg/kg 357 544 247 30 200 30 30 30
Copper mg/kg 13.8 15.9 14.2 1,

000 10,000
Lead mg/kg 23 25 25 1 300 300 300 1 300 100
Nickel m /k 23 31 23 20 700 20 20
Vanadium mg/kg 29 32 28 600 1,

000 600 600
Zinc m /k 74.8 77.6 80.2 2,

500 1 3,
000 2,
500 2,
500
Notes: Green indicates levels above the Mass Contingency Plan
Yellow indicates levels above MADEP background concentrations in "natural' soil
1. Samples collected by USGS Riverways Program; 2. Only detected constituents are presented
3. 310 CMR 40 Mass Contingency Plan -Massachusetts regulations for assessing and cleaning up releases of oil and hazardous material; 4.
RCS 1- Exposure criteria for soils with high exposure potential; 5. RCS 2
- Exposure criteria for soils with moderate exposure potential; 6. S 1 -
Soil & GW 1 - = Exposure criteria for soils with high exposure potential in a groundwater resource area protected for its current or potential
future use as drinking water; 7. S 1
- Soil & GW 2 - =Exposure criteria for soils with high exposure potential in a groundwater resource area that
may act as a source of volatile material to indoor air.
The sediment samples were placed in sterile glass sample jars provided by the laboratory.
The collected samples were then delivered to Spectrum Analytical, Inc., a
Massachusetts -registered laboratory, within allowable hold times and using appropriate
preservation procedures. The complete sediment analysis results are provided in
Attachment 3, and summarized below.
All three composite samples were analyzed for the following parameters as required under
314 CMR 9. 00 — 401 Water Quality Certification program administered by MADER
Physical Analyses:
Soil Characteristics: Total Solids (TS)and Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
Grain Size Distribution: Sieve
Chemical Analyses:
- Sediment Testing Results —Soil
Table 5 4:
Total Metals: Arsenic,
Characteristics
Cadmium, Chromium,
Copper, Lead, Mercury, Sediment Sample
Parameter 1ABC 2ABC 3ABC
Nickel, and Zinc
Metals TCLP: Solids, Total ( %) 98.9 96.9 97.1
Total Organic Carbon ( %) 9.

85 29.4 33.8
Chromium, Mercury,
and Nickel
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs or PNAs)

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)and TCLP VOCs
Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH)
Total Chemical Leachate I
GZA Sediment Physical Analyses

The sediment sample " soil"
characteristics are summarized
- Sediment Testing Results —Particle
Table 5 5: Size
in Table 5 4 - and sieve grain Analysis Percent Passing, by weight

Sediment Samples
size analysis is summarized in
Sieve Size 1 ABC
- 2 ABC
- 3 ABC
-
the Table 5 5.
-
34/ inch 100
Total solids are a measure of the 2 inch 98.0 100 100
percent dry weight of the 4 94.1 96.4 99.7

saturated nature of pond 10 87.0 95.8 99.2
sediments and can range 20 72.0 94.0 97.3
widely. Organic carbon content 40 53.75 90.0 95.2
is a measure of organic matter. 60 35.7 80.6 93.4

The results of these three tests 100 17.7 66.8 83.3
indicate that the sediments 200 8.9 47.2 64.3
within Upper Roberts Meadow Loam or
Reservoir are primarily mineral USDA Soil Classification
Loamy Sandy
and become proportionally less Sand Loam Silt Loam
so from the upstream end of the
reservoir to the dam.
The grain size analysis for the upper third of the reservoir area, Sample 1 A - BC, indicates
that the sediments are predominantly fine to medium sands with trace amount of silt and
clay sized particles that would be classified under the USDA Soil Classification System as
Loamy Sand. Sample 2 ABC - from the middle third area of the reservoir is fine to medium
sands with silt and trace gravel, meeting a borderline USDA classification of Loam to
Sandy Loam. The grain size analysis of Sample 3 A - BC from the lower third area of the
reservoir is higher in silt content with fine to medium sand and trace gravel that is USDA
classified as Silt Loam.
GZA Sediment Chemical Analyses
As mentioned previously, chemical analyses of the sediment samples collected by GZA in

2008 from Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir included metals, PAHs, VOCs, PCBs and
Pesticides, and EPHs. Similar to the 2005 the USGS Riverways sample analyses, the 2008
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir sediment samples, the Total Metals analysis results
were compared with remediation and background values established by the MADEP,
presented below in Table 5 6.
-
- Sediment Testing Results —Total

Table 5 6: Metals
310 CMR 40 Mass.

MADEP Background Soil
Contingency Plan Concentrations'
All values listed in mg/kg ( m) Method S 1
- Soil
ABC 2ABC 3ABC GW 1,
- 2, 3 -
- &
Arsenic ND 0.
967 1.
14 20 17
Cadmium 0.
191 0.
603 0.
668 2 2
Chromium 9.
61 19.3 21.1 30 29
Copper 4.
75 12.8 14 38
Lead 6.
52 23.1 24.4 300 99
Mercury ND 0.
0638 0.
0838 20 0.3
Nickel 7.
88 15.5 17.3 20 17
Zinc 29.1 71.6 79.6 2,

500 116
ND=
Not detected - indicates the constituent was not present in quantities above the Method Detection Limit MDL
Source: MADER 1995. Guidance for Disposal Site Risk Characterization. Interim Final Policy WSCORS
/ 95-
-
141.
- Sediment Testing Results —Metals Total Characteristics

Table 5 7:
Leachate Procedure [mg kg
/ p( pm)]
310 CMR 40 Mass.
Sediment Sam le
Contingency Plan MADEP
Method S 1
- Soil Background Soil
Parameter ABC 2ABC 3ABC GW 1,
- 2, 3 -
- & Concentrations'
Chromium ND ND ND 30 29
Mercury NDND ND ND 20 0.3

Nickel 0.
0094 0.
0138 0.
0180 20 17
The term "total"refers to the total amount of the tested substance within the sample and is
commonly expressed in milligrams per kilogram (mg kg, / or ppm [parts per million])or
micrograms per kilogram (µgkg, / or ppb [parts per billion]). This test reveals only the total
amount of a substance, regardless of what molecular compounds that substance may be
bound within. As an example, any test results which indicate elevated Total Lead levels
may be reason for concern; however, reduced lead compounds (a common form appearing
in pond sediments) are very stable in nature and in low concentrations may represent little
to no toxicity in the natural environment.
As shown in Tables 5 6
- & 5 7,
- concentrations
of metals observed in the samples were low
compared with the MCP Method S 1
- Soils GW 1,
- 2, - &3- Standards and, with the
exception of Nickel in Sample 3 A
- BC, were lower than MADEP background
concentrations for non urban
- soils.
Because of detected levels of

jhepkrrd rFerm
Chromium and Nickel in previous
testing conducted by the USGS t.
l
Riverways Program in 2005, and due r
to a 1831 historical map of Notation for
r
s
Northampton which shows a " leather Leather Factory" r` +
factory" in the vicinity of the current I,'
reservoir, TCLP testing was performed r,
on the sediment samples for

Chromium Nickel and Mercury. eLYC.M.!
ltrtarr r,•, .
TCLP is the abbreviation for Toxicity

Characteristic Leachate Procedure.
This test represents that amount of the Y Ton.
troRTwrw:
tested element that may be mobilized • ` ?? "
and leached from the sediments by a iKai.
mild acid solution. TCLP Y..
v j Inrbn h'
. rr r /. v. flirt•
Tirw WwaW/Nf 11'
eM.
M
vMrrywNh•
v. 96.
lrw.
r/xnrnw.
t(
f j f Sf51t Ir r l •
concentrations are usually much lower
than total values, and are measured in
milligrams liter,
/ which is the concentration of the acid solution after leaching through the
sediment matrix. All values were below the detection limits of each constituent.
The results are summarized in Table 5 7
- f(or laboratory report, see Attachment 3).
Table 5 8
- presents the chemical analysis results for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
for parameters in which any detected levels were present. The full data is given in
Attachment 3. Detectable levels were observed in the sediments for only 3 of 77 analyzed
VOC parameters.
Table 5 8:
- Sediment Sampling Results —Volatile Organic Compounds
VOCs)mg kg
/ p( pb)
310 CMR 40 Mass
SedimentSediment SamSam lesles Con tin enc Plan S 1
-
ParameterParameter
1ABC 2ABC2ABC 3ABC3ABC GWGW
- 1- 1 GW 2
- GWGW
- 3- 3
AcetoneAcetone 0.
255 0.
301 0.
351 6 50 400
2-
Butanone (MEK) 0.
0855 0.
113 0.
136 4 50 400400
CarbonCarbon disulfidedisulfide 0.
0051 ND 0.
0079 UnlistedUnlisted UnlistedUnlisted Unlisted
VOCs are primarily man made
- compounds that have a high vapor pressure and low water
solubility. They are used in the manufacture of paints, pharmaceuticals, and refrigerants in
the form of industrial solvents and are common ingredients of petroleum based fuels,
hydraulic fluids, paint thinners, and dry cleaning agents. All three sediment samples
obtained from Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir contained detectable concentrations of
the common solvents acetone, 2-butanone (MEK) and carbon disulfide. The detected
concentrations of the three compounds were below the Method S 1 - Soil GW 1, - 2, - & 3 -
Remediation Standards
of the MCP.
Table 5 9:
- Sediment Testing Results — Extractable
Petroleum products such Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPHs)

as gasoline, motor oil,
and fuel oil are
310 CMR 40 Mass.
EPH (m or m) Contingency Plan
comprised of hundreds of
S1
- Soil
hydrocarbons and can be 1AB 3AB GW-
found in the environment
Sam le ID C 2ABC C 1 GW 2
- GW 3
-
due to spills and
C9 08
- Aliphatics ND ND ND 100 100 100
leakages. Identifying and
quantifying all possible C19 C36
-
37.2 81.5 96.9 3,
000 3,
000 3,
000
Ali hatics
hydrocarbons in a sample
C11 C22
-
analysis is difficult and 57.4 92.9 72.4 1,
000 1,
000 1,
000
Aromatics
P-.
P ensive Where the
traditional "Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon" or TPH analysis is used as an indicator of the
presence and total concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons, no specific hydrocarbons are
identified. In the interest of identifying hydrocarbons with regard to toxicological
implications, the Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbon (EPH)method allows for analysis of
ranges of the aliphatic and aromatic fractions, the two main hydrocarbon groups. MADEP
has developed a method for analysis of three ranges of EPHs for sediments to be disposed
in upland locations. A summary of analysis of the sediment samples for Extractable
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPHs)is presented in Table 5 9. -
The EPH analysis of the samples indicated presence of the C19 06 - Aliphatic and
C11 C
- 22 Aromatic fractions. Not all samples contained detectable levels of each of these
hydrocarbon ranges and none of the detectable levels exceeds the MCP remediation
standards for S 1
- Soil GW 1,
- 2, 3 conditions.
- & -
The sediment samples taken from Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir were also tested for
presence of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons ( PAHs),Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PCBs),and pesticides. No PAHs, PCBs or Pesticides were detected in any of the samples
see laboratory analysis results, Attachment 3).
Summary ofSediment Physical and Chemical Analyses
The results of the solids and sieve analyses clearly indicate that the sediments in Upper
Roberts Meadow Reservoir are mostly mineral in the form of fine to medium sand in
composition with some organic content and some silt content typical of a small
run of
- river
- reservoir. Some of the chemical compounds tested for were detected and
some levels of these were slightly elevated as compared to background level standards;
however, none of these levels indicate that the sediments are hazardous or represent any
special disposal concerns.
5.2 Wetland Resource Areas
Table 5 10
- summarizes the wetland
resources regulated under the MA
Wetlands Protection Act and City of
Northampton Wetlands Ordinance in
proximity to Upper Roberts Meadow
Reservoir and proposed sediment
management area.
Drawing No. 3 in Attachment 6

contains an existing conditions plan
in the area around the dam. Drawing
No. 4 in Attachment 6 contains the existing bathymetry plan for the reservoir. Drawing 8
in Attachment 6 shows the proposed Dredged Sediment Containment & Dewatering Plan.
Each referenced plan shows the wetland flagging for each respective area.
The regulated types of wetland resources include:
Land under Water Bodies & Waterways (LUWW)

Bank
Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVW)
Riverfront Area (RFA), and
Border Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF)
Table 5 10:
- Wetland Resources in Proximity to Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir
Resource Upgradient Roberts Downgradient Roberts

Area Meadow Brook Reservoir Basin Area Meadow Brook
Land Under 4.
8f acre narrow
Steep gradient narrow
Steep gradient narrow stream, partially
Waterway & stream corridor.
impoundment, 1600 LF long,
channelized, in broadening
Waterbody up to 200 ft wide
river valley
Abrupt & steep, partially
Abrupt/steep with vertical Abrupt, densely vegetated
Bank
channelized, lined by
bedrock exposures with overhanging vegetation stones/boulders
Little to none due to steep

Bordering Little to none due to steep Little to none due to steep transition from stream to
Vegetated transition from stream to transition from stream to
Wetland
upland, limited feeder
upland upland
drainage
Bordering Confined to immediate Confined to immediate banks
Narrow west of Kennedy
Land Subject banks of stream of reservoir
Rd and broad floodplain
to Flooding east of Kennedy Rd
200' wooded RFA from
dam to Middle Roberts
Riverfront 200' wooded RFA to None from entrance of Reservoir, including parts
Area entrance to reservoir reservoir to dam of Kennedy, Sylvester,
Chesterfield & Reservoir
Roads
There is also some isolated wetland area near Kennedy Road, which functions (and has
been certified as)vernal pool habitat. This area is regulated locally as isolated wetland in
addition to being located within RFA and BLSF.
Due to the steep topography that forms most of the shoreline of the reservoir, the wetland
resources associated with the waterbody include the water itself (LUWW),the shoreline
Bank),and extremely marginal BVW at the upper limits of the reservoir on the southerly
bank, where the reservoir begins to take on riverine characteristics (See Figure 5 4).-
The sediment island at the westerly end of the reservoir (0.
6±acres) has areas of emergent
wetland vegetation, but is largely above mean high water. The center portion of the
sediment island has dominant upland vegetation including abundant invasive species
oriental bittersweet ( Celastrus
orbiculatus) and multiflora rose (Rosa
y
multiflora)).
LUWW: Wetland Resource areas at
and around the Roberts Meadow
Brook system include a variety of -.
palustrine and aquatic habitats
associated with Upper Robert
Meadows Brook and the associated
4'
4.
8± acre impoundment ( Upper
Roberts Meadow Reservoir) created
by the dam. Due to the control of the
dam and steep bank slopes created by Westerly view of
the steep topography, the Mean Body of Reser
Annual Low ( MALWL) and High - —_—
Water Lines ( MAHWL) are relatively close together and the reservoir does not fluctuate
laterally to any great extent. The area of impounded water within the reservoir and the
flow path of the brook above and below the reservoir are LUWW resource under the MA
Wetlands Protection Act (WPA),which, by definition, incorporates that area below
MALWL. The LUWW habitat is a combination of shallow littoral and deeper water
habitats with only limited area of emergent vegetation present. Open water areas range
from shallow ( 5 < ')to deep (18± feet) with an unconsolidated bottom comprised of deep
organic sediments. Because of the depth minimal aquatic vegetation was found in deeper
areas. Areas of intermediate depth contained submersed aquatic macrophytes such as Big
Leaved Pondweed (Potamogeton amplifolius) and coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum).
Emergent and semi -terrestrial plants such as water purslane (Ludwigia palustris),blueflag
iris (Iris versicolor) and burr reed
- (Sparganium spp.)
grow in the shallow areas.
The portion of the brook that is below the MALWL

is considered LUWW resource area. These areas are
mainly comprised of stones and boulders with
varying degrees of inundation based on temporal
variation in water levels and rain events. These
habitats are described further in the Fisheries
subsection in Section 5.5 of this report.
WETLANDS IN URMR I hi,
b
Intermittent Stream
ERH
VVetland Boundary
21 Dam
Cate
JO Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir 5/
11
19/
Figure No:
LJ Stream BASE MAP: MassGIS Orthophoto (2009)
W)GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
Data obtained from MASS GIS, Commonwealtlh of Massachusetts Executive
Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA.
54
-
Bank: Bank habitat exists between the MALWL and
MAHWL of the reservoir and stream, both upgradient and
downgradient of the reservoir. Due to the steep side
slopes, this area is limited in extent and defined more as a
linear length following the waterbodies.
Above the reservoir, the Banks of the brook are rocky

with exposed vertical bedrock in some locations. Within
the reservoir, the Bank is often rocky with limited
vegetation, save for the overhanging trees and shrubs from
the adjacent upland areas. The Banks of the brook
downgradient are also limited in extent and comprised of
large stones and boulders with some overhanging
vegetation from the adjacent forested upland and wetland
habitats.
An intermittent stream flows into Roberts Meadow Brook about 400 feet downgradient of
the dam, this intermittent stream drains from a wetland system located at the downstream
toe of the dike, on the west side of the brook. This intermittent stream is also regulated as
Bank, and consists of a 2 3 - foot wide channel with an unconsolidated sandy muddy /
bottom. Bank vegetation, while limited, does contain many native species that are either
growing within or overhanging the bank. Species such as speckled alder (Alnus rugosa)
and highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum),are common woody species found with
the bank resource.
Downgradient of the dam, Roberts Meadow

Brook continues within a steeply sloped
stream valley to Kennedy Road, passing
beneath a bridge to an area of flatter terrain.
Here the stream is channelized and lined
with stone from its construction as part of the
reservoir system. The northerly bank is
raised at the top, presumably from placement
of the original excavated soils in this
location.
A large alluvial sediment island is located at the inlet to the reservoir, which has become
vegetated with a mix of upland and wetland vegetation, including several invasive species
which tend to dominate the area. A large part of this cobble bar is Bank resource with the
central area being upland as it is slightly above the MAHWL. The invasive species include
multiflora rose, Tartarian honeysuckle ( Lonicera tartarica),and Oriental bittersweet.
The wetland species are located primarily at the downgradient extent of the island where
the accumulated sediments are closer to the normal water level of the pond. Native,
non-invasive species included, jewelweed (Impatiens capensis),monkey flower (Mimulus
ringens), joe pye
- weed ( Eupatorium maculatum), burr reed, - rough stem goldenrod
Solidago rugosa),beggars tick (Bidens spp.), grey dogwood (Cornus racemosa),speckled
alder, boneset ( Eupatorium perfoliatum),wood sorrel (Oxalis stricta),meadowsweet
Spirea latifolia), bittersweet nightshade ( Solanum dulcamara) and poison ivy
Toxicodendron radicans).
BVW: Bordering along the upper
edges of the Bank resources are
several areas of Bordering Vegetated
Wetland ( BVW) resource
Figure 5 5).
- Because of the steep
gradient along the edges of the
reservoir, minimal BVW areas are
present along the edges of the
reservoir and upgradient areas.
i w ,'
However, in the lower reaches (below
the dam) there are extensive wetland F ' ':
areas along the west side of the stream, 4q
particularly further downgradient of a•-, Eastern End of Alluvial Is]
f -,., " `
Kennedy Road. All wetlands on site
are palustrine forested wetland systems, comprised mainly of red maple swamp. In total,
three distinct BVW areas are found in proximity to the proposed project and are further
described below.
BVW Area A: This wetland is a relatively small area of seepage located along the
upper edges of the reservoir. This wetland is located along the bank habitat, along the
southern edge of reservoir and the inlet stream to the reservoir. Because of its small size, it
is generally not forested, but is contained within the overall surrounding forested matrix.
Vegetation varies from exposed mud and leaf litter to patches of sphagnum moss
Sphagnum spp.),
skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus) and jewelweed. The hydrology
for this wetland is a combination of the reservoir and seepage from abruptly rising upland
to the south.
BVW Area B: Includes a linear forested wetland system located along the northern
side of the brook, downgradient of the northerly dike. The source of the hydrology to this
wetland appears to be surface overflow from the upgradient upland forest and ground
water seepage from the north and west. These water sources converge and create a narrow
intermittent stream channel which carries this hydrology to Roberts Meadow Brook about
400 feet downgradient of the dam. The wetland bordering along this stream is relatively
narrow and confined to the base of the surrounding slopes which contains the wetland and
stream and funnels flow toward the brook. The wetland has a seasonally saturated
hydrology and is vegetated by a mature red maple canopy with a moderately dense
understory of spicebush (Lindera benzoin),highbush blueberry, multiflora rose, tussock
sedge ( Carex stricta), skunk cabbage and cinnamon fern ( Osmunda cinnamomea).
A certified vernal pool, while not directly connected to this wetland, is located about
800 feet to the northeast, along Kennedy Road.
BVW Area C: This wetland is located 1, 300±feet to the northeast of the dam, on
the eastern side of Kennedy Road, and about 500 feet north of the Roberts Meadow Brook.
This wetland is wooded within the area closest to Roberts Meadow Brook and is
contiguous with the small stream that flows through the adjacent agricultural fields to the
north. The forested wetlands along the brook are somewhat sinuous flowing from east to
west to combine with the agricultural field drainage, which flows to the north east to
Middle Roberts Reservoir.
500 250 0 500 Feet FfOfe "
WETLANDS
111001 1 01.
100019547.
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir ` "" CM1ecketl

Dace
Figure No
BASE MAP: MassGIS Orthophoto (2009)
Data o stained from MASS CIS, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. office of Energy and Environmental Affairs.(
EEA),
BLSF: A large portion of the project area is located within BLSF as depicted in
Figure 5 6
- ,which incorporates those areas within the 100 year
- floodplain, as defined by
elevation and FEMA mapping of the area. West of Kennedy Road, BLSF is largely
coincident with the boundary of Bank resource due to the steep terrain that defines the
margins of the brook and reservoir in this area. However, east of Kennedy Road, the
stream valley broadens and BLSF extends both to the north and south from the margins of
the brook, incorporating large areas of upland and wetland soils.
RFA: Roberts Meadow Brook is also a perennial stream as depicted on the current USGS
topographical map. As such, a 200 foot
- RFA extends outward from the MAHWL of the
brook. Because the reservoir interrupts the brook, and has no riverine characteristics, the
RFA is cut off at the inlet and does not extend along the banks of the reservoir. The RFA
has been divided into two sections (above and below the reservoir),which are described in
further detail below:
Upgradient RFA: The RFA upgradient of the reservoir consists almost exclusively
of forested upland habitats to the north and south of the stream. In close proximity to the
stream, the upland is very steep and rocky with a deep gorge along the stream edge in some
areas. Chesterfield Road parallels the stream to the south. The forested upland areas
within the RFA are comprised of a combination of oak pine - and northern hardwood
vegetation, with the northern hardwood component found along the steeper slopes.
Common species within the RFA include red oak (Quercus rubra),white pine (Pious
strobus),eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis),white birch (Betula papyrifera),black birch
B.lenta)and sugar maple (Ater saccharum).
Downgradient RFA: The RFA downgradient of the dam is more disturbed in nature than
above the reservoir; however, still mostly comprised of forested upland habitats with some
wetland areas present on the western side of the stream. In this area, Chesterfield Road is
much closer to the stream, with paved surfaces and residential homes within 60 feet of the
stream in some areas. Because of this, the riparian corridor on the eastern side of the
stream is relative narrow (average 40 feet),with a relatively steep drop off
- from the road
edge to the stream banks. The RFA on the western side of the stream is mostly forested in
nature and comprised of a mixture of upland and wetland habitats. Kennedy Road crosses
the stream 875±feet downgradient of the dam, spanning the stream with a bridge crossing.
South of Kennedy Road the RFA on the western side of the stream is markedly different
than the north side of the road, comprised of mainly red pine ( Pious resinosa) and white
pine planted in rows and now even aged with a uniform understory of ferns. Forested
upland areas are comprised of white pine, hemlock, maple and oak along the steep eastern
slopes with some disturbed road edge habitats present along the margins of Chesterfield
Road.
NN
t•_
t•_•.MiddleMiddle RobertsRoberts MeadowMeadow Reservoir Reservoir
•.
yyyy
- - EE
11
r r 44 II
ii JJ
ss
0 IIy""y/ / t1llr' \ \
IÌ` ' ' CC
! ! MM' '
I:
lI
l, lI\,
lI:,\, Rrser7mirRrser7mir
ii
II==„„
YY
xx
DewateringDewatering AreaArea
/ // /
II aa
Robe,Robe,
ss; ; Meat•_
Meat•_
II ,, I•
lili----- ------ -
JJ
UpperUpper RobertsRoberts Meadow Meadow ReservoirReservoir
f)
f) f
oo rr 77 COCO
ngmltnngmltn AeAeSS II
I,I, i aa
oo( (
Y-Y-
k—
I
HiI1HiI1 j..
j..I rdrd" vl
" PP-t.
- t.
I,//
I,// I. a,I rr
FeetFeet ProjectProject No:No:
00
FEMAFEMA MAPMAP
2,
000 1,
000 2,
000 01.
10
0019547.
0019547.
01.
1 0
DrawnDrawn by:by:
ERHERH
UpperUpper RobertsRoberts MeadowMeadow ReservoirReservoir
ZZ 100100
- -YearYear FEMAFEMA DamDam RemovalRemoval PrPr
Checked by:by:
PGDPGD
Northampton,Northampton, MassachusettsMassachusetts Date:Date:
3117111 3117111
LLI "" "` Town Boundary
JJ BASEBASE MAP:USGS TOPOGRAPHIC TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLEQUADRANGLE MAP,MAP, FigureFigure No:No:
EASTHAMPTONEASTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTSMASSACHUSETTS 19791979
Inc.
GZACoeoENVlfonmentat,
CoeoENVlfonmentat,
GZA
I nc.
DataData obtainedobtained TomTom MassMass DIMDI, M, CommonwealthCommonwealth ofof Massachusetts Massachusetts ExecutiveExecutive OfficeOffice ofof EnergyEnergy andand
EnvironmentalEnvironmental Affairs(Affairs(EEA),EEA), FEMAFEMA 0303 FloodFlood layerlayer createdcreated byFEMAbybyFEMAby scanningscanning currentcurrent FloodFlood
InsuranceInsurance RateRate Maps,Maps,
55-6- VM
6
66
5.3 Watershed and Hydrology
Upper Roberts Table 5 11:

- Hydrological Characteristics & Features of Upper
Meadow Reservoir Roberts Meadow Reservoir
is a 1600±foot long, Parameter Quantity units as noted

somewhat sinuous, Watershed Area (including reservoir) 8.8±square miles
run of the river" Size Ratio Watershed: Reservoir 1175:1
impoundment of Estimated Reservoir Volume 828,000 cu ft
Roberts Meadow
Estimated Average Annual Flow 000
475,000,cu. ftyr
/
Brook. The reservoir
Estimated Water Residence Time 0.6±
days
is re 1 ative 1 y sma 11
4. 8± acres)with a maximum width of 170 feet, about 25 feet wide at the headwaters, and
a width of 70 feet at the dam. The reservoir is shallow with an average depth of only
2.9 feet due to the infilling with sediment ( original average depth was 6.5± feet).
Currently, about 80% of the reservoir volume is less than 6 feet deep. The maximum
depth of the reservoir is 18 feet, just above the dam. The reservoir has a total volume of
about 830,000 cubic feet.
Roberts Meadow Brook enters the reservoir at the west end of the reservoir with the dam
located at the eastern end of the reservoir. Above the reservoir, Roberts Meadow Brook
extends westerly into Westhampton and continues into a small portion of Chesterfield,
with Brewer Brook as another tributary within this area. Marble Brook is a major tributary
LO Roberts Meadow Brook, having its
confluence approximately 600 feet Table 5 12:
- Land in Use in Reservoir
Watershed
upgradient of the western-most portion
Percent of
of the reservoir. Marble Brook flows
Land Use Area (ac) Watershed
from north south, and extends
to
Crop Land 166.3 3.
1%
upgradient into a small portion of Pasture 56.0 1.
0%
Williamsburg. Forest 4873.5 89.4%
Non -Forested Wetland 105.5 1.
9%
Below the
dam, Roberts Meadow Mining 38.2 0.
7%
Open Land 17.3 0.3%
Brook flows in an easterly direction
Low Density Residential 170.0 3.1%
along the north side of Chesterfield Rd. Water 6.6 0.1%
and passes under Kennedy Rd., Powerline 17.1 0.3%
continuing along the northerly side of Total Watershed 5450.5 T 100.0%
Chesterfield Rd. and then along
Reservoir Rd.,to its confluence with Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir about 5, 900 feet
below the dam. Outflow from the lower reservoir eventually reaches the Mill River within
the Florence portion of the Northampton.
The 8.8±square mile watershed of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir encompassed the
northwest corner of Northampton, the northeast portion of Westhampton, and portions of
Williamsburg and Chesterfield (Figure 2 1).
- Table 5 12
- depicts the land use within the
watershed based upon GIS information. The watershed is rural and about 90% forested
with one area of agricultural field on the west side of Marble Brook approximately 800 feet
upgradient of the reservoir (Figure 5 7).- While there is some residential development
along Chesterfield Rd.,there is very little residential development throughout the entire
watershed.
it
7
1 S
Upper Roberts Meadow

Reservoir Watershed
nnn r rid
ridrid
LegendLegend
Legend ' '' III
CropCrop Land
Crop LandLand
PasturePasture
Pasture ii
i
ForestForest
Forest
t+
t+
t+ Non-
Forested Wetland
WetlandWetland
MiningMining
Mining pp–––11c
p11c
11c @@
@
OpenOpen Land
Open LandLand
LowLow Density
Low DensityDensity Residential
ResidentialResidential aa- --
a ss-,-,
s r-,
huehue
hue It
ULUL
UL WaterWater
Water
oror
or
lll --- PowerlinePowerline
Powerline
UpperUpper Roberts
Upper Roberts Roberts Meadow
Meadow Meadow Reservoir
ReservoirReservoir
30003000
3000 15001500
1500 000 30003000 Fee`
3000 Fee`Fee`
WATERSHEDWATERSHED LAND
WATERSHED LANDLAND USE
USEUSE
" "" OfeOf" e l
Ofe 100 l
"" l
0091457.
01.
10 01.
1 091457.
0
UpperUpper Roberts
Upper RobertsRoberts Meadow
MeadowMeadow Reservoir
ReservoirReservoir CheckedChecked by:
Checked by:by:
DamDam Removal
Dam RemovalRemoval Project
ProjectProject II
I
Northampton,Northampton, Massachusetts
Northampton, MassachusettsMassachusetts DaceDace
4/
19111
BASE MAP USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP Figure No:
EASTHAM MASS_
brelnebrelne frofro EASTHAM EASTHAM MASS_MASS_ sacksack
MASSMASS ComCom monwealtlrmonwealtlr ofof MasMas OfflceOfflce
Gz`Y GZA
GZAGZA GeoEnvironmental,
GeoEnvironmental,GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
Inc.Inc. mlml AAffairs
NVNV anan enen mromro nmennmen A teeA).
teeA).
i8
Based on the watershed size, Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir has annual estimated water
flow of about 500 million cubic feet per year, which given the estimated water volume of
the reservoir would equate to an exchange of the total volume of the reservoir water every
0.6 days on average.
5.4 Vegetation
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is

set within a forested river valley,
except for a portion of the reservoir
that borders immediately upon
Chesterfield Road. The adjoining
terrain is often steep, with exposed
bedrock, and the forest provides deep
shaded woodland ravine habitats.
Trees and limbs overhang the
reservoir and some deadfall extends
into the waterbody. Shrubs vary in
density and groundcover is moderate
to sparse.
Dominant trees include mature hemlock and white pine with interspersed red maple (Acer
rubrum),red oak, gray birch, yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis),black birch, American
elm (Ulmus americana) and other species, with vines of riverbank grape (Vitis riparia)and
Oriental bittersweet (invasive species). Shrubs include silky dogwood (Cornus amomum),
witch hazel ( Hammelis virginianum), highbush blueberry, hobble bush ( Viburnum
alnifolium), striped maple ( Acer pensylvanicum), mountain maple ( Acer spicatum),
multiflora rose ( invasive) and Japanese barberry ( Berberis thunbergii) (invasive).
Shoreline shrubs including silky dogwood and high bush blueberry provide overhanging
branches into the reservoir. Fallen trees provide habitat structure within the reservoir basin.
Herbaceous species within the riparian woodlands include meadow rue ( Thalictrum
pubescens), cinnamon fern ( Osmundastrum cinnamomeum), hickory ( Carya ovata),
hayscented fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula),lady fern (Athyrium filixfemina),interrupted
fern (Osmunda claytoniana),Christmas fern (Polystichum arostichoides),riverbank grape,
Massachusetts fern (Parathelypteris simulata),Solomon seal (Polygonatum commutatum),
and jack in the pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum).On the 0.6± acre alluvial island at the western
end of the reservoir the dominant species are the invasive species Oriental bittersweet,
multiflora rose, and Japanese barberry.
Aquatic macrophytes within the reservoir are relatively sparse except in the upper most
reaches of the reservoir where the stream narrows and in the slack water channel between
the alluvial island and the north side of the reservoir. In these areas, submerged aquatic
vegetation consists of coontail, large pond weed, and water purslane (Didipis diandra).
Emergent species included blue flag iris,burr reed,
- and arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia).
5.5 Fish and Wildlife Resources
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and the surrounding environs naturalized after the dam
was constructed in 1883 and the cleared forest lands naturally revegetated as woodlands.
At this time, the habitats associated with Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and Roberts
Meadow Brook in the vicinity of the proposed work predominantly consist of
upland forest with scattered forested wetland;

cold water brook and stream bank habitat;
warm water reservoir with littoral and bank habitats; and
some very limited shrub and herbaceous habitat associated with the alluvial island
and roadway margins.
The wildlife and fish resources within the project area are defined by these ecological
habitats. The fauna of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir can be separated into terrestrial
species, which occasionally use the reservoir and brook, and aquatic species, which depend
almost entirely upon the open water for their life cycles. The following is a brief summary
of the types of wildlife and taxa observed and anticipated to be within each area, as well as
the value that the Roberts Meadow Brook System and surrounding habitat provides.
The discussion is intended to be representative and is not intended to be an exhaustive
species list.
Invertebrates: Numerous freshwater mussels were observed within the stream channel
below the reservoir. While not a listed species, the presence of this species in conjunction
with other aquatic insects (dragonfly larvae, damselfly larvae, stoneflies, etc.)suggests a
relatively high water quality in both the up-and downgradient water courses. Within the
reservoir, the freshwater mussels continue to be present. North crayfish was also observed.
The substantial detritus on the lake bottom provides habitat to aquatic insects favoring
open bottom and open water areas.
Avifauna: Avifauna use of the reservoir is limited to some waterfowl, although the suitable
habitat is somewhat restricted and a better offering of appropriate habitats (vegetated
littoral zone and reservoir shore community) to support waterfowl are represented in the
downgradient Middle Roberts Reservoir. Waterfowl that may occasionally use this
reservoir include mallard, wood and black duck; and Canada geese. Piscivorous species
such as kingfisher, great egret, and great blue heron are also occasional residents of the
area, with limited nesting habitat present in the surrounding upland areas for these species.
Insect gleaning bird species such as tree swallows, flycatchers, and phoebes have the
highest potential use of this waterbody as a food resource. Other passerine bird species
likely use the adjacent upland habitats to a high degree. The relatively large patch of forest
around the reservoir along with the lack of significant disturbance means that many forest
and forest interior birds species are likely present in these upland and wetland habitats.
Species such as pileated woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, downy woodpecker, veery, robin,
tufted titmouse, black capped chickadee, blue jay and red tailed hawk were all observed by
sight or sign. Other bird species that are likely present in or near the proposed project area
based on the supporting habitat and habitat features include wood thrush, ovenbird,
northern flicker, red breasted woodpecker, broad winged hawk, wild turkey, amongst other
forest interior and common sub u- rban and rural bird species.
Herpetofauna: Herpetofauna (reptile and amphibian)use of the site is of moderate to high

quality for a number of species. Mole and lungless salamanders are present in the
surrounding upland habitats, with both redback and yellow spotted salamander observed
during our survey efforts. The presence of a certified vernal pool north of the reservoir
likely provides breeding habitat for these and other species and supports the use of these
upland forests by spotted salamander as well as wood frog, which was also encountered on
site. Spring peeper and grey treefrog are also likely found on site and use this vernal pool
as breeding habitat. The reservoir itself is not viable breeding habitat for these species;
however, green frog, pickerel frog and bullfrog were all observed to be using the reservoir.
The high gradient stream above and to a lesser extent below the reservoir contains some
features conducive to stream salamander presence. While only dusky salamanders were
found during our initial observations, species of stream salamander may also be found in
these limnetic habitats.
Reptile use of the site is more limited than amphibians; however, some notable reptiles
were observed or are known to be in the vicinity. The most notable is the wood turtle.
While a formal survey for this species has not been conducted along the brook, NHESP
notes that the proposed project is near potential habitat for this species based on their
records, a more detailed discussion of the wood turtle is present in Section 5.6 below.
Other turtle species that may be present in the reservoir include the more common painted
turtle and snapping turtle, of which several painted turtles were observed. No snakes were
observed, however based on the surrounding habitat features and landscaped context,
species such as garter snake, brown snake, red belly snake could potentially be found
throughout the site with northern water snakes possible within the aquatic habitats of the
reservoir.
Mammals: The site does provide good habitat to many species of mammals. Mammalian
use of the reservoir is likely limited because its small size limits habitat for larger aquatic
mammals. Species such as muskrat and mink may be found along the stream and reservoir
banks and the large size of the habitat block suggests that species such as bobcat, black
bear, porcupine and fisher are also likely inhabitants of the general area. More common
woodland species such as white tailed deer, raccoon, striped skunk, red squirrel and flying
squirrel are typical inhabits of these areas and use the uplands, streams and reservoir as
both a food and water source. Wildlife species observed (either directly or by sign call)
/
included raccoon, grey squirrel, and eastern chipmunk. A beaver but was observed along
the northern reservoir shoreline approximately 300 feet upgradient of the dam.
Fisheries: Reservoir and stream habitats in proximity to Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir
have been investigated for fish populations and fish habitat. Upgradient of the reservoir,
Roberts Meadow Brook and its tributaries of Marble and Brewer Brooks are recognized as
cold water fishery habitat supporting native brook trout. The reservoir, as an impoundment
of a cold water stream, represents a small area of warm water fishery habitat.
The 1.2± mile segment of the brook between Upper and Middle Roberts Reservoirs
continues as cold water fish habitat.
Upgradient Brook Habitat: Roberts Meadow Brook and Brewer Brook were sampled in
1985, 1986, and 2006 by the MA Division of Fisheries & Wildlife Fisheries Surveys.
Among the species noted were native brook trout, slimy sculpin, blacknose dace, and
longnose dace, all of which are associated with cold water fishery environments.
The largely undeveloped watershed has continued to maintain excellent water quality.
The groundwater baseflow contributions of cold water, combined with ample stretches of
dense woodland providing nearly 100 percent shading of the brook, keep stream
temperatures cool. The stream has abundant boulders riffles, small vertical drops and
cascades over its relatively steep gradient (providing good aeration),and sandy bottom
eddy pools (for potential spawning habitat).The habitat is quite favorable to desirable cold
water fish,which is a significantly diminished habitat in Massachusetts.
Reservoir Aquatic Habitat: Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir as an artificial

impoundment of a cold water stream, exposes the water to the warming rays of the sun,
and slows the water passage, especially in areas of more restricted circulation along the
shallow edges and eddy current areas where the reservoir first broadens in the central
basin. The summer formation of a warm upper layer (epilimnion)further restricts flow and
allows the cooler incoming stream water to underflow the epilimnetic waters.
The shallow, slower, water within the reservoir creates warm water fish habitat in the
reservoir, particularly in the upper reaches where the water is the shallowest. Fish species
observed in the reservoir include large mouth- bass, small mouth bass, and bluegill.
Other species that are likely present include common shiner, perch and catfish. Because
the reservoir is of a relatively small size and some areas are deep, some cold water species
from the upgradient stream may also survive in deeper section of the reservoir including
brook trout, if present. However, it should be noted that the deep organic laden sediments
create anoxic conditions in deeper areas of the reservoir, and cold water stream species
typically do not tolerate these areas well during the hottest summer months when flows are
the lowest.
Downgradient Brook Habitat: GZA biologists conducted a limited fisheries survey of the
Roberts Meadow Brook in September of 2009. This study broke the stream down into
seven segments ( Reaches) and classified the stream habitat features of each segment
including observed fish species within each (Table 5 13).
- Figure 5 8
- depicts these stream
reaches. As the channel heads eastward from Kennedy Road, it becomes progressively
straighter and more trapezoidal, due to its man made
- channelization, with slower, deeper
water present in the lower reaches. Based upon manual probing of the stream corridor, it
was evident that the substrate changes accordingly, with the stream gradient being steeper
and rocky above and below the reservoir, and transitioning to sandy and moderate gradient
near the confluence with Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir.
Some cold water fish were observed to inhabit these segments. While no trout were
observed in this limited study, good foraging and spawning habitat was found in these
stream segments which could potentially support such populations. Based upon the high
prevalence of brook trout and other cold water fish upgradient of the shallow reservoir, the
impounded stream was undoubtedly trout habitat at one time, and likely continued into the
now channelized, semi -isolated 1.2± mile stretch of Roberts Meadow Brook, sandwiched
between the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and the Middle Roberts Meadow
Reservoir.
Table 5 13:
- Characterization of Aquatic Habitat of Roberts Meadow Brook between Upper
Roberts Meadow Reservoir and Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir, 2009 Observations
Segment Location Habitat Description
1 Dam to -500
e High gradient, 20 4- 0 foot wide channel; 6 12"
- deep
above Kennedy e Braided, multiple flow paths; stone -cobble substrate; fast riffle,pool habitat
Rd
e Many large flat stones in stream & banks; stream stones angular to sub angular
Vegetation on cobble bars
Many mussels, crayfish, blacknose dace and common shiners observed
2 End Segment 1 e 6 12"
- deep normal flow depth; slight lower gradient; single channel, no
to Kennedy braidingcobble
/ bars
Road
e Flat stones in channel and along edge and many sub -angular stones
Stone -cobble substrate, good mix of riffle,pool and run habitat
Some cobble -gravel, sand areas (spawning habitat)behind large stones and
opposite cut banks
Crayfish, mussels, common shiners, blacknose dace, and slimy sculpin observed
Dusky salamanders observed along bank
3 Kennedy Road e
Stream 10 15
- feet wide, single channel; Large stones along banks
to point 1000
feet downstream
12 18"
- deep (some pools to 30 ")
Gravel-cobble and cobble stone
- substrate (mostly cobble-stone)
Mix of riffle run
- s(ome pool)habitat; good instream
- structure
Crayfish, mussels, shiners and dace observed
Some shallow riffle over gravel-COS S
/ substrate (Excellent spawning habitat)
4 From Segment 3 e Trapezoidal channel; depth 12 " 36"
- with sandy substrate; deepest pools 36 ";
to point 2000 e
Stream moderate gradient, mostly shallow riffle (75°/
6)and shallow run 2 ( 5 %)
feet downstream
Straight channel, no pools
Substrate mostly cobble (stones along bank),no flat stones
No mussels, no salamanders found
Good spawning habitat present
5 From Segment 4 10 12'
- wide straight trapezoidal channel, stone and cobble along banks, sandy
to point 1000 center (most of channel);shallow run habitat dominates, some shallow riffle
feet downstream
e No bends or pools; progressively deeper downstream; depths 12 24" - upper to
24 "36"
- lower (deep runs to 48 ")
Minimal riparian to right (along road)
Sandy substrate, with some gravel, finer sands and some organic in deeper runs
Little brook troutspawning habitat present this segment
6 From Segment 5 10 1
- 2' wide trapezoidal, moderate gradient channel, straight, no bends or pools
to point 1000 e
Stream gets shallower and faster (6 12" - deep on average)
feet downstream
e Mostly Shallow riffle run/ habitat in gravel substrate, with some sand deposits;
some deep runs present, with organic buildup
Moderate spawning habitat for Brook Trout
7 Segment 6 to e
Steeper Gradient; 10 15'
- wide 6 12"
- deep (pools to 24 ")
Middle Roberts
Reservoir
e Cobble stone
- substrate (rounded)with some pools with gravel substrate
Common shiners observed
Boo 400 o Soo Feet Piroe N°
"
STREAM REACHES
I I 01.
100019547.
A Wetland Boundary
ZDewateringArea Dam Removal Project I
URMR Dam
JURMR and Downgradient BASE MAP: MassGIS Figure No:
Stream Reach

Data obtained from MASS cis,Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive
Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs EEA).
.( 58
-
74
5.6 Rare Species
The area of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and downgradient stream to Middle Roberts
Reservoir, as well as areas adjacent to the stream and reservoirs are not within Priority or
Estimated Habitat for Rare Species as designated by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage
and Endangered Species Program ( NHESP). However, Roberts Meadow Brook,
immediately upgradient of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is designated as being within
Estimated Habitat for wood turtle (see Attachment 2 NfiESP date August 1, 2008). Until
the 2008 Estimated Habitat revisions, this area included Upper and Middle Roberts
Meadow Reservoirs. However, the 2008 mapping (Figure 5 9) - shows this habitat only
extending to the upper edge of the reservoir. GZA's habitat assessment concurred with
NHESP's truncating the Estimated Habitat map as the assessment also determined that
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and the high gradient stream and riparian corridor
between the upper and middle reservoirs are not ideal wood turtle habitat. Nevertheless,
wood turtles, if present, could migrate up down
/ the stream and or
/ surrounding riparian
areas during the summer to forage and search for nesting locations.
5.7 Historic Structures or Districts and Archaeological Sites
The Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir, once called the Hoxie Reservoir, is impounded by
a granite arch dam that was constructed in 1883. Based upon an inquiry to the
Massachusetts Historic Commission (MHC) dated June 25, 2009, MHC stated that after
review of the site inventory, it was determined that the project at the dam site was unlikely
to impact significant archaeological resources (Attachment 2).Based upon additional
information provided to the MHC and following their review in April 2010, Edward Bell
of the MHC stated ( letter dated May 21, 2010) that the dam could be historically
significant as a municipal work in the City, and also may be a significant historic
engineering structure. The MHC also offered to review the information and the potential
eligibility of the site for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
The review referenced in the May 21, 2010 letter was conducted by Peter Stott of the
Massachusetts Historical Commission (April 26, 2010) who attempted to evaluate the site
for potential eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. This review was provided to the Northampton Department of Public
Works by State Historic Preservation Officer Brona Simon on June 14, 2010. The review
notes that the Hoxie Reservoir Dam was designed by Northampton City Engineer Emory
C. Davis (c.1835 1 - 906)and by consulting engineer Clemens Herschel (1842 -1930),who
was at the time the head of the Holyoke Water Power Company (MHC 2010). Stott
surmises that the dam was built of granite to avoid collapse as had occurred nine years
earlier at the Mill River dam in Williamsburg. He also comments that the design of the
dam is not unusual for the time period. The primacy of the dam was questioned because of
the construction of another dam (Northampton Reservoir) downstream 10 years - earlier
than the Hoxie dam construction. Stott was unable to offer an opinion of eligibility for the
National Register and requested additional information.
e N
1 l 1'
Meddle Roberts Meadow Reservoir -_
S
Hill
Dewatenng Area L
1't _ I 1 y Meatlov.
1 I N
ill _ '
11
EH 961
Fdl L 41 b
o
Feet Pmect NO:
0
NHESP MAP 01.
100019547.
2,
000 1,
000 2,
000
LEGEND ERH
Certified Vernal Pools 2010
Estimated Habitats 2008

Northampton, Massachusetts oat:
Priority Habitats 2008 3/

11
17/
BASE MAP:USGS TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE MAP, 1'..,
e No:
Tom Boundary EASTHAMPTON MASSACHUSETTS 1979
0
GGZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. 5
76
The MHC letter of June 14, 2010 recommended that the City undertake historical research
by a qualified historic preservation consultant to assemble the information needed for an
effective National Register review, and in so doing, provide answers to the questions posed
by Stott, including:
The questionable primacy of the because the "lower"reservoir located

downstream was in existence ten years before the "upper"dam was
constructed;
The role of the reservoir in the development of Northampton's water supply
system;
The reason for discontinuance in 1905; and
The nature of the involvement of the Holyoke Water Power Company in the
dam construction.
Based upon the June 2010 inquiry of MHC, the City of Northampton contracted with
Archaeological Services, to conduct historical background research and provide answers to
the questions posited by the MHC. The full study is reproduced in Attachment 5 of this
ENF. Among the findings of the report, Archaeological Services recommended that the
Upper Roberts' Meadow dam be considered eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places on the local level under Criteria A and C. Under Criterion A, the dam was a key
element in the development of Northampton's public water supply system.
Under Criterion C, the dam has retained its integrity and the distinctive characteristics of a
nineteenth century engineering structure. In further correspondence from the MHC on
June 6, 2012, MHC attached their opinion that the dam and Upper Roberts Meadow
Reservoir meet the criteria for the National Register under Criteria A and C at the local
level (See June 6, 2012 MHC letter in Attachment 2).
Additional correspondence with the Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources

BUAR)was conducted in 2012, and responded with a letter on June 4, 2012 (Attachment
2).BUAR stated that "Based on the results of this review and previously (sic)disturbance
during dam construction and repair, the Board expects that this project is unlikely to
impact submerged cultural resources." However, they further stated that in MHC's
MACRIS files, it was noted that the dam was constructed on the site of a bark grinding
mill and that the mill stone is visible near the foot of the dam. BUAR suggested that
additional consideration be given to potential preservation of this earlier structure as part of
the project mitigation documentation.
5.8 Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Given the rural setting of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir and the lack of local sources
of air borne pollutants, except for the relatively low local traffic levels, the air quality in
this area would be expected to be relatively good and generally reflective of regional
trends. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)has set a National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)for ground level - ozone, as well as other pollutants such as
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulate matter, and lead. The USEPA
establishes primary and secondary standards. While primary standards focus on public
health, secondary standards concern general public welfare such as visibility. The state
regulates air quality using USEPA's standards ( 310 CMR 6. 00). MADEP maintains
monitoring stations throughout the state that record the highest concentration or the mean
concentration of regulated air pollutants. Some stations monitor only one pollutant, while
others monitor more than one. The closest MADEP air monitoring stations in proximity to
the project site are in Amherst, MA (ozone only)and on Liberty Street in Springfield, MA.
The Springfield station monitors particulate matter (PM2.5,PM10) concentrations, carbon
monoxide, nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide. Data from these monitoring location show
occasional exceedances in 2011 for the Air Quality Index (AQI)based upon these factors.
The single residential home on Reservoir Road opposite Upper Roberts Meadow
Reservoir, and an adjacent Bed and Breakfast building are the potential sensitive receptors
in immediate proximity to the reservoir. The closest sensitive receptor to the
sedimentation basin is a residence located approximately 500 feet to the north of the site.
Relative to greenhouse gas emissions, the "Revised MEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Policy And Protocol" Effective
( Date: May 5, 2010) allows for a "de minimis" exemption,
where the MEPA Office acknowledges that some projects that require an EIR will have
little or no GHG emissions, and this Policy is not be applied to such projects. The policy
specifically references dam removal projects as eligible for such a " de minimis"
exemption. Ecologic restoration and waterway dredging projects are also included for this
same exemption, and such elements are included within the current project.
5.9 Noise
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir is isolated and separated from all but a single residence
along Chesterfield Road and a nearby Bed and Breakfast building, both opposite the
reservoir. There is a farm house about 500 feet from the proposed sedimentation basin,
which is separated by a forested buffer zone. In this area, the ambient noise climate is
primarily affected by roadway traffic. There are no other current noise -producing
activities at the site.
Many federal agencies use the day night

- sound level to describe noise and to predict
community effects from long term- exposure to noise. In addition, this noise level
classification system is used to determine the appropriateness of a given use of specific
land ( land use compatibility) relative to the average level of environmental noise
experienced at the location. Noise levels ranging from 65 7 - 5 decibels (time weighted
averages) are generally considered to be compatible with residential land use.
The City of Northampton has a noise standard under Chapter 350 of the City ordinances,
which includes a maximum of 60 db in residential areas between 7 am and 10 pm.
This project will likely have little difficulty complying with the City ordinance, and this
standard will be a requirement of the work.
5.
10 Hazardous Materials Review
Due Diligence for Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir
In accordance with the sampling and analysis requirements for the evaluation of
applications for dredging and dredged material management of 314 CMR 2),
9. 07(a "due
diligence" review was conducted prior to the sediment sampling conducted by GZA in
2008. The purpose of the "due diligence" review was to assess the potential for the
sediment proposed to be sampled from Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir to have
concentrations of oil or hazardous materials (OHM),as defined in 310 CMR 40.0000.
This due diligence OHM review also provides an overall hazardous materials review for
the general project site. Resources reviewed included the following:
Generation and review of an Environmental FirstSearch Report with

Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir as the target property;
Review of MADEP online Reportable Releases database for sites within the
reservoir's watershed in Northampton, Williamsburg, Chesterfield and
Westhampton;
A telephone interview with the Northampton Board of Health on
July 31, 2008;
Anecdotal evidence from neighbors who live near the reservoir;
Historic land use data from Sanborn Maps; and
Coordination with the local DPW/Engineering Department to obtain
sediment sampling records. The USGS Riverways Program sampled
sediment within the reservoir in the fall of 2005.
The following is a summary of the OHM review findings:
OHM Releases: No reported OHM releases or spills within the watershed to Upper
Roberts Meadow Reservoir were found in the records obtained through Environmental
FirstSearch and MADEP's online Reportable Releases database. This information is
congruous with the mostly undeveloped watershed.
RCRA Generators: No Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) generators
were reported within 0.25 miles of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir.
Interview with the Northampton Board of Health: A telephone interview with the
Northampton Board of Health offices on July 31, 2008, revealed that the Board of Health
does not have a report of OHM releases within their offices.
Historical Information: A search of Sanborn
historic fire district maps was conducted
for
Northampton; however, no maps exist for the area
within the reservoir's watershed since it is largely
undeveloped. A historic map of the area shows a
leather factory as being in immediate proximity to
the current location of Upper Roberts Reservoir.
According to the US EPA Region 5,Water Division,
the potential sediment contaminant associated with
leathertanning
/ industries is chromium.
Other Sources: The local fire departments often
keep records of spills of hazardous materials.
However, this record keeping is covered by review
of MADEP's online database. If any release
occurred that met MADEP reporting requirements,
it would have been included in the MADEP online

database, and no such records of release responses in the watershed existed at the time of
the review.
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Sediment Sample Analysis: As discussed in

Section 1,
5. 1.sediment sampling was conducted of the reservoir by the USGS Riverways
Program in November, 2005 and again by GZA as part of this current study in 2008.
As indicated in that section, chromium and nickel levels were somewhat high compared to
certain standards. The MADEP background levels in soil were exceeded for barium, but
the levels were lower than the MCP Method 1, Soil Category S 1- Standard.
For the more recent 2008 sampling, some of the chemical compounds tested for were
detected and some levels of these were slightly elevated as compared to average
background levels referenced for the State of Massachusetts ( MADEP, 1995, Guidance for
Disposal Site Risk Characterization, Interim Final Policy WSC ORS / 95
- 141).
-
Such background levels are expected to have a range, and they typically vary from one
geologic and regional setting to another. Therefore, occasional values slightly elevated
above average background concentrations are to be expected. Most importantly, however,
none of these levels indicate that the sediments are hazardous material concerns.
The results of the due diligence review indicate that, as would be expected for this
undeveloped watershed, there is low potential for oil or hazardous materials to be present
in proximity to Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir or within its sediments. No spills of oil
or hazardous material have been reported in the reservoir and watershed as revealed by the
MADEP Release online database and the FirstSearch Report. Historic map reference to
a leather factory in the vicinity of the reservoir indicated the potential for chromium due to
the potential tannery operations, and previous sediment sampling data showed some
evidence of elevated levels of chromium and nickel. Sample analysis conducted as part of
this study showed some concentrations slightly above normal background. However, there
is little evidence suggesting the need for analysis of any parameters in addition to those
specifically required by the Section 401 Water Quality Certification regulations
314 CMR 2) 9. 07(
6 ).
5.
/ Space/Recreational Resources
The area surrounding the proposed dam removal site is

mostly undeveloped forest, with Chesterfield Road
passing immediately adjacent to the reservoir. There is
one single family residence and a bed & breakfast
Starlight Llama) located opposite side of Chesterfield
Road adjacent to the site. There is also a farm building
and small field on the adjacent lot to the west.
The vista from the roadway and residences is of a small
open water body within a steep wooded valley.
The watershed land to the north of the reservoir is not
open to recreational hiking although evidence of some
unauthorized use was noted. Recreational boating or
fishing is not allowed at the reservoir. There are no
formal recreational opportunities offered at this
waterbody.
5.
12 Socioeconomic Characteristics
As previously noted, the project site is located along Chesterfield Road in an otherwise
forested location that is isolated from other land uses. The entire reservoir is located
within an 85±acre parcel north of Chesterfield Road, owned by the City of Northampton,
which is zoned " Rural Residential/ Watershed Protection/ Water Supply Protection ".
The lot east of Kennedy Road which would hold the temporary dredging containment
basin is similarly zoned. Both zoning categories were established to protect the back up -
drinking water supply. The area on the south side of Chesterfield Road is zoned "Rural
Residential" and there is one single family house and a nearby bed and breakfast (Starlight
Llama) opposite the reservoir. An adjacent lot to the west has a small barn adjacent to an
open field. The bed and breakfast is the only economic activity in immediate proximity to
the reservoir. There is no employment or economic activity associated with the reservoir
itself.
Northampton Assessors and Zoning Map
6.0 IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT
As previously described in Section 4.0, the proposed project would remove the dam and
reestablish the former stream channel. The dam would be removed in the following
sequence:
hydraulically dredge the reservoir basin, removing soft erodible sediments from the
low points where the stream channel will most likely reform;
staged removal of dam face to gradually lower the reservoir level, with
supplemental hydraulic dredging, thereby allowing the stream channel to reform in
sections and allow the remaining portions of the dam to capture mobilized
sediment; and
revegetation of the exposed reservoir bottom.
The assessment of any potential impacts associated

with this project would need to look at both the
hydraulic dredging stages, which uses a downgradient
sedimentation basin, and at the stream reformation /
reservoir dewatering stages. As summarized in this
section, the long term
- impacts are potentially
beneficial to Roberts Meadow Brook in the restoration
of stream continuity, including cold water fish habitat,
recognizing that there will be a loss of the
impoundment and warm water fish habitat.
The short-term construction related impacts will need
to be controlled.
6.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils
The proposed removal of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir dam will have the net
effect of approximately recreating the original topography of the flooded stream valley
prior to the construction of the dam. The hydraulic dredging to be conducted prior to dam
removal will remove some of the accumulated sediment within the reservoir basin prior to
dewatering. The remaining sediment will become reestablished as vegetated riparian
wetland and upland soils flanking the stream. The proposed contours, cross sections, and
the longitudinal stream profile with the dewatered reservoir basin are shown in Attachment
6. The redevelopment of the stream is largely expected to be a gradual process as the
reservoir level is dropped and the stream positions itself within the low point of the basin.
The stream restoration will be monitored and will include placement of boulders and
cobbles where necessary to mimic existing upstream and downstream banks and stream
habitat structure. The banks of the brook will be reformed during stream positioning
within the existing reservoir basin, causing some potential short-term erosion of sediments.
Disturbed areas would be seeded with an erosion control seed mix using native herbaceous
and woody stem species appropriate to the riparian environment. Exposed sediments soils /
will be covered with an erosion control blanket in steep erosion prone areas, as necessary.
The construction of the sediment containment basin east of Kennedy Road will disturb
soils as part of the tree removal and temporarily alter the topography north of Roberts
Meadow Brook. The area will be restored to original grades after the dredging is
completed. The sediment hydraulically dredged from the reservoir may be used as part of
the final grading when the site is restored to its original contours. Excess material will be
relocated to upland areas. Approximately 10,000 cubic yards of net soil or sediment is
expected to be removed from the sediment containment site upon restoration of the area to
the original soil elevations.
Throughout construction, measures will be taken to control erosion and sedimentation.
6.2 Wetland Resource Areas
The removal of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir dam will alter wetland resources,
reducing the impoundment volume and area extent while reestablishing the stream and
riparian area. The project will establish a continuous 200 foot
- Riverfront Area along the
reestablished stream corridor upon removal of the dam and reestablishment of the stream.
There is only one small area of Bordering Vegetated Wetland ( BVW) fringing the
reservoir that could be affected by the removal of the darn. Therefore, there will be no
overall loss of jurisdictional area, and a net increase in some locations. Table 6 1 -
summarizes the impacts associated with the different phases of the project to each of the
relevant wetland resource area types, as regulated under the MA Wetlands Protection Act
and Federal Clean Water Act. These impacts are discussed in the sections below.
Table 6 1:
- Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal Wetland Resource
Impact Sum mar
Construction Access & Total
Resource Reservoir Basin Area Dredging Containment Permanent
Area Basin Change
Temporary Permanent Created Temporary Permanent
Land Under 25,500 SF
stream
183,000 SF 0 0 0
157,500 SF
Waterway & decrease decrease
Waterbody restoration
20 LF
210 LF
construction 3660 LF 3450 LF 35±
LF 0
Bank decrease
access)
600±SF
Bordering
0 0 0
construction 0 0
Vegetated access with
Wetland
mats)
Bordering
Land Subject 0 0 0 216,000±SF 0 0
to Floodin
17,400 SF
construction
680,000
Riverfront access from 680,000 SF
0 SF 180,000±SF 0
Area Kennedy increase
increase
Road on north
side of brook)
62.1 Land Under Waterway & Waterbody (LUWi9
The draining of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir by to the removal of the dam is
anticipated to eliminate 183,000 square feet of LUWW, as defined under the MA Wetlands
Protection Act. The LUWW remaining will be limited to the newly reestablished
perennial stream (Roberts Meadow Brook) within the former reservoir basin. All of the
exposed pond basin bottom will be converted to other regulated wetland resources
primarily Riverfront Area; see Section 5). 6. 2. Much of this same area will also be
disturbed prior to the draining of the reservoir in association with the hydraulic dredging to
remove erodible sediment from the reservoir basin. With the restoration of Roberts
Meadow Brook within the reservoir basin, there will be 25,500±square feet of LUWW
associated with the stream. As part of the stream restoration, there would be placement of
boulders and cobbles within the reformed stream channel (as needed) to provide stream
habitat structure and stability of the newly formed stream banks (See Attachment 6).
During hydraulic dredging, a slurry of water and sediment will be pumped from the
reservoir to the containment basin on the east side of Kennedy Road, in effect diverting a
portion of the normal flow to a point downstream where sediments will be allowed to settle
out of the water prior to recombining the diverted water to Roberts Meadow Brook.
The maximal flow rate of the diverted water is about 4 cubic feet per second (cfs),
which is
substantially below the average 15 cfs flow for Roberts Meadow Brook. Therefore, there
will be adequate normal flow within the portion of the stream below the dam and the
discharge from the sediment treatment basin, and there will be no temporary impact to
LUWW in this segment of the channel.
In conformance with the WPA general performance standards stated in the regulations of
the MA Wetlands Protection Act (310 CMR 10.56),the proposed work would maintain
and not impair the water carrying capacity within the defined channel, even though the
configuration of the channel is altered from impoundment to restored stream. The natural
flow pattern that existed prior to the construction of the dam would be reestablished,
thereby improving water quality and natural riverine conditions associated with a cold
water stream. The loss of LUWW does not impair the capacity of the area to provide
important wildlife functions, because the project connects the fragmented 5900 linear feet
of cold water stream downgradient with the upgradient stream, and reestablishes aquatic
stream habitat in the basin bottom and allow for aquatic species migration. Further, the
WPA, under section 310 CMR 4), 10.53(allows the Conservation Commission to issue an
Order of Conditions for projects that improve the natural capacity of a resource area to
protect the interests identified in L.
M.G.
c 131, § 40.
.
6.
22. Inland Bank
Currently, the Inland Bank associated with the reservoir is coincident with mean high
water, following the edge of the impoundment. Upon the removal of the dam, the new
banks will be established along the edges of the reestablished stream at the base of the
reservoir basin. The linear length of bank within the reservoir is currently 3660 linear feet.
With the reestablishment of the stream channel, the stream will have approximately
3450 linear feet of bank, for a net loss of 210±linear feet. The decrease in length of bank
is associated with the decrease in width of the open water area.
There would also be some minor temporary impact to bank associated with construction
access on the north side of Roberts Meadow Brook, below the dam. A narrow BVW with
intermittent stream flow flanks a portion of the brook below the dam, and this BVW and
intermittent stream would need to be crossed (see Attachment 6).The construction access
would be along a woods road that has previously been used for timber harvesting and
would require only minimal removal of trees and vegetation to provide access. Timber
mats will be used at the crossing to minimize impact to the intermittent stream and fringing
wetlands during construction. The mats would be removed upon completion of the project
and any rutting would be smoothed as part of final restoration, with placement of straw
mulch to control erosion while revegetation from seed and root stock restores the original
site stabilization.
There will also be some minor temporary impact to Bank at the site of the temporary
discharge from the hydraulic dredging sedimentation basin where it returns clarified water
from the treatment basin to the Roberts Meadow Brook downgradient of Kennedy Road.
Impact at this location is <20 linear feet. This area of bank will be temporarily stabilized
at the discharge location with riprap and fabric. Upon completion of the hydraulic
dredging phase of the work, this area will be restored to original topography.
The reestablishment of the stream conforms with the performance standards as outlined in
WPA (310 CMR 10.54 (c)), providing for physical bank stability, reestablishing the
original water carrying capacity of the stream, improving surface water quality (less
opportunity for thermal impacts to cold water stream),and reestablishing bank associated
habitat, and enhancing aquatic species migration between previously isolated parts of
Roberts Meadow Brook. The loss of 210±
linear feet of total bank is less than 10%
of the
bank habitat present and will not have any significant adverse effect on bank associated
wildlife habitat. Although the temporary total impacts exceed the threshold as defined in
310 CMR 10.54 (a)5), ( the result is a restored natural stream ecosystem with the goal of
enhancing habitat value along Roberts Meadow Brook. In addition, 310 CMR 4) 10.53(
allows the Conservation Commission to issue an Order of Conditions for projects such as
this that would improve the natural capacity of a resource area to protect the interests
identified in L.M. G.
c . 131, § 40. General performance standards outlined in
BUPA 310 CMR 10.54 require that impacts to Inland Bank will have no adverse impact on
specified habitat sites of rare vertebrate or invertebrate species. These impacts would not
adversely affect the stream associated rare species habitat that exist upgradient of Upper
Roberts Meadow Reservoir. Such habitat changes are general considered of net benefit
based upon MADEP guidance documents for dam removal (e. g.,MADEP 2007).
62.3 Bordering Vegetated Wetland (BVffg
Presently, there is very little BVW which borders upon the reservoir because the shoreline
topography rises rapidly from the elevation of the reservoir. However, BVW was
delineated along one short segment of the shoreline near the upper reaches of the reservoir.
In addition, there are BVWs within the project area in association with
1. the construction access below the dam, and

2. in proximity to the sedimentation basin for the hydraulic dredging portion of the
work.
- & 55
Figures 5 4 - show the limits of the BVW.
The potential for impact to BVW exists with the draining of the reservoir and any
temporary impacts associated with construction access or the sedimentation basin below
Kennedy Road. There will be temporary construction impacts for an equipment crossing
of a narrow band of BVW below the dam, north of the brook. Timber mats will be used to
provide construction access across a wetland swale with an intermittent stream.
The temporary impact will be approximately to 600±SF, which will be restored upon
removal of the timber mats. Otherwise, all construction related impacts to BVW will be
able to be avoided. The sedimentation basin will be entirely outside of the BVW
delineated east of Kennedy Road.
There is a small area of BVW fringing on the reservoir on the south side of the inlet stream
of Roberts Meadow Brook to the impoundment of the reservoir ( see Figure 5 4). -
The depth of impoundment at this location is typically less than 2 feet deep. Further, much
of the hydrology of this fringing wetland is currently maintained by groundwater seepage
associated with the shallow to bedrock soils, steeply rising terrain to the south. Therefore,
while there may be some lowering of the local groundwater table in immediate proximity
to the stream due to the removal of the dam, it is highly unlikely that this area will lose
wetland hydrology due to local groundwater influence and the continuing immediate
proximity of the stream.
62.4 Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF)
For most of the project area, the limit of BLSF in association with the reservoir and
Roberts Meadow Brook is coincident with the limits of the bank (see Figure 5 6
- FEMA
floodplain map). The primary exception is for the area immediately above and the area
downgradient of Kennedy Road, where the sedimentation basin for hydraulic dredging
phase of the work will be located.
Because there is no BLSF associated with the reservoir, and the effect of the dam is not to
provide any flood storage potential, the removal of the dam will not result in a decrease of
flood storage potential along the Roberts Meadow Brook corridor. The construction work
to remove the dam itself will have no impact on BLSF. In fact, the dam removal is the
preferred alternative to address the " Poor" dam conditions which could result in a
significant flood event downgradient, if the condition of the dam is not brought into
compliance with the dam safety regulations.
Below Kennedy Road, the entire proposed sedimentation basin is located within BLSF.
However, the alterations in grade are entirely temporary and the original grades will be
restored upon completion of the project. Temporarily, there will be excavation of soils
from the floodplain and storage within the floodplain. This area is not located within the
area of a detailed FEMA study and the 10 year - floodplain elevation is therefore not
identified. However, given the history of flooding in this area during precipitation events
that exceeded the 10 year
- event, the 10 year
- floodplain is anticipated to not significantly
extend beyond the limits of the stream banks. Therefore, the sedimentation basin and
construction access for the dam appears to be above this probable elevation. As such, the
performance standards relative to wildlife habitat in the floodplain are not likely
applicable. Regardless, all impact is temporary and the sediment basin area will be
restored to original grades and seeded upon completion of the project.
The temporary work within BLSF meets the performance standards for this resource area
310 CMR 4)(10. 57(by restoring original grades. The work will not restrict flows
a))
/ increase flood stage or increase velocities. The work avoids alteration of land
and or
within the 10 year
- floodplain except, presumably, where the discharge for the
sedimentation basin to the stream will be constructed within the immediate stream
margins. This area is less than 5,
000 SF and well less than 10%
of this resource within the
watershed lands owned by the City of Northampton. The site is not within identified rare
species habitat.
62.5 200foot Riverfront Area (RFA)
The existing RFA boundary stops where the water enters the reservoir and begins again at
the face of the dam. The project will create a 200 foot
- RFA by reestablishing a perennial
stream within the current basin of the reservoir. As a result there will be a creation of
680,000 SF of RFA where none currently exists. The project will connect these two
currently truncated RFA areas, creating a continuous RFA that extends to Middle Roberts
Reservoir.
All of the proposed work within the existing 200 foot- Riverfront Area is temporary
construction related impacts with the following elements:
construction access from Kennedy Road to dam on woods road, north of brook;
removal of dam face; and
the temporary construction and operation of hydraulic dredging sedimentation
basin east of Kennedy Road, north of brook.
All impacts associated with the construction access, staging areas, and sedimentation basin
are temporary; existing conditions would be restored, including removing and temporary
materials, restoring grades, replacing with topsoil, and providing native seed mixes of
herbaceous and woody, native and indigenous plant materials at the completion of
construction activities.
The temporary alteration of Riverfront Area is significantly less than 10%of the RFA
within the 40 acres of City of Northampton owned land between Middle Roberts Reservoir
and the confluence of Roberts Meadow Brook with Marble Brook. Therefore, the 10%
threshold for RFA as outlined in 310 CMR 10.58 ( 4) d) ( is not exceeded.
While the performance standards for this resource area are met, it should also be noted
that, as for the other resource areas, the " limited project" provision under
310 CMR 4) 10.53(allows the Conservation Commission to issue an Order of Conditions
for projects such as this that would improve the natural capacity of a resource area to
protect the interests identified in L.
M.
G.
c .131 §40.
6.3 Hydrology and Water Quality
The entire existing reservoir basin and stream between the reservoirs is within City owned
watershed lands and will continue to be protected as watershed to the Middle Roberts
Meadow Reservoir. In the long term, the dam removal would result in beneficial change to
surface water character, replacing a shallow, sediment filled warm water reservoir basin
with cold water stream (currently 50% filled with sediment; sediment island extending into
main part of waterbody; upper 2 3rds/ of reservoir presently <4' deep). The reservoir
behind the dam would be removed and the river restored to a free-flowing condition,
thereby reducing water temperatures in the stretch of Roberts Meadow Brook that is
currently contained below an impoundment.
While there will be a net loss of open water area, in which 183,500±SF of mostly shallow
reservoir would be converted to 1300 LF (25, 500±SF) of stream, the project will provide a
continuous connection to 5, 900± LF of downgradient stream above Middle Roberts
Reservoir.
During dam removal stages, the control and handling of sediments within the existing
reservoir basin will need to occur. This will be done in two primary ways:
1. Pre -dredging of soft sediments; and

2. Staged removal of the dam in limited vertical sections.
The reservoir basin will be pre-dredged to remove the bulk of the sediments that would be
most likely to be mobilized as part of the dam removal process, to minimize future
sediment sluicing after the dam is removed. By pre-dredging approximately 10,000±CY
of sediments before the dam is lowered, it is possible to remove most of the sediments
within the old stream channel that existed prior to the dam and backslope the areas, thus
allowing the stream and side slopes to become more readily established in its channel and
minimize direct erosion. The remaining sediments will form the topsoil for the restored
riparian stream valley. The principal areas of focus for the dredging would be in the finer,
more organic sediments located in the middle and lower basins where the accumulated
sediment is thicker and deeper. The sediments will be hydraulically dredged, pumping a
slurry of about 20% sediment and reservoir water to the proposed temporary sedimentation
basin located east of Kennedy Road, north of the stream (see Attachment 6).Following
removal of sediment from the pumped slurry within the sedimentation basin (normal
sedimentation or enhanced sedimentation with use of flocculent if needed),the water will
be returned to the adjacent Roberts Meadow Brook.
As described in section 4.0, the dam will be removed in roughly 5 to 10 foot vertical
sections, lowering the spillway elevation from existing to el. 445, el. 435, and el. 426 in
sequence, allowing time for the channel above these elevations to become stabilized prior
to the removal of the next vertical dam section. As the areas of reservoir bottom are
exposed, Roberts Meadow Brook will begin to reform, cutting the channel through
whatever sediments remain within the stream channel area after dredging. This staged
removal will allow any mobilized sediments the opportunity to be trapped as sediment
above the dam prior to the last removal of the dam.
Active monitoring will be a component of the implementation of this project, focusing

upon avoidance and minimization of turbid flow either from the reservoir, or from the
sedimentation basin, adjusting dam removal methodology and hydraulic dredging as
necessary (see Attachment 6).Despite the implementation of the hydraulic dredging and
staged removal of vertical sections of the dam to control sediment mobilization, there will
be some inevitable movement of sediment from the reservoir basin into Roberts Meadow
Brook. Given the energy level of the brook between Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir
and Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir, the sediment will travel to Middle Roberts and
will be repositioned within this reservoir. Such impacts are an understood potential
outcome of dam removal (MA Division of Fish & Wildlife, 2003).
6.4 Vegetation
With the removal of the dam, the 218,000± SF of open water will be exposed to
redevelopment as herbaceous and woody vegetation. The sediments already have a
significant seed bed, but revegetation by native species will be encouraged by doing some
minimal hand and mechanical grading of the residual sediments and seeding of the
sediments once they are sufficiently dewatered. The dominant vegetation along the
existing shore includes mature hemlock and white pine with interspersed red maple, red
oak, gray birch, silky dogwood and high bush blueberry, which will be encouraged to
extend into the exposed soils. The acidity of the soils will be checked prior to seeding to
see if any pretreatment with lime is necessary to encourage growth of the seeds. In critical
erosion prone areas, the basin will be mulched and erosion control blankets will be used, as
necessary to control erosion.
In addition to local native species, there is a significant population of invasive species,

with a dominant population on the recently formed alluvial island at the entrance of
Roberts Meadow Brook to the reservoir. These species include multiflora rose, Oriental
bittersweet, Japanese barberry, and purple loosestrife. An invasive species control task
will be initiated prior to seed production in the year that the basin will be dewatered to
reduce the incursion of invasive plant species into the exposed sediments. Invasive species
control will likely include cutting and hand removal. Additional spot treatment with
herbicide by a licensed herbicide applicator will be considered to extent allowed by local
and State regulation.
6.5 Fisheries and Wildlife
The project will remove the shallow warm water fish habitat associated with the existing
reservoir, and will thereby alter the population and diversity of aquatic species anticipated
within this reach of the restored stream. Roberts Meadow Brook has excellent habitat for
cold water species upgradient of the reservoir due to its high water quality and the
surrounding undeveloped watershed. Fish surveys by the Massachusetts Division of Fish
and Wildlife found very high numbers of slimy sculpin, brook trout and blacknosed dace,
as well as common shiner and longnosed dace. The Upper Roberts Meadow Dam will be
removed connecting 5900 ft of downstream habitat with over 3.7 miles upstream
tributaries. Dam removal will restore stream habitat and provide connectivity to upstream
habitat important for these species.
Because cold water fish habitat is a less available and more fragile aquatic habitat in
Massachusetts streams and rivers, the restoration of the river to a free -flowing, natural cold
water stream is presumed to improve both the population and diversity of resident aquatic
species from a long term
- perspective. A major long term
- benefit to removing the reservoir
dam would be restoration of stream connectivity and habitat to brook trout and other
aquatic organisms. Post -removal, the average slope of the restored stream bed will be
approximately 1. 5% see(Attachment 6), with steeper sections approaching a 5% slope,
which is well within the range of suitable stream gradients used by brook trout (Schmitt
et. al.,1993). Based on anticipated post -construction slopes, sediment transport, and
biological condition, brook trout and other cold water fish and aquatic species are
anticipated to utilize the restored stream and the reach downstream of the dam to Middle
Roberts Reservoir. The project will include elements in the restoration of the stream
within the reservoir basin to enhance aquatic habitat and help ensure fish passage within
the stream bed and provision of potential brook trout spawning areas. These measures will
include:
the installation of fish migration pools and enhancements;

vegetation shading of the restored stream; and
the use of natural materials for bank stabilization and habitat structure (e.
g.,
tree
debrisroot
/ wattles rock
/ and gravel).
The riparian area will be stabilized and planted with vegetation to provide shade to the
stream and will be controlled for invasive species. Post construction site monitoring will
be included for vegetation reestablishment within the riparian areas. Invasive species will
continue to be monitored during this period and removed or treated.
6.6 Special Concern, Threatened and Endangered Species
The NBESP identified habitat for wood turtle which extends to the upper limits of the
existing reservoir, but does not include the main body of the reservoir itself. In general,
the removal of the dam from a stream within a known wood turtle population will be
beneficial in that dams are often impediments for in stream and parallel riparian movement
during summer movement patterns when wood turtle may migrate up down / the stream
channels from more suitable habitats. The stream up- and down -gradient of the site is
fairly steep, very rocky, with a variable flow regime. The removal of the dam would also
convert the open water habitat of the reservoir to stream channel; however, the existing
reservoir is not likely highly utilized wood turtle habitat based on the depth and substrate
composition. While the existing alluvial island provides some potentially good nesting
habitat, this will not be lost with the dewatering of the reservoir basin, and will be in fact
enhanced by the lowering of the effective groundwater level. It seems likely that the wood
turtle habitat will be extended along the stream to the east in the future. The only potential
negative affect to this species is that dams occasional act to catch wood turtles from being
washed further downstream during large flooding events, thus reducing the distance that
they would need to migrate back upstream to their home range.
Because of the identified habitat in vicinity of the upper reaches of the existing reservoir,
the proposed project may need to go through a formal NHESP Review process under the
Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA) to allow NHESP to determine if the
proposed project will result in the regulatory "Take" of any of the species of concern
known to be in proximity to the project area. Coordination with NHESP will occur to
determine if a project review is needed. Because the end result of the project creates a net
benefit to the species by potentially expanding the turtle habitat along the reestablished
stream, no additional long term mitigation is likely to be required. The proposed work will
be performed in a manner to pre-screen for turtles in advance of the earthwork to remove
these species from the work area. The continuous barrier of silt fence will limit access of
turtles into the ongoing work area.
6.7 Historic Structures or Districts and Archaeological Sites
Based upon the City of Northampton contracted historical background research and
responses to the questions posited by the MHC (see Attachment 5), Upper Roberts' Meadow
dam is potentially considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places on the local
level, being a key element in the development of Northampton's public water supply system,
and having retained its integrity and the distinctive characteristics of a nineteenth century
engineering structure. This documentation has been submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, MA Historical Commission and the Massachusetts Board of Underwater
Archaeological Resources (BUAR) for review and for a formal decision. MHC issued their
opinion in early 2012 that the dam and reservoir meet the criteria for the National Register
under Criteria A and C at the local level (Attachment 2: June 6 letter).BUAR stated that they
expect this project is unlikely to cause impacts to submerged cultural resources. However, the
BUAR also stated that since the mill stone of a bark grinding mill is visible near the base of the
dam and suggested that consideration be given to potential preservation of remnants of the
earlier bark grinding mill structure as part of mitigation documentation for the proj ect.
The removal of a historic structure considered eligible for the National Register will trigger
the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act, as an indirect permit
requirement under the Federal Army Corps of Engineers permit process for alteration of
Freshwater Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. It is anticipated that the dam removal will
require additional formal photographic and engineering documentation of the existing
structure as part of the mitigation for impact to a historic structure. As a structure whose
eligibility is based upon local significance, additional mitigation is unlikely to be required,
although some retention of residual abutment structure and dike is possible as part of the
designed work. The City of Northampton will coordinate with the MA Historical
Commission, the BUAR and the Army Corps of Engineers to ensure that all such
documentation is properly archived as part of this process, and that any other mitigation
requirements are met.
6.8 Air Quality
Overall, the removal of the dam is not anticipated to have any potential for significant
affect on air quality. Construction machinery will include the hydraulic dredge and
excavator machinery used in the removal of the dam. Excavators and bulldozers will be
needed for the construction and restoration of the sedimentation basin area. The project
may increase the short-term potential for release of dust and diesel gasoline
/ associated
airborne contaminants associated with these temporary activities. Best construction
practices would be employed to reduce the impacts to air quality. This may include
watering down of the construction access road during especially hot and dry days and
reducing idling times of construction vehicles.
Since the number of vehicles and duration of activity required to perform the work is
limited, emissions are not anticipated to cause an exceedance of national or state air quality
standards in the vicinity of the project site.
As per MEPA policy, the project is considered to have de minimis impact associated with
green house gases and no mitigation is needed or required.
6.9 Noise
There will be a temporary and localized increase in noise levels associated with the
hydraulic dredge, construction and restoration of the sedimentation basin, and machinery
use associated with the removal of the dam. There will be no blasting associated with the
project. There will be some local traffic and vehicle noise associated with trucks carrying
loads of the removed sediment and dam materials. Noise levels would decrease as distance
increases from the source, or dam removal site. The surrounding forested area would
deflect some of the noise away from adjacent areas. The single residence at #830
Chesterfield Road is the only sensitive noise receptor in the immediate project vicinity.
To minimize noise impacts during construction, best management practices (BMPs)would
include the use of mufflers on construction equipment and vehicles. Construction
activities will be limited to daylight hours. The City of Northampton noise standard
Chapter 350) maximum of 60 db in residential areas between 7 am and 10 pm should be
able to be met without difficulty and will be a requirement of the work.
6.
10 Hazardous Materials
The due diligence study of the potential for hazardous material in the area did not indicate
obvious significant factors suggesting the presence of hazardous materials. The 2008
results indicate that the mineral and organic sediments in Upper Roberts Meadow
Reservoir had detectable levels of some of the chemical compounds tested and that some
levels were slightly elevated as compared to normal average background levels, but not
beyond the range that would suggest levels originating from non -background conditions.
Most importantly, none of these levels indicated hazardous conditions or represented any
special disposal concerns. The earlier 2005 USGS Riverways Program sediment data
showed some chromium, barium and nickel levels that were higher than observed in the
2008 analysis, but still lower than MCP standards. Therefore, sediment handling is not
anticipated to require any unusual methods to protect the environment.
Machinery used to dredge the basin and dismantle the dam will use diesel and or
/ gasoline
for operating the engines. Hydraulic fluids will be present in the equipment as well.
Best management operations procedures will be implemented as part of this work to limit
the potential for contamination of the environment. Spill containment gear will be
maintained on site
- by the contractor during all operation of machinery in the event of any
spillage. Such hazards already exist in the immediate environment of the reservoir given
the proximity of Chesterfield Road without the benefit of local spill containment
equipment.
6.
/ Space/Recreational Resources
While the project will unavoidably result in a loss of the vista of open water and dam, this
will be offset by restoration of the stream and creation of riparian wetlands and uplands.
The public viewshed for this area is entirely from Chesterfield Road and the single
residence at #830. The area will remain open space and protected as watershed land.
There is no currently approved recreational use of the land or the reservoir.
6.
12 Socioeconomic Characteristics
The river restoration and dam removal would produce benefits to the local economy by
providing temporary employment opportunities in the engineering and construction trades.
No long term
- impacts on socioeconomic characteristics are foreseen. The alteration of the
viewshed for #
830 Chesterfield Road is not foreseen to alter the resale value of the home
since there is no direct frontage on the waterbody and the area will remain undeveloped
and rural in character.

7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The City of Northampton is proposing to remove the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir
Dam in response to the MA DCR Office of Dam Safety Certificate of Non-Compliance
and Dam Safety Order. Relative to the potential for cumulative impacts, it is important to
evaluate the expected types of environmental changes envisioned or reasonably projected
as part of the project and place these changes within the context of other past or future
projects within the same area. The purpose of this additional analysis is to understand if
the combined effect of multiple projects could potentially result in a greater impact than
would be projected as part of the single, original project. In the case of Upper Roberts
Meadow Reservoir, the likelihood of cumulative impacts is minimal since it is the only
project of its type envisioned along Roberts Meadow Brook or otherwise within the area.
The primary effect of the project will be to remove the dam, re-establishing the former
flooded stream. The primary impacts, as discussed at length in the preceding sections, will
be to:
1. Reduce open water associated with the current reservoir and convert it to stream
and vegetated Riverfront Area;
2. Connect the upper and lower sections of Roberts Meadow Brook;
3. Mobilize sediment, to be managed by pre-dredging and disposal involving

temporary use of wooded Riverfront Area downstream; and
4. Remove an engineering structure which has been judged to be eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places.
Because this dam removal project is unique within the area and the dams are being
maintained and repaired downgradient at Middle Roberts Meadow and Lower Roberts
Meadow Reservoirs, there is little opportunity for cumulative impacts. There are no other
envisioned removals of open water reservoirs and conversion to stream, there are no other
projects that will require dredging in this area in the near future, and there are no other
potentially historic dams that are planned for significant modification or removal.
Therefore, there is no potential for cumulative impacts associated with this project.
8.0 REQUESTS FOR WAIVER OF EIR OR FOR SINGLE EIR IN
ALTERNATIVE (IF WAIVER NOT GRANTED)
Conformance With Waiver Requirements: As previously stated, the proposed removal

of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam exceeds the following mandatory EIR
threshold for removal of an existing dam that would result in a decrease in impoundment
capacity (301 CMR 4).
11.
3)( 03(
a)
The City of Northampton is requesting a waiver of this mandatory EIR review threshold,
allowing the project to proceed without preparation of an EIR. MEPA regulations state
that in the case of a waiver of a mandatory EIR review threshold, the Secretary shall at a
minimum base the finding that EIR review would not serve to avoid or minimize Damage
to the Environment on a determination that:
1) "the Project is likely to cause no Damage to the Environment"

3 01 CMR 11.1 a)),
1(
3)( and
2) ample
" and unconstrained infrastructure facilities and services exist to
support ...those aspects of the Project within subject matter jurisdiction"
301 CMR 3)( 11. 11(
b)).
Information regarding these two factors is provided in this Expanded ENF for the dam
removal project to aid in the Secretary's determination. We believe that the project as
designed and mitigated is likely to cause no Damage to the Environment in accordance
with 301 CMR 3)( 11. 11( Damage
a). " to the Environment" is defined by MEPA
regulations as: "Any destruction or impairment (not including insignificant damage or
impairment),actual or probable, to any of the natural resources of the Commonwealth
including, but not limited to, air pollution, water pollution, improper sewage disposal,
pesticide pollution, excessive noise, improper operation of dumping grounds, impairment
and eutrophication of rivers, streams, flood plains, lakes, ponds or other surface or
subsurface water resources, destruction of seashores, dunes, marine resources, underwater
archaeological resources, wetlands, open spaces, natural areas, parks, or historic districts or
sites" 3( 01 CMR 2)).
11. 02( As discussed in the preceding text, there is an inevitable
alteration of natural resources and loss of the dam as a potentially important local historic
feature. However, all of these alterations will be mitigated by either the restoration of the
stream itself, or by additional documentation prior to the conduct of work (i. e.,for the
historical aspects of the dam).
As demonstrated in the preceding text, the dam removal would result in a multitude of
long term
- benefits to local resources, including: protection of the downstream environment
from a potential uncontrolled release due to dam failure, restoration of connectivity of
Roberts Meadow Brook to allow migration of brook trout and other aquatic organisms
from a lower segmented portion of the brook to the upper reaches of the brook; restoration
of natural flow patterns; reestablishment of natural sediment and nutrient transport;
improve water quality; and enhancement of habitat value and long term - sustainable
benefits for aquatic organisms. Although the project would result in a decrease in
impoundment capacity, the reservoir is a relic water supply for the City that is no longer in
service, and the City has sufficient water supply to meet future needs. Although short-term
construction impacts may occur as described above, these do not constitute significant or
permanent changes to the environment and have been significantly mitigated by the design
approach in coordination with MADER Therefore, the mitigated impacts do not constitute
Damage to the Environment.
The proposed project would require issuance of several permits ( see Section 9.0).
The proposed project would meet the standards and conditions of these permits, will
receive full public process under these permit processes, and the end result of the proposed
activities would be a net benefit to local resources. No net, long term
- impact to the natural
resources would occur. Therefore, the additional public review and analysis that would
accompany an EIR will, in effect, be accomplished as part of these public permit review
processes and the additional requirement for an EIR would not serve to better protect the
environment or provide public review.
As per the requirements of 301 CMR 3)( 11. 11(ample and

b), " unconstrained infrastructure
facilities and services exist to support.......those aspects of the Project within subject
matter jurisdiction ". The proposed project would not require any new permanent
infrastructure facilities or services upon completion.
Request for Single EIR in Alternative that Waiver is not Granted: In the event that
the Secretary cannot make a determination that waiver can be issued for the requirement of
an EIR, the ENF has been submitted as an Expanded ENF with the intent of potentially
being approved under the Single EIR process (301 7)). CMR11.05( Therefore, if the
waiver is not granted, we respectfully request that the remaining MEPA documentation
and review be processed as a Single EIR. To date and as documented herein, there has
been extensive documentation developed and submitted as part of this ENF and the several
years of consultation with public agencies and entities relative to the various alternatives
associated with this project, combined with the additional environmental permitting
required to allow this environmentally beneficial project to proceed. Therefore, we are
confident that no additional public purpose would be served or environmental protection
provided by requiring additional review through the full DEIR/FEIR processes.
9.0 REQUIRED PERMITS
The following permitsapprovals

/ are anticipated to be needed to implement the proposed
dam removal project. Pre -application meetings have been held with local regulators,
MEPA, MADEP WERO and MADEP Boston, MA Historical Commission, MA DCR -
Office of Dam Safety, the MA Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program
NHESP),and the Army Corps of Engineers to discuss the permitting requirements
see Section 3.3).
Local Permits
Alteration of Structure
o
Demolition Permit from the City of Northampton Building Inspector,
Required for demolition of structures.
Alteration of Wetlands and Waterbodies
o Order of Conditions from the Northampton Conservation Commission
under the MA Wetlands Protection Act and Municipal Wetlands Ordinance
state Superseding Order of Conditions, if appeal invoked). Required for
alteration of wetland resources or work within buffer zone.
Stormwater
o City of Northampton Stormwater Permit. Required for land alteration.
State Permits
Alteration of Wetlands and Waterbodies:

MA Wetlands Protection Act (administered at local level —see above)
Section 401 - Clean Water Act — 314 CMR9.00 - MADEP Division of
Wetlands and Waterways (alteration of 5, 000 SF wetland /excavation of
impounded sediment). Two separate 401 applications will be required: one
for dredging and one for >5, 000 SF of impact to waters or wetlands will be
required for the project.
Chapter 91 Waiver Letter - Order of Conditions —310 CMR 9.00 - MADEP
Division of Wetlands and Waterways (sub-aqueous fill placement below
low water).A license is not likely required since the waterway is not
navigable and the reservoir is not a Great Pond but a letter of waiver is often
obtained.
Rare Species
o MA Endangered Species Act - 304 CMR 11.00, coordination with NHESP
is proposed to determine if a NHESP streamlined project review under MA
Wetlands Protection Act is needed. A Conservation & Management Permit
would only be required if the project review determined that the project
results in a Take, which at this point seems unlikely. Separate permitting
assumed not required.
Alteration of Structure
o Chapter 253 Dam Safety Permit — 302 CMR10.00 - DCR Dam Safety
Division (Repair or alteration to dam or spillway).
Historical Resources
o 950 CMR 71 - Massachusetts Historical Commission. MHC clearance
required for Section 404 permit under Section 106(f) National Historic
Preservation Act. As a structure eligible for the national register as a locally
significant feature, removal of the structure will require engineering and
historic documentation for archival purposes.
Federal Permits
Alteration of Wetlands and Waterbodies

o Section 404 Permit Individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Stormwater
o NPDES Construction General Permit from the U.
S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Section 106 Process, National Historic Preservation Act
Removal of a historic structure considered eligible for the National Register
Federal Army Corps of Engineers likely lead Federal agency as permitting
authority for alteration of Freshwater Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.
10.0 MITIGATION SUMMARY
The overall project purpose for the removal of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir dam
is to provide mitigation of an existing "Poor"condition high hazard dam, in compliance
with a MA DCR Office of Dam Safety Order, which thereby mitigates risk of catastrophic
damage to the human and natural resource environment that might be caused by dam
failure. Following a review of potential alternatives relative to dam restoration or removal,
it was decided to remove the dam. Dam removal, in addition to mitigating risks associated
with catastrophic failure of the dam, has the benefit of providing recognized environmental
benefits associated with the removal of a stream connectivity barrier and restoring natural
stream habitat in an area of current impoundment.
There are three major categories of mitigation associated with this project, the various
elements of which are discussed in Section 6.0:
1. Construction Mitigation;
2. Long term
- Mitigation Elements; and
3. Post Construction Monitoring Mitigation.
Mitigation of Construction Related Impacts: For the mitigation of potential

construction related impacts, significant care has been built into the project approach to
control environmental impacts, including:
Invasive species controls;

Hydraulic dredging of soft accumulated sediments, before the removal of the dam,
to minimize sediment erosion after the dam is removed;
Removal of dam in sections to further control sluicing of residual sediments during
the reformation of the stream, and allowing for capture of the sediments by the
remaining dam enclosure;
The use of sedimentation and erosion controls throughout the project (a detailed
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP))will be provided and will guide
this process);
Water quality monitoring of turbidity during dredging ( sedimentation basin
discharge) and sediment mobilization within the dewatered reservoir basin is
anticipated to be a requirement of the operational work, to minimize impacts and
adjust procedures to protect downgradient waters. Turbidity monitoring is readily
accomplished by visual survey and routine water sampling and analysis by field
equipment, to avoid time delays associated with submittal of samples for laboratory
analysis;
Typical Best Management Practices for use of construction machinery in proximity
to waters, including refueling outside of the wetlands and waters, or providing
containment, managing debris and waste; and
Restoration of Riverfront Area in the dewatered reservoir basin, and in the restored
sedimentation basin after the completion of the hydraulic dredging phase of the
work.
Relative to invasive species, prior to dewatering of the reservoir basin and the exposure of
sediments to the air allowing for revegetation, invasive species within proximity to the
reservoir will be controlled and or
/ eliminated in order to limit the potential for colonization
of the exposed basin with the local assemblage of invasive species including multiflora
rose, Oriental bittersweet, Japanese barberry and purple loosestrife. Control is anticipated
to be by a combination of physical removal and the spot application of herbicides by a
licensed applicator.
Long term
- Mitigation: Additional long term
- mitigation elements associated with this
project include the following:
Restoration of the stream channel and bank within the dewatered basin of the
reservoir;
fish passage habitat
/ structure;
boulders pools,
/ structure, gravel areas;
The planting of the riparian plantings for stream shading and riparian habitat
restoration;
The likely extension of wood turtle habitat from the upper reaches of the reservoir
to the area extending southerly to Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir; and
The creation of new regulated Riverfront Area in the amount of about 680,000 SF
15.6± acres) associated with the reestablishment of the stream within the reservoir
area.
In this particular case, the upgradient 3.7 miles of stream is recognized as high value cold
water fish/stream habitat for native trout. The removal of the dam provides the opportunity
to directly restore 1,700 linear feet of trout stream, and provide connectivity to a currently
segmented additional 5, 900 linear feet of stream. This, in effect, adds 1.4 miles of cold
water stream habitat to the existing 3.7 miles of existing habitat upgradient of the reservoir,
an increase of 38 %. The reestablishment of the stream within the existing reservoir basin
will create regulated Riverfront Area which will encompass the entire current reservoir
basin. Therefore, there will be no loss of regulated area under the Wetlands Protection Act
and, in fact, the area of resource area jurisdiction will increase because the existing
reservoir basin is less than 6 acres in size.
Post Construction Monitoring: Following the completion of the construction aspects of

the work, we anticipate there will be follow up - mitigation associated with post -
construction Monitoring & Management of the project area for a period of up to several
years. Such requirements are typically part of conditions associated with the issuance of
permits under the MA Wetlands Protection Act and the Section 404 Permit from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The details of such monitoring will be finalized with the
permitting agencies during the period of permit consideration and approval. The follow up
monitoring and management measures are also likely to be required by the general DPW
reservoir management procedures. These post construction measures will likely include
the following specific elements in some degree:
Invasive species monitoring and control within the revegetated areas of the former
reservoir basin and the restored sedimentation basin east of Kennedy Road;
Monitoring of the stability of the restored stream;
Assessment of the cold water fisheries habitat reestablishment within the former
reservoir basin; and
Assessment of the viability of the riparian seeding and plantings.
Based upon the results of the monitoring, additional measures to control invasive species
enhance revegetation by native species, enhance fisheries habitat may be taken.
J:19,
\ 000 20,
- 999\19547\19547-Permitting
10. MAT\ MEPA
\ EENF
\ Final
\ MEPA
\ EENF URMD Narrative -Final-1-3-13.Doc
11.0 REFERENCES
American Rivers. 2008.Dam Removal and Historic preservation: Reconciling Dual

Objectives. S. McClain, S. Lindloff, &K.Baer. Washington, D.C. 55 pp.
City of Northampton, 2005. Open Space and Recreation Plan. December 30, 2005
City of Northampton. 2010. MEMA DCR

- Grant Application for Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program ( HMGP) (FEMA-1813-DR MA).- Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam
Removal. City of Northampton DPW & GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc. April 9, 2010
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Regulations, 302 CMR 10.00 — Dam Safety, Effective
11/
054/
Department of Conservation and Recreation Dam Detail Sheet, September 2006.
Department of Environmental Management, Office of Dam Safety, Inspection /

Evaluation Report: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam,"April, 1998.

Evaluation Report: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam,"June, 1993.

Evaluation Report: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam,"July, 1987.
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. 2007. Dam Removal in

Massachusetts. A Basic Guide for Project Proponents. December 2007.
Energy and Environmental Affairs. 2011. "Dam Removal Permit Streamlining"

http: gov.
ww.
// mass. Home > Air,Water & Climate Change > Preserving Water Resources
Natural Waters & Wetlands >
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. "Phase I Inspection/Evaluation Report — Upper Roberts

Meadow Reservoir Dam."
October 2010.
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. 6

" Month
- Follow Up
- Inspection/Evaluation Report —Upper
Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam."February 25, 2010.

" Month
- Follow Up
Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam."September 2, 2009.

" Month
- Follow Up
Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam."February 2009.

Meadow Reservoir Dam."August 2008.
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Phase

" II Engineering Evaluation & Alternatives Analysis -
Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam."March 2008.
" Month
- Follow Up
Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam."March 13, 2008.

" Month
- Follow Up
Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam."September 2007.
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. "Emergency Action Plan — Upper Roberts Meadow

Reservoir Dam."
Draft —Updated September 2012 (August 2007).

Meadow Reservoir Dam."
October 2006.
Hershfield, David. 1961. Technical Paper 40 (TP 40),

- Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the
United States for Durations from 30 minutes to 24 Hours and Return Periods from 1 to 100
Years. Prepared for the US Weather Bureau.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ( MADEP).2002. Hydrology

Handbook for Conservation Commissioners.
MADEP. 2011. Commonwealth of Massachusetts 2010 Air Quality Report.
MADEP 2007 Dam Removal and Wetland Regulations. Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection. Bureau of Resource Protection. Wetlands/Waterways
Program. December 2007.
Massachusetts Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement

DFWELE). 2003. Impounded Sediment and Dam Removal in Massachusetts — A
Decision -Making Framework Regarding Dam Removal and Sediment Management
Options.
Massachusetts Department of Fish & Game, Riverways Program. 2003. Massachusetts

Dam Removal Permitting Manual. GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc. June 2003.
Massachusetts Riverways Program. 2009. Riverways & Conservation Commissions, Dam

Removal for Aquatic Habitat Restoration.
Schmitt, C.J.,A. D. Lemly, P.V. Winger. 1993. Habitat Suitability Index Model for Brook
Trout in Streams of the Southern Blue Ridge Province: Surrogate Variables, Model
Evaluation, and Suggested Improvements. U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Biological Report 18, August.
Technical Release Number 20 (TR 20).

- National Technical Information Service. SCS.
1986. Technical Report 55 (TR55).
-
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Phase I Dam Inspection Report, MA 00760, Upper Roberts
Meadow Dam, June, 1980.
Wandle, S. Wouldiam, Jr. 1983. Estimating Peak Discharges of Small, Rural Streams in
Massachusetts. USGS Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 2214.
ATTACHMENT
AGENCY AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE

Jun 12 2007 15:
16 City of Northampton DPW ( 4131 587 1576
- P.1
do r
Ma
aa
Iune Po r
Certified Mail No. 70042510000614310268
5
II•
f Return Receipt Requested
Mr. Edward S. Huntley -

Director of Public Works -
City of Northampton
125 Locust Street
Subject: CERTIFICATE OF NON - COMPLIANCE and DAM SAFETY ORDER
Dam Name: Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam

Location: Northampton
National ID No: MA 00760
Known Condition: Poor
Dear Mr. Huntley:
In accordance with 302 CMR 10.08, the Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Darn does
not meet accepted dam safety standards and is a threat to life andor
/ property. You
are therefore being issued a CERTIFICATE OF NON -COMPLIANCE and DAM
SAFETY ORDER.
Records at the Office of Dam safety indicate the City of Northampton DPW to be the
Owner of the Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam, National Inventory of Dams No.
MA00760. The Dam is classified by the Department of Conservation and Recreation
DCR),Office of Dam Safety (OOS) as an Intermediate Size, High Hazard Potential
Structure. High Hazard Potential dams are dams that will likely cause loss of life and
extensive property damage in the event of Failure. The Roberts Meadow Upper
Reservoir Dam is considered a HIGH Hazard Potential structure due to the possibility
that if a failure were to occur, It may result in the domino failure of Middle Roberts
Meadow Reservoir Dam. The village of Leeds is located downstream of Middle Roberts
Meadow Reservoir Dam.
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS - EXECUTIVE_ OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL

AFFAIRS
Department of Cpnservatbn a xI Recreeft. Mitt Romney Stephen R. PrIM110 d, Secretary

251 Causeway Street, SuAe 600 Gove.r Execubve Of loo of Envie, m tal Affairs
Boston MA 02114-
2119
617 -626-
1250 512626 1351
- Fax Kerry Healey Stephen H, 9ur,ingtm, fnrmtissiaaer
wmv.mass.govCr
/ LL Govemor Deportment of con atim@ Recreation
Jun 12 2007 15:
16 City of Northampton DPW ( 413) 587 1576
- p.
2
On October 19, 2005, an emergency inspection of the Roberts Meadow Upper

Reservoir Dam was completed by ODS dam engineering consultant Baystate
Environmental Consultants Inc. As a result of this Inspection, the dam was determined
to be in POOR condition. Based on the condition of the dam, the ODS engaged
another dam engineering consultant, GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.,to perform a
follow up
- Inspection. As a result of the follow up
- inspection completed on June 7,
2006, the ODS and its consultant judged the dam to remain in POOR CONDITION.
In response to ODS Dam Safety Order dated June 26, 2006, the City of Northampton
engaged GZA GeoEnvironmental Inc.,. Consulting Engineers to complete a Phase I Dam
Safety Inspection of the dam, as required by statue and regulation. GZA
GeoEnvironmental Inc.,as a result of their inspection on October 18, 2006, has judged
the dam to be in POOR CONDITION.
The basis for the CERTIFICATE OF NON-COMPLIANCE and POOR CONDITION

findings are inspection report results for Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam. See
the attached inspection report entitled Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Phase I
Inspection Evaluation,
/ inspection date October 18, 2006. _
The dam has been found to be in need of complete repair, rehabilitation, breaching or
removal to make the site safe. During the inspections performed on October 19,
2005, June 7, 2006 and October 18, 2006, a number of deficiencies were observed,
Including but not limited to, significant leakage observed through the downstream face
of the stone masonry at the overflow section, at the left abutment, and at the right
embankment retaining wall; growth of brush and trees on the embankment and dike;
growth of weeds on the spillway crest; surface depression and rutting near the right
abutment; potentially inadequate spillway capacity under the regulatory Spillway
Design Flood (SDF).
MGL Chapter 253, Sections 44 48 - set forth the jurisdiction for the Office of Dam Safety
and Its authority to take action and order actions to be taken. For your information
copy of 302 CMR 10.00 Dam Safety is enclosed.
DAM SAFETY ORDER:

In accordance with the authority of MGL Chapter 253, Section 47, POOR or
Inadequate Dams, and pursuant to 302. CMR 10.07 Inspection Schedule, 10.08
Compliance with Inspection Results you are hereby ORDERED to comply with
the following:
1) Conduct Phase 11 Inspection and Investigations. In accordance with

302 CMR 10.07 and 10.06 you are ORDERED to within 30 days of receipt of
this CERTIFICATE OF NON -COMPLIANCE and DAM SAFETY ORDER to
hire, at your cost, a qualified registered professional engineer with dam
engineering experience (engineer) to conduct a Phase II Inspection and
Investigation of the dam to evaluate the structural integrity and hydraulic
capacity of Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam and to
develop implement
/ a plan to make the dam safe by either repairing the
dam, breaching or removing the dam (see attached Phase II Investigation
outline
Jun 12 2007 15 :1G City of Northampton DPW ( 413) 587 1
- 578 p.
3
a. In accordance with 302 CMR 10.07 and 10.08 the Phase II Inspection
and Investigation field work is to commence no later than 30 days from
receipt of this Dam Safety Order.. The Phase II Inspection and
Investigation is to conform to the attached Phase II Investigation
outline You are to In a letter to ODS no later than 30 days from receipt
of this ORDER, identify your selected engineer and Inform COS of the
start date of the Phase It work.
b. The Phase II Inspection and Investigation is to be completed, signed and

stamped by your engineer within 90 days of receipt of this ORDER and
copies of the Phase II final report are to be delivered to ODS, the
Northampton Emergency Management Director and the Northampton
Conservation Commission Coordinator within:90 of receipt of this
ORDER. You shall include a cover letter with the submitted Phase II
report which describes your selected alternative to make the dam safe.
In accordance with 302 CMR 10.07 and 10.08, you must submit a
statement of your intent to implement inspection report
recommendations to address structural and operational deficiencies to
ODS upon submission of the required Phase Il Inspection and
Investigation completed by your engineer.
2) Conduct Follow up
- Inspections. In addition to the Phase II effort and in
accordance with 302 CMR 10.07, you are ORDERED to complete follow up
-
visual inspections, conducted by an engineer at your cost, which are to be
completed every six (6)months following receipt of this ORDER until
adequate repairs are made or the dam Is adequately breached or removed.
Follow u
- p inspections are to be summary in format and shall provide a
written description, including photographs, of any changes In condition. The
follow up
- Inspection reports shall be signed and stamped by your engineer.
You shall submit copies of all completed follow up
- visual inspection reports
to ODS, the Northampton EMD and the Northampton Conservation
Commission Coordinator within 14 days of the date of follow up
- inspection
field work.
3)Additional Requirements:
a. You shall furnish copies of all required submittals listed In items 1 - 2
above via certified mall.
b. In order to maintain compliance with the Commonwealth's Wetlands
Protection Laws you may have to file appropriate MGL Chapter 131,
section 40 permit applications with the Conservation Commission. It is
your obligation to contact and maintain communication with the
Northampton Conservation Commission and any other local, state or
federal permitting agency that may be applicable in order to maintain
wetlands protection law and other regulatory compliance.
Jun 12 2007 15:
16 City of Northampton DPW [ 413] 587 1576
- p.
4
c. Other entities that you shall keep Informed about the condition of the
dam and your developing plans to make the clam safe include: all
abutters of the impoundment upstream of Roberts Meadow Upper
Reservoir Dam; property owners for one half
- mile downstream of the
Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam; Andrew Madden, District
Manager, Western Wildlife District, Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, 400
Hubbard Avenue, Pittsfield, MA 01201; Michael Gorski,Regional
Director, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,
Western Region, 436 Dwight Street, Springfield, MA 01103; Brian
Duggan, Northampton Fire Chief; Clare Higgins, Mayor, Northampton;
Northampton Conservation Commission Coordinator.
Should you fail to comply with this order, DCR will levy fines against you. In
accordance with 302 CMR 10.15 (4)e) (failure to provide ODS inspection reports that
are In compliance as to content and frequency of inspections contained in this order
will result in fines up to $500.00. Each violation shall be a separate and distinct
offense and.,In case of a continuing violation, each day's continuance thereof shall be
deemed to be a separate and distinct offense.
DCR may take legal action against the owner, enter the property, take such action as
deemed necessary to ensure the safety of the public and property downstream, seek
recovery of any cost incurred by the Commonwealth due to failure to comply, establish
a lien on the property and refer the matter to the Attorney General's offlce.
Nothing in this Order releases the Commission from requirements of the DDS June 26,
2006 Dam Safety Order to conduct a Dam Safety Phase I Inspection, due September
30, 2006, and Develop an Emergency Action Plan, due December 31, 2006.
In accordance with 302 CMR 10.08 this CERTIFICATE OF NON -COMPLIANCE and
DAM SAFETY ORDER will be recorded at the Registry of Deeds. Issuance of a
Certificate of Compliance following adequate repair, breaching or removal of the dam
will be required to discharge the CERTIFICATE OF NON -COMPLIANCE and DAM
SAFETY ORDER.
Please direct any technical questions, correspondence, or submittals to Edward

Hughes, Department of Conservation and Recreation,Office of Dam Safety, 251
Causeway Street, Suite 800, Boston, MA 02114. Legal questions should be directed
to the DCR Assistant General Counsel, Ariana Johnson, 251 Causeway Street, Suite
600, Boston, MA 02114. Additional Information on the Office of Dam Safety can be
found at the DCR ODS
- website.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Priscilla eigis
Acting Commissioner
Jun 12 2007 15:
17 City or Northampton DPW [ 4131 587 1576
- P.
5
CC: Clare Higgins, Northampton Mayor

Brian Duggan, Northampton.Fire Chief
Northampton Conservation Commission Coordinator
Paul Sneeringer, U.S. Army Corps
Michael Gorski, DEP Regional Director
Deerin Babb Brott,
- MEPA
Andrew Madden, DFG
Noel Baratta, DCR
Michael Mlsslin, DCR -
William Salomaa, DCR
Edward Hughes, DCR
Arlana Johnson, Esq.,DCR
E. Sorenson, DCR
J. Kimball, Rlverways
Jun 12 2007 15:
17 City of Northampton DPW ( 4131 587 -
1576 P.
6
Department of Conservation and Recreation

Office of Dam Safety
Phase II Inspection and Investigation Outline
I. Review of existing information .................. ...............................
II. Updated Detailed Phase I surface inspection in compliance with

Office of Dam Safety Phase I Inspection
format.................... _ ..
III. Subsurface Investigations - borings, sampling,

analysis...................
IV. Topographic Survey,wetlands flagging delineation, / of sufficient

detail to support not only the Phase II effort, but sufficient for
the future implementation of design
phase ............................... ...............................
V. Stability analysis - Seismic and static stability evaluation of dam
upstream and downstream slopes, internal
materials) ...................
VI. Hydrologic Hydraulic

/ Analysis .................. ...............................
VII. Alternatives analysis and presentation of conceptual designs and

associated estimated design, permitting and construction costs
to bring the dam structure into compliance with Chapter 253
Section 44-48 and 302 CMR 10.00 Darn Safety Regulations by
executing a repair,breach or removal plan .......................
VIII. Final Report Presented to the Office of Dam
Safety............
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE
436 Dwight street Springfield,Massachusetts 01103 (413)784 1100
-
DEVAL L.PATRICK
Governor IAN A.BOWLESSecretary
TIMOTHY P.MURRAY LAURIE BURT
Lieutenant Governor Commissioner
July 13, 2009

Mr.James Laurila, P.E.
City Engineer
125 Locust Street
Re: Northampton— Pre-permitting

Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal
Dear Mr. Laurila:
Representatives of the Western Regional office (WERO)of Massachusetts Department of Environmental

Protection (MassDEP),Wetlands and Waterways (WWP),and the Drinking Water Program (DWP)met
with representatives of the Northampton Water Department (the "City"or "Northampton°)on May 21,
2009 to discuss pre -permitting of a dam removal project on the Upper Roberts Meadows Reservoir dam.
This letter includes a brief summary of the project, and potential options for completion of this project
and the permitting issues discussed during the meeting.
Project Summary
The Roberts Meadow Reservoir system consists of three reservoirs. The Middle Reservoir (Leeds
Reservoir) is an Emergency water supply source for the City. Immediately below Middle Reservoir is the
Lower Reservoir, the location of Musame Beach, a municipal swimming area. Upper Reservoir is
upgradient of and tributary to Middle Reservoir. Flow from the Upper Reservoir to Middle Reservoir is
through a manmade stream/channel. Middle Reservoir is part of the Public Water System operated by the
Northampton Water Department pursuant to the regulations at 310 CMR 22.00.
The dam project was initiated by an inspection that determined the dam at the Upper Reservoir was in
poor condition and as a high hazard dam, Northampton is required to remove or repair the dam. In its
current state, the Upper Reservoir poses a threat to the health and safety of the general public. In
addition, it poses a risk to the water quality and the dam at the Middle Reservoir, consequently the Public
Water System.
Based on initial engineering alternatives analyses, including site logistics and cost, the decision was made
to remove the dam. The current proposal is to breach the dam in stages over approximately a one year
period allowing the sediments to flow downstream and be deposited into the Middle Reservoir (Leeds
Reservoir) an Emergency water supply source for the City. The general model is that sediments and
water would flow through the manmade channel that has a relatively high gradient and is rocklined
allowing the sediments to move efficiently down stream. Prior to the breach, the water level in the Leeds
Reservoir would be lowered to allow the construction of a forebay, the dam would be breached over time
and the sediments would be trapped behind the forebay. After the dam is completely removed, the water
Tb6 torormadon is available In aln rnnte format Cell Dooald M.Gomm, ADA Coordioarar el 617-55&
1051. TDD Service -1-
800 2- 9 2207.
&
DEP on are World Wide Web: mass.
bap:1ov1dep
g Mww.
0 Printed on Recycled Paper
Northampton Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Project May 21, 2009
Prepermitting Meeting Page 1 of 4
level would again be lowered in the Leeds Reservoir and the sediments "dry dredged" and the forebay
removed.
Northampton and their consultants have already met with the Boston MassDEP staff, Lealdon Langley
and Ken Chen regarding the required 401 Water Quality Certification permit.
Regulations pertinent to this discussion are as follows:

314 CAM 9.00 401 Water Quality Certification
314 CAM 4.00 Surface Water Quality Standards
310 CAM 11.00 Drinking Water Regulation
310 CMR 10.00 the Wetlands Protection Act Regulation
Drioldng Water
MassDEP offers the following information with respect to the Drinking Water issues. Northampton was
unsure as to whether the project as currently described and proposed requires a Variance from the
Commissioner. Northampton's concern that a variance may be required focused on regulation 314 CMR
4.
1)( 06(which stipulates that discharge of dredge materials to "...
d) within 400 feet of the high water
mark of a water mark of a Class A surface water (exclusive of its tributaries),unless conducted by a
public water system under 310 CA9t 12.00.,.or conducted by a person granted a variance pursuant to
314 CAR 9.
08."
1) The dam inspection and the Emergency Action Plan for the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam
stated that a failure of the data could result in a "domino failure" of the Middle Roberts
Meadow Reservoir (1214000 02S).- Therefore the dam was assigned a High Hazard
Classification and must be repaired or breached.
2) The Middle Reservoir is designated by the MassDEP DWP as a PWS source (1214000-
02S)with an availability status of Emergency; the City has been maintaining the source as
an emergency supply. The DWP under 310 CMR 2225(2) requires the PWS to maintain
all sources removed from service as Emergency sources or to submit a permit application
for abandonment of the source. The City bas stated to the DWP and the Boston office of
MassDEP that it would prefer to maintain the reservoir as an Emergency source and not
abandon the reservoir as a PWS source. The infrastructure must be maintained so that the
source could be used in the event of a Declared State of Water Emergency.
3) Regulation 314 CMR 4.06 Tables identify Roberts Meadow Reservoir as a Class A Public
Water Supply from the source to the outlet in Northampton (Middle Reservoir is identified
by the DWP as the " outlef')and those tributaries thereto.
4) The Upper Reservoir is not designated by the DWP as a PWS source and is considered by
the DWP to be a "feeder"reservoir and is a tributary to the source reservoir.
5) MassDEP DWP requires a permit application for abandonment of a PWS source. The
applicant must demonstrate loss of the source would not impact thew ability to provide
adequate water to their customers into the future and if they lost their main source of water.
MassDEP DWP does not readily approve the abandonment of a potentially viable water
supply.
Pre-
permitting Meeting Page 3 of4
Wetlands
The City and its consultants have met with the Boston staff regarding the 401 water quality certification
process as indicated under the Drinking Water section. A 401 Water Quality Certification permit is
required under regulation 314 CMR 9.00 and references the Water Quality Standards Regulation 314
CMR 4.00. This project will also require permitting through the Wetland Protection Act regulation 310
CMR 10.00.
6) The Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir (1214000 025) - is a public water source and is
therefore by regulation 314 CMR 4.
06, an Outstanding Resource Water.
7) Although regulation 314 CMR 4) 9. 06( states that the discharge of dredge or fill material is
prohibited within 400 feet of a.reservoir without a variance, 314 CMR 3)(9. 06(expressly
a)
allows work to be conducted by a PWS or private water suppliers to maintain waterworks
systems providing alternatives analysis and compliance with 314 CMR 9.06 and 9.07,
evaluation of application criteria and management of materials.
8) In addition, Regulation 314 CMR 8) 9. 06(and 1)(

9. 07(stipulate that notwithstanding the
1)
provisions of 314 CMR 9.06, MassDEP may allow a project which will restore or
otherwise improve the natural capacity of any wetland or other water of the
Commonwealth. Such projects include, but are not limited to, dam removal, salt marsh
restoration, stream restoration, nutrient management, control or removal of aquatic
nuisance vegetation, or vegetation management to improve wildlife habitat.
9) The discussions during the meeting also included potential alternatives to the currently
proposed options and information that will be required in the permit applications and
alternatives analyses:
Diverting the strearn to temporarily discharge the sediment to the field downstream of the
Upper Reservoir dam. This would eliminate the issue of discharging to a PWS reservoir
and avoid the Variance and minimize the reach of stream fisheries and habitat that may
be impacted,
Allow the sediments to settle into and remain in the Middle Reservoir and establish
wetlands as a habitat restoration project, in lieu of dredging and/or discharge of sediment
to a field downstream of the Upper Reservoir dam,
If the project will he proposed as a restoration - stipulate the nature of the restoration such
as wetlands habitat, stream cannel, connectivity of upstream cold water fisheries,
reestablishment of cold water fishery, etc.,
Stipulate how the habitat and fisheries in the stream will be preserved while conducting
the work,
Stipulate if this is a natural or man-made channel and discuss the implications,
If the project is proposed a resource improvement under the wetlands protection act,
identify the improvements i. e.restoration of channel, bank, fisheries, etc.,
Reference how the project complies with the guidance MassDEP Dam Removal and the
Wetlands Regulations, and
Allowing the sediments to remain new the inlet of the Middle Reservoir as wetlands
habitat restoration may provide mitigation for impacts to or losses of resource areas,
understanding that a project permitted as a limited project is not required to meet all of
the performance standards.
Prepermitting Meeting Page 4 of
Summary
Although the option is available to request abandonment of the PWS source in an attempt to eliminate the
question of a Variance, MassDEP does not readily approve the abandonment of a water supply source and
the abandonment does not immediately change the regulatory designation as an ORW.
This project may be eligible for permitting as a preventive measure to protect and maintain the public
water supply source Middle Roberts Meadow Reservoir, resource improvement and restoration without
the requirement of a Variance. However, as an ORW and a PWS source the City would be requ to
vigorously demonstrate through alternatives analyses, mitigation measures and restoration how this
project will not only protect the existing habitat and fisheries during construction but also significant
improvements, restore or rehabilitate habitats and resources.
MassDEP is available to discuss these issues further with you, your consultant and the Boston office of
MassDEP.
Contact Information
In closing MassDEP strongly suggests that a follow up
- pre -permitting meeting take place to more
accurately provide guidance for permitting at this facility. Additional permit information may be found at
www.mass.ovg deo
/ For question regarding the wetlands program please contact David Foulis at 413-
755 2154
- and for questions regarding the drinking water program contact Deirdre Cabral at 413 2148.
-
To arrange the follow up - meeting, for general questions, or if you need any further assistance,
please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience at 413-755 2119.
-
Sincerely, ,>
Catherine V.Skiba, P.G.

Service Center Manager
MassDEP Western Regional Office
Ecc: MassDEP— WERO Brian Harrington, Deirdre Cabral,Robert McCollum, Boston - Lealdon Langley, Kenneth Chen
Matthew Taylor, Nathaniel Arai,Paul Davis GZABEC, 296 North Main Street, East Longmeadow, MA 01028
NHMt t5RYbl It tNV1KUNMtNI
FAX 4135258348
TEL 4135258348
SER.X BROM4,1175190
DATE,TIME 05/12 14:18

FAX N0. NAME
/ 16177275128
DURATION 00:
28 01:
FAGE(5) 03
RESULT OK
MODE STANDARD
ECM
950 CMR: OFFiCR OF THR. CF.

CRRTARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH
APPEN A
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD
BOSTON, MASS. 02125
617-7275470,
- FAX: 617-727 5125
-
Lii AK UJ . -
Project Name: Ueftr Rahn T$ keeJer R2sRryerr Dy , agrvp vnl

Location /Address: CCLv vre. r44 AJ I
City /Town: a off ,-
Project Proponent
Name:,.,. CrTy N/
f7+
n'LQy.
w -
Address: lfC ; i.
c.
Citymown0prrelephone: _EmirJ1
rw„
/ w.—
*14 plog,W
Agency license or funding for the project (lint 911 licenses, perm inq approvals, Qrant¢nr other enlitlemnnis hrigg
sought from state and federal agencies)
Agency Name Tr„e fT
„ jo or 9,
ndinn (spwe lul
1..
Jslst'
yThs unser».
emx lJa9{e«
de n .....
950 CMR: OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH
APPENDIX A
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD
BOSTON, MASS. 02125
617 -727 8470,
- FAX: 617-727 5128
-
PROJECT NOTIFICATION FORM
Project Name: UPArr IZA ke°

Jn R0,-
crVarr - D. 12oa , J
Location /Address: Ct's STe r41 e(J Ra' It
City / Town: , spT ..f Al'4
Project Proponent
Name:
C y d/ to n,wyF.
Address: % 13 fG - T.—Ay6. N.n t2, /ysw...
ST
City7own/e
1' Z lephone:
ip/ A(
4 a o %z,fr
Agency license or funding for the project (list all licenses, permits, approvals, grants or other entitlements being
sought from state and federal agencies).
Aeencv Name
7 of License or fundone (spcci
errs E :. re+ h7 vef-e rA uS.
fl'rn+
f
Prolect escriptiun (narrative): £
N r
is MA d...
w.. S's. - n .. r
.F i5pas. t.
GA..or Tea GqI Gsz r° J
[+
do-m r nc- Ct "1 a /l
af
— `.,
tv rurS.V t(,, d°'*
rvs u'r"
T°,.-,
Kc ST'ra „ r`.
s era-t
s'en' r¢
ir
s4vwc. baSi-
Does the project include demolition? If so, specify nature of demolition and describe the building(s)
which
are proposed for demolition, Ro,.,.°
k 4 do-«
,
Does the project include rehabilitation of any existing buildings? If so, specify nature of rehabilitation
and describe the building(s)
which are proposed for rehabilitation.
jVo
Does the project include new construction?If so, describe (attach plans and elevations if necessary).
V1
5/
96
31/Effective
( 7/
91)
1/ canceled
- 950 CMR - 275
950 CMR: OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH
APPENDIX A (continued)
To the best of your knowledge, are any historic or archaeological properties known to exist within the
project's area of potential impact? If so, specify. ` y0
What is the total acreage of the project area?
Woodland C) acres Productive Resources:
Ra,4erv..it 2--Wetland Ar
t J)
O
acrescserw. Agriculture 0 acres
Floodplaln acres
Forestry 0 acres
Open space O acres Mining/Extraction 0 acres
Developed O acres
Total Project Acreage / o acres
What is the acreage of the proposed new construction? acres 4,re—

.' 16
w. raste r va is
-,
What is the present land use of the project area?
wr.
TyrS4w ' e YC.lef v....
—) h C,y+ 6,vP rter f-(
rl
Please attach a copy of the section of the USGS quadrangle map which clearly marks the project location.
S2R A4 -, -)
This Project Notification Form has been submitted to the MHC in compliance with 950 CMR 71.00.
Signature of Person submitting this form: A G• J Date: s"

2/a
- f
Name: I 1 6 • t3£
C Z 6rZA ecsr,.Is x`
Address: ; l,
4 6 4 din
City/
Zip:Town/ E I L- ttro-J
a.
Jo-+y M /} CO / o ; 2,
8
Telephone: t/17 S2S
REGULATORY AUTHORITY
950 CMR 71.00: L.

M.G.c. 9, §§26 27C
- as amended by St. 1988, a 254.
7/
93
1/ 950 CMR - 276
7
R e t
t Hp
Upper Roberts MeadowDam
w,Rob crts
T.
YNY / y
u
AD
l X T
daiHtHldaiftflt
i
Z'Z'
tt
WW
vv__ HMSHMS
FeetFeet
20002000
, , 1,
000 00 2,
000 FigureFigure 1:1: LocusLocus MapMap
UpperUpper RobertsRoberts Meadow Meadow DamDam USGSUSGS TOPOGRAPHICTOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE QUADRANGLE MAPMAP
Northampton,Northampton, MassachusettsMassachusetts EASTHAMPTON,EASTHAMPTON, 19791979
f
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
June 25, 2009 Massachusetts Historical Commission
Paul G. Davis
Senior Environmental Scientist
Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc.
296 North Main Street
East Longmeadow, MA 01028
RE: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal Project, Chesterfield Road, Northampton, MA. MHC#
RC.
46364.
Dear Dr.Davis:
Thank you for submitting additional information for the project referenced above to the Massachusetts
Historical Commission. The project consists of the removal of the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam located
off Chesterfield Road in Northampton. MHC understands that the dam was constructed in 1883 and was
taken off line in 1905. MHC understands that the project requires a Section 404 permit from the US
Army Corps of Engineers and review by the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA)office.
Review of the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth has indicated that
there are no recorded historic or archaeological resources in the project impact area. After review MHC's
files and the information submitted, MHC has determined that the project is unlikely to affect any
significant historic or archaeological resources.
These comments are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CFR 800),Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 9,Sections
26 27C
- (950 CMR 71)and MEPA 3 ( 01 CMR 11).If you have any additional questions, please contact
Tim Hollis at this office.
Sincerely,
Jona
Archaeologist/Preservation Planner
Massachusetts Historical Commission
xc: Karen Kirk Adams, USACOE NED,

- Regulatory
Kate Atwood, USACOE NED
-
Secretary Ian A. Bowles, EEA,Attn: MEPA Unit
DEP— WERO, Wetlands
Department of Conservation and Recreation — Office of Dam Safety
Patrice Kish, Department of Conservation and Recreation
Northampton Historical Commission
Northampton Conservation Commission
220 Morrissey Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts 02125

617)727 8470
- • Fax: 6
( 17)727 5128
-
wwwsec.
ma.
nnhc state.
u s/
May 21, 2010
Edward S. Huntley William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
Director Massachusetts Historical Commission
Northampton Department of Public Works
125 Locust Street
RE: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal Project, Chesterfield Road, Northampton, MA
MHC#RC.
46364.
Dear Mr. Huntley
As you may recall, on June 25, 2009, the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC)responded to a
submittal from Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc. regarding the project referenced above.
MHC recently received additional information that indicates that the project area of potential effect
includes the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam,originally called the Hoxie Reservoir Dam, a granite block,
gravity arch structure that was constructed in 1883 by the City of Northampton for water supply. The dam
may be a significant as a municipal work in the history of the City of Northampton, and may be an
historic engineering structure.
Because the project will require permitting by the US Army Corps of Engineers, the project requires
review by the Corps in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as
amended. The MHC is the office of the State Historic Preservation Officer, with a role as a consulting
parry to the Corps' review. The City of Northampton is also a consulting party in this review. The Corps
requires its applicants and their consultants to undertake some initial aspects of the Section 106 process,
outlined in the regulations at 36 CFR 800. For more information about the Section 106 review process,
and a copy of the applicable regulations, please see acho.
w} vov
u w.
To assist the City of Northampton and the Corps, the MHC will review the information that has been
submitted, request any additional information that may be required to evaluate the historical significance
of the structure using the National Register of Historic Places Criteria of Eligibility (36 CFR Part 60),and
offer MHC's opinion to the City of Northampton and the Corps about the historic significance of the dam.
If you have not already done so, please provide the Northampton Historical Commission with the project
planning information so that they may consider commenting on the proposed project to the Corps. MHC
would appreciate to continue receiving copies of any comments to the Corps regarding the project.
Sincerely,
Edward L. Bell
Technical Services Division
xc: see attached

617)727 8470
- • Fax: 6
( 17) 727 5128
-
www.
stacc.
us/ sec.
m
m hc
a.
xc:
Karen Kirk Adams, USACOE NED,

- Regulatory
-
DEP —WERO, Wetlands
Department of Conservation and Recreation —Office of Dam Safety
Paul G. Davis, Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Barbara Pelissier, Friends of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam
L
JF
June 14, 20 10
Edward S. Huntley William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
Director Massachusetts Historical Commission
125 Locust Street
Northampton, MA, 01060
RE: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal Project, Chesterfield Road, Northampton, MA.
MHC#RC.
46364.
Dear Mr. Huntley:
Staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC),office of the State Historic Preservation
Officer, have reviewed the information submitted to provide an opinion of National Register of Historic
Places eligibility 3( 6 CFR Part 60)for the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam. Enclosed are the results of
MHC's staff review, indicating that more information is required for the MHC to provide an opinion.
The MHC suggests that the Corps should review the information enclosed and have research undertaken
by a qualified historic preservation consultant to assemble the additional documentation required, and
prepare an opinion of eligibility for review by the MHC.
These comments are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CFR 800).Please contact Edward L.Bell if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Brona Simon
State Historic Preservation Officer
Executive Director
Enclosure (MHC 2010)

6/2/
xc w encl.:
/
- Regulatory
Kate Atwood,USACOE N
- ED
DEP—
WERO, Wetlands
Department of Conservation and Recreation — Office of Dam Safety
Paul G. Davis, Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc.
220 Morrissev Boulevard, Boston, Massachusetts 02125

617)727 8470
- • Fax: (617)7275128
-
www.
state.
us/ sahc
m
n ec.
a.
orginal ydw form: Elip6i0ty fib
Copies Inventory twin
Ta ffwwcwrw.)
Mw%
Nadir c Community: Northampton
MHC OPINION•ELIGIBILITY FOR NATIONAL REGISTER
Date Received: 4/
2612010 Date Due: Date Reviewed: 6/
2010
02/
Type: X Individual _ District A

( ttach map indicating boundaries)
Name: Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam Inventory Form:
Address: Opposite 630 Chesterfield Road, Northampton (village of Leeds)

Requested by:
Action: _ Honor _ ITC _ Grant - i-

R &C _ Other:
Agency: 45,C Staff in charge of Review: E
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES DISTRICTS
Eligible. Eligible
Eligible, also in district Ineligible
Eligible only in district More information needed
Ineligible
X More information needed
CRITERIA: _ A B _ C _ D
LEVEL: _ Local State _ National
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE by P.H. Stott
The Upper Roberts Meadow Data (originally the Hoxie Reservoir Dam)was constructed in 1883 to the designs of
city Engineer Emory C.Davis (c1.835 1- 906)and consulting engineer Clemens Herschel (1842 -1930),then head of
the Holyoke Water Power Company. The dam was constructed nine years after the catastrophic collapse of the
nearby Mill River Dam in Williamsburg, a factor that undoubtedly influenced the stone design and the selection of
Herschel as consulting engineer. However,the granite arch dam is not unusual in this period, and the 6 a- cre size of
the reservoir is relatively small compared to contemporary water supply reservoirs. In addition,the stone and concrete
gatehouse was removed "many years ago."
Staff requested more information conceming the history of the Northampton water supply. Although staff
acknowledged the significance of the dam design in the aftermath of the Mill River Flood and the involvement of
E.C. Davis and Clemens Herschel m its construction, it questioned the primacy of the dam's construction, as there
appeared to be a "lower" dam approximately L 4 miles downstream, labeled "Northampton Reservoir" on the 1873 .
map of the town, ten years before the Upper Reservoir was bui t. If the Hoxie Reservoir was Northampton s first for
the special purpose of supplying .clean drinking water,"what was the "Northampton Reservoir" downstream?
In terms of establishing the significance of the dam to Northampton, it would also be important to know what role the
reservoir played in the development of the town's later
( city's)water supply system. The reservoir was in service for
only 22 years. Was it the only water supply for the town at this time?What part of town did it serve and how was the
water distributed? When was the water department (or water company ?) organized? How did the system grow?
Adams,Karen K NAE
From: Barbara Pelissier [bpelissi @smith.edu]

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 12:03 PM
To: Adams, Karen K NAE
Subject: RE: Request to be named a Consultant Party
Thanks so much. We appreciate your willingness to keep us in mind.
Barbara Pelissier
Adams, Karen K NAE" <army.

Karen.
Adams(
K
@
m usace.
il. 6/
2010
>17/ 12:01
PM >>>
We do not have an application on this but will add this email to the file along with the MHC
correspondence so that we can address this when the application is submitted.
Thank you
Karen
Original Message---- -
From: Barbara Pelissier [mailto:bpelissi @smith.edu]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 11:42 AM
Subject: Request to be named a Consultant Party
Dear Ms. Adams,
I am writing to ask that the Friends of the Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam be officially
considered a consultant party to your review of the project i compliance with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. While we have been cc'd on two pieces of
correspondence between Mass Historical Commission to the Dir. of the Northampton Dept. of
Public Works ( as you were, as well),I am not aware of any other correspondence between named
consultant parties to date.
As concerned citizens who treasure this beautiful and unique dam, reservoir habitat and
wildlife scenic
/ open space, we initiated contact with Mass Historic Commission this spring
because the Northampton Historic Commission felt unable to help us or initiate a demolition
delay ordinance. We have put in an enormous amount of time, effort and fundraising to date
to attend City Council, BPW, NHC meetings, hire hydro experts (Essex Partnership, CT),and
undertake historic research as well as to inform the public of the potential loss of this
wonderful and scenic spot which has the capacity to generate up to $20k annually
/ in
electricity to pay for its own future maintenance costs as well profit the City. We have also
been working closely with the ASCE on a nomination for ASCE ' landmark status' and have had
extensive conversations with a retired US Bureau of Reclamations engineer whose research has
found the dam to be quite unique for that era. Our work is dogged and ongoing.
For all of the above reasons, we ask that you please include us as a consultant party to your
review.
Sincerely,
Barbara Pelissier, Member, Friends of the Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam
96 Stage Road
Westhampton, MA 01027
413) 527 3
- 209
1
bpelissier@gmbil.
( com
Adams;Karen K NAE
From: Atwood, Kathleen A NAE

Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 12:01 PM
Subject: RE: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal Project, Northampton, MA
Barbara Pelissier, phone # ( 413) 584 2700.

- It is listed as Smith College on caller id.
From: Adams, Karen K NAE
To: Atwood, Kathleen A NAE
Subject: RE: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal Project, Northampton, MA
I don't have a message from her and we do not have an application. Please recommend that
they write or email with their contact info and interests so we can put it in the file for
when the application does come in. Or pass along her tel no. so we can call her.
Thanks
Karen
From: Atwood, Kathleen A NAE
Subject: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal Project, Northampton, MA
I received a call from Barbara Pelissier of the Friends of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir
Dam requesting that their organization be a consulting party in Section 106 consultation for
this project. You and I received copies of a letter from MHC to the Northampton Department
of Public Works dated 14 June. MHC is requesting additional information to make a
determination of eligibility.
Ms. Pelissier said she had left you a message as well.
She said her organization has compiled extensive information on the dam and can vouch for its
significance. I told her I would check on whether or not the Corps has received a permit
application, and where we are in the process and that we would welcome any information on the
cultural resources that they have gathered. I guess pending the outcome of the determination
of eligibility and determination of effect, I don't see a problem having them be a consulting
party.
This is just an FYI concerning my phone call.

Thanks.
Kate
1
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
AMHERST
Archaeological Services voice: 1552

413.
545.
Department of Anthropology fax: 1458
413.
577.
Machmer Hall
240 Hicks Way
Amherst, MA 01003 9280
-
19 December 2011
Kate Atwood
New England District
US Army Corps of Engineers
696 Virginia Road
Concord, MA 01742 2751
-
Re: BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND A NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY

OPINION FOR THE UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM
NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Dear Ms Atwood:
Enclosed please find the draft report for the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam
project in Northampton. If you have any questions or comments, please give Eric
Johnson, Kathryn Curran, or myself a call at (413)545 1- 626 or 545 1
- 552. Thank you for
your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Broughton Anderson, Editor

Archaeological Services at the University of Massachusetts Amherst
Cc: Paul Davis, GZA GeoEnvironmental

Ed Bell,Massachusetts Historical Commission
The University of Massachusetts is an Affirmative Action Equal

/ Opportunity Institution ® Printed on Recycled Paper
of M A,v UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS
AMHERST
y
z
Archaeological Services voice: 1552
413.
545.
6 Department of Anthropology fax: 1458

413.
577.
yERST 14 Machmer Hall
240 Hicks Way
Amherst, MA 01003 9
- 280
19 December 2011
Ed Bell
220 Morrissey Blvd.
Boston, MA 02125
Re: BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND A NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY

OPINION FOR THE UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM
Dear Mr. Bell:
Enclosed please find the draft report for the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam
project in Northampton. If you have any questions or comments, please give Eric
Johnson, Kathryn Curran, or myself a call at (413)545 1- 626 or 545 1
- 552. Thank you for
your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Broughton Anderson, Editor

Archaeological Services at the University of Massachusetts Amherst
Cc: Kate Atwood, USACE

Paul Davis, GZA GeoEnvironmental
The University of Massachusetts is an Affirmative Action Equal

/ Opportunity Institution ® Printed on Recycled Paper
The COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BOARD OF UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
25,1 Causeway,Strreet, Suite,RQQ, Boston, MA 02114-2136..1-

Tel. 617)
( 626 1200 Fak (617)626 1240
- ; Web S
' ite:wwwmas s.
' gov czm/
% buarincfex.
/ htm
June 4,2012
Mr.Paul G.Davis, PhD

GZA Environmental, Inc.
One Edgewater Drive
Norwood, MA 02062
RE: Proposed Removal of Upper Roberts Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA
Dear Mr.Davis,
The staff of the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources has reviewed the above
referenced notice and site locus map provided by GZA Environmental, Inc.,on behalf of the City of
Northampton. We offer the following comments.
The Board has conducted a preliminary review of its files and secondary literature sources to identify
known and potential submerged cultural resources in the proposed project area. No record of any underwater
archaeological resources was found. Based on the results of this review and previously disturbance during dam
construction and repair, the Board expects that this project is unlikely to impact submerged cultural resources.
However, the dam is listed as in MHC's MACRIS files (NHT.964).In that record, it was noted that the
dam was constructed on the site of bark grinding mill with the mill stone was visible near the foot of
- the darn.
The potential archaeological feature was not discussed is the report included in file NHT.964. Given this factor,
the Board suggest additional consideration be given to potential preservation of remnants of this earlier structure
as part of your mitigation documentation.
In addition, should heretofore -unknown submerged cultural resources be encountered during the course
of the project, the Board expects that the project's sponsor will take steps to limit adverse affects and notify the
Board, as well as other appropriate agencies, immediately in accordance with the Board's Policy Guidance for
the Discovery of Unanticipated Archaeological Resources (updated 06). 9/ 28/
The Board notes the MHC PNF was not included with your submission as required under the U.S.Army
Corps of Engineers' MA General Permit. In future, please submit this completed document to facilitate our
review.
The Board appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments as part of the review process. Should
you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at the address above, by email
at v ictor.mastone C@ state.ina.us, or by telephone at (617)626 1141.
-
Sincerely,
t,
Victor T.Mastone
Director
vtm
Cc: Brona Simon, MHC
Kate Atwood, USACE
0 Printed on Recycled Paper

tj
June 6 ,2012 The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

William Francis Galvin, Secretary of the Commonwealth
Edward S. Huntley
Director
125 Locust Street
RE: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal Project, Chesterfield Road, Northampton, MA.
MHC#RC.
46364.
Dear Mr. Huntley:
The Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC),office of the State Historic Preservation Officer, received the
copy of the June 4, 2012, letter from the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR),
indicating that a submittal to the BUAR to assist in preparing a US Army Corps of Engineers permit for the project
referenced above has been provided to the BUAR by GZA Environmental, Inc.
Review of the MHC's files indicates that the MHC has not received the project information. Please have the project
information submitted to the MHC for review and comment in accordance with the procedures of the Corps.
The MHC requests that copies of the project information also be provided to the Northampton Historical
Commission and to the Friends of the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam so that they may comment if they
wish to the Corps. Copies of any written comments to the Corps regarding historic resources should also be provided
to the MHC.
In the MHC's opinion, the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam (NTH.964)meets the Criteria of Eligibility (36 CFR Part
60)for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and C at the local level of significance. A
copy of MHC's opinion is enclosed.
These comments are offered to assist in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended (36 CFR 800).Please contact Edward L.Bell if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
1S
-
Brona Simon
State Historic Preservation Officer
Executive Director
Enclosure (MHC 2012)

4/5/
xc w enclosure:
/
- Regulatory
-
DEP —WERO, Wetlands
Department of Conservation and Recreation —Office of Dam Safety
Patrice Kish,Department of Conservation and Recreation
Victor T. Mastone, BUAR
Sarah 1. Laval ley, City of Northampton, Office of Planning and Development
Paul G. Davis, GZA Environmental Consultants, Inc.,Norwood
Stephen Pendery, UMass Archaeological Services, Attn, Kerry Lynch
617)727 8470
- • Fax: 617)
( 727 5128
-
www.state.ma.us sec
/ mhc
/
Original yellow form: Eligibility file _ { PRIVATE }
Copies: Inventory form
Town file(w corresp.)
/
Macris
NR director Community: Northampton
MHC OPINION: ELIGIBILITY FOR NATIONAL REGISTER
Date Received: 2/
2012
29/ Date Due: - Date Reviewed: 4/
2012
5/
Type: _ Individual X District (Attach map indicating boundaries)
Name: Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam Inventory Form: NTH.964
Address: Opposite 630 Chesterfield Road, Northampton (village of Leeds)
Requested by:
Action: Honor ITC Grant X R& C Other:
Agency: Staff in charge of Review:
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES DISTRICTS
Eligible X Eligible
Eligible, also in district Ineligible
Eligible only in district More information needed
Ineligible
More information needed
CRITERIA: X A nu X C W
LEVEL: X Local State National
STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE by P.H. Stott
MHC was asked in 2010 to evaluate the eligibility of the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam, constructed in 1883 in the
rural northwest of the city of Northampton, west of the village of Leeds. While the dam was an impressive granite -
faced structure, it appeared that it was part of the larger story of the development of Northampton's water supply, and
MHC asked for mote information concerning the history of the Northampton water supply.
Supplementary information provided by consultants for the City and the Army Corps of Engineers indicates that the
three dams and reservoirs built on Roberts Meadow Brook between 1871 and 1894 represented the key elements in
Northampton's first public water supply, critical to the development of town, which became a city in 1883, the same
year that the Upper Reservoir was constructed. Drought conditions, as well as increase in demand following the
construction of the first 4 million -gallon reservoir in 1871 led to the construction of the Upper Roberts Meadow Dam
and a 16 million -gallon Reservoir in 1883; and to the Middle Dam and 114 million-gallon Reservoir in 1894. After
1900, the city turned away from Roberts Meadow Brook and constructed larger reservoirs in Whately and
Williamsburg, and in 1905 discontinued the use of the Roberts Meadow Brook system for all but emergencies.
The three dams and their reservoirs remain intact on three contiguous parcels still owned by the city. MHC concludes
that the properties meet the criteria for the National Register under criteria A and C at the local level. The system is
significant in the areas of Community Planning and Development, Engineering, Government and Social History due
to its contribution to the development of Northampton's public water supply system. Furthermore, the dams and
reservoir system illustrate distinctive examples of three different 19th -century engineering responses to water supply
needs in different topographic locations.
Common , h ofkn.e ,as
.
Division of
Fisheries & Wildlife
MASSW/
d / lfe
/
Wayne F. MacCallam, Director
8/
2008
1/
Erin Gillen
Baystate Environmental Consultants,Inc.
296 North Main St
East Longmeadow MA 01028
RE: Project Location: Roberts Meadow Upper Reservoir Dam

Town: NORTHAMPTON
NHESP Tracking No.: 08 2- 5168
To Whom It May Concern:
Thank you for contacting the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP") " of the MA
Division of Fisheries & Wildlife for information regarding state -listed rare species in the vicinity of the
above referenced site. Based on the information provided, this project site, or a portion thereof, is located
within Priority Habitat 1198 (PH 1198)and Estimated Habitat 573 (EH 573)as indicated in the Massachusetts
Natural Heritage Atlas (12'"Edition).Our database indicates that the following state -listed rare species
have been found in the vicinity of the site:
Scientific name Common Name Taxonomic Group State Status

Wood Turtle
Glyptemys insculpta Reptile Special Concern
The species listed above is protected under the Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (MESA)L. M.
( G.c.
131A)and its implementing regulations (321 CMR 10.00).State -listed wildlife are also protected under
the state's Wetlands Protection Act W( PA)L.M.
( G.c.131, s.40) and its implementing regulations 3 ( 10
CMR 10.00).Fact sheets for most state listed
- rare species can be found on our website org)
fwww.nhesp.
Pieme note that projects and activities located within Priority and or
/ Estimated Habitat must he
reviewed by Lite iQHESP for compliance with the state listed
- rare species protection provisions of MESA
321 CMR 10.00)and or / the WPA (310 CMR 10.00).
Wetlands Protection Act (310 CMR 10.00)

If the project site is within Estimated Habitat and a Notice of Intent (NOI)is required, then a copy of the
NOI must be submitted to the NHESP so that it is received at the same time as the local conservation
commission. If the NHESP determines that the proposed project will adversely affect the actual Resource
Area habitat of state -protected wildlife,than the proposed project may not be permitted (310 CMR 10.37,
4)(
10. b)&
5 8(
9). In such a case, the project proponent may request a consultation with the NHESP to
discuss potential project design modifications that would avoid adverse effects to rare wildlife habitat.
A streamlined joint MESA / WPA review process is now available. When filing a Notice of Intent (NOI),
the applicant may now file concurrently under the MESA on the same NOI form and qualify for a 30 day
-
streamlined joint review. For a copy of the revised NOI form,please visit the MA Department of
Environmental Protection's website: htto: /www.
/ iniss eov/
. den w
/ a teraLProvals
/ wpaform3.
/ dot
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife

Field Headquarters, North Drive, Westborough, MA 01581 ( 508)389 6300
- Fax (508)389 7891
-
As Agancy ofshe D,,,
m,a fF,h and Gnmc
NHESP No. 08-25168,page 2 of 2
MA Endangered Species Act (L.

M.
G.c.131A)
This project may be exempt from review under the new regulations of the Massachusetts Endangered
Species Act (MESA)321( CMR 10.14 (11)) which states: The
" following Projects and Activities shall be
exempt from the requirements of 321 CMR 10.18 through 10.23..."
The active management of State -listed Species habitat, including but not limited to mowing,
cutting, burning,or pruning of vegetation,or removing exotic or invasive species, for the purpose
of maintaining or enhancing the habitat for the benefit of rare species, provided that the
management is carried out in accordance with a habitat management plan approved in writing
by the Division"
If the proposed project is located within Priority Habitat and is not exempt from review (see 321 CMR
10.14),then project plans, a fee,and other required materiels must be sent to NHESP Environmental
Review to determine whether a probable "take"under the MA Endangered Species Act would occur (321
CMR 10.18).Please note that all proposed and anticipated development must be disclosed, as MESA
does not allow project segmentation (321 CMR 10.16).For a MESA filing checklist and additional
information please see our website: ore
www.nhesp.Regulatory(' Review" tab).
This evaluation is based on the most recent information available in the Natural Heritage database, which
is constantly being expanded and updated through ongoing research and inventory. If you have any
questions regarding this letter please contact Emily Holt,Endangered Species Review Assistant, at (508)
389 6361.
-
Sincerely,
7,1, , t
Thomas W. French,PhD.
Assistant Director
United States Department of Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Project name: Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal
Official Species list:

- Upper Roberts Meadow Dam Removal
New England Ecological Services Field Office
Following is an official U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service species l-ist from the New England
Ecological Services Field Office. The species list
- identifies listed and proposed species and
designated and proposed critical habitat that may be affected by the project "Upper Roberts
Meadow Dam Removal ". You may use this list to meet the requirements of section 7(
c)of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA).
This species list

- has been generated by the Service's on line
- Information, Planning, and
Conservation (IPaC)decision support system based on project type and location information
you provided on November 16, 2011, 7:48 AM. This information is summarized below.
Please reference our tracking number, 05EINE00-2012 SLI

- 0025,
- in future reference to this
project to assist in expediting the process.
Newer information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
listed species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free
to contact the office(s)
identified below if you need more current information or assistance
regarding the potential presence of federally proposed, listed, or candidate species, or proposed
or designated critical habitat. Please note that under the ESA, a species list
- is valid for 90 days.
Therefore, the Service recommends that you visit the IPaC site at regular intervals during
project planning and implementation for updates to species lists
- and information. An updated
list may be requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive
this list. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation,
including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species
Consultation Handbook" at:
http: /gov/
www.
/ fws.
endangered esa-
/ library pdf
/ TOC-
/ GLOS.PDF
This list below only addresses federally proposed, listed, or candidate species and federally
designated critical habitat. Please contact the appropriate State agencies for information
regarding State species of special designation. Also,please feel free to contact the office(s)
identified below if you would like information on other important trust resources (such as
migratory birds)in your project area.
Generated by the Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC)System on 2011

11/
16/ 07:48 AM
Page 1
This Species list

- document is provided by:
NEW ENGLAND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES FIELD OFFICE
70 COMMERCIAL STREET, SUITE 300
CONCORD, NH 3301
603)223 2541
-
http://
fws.
newengland
www.
g ov/
TAILS consultation code: 05E1 NE00-2012 SLI

- 0025
-
Project type: Dam
Project Description: Dam Removal

11/
16/ 07:48 AM
Page 2
Project location map:
QS
c
Y
a
u
PbWEIF'
2 ft
Project coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((- 72.

7322297 42.
3374243, - 72.
7236252 42.
3409219, - 72.
7229385
42.
33957, - 72.
7299552 42.
3366518, - 72.
7322083 42.
3364801, - 72.
7322297 42.
3374243)))
Project counties: Hampshire, MA

11/
16/ 07:48 AM
Page 3
There are no listed species identified for the vicinity of your project.

11/
16/ 07:48 AM
Page 4
ATTACHMENT
SEDIMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS, BORINGS PROFILES, AND LAB

ANALYSIS RESULTS

No. DATE REVISION BY
999M
A A WETLAND BOUNDARY
W-
4 1A
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING EDGE OF WATER
10 EXISTING SEDIMENT CONTOURS
1 -B SEDIMENT SAMPLE LOCATION

BEC, 08
08/
20/
SHEET TITLE:
PROJECT AND LOCATION: J
Upper Robert's Meadow

Reservoir Dam
NORTHAMPTON
PREPARED FOR:
City of Northampton
Department of Public Works
Ciro"BAYSTATE ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS INC.
AIM
1 inch = 50 ft.
J:\
O GZA INTERCOMPANY 0019547.
PROJECTS\1
001.
Upper Roberts Meadow Res Dam 0019547.
Breach\1
001.CAD\
BasePlan—
Dam. R
d wg\
wg,
M— 9/
2008
12/ 48
10:41: AM
U
pq,, tD, 0 FmdIdpod
05 SeP081056
f ,
It,ISS
_ R9WOnt
ItVIad
OECI%
OM ANALVTICAL, ReC
Wannong
I AL TECMJOLOCV
Lnborvory Report
E toward Entimmm mtel C onsirhand Into
296 NOM Meiv9tr art Project Upper Roberts Meadow ResNOAbempbq MA
East LOCpneedow,MA 01028 Trotter 01001950710
Aft,Tom Ientkvu'
LeEn C6'mt 9nm4m Ma= Ond9ui w UffiRmm'ed

SM349101 1ABC SeAmeW 3)
AW081100 21-AW08IS55
SM349102 2ABC SeAmem 3)
AW081150 21-AW08IS55
SM349103 3ABC SeAmem 3)
AW081530 21-AW08IS55
SM349104 IABCPAH SeAmem 3)
AW081100 21-AW08IS55
SM349105 2ABCPAN SeAmem 3)
AW081150 21-AW08IS55
SM349106 3ABCPAN SeAmem 3)
AW081530 21-AW08IS55
SM3491OA IT SeAmem 3)
AW081100 21-AW08IS55
SM349108 2B SeAmem 3)
AW081150 21-AW08IS55
SM349109 3C SeAmem 3)
AW081530 21-AW08IS55
I atte,t met me m6 mabo, me i, edwNIm me m Wont Fes been m for moon

¢¢ add had,d amim'I lM mality, m of
mgnimmeW,fionaFmelFOd Ilwsemsdw,
s) NteoNnblMmmple(
e smceiwd
All elpl,ab4 NELAC eq,, emems Few been met
SWetlrvm AsalyFml FOldsceNYVSlioninlFe Slab o[NhssazM1USeXS6elFe malylesssinACebdwi0.enRinlFe 'Cert" olnm,
wUmm1m,ep,Pka,mb F tl
D SlebofM swhnmtls & esmtoffe,,
e Yf dlmalybs.
at, fo,
Pbemwleutl av4m npO, o, Wegesofaal,& bryus CFemofCnodn cmnt( & s).
IltismWOnt menwibe mpmtlwad evaplin[WW IIbW "' wiMneppovel YOm SWectrom ANlaeW Inc
MssaeFUw h'
XMMA138MIA1110
N,nh#
co, XB
PW XPH0T(/
-
MtiwXMA138 ®
Auffioeiaedbn
qK[(
G.,,
New HempOlxm#2538 " W
NewlemenXMA0111MA012
T
New YoN#
11393A184) Hm dC
& TeyekPFD
Pemgtrmrve#68O4426168OA24 PnWhe'vsbombgGmdor
USDA#mtl X98
Rlt
OSEAX 3
# 1435 Teduvsl Ferreted Is ldFet
VemmmXVi11393
Spnchum Analytlw{ L¢ 1s a NF ACa<

vnadd laboratory n
organ,me,and r, 0,NFGGefihg Sanded, M,& font AC
logo tartar done nalilwre thNSpncXUm6 errantly amnAffidr r /hn RnaTic mnaod or analyln,ndpad Pkam rat rto w
tpAhA web
" Pad, Nwww spechum anarawL wmjor after SWhg ojov uniwtlm andfidd,n ofam,dlat,Sent SOn
wMCh m
4,, A, Anaiutlwl, h¢holds NF ACureficatlon are AN York.Am Tdg,nle,Mw le.. y and FII Ad anaiutlwl
workfor added, agent,and AranalyN ad Iwvge nod to and c,Wn ddat w 830 bear Sheet I Wdon (Aff 11840 FZ E87936
and w-
MA012)
Maow
®.
36 108 497 en®
anim enx 80)48&
6435
aiDonne 8180 In.flend A.Boueerew zemm 0800

Sample Identification
Client Project # Matrix Collection Date/Time Received
1ABC
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0811:00 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 01
-
CASNo. Analyte(s) Result Flag Units * RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch CeA
Semivoladle Organic Compounds by GC

Polychlorinated Biphenyl Congeners
Prepared by method SW846 3550B

34883 4
- 37
- 2,
4'-
Dichlorobiphenyl BRL U pg kg
/ dry 1.
95 0.
0592 1 SW846 8082 26-Aug08
- 27-Aug 08
- 8081977
BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0234 1"
37688 6
- 5 2- 5-
2,
2',
Trichlorobiphenyl
BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0293 1"
7912 -37 5- 2,
4'
4,Trichlorobiphenyl
-
BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0325 1"
41464 39
- 5- 5'
2,
23, Tetrachlorobiphenyl
-
BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0371 1"
41464 49
- 8- 4,
2,
2'-
5 ,
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
BRL U
pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0377 1"
35693 5,
2,
2'-
5 ,
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
32598-10- 4,
9 2,
3'
4 ',
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
- BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0442 1"
BRL U
pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0423 1"
32599-19- 4,
3 3,
3'
4 ',
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
-
38386 9- 2 8- 5'
2,
3,
2,
4 Pentachlorobiphenyl
- BRL U
pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0885 1"
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0514 1"
37686 7- 3 2- 5'-
2,
4,
2,
5 Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0481 1"
32599-14 4- 4'
2,
3',
3,Pentachlorobiphenyl
4, - BRL
31598 9- 9 6- 5
2,
4,
3',
- BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0442 1"
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0501 1"
39635-39- 5'-
1 3,
4,
3,
5 ',
Pentachlorobiphenyl BRL
57465 2- 8 8- 5
3,
4,
3',
- BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0514 1"
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0501 1"
38380-673- 2,4'
2',
3',
3,
4, Hexachlorobiphenyl
- BRL
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0507 1"
35665-20-2,5'
2 2',
4,
3,
4 ',
Hexachlorobiphenyl
- BRL
35665-271- 2 5'
2
4'
, ',
4,
5 ,
Hexachlorobiphenyl
- BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0501 1"
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0514 1"
38386 9- 8 4- 2,3 4',
3',
, 5
4,Hexachlorobiphenyl
- BRL
3277416.
- 6 3,5'
3',
4',
4,
- BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0586 1"
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0533 1"
35665-30- 2,2 5
6 3,
4,
', 3',
4 Heptachlorobiphen
- BRL
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0507 1"
3
35665-29- 2,2'5'
3,
4',
, 5,
4, Heptachlorobiphen
- BRL
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0507 1"
52669-69- 3
4 2,
2',4,
5',
,6-
4',
Heptachlorobiphen BRL
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0579 1"
74472 4- 8-3 6'
2,
3,
4', 2,
4
6, ',
Heptachlorobiphen
- BRL
U
pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0586 1"
52669-60- 3
6 2,
2',
4',
5',
,6-
5,
52669-70-3
2 2,
2',
3',
4',
6-, 5,
4,
Octachlorobipher BRL U pg kg
/ dry 1.
95 0.
0547 1"
U
pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0533 1"
46186 - 3,
2,
2',
3 4,
5,
6-
', 5
4',
Nonachlorobipl BRL
yl
BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
95 0.
0527 1"
2651-24 3- Decachlorobiphenyl
Surrogate recoveries:
1036684 2
- 4,
4-DB-Octafluombiphenyl(Sr)100 3030- 150
- 150
Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons

EPH Aliphatic Aromatic
/ Ranges
Prepared by method SW846 3545A

C9 C18
- Aliphatic Hydrocarbons BRL UU mgftmgft drydry 26.9 22.8 1 MADEP EPH 27-Aug08
- 28-Aug 08
- 8082042
5/
2004 R
C19C19
- C36
- C36 AliphaticAliphatic Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbons 37.2 mgftmgft dry
mgft drydry 26.9 24.2 1
mgftmgft drydry 26.9 25.5 1

C11C11
- -C22C22 AromaticAromatic HydrocarbonsHydrocarbons 57.4
UnadjustedUnadjusted ClCl 1-
C22 AromaticAromatic 57.7 mgftmgft dry
Hydrocarbons Hydrocarbons
TotalTotal PetroleumPetroleum HydrocarbonsHydrocarbons 94.5
UnadjustedUnadjusted TotalTotal PetroleumPetroleum 94.9 mgftmgft dry
Hydrocarbons
Total Metals by EPA 6000/7000 Series Methods
7446 3
- 82
- Arsenic BRL U mgft dry 1.
30 0.
434 1 SW846 6010B 28-Aug08
- 03-Sep 08
- 8082124
744943-9 Cadmium 0.
191 J mgft dry 0.
434 0.
0252 1
744647 3
- Chromium 9.
61 mgft dry 0.
869 0.
239 1
4.
75 mgft dry 0.
869 0.
172 1
7446 -59 8- Copper
7439 9- 7-6 Mercury BRL U mgft dry 0.
0267 0.
0064 1 SW8467471A 03-Sep -088082125
7446 9
- 29
- Nickel 7.
88 mgft dry 0.
869 0.
254 1 SW8466010B 03-Sep-088082124
7439 9
- 21- Lead 6.
52 mgftmgft drydry 1.
30 0.
330 11
7446 6
- 66
- Zinc 29.1 mgft dry 0.
869 0.
106 11
This laboratory report is not valid without an authorized signature on the coverpage.
Reportable Detection Limit BRL =

Below Reporting Limit Page 2 of 47
1ABC
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0811:00 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 0
- 1
CASNo. Analyte(s) Result Flag Units * RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert
TCLP Metals by EPA 1311 & 6000/7000 Series Methods

TCLP Extraction Completed N/A 1 SW846 1311 26-Aug08
- 26-Aug 08
- 8081975
744047-3 Chromium BRL a mgA 0.
0100 0.
0060 1 SW846 27-Aug08
- 27-Aug 08
- 8082049
1311/60108
BRL a mgA 0.
00020 0.
00008 1 SW846 28-Aug 08
- 8082050
7439 -01 0- Mercury
1311/7470A
7440 0
- 20
- Nickel 0.
0094 1 mgA 0.
0100 0.
0033 1 SW846 27-Aug 08
- 8082049
1311/60108
General Chemistry Parameters

Completed N/A 1 Yankee CAPP 26-Aug08
- 26-Aug 08
- 8082022
12 hour
- Drying @ 60 C
Solids 98.9 1 SM2540 G Mod. 26-Aug08
- 26-Aug 08
- 8082000
9,
850 z 2a
- mgkg
/ 100 59.7 1 SW846 9060 27-Aug08
- 27-Aug 08
- 8082217
Total Organic Carbon
Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage.

2ABC
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0811:50 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 02
-


34883 4
- 37
- 2,
4'-
/ dry 1.
98 0.
0602 1 SW846 8082 26-Aug08
- 27-Aug 08
- 8081977
BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0238 1"
37688 6
- 5 2- 5-
2,
2',
Trichlorobiphenyl
BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0297 1"
7912 -37 5- 2,
4'
4,Trichlorobiphenyl
-
BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0331 1"
41464 39
- 5- 5'
2,
-
BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0377 1"
41464 49
- 8- 4,
2,
2'-
5 ,
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
BRL U
pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0383 1"
35693 5,
2,
2'-
5 ,
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
32598-10- 4,
9 2,
3'
4 ',
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
- BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0450 1"
BRL U
pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0430 1"
32599-19- 4,
3 3,
3'
4 ',
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
-
38386 9- 2 8- 5'
2,
3,
2,
- BRL U
pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0899 1"
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0522 1"
37686 7- 3 2- 5'-
2,
4,
2,
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0489 1"
32599-14 4- 4'
2,
3',
4, - BRL
31598 9- 9 6- 5
2,
4,
3',
- BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0450 1"
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0509 1"
39635-39- 5'-
1 3,
4,
3,
5 ',
57465 2- 8 8- 5
3,
4,
3',
- BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0522 1"
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0509 1"
38380-673- 2,4'
2',
3',
3,
- BRL
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0516 1"
35665-20-2,5'
2 2',
4,
3,
4 ',
Hexachlorobiphenyl
- BRL
35665-271- 2 5'
2
4'
, ',
4,
5 ,
Hexachlorobiphenyl
- BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0509 1"
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0522 1"
38386 9- 8 4- 2,3 4',
3',
, 5
- BRL
3277416.
- 6 3,5'
3',
4',
4,
- BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0595 1"
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0542 1"
35665-30- 2,2 5
6 3,
4,
', 3',
4 Heptachlorobiphen
- BRL
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0516 1"
3
35665-29- 2,2'5'
3,
4',
, 5,
4, Heptachlorobiphen
- BRL
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0516 1"
52669-69- 3
4 2,
2',4,
5',
,6-
4',
U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0588 1"
74472 4- 8-3 6'
2,
3,
4', 2,
4
6, ',
Heptachlorobiphen
- BRL
U
pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0595 1"
52669-60- 3
6 2,
2',
4',
5',
,6-
5,
52669-70-3
2 2,
2',
3',
4',
6-, 5,
4,
/ dry 1.
98 0.
0555 1"
U
pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0542 1"
46186 - 3,
2,
2',
3 4,
5,
6-
', 5
4',
Nonachlorobipl BRL
yl
BRL U pg kgdry
/ 1.
98 0.
0535 1"
1036684 2
- 4,
- 150

/ Ranges

C9 C18
- 28-Aug 08
- 8082042
5/
2004 R
C19C19
- C36

C11C11
TotalTotal PetroleumPetroleum HydrocarbonsHydrocarbons 174174
UnadjustedUnadjusted TotalTotal PetroleumPetroleum 176176 mgftmgft dry
Hydrocarbons
7446 3
- 82
- Arsenic 0.
967 J mgft dry 1.
40 0.
467 1 SW846 6010B 28-Aug08
- 03-Sep 08
- 8082124
744943-9 Cadmium 0.
603 mgft dry 0.
467 0.
0271 1
744647 3
- Chromium 19.3 mgft dry 0.
935 0.
257 1
12.8 mgft dry 0.

935 0.
185 1
7446 -59 8- Copper
7439 9- 7-6 Mercury 0.
0638 mgft dry 0.
0303 0.
0072 1 SW8467471A 03-Sep -088082125
7446 9
- 29
- Nickel 15.5 mgft dry 0.
935 0.
274 1 SW8466010B 03-Sep-088082124
7439 9
- 21- Lead 23.1 mgftmgft drydry 1.
40 0.
355 11
7446 6
- 66
935 0.
114 11

2ABC
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0811:50 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 0
- 2

- 26-Aug 08
- 8081975
744047-3 Chromium BRL u mgA 0.
0100 0.
0060 11 SW846 27-Aug08
- 27-Aug 08
- 8082049
1311/60108
BRL u mgA 0.
00020 0.
00008 1 SW846 28-Aug 08
- 8082050
7439-97- Mercury
6
1311/7470A
7440 0
- 20
- Nickel 0.
0138 mgA 0.
0100 0.
0033 1 SW846 27-Aug 08
- 8082049
1311/60108

- 26-Aug 08
- 8082022
12 hour
- Drying @ 60 C
Solids 96.9 % 1 SM2540 G Mod. 26-Aug08
- 26-Aug 08
- 8082000
29,
400 z 2b
- mgkg
/ 100 59.7 1 SW846 9060 27-Aug08
- 27-Aug 08
- 8082217

3ABC
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0815:30 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 03
-


34883 4
- 37
- 2,
4'-
/ dry 2.15 0.
0652 1 SW846 8082 26-Aug08
- 27-Aug 08
- 8081977
BRL U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0258 1"
37688 6
- 5 2- 5-
2,
2',
Trichlorobiphenyl
BRL U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0322 1"
7912 -37 5- 2,
4'
4,Trichlorobiphenyl
-
BRL U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0358 1"
41464 39
- 5- 5'
2,
-
BRL U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0408 1"
41464 49
- 8- 4,
2,
2'-
5 ,
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
BRL U
pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0415 1"
35693 5,
2,
2'-
5 ,
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
32599-10- 4,
9 2,
3'
4 ',
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
- BRL U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0487 1"
BRL U
pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0465 1"
32599-19- 4,
3 3,
3'
4 ',
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
-
38386 9- 2 8- 5'
2,
3,
2,
- BRL U
pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0974 1"
U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0566 1"
37686 7- 3 2- 5'-
2,
4,
2,
U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0530 1"
32599-14 4- 4'
2,
3',
4, - BRL
31598 9- 9 6- 5
2,
4,
3',
- BRL U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0487 1"
U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0551 1"
39635-39- 5'-
1 3,
4,
3,
5 ',
57465 2- 8 8- 5
3,
4,
3',
- BRL U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0566 1"
U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0551 1"
38380-673- 2,4'
2',
3',
3,
- BRL
U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0558 1"
35665-20-2,5'
2 2',
4,
3,
4 ',
Hexachlorobiphenyl
- BRL
35665-271- 2 5'
2
4'
, ',
4,
5 ,
Hexachlorobiphenyl
- BRL U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0551 1"
U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0566 1"
38386 9- 8 4- 2,3 4',
3',
, 5
- BRL
3277416.
- 6 3,5'
3',
4',
4,
- BRL U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0644 1"
U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0587 1"
35665-30- 2,2 5
6 3,
4,
', 3',
4 Heptachlorobiphen
- BRL
U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0558 1"
3
35665-29- 2,2'5'
3,
4',
, 5,
4,Heptachlorobiphen
- BRL
U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0558 1"
52669-69- 3
4 2,2',
4,
5',
,6-
4',
U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0637 1"
7447248-
- 3 6'
2,
3,
4', 2,
4
6, ',
Heptachlorobiphen
- BRL
U
pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0644 1"
52669-60- 3
6 2,
2',
4',
5',
,6-
5,
52669-70-3
2 2,
2',
3',
4',
6-, 5,
4,
/ dry 2.15 0.
0601 1"
U
pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0587 1"
46186 - 3,
2,
2',
3 4,
5,
6-
', 5
4',
Nonachlorobipl BRL
yl
BRL U pg kgdry
/ 2.15 0.
0580 1"
1036684 2
- 4,
- 150

/ Ranges

C9 C18
- 28-Aug 08
- 8082042
5/
2004 R
C19C19
- C36

C11C11
TotalTotal PetroleumPetroleum HydrocarbonsHydrocarbons 169169
UnadjustedUnadjusted TotalTotal PetroleumPetroleum 171171 mgftmgft dry
Hydrocarbons
7446 3
- 82
- Arsenic 1.
14 J mgft dry 1.51 0.
502 1 SW846 6010B 28-Aug08
- 03-Sep 08
- 8082124
744943-9 Cadmium 0.
668 mgft dry 0.
502 0.
0291 1
744647 3
- Chromium 21.1 mgft dry 1.
00 0.
276 1
14.0 mgft dry 1.

00 0.
199 1
7446 -59 8- Copper
7439 9- 7-6 Mercury 0.
0838 mgft dry 0.
0302 0.
0072 1 SW8467471A 03-Sep -088082125
7446 9
- 29
- Nickel 17.3 mgft dry 1.
00 0.
294 1 SW8466010B 03-Sep-088082124
7439 9
- 21- Lead 24.4 mgftmgft drydry 1.51 0.
382 11
7446 6
- 66
00 0.
123 11

3ABC
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0815:30 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 0
- 3

- 26-Aug 08
- 8081975
744047 3
- Chromium BRL u mgA 0.
0100 0.
0060 1 SW846 27-Aug08
- 27-Aug 08
- 8082049
1311/60108
BRL u mgA 0.
00020 0.
00008 1 SW846 28-Aug 08
- 8082050
7439-97- Mercury
6
1311/7470A
7440 0
- 20
- Nickel 0.
0180 mgA 0.
0100 0.
0033 1 SW846 27-Aug 08
- 8082049
1311/60108

- 26-Aug 08
- 8082022
12 hour
- Drying @ 60 C
- 26-Aug 08
- 8082000
33,
800 z2
- mgkg
/ 100 59.7 1 SW846 9060 27-Aug08
- 27-Aug 08
- 8082217

lABC PAH
-
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0811:00 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 04
-
Semivoladle Organic Compounds by GCMS

PAHs by SW846 8270C

83 32-
- 9 Acenaphthene BRL a pg kg
/ dry 190 0.
172 1 SW846 8270C 26-Aug08
- 26-Aug 08
- 8081957
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 190 0.
214 1
208 -96 8
- Acenaphthylene
120 1
- 27
- Anthracene BRL a pg kg
/ dry 190 0.
214 1
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 190 0.
458 1
56-55-
3 Benzo (a)anthracene
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 190 0.
243 1
50-328- Benzo (a)pyrene
BRL a
pg kg
/ dry 190 0.
944 1
205-90 2
- Benzo (b)fluoranthene
191 -24 2
- Benzo (g,
i)
h,perylene BRL a pg kg
/ dry 190 0.
200 1
BRL a
pg kg
/ dry 190 0.
286 1
207 0- 8-9 Benzo (k)fluoranthene
218 -01-9 Chrysene BRL a
pg kg
/ dry 190 0.
100 1
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 190 0.
114 1
53-70-
3 Dibenzo (a,
h)anthracene
206 -44 0
- Fluoranthene BRL a pg kg
/ dry 190 0.
172 1
86 13
- 7- Fluorene BRL a pg kg
/ dry 190 0.
172 1
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 190 0.
329 1
193 3
- 05 Indeno (3
1,
2,cd)
- pyrene
90 12
- 0- 1-Methylnaphthalene BRL a pg kg
/ dry 190 0.
157 1
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 190 0.
157 1
91 -57-6 2-Methylnaphthalene
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 190 0.
272 1
91-20 3
- Naphthalene
85-
8 01- Phenanthrene BRL a pg kg
/ dry 190 0.
329 1
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 190 0.
500 1
129 0
- 00
- Pyrene
321 -60 8- 2-Fluorobiphenyl 79 30-
130%
1718 91-
- 0 Terphenyl-t14 76 30-
130%

- 22-Aug 08
- 8081807
Moisture 36.0 1 SM2540 G Mod. 28-Aug08
- 28-Aug 08
- 8082260
calculation

2ABC PAH
-
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0811:50 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 05
-

PAHs by SW846 8270C

83 32-
/ dry 353 0.
318 1 SW846 8270C 26-Aug08
- 26-Aug 08
- 8081957
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 353 0.
398 1
208 -96 8
- Acenaphthylene
120 1
- 27
/ dry 353 0.
398 1
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 353 0.
849 1
56-55-
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 353 0.
451 1
BRL a
pg kg
/ dry 353 1.
75 1
205-90 2
191 -24 2
- Benzo (g,
i)
/ dry 353 0.
371 1
BRL a
pg kg
/ dry 353 0.
531 1
pg kg
/ dry 353 0.
186 1
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 353 0.
212 1
53-70-
3 Dibenzo (a,
h)anthracene
206 -44 0
/ dry 353 0.
318 1
86 13
/ dry 353 0.
318 1
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 353 0.
610 1
193 3
- 05 Indeno (3
1,
2,cd)
- pyrene
90 12
/ dry 353 0.
292 1
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 353 0.
292 1
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 353 0.
504 1
91-20 3
- Naphthalene
85-
/ dry 353 0.
610 1
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 353 0.
928 1
129 0
- 00
- Pyrene
130%
1718 91-
130%

- 22-Aug 08
- 8081807
- 28-Aug 08
- 8082260
calculation

3ABC PAH
-
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0815:30 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 06
-

PAHs by SW846 8270C

83 32-
/ dry 440 0.
397 1 SW846 8270C 26-Aug08
- 26-Aug 08
- 8081957
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 440 0.
496 1
208 -96 8
- Acenaphthylene
120 1
- 27
/ dry 440 0.
496 1
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 440 1.
06 1
56-55-
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 440 0.
562 1
BRL a
pg kg
/ dry 440 2.
18 1
205-90 2
191 -24 2
- Benzo (g,
i)
/ dry 440 0.
463 1
BRL a
pg kg
/ dry 440 0.
661 1
pg kg
/ dry 440 0.
231 1
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 440 0.
264 1
53-70-
3 Dibenzo (a,
h)anthracene
206 -44 0
/ dry 440 0.
397 1
86 13
/ dry 440 0.
397 1
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 440 0.
760 1
193 3
- 05 Indeno (3
1,
2,cd)
- pyrene
90 12
/ dry 440 0.
364 1
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 440 0.
364 1
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 440 0.
628 1
91-20 3
- Naphthalene
85-
/ dry 440 0.
760 1
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 440 1.
16 1
129 0
- 00
- Pyrene
130%
1718 91-
130%

- 22-Aug 08
- 8081807
- 28-Aug 08
- 8082260
calculation

1C
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0811:00 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 07
-
CASNo. Analytels) Result Flag Units RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert
Volatile Organic Compounds

VOC Extraction Field extracted N/A 1 VOC Soil 22-Aug08
- 22-Aug 08
- 8081806
Extraction
Initial weight: 13.8 g
Prepared by method SW846 5030 Soil (high level)
76-
13 1
-
1,
21,Trichlorotrifluoroethane
- (Fre BRL a pg kg
/ dry 105 43.2 50 SW 84682608 25-Aug08
- 26-Aug 08
- 8081900
113)
67 04
- 1- Acetone BRL a pg kgdry
/ 1050 925 50 "
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 85.4 50 "
107 1
- 3 1- Acrylonitrile
11 -43 2
- Benzene BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 11.6 50 "
108 8
- 01
- Bromobenzene BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 16.9 50 "
14 91
- 5- Brom ochlorom ethane BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 9.5 50 "
15 21
- 4- Brom odichlorom ethane BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 6.3 50 "
15 25
- 2- Bromoform BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 19.0 50 "
14 83
- 9- Bromomethane BRL a pg kgdry
/ 211 21.1 50 "
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 1050 74.9 50 "
7893 3
- 2-Butanone(MEIQ
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 9.5 50 "
104 5- 1-8 n-Butylbenzene
BRL a
pg kgdry
/ 105 12.7 50 "
135 9
- 88
- sec -Butylbenzene
98 00
- 0- tert-Butylbenzene BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 9.5 50 "
15 15
- 0- Carbon disulfide BRL a
pg kg
/ dry 527 9.5 50 "
50 23
- 5- Carbon tetrachloride BRL a pg kg
/ dry 105 10.5 50 "
108 9
- 07
- Chlorobenzene BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 13.7 50 "
15 00
- 3- Chloroethane BRL a pg kgdry
/ 211 23.2 50 "
07 00
- 3- Chloroform BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 8.4 50 "
14 87
- 3- Chloromethane BRL a pg kgdry
/ 211 9.5 50 "
95 49
- 8- 2-Chlorotoluene BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 10.5 50 "
100 4
- 34
- 4-Chlorotoluene BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 12.7 50 "
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 211 24.3 50 "
90 12
- 8- 1,2-Dibromo 3-
- chloropropane
124 4
- 81
- Dibromochlorom ethane BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 15.8 50 "
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 7.4 50 "
100 9- 3-4 1,2-Dibromoethane(EDB)
14 95
- 3- Dibromomethane BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 10.5 50 "
95 50
- 1- 1,2-Dichlorobenzene BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 24.3 50 "
541 -73 1
- 1,3-Dichlorobenzene BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 10.5 50 "
100 4
- 07
- 1,4-Dichlorobenzene BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 14.8 50 "
a pg kg
/ dry 211 13.7 50 "
15 1- 1-8 Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freonl: BRL
75 34
- 3- 1,1-Dichloroethane BRL a
pg kgdry
/ 105 7.4 50 "
107 0
- 02
- 1,2-Dichloroethane BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 9.5 50 "
BRL a
pg kgdry
/ 105 8.4 50 "
75 35
- 4- 1,1-Dichloroethene
150 5
- 92
- cis 1,
- 2-
Dichloroethene BRL a
pg kgdry
/ 105 7.4 50 "
150 0
- 05
- trans-1,2-Dichloroethene BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 10.5 50 "
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 9.5 50 "
78 87
- 5- 1,2-Dichloropropane
142 2
- 89
- 1,3-Dichloropropane BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 9.5 50 "
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 78.0 50 "
594 -20 7
- 2,2-Dichloropropane
503 -58 0
- 1,1-Dichloropropene BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 13.7 50 "
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 12.7 50 "
10061 0
-15
- cis 1,
- 3-
Dichloropropene
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 9.5 50 "
10061 0
- 2 0- 3-
trans-1,
Dichloropropene
100 4- 1-4 Ethylbenzene BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 12.7 50 "
87 08
- 3- Hexachlorobutadiene BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 16.9 50 "
591 7
- 80
- 2-Hexanone(MBIO BRL a pg kgdry
/ 1050 13.7 50 "
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 13.7 50 "
98 82
- 8- Isopropylbenzene
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 12.7 50 "
99 87
- 0- 4-Isopropyltoluene
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 105 10.5 50 "
1034 0
- 44 Methyl tert-butyl ether
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 1050 11.6 50 "
108 1
- 0 1- 4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBIO
BRL a
pg kg
/ dry 1050 50.6 50 "
75 09
- 2- Methylene chloride
Thislaboratory report is notvatidwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage.

1C
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0811:00 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 07
-
CASNo. Analytels) Result Flag Units * RDL MDL Dilution MethodRef. Prepared Analyzed Batch Cert

Prepared by method SW846 5030 Soil high level)
91-20 3
- Naphthalene BRL a pg kg
/ dry 105 19.0 50 SW 846 82608 25-Aug08
- 26-Aug 08
- 8081900
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 14.8 50 "
103 6
- 5 1- n-Propylbenzene
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 97.0 50 "
100 4
- 25
- Styrene
630 -20 6
- 1,
1,Tetrachloroethane
2 - BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 17.9 50 "
19 34
- 5- 1,
2,
1,Tetrachloroethane
2 - BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 16.9 50 "
121 1
- 84
- Tetrachloroethene BRL a
pg kgdry
/ 105 6.3 50 "
108 8
- 83
- Toluene BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 16.9 50 "
BRL a
pg kgdry
/ 105 13.7 50 "
87 61-
- 6 1,
32,Trichlorobenzene
-
120 8
- 2 1- 1,
42,Trichlorobenzene
- BRL a
pg kgdry
/ 105 8.4 50 "
108 7
- 03
- 1,
53,Trichlorobenzene
- BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 33.7 50 "
71 -55 6
- 1,
11, Trichloroethane
- BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 55.9 50 "
19 00
- 5- 1,
21,Trichloroethane
- BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 98.1 50 "
19 01-
- 6 Trichloroethene BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 48.5 50 "
15 6- 9 4- Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11 BRL a pg kg

/ dry 105 50.6 50 "
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 50.6 50 "
96 18
- 4- 1,
3-
2,Trichloropropane
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 69.6 50 "
95 63
- 6- 1,
42,Trimethylbenzene
-
108 6
- 78
- 1,
53,Trimethylbenzene
- BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 56.9 50 "
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 105 90.7 50 "
15 01-
- 4 Vinyl chloride
179001-23 1rnp-
- Xylene BRL a pg kgdry
/ 211 71.7 50 "
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 105 55.9 50 "
95 41
- 6- o-Xylene
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 1050 43.2 50 "
109 9
- 99
- Tetrahydrofuran
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 105 39.0 50 "
60 29
- 7- Ethyl ether
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 105 40.1 50 "
994 -05 8
- Tert-amyl methyl ether
BRL a
pg kg
/ dry 105 28.5 50 "
637 -92 3
- Ethyl tert-butyl ether
108 2
- 03
- Di-isopropyl ether BRL a pg kg
/ dry 105 31.6 50 "
BRL a
pg kg
/ dry 1050 781 50 "
15 65
- 0- Tert-Butanol / butyl alcohol
123 9
-11
- 1,4-Dioxane BRL a
pg kgdry
/ 2110 514 50 "
110 5
- 16
- trans-1,4-Dichloro 2-
- butene BRL a pg kgdry
/ 527 264 50 "
64 17-
- 5 Ethanol BRL a pg kgdry
/ 42200 7740 50 "
466 6
- 64
- 4-
Bromofluorobenzene 106 70-
130%
2637 26-
- 5 Toluene t8
- 110 70-
130%
1766M7-6 1,
2-Dichloroethane d4
- 114 70 130%
-
1868 53
- 7- Dibromofluoromethane 104 70-
130%
Re-analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds
76 13
- 1
- a pg kg
/ dry 12.6 5.2 1 SW 84682608 26-Aug08
- 26-Aug 08
- 8081976
1,
2-
1,Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Fre BRL
113)
67 64
- 1
- Acetone 255 voc6 pg kgdry
/ 126 110 1"
107 1
- 3 1- Acrylonitrile BRL a pg kgdry
/ 12.6 10.2 1"
11 -43 2
/ 12.6 1.4 1"
100 8
- 61
/ 12.6 2.0 1"
14 91
/ 12.6 1.1 1"
15 21
/ 12.6 0.8 1"
15 25
/ 12.6 2.3 1"
14 83
/ 25.2 2.5 1"
85.5 1 pg kg
/ dry 126 8.9 1"
7893 3
- 2-Butanone (MEIQ
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 12.6 1.1 1"
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 12.6 1.5 1"
135 9
- 88
- sec -Butylbenzene
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 12.6 1.1 1"
98 06
- 6- tert-Butylbenzene
15 15
- 0- Carbon disulfide 5.1 1 pg kg
/ dry 63.0 1.1 1"
Thislaboratory report is notvalidwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage.

1C
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0811:00 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 07
-

Volatile Organic Compounds VC10
Initial weight: 3.
67 g
Prepared by method SW846 5035A Soil low level)
56-
5 23- Carbon tetrachloride BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.3 1 SVV 84682608 26-Aug08
- 26-Aug 08
- 8081976
108 9
- 07
- Chlorobenzene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.6 1
75 00
- 3- Chloroethane BRL U pg kg
/ dry 25.2 2.8 1
67 66
- 3- Chloroform BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.0 1
74 87
- 3- Chloromethane BRL U pg kg
/ dry 25.2 1.1 1
95-
8 49- 2-Chlorotoluene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.3 1
106 4
- 34
- 4-Chlorotoluene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.5 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 25.2 2.9 1
96-128- 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane
124 4
- 81
- Dibromochlorom ethane BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.9 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 0.9 1
74-
3 95- Dibromomethane BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.3 1
95-
1 59-
1,2-Dichlorobenzene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 2.9 1
541 7
- 3 1- 1,3-Dichlorobenzene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.3 1
106 4
- 67
- 1,4-Dichlorobenzene BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.8 1
75-71 8
- Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freonl: BRL U pg kg
/ dry 25.2 1.6 1
75-
34 3
- BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 12.6 0.9 1
1,1-Dichloroethane
107 0
- 62
- 1,2-Dichloroethane BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.1 1
75-354- 1,1-Dichloroethene BRL U pg kg

/ dry 12.6 1.0 1
15659 2
- cis 1,
- 2-
Dichloroethene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 0.9 1
156 6
- 05- trans1,
- 2-Dichloroethene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.3 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.1 1
78 87
443 28-
- 9 1,3-Dichloropropane BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.1 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 9.3 1
594 20
- 7- 2,
2-Dichloropropane
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.6 1
56358 6
- 1,1-Dichloropropene
1006101-
5 - cis 1,
- 3-
Dichloropropene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.5 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.1 1
10061-02- 3-
6 trans-1,
Dichloropropene
400 4- 4-4 Ethylbenzene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.5 1
87 68
- 3- Hexachlorobutadiene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 2.0 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 126 1.6 1
591 7
- 86
- 2-Hexanone (MBO
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.6 1
98 82
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.5 1
99 87
BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.3 1
1634 0
108 1
- 0 1- 4-Methyl2-
- pentanone (MIBO BRL U pg kg
/ dry 126 1.4 1
BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 126 6.0 1
75 09
91 2- 9-3 Naphthalene BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 12.6 2.3 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.8 1
103 6
- 51- n-Propylbenzene
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 11.6 1
400 4
- 25 Styrene
630 2
- 06
- 1,
1,Tetrachloroethane
2 - BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 2.1 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 2.0 1
79-34 5
- 1,
2,
1,Tetrachloroethane
2 -
427 4
- 8-4 Tetrachloroethene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 0.8 1
108 8
- 83
- Toluene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 2.0 1
87 61
- 6- 1,
32,Trichlorobenzene
- BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.6 1
120 8
- 21- 1,
42,Trichlorobenzene
- BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 1.0 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 4.0 1
108 7
- 03
- 1,
53,Trichlorobenzene
-
7155-6 1,
11, Trichloroethane
- BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 6.7 1
79-
005 1,
21,Trichloroethane
- BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 11.7 1
79 01-
- 6 Trichloroethene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 5.8 1
U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 6.0 1
75 6- 9 4- Trichlorofluoromethane(Freon 11 BRL
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 12.6 6.0 1
95 1,
3-
2,Trichloropropane

1C
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0811:00 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 07
-

Initial weight: 3.
67 g
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 12.6 8.3 1 SW 84682608 26-Aug08
- 26-Aug-088081976
95 63
- 6- 1,
42,Trimethylbenzene
-
198 6
- 78
- 1,
53,Trimethylbenzene
- BRL a pg kgdry
/ 12.6 6.8 1"
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 12.6 10.8 1"
15 91-
- 4 Vinyl chloride
179691-23 1rnp-
/ 25.2 8.6 1"
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 12.6 6.7 1"
95 41
- 6- o-Xylene
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 126 5.2 1"
199 9
- 99
- Tetrahydrofuran
69 29-
- Ethyl ether BRL a pg kg
/ dry 12.6 4.7 1"
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 12.6 4.8 1"
994 -95 8
637 9
- 2-3 Ethyl tert-butyl ether BRL a pg kg
/ dry 12.6 3.4 1"
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 12.6 3.8 1"
198 2
- 9- Di-isopropyl ether
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 126 93.3 1"
15 65
123 9- 1-1 1,4-Dioxane BRL a pg kgdry
/ 252 61.3 1"
119 5
- 16
/ 63.0 31.5 1"
64 17-
- 5 Ethanol BRL a
pg kgdry
/ 5040 925 1"
460 0
- 04
- 4-
130%
2037 26-
- 5 Toluene t8
- 9898 70-
130%
17060 07-
- 0 1,2-Dichloroethane d4
- 120120 70-
130%
1868-53 7
- Dibromofluoromethane 101101 70-
130%

Solids 67.1 soy % 1 SM2540 G Mod. 22-Aug08
- 22-Aug 08
- 8081807

2B
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0811:50 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 08
-

VOC Extraction Field extracted N/A 11 VOCVOC SoilSoil 22-22-AugAug
- 08
- 08 22-22-AugAug
- 08- 08 80818068081806
ExtractionExtraction
InitialInitial weight:weight: 12.34 gg
56-
13 1
-
1,
2-
1,Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Fre BRL UU pgpg/ kg
/ kg drydry 256256 105105 5050 SWSW 846846 8260882608 25-25-AugAug
- 08
- 08 26-26-AugAug
- 08- 08 80819008081900
113)
61 64
- 1- Acetone BRL UU pgpg/ kg
/ kg dry 2560
2560 2250 50
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 256 207 50
105 1
51 -4E-2 Benzene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 256 28.2 50
108 8
- 61
- Bromobenzene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 256 41.0 50
14 91
- 5- Brom ochlorom ethane BRL U pg kg
/ dry 256 23.0 50
15 2
- 4- Brom odichlorom ethane BRL U pg kg
/ dry 256 15.4 50
75-
2 25- Bromoform BRL U pg kg
/ dry 256 46.1 50
14 83
- 9- Bromomethane BRL U pg kg
/ dry 512 51.2 50
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 2560 182 50
7893 3
- 2-Butanone (MEIQ
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 256 23.0 50
104-51 8
- n-Butylbenzene
BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 256 30.7 50
135-98 8
- sec -Butylbenzene
98 06
- 6- tert-Butylbenzene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 256 23.0 50
55-
0 15- Carbon disulfide BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 1280 23.0 50
56.235 Carbon tetrachloride BRL U pg kg

/ dry 256 25.6 50
108 9
- 07
/ dry 256 33.3 50
15 00
/ dry 512 56.3 50
61 66
/ dry 256 20.5 50
14 81
/ dry 512 23.0 50
95-
/ dry 256 25.6 50
106 4
- 34
/ dry 256 30.7 50
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 512 58.9 50
96.128- 1,2-Dibromo 3-
- chloropropane
124 4
- 81
/ dry 256 38.4 50
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 256 17.9 50
106 5- 3-4 1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB)
74-
/ dry 256 25.6 50
9550-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene BRL U pg kg

/ dry 256 58.9 50
541 5
/ dry 256 25.6 50
106 4
- 67
- 1,4-Dichlorobenzene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 256 35.8 50
U pg kg
/ dry 512 33.3 50
75-71 8
- Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freonl: BRL
75-
34 3
-
1,1-Dichloroethane BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 256 17.9 50
101 0
- 62
/ dry 256 23.0 50
BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 256 20.5 50
55-35-
4 1,1-Dichloroethene
156-50 2
- cis 1,
- 2-
Dichloroethene BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 256 17.9 50
156 6- 0-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene BRL U pg kg

/ dry 256 25.6 50
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 256 23.0 50
18 81
142 28-
/ dry 256 23.0 50
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 256 189 50
504 2- 0 5
563-58 6
- 1,1-Dichloropropene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 256 33.3 50
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 256 30.7 50
10061-01- cis 1,
5 - 3-
Dichloropropene
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 256 23.0 50
10061-02- 3-
6 trans-1,
Dichloropropene
/ dry 256 30.7 50
81 68
/ dry 256 41.0 50
501 5
- 86
- 2-Hexanone (MBIO BRL U pg kg
/ dry 2560 33.3 50
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 256 33.3 50
98 82
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 256 30.7 50
99 81
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 256 25.6 50
1634 0
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 2560 28.2 50
108 1
- 0 1- 4-Methyl2-
- pentanone (MIBIO
BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 2560 123 50
15 09

2B
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0811:50 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 08
-

91-20 3
- Naphthalene BRL a pg kg
/ dry 256 46.1 50 SW 846 82608 25-Aug08
- 26-Aug 08
- 8081900
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 256 35.8 50 "
103 6
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 256 236 50 "
100 4
- 25
- Styrene
630 -20 6
- 1,
1,Tetrachloroethane
2 - BRL a pg kgdry
/ 256 43.5 50 "
19 34
- 5- 1,
2,
1,Tetrachloroethane
2 - BRL a pg kgdry
/ 256 41.0 50 "
121 1
- 84
pg kgdry
/ 256 15.4 50 "
108 8
- 83
/ 256 41.0 50 "
BRL a
pg kgdry
/ 256 33.3 50 "
87 61-
- 6 1,
32,Trichlorobenzene
-
120 8
- 2 1- 1,
42,Trichlorobenzene
- BRL a
pg kgdry
/ 256 20.5 50 "
108 7
- 03
- 1,
53,Trichlorobenzene
- BRL a pg kgdry
/ 256 81.9 50 "
71 -55 6
- 1,
11, Trichloroethane
- BRL a pg kgdry
/ 256 136 50 "
19 00
- 5- 1,
21,Trichloroethane
- BRL a pg kgdry
/ 256 238 50 "
19 01-
/ 256 118 50 "

/ dry 256 123 50 "
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 256 123 50 "
96 18
- 4- 1,
3-
2,Trichloropropane
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 256 169 50 "
95 63
- 6- 1,
42,Trimethylbenzene
-
108 6
- 78
- 1,
53,Trimethylbenzene
- BRL a pg kgdry
/ 256 138 50 "
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 256 220 50 "
15 01-
- 4 Vinyl chloride
179601-23 1rnp-
/ 512 174 50 "
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 256 136 50 "
95 41
- 6- o-Xylene
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 2560 105 50 "
109 9
- 99
- Tetrahydrofuran
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 256 94.7 50 "
60 29
- 7- Ethyl ether
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 256 97.3 50 "
994 -05 8
BRL a
pg kg
/ dry 256 69.1 50 "
637 -92 3
108 2
- 03
/ dry 256 76.8 50 "
BRL a
pg kg
/ dry 2560 1900 50 "
15 65
123 9
-11
- 1,4-Dioxane BRL a
pg kgdry
/ 5120 1250 50 "
110 5
- 16
/ 1280 640 50 "
64 17-
/ 102000 18800 50 "
466 6
- 64
- 4-
130%
2637 26-
- 5 Toluene t8
- 111 70-
130%
1766M7-6 1,
2-Dichloroethane d4
- 109 70 130%
-
1868 53
130%
76 13
- 1
- a pg kg
/ dry 27.7 11.4 1 SW 84682608 26-Aug08
- 27-Aug 08
- 8081976
1,
2-
113)
67 64
- 1
/ 277 243 1"
107 1
/ 27.7 22.5 1"
11 -43 2
/ 27.7 3.1 1"
100 8
- 61
/ 27.7 4.4 1"
14 91
/ 27.7 2.5 1"
15 21
/ 27.7 1.7 1"
15 25
/ 27.7 5.0 1"
14 83
/ 55.5 5.5 1"
113 1 pg kg
/ dry 277 19.7 1"
7893 3
- 2-Butanone (MEIQ
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 27.7 2.5 1"
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 27.7 3.3 1"
135 9
- 88
- sec -Butylbenzene
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 27.7 2.5 1"
98 06
15 15
- 0- Carbon disulfide BRL a pg kg
/ dry 139 2.5 1"

2B
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0811:50 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 08
-

Initial weight: 3.
65 g
56-
/ dry 27.7
27.7 2.8 1 SVV 84682608 26-Aug08
- 27-Aug 08
- 8081976
198 9
- 97
/ dry 27.7 3.6 1
15 99
/ dry 55.5 6.1 1
67 66
/ dry 27.7 2.2 1
14 87
/ dry 55.5 2.5 1
95-
/ dry 27.7 2.8 1
106 4
- 34
/ dry 27.7 3.3 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 55.5 6.4 1
124 4
- 81
/ dry 27.7 4.2 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.7 1.9 1
54-
/ dry 27.7 2.8 1
95-
1 59-
/ dry 27.7 6.4 1
541 5
/ dry 27.7 2.8 1
196 4
- 67
pg kg
/ dry 27.7 3.9 1
15-11 8
/ dry 55.5 3.6 1
75-
343
- BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 27.7 1.9 1
1,1-Dichloroethane
197 9
- 62
/ dry 27.7 2.5 1

/ dry 27.7 2.2 1
15659 2
- cis 1,
- 2-
/ dry 27.7 1.9 1
156 6
- 95 trans1,
/ dry 27.7 2.8 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.7 2.5 1
78 87
142 28-
/ dry 27.7 2.5 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.7 20.5 1
594 29
- 5- 2,
2-Dichloropropane
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.7 3.6 1
56358 6
1006101-
5 - cis 1,
- 3-
/ dry 27.7 3.3 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.7 2.5 1
10061-02- 3-
6 trans-1,
Dichloropropene
/ dry 27.7 3.3 1
87 68
/ dry 27.7 4.4 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 277 3.6 1
591 5
- 86
- 2-Hexanone (MBO
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.7 3.6 1
98 82
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.7 3.3 1
99 87
BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 27.7 2.8 1
1634 9
198 1
- 9 1- 4-Methyl2-
/ dry 277 3.1 1
BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 277 13.3 1
15 99-
- 2 Methylene chloride
pg kg
/ dry 27.7 5.0 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.7 3.9 1
193 6
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.7 25.5 1
199 4
- 25 Styrene
639 2
- 96
- 1,
1,Tetrachloroethane
2 - BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.7 4.7 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.7 4.4 1
5 9-
345 1,
2,
1,Tetrachloroethane
2 -
121 1
/ dry 27.7 1.7 1
198 8
- 83
/ dry 27.7 4.4 1
85 61
- 6- 1,
32,Trichlorobenzene
- BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.7 3.6 1
129 8
- 21- 1,
42,Trichlorobenzene
- BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.7 2.2 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.7 8.9 1
198 7
- 93
- 1,
53,Trichlorobenzene
-
7155-6 1,
11, Trichloroethane
- BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.7 14.7 1
79-
995 1,
21,Trichloroethane
- BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.7 25.8 1
19 91-
/ dry 27.7 12.8 1
U pg kg
/ dry 27.7 13.3 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.7 13.3 1
96-184 1,
3-
2,Trichloropropane

2B
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0811:50 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 08
-

Initial weight: 3.
65 g
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 27.7 18.3 1 SW 84682608 26-Aug08
- 27-Aug-088081976
95 63
- 6- 1,
42,Trimethylbenzene
-
198 6
- 78
- 1,
53,Trimethylbenzene
- BRL a pg kgdry
/ 27.7 15.0 1"
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 27.7 23.8 1"
15 91-
- 4 Vinyl chloride
179601-23 1rnp-
/ 55.5 18.9 1"
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 27.7 14.7 1"
95 41
- 6- o-Xylene
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 277 11.4 1"
199 9
- 99
- Tetrahydrofuran
69 29-
/ dry 27.7 10.3 1"
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 27.7 10.5 1"
994 -95 8
637 9
/ dry 27.7 7.5 1"
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 27.7 8.3 1"
198 2
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 277 205 1"
15 65
/ 555 135 1"
119 5
- 16
/ 139 69.3 1"
64 17-
- 5 Ethanol BRL a
pg kgdry
/ 11100 2040 1"
466 6
- 64
- 4-
130%
2637 26-
- 5 Toluene t8
- 9999 70-
130%
1706M7-0 1,2-Dichloroethane d4
- 111111 70-
130%
1868-53 7
130%

Solids 36.2 soya % 1 SM2540 G Mod. 22-Aug08
- 22-Aug 08
- 8081807

3C
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0815:30 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 09
-

VOC Extraction Field extracted N/A 11 VOCVOC SoilSoil 22-22-AugAug
- 08
- 08 22-22-AugAug
- 08- 08 80818068081806
ExtractionExtraction
InitialInitial weight:weight: 14.21 gg
56-
13 1
-
1,
2-
1,Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Fre BRL UU pgpg/ kg
/ kg drydry 305305 125125 5050 SWSW 846846 8260882608 25-25-AugAug
- 08
- 08 26-26-AugAug
- 08- 08 80819008081900
113)
61 64
- 1- Acetone BRL UU pgpg/ kg
/ kg dry 3050
3050 2680 50
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 305 247 50
105 1
51 -4E-2 Benzene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 305 33.6 50
108 8
- 61
- Bromobenzene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 305 48.9 50
14 91
- 5- Brom ochlorom ethane BRL U pg kg
/ dry 305 27.5 50
15 2
- 4- Brom odichlorom ethane BRL U pg kg
/ dry 305 18.3 50
75-
2 25- Bromoform BRL U pg kg
/ dry 305 55.0 50
14 83
- 9- Bromomethane BRL U pg kg
/ dry 611 61.1 50
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 3050 217 50
7893 3
- 2-Butanone (MEIQ
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 305 27.5 50
104-51 8
- n-Butylbenzene
BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 305 36.6 50
135-98 8
- sec -Butylbenzene
98 06
- 6- tert-Butylbenzene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 305 27.5 50
55-
0 15- Carbon disulfide BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 1530 27.5 50
56.235 Carbon tetrachloride BRL U pg kg

/ dry 305 30.5 50
108 9
- 07
/ dry 305 39.7 50
15 00
/ dry 611 67.2 50
61 66
/ dry 305 24.4 50
14 81
/ dry 611 27.5 50
95-
/ dry 305 30.5 50
106 4
- 34
/ dry 305 36.6 50
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 611 70.2 50
96.128- 1,2-Dibromo 3-
- chloropropane
124 4
- 81
/ dry 305 45.8 50
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 305 21.4 50
74-
/ dry 305 30.5 50
9550-1 1,2-Dichlorobenzene BRL U pg kg

/ dry 305 70.2 50
541 5
/ dry 305 30.5 50
106 4
- 67
- 1,4-Dichlorobenzene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 305 42.8 50
U pg kg
/ dry 611 39.7 50
75-71 8
- Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freonl: BRL
75-
34 3
-
1,1-Dichloroethane BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 305 21.4 50
101 0
- 62
/ dry 305 27.5 50
BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 305 24.4 50
55-35-
4 1,1-Dichloroethene
156-50 2
- cis 1,
- 2-
Dichloroethene BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 305 21.4 50
156 6- 0-5 trans-1,2-Dichloroethene BRL U pg kg

/ dry 305 30.5 50
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 305 27.5 50
18 81
142 28-
/ dry 305 27.5 50
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 305 226 50
504 2- 0 5
563-58 6
- 1,1-Dichloropropene BRL U pg kg
/ dry 305 39.7 50
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 305 36.6 50
10061-01- cis 1,
5 - 3-
Dichloropropene
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 305 27.5 50
10061-02- 3-
6 trans-1,
Dichloropropene
/ dry 305 36.6 50
81 68
/ dry 305 48.9 50
501 5
- 86
- 2-Hexanone (MBIO BRL U pg kg
/ dry 3050 39.7 50
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 305 39.7 50
98 82
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 305 36.6 50
99 81
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 305 30.5 50
1634 0
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 3050 33.6 50
108 1
- 0 1- 4-Methyl2-
- pentanone (MIBIO
BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 3050 147 50
15 09

3C
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0815:30 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 09
-

91-20 3
- Naphthalene 202 1 pg kg
/ dry 305 55.0 50 SW 846 8260B 25-Aug08
- 26-Aug 08
- 8081900
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 305 42.8 50 "
103 6
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 305 281 50 "
100 4
- 25
- Styrene
630 -20 6
- 1,
1,Tetrachloroethane
2 - BRL a pg kgdry
/ 305 51.9 50 "
19 34
- 5- 1,
2,
1,Tetrachloroethane
2 - BRL a pg kgdry
/ 305 48.9 50 "
121 1
- 84
pg kgdry
/ 305 18.3 50 "
108 8
- 83
/ 305 48.9 50 "
BRL a
pg kgdry
/ 305 39.7 50 "
87 61-
- 6 1,
32,Trichlorobenzene
-
120 8
- 2 1- 1,
42,Trichlorobenzene
- BRL a
pg kgdry
/ 305 24.4 50 "
108 7
- 03
- 1,
53,Trichlorobenzene
- BRL a pg kgdry
/ 305 97.7 50 "
71 -55 6
- 1,
11, Trichloroethane
- BRL a pg kgdry
/ 305 162 50 "
19 00
- 5- 1,
21,Trichloroethane
- BRL a pg kgdry
/ 305 284 50 "
19 01-
/ 305 140 50 "

/ dry 305 147 50 "
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 305 147 50 "
96 18
- 4- 1,
3-
2,Trichloropropane
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 305 202 50 "
95 63
- 6- 1,
42,Trimethylbenzene
-
108 6
- 78
- 1,
53,Trimethylbenzene
- BRL a pg kgdry
/ 305 165 50 "
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 305 263 50 "
15 01-
- 4 Vinyl chloride
179001-23 1rnp-
/ 611 208 50 "
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 305 162 50 "
95 41
- 6- o-Xylene
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 3050 125 50 "
109 9
- 99
- Tetrahydrofuran
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 305 113 50 "
60 29
- 7- Ethyl ether
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 305 116 50 "
994 -05 8
BRL a
pg kg
/ dry 305 82.5 50 "
637 -92 3
108 2
- 03
/ dry 305 91.6 50 "
BRL a
pg kg
/ dry 3050 2260 50 "
15 65
123 9
-11
- 1,4-Dioxane BRL a
pg kgdry
/ 6110 1490 50 "
110 5
- 16
/ 1530 763 50 "
64 17-
/ 122000 22400 50 "
466 6
- 64
- 4-
130%
2637 26-
- 5 Toluene t8
- 109 70-
130%
1766M7-6 1,
2-Dichloroethane d4
- 104 70 130%
-
1868 53
130%
76 13
- 1
- a pg kg
/ dry 27.6 11.3 1 SW 84682608 26-Aug08
- 27-Aug 08
- 8081976
1,
2-
113)
67 64
- 1
/ 276 242 1"
107 1
/ 27.6 22.3 1"
11 -43 2
/ 27.6 3.0 1"
100 8
- 61
/ 27.6 4.4 1"
14 91
/ 27.6 2.5 1"
15 21
/ 27.6 1.7 1"
15 25
/ 27.6 5.0 1"
14 83
/ 55.2 5.5 1"
136 1 pg kg
/ dry 276 19.6 1"
7893 3
- 2-Butanone (MEIQ
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 27.6 2.5 1"
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 27.6 3.3 1"
135 9
- 88
- sec -Butylbenzene
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 27.6 2.5 1"
98 06
15 15
- 0- Carbon disulfide 7.9 1 pg kg
/ dry 138 2.5 1"

3C
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0815:30 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 09
-

Initial weight: 5.
65 g
56-
/ dry 27.6
27.6 2.8 1 SW 846 82608 26-Aug08
- 27-Aug 08
- 8081976
198 9
- 97
/ dry 27.6 3.6 1
15 99
/ dry 55.2 6.1 1
67 66
/ dry 27.6 2.2 1
14 87
/ dry 55.2 2.5 1
95-
/ dry 27.6 2.8 1
106 4
- 34
/ dry 27.6 3.3 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 55.2 6.3 1
424 4
- 81
/ dry 27.6 4.1 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 1.9 1
54-
/ dry 27.6 2.8 1
95-
1 59-
/ dry 27.6 6.3 1
541 5
/ dry 27.6 2.8 1
196 4
- 67
pg kg
/ dry 27.6 3.9 1
15-11 8
/ dry 55.2 3.6 1
55-
34 3
- BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 27.6 1.9 1
1,1-Dichloroethane
197 9
- 62
/ dry 27.6 2.5 1

/ dry 27.6 2.2 1
15659 2
- cis 1,
- 2-
/ dry 27.6 1.9 1
156 6
- 95 trans1,
/ dry 27.6 2.8 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 2.5 1
78 87
443 28
- 1,3-Dichloropropane BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 2.5 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 20.4 1
594 29
- 5- 2,
2-Dichloropropane
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 3.6 1
56358 6
1006101-
5 - cis 1,
- 3-
/ dry 27.6 3.3 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 2.5 1
10061-02- 3-
6 trans-1,
Dichloropropene
/ dry 27.6 3.3 1
87 68
/ dry 27.6 4.4 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 276 3.6 1
591 5
- 86
- 2-Hexanone (MBO
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 3.6 1
98 82
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 3.3 1
99 87
BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 27.6 2.8 1
1634 9
198 1
- 9 1- 4-Methyl2-
/ dry 276 3.0 1
BRL U
pg kg
/ dry 276 13.2 1
15 99-
- 2 Methylene chloride
pg kg
/ dry 27.6 5.0 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 3.9 1
193 6
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 25.4 1
499 4
- 25 Styrene
639 2
- 96
- 1,
1,Tetrachloroethane
2 - BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 4.7 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 4.4 1
5 9-
345 1,
2,
1,Tetrachloroethane
2 -
423 4
/ dry 27.6 1.7 1
198 8
- 83
/ dry 27.6 4.4 1
85 61
- 6- 1,
32,Trichlorobenzene
- BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 3.6 1
129 8
- 21- 1,
42,Trichlorobenzene
- BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 2.2 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 8.8 1
198 7
- 93
- 1,
53,Trichlorobenzene
-
7155-6 1,
11, Trichloroethane
- BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 14.6 1
79-
995 1,
21,Trichloroethane
- BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 25.7 1
19 91-
/ dry 27.6 12.7 1
U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 13.2 1
BRL U pg kg
/ dry 27.6 13.2 1
95 1,
3-
2,Trichloropropane

3C
01.
100019547. Sediment 20 A
- ug-0815:30 21-Aug 08
-
SA83491 09
-

Initial weight: 5.
65 g
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 27.6 18.2 1 SW 84682608 26-Aug08
- 27-Aug-088081976
95 63
- 6- 1,
42,Trimethylbenzene
-
198 6
- 78
- 1,
53,Trimethylbenzene
- BRL a pg kgdry
/ 27.6 14.9 1"
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 27.6 23.7 1"
15 91-
- 4 Vinyl chloride
179691-23 1rnp-
/ 55.2 18.8 1"
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 27.6 14.6 1"
95 41
- 6- o-Xylene
BRL a pg kgdry
/ 276 11.3 1"
199 9
- 99
- Tetrahydrofuran
69 29-
/ dry 27.6 10.2 1"
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 27.6 10.5 1"
994 -95 8
637 9
/ dry 27.6 7.4 1"
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 27.6 8.3 1"
198 2
BRL a pg kg
/ dry 276 204 1"
15 65
/ 552 134 1"
119 5
- 16
/ 138 69.0 1"
64 17-
- 5 Ethanol BRL a
pg kgdry
/ 11000 2030 1"
460 0
- 04
- 4-
130%
2037 26-
- 5 Toluene t8
- 9797 70-
130%
1706M7-0 1,2-Dichloroethane d4
- 116116 70-
130%
1868-53 7
130%

Solids 28.9 sorbsorb 1 SM2540 G Mod. 22-Aug08
- 22-Aug 08
- 8081807

Volatile Organic Compounds - Quality Control
Spike Source % REC RPD
Analyte(s) Result Flag Units * RDL Level Result % REC Limits RPD Limit
Batch 8081900 - SW846 5030 Soil (high level)
Blank 18081900 BLK11

-
Prepared & Analyzed: 25-Aug 08

-
1,
2-
1,Trichlorotrifluoroeth ane(Freon 113) BRL U
pgft wet 1.0
Acetone BRL U 10.0

pgft wet
BRL U 1.0
Acrylonitrile pgft wet
Benzene BRL U 1.0
pgft wet
Bromobenzene BRL U
pgft wet 1.0
Bromochloromethane BRL U
pgft wet 1.0
Bromodichloromethane BRL U 1.0

pgft wet
Bromoforn BRL U 1.0
pgft wet
Bromomethane BRL U 2.0
pgft wet
2-Butanone(MEK) BRL U
pgft wet 10.0
BRL U 1.0
n-Burylbenzene pgft wet
BRL U 1.0
sec -Butylbenzene pgft wet
BRL U 1.0
tert-Butylbenzene pgft wet
Carbon disulfide BRL U
pgft wet 5.0
Carbon tetrachloride BRL U

pgft wet 1.0
Chlorobenzene BRL U 1.0

pgft wet
Chloroethane BRL U 2.0
pgft wet
Chloroform BRL U 1.0
pgft wet
Chloromethane BRL U
pgft wet 2.0
2-Chlorotoluene BRL U 1.0

pgft wet
4-
Chlorotoluene BRL U 1.0
pgft wet
BRL U 2.0
1,2-Dibromo 3-
- chloropropane pgft wet
Dibromochloromethane BRL U
pgft wet 1.0
1,2-Dibromoethane(EDB) BRL U
pgft wet 1.0
Dibromomethane BRL U 1.0

pgft wet
1,2-Dichlorobenzene BRL U 1.0
pgft wet
pgft wet
1,4-Dichlorobenzene BRL U
pgft wet 1.0
BRL U 2.0
Dichlorodifluoromethane(Freonl2) pgft wet
BRL U 1.0
1,1-Dichloroethane pgft wet
1,2-Dichloroethane BRL U 1.0
pgft wet
1,1-Dichloroethene BRL U
pgft wet 1.0
cis 1,
- 2-Dichloroethene BRL U
pgft wet 1.0
BRL U 1.0
trans 1,
- 2-Dichloroethene pgft wet
BRL U 1.0
1,2-Dichloropropane pgft wet
BRL U 1.0
1,3-Dichloropropane pgft wet
2,2-Dichloropropane BRL U
pgft wet 1.0
BRL U 1.0
1,1-Dichloropropene pgft wet
BRL U 1.0
cis 1,
- 3-Dichloropropene pgft wet
BRL U 1.0
trans 1,
- 3-Dichloropropene pgft wet
Ethylbenzene BRL U
pgft wet 1.0
Hexachlorobutadiene BRL U pgft wet 1.0
BRL U 10.0
2-Hexanone(MBK) pgft wet
BRL U 1.0
Isopropylbenzene pgft wet
BRL U 1.0
4-Isopropyltoluene pgft wet
Methyl tert-
butyl ether BRL U
pgft wet 1.0
BRL U 10.0
4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK) pgft wet
BRL U 10.0
Methylene chloride pgft wet
BRL U 1.0
Naphthalene pgft wet
nislaboratory report is notvalidwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage.


-

-
n-Propylbenzene BRL U
pg/kg wet 1.0
BRL U 1.0
Styrene pg/kg wet
BRL U 1.0
1,
1,Tetmchloroethane
2 - pg/kg wet
1,
2,
1,Tetmchloroethane
2 - BRL U 1.0
pg/kg wet
Tetrachloroethene BRL U
pg/kg wet 1.0
Toluene BRL U
pg/kg wet 1.0
BRL U 1.0
1,
32,Tdchlorobenzene
- pg/kg wet
1,
42,Tdchlorobenzene
- BRL U 1.0
pg/kg wet
1,
53,Tdchlorobenzene
- BRL U 1.0
pg/kg wet
1,
11, Tdchloroethane
- BRL U
pg/kg wet 1.0
1,
21,Tdchloroethane
- BRL U 1.0
pg/kg wet
Trichloroethene BRL U 1.0
pg/kg wet
BRL U 1.0
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) pg/kg wet
1,
32,Tdchloropropane
- BRL U
pg/kg wet 1.0
1,
42,Tdmethylbenzene
- BRL U
pg/kg wet 1.0
BRL U 1.0
1,
53,Tdmethylbenzene
- pg/kg wet
BRL U 1.0
Vinyl chloride pg/kg wet
BRL U 2.0
m,p-
Xylene pg/kg wet
o-Xylene BRL U
pg/kg wet 1.0
BRL U 10.0
Tetrahydrofuran pg/kg wet
BRL U 1.0
Ethyl ether pg/kg wet
BRL U 1.0
Tert-amyl methyl ether pg/kg wet
Ethyl tert-
butyl ether BRL U
pg/kg wet 1.0
Di-isopropyl ether BRL U

pg/kg wet 1.0
BRL U 10.0
Tert-Butanol / butyl alcohol pg/kg wet
1,4-Dioxane BRL U 20.0
pg/kg wet
trans 1,
- 4-Dichloro 2-
- butene BRL U 5.0
pg/kg wet
Ethanol BRL U
pg/kg wet 400
Surrogate:4-Bromofluorobenzene 29.1 pg/kg wet 30.0 97 70 130

-
Surrogate: Toluene d8
- 31.1 pg/kg wet 30.0 104 70 130
-
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane d4
- 27.9 pg/kg wet 30.0 93 70 130
-
Surrogate:Dibromofluoromethane 25.9 pg/kg wet 30.0 86 70 130
-
LCS 18081900 BS11

-

-
1,
2-
1,Trichlorotrifluoroeth ane(Freon 113) 20.7 pg/kg wet 20.0 104 7070
- 130
- 130
AcetoneAcetone 19.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 97 15.9 162

-
AcrylonitrileAcrylonitrile 19.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 95 70 130

-
Benzene 20.5 pg/kg wetwet 20.0 102 70 130

-
Bromobenzene 22.4 pg/kg wetwet 20.0 112 70 130

-
Bromochloromethane 22.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 111111 70 130

-
Bromodichloromethane 21.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 107107 7070

- 130
- 130
Bromofonn 20.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 104 7070

- 130
- 130
BromomethaneBromomethane 18.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 91 40.8 154

-
2-2-ButanoneButanone
( ( MEK)MEK) 22.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 111 27.2 154
-
n-Butylbenzene 21.2 pg/kg wetwet 20.0 106 70 130

-
sec -Butylbenzene 22.0 pg/kg wetwet 20.0 110 70 130

-
tert-Butylbenzene 22.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 114114 70 130

-
Carbon disulfide 20.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 102102 7070

- 130
- 130
Carbon tetrachloride 20.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 102 7070

- 130
- 130
ChlorobenzeneChlorobenzene 20.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 104 70 130

-
nislaboratory report is notvalidwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage.

LCS 18081900 BS11

-

-
Chloroethane 18.9 pgft wet 20.0 95 59.1 130
-
Chloroform 18.5 pgft wet 20.0 92 70 130

-
Chloromethane 18.7 pgft wet 20.0 93 70 130

-
2-Chlorotoluene 20.6 pgft wet 20.0 103 70 130

-
4-
Chlorotoluene 21.3 pgft wet 20.0 106 70 130
-
1,2-Dibromo 3-
- chloropropane 15.9 pgft wet 20.0 80 70 130
-
Dibromochloromethane 19.0 pgft wet 20.0 95 67 133

-
1,2-Dibromoethane(EDB) 22.0 pgft wet 20.0 110 70 130

-
Dibromomethane 21.4 pgft wet 20.0 107 70 130

-
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 21.5 pgft wet 20.0 108 70 130

-

-

-
Dichlorodifluoromethane(Freonl2) 21.0 pgft wet 20.0 105 33.9 180

-
1,1-Dichloroethane 19.3 pgft wet 20.0 97 70 130

-

-
1,1-Dichloroethene 19.0 pgft wet 20.0 95 70 130

-
cis 1,
- 2-Dichloroethene 20.0 pgft wet 20.0 100 70 130
-
trans 1,
-
1,2-Dichloropropane 21.1 pgft wet 20.0 106 70 130

-

-

-
1,1-Dichloropropene 19.4 pgft wet 20.0 97 70 130

-
cis 1,
- 3-Dichloropropene 22.6 pgft wet 20.0 113 70 130
-
trans 1,
-
Ethylbenzene 21.4 pgft wet 20.0 107 70 130

-
Hexachlorobutadiene 19.3 pgft wet 20.0 97 57 138

-
2-Hexanone(MBK) 21.5 pgft wet 20.0 108 70 130

-
Isopropylbenzene 19.9 pgft wet 20.0 100 70 130

-
4-Isopropyltoluene 22.0 pgft wet 20.0 110 70 130

-
Methyl tert-
butyl ether 20.6 pgft wet 20.0 103 70 130
-
4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK) 20.9 pgft wet 20.0 104 55.4 131

-
Methylene chloride 20.6 pgft wet 20.0 103 70 130

-
Naphthalene 21.8 pgft wet 20.0 109 70 130

-
n-Propylbenzene 21.0 pgft wet 20.0 105 70 130

-
Styrene 23.4 pgft wet 20.0 117 70 130

-
1,
1,Tetmchloroethane
2 - 16.8 pgft wet 20.0 84 70 130
-
1,
2,
1,Tetmchloroethane
2 - 21.6 pgft wet 20.0 108 70 130
-
Tetrachloroethene 20.2 pgft wet 20.0 101 70 130

-
Toluene 20.6 pgft wet 20.0 103 70 130

-
1,
32,Tdchlorobenzene
- 23.8 pgft wet 20.0 119 70 130
-
1,
42,Tdchlorobenzene
- 21.0 pgft wet 20.0 105 70 130
-
1,
53,Tdchlorobenzene
- 18.7 pgft wet 20.0 93 70 130
-
1,
11, Tdchloroethane
- 19.2 pgft wet 20.0 96 70 130
-
1,
21,Tdchloroethane
- 21.7 pgft wet 20.0 109 70 130
-
Trichloroethene 19.5 pgft wet 20.0 97 70 130

-
Trichlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) 18.5 pgft wet 20.0 92 52 154

-
1,
32,Tdchloropropane
- 23.9 pgft wet 20.0 119 70 130
-
1,
42,Tdmethylbenzene
- 22.4 pgft wet 20.0 112 70 130
-
1,
53,Tdmethylbenzene
- 21.9 pgft wet 20.0 109 70 130
-

LCS 18081900 BS11

-

-
Vinyl chloride 20.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 130
-
m,p-
Xylene 42.3 pg/kg wet 40.0 106 70 130
-
o-Xylene 22.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 112 70 130

-
Tetrahydrofuran 22.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 111 70 130

-
Ethyl ether 19.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 96 65.7 131

-
Tert-amyl methyl ether 19.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 96 70 130

-
Ethyl tert-
butyl ether 22.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 111 70 130
-
Di-isopropyl ether 20.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 102 70 130

-
Tert-Butanol / butyl alcohol 209 pg/kg wet 200 105 70 130

-
1,4-Dioxane 224 pg/kg wet 200 112 50.9 140

-
trans 1,
- 4-Dichloro 2-
- butene 18.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 90 70 130
-
Ethanol 473 pg/kg wet 400 118 70 130

-

-
- 31.0 pg/kg wet 30.0 103 70 130
-
- 29.7 pg/kg wet 30.0 99 70 130
-

-
LCS Duo 18081900 BSD11

-

-
1,
2-
1,Trichlorotrifluoroeth an ( Freon 113) 19.5 pg/kg wet 20.0 98 70 130
- 6 25
Acetone 16.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 82 15.9 162

- 17 50
Acrylonitrile 18.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 90 70 130

- 5 25
Benzene 20.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 130

- 3 25
Bromobenzene 20.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 101 70 130

- 10 25

- 4 25
Bromodi ch lorometh an e 21.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 107 70 130

- 0.5 25
Bromofonn 20.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 130

- 4 25
Bromomethane 17.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 86 40.8 154

- 5 50
2-Butanone (MEK) 21.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 107 27.2 154

- 3 50
n-Butylbenzene 20.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 105 70 130

- 1 25
sec -Butylbenzene 20.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 102 70 130

- 8 25
tert-Butylbenzene 21.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 106 70 130

- 8 25
Carbon disulfide 21.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 106 70 130

- 4 25
Carbon tetrachloride 19.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 96 70 130

- 6 25
Chlorobenzene 19.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 130

- 5 25
Chloroethane 17.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 86 59.1 130

- 10 50
Chloroform 18.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 90 70 130

- 3 25
Chloromethane 17.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 89 70 130

- 5 25
2-Chlorotoluene 19.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 97 70 130

- 6 25
4-
Chlorotoluene 20.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 130
- 6 25
1,2-Dibromo 3-
- chloropropane 16.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 83 70 130
- 4 25
Dibrom och lorometh an e 18.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 91 67 133

- 5 50
1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 20.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 130

- 9 25
Dibromomethane 19.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 130

- 7 25
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 21.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 105 70 130

- 2 25

- 11 25

- 4 25
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freonl2) 19.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 95 33.9 180

- 9 50
1,1-Dichloroethane 19.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 99 70 130

- 2 25
1,2-Dichloroethane 19.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 95 70 130

- 5 25
1,1-Dichloroethene 19.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 95 70 130

- 0.4 25


-

-
cis 1,
- 2-Dichloroethene 19.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 98 70 130
- 2 25
trans 1,
- 2-Dichloroethene 16.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 84 70 130
- 4 25
1,2-Dichloropropane 20.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 103 70 130

- 3 25

- 4 25

- 3 25
1,1-Dichloropropene 19.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 97 70 130

- 0.3 25
cis 1,
- 3-Dichloropropene 21.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 109 70 130
- 3 25
trans 1,
- 3-Dichloropropene 24.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 120 70 130
- 8 25
Ethylbenzene 20.5 pg/kg wet 20.0 103 70 130

- 4 25
Hexachlorobutadiene 17.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 86 57 138

- 12 50
2-Hexanone(MBK) 20.5 pg/kg wet 20.0 102 70 130

- 5 25
Isopropylbenzene 18.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 93 70 130

- 7 25
4-Isopropyltoluene 21.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 108 70 130

- 2 25
Methyl tert-
- 7 25
4-Methyl 2-
- pentanone (MIBK) 19.7 pg/kg wet 20.0 99 55.4 131
- 6 50
Methylene chloride 20.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 130

- 3 25
Naphthalene 19.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 99 70 130

- 10 25
n-Propylbenzene 19.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 130

- 5 25
Styrene 20.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 103 70 130

- 13 25
1,
1,Tetmchloroethane
2 - 16.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 81 70 130
- 4 25
1,
2,
1,Tetmchloroethane
2 - 20.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 100 70 130
- 8 25
Tetrachloroethene 18.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 93 70 130

- 9 25
Toluene 19.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 97 70 130

- 6 25
1,
3-
2,Tdchlorobenzene 21.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 106 70 130
- 11 25
1,
4-
- 11 25
1,
5-
- 4 25
1,
1-
1,Tdchloroethane 19.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 98 70 130
- 2 25
1,
2-
1,Tdchloroethane 20.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 103 70 130
- 6 25
Trichloroethene 19.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 98 70 130

- 0.4 25
Trichloroiluoromethane (Freon 11) 19.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 95 52 154

- 3 50
1,
3-
2,Tdchloropropan a 22.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 111 70 130
- 7 25
1,
4-
2,Tdmethylbenzene 20.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 104 70 130
- 7 25
1,
5-
3,Tdmethylbenzene 20.7 pg/kg wet 20.0 104 70 130
- 5 25

- 6 25
m,p-
Xylene 39.7 pg/kg wet 40.0 99 70 130
- 6 25
o-Xylene 21.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 106 70 130

- 6 25

- 12 25

- 8 50

- 3 25
Ethyl tert-
- 3 25

- 1 25

- 17 25
1,4-Dioxane 193 pg/kg wet 200 97 50.9 140

- 15 25
trans 1,
- 4-Dichloro 2-
- butene 20.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 104 70 130
- 14 25
Ethanol 413 pg/kg wet 400 103 70 130

- 14 30

-
- 30.5 pg/kg wet 30.0 102 70 130
-
Surrogate: 1,2-Dichloroethane44 29.3 pg/kg wet 30.0 98 70 130

-
-
Matrix Spike (8081900 MS1)

- Source: SA83491 0
- 9

Spike Source REC RPD
Analyte(s) Result Flag Units RDL Level Result REC Limits RPD Limit

Prepared: 25-Aug 08
- Analyzed: 26-Aug 08
-
Benzene 22.6 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 113 70 130
-
Chlorobenzene 23.9 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 120 70 130

-
1,1-Dichloroethene 22.5 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 112 70 130

-
Toluene 23.8 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 119 70 130

-
Trichloroethene 21.6 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 108 70 130

-
Surrogate:4-Bromofluorobenzene 31.6 pgft dry 30.0 106 70 130

-
- 31.4 pgft dry 30.0 105 70 130
-
- 29.8 pgft dry 30.0 99 70 130
-
Surrogate:Dibromofluoromethane 30.6 pgft dry 30.0 102 70 130
-
Matrix Spike Dun (8081900 MSD1)

- Source: SA83491 0
-9
Prepared: 25-Aug 08
-
Benzene 21.5 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 108 70 130
- 5 30
Chlorobenzene 23.1 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 115 70 130

- 4 30
1,1-Dichloroethene 22.2 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 111 70 130

- 0.9 30
Toluene 24.2 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 121 70 130

- 2 30
Trichloroethene 20.3 pgft dry 20.0 BRL 101 70 130

- 7 30
Surrogate:4-Bromofluorobenzene 33.1 pgft dry 30.0 110 70 130

-
- 32.7 pgft dry 30.0 109 70 130
-
- 29.1 pgft dry 30.0 97 70 130
-
Surrogate:Dibromofluoromethane 31.0 pgft dry 30.0 103 70 130

-
Batch 8081976 - SW846 5035A Soil (low level)
Blank (8081976 BLK1)

-

-
BRL U 5.0
1,
2-
1,Trichlorotrifluoroeth ane(Freon 113) pgft wet
Acetone BRL U 50.0
pgft wet
Acrylonitrile BRL U
pgft wet 5.0
Benzene BRL U pgft wet 5.0
Bromobenzene BRL U 5.0

pgft wet
Bromochloromethane BRL U 5.0
pgft wet
Bromodichloromethane BRL U 5.0
pgft wet
Bromoform BRL U 5.0
pgft wet
Bromomethane BRL U 10.0
pgft wet
BRL U 50.0
2-Butanone(MEK) pgft wet
BRL U 5.0
n-Burylbenzene pgft wet
sec -Butylbenzene BRL U
pgft wet 5.0
tert-Butylbenzene BRL U
pgft wet 5.0
Carbon disulfide BRL U 25.0

pgft wet
Carbon tetrachloride BRL U 5.0
pgft wet
Chlorobenzene BRL U 5.0
pgft wet
Chloroethane BRL U 10.0
pgft wet
Chloroform BRL U 5.0
pgft wet
Chloromethane BRL U 10.0
pgft wet
2-Chlorotoluene BRL U 5.0
pgft wet
4-
Chlorotoluene BRL U
pgft wet 5.0
1,2-Dibromo 3-
- chloropropane BRL U
pgft wet 10.0
Dibromochloromethane BRL U 5.0

pgft wet
BRL U 5.0
1,2-Dibromoethane(EDB) pgft wet
Dibromomethane BRL U 5.0
pgft wet
pgft wet
pgft wet
pgft wet
nislaboratorynislaboratory reportreport isis notvalidwithoutan notvalidwithoutan authorizedauthorized signaturesignature onon thethe coverpage.coverpage.
ReportableReportable DetectionDetection LimitLimit BRLBRL

= =BelowBelow Reporting Reporting LimitLimit PagePage 2828 ofof 4747

-

-
Dichlorodifluoromethane(Freonl 2) BRL U
pg/kg wet 10.0
1,1-Dichloroethane BRL U 5.0

pg/kg wet
BRL U 5.0
1,2-Dichloroethane pg/kg wet
1,1-Dichloroethene BRL U 5.0
pg/kg wet
cis 1,
pg/kg wet 5.0
trans 1,
pg/kg wet 5.0
BRL U 5.0
1,2-Dichloropropane pg/kg wet
BRL U 5.0
BRL U 5.0
1,1-Dichloropropene BRL U
pg/kg wet 5.0
BRL U 5.0
cis 1,
- 3-Dichloropropene pg/kg wet
BRL U 5.0
trans 1,
- 3-Dichloropropene pg/kg wet
BRL U 5.0
Ethylbenzene pg/kg wet
Hexachlorobutadiene BRL U
pg/kg wet 5.0
2-Hexanone(MBK) BRL U
pg/
kgwet 50.0
BRL U 5.0
Isopropylbenzene pg/kg wet
BRL U 5.0
4-Isopropyltoluene pg/kg wet
BRL U 5.0
Methyl tert-
butyl ether pg/kg wet
4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK) BRL U
pg/kg wet 50.0
BRL U 50.0
Methylene chloride pg/kg wet
BRL U 5.0
Naphthalene pg/kg wet
BRL U 5.0
n-Propylbenzene pg/kg wet
Styrene BRL U
pg/kg wet 5.0
1,
1,Tetmchloroethane
2 - BRL U
pg/kg wet 5.0
BRL U 5.0
1,
2,
1,Tetmchloroethane
2 - pg/kg wet
Tetrachloroethene BRL U 5.0
pg/kg wet
Toluene BRL U 5.0
pg/kg wet
1,
32,Tdchlorobenzene
- BRL U
pg/kg wet 5.0
BRL U 5.0
1,
42,Tdchlorobenzene
- pg/kg wet
BRL U 5.0
1,
53,Tdchlorobenzene
- pg/kg wet
1,
11,Tdchloroethane
- BRL U 5.0
pg/kg wet
1,
21,Tdchloroethane
- BRL U
pg/kg wet 5.0
Trichloroethene BRL U
pg/kg wet 5.0
BRL U 5.0
Tdchlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) pg/kg wet
BRL U 5.0
1,
32,Tdchloropropane
- pg/kg wet
BRL U 5.0
1,
42,Tdmethylbenzene
- pg/kg wet
1,
53,Tdmethylbenzene
- BRL U
pg/kg wet 5.0
BRL U 5.0
Vinyl chloride pg/kg wet
BRL U 10.0
m,p-
Xylene pg/kg wet
BRL U 5.0
o-Xylene pg/kg wet
Tetrahydrofuran BRL U
pg/kg wet 50.0
Ethyl ether BRL U pg/kg wet 5.0
BRL U 5.0
Tert-amyl methyl ether pg/kg wet
BRL U 5.0
Ethyl tert-
butyl ether pg/kg wet
BRL U 5.0
Di-isopropyl ether pg/kg wet
Tert-Butanol / butyl alcohol BRL U
pg/kg wet 50.0
BRL U 100
1,4-Dioxane pg/kg wet
BRL U 25.0
trans 1,
- 4-Dichloro 2-
- butene pg/kg wet
Ethanol BRL U 2000
pg/kg wet


-

-
Surrogate:4-Bromofluorobenzene 48.5 pgft wet 50.0 97 70 130
-
- 49.6 pgft wet 50.0 99 70 130
-
- 54.8 pgft wet 50.0 110 70 130
-
Surrogate:Dibromofluoromethane 50.1 pgft wet 50.0 100 70 130

-
LCS (8081976 BS1)

-

-
1,
2-
1,Trichlorotrifluoroeth ane(
Freon 113) 24.2 pgft wet 20.0 121 70 130
-
Acetone 16.4 pgft wet 20.0 82 15.9 162

-
Acrylonitrile 17.3 pgft wet 20.0 86 70 130

-
Benzene 19.8 pgft wet 20.0 99 70 130

-
Bromobenzene 20.8 pgft wet 20.0 104 70 130

-
Bromochloromethane 20.8 pgft wet 20.0 104 70 130

-
Bromodichloromethane 18.4 pgft wet 20.0 92 70 130

-
Bromoforn 16.7 pgft wet 20.0 83 70 130

-
Bromomethane 18.4 pgft wet 20.0 92 40.8 154

-
2-Butanone(MEK) 128 oci pgft wet 20.0 639 27.2 154

-
n-Burylbenzene 20.0 pgft wet 20.0 100 70 130

-
sec -Butylbenzene 22.4 pgft wet 20.0 112 70 130

-
tert-Butylbenzene 22.6 pgft wet 20.0 113 70 130

-
Carbon disulfide 19.0 pgft wet 20.0 95 70 130

-
Carbon tetrachloride 20.0 pgft wet 20.0 100 70 130

-
Chlorobenzene 20.3 pgft wet 20.0 102 70 130

-

-

-

-

-
4-
-
1,2-Dibromo 3-
-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-
cis 1,
-
trans 1,
-

-

-

-

-
cis 1,
-
trans 1,
-

-

-
2-Hexanone(MBK) 13.1 oci pgft wet 20.0 66 70 130

-

-

LCS 18081976 BS11

-

-
4-Isopropyltoluene 23.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 115 70 130
-
Methyl tert-butyl ether 16.7 pg/kg wet 20.0 83 70 130

-
4-Methyl 2-
- pentanone (MIBK) 14.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 70 55.4 131
-
Methylene chloride 19.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 97 70 130

-
Naphthalene 15.5 pg/kg wet 20.0 77 70 130

-
n-Propylbenzene 21.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 106 70 130

-
Styrene 20.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 104 70 130

-
1,
1,Tetmchloroethane
2 - 18.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 91 70 130
-
1,
2,
1,Tetmchloroethane
2 - 18.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 91 70 130
-
Tetrachloroethene 21.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 105 70 130

-
Toluene 19.5 pg/kg wet 20.0 98 70 130

-
1,
32,Tdchlorobenzene
- 17.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 89 70 130
-
1,
42,Tdchlorobenzene
- 17.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 88 70 130
-
1,
53,Tdchlorobenzene
- 18.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 92 70 130
-
1,
11, Tdchloroethane
- 21.4 pg/kg wet 20.0 107 70 130
-
1,
21,Tdchloroethane
- 19.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 95 70 130
-

-
Tdchlorofluoromethane (Freon 11) 22.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 110 52 154

-
1,
32,Tdchloropropane
- 19.8 pg/kg wet 20.0 99 70 130
-
1,
42,Tdmethylbenzene
- 21.7 pg/kg wet 20.0 109 70 130
-
1,
53,Tdmethylbenzene
- 22.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 110 70 130
-

-
m,p-
Xylene 42.5 pg/kg wet 40.0 106 70 130
-
o-Xylene 21.5 pg/kg wet 20.0 108 70 130

-

-

-
Tert-amyl methyl ether 13.8 oci pg/kg wet 20.0 69 70 130

-
Ethyl tert-
-

-

-
1,4-Dioxane 141 pg/kg wet 200 71 50.9 140

-
trans 1,
- 4-Dichloro 2-
- butene 14.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 75 70 130
-
Ethanol 314 pg/kg wet 400 78 70 130

-

-
- 49.5 pg/kg wet 50.0 99 70 130
-
- 45.6 pg/kg wet 50.0 91 70 130
-

-
LCS Dun (8081976 BSD1)

-

-
1,
2-
1,Trichlorotrifluoroeth ane(Freon 113) 23.5 pg/kg wet 20.0 118 70 130
- 3 25
Acetone 18.6 pg/kg wet 20.0 93 15.9 162

- 12 50
Acrylonitrile 18.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 95 70 130

- 9 25
Benzene 19.9 pg/kg wet 20.0 99 70 130

- 0.2 25
Bromobenzene 21.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 105 70 130

- 1 25

- 2 25
Bromodichloromethane 18.3 pg/kg wet 20.0 92 70 130

- 0.6 25
Bromofonn 18.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 91 70 130

- 9 25
Bromomethane 19.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 95 40.8 154

- 3 50
2-Butanone(MEK) 15.4 oRS pg/

kgwet 20.0 77 27.2 154
- 157 50
n-Butylbenzene 19.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 96 70 130

- 4 25
Reportable Detection Limit BRL=

Below Reporting Limit Page 31of47

-

-
sec -Butylbenzene 22.0 pgft wet 20.0 110 70 130
- 2 25
tert-Butylbenzene 22.1 pgft wet 20.0 111 70 130

- 2 25
Carbon disulfde 18.8 pgft wet 20.0 94 70 130

- 0.7 25
Carbon tetrachloride 19.5 pgft wet 20.0 98 70 130

- 2 25
Chlorobenzene 19.8 pgft wet 20.0 99 70 130

- 3 25

- 2 50

- 0.6 25

- 0.8 25

- 1 25
4-
- 2 25
1,2-Dibromo 3-
- 8 25

- 2 50

- 6 25

- 3 25

- 0.2 25

- 1 25

- 0.6 25

- 0.9 50

- 2 25

- 1 25

- 2 25
cis 1,
- 0.
05 25
trans 1,
- 1 25

- 0.3 25

- 3 25

- 6 25

- 2 25
cis 1,
- 2 25
trans 1,
- 1 25

- 2 25

- 14 50
2-Hexanone(MBK) 15.6 pgft wet 20.0 78 70 130

- 17 25

- 0.9 25
4-Isopropyltoluene 22.3 pgft wet 20.0 111 70 130

- 3 25
Methyl tert-
butyl ether 18.0 pgft wet 20.0 90 70 130
- 7 25
4-Methyl-2-pentanone(MIBK) 15.8 pgft wet 20.0 79 55.4 131

- 12 50
Methylene chloride 19.9 pgft wet 20.0 100 70 130

- 3 25
Naphthalene 15.1 pgft wet 20.0 75 70 130

- 3 25
n-Propylbenzene 21.3 pgft wet 20.0 106 70 130

- 0.7 25
Styrene 20.9 pgft wet 20.0 104 70 130

- 0.1 25
1,
1,Tetmchloroethane
2 - 18.0 pgft wet 20.0 90 70 130
- 2 25
1,
2,
1,Tetmchloroethane
2 - 19.8 pgft wet 20.0 99 70 130
- 8 25
Tetrachloroethene 19.8 pgft wet 20.0 99 70 130

- 6 25
Toluene 19.5 pgft wet 20.0 97 70 130

- 0.2 25
1,
32,Tdchlorobenzene
- 16.9 pgft wet 20.0 85 70 130
- 5 25
1,
42,Tdchlorobenzene
- 17.0 pgft wet 20.0 85 70 130
- 3 25
1,
53,Tdchlorobenzene
- 16.5 pgft wet 20.0 83 70 130
- 10 25
1,
11, Tdchloroethane
- 21.1 pgft wet 20.0 105 70 130
- 1 25
1,
21,Tdchloroethane
- 19.4 pgft wet 20.0 97 70 130
- 2 25


-

-
- 0.
05 25
Trichloroiluoromethane (Freon 11) 22.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 110 52 154

- 0.2 50
1,
32,Tdchloropropane
- 21.0 pg/kg wet 20.0 105 70 130
- 6 25
1,
42,Tdmethylbenzene
- 21.7 pg/kg wet 20.0 108 70 130
- 0.
09 25
1,
53,Tdmethylbenzene
- 21.7 pg/kg wet 20.0 108 70 130
- 2 25

- 2 25
m,p-
Xylene 42.3 pg/kg wet 40.0 106 70 130
- 0.6 25
o-Xylene 21.2 pg/kg wet 20.0 106 70 130

- 2 25

- 3 25

- 10 50

- 7 25
Ethyl tert-
- 4 25

- 0 25

- 16 25
1,4-Dioxane 186 oR2 pg/kg wet 200 93 50.9 140

- 27 25
trans 1,
- 4-Dichloro 2-
- butene 16.1 pg/kg wet 20.0 80 70 130
- 7 25
Ethanol 370 pg/kg wet 400 92 70 130

- 16 30
Surrogate: 4-Bromofluorobenzene 51.2 pg/kg wet 50.0 102 70 130

-
- 49.6 pg/kg wet 50.0 99 70 130
-
- 47.8 pg/kg wet 50.0 96 70 130
-
Surrogate: Dibromofluoromethane 48.9 pg/kg wet 50.0 98 70 130

-
Reportable Detection Limit BRL=

Below Reporting Limit Page 33of47
Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GCMS - Quality Control
Batch 8081957 - SW846 3550B

-

-
Acenaphthene BRL U
pgft wet 66.5
BRL U 66.5
Acenaphthylene pgft wet
Anthracene BRL U 66.5
pgft wet
BRL U 66.5
Benzo (a)anthracene pgft wet
Benzo (a)pyrene BRL U
pgft wet 66.5
Benzo (b)fluoranthene BRL U

pgft wet 66.5
BRL U 66.5
Benzo (g,
i)
h,perylene pgft wet
BRL U 66.5
Benzo (k)fluoranthene pgft wet
BRL U 66.5
Chrysene pgft wet
Dibenzo (ah
, )anthracene BRL U
pgft wet 66.5
Fluoranthene BRL U 66.5

pgft wet
Fluorene BRL U 66.5
pgft wet
BRL U 66.5
Indeno (1,
32,cd)
- pyrene pgft wet
1-Methylnaphthalene BRL U
pgft wet 66.5
2-Methylnaphthalene BRL U
pgft wet 66.5
BRL U 66.5
Naphthalene pgft wet
Phenanthrene BRL U 66.5
pgft wet
BRL U 66.5
Pyrene pgft wet
Surrogate:2-Fluorohiphenyl 2380 pgft wet 3330 71 30 130
-
Surrogate: Terphenyl c1̀4

- 2610 pgft wet 3330 78 30 130
-
LCS 18081957 BS11

-

-
Acenaphthene 2210 pgft wet 66.5 3330 66 40 140
-
Acenaphthylene 2200 pgft wet 66.5 3330 66 40 140

-
Anthracene 2220 pgft wet 66.5 3330 67 40 140

-
Benzo (a)anthracene 2220 pgft wet 66.5 3330 67 40 140

-
Benzo (a)pyrene 2140 pgft wet 66.5 3330 64 40 140

-
Benzo (b)fluoranthene 2160 pgft wet 66.5 3330 65 40 140

-
Benzo (g,
i)
h,perylene 2140 pgft wet 66.5 3330 64 40 140
-
Benzo (k)fluoranthene 2320 pgft wet 66.5 3330 70 40 140

-
Chrysene 2300 pgft wet 66.5 3330 69 40 140

-
Dibenzo (ah
, )anthracene 2020 pgft wet 66.5 3330 61 40 140
-
Fluoranthene 2110 pgft wet 66.5 3330 63 40 140

-
Fluorene 2260 pgft wet 66.5 3330 68 40 140

-
Indeno (1,
32,cd)
- pyrene 1950 pgft wet 66.5 3330 59 40 140
-
1-Methylnaphthalene 2080 pgft wet 66.5 3330 62 40 140

-
2-Methylnaphthalene 2080 pgft wet 66.5 3330 62 40 140

-
Naphthalene 2150 pgft wet 66.5 3330 64 40 140

-
Phenanthrene 2200 pgft wet 66.5 3330 66 40 140

-
Pyrene 2280 pgft wet 66.5 3330 68 40 140

-
Surrogate:2-Fluorohiphenyl 2230 pgft wet 33303330 67 30 130

-
- 2120 pgft wet 3330 6464 30 130
-
Matrix Spike (8081957 MS1)

- Source: SA83611 0
-1
Prepared:Prepared: 26-26-AugAug
- 08
- 08 Analyzed:Analyzed: 27-27-AugAug
- 08- 08
AcenaphtheneAcenaphthene 24702470 pgftpgft drydry 71.6 35903590 BRL 69 40 140
-
Pyrene 2380 pgft dry 71.6 3590 BRL 66 40 140

-
Surrogate:2-Fluorohiphenyl 2150 pgft dry 3590 60 30 130

-
- 2080 pgft dry 3590 58 30 130
-

- Source: SA83611 0
-1

Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GCMS - Quality Control
Analyte(s) Result Flag Units * RDL Level Result REC Limits RPD Limit
Batch 8081957 - SW846 3550B
Prepared: 26-Aug 08
-
Acenaphthene 2410 pgft dry 70.9 3550 BRL 68 40 140
- 1 30
Pyrene 2450 pgft dry 70.9 3550 BRL 69 40 140

- 4 30
Surrogate:2-Flucrohiphenyl 2230 pgft dry 3550 63 30 130

-
- 2170 pgft dry 3550 61 30 130
-
Reportable Detection Limit BRL = Below Reporting Limit Page 35of47

Semivolatile Organic Compounds by GC - Quality Control
Batch 8081977 - SW846 3550B

-

-
2,4'Dich
- I oro biph enyl BRL U
pgft wet 2.
10
BRL U 2.
10
2,
52',
Trichlorobiphenyl
- pgft wet
BRL U 2.
10
2,
4'
4,Trichlorobiphenyl
- pgft wet
BRL U 2.
10
2,
3,
2'5'-
Tetrach I oro biphenyl pgft wet
2,
4,
2'
5 ',
Tetrach
- lorobip h enyl BRL U
pgft wet 2.
10
2,2',
5,5'-
Tetrach lorobip h enyl BRL U
pgft wet 2.
10
BRL U 2.
10
2,
4,
3'-
4 ',
Tetrach lorobip h enyl pgft wet
BRL U 2.
10
3,
4,
3'-
4 ',
Tetrach lorobip h enyl pgft wet
BRL U 2.
10
2,
2',
3,4,5'-
Pentach lorobi ph enyl pgft wet
2,
4,
2,
5 ',
5'-
Pentach lorobi ph enyl BRL U
pgft wet 2.
10
BRL U 2.
10
2,3,4'-
3',
4, Pentach lorobi ph enyl pgft wet
BRL U 2.
10
2,
4,
53',
- pgft wet
BRL U 2.
10
3,
4,
3,
5 ',
5'-
Pentach lorobi ph enyl pgft wet
3,
4,
53',
- BRL U
pgft wet 2.
10
2,2',
3,
4,3'
4 ',
H exach
- lorobiph a nyl BRL U
pgft wet 2.
10
BRL U 2.
10
2,2',
3,
4',
4,
5'H exach
- lorobiph a nyl pgft wet
BRL U 2.
10
2,
4,
5,
2'
4 ',
5'H- exach I orobi ph enyl pgft wet
BRL U 2.
10
2,3,4',
3',
4,
5 H-
exach to robi ph enyl pgft wet
3,
4,
3',
4 5,5'H- exach lorobiph a nyl BRL U
pgft wet 2.
10
BRL U 2.
10
2,2',
3,
4,
5 3',
4 H eptach
-Io robi ph enyl pgft wet
BRL U 2.
10
2,2',
3,
4',
4,
5,5'H- eptach Io robi ph enyl pgft wet
BRL U 2.
10
2,
2',
3,
4',
6 4,
5',
H eptach
-Io robi ph enyl pgft wet
2,2',
3,
4',
4,
6,6'H- eptach Io robi ph enyl BRL U
pgft wet 2.
10
2,2',
3,4',
5,
6 5',
H- eptach Io robi ph enyl BRL U
pgft wet 2.
10
BRL U 2.
10
2,2',
3,
4,
5,3',
4 6-Octach lorobiph enyl pgft wet
BRL U 2.
10
2,2',
3,
4,
5,3',
4 5',
6N - on ach I orobiph enyl pgft wet
BRL U 2.
10
Decachlorobiphenyl pgft wet
Surrogate:4,4-DB-Octafluorobiphenyl (Sr) 1.
80 pgft wet 2.
00 90 30 150
-
LCS (8081977 BS1)

-

-
2,4'Dich
- I oro biphenyl 18.0 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 90 0 140
-
2,
52',
Trichlorobiphenyl
- 17.3 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 86 40 140
-
2,
4'
4,Trichlorobiphenyl
- 17.6 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 88 40 140
-
2,
3,
2'5'-
Tetrach I oro biphenyl 17.5 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 88 40 140
-
2,
4,
2'-
5 ',
Tetrach lorobip h enyl 17.6 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 88 40 140
-
2,2',
5,5'-
10 20.0 86 40 140
-
2,
4,
3'-
4 ',
10 20.0 88 40 140
-
3,
4,
3'-
4 ',
10 20.0 96 40 140
-
2,2',
3,4,5'-
Pentach lorobi ph enyl 17.3 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 86 40 140
-
2,
4,
2,
5 ',
5'-
10 20.0 86 40 140
-
2,3,4'-
3',
4, Pentach lorobi ph enyl 18.1 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 90 40 140
-
2,
4,
53',
- 17.5 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 88 40 140
-
3,
4,
3,
5 ',
5'-
10 20.0 86 40 140
-
3,
4,
53',
- 17.0 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 85 40 140
-
2,2',
3,
4,3'
4 ',
H exach
- lorobiph a nyl 17.6 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 88 40 140
-
2,2',
3,
4',
4,
5'H exach
- lorobiph a nyl 17.6 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 88 40 140
-
2,
4,
5,
2'
4 ',
5'H- exach I orobi ph enyl 17.5 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 88 40 140
-
2,3,4',
3',
4,
5 H-
exach Io robi ph enyl 17.8 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 89 40 140
-
3,
4,
3',
4 5,5'H- exach lorobiph a nyl 16.6 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 83 40 140
-
nislaboratory report is notvalidwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage.

Batch 8081977 - SW846 3550B
LCS 18081977 BS11

-

-
2,2',
3,
4,
5 3',
4 Heptachlorobiphenyl
- 16.7 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 84 40 140
-
2,2',
3,
4',
5'4,
5,Heptachlorobiphenyl
- 17.6 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 88 40 140
-
2,2',
3,
4',
6 4,
5',
Heptachlorobiphenyl
- 17.4 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 87 40 140
-
2,
2',
3,
4',
6'4,
- 17.5 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 88 40 140
-
2,2',
3,
5,
6 4',
- 16.3 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 82 40 140
-
2,
32',
3',
4',
6-, 5,
4,
Octachlorobiphenyl 17.6 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 88 40 140
-
2,
3,
2'
3 ',
4,
5,
6 ,5
4',
Nonachlorobiphenyl
- 18.1 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 90 40 140
-
Decachlorobiphenyl 13.0 pgft wet 2.

10 20.0 65 40 140
-
Surrogate: DB-
4,4
O ctafluorobiphenyl -
(Sr) 1.
90 pgft wet 2.
00 95 30 150
-
LCS Dun (8081977 BSD1)

-

-
2,
4'-
Dichlorobiphenyl 19.5 pgftpgft wetwet 2.
10 20.0 98 00-140
- 140 88 3030
2,
5
2',
2
2,
5 -',
Trichlorobiphenyl
- Trichlorobiphenyl 17.5 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 8888 4040- 140
- 140 11 30
2,
4'
4,Trichlorobiphenyl
- 19.1 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 96 40 140
- 8 30
2,
3,
2'-
5 '
Tetrachloobiphenyl 17.6 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 88 40 140
- 0.6 30
2,
4,
2'
5 ',
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
- 18.5 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 92 40 140
- 5 30
2,
5,
2'
5 ',
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
- 16.7 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 84 40 140
- 2 30
2,
4,
3'
4 ',
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
- 18.2 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 91 40 140
- 4 30
3,
4,
3'
4 ',
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
- 19.1 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 96 40 140
- 1 30
2,
3,
5'
2,
4 ',
Pentachlorobiphenyl
- 17.2 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 86 40 140
- 0.6 30
2,
4,
5'
2,
5 ',
Pentachlorobiphenyl
- 17.8 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 89 40 140
- 4 30
2,
3',
4'
3,
4, Pentachlorobiphenyl
- 17.9 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 90 40 140
- 1 30
2,
4,
53',
- 17.5 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 88 40 140
- 0 30
3,
4,
5'
3,
5 ',
Pentachlorobiphenyl
- 16.9 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 84 40 140
- 1 30
3,
4,
53',
- 16.7 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 84 40 140
- 2 30
2,4'
2',
3',
3,
- 17.4 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 87 40 140
- 1 30
2,5'
2',
4,
3,
4 ',
Hexachlorobiphenyl
- 17.3 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 86 40 140
- 2 30
2 ,5'
25
4'
4,
', ,
Hexachlorobiphenyl
- 17.4 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 87 40 140
- 0.6 30
2 ,5
3,
4,
3',
4 Hexachlorobiphenyl
- 17.6 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 88 40 140
- 1 30
3,5'
3',
4',
4,
- 16.5 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 82 40 140
- 0.6 30
2,
2',
3,
4,
5 3',
- 16.4 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 82 40 140
- 2 30
2,2',
3,
4',
5'4,
- 17.4 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 87 40 140
- 1 30
2,2',
3,
4',
6 4,
5',
Heptachlorobiphenyl
- 17.3 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 86 40 140
- 0.6 30
2,2',
3,
4',
6'4,
- 17.4 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 87 40 140
- 0.6 30
2,
2',
3,
5,
6 4',
- 16.3 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 82 40 140
- 0 30
2,
32',
3',
4',
6-, 5,
4,
Octachlorobiphenyl 17.3 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 86 40 140
- 2 30
2,
3,
2'
3 ',
4,
5,
6 ,5
4',
Nonachlorobiphenyl
- 17.9 pgft wet 2.
10 20.0 90 40 140
- 1 30
Decachlorobiphenyl 12.8 pgft wet 2.

10 20.0 64 40 140
- 2 30
Surrogate:DB-
4,4
(Sr) 2.
00 pgft wet 2.
00 100 30 150
-
Duplicate 18081977 DUP11

- Source: SA83491 0
-1

-
BRL U 1.
95 BRL 40
2,
4'-
Dichlorobiphenyl pgft dry
BRL U 1.
95 BRL 40
2,
52',
Trichlorobiphenyl
- pgft dry
BRL U 1.
95 BRL 40
2,
4'
4,Trichlorobiphenyl
- pgft dry
2,
3,
2'-
5 '
Tetrachloobiphenyl BRL U
pgft dry 1.
95 BRL 40
BRL U 1.
95 BRL 40
2,
4,
2'
5 ',
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
- pgft dry
BRL U 1.
95 BRL 40
2,
5,
2'
5 ',
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
- pgft dry
BRL U 1.
95 BRL 40
2,
4,
3'
4 ',
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
- pgft dry
3,
4,
3'
4 ',
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
- BRL U
pgft dry 1.
95 BRL 40
nislaboratory report is notvaUdwithoutan authorized signature on the coverpage.
Reportable Detection Limit BRL Below Reporting Limit Page 37 of 47

Batch 8081977 - SW846 3550B

- Source: SA83491 0
-1

-
2,
3,
5'
2,
4 ',
Pentachlorobiphenyl
- BRL U
pgft dry 1.
95 BRL 40
BRL U 1.
95 BRL 40
2,
4,
5'
2,
5 ',
Pentachlorobiphenyl
- pgft dry
BRL U 1.
95 BRL 40
2,
3',
4'
3,
- pgft dry
BRL U 1.
95 BRL 40
2,
4,
53',
- pgft dry
3,
4,
5'
3,
5 ',
Pentachlorobiphenyl
- BRL U
pgft dry 1.
95 BRL 40
3,
4,
53',
- BRL U
pgft dry 1.
95 BRL 40
BRL U 1.
95 BRL 40
2,4'
2',
3',
3,
- pgft dry
BRL U 1.
95 BRL 40
2,5'
2',
4,
3,
4 ',
Hexachlorobiphenyl
- pgft dry
BRL U 1.
95 BRL 40
2 ,5'
25
4'
4,
', ,
Hexachlorobiphenyl
- pgft dry
2 ,5
3,
4,
3',
- BRL U
pgft dry 1.
95 BRL 40
BRL U 1.
95 BRL 40
3,5'
3',
4',
4,
- pgft dry
BRL U 1.
95 BRL 40
2,2',
3,
4,
5 3',
- pgft dry
BRL U 1.
95 BRL 40
2,
2',
3,
4',
5'4,
- pgft dry
2,2',
3,
4',
6 4,
5',
Heptachlorobiphenyl
- BRL U
pgft dry 1.
95 BRL 40
2,2',
3,
4',
6'4,
- BRL U
pgft dry 1.
95 BRL 40
BRL U 1.
95 BRL 40
2,2',
3,
5,
6 4',
- pgft dry
BRL U 1.
95 BRL 40
2,
32',
3',
4',
6-, 5,
4,
Octachlorobiphenyl pgft dry
BRL U 1.
95 BRL 40
2,
3,
2'
3 ',
4,
5,
6 ,5
4',
Nonachlorobiphenyl
- pgft dry
Decachlorobiphenyl BRL U
pgft dry 1.
95 BRL 40
Surrogate:DB-
4,4
(Sr) 1.
77 pgft dry 1.
86 95 30 150
-
Matrix Spike 18081977 MS11

- Source: SA83491 0
-1
PreparedPrepared
& & Analyzed:Analyzed: 26-26-AugAug
- 08- 08
2,
4'-
Dichlorobiphenyl 18.6 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 98 40 140
-
2,
52',
Trichlorobiphenyl
- 20.1 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 106 40 140
-
2,
4'
4,Trichlorobiphenyl
- 17.3 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 90 40 140
-
2,
3,
2'-
5 '
Tetrachloobiphenyl 19.9 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 104 40 140
-
2,
4,
2'
5 ',
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
- 17.0 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 89 40 140
-
2,
5,
2'
5 ',
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
- 17.1 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 89 40 140
-
2,
4,
3'
4 ',
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
- 20.6 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 108 40 140
-
3,
4,
3'
4 ',
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
- 20.1 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 106 40 140
-
2,
3,
5'
2,
4 ',
Pentachlorobiphenyl
- 20.4 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 107 40 140
-
2,
4,
5'
2,
5 ',
Pentachlorobiphenyl
- 20.5 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 108 40 140
-
2,
3',
4'
3,
- 17.2 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 90 40 140
-
2,
4,
53',
- 20.4 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 107 40 140
-
3,
4,
5'
3,
5 ',
Pentachlorobiphenyl
- 20.2 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 106 40 140
-
3,
4,
53',
- 19.9 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 104 40 140
-
2,4'
2',
3',
3,
- 18.9 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 99 40 140
-
2,5'
2',
4,
3,
4 ',
Hexachlorobiphenyl
- 19.6 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 103 40 140
-
2 ,5'
25
4'
4,
', ,
Hexachlorobiphenyl
- 20.3 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRLBRL 106 4040- 140
- 140
2 ,5
3,
4,
3',
- 19.3 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 101 40 140
-
3,5'
3',
4',
4,
- 19.3 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 101 40 140
-
2,2',
3,
4,
5 3',
- 19.8 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 104 40 140
-
2,2',
3,
4',
5'4,
- 19.8 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 104 40 140
-
2,
2',
3,
4',
6 4,
5',
Heptachlorobiphenyl
- 20.3 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 106 40 140
-
2,2',
3,
4',
6'4,
- 19.8 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 104 40 140
-
2,2',
3,
5,
6 4',
- 20.5 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 108 40 140
-
2,
32',
3',
4',
6-, 5,
4,
Octachlorobiphenyl 18.6 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 98 40 140
-
2,
3,
2'
3 ',
4,
5,
6 ,5
4',
Nonachlorobiphenyl
- 20.2 pgft dry 2.
00 19.1 BRL 106 40 140
-
Decachlorobiphenyl 14.4 pgft dry 2.

00 19.1 BRL 75 40 140
-

Batch 8081977 - SW846 3550B
Matrix Spike 18081977 MS11

- Source: SA83491 0
-1

-
Surrogate:DB-
4,4
(Sr) 2.
00 pgft dry 1.
91 105 30 150
-

- Source: SA83491 0
-1

-
2,
4'-
Dichlorobiphenyl 18.1 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 94 40 140
- 4 50
2,
52',
Trichlorobiphenyl
- 19.0 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 98 40 140
- 7 50
2,
4'
4,Trichlorobiphenyl
- 17.3 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 90 40 140
- 1 50
2,
3,
2'5'-
Tetrach I om biph enyl 19.0 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 98 40 140
- 6 50
2,
4,
2'
5 ',
Tetrach
- lorobip h enyl 17.5 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 91 40 140
- 2 50
2,2',
5,5'-
Tetrach lorobip h enyl 19.8 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 102 40 140
- 14 50
2,
4,
3'
4 ',
Tetrach
03 19.3 BRL 95 40 140
- 13 50
3,
4,
3'
4 ',
Tetrach
03 19.3 BRL 103 40 140
- 2 50
2,
3,
5'
2,
4 ',
Pentachlorobiphenyl
- 19.2 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 100 40 140
- 7 50
2,
4,
5'
2,
5 ',
Pentachlorobiphenyl
- 20.6 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 106 40 140
- 0.9 50
2,
3',
4'
3,
- 16.1 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 83 40 140
- 8 50
2,
4,
53',
- 20.0 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 104 40 140
- 3 50
3,
4,
5'
3,
5 ',
Pentachlorobiphenyl
- 19.2 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 100 40 140
- 6 50
3,
4,
53',
- 17.4 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 90 40 140
- 15 50
2,2',
3,
4,3'
4 ',
H exach
- lorobiph a nyl 18.5 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 96 40 140
- 4 50
2,2',
3,
4',
4,
5'H exach
- lorobiph a nyl 18.7 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 97 40 140
- 7 50
2,
4,
5,
2'
4 ',
5'H- exach I orobi ph enyl 18.9 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 98 40 140
- 9 50
2 5-
3
4,
, 3
4
, ',
Hexachlorobiphenyl 18.3 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 95 40 140
- 7 50
3,
4,
3',
4 5,5'H- exach lorobiph a nyl 17.2 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 89 40 140
- 13 50
2,2',
3,
4,
5 3',
4 H eptach
-to robi ph enyl 17.8 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 92 40 140
- 12 50
2,2',
3,
4',
4,
5,5'H- eptach Io robi ph enyl 18.8 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 97 40 140
- 7 50
2,2',
3,
4',
6 4,
5',
H eptach
-Io robi ph enyl 18.2 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 94 40 140
- 12 50
2,
2',
3,
4',
4,
6,6'H- eptach Io robi ph enyl 18.7 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 97 40 140
- 7 50
2,2',
3,4',
5,
6 5',
H- eptach Io robi ph enyl 17.8 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 92 40 140
- 16 50
2,2',
3,
4,
5,3',
4 6-Octach lorobiph enyl 17.4 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 90 40 140
- 8 50
2,2',
3,
4,
5,3',
4 5',
6N - on ach I orobiph enyl 19.0 pgft dry 2.
03 19.3 BRL 98 40 140
- 8 50
Decachlorobiphenyl 13.2 pgft dry 2.

03 19.3 BRL 68 40 140
- 10 50
Surrogate: DB-
4,4
(Sr) 1.
84 pgft dry 1.
93 95 30 150
-

Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons - Quality Control
Batch 8082042 - SW846 3545A

-

-
C9 C18
- Aliphatic Hydrocarbons BRL U
mgft wet 13.4
BRL U 13.4
C19 C36
- Aliphatic Hydrocarbons mgft wet
BRL U 13.4
C11 -C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons mgft wet
BRL U 13.4
Unadjusted C11 -C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbon mgft wet
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons BRL U
mgft wet 13.4
Unadjusted Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons BRL U

mgft wet 13.4
LCS 18082042 BS11

-

-
C9 C18
- Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 19.7 mgft wet 13.4 40.0 49 40 140
-
C19 C36
-
C11 -C22 Aromatic Hydrocarbons 72.7 mgft wet 13.4 113 64 40 140
-
LCS 18082042 B
- S21

-
C9 C18
-
C19 C36
-
-
LCS Dun 18082042 BSD11

-

-
C9 C18
- Aliphatic Hydrocarbons 18.9 mgftmgft wetwet 13.4 40.0 47 40 140
- 4 25
C19C19
- C36
- C36 AliphaticAliphatic HydrocarbonsHydrocarbons 38.2 mgft wet 13.4 53.3 7272 40 140
- 13 25
- 4 25
nislaboratory report is notvaUdwithout an authorized signature on the coverpage.

Total Metals by EPA 6000/7000 Series Methods - Quality Control
Batch 8082124 - SW846 3050B

-
Prepared: 28-Aug 08
- Analyzed: 03-Sep 08
-
Zinc 0.
239 1
mgft wet 0.
936
Nickel BRL U 0.
936
mgft wet
Lead BRL U 1.
40
mgft wet
Cadmium BRL U 0.
468
mgft wet
Chromium BRL U
mgft wet 0.
936
Arsenic BRL U
mgft wet 1.
40
0.
290 1 0.
936
Copper mgft wet

- Source: SA83491 0
-1
Prepared: 28-Aug 08
-
Nickel 7.
92 mgft dry 0.
907 7.
88 0.5 20
Zinc 28.9 mgft dry 0.

907 29.1 0.9 20
Lead 7.
12 mgft dry 1.
36 6.
52 9 20
Cadmium 0.
213 mgft dry 0.
454 0.
191 11 20
Arsenic 0.
454 mgft dry 1.
36 BRL 20
Copper 5.
38 mgft dry 0.
907 4.
75 13 20
Chromium 9.
77 mgft dry 0.
907 9.
61 2 20
Matrix Spike 18082124 M

- S11 Source: SA83491 0
- 2
Prepared: 28-Aug 08
-
Lead 138 mgft dry 1.
54 128 23.1 90 75 125
-
Zinc 190 mgft dry 1.

02 128 71.6 93 75 125
-
Nickel 134 mgft dry 1.

02 128 15.5 93 75 125
-
Copper 142 mgft dry 1.

02 128 12.8 101 75 125
-
Cadmium 117 mgft dry 0.

512 128 0.
603 91 75 125
-
Chromium 137 mgft dry 1.

02 128 19.3 92 75 125
-
Arsenic 119 mgft dry 1.

54 128 0.
967 92 75 125
-
Matrix Spike Dun 18082124 MSD11

- Source: SA83491 0
-2
Prepared: 28-Aug 08
-
984 123 15.5 94 75 125
- 3 20

48 123 23.1 91 75 125
- 3 20

984 123 71.6 95 75 125
- 1 20

492 123 0.
603 92 75 125
- 3 20

48 123 0.
967 94 75 125
- 2 20

984 123 19.3 92 75 125
- 3 20

984 123 12.8 102 75 125
- 3 20
Post Spike 18082124 P

- S11 Source: SA83491 0
- 2
Prepared: 28-Aug 08
-
935 117 15.5 93 80 120
-

935 117 71.6 91 80 120
-

40 117 23.1 90 80 120
-

935 117 12.8 102 80 120
-

40 117 0.
967 94 80 120
-

935 117 19.3 91 80 120
-

467 117 0.
603 92 80 120
-
Reference 18082124 SRM11

-
Prepared: 28-Aug 08
-
Nickel 55.0 mgft wet 1.
00 60.0 92 80.4 120.
- 2
Lead 76.2 mgft wet 1.

50 84.7 90 81.5 118.
- 5
Reportable Detection Limit BRL = Below Reporting Limit Page 41 of 47

Total Metals by EPA 6000/7000 Series Methods - Quality Control
Analyte(s) Result Flag Units RDL Level Result % REC Limits RPD Limit
Batch 8082124 - SW846 3050B
Reference 18082124 SRMB

-
Prepared: 28-Aug 08
-
Zinc 130 mg/kg wet 1.
00 141 92 81.1 119.
- 3
Cadmium 45.6 mg/kg wet 0.

500 51.9 88 82.8 116.
- 8
Copper 75.5 mg/kg wet 1.

00 78.1 97 83.2 116.
- 8
Arsenic 61.2 mg/kg wet 1.

50 67.0 91 80.5 120.
- 3
Chromium 99.0 mg/kg wet 1.

00 110 90 81.7 117.
- 9
Reference 18082124 SRM21

-
Prepared: 28-Aug 08
-
Zinc 128 mg/kg wet 1.
00 144 89 81.1 119.
- 3
Nickel 57.2 mg/kg wet 1.

00 61.4 93 80.4 120.
- 2
Lead 79.0 mg/kg wet 1.

50 86.7 91 81.5 118.
- 5
Cadmium 46.8 mg/kg wet 0.

500 53.1 88 82.8 116.
- 8
Copper 77.1 mg/kg wet 1.

00 79.9 96 83.2 116.
- 8
Chromium 103 mg/kg wet 1.

00 113 91 81.7 117.
- 9
Arsenic 62.0 mg/kg wet 1.

50 68.6 90 80.5 120.
- 3
Batch 8082125 - EPA200 SW7000

/ Series

-
Prepared: 28-Aug 08
-
BRL U 0.
0284
Mercury mg/kg wet

- Source: SA83491 0
-1
Prepared: 28-Aug 08
-
0.
0112 1 0.
0268 BRL 20
Mercury mg/kg dry
MatrixMatrix SpikeSpike 18082125 18082125

- -MS11MS11 Source:Source: SA83491 SA83491
- -0202
- 08
- 08 Analyzed:Analyzed: 03-03-SepSep
- 08
- 08
MercuryMercury 0.
497 mg/kg drydry 0.
0295 0.
410 0.
0638 106106 7575
- 125
- 125
MatrixMatrix SpikeSpike DuoDuo 1808212518082125

- MSD11
- MSD11 Source:Source: SA83491 SA83491
- -0202
- 08
- 08
- 08
MercuryMercury 0.
466 mg/kg drydry 0.
0277 0.
385 0.
0638 105105 7575
- 125
- 125 66 2020
PostPost SpikeSpike 18082125 18082125

- -PS11PS11 Source:Source: SA83491 SA83491
- -0202
- 08
- 08
- 08
MercuryMercury 0.
466 mg/kg drydry 0.
0283 0.
392 0.
0638 103103 8080
- 120
- 120
- 08
- 08
- 08
MercuryMercury 1.
57 mg/kg wetwet 0.
0300 1.
59 9999 71.2 128.
- 7
nislaboratorynislaboratory reportreport isis notvaUdwithoutnotvaUdwithout anan authorizedauthorized signaturesignature onon thethe coverpage.coverpage.

= =BelowBelow Reporting Reporting LimitLimit PagePage 4242 ofof 4747
TCLP Metals by EPA 1311 & 6000/7000 Series Methods - Quality Control
Batch 8082049 - SW846 3010A

-

-
Nickel BRL U
mgA 0.
0100
Chromium BRL U 0.
0100
mgA
LCS 18082049 B
- S11

-
Nickel 2.
45 mgA 0.
0100 2.
50 98 93 109
-
Chromium 2.
46 mgA 0.
0100 2.
50 98 87.7 114
-

-

-
Nickel 2.
42 mgA 0.
0100 2.
50 97 93 109
- 1 20
Chromium 2.
43 mgA 0.
0100 2.
50 97 87.7 114
- 1 20

- Source: SA83616 11
-

-
Nickel 0.
0154 mgA 0.
0100 0.
0171 10 20
Chromium BRL U 0.
0100 BRL 20
mgA

- S11 Source: SA83617 04
-

-
Nickel 2.
37 mgA 0.
0100 2.
50 0.
0207 94 91.3 107
-
Chromium 2.
35 mgA 0.
0100 2.
50 BRL 94 81.8 116
-
Matrix Spike Duo 18082049 MSD11

-

-
Nickel 2.
42 mgA 0.
0100 2.
50 0.
0207 96 91.3 107
- 2 20
Chromium 2.
40 mgA 0.
0100 2.
50 BRL 96 81.8 116
- 2 20
Post Spike 18082049 PS11

-

-
Nickel 2.
45 mgA 0.
0100 2.
50 0.
0207 97 90 107
-
Chromium 2.
43 mgA 0.
0100 2.
50 BRL 97 78.1 119
-
Batch 8082050 - EPA200 SW7000

/ Series

-
Prepared: 27-Aug 08
-
BRL U 0.
00020
Mercury mgA
LCS 18082050 B
- S11
Prepared: 27-Aug 08
-
Mercury 0.
00417 mgA 0.
00020 0.
00500 83 57 119
-

-
Prepared: 27-Aug 08
-
BRL U 0.
00020 BRL 20
Mercury mgA

- S11 Source: SA83617 04
-
Prepared: 27-Aug 08
-
Mercury 0.
00411 mgA 0.
00020 0.
00500 BRL 82 54.7 121
-
Matrix Spike Duo 18082050 MSD11

-
Prepared: 27-Aug 08
-
Mercury 0.
00374 mgA 0.
00020 0.
00500 BRL 75 54.7 121
- 9 20
Post Spike 18082050 P

- S11 Source: SA83617 04
-
Prepared: 27-Aug 08
-
nislaboratorynislaboratory reportreport isis notvaUdwithoutnotvaUdwithout anan authorizedauthorized signaturesignature onon thethe coverpage.coverpage.

= = BelowBelow Reporting Reporting LimitLimit PagePage 43of4743of47
TCLP Metals by EPA 1311 & 6000/7000 Series Methods - Quality Control
Analyte(s) Result Flag Units * RDL Level Result REC Limits RPD Limit
Batch 8082050 - EPA200 SW7000

/ Series
Post Spike 18082050 PS11

-
Prepared: 27-Aug 08
-
Mercury 4.
19 mgA 5.
00 0.
0100 84 54.5 122
-
General Chemistry Parameters Quality Control
Analvte(s) Result Flag Units * RDL Level Result REC Limits RPD Limit
BatchBatch 80818078081807
- - GeneralGeneral PreparationPreparation
DuplicateDuplicate 18081807 18081807

- DUP11
- DUP11 Source:Source: SA83491 SA83491
- -0404

-
Solids 66.0 67.1 2 20
Batch 8082000 - General Preparation

- Source: SA83491 0
-1

-
Solids 98.9 98.9 0.
04 20
BlankBlank 18082217 18082217

- BLK11
- BLK11
PreparedPrepared
- 08- 08
TotalTotal OrganicOrganic CarbonCarbon 90.3 11
mgftmgft 100100

- Source: SA83491 0
-1
Prepared Prepared
- 08- 08
TotalTotal OrganicOrganic CarbonCarbon 1180011800 ZZ- -2c2c mg/kg 100100 9850 18 20
ReferenceReference 18082217 18082217

- SRMB
- SRMB

-
TotalTotal OrganicOrganic CarbonCarbon 25702570 mg/kg 100100 2490 103 37.35 180.
- 7
DuplicateDuplicate 18082260 18082260

- DUP11
- DUP11 Source:Source: SA83491 SA83491
- -0404
Prepared Prepared
- 08- 08
MoistureMoisture 42.7 36.0 17 20

Notes and Definitions
J Detected above the Method Detection Limit but below the Reporting Limit; therefore,result is an estimated concentration
CLP J-Flag).
Oct Analyte out of acceptance range.
QR2 The RPD result exceeded the QC control limits;however, both percent recoveries were acceptable. Sample results for the
QC batch were accepted based on percent recoveries and completeness of QC data.
QR5 RPD out of acceptance range.
SOL This sample was submitted without an unpreserved sample aliquot to determine dry weight. Per client request, the solid
weight results from 83491 0
- 4 were used to calculate the results on a dry weight basis.
SOLa
This sample was submitted without an unpreserved sample aliquot to determine dry weight. Per client request, the solid
SOLb This sample was submitted without an unpreserved sample aliquot to determine dry weight. Per client request, the solid
U Analyte included in the analysis, but not detected
VC10
The VOC field preserved soil sample is not within the 1:1 weight to volume ratio as recommended by SW846 methods
5030 and 5035 but may be within the 1:1 volume to volume ratio. This variance may affect the final reporting limit.
VOC6 The production of Acetone and other ketones is commonly seen when using the SW 846 5035A extraction technique.
Z2
- % RPD = 22.15
Z 2a
- % RPD = 24.35
Z 2b
- % RPD = 24.39
Z 2c
- % RPD = 50.19
BRL Below Reporting Limit - Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the reporting limit
dry Sample results reported on a dry weight basis
NR Not Reported
RPD Relative Percent Difference
A plus sign ( +) in the Method Reference column indicates the method is not accredited by NELAC.
Reportable Detection Limit BRL = Below Reporting Limit Page 45 of 47

Laboratory Control Sample (LCS) A known matrix spiked with compound(s)
representative of the target analytes, which is used to
document laboratory performance.
Matrix Duplicate An intra-laboratory split sample which is used to document the precision of a method in a given sample matrix.
Matrix Spike An aliquot of a sample spiked with a known concentration of target analyte(s). The spiking occurs prior to sample
preparation and analysis. A matrix spike is used to document the bias of a method in a given sample matrix.
Method Blank An analyte free

- matrix to which all reagents are added in the same volumes or proportions as used in sample
processing. The method blank should be carried through the complete sample preparation and analytical procedure. The method
blank is used to document contamination resulting from the analytical process.
Method Detection Limit M ( DL) The minimum concentration of a substance that can be measured and reported with 99%
confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero and is determined from analysis of a sample in a given matrix type
containing the analyte.
Reportable Detection Limit R ( DL) The lowest concentration that can be reliably achieved within specified limits of precision and
accuracy during routine laboratory operating conditions. For many analytes the RDL analyte concentration is selected as the lowest
non zero
- standard in the calibration curve. While the RDL is approximately 5 to 10 times the MDL, the RDL for each sample takes
into account the sample volume weight,
/ extract/digestate volume, cleanup procedures and, if applicable, dry weight correction.
Sample RDLs are highly matrix-dependent.
Surrogate An organic compound which is similar to the target analyte(s) in chemical composition and behavior in the analytical
process,but which is not normally found in environmental samples. These compounds are spiked into all blanks, standards, and
samples prior to analysis. Percent recoveries are calculated for each surrogate.
Validated by:
Hanibal C. Tayeh, Ph.D.
Nicole Leja
Rebecca Merz

TMWb,,,,
g Wm,ffi,CSrvEtioosPell PPx mm, . t,,
mwaN,d%
ffi,, ^ ^
I^lebsmis5ressipt
^
cowa,m
ream, sascm o ems„ o ,
A9wsus P,
nmtm 9WA 0Pt 0P o Ptt v,
nld m of m tab CommsW
Tempmtms 9Pewrvsasoes ononina at 4 ±2C o otFSC • c
Wen sEQAIQCpmwduos6uou desmquiodby0,

, aexmeuodv Y„
Wen , y, grvfi, tmocrmadebO,H H,, iFOass spcledmSect,,1139M
Wen sEpffCemmnfccehtee stW for required QAlQC pmceam,s eckw,19 Ye,
I attest N,
tFetbesednps,7
m oOFOs,
y, imTnauels g
imm,
hm6ecbl® Aemgnsryv'
r v, tF,
wcmaec, tF,mebdnt conai„d
mttosnpo ,,bt bestofmytmowtedgeaMbehe [ wcmatem comwete.
A,
dby
t],,=
W
xanbilc.Tas b PnD.
Pns,lenvL bombgQlncto[
RV wwBee
Rt Bace®
Lm, BRL B—AOw Betmmg lust e pffie of of of
IL a{
j
Wx
d
MIMI
IKpCF 4IM&
G
23 r a
i(
9 T
d A
y
E
r a
Tc-
CAm
Z
c
OF
E)
no
qq
22
b
22
U.S.STANDARD SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
z > + rz no xza ma $ o . goo aoo
100
t
t I I
I I ',
I I I I I I I I I
I<
f I I I I I I I I I I
80
I I 6- TT I
t: I I I I I' I
70
I I I t II_
I I I I I i
I I I
60 II, r
l.. -
I' t I I I I
L
5n
I
B 40
I i
c
RZIUEL
I
I
II
u
I
I
SAND '. SI
L1
I
I
A
Y
r I II I I
I
30 I
I: : I I I I I I
II I I I
Ii—
II I I
20
I I I I
i i
I I I I I I
10 t i... i. _ j i
I
I i' I I II I
Cpars¢ ! I, rf9 Coarse M dluni Fine
o19a 10 t 9.1 o.
ot o9p1
GraT size (mm)

Gravel Sand Fines
5.
9% 85.
2% 8.
9%
lab# Exploration Sam le Deth Description WC LL PL PI
5 tABC Brown fm
- SAND, trace SI141race Oravel trace Or anics

Northampton, MA
GZA File # 19547.1
G} Testetl 6y:
Reviewed by:
PEC
MBP
Date:
Date:
8/
08
28/
8/
08
31/
U.
S.STANDARD SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
z >,. o . ro Wo .. o « ..
100
80 I. -P - '.' T.r',, i. .. , +
ri;__
i i i_
fi —
_._
1 I
K i III I tl 1 '. I I
ir ', i i 1r. Ii
vo.
r I' i i i i I I i
r
i
L
so
CyRFiVEL SAND SI d' A

r I
40 t I I
1—
d I
I II I I
I
30 1
i i
i
10 iii . i_
il_
I
i
i
i ', , a ',,
i
iCaarse De i Coarse Medium . Fine I

0
100 10 1 a.
1 0.
m s.
001
Grain S¢
e mm)
(
Gravel Sand Fines
3.6 % 49.2% 47.2 %
Lab# Exploration Sample De M Descn lion WC LL PL PI

6 2ABC Brown Rm SAND antl SILT, aaceGravel (trace Or9aniw)

Northampton, MA
GZA File # 19547.1
GZ\\
1/ Tested by:
Reviewed by:
PEC
MBP
Date:
Date:
828/08
8/
08
31/
U.
S. STANDARD SIEVE AND HYDROMETER
100
90
80
60
50
Ed 40
30
20
10
0mp to t o.
t aat o.
oaa
Grain Site (mm)
Grevel Sand Fines
0.3 °/ 35.4 h
° 64.3%
Lab# Exploration Sample De th Descri lion WC LL PL PI

7 3ABG Brown SILT and 1-m SAND, Uew Grevel ( Dace Organics
G
ATTACHMENT
HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION
HEC RAS MODELING RESULTS ILLUSTRATING POST DAM REMOVAL

WATER ELEVATIONS
SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODELING RESULTS AND INNUNDATION

STUDY GRAPHICS

Rcberls Mariam 9 Main
490
Lentl
1) ]) The1GG year
- flootl peilc ivflowantl p® kGVtflow fiom Upper RGbM's e m
Meadow Reservoir with the Upper Roberts Mk dow Reservoir Dam iv-
place was estimated to beabGut 2,
080 M using the US Army CGrys of 00.year
Eu veers'
® HEC HMS Coputer softwareas outlived io GZA's Phase ll
Engineering Evaluation and Alternatives Analysis for the UpperRobMs
Meadow Reservoir DaZA,
m( G 2002.
ne
2) B eceuse the peak inflow and the peak outflows for the 100yearfloodare
4W
n the same wth the dam in place the water surface elevation profile along
the Roberts Meadow Brook -11 be estentially the same when the Upper '
Rober s M ®
dow Reservoir Dam is removed_
3) The 100 year flood water surface elevation profile along the Roberts
Meadow Block
ok bet—, the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservr o
and Middle
3
Rob MaM tlow
® Reservoir shown below was estimated by GZA unng the
m U S Ar my CGsry of Engineers' HEC RAS computer so ftware p o in
the Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam removed which is esewool ly
420 the same w.th the dam in place
J/
q
U
400
v
x
390 0 2000 4000 0000 BOW 10000
Main Channel ChAriece (fl)
FigureFigure AA- - 100100 yearyear ProfileProfile

- - RobertsRoberts MeadowMeadow
BrookBrook
- - PrePre andand PostPost DamDam RemovalRemoval
Upper Roberts Dam Removal
File No. 19547.10
Printed 2011
6/6/
SEDIMENT TRANSPORT MODEL RESULTS FOR UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM REMOVAL
Option I - Minimal Dredging Option II - Ongoing Hydraulic Dredging

MASS OF SEDIMENTS MASS OF SEDIMENT MASS OF SEDIMENTS MASS OF SEDIMENT
APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE
DAM BREACH PHASE REMOVED BY DREDGING AT DEPOSITED IN MIDDLE REMOVED BY ONGOING DEPOSITED IN MIDDLE
DURATION ts DURATION ts
THE DAM ROBERTS 121 HYDRAULIC DREDGING a ROBERTS «'
TONS) CY) TONS) CY) months) TONS) CY) TONS) CY) months)
Phase 1 (Dam @ EL 445) 0 0 Minimal Minimal 3.
00 0 0 Minimal Minimal 3.
00
Interphase D
( am @ El.445) 399 340 Minimal Minimal 0.
25 4,
228 3,
600 Minimal Minimal 0.
75
Phase 2 (Darn @ EL 435) 0 0 8,

110 6,
905 4.
00 8,
000 6,
50
Interphase (Dam @ El.435) 399 340 Minimal Minimal 0.

25 3,
993 3,
75
Phase 3 (Dam @ EL 426) 0 0 4,

111 3,
500 3.
00 0 0 3,
500 2,
980 3.
00
TOTALS 800 700 12,200 10,400 10.50 16,200 13,800 3,

500 3,
000 9.
00
Option I - Total Approximate Amount of Dredged and Transported Sediment (CY) Option H - Total Approximate Amount of Dredged and Transported Sediment (CY)
11,100 16,800
Qualifying Statement:
A sediment transport model is based on a simplification of a very complex process. Many of the assumptions incorporated into the model are weather dependant and therefore are extremely unpredictable.
The results of our sediment transport modeling are to be used only for illustration purposes for use in comparing alternatives.
Notes:
1)Mass of sediments that is removed by conventional excavation in a limited area (10wide x60long xl5deep)immediately upstream of the dam to mitigate a "first flush" of a wall of sediment that would be exposed after the dam in notched.
2)Mass of sediment that will be transported and deposited in Middle Roberts. (Does not account for mass of sediment removed by any dredging event.)Note that a "Minimal"amount of material (ie . fines and organic matter)
may be transported to Middle Roberts at any stage in the breaching.
3)Approximate duration is the estimated time for approximately 90 percent of the sediment to be mobilized during the given dam breach phase. Note that the duration is dependent of the stream flow which is dependent of the weather.
These results reflect average stream flows from nearby gages from the last 69 years.
4)Mass of sediment removed by hydraulic dredging to maintain capacity in the "sediment trap" during each phase of the breaching.
6)The sediment transport evaluation was performed using the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers' HEC-RAS computer model (Version 4.0).
7)Refer to GZA's Sediment Transport Memorandum for Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir for additional information pertaining to the model methodology and associated assumptions.
J:AO GZA INTERCOMPANY 10

PROJECTSV01.0019547.Upper Roberts Meadow Res Dam BreachEngineering\
\ From NorwoodSummaryResults-
\ 211
- 0- 9 (2xls
).
J
t..,
MIDDLE ROBERTS MEADOW
N
Y=
il /
I••
RESERVOIR DAM
r w 18 I
ry
1
V,
LEGEND
AREA FLOODED BY UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW

RESERVOIR DAM FAIR WEATHER FAILURE
1:1 AREA FLOODED BY UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW

RESERVOIR DAM WET WEATHER FAILURE
1 I°
1 G1 JJ 22 aa ZZ r-r-
w
FLOW DIRECTION
MATCHLINE
A ffff
I
22 00 MM
00 JJ QQ
mm mm
VJ, oN
OO
13 DISTANCE FROM UPPER ROBERTS

MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM VA I10 ZZ HH
1.
20
Q Ro Wits 1l 0000
LLo0CLLo0C 00
RESERVOIR ROAD 1
J
O
C Ii. Ut Iprl
RESERVOIR ROAD
q`` C
oo
atIL
W COOKS DAM WW NN
1.
70 331 - LOO WLL
Cross -Section Location (miles)
0:
30
MEMORIA 0
Leading Edge Arrival Time(hcmin)
Peak Flood AmiralTime,rVinin)

0:
50
PARR V
z
o
o
o
Maximum Water Surface Elevation (R) 233.1

Ij W
Peak Discharge (cfs) 31.
300 I - o
f Q N
to
III UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW m c

RESERVOIR DAM
rn
NOTES:
F
Roberts 1) THE INUNDATED AREAS SHOWN ON THIS MAP REFLECT EVENTS OF AN FJ(
TREME f
REMOTE NATURE, THESE RESULTS ARE NOT IN ANY WAY INTENDED TO REFLECT
Upper: 4-
R.
yy
z
C Reser-ruri-
y f
Meadow UPON THE INTEGRITY OF UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM.
2)NUMBERS INSIDE CROSS SECTION SYMBOLS INDICATE DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM OF
UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM IN MILES,
3)PEAK WATER ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOULD BE USED AS A
CO N
w a
GUIDELINE FOR ESTABLISHING EVACUATION ZONES.

vel
o gt
" 4)ACTUAL PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS WILL DEPEND ON ACTUAL FAILURE E2 O
C NE it CONDITIONS AND MAY DIFFER FROM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THESE MAPS.
5)FAIR WEATHER INUNDATION AREA SHOWN REFLECTS HYPOTHETICAL DAM FAILURE
WITH STARTING WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COINCIDENT TO THE SPILLWAY CREST
CIO Z
WW H Q
rE _ =
450.0 FT)AND A BASE FLOW IN ROBERTS MEADOW BROOK OF 100 CFS,
6)WET WEATHER INUNDATION AREA SHOWN REFLECTS HYPOTHETICAL DAM FAILURE 1 Wa 06
F
WITH STARTING WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COINCIDENT TO THE SPILLWAY DESIGN
FLOOD ELEVATION ( 462.2 FT),
2,
A BASE FLOW IN ROBERTS MEADOW BROOK OF
000 CFS, AND A BASE FLOW IN THE CONNECTICUT RIVER EQUAL TO THE 1(-
YEAR
aa
W, d'LL—
1L =
z
FLOOD ELEVATION (112,000 CFS). N
7) CROSS-SECTION INFORMATION INCLUDING LOCATION, LEADING EDGE ARRIVAL TIME,
y` L
m
PEAK FLOOD ARRIVAL TIME, MAXIMUM WATER SURFACE ELEVATION,
AND PEAK DISCHARGE ARE GIVEN FOR THE WET WEATHER CONDITION.
8)TOPOGRAPHY (IF SHOWN) IS FROM THE USGS 7.5 MIN
- QUADRANGLE MAP. CONTOUR ftwa
1 Scr. INTERVALS ARE 10 FEET: DATUM IS NGVD. GIA NG.
19230.0
1Q H
0 J- FIWPE
C1
-
1/, f I ' '_ " ' it /(_ A 1 N
Art•
l ' / / 1/ LEGEND
p AREA FLOORED BY UPPER MEADOW

1 RESERVOIR DAM FAIR WEATHER
THER FAILURE
WLI
I
AREA FLOODED BY UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW /
III• ®
y' ;` . • C}}
r, FLOW DIRECTION
m
o
O
u/ tiYr MATCHUNE
1 d yl / •,• • Y Y
o
DISTANCE FROM UPPER ROBERTS - m m
18' MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM .'
t of •• pO po
z;
o bra e) PINE STREET
C?w K W
1`—
p l it YP
o o as 0 OQ
Cross -Section Location (miles) 4.
30 r
Sta r '? Leading Edge Arrival min)

Time(hr: 0:
30 D
o
W
Peak Flood Arrival Time (hrmin)
0:
50 Zt " o
LL
nn C \ W N
Madmum Water Surface Elevation (11)) 233.1

WW
31.
800
Z o
Peak Discharge lots) r o
A It
NO z o
Shopping.
Center W
g
11 1 ,/
8f •'
MalneS .; , l F
MII y //' ( n
f PINESTREET Field •
r i ;, / LU
a
v : 1 1 ( O IL O
n
1%
hSoh o
o S w LL) (L
1
1
i p l ' ° I i '
f .
o_ O
y1 4 _/
m Oj Z Q
k-
i O
IF j O O
v9 wI• Of w z
5.
1
lo
4
w
a=
z
LaL —
a
Sao
G.+ng Sta . ' 3 19230.0
r-
x•
1,
1. _ J riaunE
Is
C-2
LJ ., idly ( 1. LIMIT OF ANTICIPATED DAM BREAKECTEO
FAIR WEATHER FLOOD WAVE E P% FLOODING.
TO BE
DISSIPATED WITHIN CONNECTICUT RIVER.
l
P 2. WET WEATHER DAM BREAK WITHIN 2 FT
- OF FEMq '
100 YEAR
- FLOOD IN CONNECTICUT RIVER. REFER O
TO FEMA FIRM MAPS.
NOTE THAT THE WET WEATHE R I N U N DATIO N AREA ON THI S S HEET IS PRIMARILY DUE TO BACKWATER FROM
THE NATURAL 10-YEAR FLOOD IN THE CONNECTICUT RIVER. 1%
THE CONTRIBUTION DUE TO THE WET WEATHER DAM BREAK OF UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM
IS NOT SIGNIFICANT RELATIVE TO THE AREA FLOODED BY THE CONNECTICUT RIVER BACKWATER.
LIVE - p Q N
1
6 0
mm
I BACKWATER TO ELEVATION 125.5 FEET IN z $
Q
1 CONNECTICUT RIVER RESULTING FROM LD w w
NATURAL 10 YEAR
- FLOOD -REFER TO FEMA O W F
j
t
-` FIRM MAPS.
0- LEIo w Oo
OX
r 7
cccc` ` 11 FF
WW
O0 LLLL
oo
1/ VV
OOOO
rr
Liicll
W.W. oo
44° °
i'
i'
u ACCV. .
VA InIn
Y 6.
49
0
41
O'O'
i eaa QQ ww
tr / i rtrt coco
fifi 0.1 oo
r ww¢ww¢
_¢ _¢
G ee
BoaBoa zz22 OO
w w oo
EE
ll
i' 0W00W0 oo
WW ELIaELIa aDaD
I
ww ELIELI 22 0'0' zz
LEGEND
5 icoico
ILIL

YY

6.
90 I
tt JJ
FLOW DIRECTION
8.
14 / 55,•,,•,
Yw MATCHLINE
1B DISTANCE FROM UPPER ROBERTS 55 Pogo:..Pogo:.. f FiGUPEFiGUPE
MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM

nn•'•'/ / 11 tt CC- 3
-3
i
Me
LEGEND


1.
61
JLDm fro
FLOW DIRECTION MIDDLE
ROBERTS MEADOW
2. r
p Q 9N 1p
RESERVOIR DAM
w.
l MATCHLINE m m
1'31 D o
DISTANCE FROM UPPER ROBERTS I Ur W Q
1.8 MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM
1.2
I Z S Q
D, W
w IL
RESERVOIR ROAD
s 0. Q
aos On
io
d
RESERVOIR ROAD
F o°o LL
Cross Lation(
GC miles) 1 . 70 ->', r COOKS DAM
2'31
00
0:
30 o
Leafing Edge Arrival Time (hr:
min)
050 .
Peak Flood Arrival Tone (hr:
min) U o0
Maximum Water Surface Elevation (11) 233.1
W CZ'
Peak Discharge (cls) 31,
800 _ I_
y;" n
Q
Ik.
tc 0
0.0
NOTES:
H
1)THE INUNDATED AREAS SHOWN ON THIS MAP REFLECT EVENTS OF AN EXTREMELY

REMOTE NATURE, THESE RESULTS ARE NOT IN ANY WAY INTENDED TO REFLECT Q D_ : a
UPON THE INTEGRITY OF UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM. _
2)NUMBERS INSIDE CROSS SECTION SYMBOLS INDICATE DISTANCE DOWNSTREAM OF
UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM IN MILES.
QU W
uJ
w 3)PEAK WATER ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHOULD BE USED AS A

cC U Z
F0Q
q1ÒF ? '
GUIDELINE FOR ESTABLISHING EVACUATION ZONES.
t
k 0.
01 4 ACTUAL PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS WILL DEPEND ON ACTUAL FAILURE
CONDITIONS AND MAY DIFFER FROM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THESE MAPS.
5)FAIR WEATHER INUNDATION AREA SHOWN REFLECTS HYPOTHETICAL DAM FAILURE
W
WITH STARTING WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COINCIDENT TO THE SPILLWAY CREST
Q. Q$ Z
450.0 Fri AND A BASE FLOW IN ROBERTS MEADOW BROOK OF 100 CFS. P a6
6)WET WEATHER INUNDATION AREA SHOWN REFLECTS HYPOTHETICAL DAM FAILURE Nd O
WITH STARTING WATER SURFACE ELEVATION COINCIDENT TO THE SPILLWAY DESIGN WW2 QO
FLOOD ELEVATION ( 462.2 FT),A BASE FLOW IN ROBERTS MEADOW BROOK OF
2,000 CFS, AND A BASE FLOW IN THE CONNECTICUT RIVER EQUAL TO THE 10 YEAR
- 0_D' 2 LL 1:
O0.
FLOOD ELEVATION (112,000 CFS).
D.. F
0 Q.
7)CROSSSECTION INFORMATION INCLUDING LOCATION, LEADING EDGE ARRIVAL TIME,
UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW
RESERVOIR DAM
PEAK FLOOD ARRIVAL TIME, MAXIMUM WATER SURFACE ELEVATION,
AND PEAK DISCHARGE ARE GIVEN FOR THE WET WEATHER CONDITION.
Z
B)TOPOGRAPHY (IF SHOWN) IS FROM THE USGS 7.5MIN
- QUADRANGLE MAP. CONTOUR
INTERVALS ARE 10 FEET; DATUM IS NGVD. Grn
19230.0
FlGUFE ,
1
1. LIMIT OF ANTICIPATED DAM BREAK FLOODING.
FAIR WEATHER FLOOD WAVE EXPECTED BE
BACKWATER TO ELEVATION 125.5 FEET IN
DISSIPATED WITHIN CONNECTICUT RIVER. .
CONNECTICUT RIVER RESULTING FROM
2. WET WEATHER DAM BREAK WITHIN OFFEMA
NATURAL 10 YEAR
- FLOOD -REFER TO FEMA
AR FLOOD IN CONNECTICUT RIVER. REFER
FIRM MAPS.
TOTO FEMA
PE FIRM MAPS.
l `
NOTE THAT THE WEI WEATHER INUNDATION AREA ON THIS SHEET IS PRIMARILY DUE TO BACKWATER FROM
THE NATURAL 10-
YEAR FLOOD IN THE CONNECTICUT RIVER.
THE CONTRIBUTION DUE TO THE WET WEATHER DAM BREAK OF UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM
IS NOT SIGNIFICANT RELATIVE TO THE AREA FLOODED BY THE CONNECTICUT RIVER BACKWATER.
m
7 m o
O Q J N
o
D W
0 co r
a0K O0
Ct
W
IJU
N
i I,
0 00
Z
y LU
N
3.
1
0
9 w
a
Dan
II LLl V w0
y
Q
U) 0 h 9
mLU > 2 ru
F e WOL
LEGEND - G.. -' '
LU co rG Q a0
LL
AREA FLOODED BY UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW ,-

d==
O

Y
Z
FLOW DIRECTION Gm rw
8.9
WI MATCMLNE 19230.0
I ' .-,.
M
DISTANCE FROM UPPER ROBERTS
1.8 MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM w a FIGURE
I
C6
-
ATTACHMENTS
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES REPORT.
KERRY J. LYNCH,PH.D.
BACKGROUND RESEARCH & NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY
OPINION FOR THE
UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM

BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND A NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBILITY
OPINION FOR THE
UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR DAM
By:
Kerry J. Lynch, Ph.D.
Presented to:
Mr.Paul Davis
One Financial Plaza
1350 Main Street, Suite 1400

Springfield, Massachusetts 01103
Presented by:
Archaeological Services
University of Massachusetts
Department of Anthropology
Machmer Hall, 240 Hicks Way
Amherst, MAO 1003
September 2011
Mitchell T. Mulholland, Ph.D.

Principal Investigator
Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam, Northampton, MA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................._..............................._ ...............................

m _...................
LIST OF FIGURES..._ _. ......... ......._ _....... iv
vi
ABSTRACT.................................
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................. .. ........ _,....._............ .. ........ .,....._..... ................:_,........._..

uzi
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................... ...............................

1
Scopeof Survey ........................................................................................... ............................... 1

Authorityfor Survey .................................................................................... ............................... 2
Project Area Description .............................................................................. ............................... 3
3
Personnel.........
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY ..... ......... .. ........ ......._.....:..:... ........ ::,...... ::....:..:... ........7::,......
CHAPTER 3: UPPER ROBERT S' MEADOW DAM ................................... ...............................

8
Historyof the Dam ....................................................................................... ............................... 8

Maintenance and repairs ............................................................................ ............................... 14
Twentieth Century Inspections .................................................................. ............................... 16
Historic Context (Late Industrial period 1870 1915) - ................................ ...............................18
CHAPTER4: RESEARCHRESULTS .......................................................... .............................

27
Holyoke Water Power Company ............................................................... ............................... 45
CHAPTER 5: OPINION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR INCLUSION IN THE NATIONAL

REGISTER..........
49
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY ..............................................................................

50 .............................
REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................. ...............................

51
111
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project area location in southern New England and the Hampshire County region.......
4
Figure 2. Location of the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam in Northampton, Massachusetts...........

5
Figure 3. View of the dam from downstream on Roberts' Meadow Brook (photo by F. T.
6
Barker,Aug. 8, 2011) ...................................................................................... ...............................
Figure 4. Location of the Lower, Middle, and Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoirs on the
9
Easthampton, Massachusetts topographical quadrangle (USGS 1939) ........... ...............................
Figure 5. Northampton Water Works plan showing the relationship between the lower (old)and
middle (new)reservoirs (Department of Public Works [DPW],Northampton, Massachusetts,
1898: Water Land Book [WLB] 4) ................................................................ ....................
10
Figure 6. Plans of the Upper or Hoxie Reservoir, Leeds, Mass. D

( PW,Northampton,
Massachusetts, 1883 [copied]:Water Plate [WP] 4:J) ................................... .............................
11
Figure 7. Upper Roberts' Meadow dam and north bedrock abutment (photo by F. T.Barker,
12
Aug 8, 2011) ................................................................................................. ...............................
Figure 8. Upper Roberts' Meadow dam and south bedrock abutment (photo by F. T. Barker,
Aug 8, 2011) ................................................................................................. ...............................
13
Figure 9. Map showing land considered to betaken for the protection of the water supply at the
upper reservoir (DPW,Northampton, Massachusetts, 1926: WLB,22) ....... ...............................
15
20
Figure 10. Historic map of Northampton (Walling 1860) ............................ ...............................
Figure 11. Historic map of the village of Leeds, Nort amptom MA (Walling 1860) . ......... ....21._
22
Figure 12. Historic map of the village of Florence, Northampton, MA (Walling 1860) .............
23
Figure 13. Historic map of the Mill River area of Northampton, MA (Beers 1873) ...................
Figure 14. Historic map of Bay State Paper

/ Mill village,Northampton, MA (Beers 1873).......
24
( eers 1873) ................25

Figure 15. Historic map of the village of Florence, Northampton, MA B
26
Figure 16. Historic map of the village of Leeds,Northampton, MA (Beers 1873) .....................
Figure 17. Inventory of existing dams in the City ofNorthampton, MA (Hampshire Council of
Governments [HCG], 30
Northampton, Massachusetts, nd.) ............................. ............................
iv
Figure 18. Looking west at the Middle Roberts' Meadow dam from the lower reservoir (photo
31
by F. T. Barker, Aug. 8, 2011) ....................................................................... ...............................
Figure 19. Hand drawn map showing the distribution pipes for the Northampton aqueduct
extending from the lower (old)reservoir (DPW, Northampton, Massachusetts, rid: WP 1: 1).....
32
Figure 20. Plan of the diversion of Roberts Meadow Brook by E. E. Davis (DPW,Northampton,
33
Massachusetts, 192 1) ..................................................................................... ...............................
Figure 21. Historic map showing the vicinity of Round Hill,Elm Street, and Prospect Street in
34
Northampton, MA (Hales 1831) .................................................................... ...............................
Figure 22. Plan of the new (upper)Roberts' Meadow reservoir by E. C. Davis (DPW,
Northampton, Massachusetts, 1887) .............................................................. ...............................
38
Figure 23. Original, hand drawn plan showing the lower (old)and middle (new)reservoirs with
the surrounding landowners (DPW,Northampton, Massachusetts, 1898:WLB][ 39
4) ...................
Figure 24. The lower (first),

upper (second),and middle (third)dams of Nortltampton's first
public water system (photos by F.T. Barker, Aug. 8, 2011) ........................................................
40
Figure 25. Location of the West Whately [Northampton] and Mountain Street reservoirs on the
41
Williamsburg, Massachusetts topographical quadrangle (USES 1941) ........ ...............................
Figure 26. Williamsburg topographical quadrangle showing the expansion of the West Whately
Northampton] reservoir (USGS 1990) ......................................................... ...............................
42
Figure 27. Map showing the layout of Holyoke Water Power Company property in Holyoke,
48
Massachusetts in 1859 (Barrett 1989) ............................................................ ...............................
ABSTRACT
Historical background research was conducted on the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam (aka
Home or Upper Leeds) located in the village of Leeds in Northampton, Massachusetts. This
research was undertaken to assist the US Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) and the
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) in producing a determination of eligibility for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. The Upper Roberts' Meadow dam was
constructed in 1883 in order to create a storage reservoir on Roberts' Meadow Brook as part of
the public water supply for the City of Northampton, MA. The dam was recently determined to
be in poor condition and required either repair or removal. The MHC attempted to evaluate the
site for its potential for eligibility for the National Register. The MHC was unable to offer an
opinion of eligibility given available data and requested additional information in the form of a
series of questions. The following report presents the findings of eight questions posed by the
MHC regarding the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam and its association with the development of
Northampton's water supply system, and offers the opinion that the Upper Roberts' Meadow
dam is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A and C.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The project archaeologist and principal investigator wish to thank the following people for
their assistance and advice on this project: Edward Bell, Senior Archaeologist, Massachusetts
Historical Commission, Eric Johnson, Co-Director,Archaeological Services; David Sparks,
Water Superintendant, Northampton Department of Public Works; Jim Kelly,W. E. B. DuBois
Library at the University of Massachusetts; Lydia King, Hampshire Council of Governments,
and the staff at the Forbes Library,Northampton, Massachusetts.
vii
Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Darn, Northampton, MA
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Scope of Survey
Historical background research was conducted on the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam (aka
Home or Upper Leeds)located in the village of Leeds in Northampton, Massachusetts (Figure 1).
This research was undertakento assist the US Army Corps of Engineers in producing an opinion
of eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NR),
to be reviewed by the
MHC. The request for a NR opinion was part of the City of Northampton's response to an order
from the Office of Dam Safety to either remove or repair the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam.
Archaeological Services at the University of Massachusetts Amherst was retained by the City of
Northampton through GZA GeoEnviromental, Inc. of Springfield, Massachusetts to conduct the
research project.
On June 25, 2009 the MHC wrote to Paul G. Davis, then of Baystate Environmental
Consultants (a GZA Company) of East Longmeadow, MA stating that after review of the site
inventory, it was determined that the project at the dam site was unlikely to impact significant
archaeological resources. Following this, additional information was provided to the MHC and
was reviewed in April 2010 by Edward Bell, Senior Archaeologist at the MHC. Mr. Bell then
sent a letter to Edward Huntley of the Northampton Department of Public Works, dated May 21,
2010, stating that the dam could be historically significant as a municipal work in the City, and
also may be a significant historic engineering structure.
Peter Stott of the MHC (report dated April 26, 2010) conducted the review of the potential
eligibility of the site for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, referenced in the
May 21, 2010 letter. Mr. Stott attempted to evaluate the site for potential eligibility for the
National Register of Historic Places. State Historic Preservation Officer Brona Simon provided
this review to the Northampton Department of Public Works on June 14, 2010. Stott was unable
to offer an opinion of eligibility for the National Register at that time, and requested additional
information.
An MHC letter of June 14, 2010 recommended that the USACE undertake historical
research by a qualified historic preservation consultant to assemble the information needed for an
effective National Register review, and in so doing, provide answers to the questions posed by
Stott. Thus, historical background research was necessary to provide the additional information
that will lead to an opinion of whether or not the dam is eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places. The MHC requested the following information in order to determine
the historical significance of the dam and reservoir. Some additional questions also are posed
below.
The primacy ofthe dam is in question because a `lower"reservoir is located

downstream. The Lower dam was in existence ten years before the "upper"dam was
constructed. What was the relationship between the two damslreservoirs, and how does
this affect the primacy issue
Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam,Northamptm,MA
What role did the reservoir play in the development of Northampton's water supply
system?
Between 1$
73 and 1905, was the reservoir the only water supply in Northampton?
Whatparts ofNorthampton did the reservoir supply and how was water distributed?
When was the Northampton Water Department o

( r water company) organized?
How did the water supply system grow over time?
What was the reason for discontinuance in 1905
What was the nature of the involvement of the Holyoke Water Power Company in the
dam construction?
Archaeological Services was retained by GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.,of Springfield,

Massachusetts, as directed by the City of Northampton, to conduct historical background
research and provide answers to the questions posited by the MHC. This research will assist the
USACE in producing an opinion of eligibility for the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places. The MHC's request that the USACE provide an
opinion regarding the historic significance of the dam was precipitated by the City's proposal to
remove the dam due to its poor condition rating and to comply with the MA Department of
Conservation and Recreation's DCR)
( Office of Dam Safety regulations.
Authority for Survey
Archaeological Services conducts archaeological investigations in accordance with federal

and state legislation and regulations concerning the impact to archaeological properties from
federally funded or permitted activities. Legislation and regulations include the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (PL 89 6
- 65);the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 ( PL 91 -190, 42 USC 4321);Executive Order 11593 of 1971 ( 16 USC 470);
Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties ( 36 CFR 800);and the
Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974 (PL 93 2 - 91). State legislation dealing
with the protection of historical and archaeological resources includes Massachusetts General
Laws, Chapter 9, Sections 26 27C;
- the Underwater Archaeology Act (MGL Ch.6, ss.179 180, -
Ch.9, s. 26, Ch.12, s. 11D, Ch.10, s. 61, Ch.91, s.63, Ch.92, s. 72 and 312 CMR 2); and the
Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MGL Chapter 30, amended by Chapter 947 of the
Acts of 1977). Projects involving the discovery of human remains or cemeteries are conducted
in compliance with MGL Ch.9 ss.26 2 - 7C (950 CMR 70 and 71),Ch.9,s. 26A and 27C, Ch.18,
s.613 and Ch.7,s. 38A. Massachusetts archaeological permit regulations are outlined in 950 CMR
70.00. No permit was necessary for this project as it consisted of historic research only.
Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam,Northampton, MA
Project Area Description
The Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir and dam are located on Chesterfield Road, in
Nordtamptom Massachusetts, approximately 1.4 miles southwest of the center of Leeds, a village
in Northampton (Figure 2).Once called the Hoxie Reservoir or the Upper Leeds Reservoir, the
impoundment covers six acres. A granite arch dam that was constructed in 1883 impounds the
reservoir (Figure 3).The reservoir served as part of the water supply system for the City of
Northampton, but water supply from the reservoir was discontinued in 1905. The dam has been
determined to be in poor condition and has been recommended for repair or breaching.
Personnel
Kerry J. Lynch was the project archaeologist and Mitchell T. Mulholland was the principal
investigator. F.Timothy Barker was responsible for the photography. Kathryn Curran prepared
the report graphics. Broughton Anderson was the editor for the report.
i ..
z, I
Services Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam, Northampton
I
ampton
Atlantic Ocean
0 Miles 50
0 Kilometers 80
Ir- - .`
0 10
J O
Wa I ILEVERETTI J9.
EN el- J
Miles
u T WHATELY .:, _ JJ 3
zo
I1, i
r
Project Area 1 3
1
11
A
ICHE
1 I 1
I-
LAiIELO
^ I
I Cry
I PELHAM
1 Z I
W
LEFiELD- 1 I
HADLEY
I AO? II NORTHAMPTON
o2 I
CHESTER
I i I
1
1
i
BELCHERTOWN
IOUT H I GRANBY
AkDLEYI
Figure 1. Project area location in southern New England and the Hampshire County region.
4
Upper Robert"s'Meadow
Location
Meatl
tI -
500 1000 Meters
0 2000 4000 Fee[

r
Figure 2. Location of the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam in Northampton, Massachusetts.
5
1A
0N
on
wou
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
Archaeological and historical background research consisted of collecting data concerning

the development of the Upper Roberts' Meadow Reservoir Dam, and its relationship to the City
of Northampton's water supply system. Information about the site was obtained by reviewing
the site inventories of the MHC (for information about other water system resources in
Northampton and Massachusetts); the Forbes Library; the B. W.E. DuBois Library at the
University of Massachusetts (particularly the Special Collections Department);the Hampshire
Council of Governments; Historic Northampton Museum and Education Center (Northampton
Historical Society);the Northampton Water Department, Northeast Utilities (for information
regarding the Holyoke Water Power Company), The Hampshire Gazette newspaper, the
Springfield Republican newspaper, and other repositories of historical and archaeological site
data. The effort included a thorough review of literature and reports related to the dam,
appropriate town records, early USGS topographic quadrangles and other appropriate historic
maps.
CHAPTER 3: UPPER RORERTS' MEADOW DAM
History of the Dam
The Upper Roberts' Meadow dam (aka Hoxie or Upper Leeds) was constructed in 1883 at
the site of a ravine on Roberts' Meadow Brook off Chesterfield Road in Northampton,
Massachusetts. E. C. Davis, engineer, and the Water Commission, chose the location for the
Town of Northampton, MA (Northampton Board of Water Commissioners [ NBWC] 1883b).
The reservoir served as a storage reservoir, supplementing the primary ( Lower Roberts'
Meadow) reservoir downstream from 1883 to 1894. The primary, or first, town reservoir was
constructed about one third of a mile above the confluence of Roberts' Meadow Brook and the
Mill River in the village of Leeds, Northampton, MA, and approximately 2 miles downstream
from the upper reservoir (Northampton Water Works [NWW] 1870). In 1894, a third reservoir
was constructed immediately upstream of the first (or lower) reservoir, and was subsequently
named the Roberts' Meadow Middle Reservoir (Figures 4 and 5).
The Upper Roberts' Meadow dam is a gravity arch dam with components of cut granite
blocks, stone masonry retaining walls, and earthen embankments with a.rock core (Figure 6).
Bedrock outcrops abut either side of the dam (Figures 7 and 8).E. C. Davis, a Northampton
engineer, was hired to design and oversee the building of the dam (NBWC 1883b; Springfield
Republican [SR],14 May 1883a),local Northampton contractors Jerre Brown and William Kyle
were hired to do the stone work (Hampshire Gazette [HG], 29 May 1883a; NBWC 1883b; SR, 9
June 1883c),and Mr. D. W. Axtell of Huntington, MA was hired to ìnspect and constantly
superintend the work, while the engineer made frequent examinations of the work as it
progressed" N
( BWC 1883b:6).
During construction of the dam, excavators had to dig much
deeper than anticipated to reach bedrock. This greatly increased the cost and duration of the
construction, and increased the height of the dam (HG, 10 July 1883b; NBWC 1883b; SR, 22
July 1883b).
Due to fears that the increased height of the dam would result in instability, a consulting
engineer was hired to review the dam design and plan specifications, inspect the work site, and
offer his opinion on the dam's construction (NBWC 1883b). Mr. Clemens Herschel, a hydraulic
engineer with Holyoke Water Power in Holyoke, Massachusetts, was employed for this purpose.
The Water Commissioners and the Town of Northampton were particularly concerned about the
quality of the dam's construction due to the failure of a large earthen dam at a reservoir on the
East Branch of the Mill River in Williamsburg in 1874 (NBWC 1883b; SR, 22 July 1883b). The
failure of the Mill River dam resulted in a catastrophic flood that claimed 145 lives, 15 factories,
over 100 homes, and devastated the villages and manufacturing operations in its path, including
the village of Leeds (Tercentenary History Committee 1954).
Clemens Herschel approved the plans and design of the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam with
one recommendation; that the earthen embankment have an elevation of 105 instead of 104.
Work on the dam continued without interruption (NBWC 1883b). The capacity of the reservoir
was 00016, 500, gallons with an additional 000 2, 000, gallons possible through the use of
flashboards. The total cost of constructionwas $32
16, 677.NBWC ( 1883b).
C
Archaeological Services Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam, Northampton
Figure 4. Location ofthe Lower, Middle, and Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoirs on the Easthamptom Massachusetts topographical quadrangle (USGS 1939).
Archaeological Services Upper Roberts'Meadow Dann, Northanaptont
AGRRgw!
2 \7
\}
k k4
10
Archaeological Services Upper Roberts'Meadow Dann, Northanaptm
y!
I
Y"
o.. Archaeological Services Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam, Northampton
0
N
rN
w
7
mSwx
b0G
a
N
c
13
The Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir was in use from 1883 to 1905. After 1905, a new,
larger reservoir system constructed in Whately and Williamsburg was used as the Northampton
water supply, and the Roberts' Meadow reservoir system was relegated to backup. The
following lists show maintenance, repairs, and inspections that were recorded for the Upper
Roberts' Meadow dam following its construction.
Maintenance and repairs
1887 (NBWC 1888)

Flash planks were placed on the dam prior to the great rain of July
Water overflowed the embankment on the north side, and the planks were removed
Repairs to the wall and embankment, and the cost of the planks and fixtures was $152.31
1593 (NBWC 1593)

Upper reservoir cleaned at a cost of 4
$35.02
1596 (NBWC 1596)

Replaced the apron at the foot of the dam as it had undermined and moved out of place
Repaired the top of the dam by relaying and cementing some top stones
Repairs done at a cost of 3
$36.42
1900 (Held 2003; SR, 9 November 1900)

Upper reservoir cleared at a cost of 87
2
$ ,
102.
1907 S
( R, 17 April 1907)
Augustus Hathaway, employed by J. R. Clapp,was fined for leaving the carcasses of six
skinned calves in a brook feeding the Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir
Although the Roberts' Meadow system is not used for the water supply, an example was
made as a warning to those who live near the watersheds of public supplies.
1911 (SR 1 November 1911)

Water drawn down and the upper reservoir cleaned
1912 (SR, 11 July 1912)

Grappling hooks were used to drag the bottom of the upper reservoir to retrieve the body of
Fred A. Martin, a suicide victim.
1926 (NBWC 1926)

Land was considered being taken around the Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir for the
protection of the water supply F
( igure 9)
14
Services Upper Roberts' Meadow Darn, Northampton
wmi
bn
d
z
b
Goag
w p;m
CCY a Sb
rN O ow
Si
a
DmN Gry
vetFkj\
k
Nb aa
0
G
i and
3
R 3
a
n h
b
b
ti
NG
m
mm
O
15
1927 M( HC,document on file,Upper Leeds reservoir & Dam (a.

a.
k.Howie
Reservoir, History from Water Department Records,2011))
Pointing and cement work on the dam
1933 (MHC,document on file,Upper Leeds reservoir & Dam (a.

a.
k.Howie
Reservoir, History from Water Department Records,2011))
Water drawn down and the upper reservoir cleaned
Repairs were made
1941 (MHC,document on file,Upper Leeds reservoir & Dam (a.

a.
k.Howie
Reservoir, History from Water Department Records, 2011))
Stone dam was repaired to stop leaks
Washouts under the dam were filled with stone
1942 (Held 2003; MHC, document on file, Upper Leeds reservoir & Dam (a. ak . .
Howie Reservoir, History from Water Department Records, 2011))
Water was drawn down for cleaning, but the work was not completed due to lack of
labor
Twentieth Century Inspections
The Hampshire Council of Governments [ HCG] records were accessed June 22, 2011.
Multiple letters and documents were located which referenced inspections of the Upper Roberts'
Meadow dam and reservoir. In these documents, the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam is referred to
as the "Hoxie Reservoir Dam," the lower dam is "Roberts' Meadow Reservoir Dam-Lower," and
the middle dam is "Roberts' Meadow Reservoir Dam -Upper."The detailed inspection reports
that follow ceased being generated when the Board of Water Commissioners and the Board of
Sewer Commissioners stopped functioning as separate entities and were absorbed under the
Department of Public Works in the1960s (David Sparks, personal communication 2011).The
footbridge, concrete foundation block, and gatehouse described in the 1968 and 1970 inspections
have since been removed. No date for this modification to the dam was found. The following is
a synopsis of letters and documents on file at the HCG, 15 Gothic Street, Northampton,
Massachusetts pertaining to the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam (Hoxie Reservoir):
1. 1930 Davis Engineering Company, Northampton, MA

Hoxie Reservoir Dam inspected, no criticisms

Hoxie Reservoir Dam, inspected —
good condition
3. 1944 Davis Engineering Company,Northampton, MA

good condition
16

good condition

good condition

good condition

good condition
S. 1954 Davis Engineering Company,Northampton, MA

good condition
9. 1955 Tighe and Bond, Consulting Engineers,Holyoke, MA

Hoxie Reservoir Dam inspected August 29, 1955 —
good condition
earth dike on North side and upstream of dam was overtopped, erosion negligible

Hoxie Reservoir Dam inspected November 10, 1956 —
good condition and considered
safe
no alterations or work in the past year

Hoxie Reservoir Dam inspected September 6, 1958 —
good condition and
considered safe
12.1960 Tighe and Bond, Consulting Engineers,Holyoke, MA

Hoxie Reservoir Dam inspected— good condition and considered safe
13.
1964 Tighe and Bond, Consulting Engineers,Holyoke, MA
Hoxie Reservoir Dam inspected
earth embankment found to be in very good condition
masonry ofthe dam okay
rock toe fill at base of dam in good condition
erosion noted at left end of spillway but no worse than last year
no changes made at the dam since last inspection and considered safe,

Hoxie Reservoir Dam inspected— good condition and considered safe
no alterations or work in the past year,
17

Home Reservoir Dam inspected June 6, 1968
earth embankment in fair condition
spillway structure is satisfactory
surface of the embankment is eroded near the small foot bridge leading to the
gate structure
concrete foundation block for the end of the foot bridge is failing
right abutment wall is undermined and its condition is becoming serious

earth embankment in satisfactory condition with some surface erosion in the
general area of the foot bridge leading to the draw down gate (draw down gate
was open andthe pond empty on the day of inspection)
concrete foundation block had stabilized and no replacement was deemed
necessary
spillway structure was okay
crest masonry in satisfactory condition
spillway abutment masonry okay, some very minor undermining on the right
abutment, but the condition is not yet serious enough to require attention
bed ofthe stream below the spillway okay
no alterations or changes since last inspection
considered safe
Historic Context L
( ate Industrial period 1870 1915)
-
Northampton was both an industrial center and a major agricultural producer during the late
nineteenth century when the municipal water system was being developed. Numerous mills and
manufacturing enterprises were located in Northampton, particularly along the Mill River
Figures 10, 11 and 12). The water power of the Mill River was reaching its capacity of
exploitation by the late 1850s, and steam engines were used in some locations to supplement the
water power (Hannay 1912). Direct water power for manufacturing was gradually being
replaced with steam power, and then quickly with electricity, at the end of the nineteenth century
Hannay 1912; Sharpe 2004; Tercentenary History Committee 1954). The growth of steam
power is reflected in the number of steam engines used in Northampton, reported by the Water
Commissioners: 30 in 1883; 63 in 1893; and 78 in 1903 (NBWC 1883a, 1893, 1903).
Villages along the Mill River housed large factories during the Late Industrial period (Figure
13). Bay State Paper
/ Mill ( Figure 14),the closest village to the commercial center of
Northampton, was considered a center of cutlery manufacturing, containing Northampton
Cutlery Clement Cutlery, and E. E. Wood Cutlery and Eagle Mills Vernon Paper Co. (MHC
1982;Tercentenary History Committee 1954).Florence (Figure 15),located upriver between the
village of Bay State and the village of Leeds (the location of the confluence of the Mill River
with Roberts' Meadow Brook) thrived as a center of silk manufacturing, the largest being the
Nonotuck Silk Company (Hannay 1902; MHC 1982; Tercentenary History Committee 1954).
18
The village of Leeds (Figure 16) was devastated by the Mill River flood in 1874, but some
industries were rebuilt after the flood including The Mill River Button Co. and The Northampton
Emory Wheel Co. Gay( 1888).
Northampton's population rose by 113.1 in % the Late Industrial period (MHC 1982).There
was also great institutional expansion with the growth of Smith College, the Northampton State
Hospital, and Clarke School for the Deaf, which contributed to the population growth (MHC
1982; Tercentenary History Committee 1954). As the population grew, so did the demands for
publicalty supplied water. The following table shows the increased use of water for families,
baths, and water closets from 1883 1903;
- common facilities used by households and institutions
NBWC 1883a; 1893,1903):
CONSUMERS 1883 1893 1903

Families 1647 2808 3490
Baths 223 820 1630
Water Closets 578 1667 3248
19
NOR ON
k• ' ••
NATIC ill.„/
T
mss
Iff
Figure 10. Historic map of Northampton (Walling 1860).
20
LEEDS
1 s m eo ep ay xu r..
i..
i
ro_
we . Srxx7[•
nlotuwrirrch.
tgx!,
All a
MO tva.
1 Gerry B111&
WIS8 Direckw .
i'
MiarAr APNurth.,Xemhant.
APh•
Battaa itrhbw,Maaiy
AW y7P Rnrilh,/
aryeederM oraer
S R 5'
elrwn. do do
wK'v
On.a"•
Figure 11. Historic map of the village of Leeds, Northampton, MA (Walling 1860).
21
Archaeological Services Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam,Northampton
I• c i. y ,$ e
i
r.;%
i a Vd (m, 4 °y sG 1
L • • .. /
a8 syyp}
I tom • •
Aa
I.
qS.
4.r oditl („
22
b0T
FN
4
23
Archaeological Services Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam,Northamptm
f ap pf
3
a'a
S\
f ~ YL
R
a 2 I AP
Ee Z
o
TT xx
mm
rr ww
NN
2424
cr
cv ds IP" r / n
r tltl''RR••
ndf V I
P xRra f'
u
e
i
j 'ilk` % ti/ L «
l y!!
e
1
J \' l
J
Lill'
lt. r.
i y' F
r:
r n
JN
loiri . ]] 2i,
ti'
ve PARK
iaPv
R ' 6y
3y .rr n yj 1OTO ' Z
P P
J w, . f
r.
FU
FigureFigure 15. Historic map of the village of Florence, Northampton, MA B

( eers 1873).
25
I OF NNhi4a rlpipN
r
1
Y
YN`
h•
O Gry T
Itluu,
/ {/ '. 4eM Mr fw e a u ucr • 4 _
r
ricn,.
r
jrv..
awa4,
NiJh,wY
Figure 16. Historic map of the village of Leeds, Nor hamptoq MA B

( eers 1873).
26
Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam,Northamptoq MA
CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH RESULTS
Eight questions, asked by the MHC, regarding the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam and its
association with Northampton's water supply system were addressed by conducting historic
background research. The findings are presented below.
The primacy of the dam is in question because a `lower"reservoir is located downstream.

The lower dam was in existence ten years before the "upper" dam was constructed. What was
the relationship between the two damsreservoirs,
/ and how does this affect the primacy issue?
The Lower Roberts Meadow dam (or first reservoir and dam) was constructed in 1871. The
Upper Roberts Meadow dam was constructed in 1883. The upper dam and reservoir (second)
were needed due to insufficient supply. It was constructed as a storage reservoir, approximately
2 miles further up Roberts' Meadow Brook. The capacity of the original reservoir was about
4,
000 000, gallons, and the capacity of the upper reservoir was about 000
12, 500, gallons. There
were no pipes associated with the upper reservoir. The stored water was controlled by a sluice
gate that could be manipulated to let water flow down stream via the force of gravity to the lower
reservoir.
Between 1873 and 1905, was the reservoir the only water supply in Northampton?
The Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir was one of three reservoirs located on Roberts
Meadow Brook between 1873 and 1905 (Figure 2 and 17).The first reservoir (Lower Roberts'
Meadow) was constructed in 1871 at "a point about one third of a mile above its junction with
Mill River, where the new highway crosses..."
NWW ( 1870:20).The second reservoir (Upper
Roberts' Meadow) was constructed in 1883 to act as a storage reservoir and was located about
two miles above the first on Roberts' Meadow Brook (NBWC 1883a). A third reservoir (Middle
Roberts' Meadow) was constructed in 1894 immediately above the Lower Roberts' Meadow
reservoir (NBWC 1894). It also acted as a storage reservoir and can be easily seen from the
lower reservoir (Figure 18). Together these reservoirs acted as the only public system that
supplied water to the Northampton area and surrounding communities between 1873 and 1905.
Whatparts ofNorthampton did the reservoir supply and how was water distributed?
The Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir was part of a water supply system that provided
Northampton and the surrounding villages ( Leeds, Florence, and Bay State) with water.
Distribution pipes were from the lower reservoir only (Figure 19). The main conducting pipe
installed in 1871 ran from the lower reservoir to Florence (16 inches);then to Prospect Street (14
inches),through Elm and Main Streets to the comer of Main and Pleasant (12 inches),ending at
the comer of Bridge and Hawley Streets (10 inches) N
( WW 1870) s( ee Figure 10 for street
locations and Figure 13 for Northampton Aqueduct). The original reservoir (Lower Roberts'
Meadow) built in 1870 had five miles of main, and rune miles of distributing pipe associated
with its construction (HG, 12 December 1871b). According to Held (2003),the water pipes
associated with the first reservoir:
27
went the entire length of South Street to Maple Street. Then down Pleasant Street
to Wm. R. Clapp's property. Along Hawley Street and Phillips Place through
Bridge Street as far as Lincoln Avenue. Continuing through Union and part of
Market Streets, through King and Prospect Streets to the intersection of Spring
Street (past Summer Street),through Green Street to the former State Hospital,
then crossing Mill River below the dam. Pipes also extended to the Clarke
Institution (Held 2003).
In addition to the 14 miles of pipe, the first water system also included a total of 74 fire
hydrants; 21 single, 58 double, and one at the intersection of Main and Pleasant Streets that had
six connections (Held 2003).
Distribution pipes continued to be connected to the mains and laid throughout the period of
1871 1- 905 when the Roberts' Meadow reservoirs were online, and are recorded in the reports of
the Northampton Water Commissioners by the year in which they were constructed. Water from
the upper and middle reservoirs was released as necessary and flowed down the course of
Roberts' Meadow Brook to the lower reservoir to be distributed. Roberts' Meadow Brook was
diverted in the 1920s (Figure 20),and a more direct course was constructed in order to eliminate
three bridges, prevent pollution, and limit the erosion of the brook's banks (Held 2003).
When was the Northampton Water Department o

( r water company) organized?
The Northampton Water Works was formed in 1870. At a meeting of the Town of
Northampton on July 20, 1870, it was voted to form a committee to examine the best way to
supply Leeds, Florence, and Northampton with pure water (NWW 1870).The passage ofAn Act
To Authorize. Cities and Towns to Purchase Water-Rights by the State of Massachusetts on
March 19, 1870 prompted Northampton to form such committee and develop a legal public
utility (Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1870; Held 2003; NWW 1870). A Board of Water
Commissioners was officially elected on November 8, 1870 and began the process of developing
the Nort ampton Water Works, which consisted of a dam, reservoir, and distribution pipes (Held
2003; HG, 8 November 1870). The Board of Water Commissioners oversaw the continued
development of Northampton's water supply with the addition of four more reservoirs by 1905
Held 2003).In 1961, the transfer of the Board of Water Commissioners to the Board of Public
Works was authorized.
How did the water supply system grow over time?
Prior to the development of a municipal water works in Northampton in 1871, residents of

the town relied on hand dug
- wells, cisterns, and natural springs (Held 2003; Trumbull 1902).
The first aqueduct company was formed c. 1794 by five local men who purchased the rights to
natural springs in Thomas Star's pasture, located near Round Hill Road (Held 2003).These men
were Asahel Pomeroy, William Lyman, Timothy Mather, Benjamin Prescott, and Ebenezer Hunt
Trumbull 1902). This first aqueduct carried water from the vicinity of Round Hill down Elm
Street, to Meeting House Hill, and eventually to the junction of Elm and Prospect Streets (Held
2003; Trumbull 1902; Van Voris 1984) Figure
( 21).A second aqueduct company was formed
28
shortly after, and water was transported down King Street to Pleasant Street (Held 2003;
Trumbull 1902). Shallow trenches and/or cored logs transported the water to small reservoirs
29
1N
\ F\
TOIZY OF EXISTING DAMS
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
5 1. FnIp PLAID PONY DAM

a
P ROpERiS MfAMU VPPFR DAM(NO %
L/
4 6 A ROBER(5 MEAfON cl...
4. ROEfAiS PAK LOMPANY DM
5. cHFR*
y (. MMi NAT MAGIME IGMPPNY DPM
17
7 BUITOM MILL DAM •1
E. BUTTCN Mill IMM FL
P 0S DAM (GOUMlRY CIOB DAAA
9. CC-f
0. PRO B- RU$N fONPANY DAM
u. PIORENLE POND DPM
IZ. YANKEE Hitt vANY
T,a+ DAM
9 ID li FAMP If POND DAM
14. Mill RVER DIVER
15. ROCK y kI EDND CAM
P
It
LT HO4PRD5DAD G
t5A i4
N
6
J
IUE
Figure 17. Inventory of exisfing dams in the City of Northampton, MA (Hampshire Council
of Governments [HCG],Northunpton, Massachusetts, nd.)
30
Swmx
b9G0a
Nc
31
Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam, Northampton
cs __
SZ
rI
AM
tom\ ~
L r L'mcS ' . .
Op.
bem
f
Scale = 1:
960
Figure 19. Hand drawn map showing the distribution pipes for the Northampton aqueduct extending from the lower (old)reservoir (DPW,Northampton, Massachusetts,nd: WP 1:1).
32
Archaeolc Services Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam,Northampton
tl `
I
i
YY
YY
jj
nn
mv r 44
o l
5 n
G C
ee$$ LL
CC bb
ii ee
3w1e3e w1ro
r•
yy• •
r•
44
rr
00
wEowEo
3333
Services Roberts' Meadow Dam,
s1
a r a
7 ,..
Y } !
gyp.:? \-.
G 3
l!!a :,
C
AhInKY' . "WW.
L
s off,
l5>
Cǹ v+ i 5 s 1 a
1•
q
q l•
1 ._
I,
z;
34
located near the center of town (Held 2003; Trumbull 1902; Van Voris 1984).The logs
were eight inches in diameter and bored with two inch holes. One end was tapered and the other
reamed to a slant so multiple lengths could be fitted together (Held 2003; Trumbull 1902; Van
Voris 1984). Sections of this old aqueduct were exposed during excavations of a sewer on King
Street in 1893 (HG, 15 July 1893) and for an addition to the courthouse in 1973 (Van Voris
1984).
The first meeting to discuss a public water system was held in Northampton in 1867 (Held
2003; HG, 18 June 1867; Van Voris 1984). However, it was not until 1870 that two major fires
in downtown Northampton initiated the development of a public water system (Held 2003; Van
Voris 1984). At a meeting of the Town of Northampton on July 20, 1870, it was voted to form a
committee to examine the best way to supply Leeds, Florence, and Northampton with water for
extinguishing fires, domestic use, or both (NWW 1870). Five men were elected to the
committee; D. W. Bond, Luke Lyman, J. Stebbins Lathrop, Lucius Dimock, and M. M. French
Held 2003; NWW 1870).Additionally,the passage ofAn Act To Authorize Cities and Towns to
Purchase Water-Rights by the State ofMassachusetts on March 19, 1870 gave Northampton the
legal framework under which to develop a public water utility 1 ( 870;Held 2003; NWW 1870).
The Act of 1870, Chap. 93 allowed towns and cities in Massachusetts to take water from any
of its sources, purchase water rights, aqueduct companies, franchises, estates, properties, and
privileges in order to supply their inhabitants with pure water (1870).The authority to exercise
this right needed the consent of two thirds
- of a city council or a majority of a town's selectmen.
Cities and towns could issue bonds to pay for purchasing water and water rights, including
additional bonds for the purchase of material, laying pipes, etc. (1870; Held 2003). The
Northampton committee reviewed reports from other communities that had established public
water works, visited water works in both Waterbury and New Britain, Connecticut, selected civil
engineers to assess the feasibility of a reservoir in Northampton and choose a location, and
estimated the cost to the town (NWW 1870).
The civil engineers hired by the committee were Messrs. Welton and Bonnett, C. E. of
Waterbury, CT. Multiple sites were surveyed and examined, and ultimately a supply of water
from Roberts' Meadow Brook was recommended (HG, 25 October 1870; NWW 1870; SR, 27
October 1870). The cost was estimated at $180,000 for wrought iron and cement pipes, or
220,000 for cast iron pipes. The cost of land purchases and water damages was not included in
this estimate. The Northampton Aqueduct Company was formed and " secured the land
necessary for a dam and reservoir, the right of way,and the right to take water from the Roberts'
Meadow Brook, so-called, at the place recommended by the Engineers, by written agreements
with the several parties in interest"NWW
( 1870:4 5).
-
At a well -attended town meeting on November 8, 1870, residents of the town voted 412 to
160 to purchase the Northampton Aqueduct Company for $20,700, and a Board of Water
Commissioners was formed (Held 2003; HG, 8 November 1870). The Board consisted of the
same five gentlemen previously elected to the water committee and Oscar Edwards. The Board
was then authorized to issue town bonds for $ 179,300 for purchasing materials, laying pipe, and
other work needed to supply residents with pure water (Held 2003; HG 8 November 1870). On
February 11, 1871 the Massachusetts Legislature passed An Act for Supplying the Town of
Northampton with Pure Water, applied for by the Water Commissioners (1871). On February
18, 1871,the town voted to take action under this act, and approved:
That the town take the water from "Roberts' Meadow Brook,"at or near the place
35
where the new highway from the village of Leeds to Robert's Meadow crosses
said brook, and also any land necessary for raising, holding, and preserving such
water, and conveying the same to such parts of the town as the Board of Water
Commissioners to be hereafter appointed may deem expedient, for the purpose of
supplying the inhabitants with water for the extinguishment of fires, generating
steam, and for domestic and other uses (HG,21 February 1871a).
The terms of service and officer elections for the Board of Water Commissioners were also
voted on during this meeting.
The Water Commissioners subsequently chose civil engineers Welton and Bennett, who
were responsible for the initial survey and cost estimate, to engineer the construction as well
NWW 1870). Work on the Lower Roberts' Meadow reservoir began in May 1871, and the
reservoir was filled by September 1871 (Held 2003). C. L. Goodhue, of Springfield, MA, was
contracted to lay 1, 800 tons of pipe (HG, 12 December 1871b). The Lower Roberts' Meadow
reservoir covered approximately three acres and contained about 000 4, 000, gallons (Held 2003;
Kneeland and Bryant 1894).
In 1883, the Water Commissioners recommended constructing a new reservoir due to dry
conditions the previous year and an increase in water usage by the town (Held 2003; HG, 6
March 1883c; NBWC 1883a). E. C. Davis, a local engineer, was hired to survey two locations
and to estimate the cost of building a new reservoir at each. A location for the second reservoir
was chosen about two miles above the existing one, also on Roberts' Meadow Brook. The cost
to build this second reservoir and dam was estimated at about $8, 000, but the effort to reach
bedrock during its construction increased the cost to $16,32 677. Held
( 2003; HG, 6 March
1883c; NBWC 1883a, 1883b). E. C. Davis was then employed as the engineer for the project,
and prepared the plans and specifications for the dam (Figures 6 and 22). The reservoir's
capacity was 00016, 500, gallons, with an additional 000 2, 000, available with the use of
flashboards (NBWC 1883b).This reservoir and dam is the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam that is
the subject of this report. No pipes were associated with its construction; it was designed as a
storage reservoir.
In 1892, just time years later, the Water Commissioners favorably considered raising the
height of the embankments and dam at the Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir to increase its
storage capacity by 8-000
10, 000,gallons (NBWC 1892).The number of families being supplied
by the water works had increased by about 78% over nine years, from 1499 families in 1883 to
2673 families in 1892 (NBWC 1892). The commissioners were concerned about the available
supply of water in the event of a drought. The estimated cost of modifying the Upper Roberts'
Meadow reservoir was about $9, 000 (NBWC 1892).There was no record of this modification to
the reservoir ever taking place. This cost was also not reflected in the following year's report as
the Water Works' total cost of all repairs, salaries, maintenance, office expenses, etc. were
5,
29 275. for the year 1893 (NBWC 1893).
According to the Water Commissioners report for 1893, the water supply that year was
inadequate due to increased usage and a drought during the summer months (NBWC 1893).As
a temporary solution to the lack of water during the drought in 1893, the Unquomonk Brook in
Williamsburg was diverted into Mosquito Brook about two miles above the Upper Roberts'
Meadow reservoir (HG, 4 August 1893; NBWC 1893). Water was also pumped from Day
Brook in Leeds to the lower reservoir (Held 2003; NBWC 1893). Following the summer
36
drought in 1893,the commission surveyed for a place to locate a new storage reservoir.
Over the next winter plans and specifications were drawn up for a new reservoir that would
increase storage capacity by about 000 114, 000, gallons. Subsequently, the commissioners
applied to the Legislature for water rights above the lower reservoir (1894; NBWC 1894).An
Act to Authorize the City of Northampton to Increase its Water Supply and Incur Indebtedness
Therefore was enacted on March 30, 1894,granting the water rights to the city (1894).Land was
purchased and construction of the Middle Roberts' Brook reservoir began about May 15, 1894
Held 2003; NBWC 1894) Figure( 23).The Middle Roberts' Meadow reservoir was completed
at the end of the year (SR, 12 November 1894).Together, the three Roberts' Meadow dams and
reservoirs acted as a system that supplied water to the Northampton area and surrounding
communities until 1905 (Figure 24).
In 1900 a severe drought, again coupled with increased water use, prompted the Water
Commissioners to consider additional sources of water (NBWC 1900).They examined multiple
sources and decided to construct an intake reservoir, with a capacity of 000
16,000, gallons, on
West Brook in West Whatley; and a storage reservoir, with a capacity of 000
350,000,gallons, on
the Beaver Brook drainage in Williamsburg (Board of Water Commissioners 1901). The two
reservoirs were connected by a 20 inch supply pipe and are known as the West Whately
Northampton] and Mountain Street Reservoirs (Held 2003) Figure
( 25).The state rights were
granted in 1901 with the passage ofAn Act to Authorize the City ofNorthampton to Increase its
Water Supply and Incur Indebtedness Therefore on April 5, 1901 (1901).When completed, the
capacity of the new system was 000 24, 000, gallons at the West Whately reservoir, and
350,000, at the Mountain Street reservoir (Held 2003). Pipes running from the Mountain
000
Street reservoir carried water to the mains at Leeds (NBWC 1901). Work on this new water
system began in the spring of 1901, and the water was turned into the pipes on March 30, 1905
Held 2003; NBWC 1901).
In the spring of 1905, the Roberts' Meadow system was shut off, and with few exceptions,
Northampton and the surrounding villages were supplied with water from the West
Whately Mountain
/ Street system until 1951, when two ground water wells were constructed
Held 2003;Northampton Water Commissioners 1907).In the first half of the twentieth century,
the Roberts' Meadow system temporarily supplied water when the West Whately Mountain
/
Street system was too low (Held 2003; SR, 26 July 1932). Following the construction of the
ground water wells in 1951, and a subsequent expansion of the reservoir in West Whately in
1970 (Figure 26),the Roberts' Meadow system ceased to be used (Held 2003).
What role did the reservoir play in the development ofNorthampton's water supply system?
The Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir is associated with the history of public works in
Northampton, Massachusetts in general, and the development of Northampton's public water
supply in particular. The reservoir was created by the construction of a cut granite block and
earthenwork dam across a ravine on Roberts' Meadow Brook in 1883. Northampton's first
reservoir, or Lower Roberts' Meadow reservoir, was constructed in 1871 approximately two
miles downstream from the upper reservoir. The Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir acted as a
storage reservoir in order to increase the capacity of Northampton's fledgling water supply
system (HG,6 March 1883c; NBWC 1883a, 1883b). The Upper Roberts' Meadow dam acted to
37
g
imNN
ro
n
0
m
mE
ro
ro
m
38
iArchaeological )Services Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam,Northampton
F\
q.
js
Y 00
ee
ww
i
33 ii bb
c
lJS\ 3t3t
Y
ii To
en 00 tt
oooo
4
kVekVe
YY O
b
TT
aa z
ii
dd{ {
t
o
pf1 Ji. ri
3939
Figure 24. The lower (first),
upper (second),and middle (third)dams of Northampton's first public water system (photos by
F. T. Barker, Aug. 8, 2011).
40
ical Services Upper Roberts' Meadow Dam
N
V
S 0 1 0
U,
17
0 05 1 Kilometer
FigureFigure 25.25. LocationLocation ofof thethe WestWest VAmtelyVAmtely

[ [ Northampton]Northampton] andand Mountain Mountain StreetStreet reservoirsreservoirs
onon thethe Willimsbrtrg,Willimsbrtrg, MassachusettsMassachusetts topographicaltopographical quadrangle quadrangle
( ( USGSUSGS 1941).1941).
4141
Services Roberts' Meadow Darn,
ll'---
4Kll '
11 - - 1
d
14
ry
O
4242
impound the waters of Roberts' Meadow Brook for storage. Water was conveyed to the
lower reservoir through the force of gravity,flowing down the channel of Roberts' Meadow
Brook.
Arguments made by the water committee for the development of a public water system in
1870 included; 1) irrigation, 2) manufacturing, 3) fire extinguishment, and 4) domestic use
NWW 1870). The village of Florence was to benefit the most from irrigation, as their soil was
naturally dry (NWW 1870). It was noted that irrigation was also domestic use since `watering
lawns, shrubbery, and grounds, which form so important an element in the beauty of
Nortrtampton,... are kept up there as matters of taste by those who would gladly pay a liberal sum
to be able to keep up the green and freshness of spring during the months of July, August, and
September" NWW
( 1870:10).Watering the public streets to keep dust to a minimum was also
desired.
The water committee believed that small manufacturing operations could be attracted to
Northampton given a supply of pure water: " So important a means to encourage the
development of manufacturing interests within our limits, ought not to be overlooked" NWW (
1870:11).They offered an increase in manufacturing in New Britain, CT due to their new water
works as an example (NWW 1870). The ability to protect homes and businesses from fire was
crucial. In 1870 alone, two fires on Main Street, within two months of each other, destroyed
numerous buildings and businesses. Prior to these fires, in 1867, a special police force secretly
watched the movements of people after dark due to the many disastrous incendiary fires (Van
Voris 1984).
The water committee stated that the greatest benefit of public water would be for domestic
use ( NWW 1870). The comfort and convenience water would bring to the inhabitants of
Northampton was noted, as was the increase of property values and the desirability of settling in
Northampton and contributing to the growth of the town. A rather lengthy examination of the
savings in soap and tea that would be afforded the consumers of piped water as opposed to hard
well water was presented as an argument in household economy (NWW 1870).
The consumption of water for all the above mentioned factors increased rapidly following
the construction of the first reservoir. The following table shows the increases between 1873 and
1882, the year before the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam was built (Held 2003; NBWC 1883b):
CONSUMERS 1873 1882
Families 517 1499
Baths 46 189
Water closets 90 493
Hones 206 806
Cattle 155 586
Livery stalls 59 193
Stores, offices, banks 57 164
Markets 4 10
Bakeries 1 4
Prinri office 1 5
Restaurants 11 14
Photo ra hers 1 3
43
Archaeological Services Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam,Nordantam,MA
CONSUMERS 1873 1882
Fountains 6 6
Hotels and boarding houses 6 17
Steam engines 6 25
Manufactories 6 21
Railroad stations 1 3
Townbuildin s 3 7
Public watering troughs 4 7
Fire hydrants 107 141
Sprinklers 143
Laun
Greenhouse 1
Church or t}all 1
Clarke Institute 1
State Hospital 1
Private by drants 356
Grocery stores 12
Drug stores 5
Private fire hydrant 10
Meters 3
What was the reasonfor discontinuance in 19052
In 1900, a severe drought and continued increased water use, prompted the Water
Commissioners to consider additional sources of water ( NBWC 1900). The Water
Commissioners 1900 report states `Since the reservoir built in 1894 was completed, it has not
been drawn upon practically at all until this year, when with the most protracted drought in our
experience it was drawn so low that we were obliged to pump water from Mill River at
Leeds...pumping during that time about half the water the City used"NBWC( 1900:4).
After
surveying multiple sources, an intake reservoir was constructed on West Brook in West Whatley,
and a storage reservoir was constructed on the Beaver Brook drainage off Mountain Street in
Williamsburg (Board of Water Commissioners 1901). Work on this new water system began in
the spring of 1901, and the water was turned into the pipes on March 30, 1905 ( Held 2003;
NBWC 1901). In the spring of 1905, the Roberts' Meadow system was shut off from the water
system and retained as backup supply.
What was the nature of the involvement of the Holyoke Water Power Company in the dam
construction?
The Holyoke Water Power Company (HWP) played a minor role in the construction of the
Upper Roberts' Meadow dam. The HWP's hydraulic engineer, Clemens Herschel (1842-1930),
was hired to be a consulting engineer by the Northampton Water Commissioners. The Water
Commissioner's annual report for 1883 describes how the excavation at the site chosen for the
dam went deeper than expected in order to reach bedrock (NBWC 1883b). It appears that
Clemens Herschel was brought on board at that point due to the expanded height of the structure.
44
According to the 1883 report:
On account of the height of the dam, and the loss to the town in the event of its
destruction, as well as the danger to life and property from any insecurity in the
work, the Commissioners employed civil engineer Clemens Herschel of Holyoke,
engineer of the Holyoke Water Power Co.,a man of skill and experience in his
profession, as consulting engineer (NBWC 1883b:6 7).
-
The Hampshire Gazette reported that the contractors expected to find rock bottom within
four feet, but didn't hit bedrock until 20 feet (HG, 10 July 1883b). Herschel's report to the
Northampton Water Commissioners, in its entirety,is as follows:
Agreeable to your request, I visited the site of your Roberts' Meadow reservoir
three times, and saw the bottom of the foundation pit for the dam, on two of these
occasions, the last time being July 20th. I am satisfied from what I saw, and from
what was told me on the spot by your employees, in answer to my questions, that
the foundation of your dam has been laid either on the ledge, all the way across;
and I state that, in my opinion, you have done exactly right, doing no more and
no less, than was proper and prudent, in carrying out this part of the whole work.
I also approve of the plans and specifications according to which your dam is
being constructed, but make the suggestion, that, as the water level in the
reservoir may reach between elevation 103 and 103.5 in high freshets, the earth
embankment built in extension of the dam, should have its top on elevation 105,
instead of on elevation 104, as originally intended (NBWC 1883b:7).
The engineer responsible for the design and original construction of the dam was a
Northampton native, E. C. Davis. He was employed by the Water Commissioners to survey sites
for a reservoir, estimate the cost to the town for construction once a site was chosen, prepare the
plans and specifications for the dam and reservoir at the chosen site, and oversee its construction
NBWC 1883b; SR, 14 May 1883a). Local Northampton contractors Jerre Brown and William
Kyle were hired to do the stone work (HG, 29 May 1883a; NBWC 1883b; SR, 9 June 1883c).A
brief history of the Holyoke Water Power Company and Clemens Herschel is presented below.
Holyoke Water Power Company
The Holyoke Water Power Company (HWP) was incorporated in 1859 in the town of
Holyoke, located in Hampden County, Massachusetts. Holyoke Water Power outbid Boston
investors to acquire the holdings of the Hadley Falls Company (Barrett 1989) which included: 1)
a hydraulic system including a dam across the Connecticut River at Hadley Falls, and two and
one half miles of power canals complete with a boat lock; 2)real estate consisting of about 1,100
acres of land, the lands of the Proprietors of Locks and Canals in South Hadley, MA, mills,
tenements, and an office and machine shop, and 3)a reservoir and pipe system designed for
pumping water from the Connecticut River, and a gas plant with a distribution system in place
Barrett 1989). Street plans were designed on a grid pattern that incorporated the power canals
45
and established the city center as a planned industrial complex within the boundaries of HWP
property (Figure 27). Income for the HWP Company came from the lease of manufacturing
space, the rental of water power, the sale of gas and water, and the sale of small lots for
residential construction (Barrett 1989). The company continued operations as an independent
corporation until it became a subsidiary of Northeast Utilities in 1967.
Holyoke grew rapidly as manufacturing enterprises were established under HWP. Within
the first 30 years, the population of Holyoke increased from 4, 997 in 1860 to 35,674 in 1890, an
increase of 614% Barrett
( 1989). Between 1862 and 1880, 20 paper mills, 11 textile mills, and
numerous miscellaneous industries were constructed on HWP property (Barrett 1989). Water
power had to be transmitted mechanically during the first 30 years of operations as electricity
had not yet been developed to power industries. Since some manufacturing in Holyoke was
located away from a direct water power source, wire ropes or steel shafting was used to transmit
energy from waterwheels to the mills (Barrett 1989).
The company actively supported the research and development of waterwheels. In 1874,
HWP offered James Emerson an area to construct a crude test flume in the old boat lock (Barrett
1989). S. S. Chase, HWP's engineer, wrote him that "the testing of turbines is the only way to
perfect them, and this is a matter of importance. Move your works to Holyoke, and use all the
water necessary for the purpose free of charge" Barrett
( 1989:89). Five years later, in 1879,
HWP held a competition for turbine builders and invited five hydraulic engineers to judge and
report on the tests.
According to the Holyoke Transcript, November 12, 1879, one of the `water wheel men"
present that witnessed the competition was Clemens Herschel of Boston (Barrett 1989:91).
Herschel graduated from the Lawrence Scientific School of Harvard University in 1860, at the
age of 18, and then completed his education in Germany at the Technical School of Karlsruhe
Barrett 1989). He retained to the United States in 1864 and opened an office as a consulting
engineer in Boston, MA. Some of his projects during this time included the Albany Street
Bridge, the bridge across the Public Garden Pond in Boston, and the Quinnipiac drawbridge in
New Haven, Connecticut (Barrett 1989). On December 2, 1879 a committee was appointed
within HWP to lure an engineer to measure the water used by the mills and occupants of their
land (Barrett 1989). According to the minutes of a Director's meeting on January 6, 1880,
Clemens Herschel was hired as a hydraulic engineer to measure the water drawn by each
manufacturing concern on HWP's canals (Barrett 1989).
Herschel was employed by HWP as a hydraulic engineer for approximately ten years
between 1880 and 1889. During his tenure with HWP, he made major contributions to the
discipline of hydraulic engineering (Barrett 1989). He developed a method by which water
wheels became their own water meters, allowing for the efficient measurement of the amount of
water drawn by individual manufacturers; he built the first commercial, water wheel testing
flume in Holyoke, which provided HWP with additional income as they charged outside
engineers to use it; he designed the ogee shape for the face of overflow dams, providing for
increased efficiency in spillway discharge; and he developed the Venturi Meter, a mechanism
used to measure the flow of fluid through pipes (Barrett 1989).
The Holyoke testing flume was considered the beginning of the scientific study of water
turbines (Hopkins 1964). Herschel developed the Venturi Meter in 1886 while at HWP, and it
was still considered the standard method for measuring water flow in pipes in the late twentieth
century (Barrett 1989). The first practical application of the Venturi Meter was after Herschel
46
left HWP for the East Jersey Water Company (Boston Society of Civil Engineers 2011).
Herschel was awarded the Elliot Cresson gold medal in 1898 for the development of the Venturi
Meter (Marquis Who's Who 1960). The Elliot Cresson gold medal was the highest award given
by The Franklin Institute of Pennsylvania and was awarded from 1875 to 1998 (Hepburn 1966).
The award was `to be made in all instances made either for some discovery in the Arts or
Sciences, or for the invention or improvement of some useful machine, or for some new process
or combination of materials in manufactures, or for ingenuity skill or perfection in
workmanship" Hepburn
( 1966:4). The Clemens Herschel Award is given out annually by the
Boston Society of Civil Engineers and recognizes individuals who have published papers that
have been useful, commendable, and worthy of grateful acknowledgement.
47
wNim
48
CHAPTER 5: OPINION OF ELIGIBILITY FOR INCLUSION IN THE NATIONAL

REGISTER
The Upper Roberts' Meadow dam is significant under both Criteria A and Criteria C of the
National Register on the local level (36CFR60).
Criterion A states that: properties can be eligible for the National Register if they are
associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history. In the author's opinion, under Criteria A, the dam is significant in the areas of
Community Planning and Development, Engineering, Government, and Social History due to its
contribution to the development of Northampton's public water supply system.
Criterion B states that: properties may be eligible for the National Register if they are
associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. In the author's opinion, the Upper
Roberts' Meadow dam is not eligible for the National Register under Criteria B because the
length and nature of Clements Hershel's relationship to the dam is not significant. Hershel's
contributions to the field of engineering which make him a significant historical figure; the
Venturi meter, the ogee overflow design, and innovative water wheel methods were not
associated with the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam design or construction. Therefore the structure
is not representative of his professional accomplishments.
Criterion C states that: properties maybe eligible for the National Register if they embody
the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the
work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. In the author's
opinion, under Criteria C, the dam possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association. The dam retains the distinctive characteristics of a
nineteenth century, hand cut granite, gravity arch dam that has undergone minimum
modifications since its construction in 1883.
Criterion D states that: properties may be eligible for the National Register if they have
yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criterion D is
most often applied to archaeological sites, which do not easily fit Criteria A,B or C but may be
worthy of preservation or protection. In addition to archaeological sites, however, structures can
be considered eligible under Criterion D if they have information to contribute to our
understanding of human history and that information is considered important with regards to a
specific research question. Important information usually pertains to current gaps in knowledge
or missing data, and the structure has to be the principal source of that information. In the
author's opinion, the current significance of the dam lies in its role in the development of
Northampton's water supply system, and as an example of nineteenth century engineering, rather
than in its research potential. However, in the future, the integrity of the Upper Roberts'
Meadow dam may encourage the development of significant research questions.
49
CHAPTER 6: SUMMARY
The Upper Roberts' Meadow reservoir is one of three reservoirs located on Roberts'
Meadow Brook. The first reservoir (Lower Roberts' Meadow) was constructed in 1871 at about
one third of a mile above the confluence of Roberts' Meadow Brook and the Mill River in Leeds,
MA. The second reservoir (Upper Roberts' Meadow) was constructed in 1883 to act as a storage
reservoir and was located about two miles upstream from the first on Roberts' Meadow Brook.
A third reservoir (Middle Roberts' Meadow) was constructed in 1894 immediately above the
Lower Roberts' Meadow reservoir. It also acted as a storage reservoir. Together these
reservoirs acted as Northampton's first public water system between 1871 and 1905.
The Upper Roberts' Meadow dam is a gravity arch dam with components of cut granite
blocks, stone masonry retaining walls, earthen embankments with a rock core, and bedrock
abutments. Northampton engineer, E. C. Davis designed the dam, and Northampton contractors
J. Brown and W. Kyle built it. Clemens Herschel, hydraulic engineer of Holyoke Water Power,
consulted on the dam's construction. The dam acted to impound the waters of Roberts' Meadow
Brook for storage. Water was conveyed to the lower reservoir through the force of gravity,
flowing down the channel of Roberts' Meadow Brook. The dam has had some minor repairs
throughout its history and a foot bridge and gatehouse have been removed. The reservoir was
cleaned periodically, and the dam inspected regularly, until about 1970. The reservoir and dam
are located on Chesterfield Road, west of the intersection of Chesterfield Road, Sylvester Road,
and Kennedy Road in Northampton. The surroundings are uninhabited woodlands with some
light residential development nearby.
Archaeological Services recommends that the Upper Roberts' Meadow dam be considered
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places on the local level under Criteria A and C.
Under Criterion A, the dam was a key element in the development of Northampton's public
water supply system. Under Criterion C, the dam has retained its integrity and the distinctive
characteristics of a nineteenth century engineering structure.
Archaeological Services at the University of Massachusetts was contracted by the City of
Northampton, MA, through GZA GeoEnviromental, Inc. of Springfield, MA, to conduct historic
background research on the Upper Robert's Meadow dam in Northampton, Massachusetts, and
to provide a recommendation concerning the dam's eligibility for listing in the National Register
of Historic Places. This recommendation is respectfully submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, to be assisted by staff of the Massachusetts Historical Commission, in making a
determination of eligibility. Federal agencies ( USACE),in cooperation with State Historic
Preservation Officers, are responsible for locating, inventorying, and nominating all properties
under their ownership or control that may qualify for inclusion in the NR (36CFR60).
50
REFERENCES CITED
1870 General Court of Massachusetts, Chapter 93.
1871 General Court of Massachusetts, Chapter 16.
1894 General Court of Massachusetts, Chapter 177
1901 .General Court of Massachusetts, Chapter 261.
Barrett, Robert E.
1989 The History ofHolyoke Water Power Company. A Subsidiary ofNortheast Utilities
1859 1967.
- Holyoke, Massachusetts.
Beers, F.
1873 Adas ofHampshire County, Massachusetts. F. W. Beers and Co.,New York.
Boston Society of Civil Engineers

2011 Clemens Herschel Bio File. Electronic document,
http: org
www.
// bsces.committees
/ Awards
/ /, accessed July 20, 2011.
Gay,W. B. editor)
(
1888 Gazetteer ofHampshire County 1654 1887.
- W.B. Gay, Syracuse, New York.
Hales, John, G.
1831 Map ofthe Town ofNorthampton In the County ofHampshire. Pendleton's Lithography,
Boston.
Hampshire Gazette (HG)Northampton

[ Massachusetts]
1870 [Report of the Water Committee] 25 October, Northampton, Massachusetts.
1871 a [Town Meeting] 21 February, Northampton, Massachusetts.
1871b [The Northampton Water Works] 12 December, Northampton, Massachusetts.
1883a [much in
- brief]
- 10 July. Northampton, Massachusetts.
1883b [much in
- brief]
- 29 May, Northampton, Massachusetts.
1883c [Water Reports, A New Reservoir Recommended] 6 March,Northampton,

Massachusetts.
1893a 15 July, Northampton, Massachusetts.
51
Hampshire Gazette, continued)
1893b [The Water Supply] 4 August, Northampton, Massachusetts.
Hannay, Agnes
1912 A Chronicle of Industry on the Mill River. Smith College Studies in History, vol. XXI,
Nos. 1 -4,Smith College, Northampton, Massachusetts.
Held, M. L.
2003 Development of Northampton's Water Supply. Manuscript on file,Northampton Water
Department, Northampton, Massachusetts.
Hepburn, Joseph S.
1966 Report on the Life and Woks of Elliot Cresson. Journal ofthe Franklin Institute,
281(3)
4.
Hopkins, Joseph G. E. editor)

(
1964 Concise Dictionary ofAmeriean Biography. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.
Kneeland, F.
N.,and L.P. Bryant
1894 Northampton: The Meadow City. F.N. Kneeland and L.P. Bryant, Northampton,
Massachusetts.
Marquis Who's Who

1960 Who Was Who inAmerica, Volume I IS97 1942.
- Marquis Who's Who, Chicago,
Illinois.
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC)

1982 MHC Reconnaissance Survey Report: Northampton.
Northampton Board of Water Commissioners [NBWC]

1883a Report of the Board of Water Commissioners to the Town of Northampton, M
[ ass] For
the Year Ending February 1, 1883, No. 12. Northampton, Massachusetts.
1883b Report of the Board of Water Commissioners to the City ofNorthampton For the Year
Ending December 31, 1883, No. 13. SCS Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
1888 Report of the Board ofWater Commissioners to the City of Northampton, Mass.,For the
Year Ending November 30, 1887. Wade, Warner & Co.,Northampton, Massachusetts.
1892 Twenty -Second Annual Report of the Board of Water Commissioners ofNorthampton,
Mass For the Year Ending November 30, 1892. Springfield Printing and Binding Company,
Springfield, Massachusetts.
52
Northampton Board of Water Commissioners, continued)
1893 Twenty TMrd

- Annual Report of the Board of Water Commissioners, of Northampton,
Mass.,For the Year Ending November 30, 1893. Bryant Printing, Florence, Massachusetts.
1894 Twenty Fourth

- Annual Report of the Board of Water Commissioners, of Northampton-
Mass.,For the Year Ending November 30, 1894. Northampton-Massachusetts.
1896 Twenty Sixth

- Annual report of the Water Commissioners of the City of Northampton-
Mass.,For the Year Ending November 30, 1896.
1900 Thirtieth Annual Report of the Water Commissioners of the City of Northampton, Mass.,
For the Year Ending November 30, 1900.
1901 Thirty First

- Annual Report of the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of
Northampton, Mass.,For the year Ending November 30, 1901.
1903 Thirty TMrd

- Annual Report of the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of
Northampton, Mass.,For the Yea Ending November 30, 1903.
1907 Thirty-Seventh Annual Report of the Board of Water Commissioners of the City of
Northampton, Mass.,For the Yea Ending November 30, 1907.
Northampton Water Works [NW W]

1870 Report of the Committee on the Best Method of Supplying Northampton and Florence
with Pure Water. Trumbull and Gere, Steam Printers 1870 -1880, Northampton,
Massachusetts.
Sharpe, Elizabeth M.
2004 In the Shadow ofthe Dam: the Aftermath of the Mill River Flood of IS74. Free Press,
New York.
Springfield Republican (SR)Springfield,

[ Massachusetts]
1870 [Hampshire County] 27 October, Springfield, Massachusetts.
1883a [Hampshire County] 14 May, Springfield, Massachusetts.
1883b [Hampshire County] 22 July, Springfield, Massachusetts.
1883c [Wanted ad for granite cutters] 9 June, Springfield, Massachusetts.
1894 [Hampshire County] 12 November, Springfield, Massachusetts.
1900 [Hampshire County] 9 November, Springfield, Massachusetts.
53
Springfield Republican, continued)
1907 [For Polluting Water Supply, Fine of 15

$ Was Imposed] 17 April, Springfield,
Massachusetts.
1912 [Body Found in Reservoir] 11 July, Springfield, Massachusetts.
1932 [Auxiliary Supply Tapped, Roberts' Meadow Reservoir Used as Water Low] 26 July,
Springfield, Massachusetts.
The Tercentenary History Committee

1954 The Northampton Book Chapters from 300 Years in the Life of a New England Town
1654 1954.
- Northampton, Massachusetts.
Trumbull, James.R.
1902 History ofNorthampton, Massachusettsfrom its Settlement in 1654, Vol. 11. Gazette
Printing, Northampton, Massachusetts.
United States
2004 Title 36--

Parks, Forests, And Public Property Chapter I--
National Park Service,
Department of the Interior Part 60--
National Register of Historic Places.
United States Geological Survey

1939 Easthampton, Massachusetts, Quadrangle. 7.5 minute series. 680
1:
31,scale.
1941 Williamsburg, Massachusetts, Quadrangle. 7.5 minute series. 680

1:31,scale.
1990 Williamsburg, Massachusetts, Quadrangle. 7.5 minute series, metric. 000

1:25,scale.
Van Voris, Jacqueline

1984 The Look ofParadise: apictorial history ofNorthampton Massachusetts.
, Phoenix
Publishing, Canaan, New Hampshire.
Walling, H. F.
1860 Map ofthe County ofHampshire, Massachusetts. H. &C. T. Smith & Co.,New York.
54
ATTACHMENT
PLAN SET

PLANS
for the
UPPER ROBERTS MEADOW RESERVOIR

DAM REMOVAL
SEPTEMBER, 2012
INDEX TO PLAN SHEETS PREPARED FOR
NO. TITLE
CITY OF NORTHAMPTON
1--- COVER SHEET
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
2--- OVERALL SITE PLAN
3--- EXISTING CONDITIONS AT DAM I P _
31
0
4--- EXISTING BATHYMETRY PLAN
OF V
5--- APPROXIMATE BOTTOM OF SEDIMENTS AND LIMITS OF DREDGING f
4
l
6--- CROSS SECTIONS
II
N
VA, A
LA
Y e f 4
7--- CROSS SECTIONS

8--- DREDGED SEDIMENT CONTAINMENT & DEWATERING PLAN
9--- DAM REMOVAL - CONSTRUCTION ACCESS
41V .
10 - - - DAM REMOVAL DETAILS
or
41
SITE LOCUS
1 2,
000'±
31
PRELIMINARY PLAN SET
PREPARED BY
FOR PERMITTING
Engineers and Scientists
3 One Edgewater Drive
Z
Norwood, MA 02062
S PHONE (781)278 3700
-
91

14-005 Upper Roberts Meadow Dam EENF MEPA Filing

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

14-005 Upper Roberts Meadow Dam EENF MEPA Filing

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Submitted to:

Executive Office of Energy &

781 -278 5803

January 15, 2013

Secretary Richard K. Sullivan Jr.

G Re: Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal

Dear Secretary Sullivan:

Copyright 2013 GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.

1. the project does not cause damage to the environment and

GZA GEOENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

Anders B.Bjarngar , P.E.

ATTACHMENT 1. EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM NARRATIVE

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................

GZ\ 1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVE AND BENEFITS .........................................4

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................. ...............................

2.1 Project Site Description .......................................................................6

3.1 Alternatives Analysis Approach .........................................................11

3.2 Alternatives Analysis in Response to 2007 Dam Safety Order .......... 11

3.3 Conceptual Design —Dam Removal Alternative ................................

4.1 Sediment Management —Hydraulic Dredging ................................. ...............................38

4.3 Schedule and Cost ............................................................................... .............................

5.0 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ............................................................

5.2 Wetland Resource Areas ..................................................................... .............................

5.4 Vegetation .......................................................................................... 69

5.5 Fish and Wildlife Resources ............................................................. ............................... 70

5.8 Air Quality & Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................... 77

5.9 Noise .......................................................................................... .............................

6.0 IMPACTS OF PROPOSED PROJECT .............................................. 82

6.1 Topography, Geology, and Soils ...................................................... ............................... 82

6.2 Wetland Resource Areas ..................................................................... .............................

Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal

6.4 Vegetation .......................................................................................... 89

6.5 Fisheries and Wildlife .........................................................................

6.9 Noise .......................................................................................... .............................

7.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................

8.0 REQUESTS FOR WAIVER OF EIR OR FOR SINGLE EIR IN ALTERNATIVE

9.0 REQUIRED PERMITS ......................................................................97

10.0 MITIGATION SUMMARY ...............................................................

11.0 REFERENCES ................................................... ...............................102

Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir Dam Removal

- :Basic Limnological Characteristics of Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir 48

- Sediment Testing Results — Soil Characteristics ............................... ............................... 55

Upper Roberts Akadow Reservoir Dam Removal iv

ATTACHMENT 5 — Archaeological Services Report. Kerry J. Lynch, Ph.D.Background Research

ATTACHMENT 6 — Preliminary Design Plan Set

Upper Roberts Akadow Reservoir Darn Removal v

Environmental Notification Form

For Office Use Only

Project Name: Dam Removal at Upper Roberts Meadow Reservoir

Municipality: Northampton State: MA Zip Code: 01060

If this is an Expanded Environmental Notification Form (ENF)see

Which MEPA review threshold(s)

Effective January 2011

Has this project been filed with MEPA before?

Describe the on site

If the project is proposed to be constructed in phases, please describe each phase:

AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN:

HISTORICAL /ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Are there any impaired water bodies on or within a half mile

MASSACHUSETTS CONTINGENCY PLAN:

SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE:

Will your project disturb asbestos containing materials?Yes No X_

DESIGNATED WILD AND SCENIC RIVER:

1. List of all attachments to this document.