dredging feasibility assessment and conceptual ......2013/09/30 · dredging feasibility assessment...

www.essgroup.com

Dredging Feasibility Assessment and Conceptual Engineering Design for Memorial Pond Walpole, Massachusetts PREPARED FOR:

Town of Walpole

135 School Street

Walpole, Massachusetts 02081

PREPARED BY:

ESS Group, Inc.

401 Wampanoag Trail, Suite 400

East Providence, Rhode Island 02915

ESS Project No. W309-000

September 30, 2013

ESS Group, Inc. © 2013 – This document or any part may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording without the express written consent of ESS Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Dredging Feasibility Assessment and Conceptual Engineering Design for Memorial Pond Walpole, Massachusetts

Prepared For:

Town of Walpole 135 School Street

Walpole, Massachusetts 02081

Prepared By:

ESS Group, Inc. 401 Wampanoag Trail, Suite 400

East Providence, Rhode Island 02915

ESS Project No. W309-000

September 30, 2013

© 2013 ESS Group, Inc. j:\w309-000 town of walpole\deliverables\report\memorial pond rpt_9-30-13.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 WETLAND AND WILDLIFE HABITAT .................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Wetland Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 2

2.1.1 Land Under Water ................................................................................................................... 2 2.1.2 Inland Bank ............................................................................................................................. 2 2.1.3 Bordering Vegetated Wetlands ............................................................................................... 3 2.1.4 Buffer Zone and No-Disturb Zone ........................................................................................... 3 2.1.5 Bordering Land Subject to Flooding........................................................................................ 3 2.1.6 Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Data Review .............................. 3 2.1.7 Summary of Wetlands Assessment ........................................................................................ 3

2.2 Wildlife Assessment ......................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 BATHYMETRY AND SEDIMENT QUALITY ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 4 3.1 Sediment Depth and Water Bathymetry ........................................................................................... 5 3.2 Sediment Sampling .......................................................................................................................... 7 3.3 Sediment Testing Results ................................................................................................................. 7

4.0 DREDGING FEASIBILITY .................................................................................................................... 12

5.0 RECOMMENDED RESTORATION PLAN AND CONCEPT DESIGNS ............................................... 14

6.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................ 17

7.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 18

8.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................ 18 APPENDICES Appendix A Photo Log Appendix B Laboratory Results

© 2013 ESS Group, Inc. j:\w309-000 town of walpole\deliverables\report\memorial pond rpt_9-30-13.doc

1.0 INTRODUCTION

ESS Group, Inc. (ESS) was contracted by the Town of Walpole (Town) and the Walpole Ponds Management Committee (PMC) to evaluate the current status of Memorial Pond in Walpole, Massachusetts in order to develop a long term management plan for the preservation of this highly visible and historic town feature. Previous studies by ENSR in 1998 and ESS in 2004 documented the conditions in Memorial Pond and each recommended that dredging be pursued as the most appropriate and cost effective long-term solution for the pond’s restoration. Given this, the specific purpose of this project was to advance this goal by gathering current information about the pond in order to develop a conceptual engineering design and cost estimate for moving forward with a dredging restoration program.

Memorial Pond is an approximately 8.0 acre artificially created pond (impounded system) that is located within the Spring Brook drainage system that feeds into the Neponset River. Water depth in Memorial Pond currently averages about 1.25 feet with a maximum depth of approximately 3 feet at the center of the northwestern portion of the pond. The pond is located in a medium-density residential area, and is bordered by School Street to the west, Stone Street to the southwest, Diamond Road to the east and southeast, and East Road (Massachusetts Route 27) to the north. Residential homes, schools, and recreational facilities are also nearby. Memorial Pond has a single inlet (Spring Brook) which enters the pond at the southern end and exits the pond via the pond’s spillway under School Street at the northwestern corner of the pond.

The Spring Brook system has several artificially created ponds upstream of Memorial Pond including Diamond Pond, Clarks Pond, Allen Pond, and the wetland system associated with the Spring Brook Conservation Area. These systems, along with Memorial Pond, provide a significant benefit toward reducing the impacts of flooding along sections of Spring Brook and ultimately serve to improve water quality within the brook and the Neponset River itself by trapping and storing sediment and nutrients that would otherwise pass directly through the watershed system.

Historically, Memorial Pond and the other ponds upstream all received increased sediment and nutrient loading from the watershed as the watershed was developed over time. The Spring Brook system collects drainage from the Route 95/Route 1 corridor as well as drainage from residential and golf course properties. Historically, the upper portion of this watershed also had a sand and gravel mining operation that was documented to have contributed significantly toward the accumulation of sediment in Allen Pond which certainly would have accelerated the filling of Memorial Pond with sediment as well.

Fortunately, new development activities within the Spring Brook watershed are relatively few and the new storm water regulations enacted by the federal, state, and local authorities have combined to account for and manage new and existing sources of sediment much better than was historically occurring. In addition, the Walpole Country Club completed the dredging of their pond (Allen Pond) located upstream of Memorial Pond in 2011, which will aid in trapping sediment that would otherwise move through the watershed and reach Memorial Pond. Given these positive changes, the potential for restoring Memorial Pond by removing the accumulated sediment (dredging) is improved and would be a much longer lasting restoration approach than could have been envisioned just five years ago.

Dredging is a reliable approach for restoring ecological and aesthetic characteristics of a waterbody since it removes the nutrient-rich sediments that have accumulated over time. These accumulations occur in every ponded system; however, impounded systems are inherently susceptible since the impoundment creates a natural settling point for material that would otherwise pass through. Since Memorial Pond is an impounded pond, the dredging program should be designed to not only remove the accumulated sediment, but also to deepen the pond to a depth that will preclude the growth of rooted plants from the areas of the pond that are envisioned to remain weed free. If dredging were only to remove the accumulated muck layer, the pond would soon accumulate a new layer of muck, although less thick, that would be sufficient to support the root systems for a number of aquatic weeds.

Dredging Feasibility Assessment and Conceptual Engineering Design for Memorial Pond September 30, 2013

© 2013 ESS Group, Inc. Page 2 j:\w309-000 town of walpole\deliverables\report\memorial pond rpt_9-30-13.doc

Ultimately, the goal of the restoration is understood to be to retain the pond’s historic character as an open water amenity within the town while also maintaining the site’s aesthetic appeal and value as an ecological resource. Therefore, in addition to developing a design and cost estimate for a dredging project to improve the deep water habitat, ESS has also tried to identify areas in which the restoration could be configured to also improve the shallower wetland and wildlife habitat around the pond’s perimeter.

2.0 WETLAND AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

2.1 Wetland Assessment

Resource areas within and adjacent to Memorial Pond include land under water (LUW), inland bank, bordering vegetated wetland (BVW), and riverfront area. Several of these resource areas have an associated buffer zone which begins at the edge of the resource area boundary. These wetland resource areas are described in the sections below. Approximate wetland resource area boundaries were determined based on field reconnaissance by ESS environmental scientists and through orthophotograph interpretation.

2.1.1 Land Under Water

Per 310 CMR 10.56, the land under Memorial Pond is considered LUW and occurs below the mean annual low water level of the pond. The LUW within the pond provides the substrate for plant growth and habitat for benthic organisms. Species observed growing in the pond include cattails (Typha latifolia), pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), yellow water lily (Nuphar variegata), white water lily (Nymphaea odorata), coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum), watermeal (Wolffia sp.), fanwort (Cabomba caroliniana), and water chestnut (Trapa natans). Both fanwort and water chestnut are exotic and highly invasive species that are known to significantly reduce the ecological value and diversity in any aquatic habitat in which they are present.

2.1.2 Inland Bank

Inland bank, as defined at 310 CMR 10.54, confines water within Memorial Pond. Plant species observed growing on the bank of Memorial Pond include white pine (Pinus strobes), red maple (Acer rubrum), gray birch (Betula populifolia), speckled alder (Alnus rugosa), and sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia).

ESS observed several wildlife species in and along the banks of Memorial Pond. These included muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), multiple species of songbird (Passeriformes), green frog (Rana clamitans), painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), and pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus). A full list of wildlife species observed at Memorial Pond is included at Attachment A.

Several mammal dens were also observed along the pond banks. The pond likely provides habitat for amphibians and reptiles including green frogs (Rana clamitans), bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), painted turtles (Chrysemys picta) and snapping turtles (Chelydra serpentina).



2.1.3 Bordering Vegetated Wetlands

A bordering vegetated wetland (BVW), as defined in 301 CMR 10.55, is located adjacent to the southern portions of Memorial Pond. Dominant plant species in this BVW area were red maple, sweet pepperbush cinnamon fern, hay-scented fern, and skunk cabbage.

2.1.4 Buffer Zone and No-Disturb Zone

The inland bank of the pond has an associated 100-foot buffer zone which begins at the edge of the resource area boundary. Work which occurs within the buffer zone is subject to the jurisdiction of the Walpole Conservation Commission. Under the Walpole Wetlands Regulations, there is also a 25-foot ‘No-Disturb’ Zone from the edge of wetland resource areas.

2.1.5 Bordering Land Subject to Flooding

As defined at 310 CMR 10.57, bordering land subject to flooding (BLSF) is an area with low, flat topography adjacent to and inundated by flood waters rising from creeks, rivers, streams, ponds or lakes. The boundary of BLSF is the estimated lateral extent of the 100-year floodplain, which was obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). According to the FIRM for the site, there is no 100-year floodplain associated with Memorial Pond.

2.1.6 Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Data Review

NHESP databases were reviewed on July 1, 2013 to determine whether any portion of the proposed Project area is mapped as rare species habitat. Based on a review of the current data, no mapped Priority or Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife occur at Memorial Pond or in the general vicinity of the pond.

2.1.7 Summary of Wetlands Assessment

Although there are obviously wetland resources associated with Memorial Pond that would be affected by the restoration work envisioned for the pond, the impacts associated with this work are expected to be limited primarily to areas within the pond margins themselves (LUW) and the end result will be an improvement to the overall wetland habitat and ecological value of the system. There were no endangered, threatened or rare species associated with the pond.

2.2 Wildlife Assessment

Wildlife was assessed within the pond and around its margins during our field work conducted on June 24, 2013. Below is a table summarizing the findings of this work.

List of Wildlife Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring at Memorial Pond and its Bordering Vegetated Wetland Areas, Walpole, MA

Direct Wildlife Observations Potentially Occurring but Not ObservedCommon Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Mammals

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis

Eastern chipmunk Tamias striatus

Northern raccoon Procyon lotor

White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus

Northern water shrew Sorex palustris

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus



Direct Wildlife Observations Potentially Occurring but Not ObservedCommon Name Scientific Name Common Name Scientific Name

Birds

Canada goose Branta canadensis Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia

Mute swan Cygnus olor Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

Great blue heron Ardea herodias American robin Turdus migratorius

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis Veery Catharus fuscescens

Fish crow Corvus ossifragus Swamp sparrow Melospiza georgiana

Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapillus Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Eastern screech-owl Megascops asio

White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Northern cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula

Chimney swift Chaetura pelagica

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus

Cedar waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum

Reptiles

Painted turtle Chrysemys picta Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina

Spotted turtle Clemmys guttata

Northern water snake Nerodia sipedon

Northern brown snake Storeria dekayi

Amphibians

Green frog Rana clamitans Red-backed salamander Plethodon cinereus

Gray treefrog Hyla versicolor

Spring peeper Pseudacris crucifer

Fish

Pumpkinseed Sunfish Lepomis gibbosus

The fish and wildlife community associated with Memorial Pond is typical for man-made (impounded) ponds located in eastern Massachusetts. No endangered, threatened or rare species were documented to be associated with the pond or its adjacent shoreline. If dredging is to proceed, it may be beneficial to consider maintaining select areas along the perimeter of the pond or entire portions of the pond as no-dredge areas so that the aquatic and semi-aquatic wildlife from these areas can serve to re-populate the remaining portions of the pond following the restoration work.

3.0 BATHYMETRY AND SEDIMENT QUALITY ANALYSIS

ESS conducted sediment depth testing and sediment sampling at Memorial Pond on June 24, 2013 in order to quantify the volume of soft sediment present within the pond and to determine the physical and chemical properties of this soft sediment.



3.1 Sediment Depth and Water Bathymetry

Water depth and sediment depths were mapped in Memorial Pond along thirteen appropriately spaced transects to provide a level of detail for determining water (bathymetry) and soft sediment depth (isopach) contours throughout the pond. In total, sixty locations were assessed along the thirteen transects. At each location, ESS held a tile probe to the pond bottom to determine water depth, and then pushed the probe into the soft sediment until refusal was achieved. The distance between the sediment-water interface and first refusal was recorded as the soft sediment depth. The surface sediment and the underlying hard sediment (e.g. sand, gravel, clay or bedrock) at each station was characterized by ESS.

Based on these measurements, ESS created a map of the sediment depths within the pond (Figure 1) which served as the basis for our engineering design calculations presented in Section 4.0. Sediment depth currently ranges from less than 1 foot along some of the pond’s margins to over 6 feet in the vicinity of the pond outlet. Average sediment depth within the pond was calculated to be approximately 2.23 feet. Based on our measurements, ESS calculated the total volume of the soft sediment contained within the pond to be just over 27,200 cubic yards.

S C 3 - C

S C 3 - B

S C 3 - A S C 2 - A

S C 2 - B S C 2 - C

S C 1 - C

S C 1 - BS C 1 - A

Source: 1) USGS, 15cm Orthophotos, 2008 2) ESS, Sediment Probing Results, Sample Locations, 2013

Memorial Pond

© 2

013

ES

S G

rou

p, In

c.

Walpole Massachusetts

0 100 20050Feet

Pat

h: \

\epd

ata

\CA

DD

\GIS

-Pro

ject

s\W

309

- W

alp

ole

Me

mor

ial P

ond

\MX

D\M

emo

rialP

ond_

Se

dim

ent

_Iso

pac

h_20

13.

mxd

Sediment Isopach Map

Figure 1

³

1 inch = 125 feet

Dra

win

g D

ate:

20

13/0

7/0

9

LegendSample Locations

Soft Sediment Depth (ft)< 1

1 - 1.9

2 - 2.9

3 - 3.9

4 - 4.9

5 - 5.9

> 6



3.2 Sediment Sampling

Sediment sample locations were chosen prior to the site visit, and were spaced throughout the northern portion of the pond (Figure 1), which is the area that the Town has expressed it is most interested in dredging. Nine distinct sediment core locations were selected in the northern portion of the pond and these cores were combined in groups of three composite samples that were delivered to a state certified laboratory (Premier Laboratory, Inc.) for analysis.

A Global Positioning System (GPS) was used to navigate to the nine sample locations, and a metal tile probe was lowered into the pond at each sample location to determine water depth and soft sediment depth. A Russian peat corer was then used to collect sediment core samples in 2 foot intervals at each location. Each 2-foot sediment core sample was photographed and described with regard to its grain size composition, color, moisture content, and organic content (see Attachment A). Samples were then placed in a stainless steel bowl for compositing.

One volatile organic compound (VOC) sample was taken from the upper-most sediment core sample at one location in each of the three composite sample groups. After the final sediment core sample was collected from each group, the samples were composited by mixing thoroughly. Sample containers were then filled for chemical and physical laboratory analysis (Section 3.0 and Attachment B).

Samples were analyzed for metals, pesticides, total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), extractable petroleum hydrocarbons (EPHs) with target polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and volatile solids. Physical properties (grain size distribution, moisture content analysis, and organic content analysis) were also analyzed. The results of the laboratory analysis are summarized below.

3.3 Sediment Testing Results

Laboratory analysis of the sediment samples indicated that the samples were relatively consistent in make-up and were comprised of a relatively even mix of sand and silt or clay particles. A small amount of gravel-sized particles were found in one of our composite samples.

Summary of Physical Analysis Results from June 24, 2013 Sediment Sampling

Sample ID Cobble Gravel Sand Silt/Clay

SC1 0 0 39.7 60.3

SC2 0 0 48.2 51.8

SC3 0 1.6 44.9 53.5

The Massachusetts Beneficial Reuse Guidelines (MADEP, 2004. Draft Interim Guidance Document for Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) Regulations 310 CMR 19.060) set criteria for contaminants in sediment applicable to upland re-use options. Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) Guidelines (MADEP, 2007. Massachusetts Contingency Plan 310 CMR 40) set concentration limits for sediment with regard to residential soils.

Chemical analysis of the sediment samples found that the concentrations of several metals in the sediment samples exceeded BUD limits. Cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, and zinc exceeded BUD limits; none of the metals tested exceeded MCP limits. Seventy-one volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were analyzed as part of the chemical analysis. Of those, only acetone exceeded BUD limits. Acetone levels were below the MCP limit. Chemical analysis also included nine poly-chlorinated biphenols (PCBs), twenty-one pesticides, and sixteen polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Of these, only the PAH compound pyrene was found above the detectable limit in the Memorial Pond sediment samples. Pyrene values were below MCP and BUD limits. For a more detailed summary of the physical and chemical laboratory results, see the attached Laboratory Reports (Attachment B).



Sediment Analysis Results from Memorial Pond, Walpole, MA – June 2013

Analyte SC-1

Composite SC-2

Composite SC-3

Composite MCP1 BUD2

Lined Landfill3

Moisture Content (%) 62 59 72 NR NR NR

Total Organic Carbon in Soil (mg/kg) 116000 150800 86500 NR NR NR

Mercury by SW-846 7471 in SW (mg/kg):

Mercury 0.64 0.57 0.71 20 8.7 10

Trace Metals by 6010B (mg/kg):

Arsenic 4.4 4.7 6.6 20 11 40

Cadmium 1.1 0.8 1.0 2 0.8 30

Chromium 30 27 26 30 11 1000

Copper 31 19 28 1000 NR NR

Lead 62 44 70 300 19 2000

Nickel 6.8 6.0 7.3 20 7.2 NR

Zinc 130 65 110 2500 28 NR

Volatiles by 8260B (GA/GW-1/S-1) (ug/kg):

Acetone 500 1100 700 6000 330 NR

Acrylonitrile 19 27 19 NR NR NR

Benzene 19 27 19 2000 150 NR

Bromobenzene 19 27 19 NR NR NR

Bromochloromethane 19 27 19 NR NR NR

Bromodichloromethane 19 27 19 100 5 NR

Bromoform 19 27 19 100 7 NR

Bromomethane 19 27 19 500 10 NR

2-Butanone (MEK) 110 220 210 NR NR NR

n-Butylbenzene 19 27 19 NR NR NR

sec-Butylbenzene 19 27 19 NR NR NR

tert-Butylbenzene 19 27 19 NR NR NR

Carbon disulfide 21 27 24 NR NR NR

Carbon tetrachloride 19 27 19 10000 3900 NR

Chlorobenzene 19 27 19 1000 28 NR

Chloroethane 19 27 19 NR NR NR

Chloroform 19 27 19 400 5 NR

Chloromethane 19 27 19 NR NR NR

2-Chlorotoluene 19 27 19 NR NR NR

4-Chlorotoluene 19 27 19 NR NR NR

1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) 19 27 19 NR NR NR




Analyte SC-1

Composite SC-2

Composite SC-3

Composite MCP1 BUD2

Lined Landfill3

Dibromochloromethane 19 27 19 5 5 NR

1,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) 19 27 19 NR NR NR

Dibromomethane 19 27 19 NR NR NR

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 19 27 19 9000 NR NR



Dichlorodifluoromethane 19 27 19 NR NR NR

1,1-Dichloroethane 19 27 19 400 200 NR

1,2-Dichloroethane 19 27 19 100 5 NR

1,1-Dichloroethene 19 27 19 3 NR NR

cis-1,2-Dichloroethene 19 27 19 300 13 NR

trans-1,2-Dichloroethene 19 27 19 100 92 NR

1,2-Dichloropropane 19 27 19 100 5 NR

1,3-Dichloropropane 19 27 19 NR NR NR

2,2-Dichloropropane 19 27 19 NR NR NR

1,1-Dichloropropene 19 27 19 NR NR NR

cis-1,3-Dichloropropene 19 27 19 10 NR NR

trans-1,3-Dichloropropene 19 27 19 10 19 NR

Diethyl ether 19 27 19 NR NR NR

1,4-Dioxane 77 110 75 2000 NR NR

Ethylbenzene 19 27 19 40000 1900 NR

Hexachlorobutadiene 19 27 19 6000 3000 NR

2-Hexanone 39 54 38 NR NR NR

Isopropylbenzene 19 27 19 NR NR NR

4-Isopropyltoluene 19 27 19 NR NR NR

Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) 19 27 19 1000 140 NR

4-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) 39 54 38 NR NR NR

Methylene chloride 19 27 19 100 NR NR

Naphthalene 19 27 19 4000 660 NR

n-Propylbenzene 19 27 19 NR NR NR

Styrene 19 27 19 3000 NR NR

Tetrahydrofuran 19 27 19 NR NR NR

trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene 19 27 19 NR NR NR

1,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane 19 27 19 NR NR NR




Analyte SC-1

Composite SC-2

Composite SC-3

Composite MCP1 BUD2

Lined Landfill3

1,2,3-Trichloropropane 19 27 19 NR NR NR

1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane 19 27 19 100 25 NR

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 19 27 19 5 5 NR

Tetrachloroethene (PCE) 19 27 19 1000 370 NR

Toluene 19 27 19 30000 1300 NR

1,2,3-Trichlorobenzene 19 27 19 NR NR NR

1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 19 27 19 2000 660 NR

1,1,1-Trichloroethane 19 27 19 30000 1900 NR

1,1,2-Trichloroethane 19 27 19 100 5 NR

Trichloroethene (TCE) 19 27 19 300 110 NR

Trichlorofluoromethane 19 27 19 NR NR NR

1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 19 27 19 NR NR NR

1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene 19 27 19 NR NR NR

Vinyl chloride 19 27 19 600 280 NR

o-Xylene 19 27 19 NR 420 NR

m,p-Xylenes 39 54 38 NR 420 NR

PCBs by 8082 (ug/kg):

Aroclor 1016 66 76 56 2000* 44 NR

Aroclor 1221 66 76 56 2000* 44 NR

Aroclor 1232 66 76 56 2000* 44 NR

Aroclor 1242 66 76 56 2000* 44 NR

Aroclor 1248 66 76 56 2000* 44 NR

Aroclor 1254 66 76 56 2000* 44 NR

Aroclor 1260 66 76 56 2000* 44 NR

Pesticides by 8081A (ug/kg):

Aldrin 65 76 56 40 22 NR

alpha-BHC 65 76 56 NR NR NR

beta-BHC 65 76 56 NR NR NR

delta-BHC 65 76 56 NR NR NR

gamma-BHC (Lindane) 65 76 56 NR NR NR

alpha-Chlordane 65 76 56 700 NR NR

gamma-Chlordane 65 76 56 700 NR NR

4,4'-DDD 65 76 56 4000 1800 NR

4,4'-DDE 65 76 56 3000 1300 NR




Analyte SC-1

Composite SC-2

Composite SC-3

Composite MCP1 BUD2

Lined Landfill3

4,4'-DDT 65 76 56 3000 1300 NR

Dieldrin 65 76 56 50 23 NR

Endosulfan II 65 76 56 500 360 NR

Endrin aldehyde 65 76 56 NR NR NR

Endosulfan I 65 76 56 500 360 NR

Endosulfan sulfate 65 76 56 NR NR NR

Endrin 65 76 56 8000 3900 NR

Endrin ketone 65 76 56 NR NR NR

Heptachlor 65 76 56 200 96 NR

Heptachlor epoxide 65 76 56 90 56 NR

Methoxychlor 65 76 56 200000 76000 NR

Toxaphene 3300 3800 2800 NR NR NR

Polynuclear Aromatic HC (µg/kg):

Acenaphthene 810 960 700 4000 3900 NR

Acenaphthylene 810 960 700 1000 1100 NR

Anthracene 810 960 700 1000000 1000000 NR

Benz(a)anthracene 810 960 700 7000 3700 NR

Benzo(a)pyrene 810 960 700 2000 660 NR

Benzo(b)fluoranthene 810 960 700 7000 3700 NR

Benzo(ghi)perylene 810 960 700 1000000 1000000 NR

Benzo(k)fluoranthene 810 960 700 70000 3700 NR

Chrysene 810 960 700 70000 370000 NR

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene 810 960 700 700 660 NR

Fluoranthene 810 960 700 1000000 1000000 NR

Fluorene 810 960 700 1000000 1000000 NR

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene 810 960 700 7000 3700 NR

Naphthalene 810 960 700 4000 660 NR

Phenanthrene 810 960 700 10000 10000 NR

Pyrene 1200 960 2000 1000000 1000000 NR

Italicized values aligned right = analyte not detected; value reported is laboratory detection limit NR: Not Reported *Standard applies to total PCBs Analyte Exceeds MCP S-1/G-1Standard Analyte Exceeds BUD Standard Detection Limit Exceeds BUD Standard 1: MassDEP, 2007. Massachusetts Contingency Plan 310 CMR 40 2: MassDEP, 2004. Draft Interim Guidance Document for Beneficial Use Determination Regulations 310 CMR 19.060 3: MassDEP, 1997. Reuse and Disposal of Contaminated Soil at Massachusetts Landfills Department of Environmental

Protection Policy # COMM-97-001



Most heavy metals are relatively uncommon in the earth’s crust, and elevated levels of these elements in aquatic sediments typically indicate human-induced contamination. Exposure to heavy metals at varying concentrations has been shown to cause cancer, neurological damage, and respiratory illness. Elevated levels of some heavy metals, especially arsenic and lead, is not uncommon in New England aquatic sediments.

Cadmium may enter the environment from sources such as manufacturing of batteries, pigment, and plastics, as well as metal plating operations. Chromium is also found naturally at low levels, and can be present in the environment due to chrome plating, manufacture of dyes, leather tanning, and treatment of wood products. Lead is commonly found in lake sediment, as it has been heavily used for a variety of applications. The primary source of lead in the environment is the historical use of leaded gasoline, which may run off into road-side water bodies such as Memorial Pond. Lead was used as an additive to gasoline from the 1920s until its use was banned in the 1980s. Elevated lead levels may also result from lead-based paints, lead pipes, lead-acid batteries, and lead sinkers. Nickel is used in the manufacture of stainless steel and other alloys, as well as in metal plating. Sources of zinc include the manufacture of a wide range of products including steel and other alloys, batteries, pharmaceuticals, pain, rubber, dyes, and wood preservatives.

Organic compounds such as acetone can be released into surface waters through chemical manufacturing and energy-related industries.

In addition to the ongoing contamination from atmospheric sources in the form of dry deposition, Memorial Pond is also surrounded by residential and commercial land uses, along with schools, parks, and recreational fields which can contribute pollutants to the pond during rainfall events. Historical industrial or manufacturing uses of the area may also account for elevated levels of contaminants in Memorial Pond sediment, however, it is expected that much of not all of these sources are currently controlled or have been eliminated as manufacturing in the area has waned.

The sediment within Memorial Pond, although exhibiting some evidence of historical contamination, is sufficiently clean to be considered relatively economical to handle and transport to an upland setting for beneficial reuse.

4.0 DREDGING FEASIBILITY

Dredging works as a plant control technique when either a light limitation is imposed through increased water depth or when enough soft sediment is removed to reveal a less hospitable substrate for plant growth. Since light limitation through increased depth is possible at Memorial Pond if excavation into the underlying hard bottom (coarse sand or gravel in this case), this will be the preferred approach since the pond will continue to receive sediments from its watershed that will, over time, negate the effects of simply dredging down to the hard bottom.

It may not be necessary to dredge the entire pond to achieve a satisfactory level of plant control, but it would be necessary to do a thorough job in any area where control is to be achieved or greater depths are desired. Light penetration depths in Memorial Pond were on the order of eight feet, so any excavation in excess of these depths would allow for maintenance of weed-free conditions in these excavated areas for many years.



Dredging in Memorial Pond could be an effective long-term control technique for nuisance aquatic plants, but will be costly. The challenges of a project of this type are not unreasonable. The key factor influencing the approach and costs for moving forward with a dredge program at Memorial Pond will be the ability to draw down the pond to allow for dredging within the drained basin to occur using conventional excavation equipment. This is most likely an environmentally sound and feasible approach if conducted during the winter months when wetland areas associated with the pond would be dormant. This approach would allow for sediment to be dewatered within the basin itself by pulling the sediment up to the margins of the pond to allow water to drain back into the main portion of the basin. Some form of temporary culverting would be necessary to accommodate water flows from the inlet of the pond during construction unless it was deemed acceptable to allow for a natural channel to form within the drained pond.

If conventional “dry” dredging is not determined to be feasible for Mill Pond due to equipment access issues or drawdown concerns, hydraulic dredging would be a viable alternative. Hydraulic dredging is generally more expensive than conventional dredging for projects of this scale and it would require a larger and more sophisticated containment area. Alternatively, advanced dewatering techniques such as the use of Geotubes (geotextile fabric for dewatering) or a belt-filter press machine could be used instead but these would add additional costs over traditional dewatering containment. All of these external sediment dewatering options will require land adjacent to the pond to be made available for the dewatering process. The town lot would be adequate space for the use of a belt-filter press machine, but a larger area would be required for either the use of the Geotubes (>0.5 acres) or a standard dewatering basin (> 1 acre). The town athletic fields located near the pond to the west of School Street (immediately downstream of the pond outlet) would be ideally suited; however, the ability to use any one location has not been investigated as part of this study.

Water level control within the pond may be a problem unless a near total drawdown could be accomplished. Inspection of the engineering designs for the spillway outlet control indicate that the dam may not allow for lowering of the water level much more than 4 feet below the normal pool elevation. Given this, pumping of the pond would be necessary in order to fully dewater the system to allow for dry dredging. Fortunately, there is sufficient grade to allow for this pumping to occur, and it may even be possible to use pumps to initiate a siphon in order to maintain water levels once the desired level is reached. Memorial Pond is not known to serve as back-up capacity as a water supply for the Walpole Fire Department, however, this should also be considered as part of the dredging drawdown plan. If it does not currently serve as such, it is very possible that the pond could be utilized for such a resource following restoration by adding a dedicated water withdrawal for fire suppression.

The amount of material to be removed and the type of disposal or reuse will also have a significant impact on the cost of dredging. Environmental permitting for dredging projects is moderately complex and will require at least nine months to a year before the project could receive all required approvals. Federal (USACE 404), state (MEPA Certificate and 401 Water Quality Certificate) and local permits (Notice of Intent filed for Order of Conditions from the conservation commission) are all required, and would necessitate considerable advance information and review time. If the project were to exceed 25,000 cubic yards it would also trigger the need to prepare and file an Environmental Impact Report with the state.



With an estimated soft sediment volume of approximately 27,200 cubic yards in Memorial Pond, the cost of a traditional dry dredging project (not including permitting) would likely exceed $680,000 for removal of all of just the soft sediments from the pond. Costs could increase if sediment cannot be reused or disposed of nearby. Permitting and design prior to dredging is likely to add an additional $50,000 to $75,000 to this total, bringing the complete dry-dredge project cost to approximately $755,000. Hydraulic dredging for a similar scale project would likely be of a similar scale depending on the method of dewatering selected.

5.0 RECOMMENDED RESTORATION PLAN AND CONCEPT DESIGNS

Beyond the standard removal of all soft sediment, it is possible to achieve the goals of maintaining open water habitat and aesthetics while also significantly improving habitat quality, water quality, and the long term value of the dredge project by selectively dredging the most essential portions of the pond rather than dredging the entirety of the pond. In addition, costs can actually be saved by incorporating features such as a complementary wetland system within one or more portions of the pond to enhance wetland and wildlife habitat while also minimizing the volume of material that will need to be removed from the pond and trucked away for upland reuse. These options would significantly enhance the habitat and aesthetics of the pond restoration effort. ESS has created conceptual designs for a project with such an option and we have done this in phases so that the initial phase (Phase I) would economically achieve the minimum desired condition within the pond while the second phase (Phase II) would be easily conducted at a later time should additional money become available.

The Phase I option would envision the enhancement of open water habitat within the western end of the pond adjacent to School Street and the pond’s spillway. This area would be excavated to create a much deeper open water basin with a maximum depth of up to 12 feet (Drawing 1). This depth would eliminate the potential for rooted plants since light would not be able to penetrate to the pond’s bottom in water this deep. Additionally, this deepened section of the pond would enhance the pond’s ability to provide suitable fish habitat by providing a cool water refuge in the summer and a deep overwintering refuge for the winter. The anticipated life of this restoration effort would be expected to be in excess of 30 years, perhaps longer, if stormwater inputs within the watershed are controlled.

The Phase I work would also include the development of an emergent planted wetland system along the pond margin east of the Memorial Pond Park. This wetland system would enhance the ecological value and beauty of the resource by providing habitat for wading birds, waterfowl foraging, and suitable habitat for turtles and frogs.

This approach would allow some of the material from the dredge effort to be reused within the basin of the pond itself to create the wetland features thus offsetting some of the construction costs. The Phase I project would envision removing up to 14,500 cy of material from the pond. Given this, the construction cost for the Phase I design would be on the order of $505,000 plus an additional $75,000 for all permitting, design and project management costs. This assumes reuse of the material within the Town of Walpole.

The Phase II option would create a second or additional open water area within the central portion of the pond (Drawing 1). This second deepened area would be excavated to achieve a depth greater than light penetration to eliminate the growth of rooted plants, but the target depth would be about 10 feet below normal pool elevation. This second deep area would also serve as a sediment trap for materials transported down Spring Brook and would fill up first before settling into the Phase I area thus extending the life of the Phase I restoration. This Phase II option would target removal of an additional 8,000 cy and would cost on the order of $255,000. Permitting of this phase would be completed as part of Phase I work so no additional design or permitting costs are anticipated beyond those costs included in Phase I work.



Project Budget Estimates for Phase I and Phase II, Memorial Pond Restoration

Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total

TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND CONTROLS

Mobilization/Demobilization LS 1 15,000.00 $15,000

Erosion Controls LS 1 2,100.00 $2,100

EARTHWORK

Dredging Phase 1 CY 15,500 20.00 $310,000

Dredging Phase 2 CY 8,500 20.00 $170,000

DEWATERING

Dewatering stockpile - Phase 1 CY 14,000 3.00 $42,000

Dewatering stockpile - Phase 2 CY 8,500 3.00 $25,500

STREAM BYPASS

Submersible pump (83 GPM) at inlet Monthly Rate 3 168.00 $595

Flexible HDPE pipe (8") LF 1,100 4.20 $5,456

Temporary cofferdam (open sheeting, no bracing) SF 1,150 2.82 $3,830

DISPOSAL

Upland disposal for Phase 1 CY 14,000 7.00 $98,000

Upland disposal for Phase 2 CY 8,500 7.00 $59,500

EXECUTION REQUIREMENTS

Field Engineering (Surveying) LS 1 25,000.00 $25,000

Site restoration LS 1 3,000.00 $3,000

Total Construction Budget - Phase 1 Only $504,981

Total Construction Budget - Phase 1 & 2 Together $759,981

Project Coordination and Reporting $10,000

Final Engineering, O&M, Bid Specs, Costs $20,000

SWPPP $2,000

Wetland Delineation $4,000

Permitting Costs (401, 404, NOI, ENF) $30,000

Construction Oversight & Permit Compliance $10,000

Total Project Budget - Phase 1 Only $580,981

Total Project Budget - Phase 1 & 2 Together $835,981

Total Project Budget in 2015 $ - Phase 1 Only Inflation 1.04 $604,221

Total Project Budget in 2015 $ - Phase 1 & 2 Together Inflation 1.04 $869,421



Chemical content of the material to be dredged is an important consideration in determining the feasibility of reuse or disposal. Disposal costs could vary greatly depending on whether the material can be beneficially reused nearby. If the material removed from the pond deemed useful as a soil amendment, the material may potentially be sold to local construction projects, local garden suppliers or landscape businesses which would make the project more economically feasible. However, material that is not suitable for beneficial use would need to either be amended with clean material (potentially from within the basin) to dilute the concentrations to suitable levels. Since the goal of Phase I and Phase II would be to over dredge into the clean underlying parent material it is expected that the final concentration of the material to be removed will be well below the BUD levels and would be suitable for reuse.

Based on the sediment sampling results obtained as part of this study (Section 3.3), sediment will need to be amended slightly prior to stockpiling or beneficial use. MassDEP will make a final determination on suitable reuse options for the material as part of the permitting process.

If dredging is considered to be a viable option, the next steps would be:

1. Assessment of specific scope and extent of dredge program including possible funding options.

2. Additional chemical and physical analysis of the sediments in areas targeted for dredging to satisfy MassDEP 401 Water Quality Certification permit requirements.

3. Development of a more advanced engineering design for submission to permitting authorities.

4. Initiation of the permitting process including an Environmental Notification Form filing for MEPA (Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act) review, filing a local Notice of Intent under the Wetlands Protection Act, filing for a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate from MassDEP, and seeking a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit for dredging.

These four activities might be expected to cost between $40,000 and $45,000 for Memorial Pond given the work already completed as part of this study, but are essential if dredging is to be pursued as a management option. Additional design costs would include final engineering design following the permitting process (incorporating any accepted changes resulting from these reviews) along with the development of a bid specification package for the project.

6.0 SUMMARY

Memorial Pond is an artificially created system that is no longer meeting its goal as an aesthetic and recreational amenity in the town’s center. Although a range of options could be considered that would alleviate some of the symptoms resulting from the ponds accumulated sediment, these approaches would only further delay the need to dredge.

Given the pond’s relatively low overall water volume, chemically treating or mechanically removing large areas of aquatic plant growth is not recommended since these approaches would provide very short-term results which over the long-term would ultimately prove to be ineffective and costly approaches.

Dredging provides a more reasonable, cost effective and long-lasting solution, but may also prove to be the most costly alternative in the near term since it must be funded in its entirety despite the benefits lasting for 30 years or more. Instead of simply removing the plants, dredging removes accumulated sediments and restores water depth that are ultimately the result of eutrophication at Memorial Pond. Dredging “resets” the pond and is the only alternative which achieves the restoration goal of increasing pond depth.

A basic dredge project designed to remove all or most of the 27,200 cy of accumulated fine sediment from the pond basin would likely cost on the order of $755,000 inclusive of permitting and design costs. A more focused and appropriate project design is being recommended that centers on the portions of the pond that are most visible and accessible to recreation. The recommended approach would cost on the



order of $580,000 (Phase I) to $835,000 (Phase I and Phase II combined), inclusive of construction, design and permitting costs. Grant funding for this type of project is extremely limited and difficult to secure.

Fortunately, a dredge project such as the one envisioned above would be expected to last at least 30 years and possibly as many at 50 years before additional dredging might be required. Given this, the cost of restoring the pond through dredging really amounts to an annual cost of between $19,300/yr for the Phase I dredging with a projected effective lifespan of 30 years.

The lifespan of the preferred dredge project option could be extended even further by implementing a storm water improvement program within the watershed that would target the reduction of sediment sources from the Memorial Pond watershed.

7.0 REFERENCES

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. March 2006. Massachusetts Wildlife Habitat Protection Guidance for Inland Wetlands.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2009. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region, ed. J.S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-09-19. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

8.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Abiotic: A term that refers to the nonliving components of an ecosystem (e.g., sunlight, physical and chemical characteristics).

Algae: Typically microscopic plants that may occur as single-celled organisms, colonies or filaments.

Anoxic: Greatly deficient in oxygen. Anoxic environments do not typically support organisms that require oxygen.

Aquifer: A water-bearing layer of rock (including gravel and sand) that will yield water in usable quantity to a well or spring.

Aquatic plants: A term used to describe a broad group of plants typically found growing in water bodies. The term may generally refer to both algae and macrophytes, but is usually intended to be synonymous with the term macrophyte.

Bathymetric Map: A map illustrating the bottom contours (topography) of a lake or pond.

Bedload: The portion of the total sediment load that is transported by rolling or saltating along the bed of a stream.

Best Management Practices: Any of a number of practices or treatment devices that reduce pollution in runoff via runoff treatment or source control.

Biomass: A term that refers to the weight of biological matter. Standing crop is the amount of biomass (e.g., fish or algae) in a body of water at a given time. Biomass is often measured in grams per square meter of surface.

Biovolume: Similar to biomass but refers to the volume, rather than the weight, of biological matter.

Biota: All living organisms in a given area.

BUD Critera: Beneficial Use Determination criteria. These guidelines are used to determine how dredged materials may be re-used (e.g., for soil amendment, etc.).



Cultural Eutrophication: The acceleration of the natural eutrophication process caused by human activities, typically occurring over decades as opposed to thousands of years.

Ecosystem: An interactive community of living organisms, together with the physical and chemical environment they inhabit.

Endangered/Threatened Species: An animal or plant species in danger of extinction that is recognized and protected by state or federal agencies.

Erosion: A process of breakdown and movement of land surface that is often intensified by human disturbances.

Eutrophic: A trophic state (degree of eutrophication) in which a lake or pond is nutrient rich and sustains high levels of biological productivity. Dense macrophyte growth, fast sediment accumulation, frequent algae blooms, poor water transparency and periodic oxygen depletion in the hypolimnion are common characteristics of eutrophic lakes and ponds.

Eutrophication: The process, or set of processes, driven by nutrients, organic matter, and sediment addition to a pond that leads to increased biological production and decreased volume. The process occurs naturally in all lakes and ponds over thousands of years but can be accelerated by human activities (see Cultural Eutrophication).

Exotic Species: Species of plants or animals that occur outside of their normal, indigenous ranges and environments. Populations of exotic species may expand rapidly and displace native populations if natural predators are absent or if conditions are more favorable for the exotic species’ growth than for native species.

Filamentous: A term used to refer to a type of algae that forms long filaments composed of multiple cells.

Groundwater: Subsurface water found in soil pore space and rock fractures.

Habitat: The natural dwelling place of an animal or plant; the type of environment where a particular species is likely to be found.

Herbicide: Any of a class of compounds that produce mortality in plants when applied in sufficient concentrations.

Invasive Species: A species that spreads aggressively, often dominating habitats to which it is well-adapted.

Isopach Map: A map illustrating the thickness of sediments within a lake or pond.

Limnology: The study of lakes and other inland waters.

Littoral Zone: The shallow, highly productive area along the shoreline of a lake or pond where rooted aquatic plants grow.

Macrophytes: Macroscopic vascular plants present in the littoral zone of lakes and ponds.

Nonpoint Source: A source of pollutants to the environment that does not come from a confined, definable source such as a pipe. Common examples of non-point source pollution include stormwater runoff and septic system leachate.

Nutrient or Light Limitation: The limitation of growth imposed by the depletion of an essential nutrient or diminishment of available light.

Nutrients: Elements or chemicals required to sustain life, including carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus, among others.



pH: An index derived from the inverse logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration that ranges from zero to 14 indicating how acidic or basic an aqueous solution is.

Photosynthesis: The process by which plants use chlorophyll to convert carbon dioxide, water and sunlight to oxygen and cellular products (carbohydrates).

Phytoplankton: Algae that are freely suspended in the water.

Pollutants: Elements and compounds introduced into the environment at levels in excess of the concentration of chemicals that would naturally occur.

Positive Feedback Loop: A process in which an initial input (of nutrients, sediment, etc.) leads to increased inputs with each cycle, resulting in the acceleration of the process itself (e.g., eutrophication). As opposed to a negative feedback loop, which tends to be self-correcting, a positive feedback loop tends to increase the instability of a system.

Sediment: Organic and mineral particles deposited in water bodies through various processes.

Stormwater Runoff: Runoff generated as a result of precipitation or snowmelt.

Suspended Load: The portion of the total sediment load that is transported in suspension and rarely comes in contact with the stream bed.

TSS: Total suspended solids, a direct measure of all suspended solid materials in the water.

Turbidity: A measure of the light scattering properties of water; often used more generally to describe water clarity or the relative presence or absence of suspended materials in the water.

Vegetated Buffer: An undisturbed vegetated land area that separates an area of human activity from the adjacent water body; can be effective in reducing runoff velocities and volumes and the removal of sediment and pollutant from runoff.

Water Column: The continuous liquid portion of a surface water body located between the interface with the atmosphere at the surface and the interface with the sediment at the bottom.

Water Quality: A term used to reference the general chemical and physical properties of water relative to the requirements of living organisms that depend upon that water.

Watershed: The surrounding land area that drains into a water body via surface runoff or groundwater recharge and discharge.

Zooplankton: Microscopic animals that are freely suspended in the water column.

www.essgroup.com

Appendix A

Photo Log

Photographic LogJune 24, 2013

Sheet 1 of 8

Photograph No.: 1SC1A-1


Memorial Pond Sediment EvaluationWalpole, Massachusetts

© 2013 ESS Group, Inc.ESS Filepath: J:\W309-000 Town of Walpole\Technical\Sediment Sampling\Sediment Sampling Photolog.ppt

environmental consulting & engineering services


Sheet 2 of 8

Photograph No.: 3SC1B-1






Sheet 3 of 8

Photograph No.: 5SC1C-1






Sheet 4 of 8







Sheet 5 of 8







Sheet 6 of 8







Sheet 7 of 8







Sheet 8 of 8






www.essgroup.com

Appendix B

Laboratory Results

61 Louisa Viens Drive

Dayville, CT 06241

Fax: 860-774-2689

Phone: 860-774-6814

Toll-Free: 800-334-0103

ANALYTICAL DATA REPORTprepared for:

Report Number: E306M55

Project: Memorial Pond W309

401 Wampanoag Trail, Suite 400East Providence, RI 02915-2228

Carl Nielsen

Received Date: 06/25/2013

Report Date: 08/07/2013

ESS Group, Inc.

Revision 2

Revision Date: 08/07/2013

Premier Laboratory, IncAuthorized Signature

CT DPH #PH-0465 EPA #CT00008 MA DEP #M-CT008 ME DHHS #CT0050 NH ELAP #2020

NJ DEP #CT007 NY ELAP #11549 PA DEP #68-04413 RI DOH #LAO00300 VT DOH #VT11549

Page 1 of 22

CASE NARRATIVE / METHOD CONFORMANCE SUMMARY

Memorial Pond W309Project:

ESS Group, Inc.Client:

E306M55Report No:


Dayville, CT 06241

Fax: 860-774-2689

Phone: 860-774-6814

Toll-Free: 800-334-0103

This report is incomplete unless all pages indicated in the pagination at the bottom of the page are included,

along with a copy of the chain of custody and any subcontracted analyses reports, if applicable, for the

sample(s) in this report. Subcontractor results are identified by 'SUB' next to the analysis.

Premier Laboratory, Inc received six samples from ESS Group, Inc. on 06/25/2013. The samples were

analyzed for the following list of analyses in accordance with MA DEP regulations unless otherwise

indicated:

Mercury by 7471 in SW PCB's by 8082 in GW/SW

7471[7471] 8082[3500]

Pesticides by 8081A in GW/SW Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) by 8270C

8081A[3500] 8270C[3500]

Solids: Total Volatile (TFS) by SM2540G in SW Subcontract - EPH

SM2540G MADEP EPH

Total Organic Carbon (TOC) in soil by E Kahn 6/99 Trace Metals by 6010B

E Kahn6/99 6010B[3000]

Volatiles by 8260B (GA/GW-1/S-1)

8260B

Non-Conformances:Work Order:

None

Sample:

None

Analysis:

Sample 1, SC1 Composite, Pesticides by 8081A: The detection limits are elevated for the sample

due to matrix interference.

Sample 1, SC1 Composite, Pesticides by 8081A: The sample required a dilution which effectively

diluted out the surrogate components.

Sample 1, SC1 Composite, Semivolatiles by SW-846 8270C: Two internal standard areas were

below quality control limits for the sample due to matrix interference. The sample was re-analyzed

and the internal standards were still below the limits.





Page 2 of 22

CASE NARRATIVE / METHOD CONFORMANCE SUMMARY

Memorial Pond W309Project:

ESS Group, Inc.Client:

E306M55Report No:


Dayville, CT 06241

Fax: 860-774-2689

Phone: 860-774-6814

Toll-Free: 800-334-0103

Non-Conformances:Analysis:








Sample 5, SC3 Composite, Semivolatiles by SW-846 8270C: One surrogate spike was elevated

outside quality control limits for the sample due to matrix interference.




Page 3 of 22

Premier Laboratory, IncAnalytical Data Report

Report No: E306M55Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41

Customer: ESS Group, Inc.Project: Memorial Pond W309

Parameter Result DL Units Completed By Dilution

(1) SC1 CompositeDate Collected: 06/24/2013 17:25 Matrix: Solid

Solids, Total Volatile (TVS) by SM2540G in SW 38 % 06/27/2013 KWA21:17

Total Organic Carbon in soil by E Kahn 6/99 116000 100 mg/kg 07/02/2013 SUB

Trace Metals by 6010B

Arsenic 4.4 1.2 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR12:58

Cadmium 1.1 0.50 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR12:58

Chromium 30 0.50 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR12:58

Copper 31 0.50 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR12:58

Lead 62 0.50 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR12:58

Nickel 6.8 0.50 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR12:58

Zinc 130 0.50 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR12:58

Mercury by SW-846 7471 in SW 0.64 0.099 mg/kg 07/01/2013 CPT11:07





Arsenic 4.7 1.4 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR13:55

Cadmium 0.80 0.58 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR13:01


Copper 19 0.58 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR13:01

Lead 44 0.58 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR13:01

Nickel 6.0 0.58 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR13:01

Zinc 65 0.58 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR13:01






Arsenic 6.6 1.1 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR13:10

Cadmium 1.0 0.42 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR13:10


Copper 28 0.42 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR13:10

Lead 70 0.42 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR13:10

Nickel 7.3 0.42 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR13:10

Zinc 110 0.42 mg/kg 06/27/2013 AJR13:10


Page 4 of 22


Report No: E306M55

Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41


Parameter Result DL Units

Sample No: 1Sample Description: SC1 Composite

Date Collected: 06/24/2013 17:25

Date Extracted: 06/26/2013 09:30 By: JRM

Preparation Method: 3500Analytical Method: 8081A

Matrix: SolidPercent Moisture: 80Sample Weight/Volume: 30.32Dilution Factor: 20Extract Volume: 2Lab Data File: 8062606.DQC Batch#: 107355

CAS No.

Date Analyzed: 06/26/2013 16:25 By: MRB

Aldrin ND 65 ug/kg309-00-2alpha-BHC ND 65 ug/kg319-84-6beta-BHC ND 65 ug/kg319-85-7delta-BHC ND 65 ug/kg319-86-8gamma-BHC (Lindane) ND 65 ug/kg59-89-9alpha-Chlordane ND 65 ug/kg5103-71-9gamma-Chlordane ND 65 ug/kg5103-74-24,4'-DDD ND 65 ug/kg72-54-84,4'-DDE ND 65 ug/kg72-55-94,4'-DDT ND 65 ug/kg50-29-3Dieldrin ND 65 ug/kg60-57-1Endosulfan II ND 65 ug/kg33213-65-9Endrin aldehyde ND 65 ug/kg7421-93-4Endosulfan I ND 65 ug/kg959-98-8Endosulfan sulfate ND 65 ug/kg1031-07-8Endrin ND 65 ug/kg72-20-8Endrin ketone ND 65 ug/kg53494-70-5Heptachlor ND 65 ug/kg76-44-8Heptachlor epoxide ND 65 ug/kg1024-57-3Methoxychlor ND 65 ug/kg72-43-5Toxaphene ND 3300 ug/kg8001-35-2

Sample QC

Surrogate Recovery QC Limits

D 25%-125%Tetrachloro-m-xyleneD 25%-125%Decachlorobiphenyl

Page 5 of 22


Report No: E306M55

Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41






Preparation Method: 3500Analytical Method: 8082


CAS No.


Aroclor 1016 ND 66 ug/kg12674-11-2Aroclor 1221 ND 66 ug/kg11104-28-2Aroclor 1232 ND 66 ug/kg11141-16-5Aroclor 1242 ND 66 ug/kg53469-21-9Aroclor 1248 ND 66 ug/kg12672-29-6Aroclor 1254 ND 66 ug/kg11097-69-1Aroclor 1260 ND 66 ug/kg11096-82-5

Sample QC


56% 25%-125%Tetrachloro-m-xylene60% 25%-125%Decachlorobiphenyl

Page 6 of 22


Report No: E306M55

Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41




Date Collected: 06/24/2013 17:25 Matrix: SolidPercent Moisture: 80Dilution Factor: 1Lab Data File:

CAS No.

Date Analyzed: 06/29/2013 00:00 By: SUBAnalytical Method: MADEP EPH

Subcontract EPH Attached ug/L

Page 7 of 22


Report No: E306M55

Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41






Preparation Method: 3500Analytical Method: 8270C

Matrix: SolidPercent Moisture: 80Sample Weight/Volume: 30.42Dilution Factor: 1Extract Volume: 1Lab Data File: L38724.DQC Batch#: 107389

CAS No.

Date Analyzed: 07/02/2013 09:41 By: DXC

Acenaphthene ND 810 ug/kg83-32-9Acenaphthylene ND 810 ug/kg208-96-8Anthracene ND 810 ug/kg120-12-7Benzo[a]anthracene ND 810 ug/kg56-55-3Benzo[a]pyrene ND 810 ug/kg50-32-8Benzo[b]fluoranthene ND 810 ug/kg205-99-2Benzo[g,h,i]perylene ND 810 ug/kg191-24-2Benzo[k]fluoranthene ND 810 ug/kg207-08-9Chrysene ND 810 ug/kg218-01-9Dibenz[a,h]anthracene ND 810 ug/kg53-70-3Fluoranthene ND 810 ug/kg206-44-0Fluorene ND 810 ug/kg86-73-7Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene ND 810 ug/kg193-39-5Naphthalene ND 810 ug/kg91-20-3Phenanthrene ND 810 ug/kg85-01-8Pyrene 1200 810 ug/kg129-00-0

Sample QC


82% 10%-122%2,4,6-Tribromophenol74% 10%-96%2-Fluorobiphenyl69% 10%-95%2-Fluorophenol

142% 20%-149%4-Terphenyl-d1475% 10%-98%Nitrobenzene-d571% 10%-97%Phenol-d6

Page 8 of 22


Report No: E306M55

Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41



Sample No: 2Sample Description: SC1 Grab

Date Collected: 06/24/2013 16:40 Matrix: SolidPercent Moisture: 80Dilution Factor: 1Lab Data File: Q33526.DQC Batch#: 107491

CAS No.

Date Analyzed: 07/01/2013 15:55 By: AMHAnalytical Method: 8260B

Acetone 500 39 ug/kg67-64-1Acrylonitrile ND 19 ug/kg107-13-1Benzene ND 19 ug/kg71-43-2Bromobenzene ND 19 ug/kg108-86-1Bromochloromethane ND 19 ug/kg74-97-5Bromodichloromethane ND 19 ug/kg75-27-4Bromoform ND 19 ug/kg75-25-2Bromomethane ND 19 ug/kg74-83-92-Butanone (MEK) 110 39 ug/kg78-93-3n-Butylbenzene ND 19 ug/kg104-51-8sec-Butylbenzene ND 19 ug/kg135-98-8tert-Butylbenzene ND 19 ug/kg98-06-6Carbon disulfide 21 19 ug/kg75-15-0Carbon tetrachloride ND 19 ug/kg56-23-5Chlorobenzene ND 19 ug/kg108-90-7Chloroethane ND 19 ug/kg75-00-3Chloroform ND 19 ug/kg67-66-3Chloromethane ND 19 ug/kg74-87-32-Chlorotoluene ND 19 ug/kg95-49-84-Chlorotoluene ND 19 ug/kg106-43-41,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) ND 19 ug/kg96-12-8Dibromochloromethane ND 19 ug/kg124-48-11,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 19 ug/kg106-93-4Dibromomethane ND 19 ug/kg74-95-31,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 19 ug/kg95-50-11,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 19 ug/kg541-73-11,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 19 ug/kg106-46-7Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 19 ug/kg75-71-81,1-Dichloroethane ND 19 ug/kg75-34-31,2-Dichloroethane ND 19 ug/kg107-06-21,1-Dichloroethene ND 19 ug/kg75-35-4cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 19 ug/kg156-59-2trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 19 ug/kg156-60-51,2-Dichloropropane ND 19 ug/kg78-87-51,3-Dichloropropane ND 19 ug/kg142-28-92,2-Dichloropropane ND 19 ug/kg594-20-71,1-Dichloropropene ND 19 ug/kg563-58-6cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 19 ug/kg10061-01-5trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 19 ug/kg10061-02-6Diethyl ether ND 19 ug/kg60-29-7

Page 9 of 22


Report No: E306M55

Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41





CAS No.


1,4-Dioxane ND 77 ug/kg123-91-1Ethylbenzene ND 19 ug/kg100-41-4Hexachlorobutadiene ND 19 ug/kg87-68-32-Hexanone ND 39 ug/kg591-78-6Isopropylbenzene ND 19 ug/kg98-82-84-Isopropyltoluene ND 19 ug/kg99-87-6Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) ND 19 ug/kg1634-04-44-Methyl-2-pentanone (MIBK) ND 39 ug/kg108-10-1Methylene chloride ND 19 ug/kg75-09-2Naphthalene ND 19 ug/kg91-20-3n-Propylbenzene ND 19 ug/kg103-65-1Styrene ND 19 ug/kg100-42-5Tetrahydrofuran ND 19 ug/kg109-99-9trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene ND 19 ug/kg110-57-61,1,2-Trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethane ND 19 ug/kg76-13-11,2,3-Trichloropropane ND 19 ug/kg96-18-41,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 19 ug/kg630-20-61,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane ND 19 ug/kg79-34-5Tetrachloroethene (PCE) ND 19 ug/kg127-18-4Toluene ND 19 ug/kg108-88-31,2,3-Trichlorobenzene ND 19 ug/kg87-61-61,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ND 19 ug/kg120-82-11,1,1-Trichloroethane ND 19 ug/kg71-55-61,1,2-Trichloroethane ND 19 ug/kg79-00-5Trichloroethene (TCE) ND 19 ug/kg79-01-6Trichlorofluoromethane ND 19 ug/kg75-69-41,2,4-Trimethylbenzene ND 19 ug/kg95-63-61,3,5-Trimethylbenzene ND 19 ug/kg108-67-8Vinyl chloride ND 19 ug/kg75-01-4o-Xylene ND 19 ug/kg95-47-6m,p-Xylenes ND 39 ug/kg108-38-3

Sample QC


91% 82%-120%1,2-Dichloroethane-d484% 70%-122%Bromofluorobenzene

112% 77%-126%Toluene-d895% 70%-130%Dibromofluoromethane

Page 10 of 22


Report No: E306M55

Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41








CAS No.



Sample QC



Page 11 of 22


Report No: E306M55

Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41








CAS No.



Sample QC



Page 12 of 22


Report No: E306M55

Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41





CAS No.



Page 13 of 22


Report No: E306M55

Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41








CAS No.


Acenaphthene ND 960 ug/kg83-32-9Acenaphthylene ND 960 ug/kg208-96-8Anthracene ND 960 ug/kg120-12-7Benzo[a]anthracene ND 960 ug/kg56-55-3Benzo[a]pyrene ND 960 ug/kg50-32-8Benzo[b]fluoranthene ND 960 ug/kg205-99-2Benzo[g,h,i]perylene ND 960 ug/kg191-24-2Benzo[k]fluoranthene ND 960 ug/kg207-08-9Chrysene ND 960 ug/kg218-01-9Dibenz[a,h]anthracene ND 960 ug/kg53-70-3Fluoranthene ND 960 ug/kg206-44-0Fluorene ND 960 ug/kg86-73-7Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene ND 960 ug/kg193-39-5Naphthalene ND 960 ug/kg91-20-3Phenanthrene ND 960 ug/kg85-01-8Pyrene ND 960 ug/kg129-00-0

Sample QC




Page 14 of 22


Report No: E306M55

Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41





CAS No.


Acetone 1100 54 ug/kg67-64-1Acrylonitrile ND 27 ug/kg107-13-1Benzene ND 27 ug/kg71-43-2Bromobenzene ND 27 ug/kg108-86-1Bromochloromethane ND 27 ug/kg74-97-5Bromodichloromethane ND 27 ug/kg75-27-4Bromoform ND 27 ug/kg75-25-2Bromomethane ND 27 ug/kg74-83-92-Butanone (MEK) 220 54 ug/kg78-93-3n-Butylbenzene ND 27 ug/kg104-51-8sec-Butylbenzene ND 27 ug/kg135-98-8tert-Butylbenzene ND 27 ug/kg98-06-6Carbon disulfide ND 27 ug/kg75-15-0Carbon tetrachloride ND 27 ug/kg56-23-5Chlorobenzene ND 27 ug/kg108-90-7Chloroethane ND 27 ug/kg75-00-3Chloroform ND 27 ug/kg67-66-3Chloromethane ND 27 ug/kg74-87-32-Chlorotoluene ND 27 ug/kg95-49-84-Chlorotoluene ND 27 ug/kg106-43-41,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) ND 27 ug/kg96-12-8Dibromochloromethane ND 27 ug/kg124-48-11,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 27 ug/kg106-93-4Dibromomethane ND 27 ug/kg74-95-31,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 27 ug/kg95-50-11,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 27 ug/kg541-73-11,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 27 ug/kg106-46-7Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 27 ug/kg75-71-81,1-Dichloroethane ND 27 ug/kg75-34-31,2-Dichloroethane ND 27 ug/kg107-06-21,1-Dichloroethene ND 27 ug/kg75-35-4cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 27 ug/kg156-59-2trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 27 ug/kg156-60-51,2-Dichloropropane ND 27 ug/kg78-87-51,3-Dichloropropane ND 27 ug/kg142-28-92,2-Dichloropropane ND 27 ug/kg594-20-71,1-Dichloropropene ND 27 ug/kg563-58-6cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 27 ug/kg10061-01-5trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 27 ug/kg10061-02-6Diethyl ether ND 27 ug/kg60-29-7

Page 15 of 22


Report No: E306M55

Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41





CAS No.



Sample QC




Page 16 of 22


Report No: E306M55

Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41








CAS No.



Sample QC



Page 17 of 22


Report No: E306M55

Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41








CAS No.



Sample QC



Page 18 of 22


Report No: E306M55

Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41





CAS No.



Page 19 of 22


Report No: E306M55

Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41








CAS No.


Acenaphthene ND 700 ug/kg83-32-9Acenaphthylene ND 700 ug/kg208-96-8Anthracene ND 700 ug/kg120-12-7Benzo[a]anthracene ND 700 ug/kg56-55-3Benzo[a]pyrene ND 700 ug/kg50-32-8Benzo[b]fluoranthene ND 700 ug/kg205-99-2Benzo[g,h,i]perylene ND 700 ug/kg191-24-2Benzo[k]fluoranthene ND 700 ug/kg207-08-9Chrysene ND 700 ug/kg218-01-9Dibenz[a,h]anthracene ND 700 ug/kg53-70-3Fluoranthene 740 700 ug/kg206-44-0Fluorene ND 700 ug/kg86-73-7Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene ND 700 ug/kg193-39-5Naphthalene ND 700 ug/kg91-20-3Phenanthrene ND 700 ug/kg85-01-8Pyrene 2000 700 ug/kg129-00-0

Sample QC




Page 20 of 22


Report No: E306M55

Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41





CAS No.


Acetone 700 38 ug/kg67-64-1Acrylonitrile ND 19 ug/kg107-13-1Benzene ND 19 ug/kg71-43-2Bromobenzene ND 19 ug/kg108-86-1Bromochloromethane ND 19 ug/kg74-97-5Bromodichloromethane ND 19 ug/kg75-27-4Bromoform ND 19 ug/kg75-25-2Bromomethane ND 19 ug/kg74-83-92-Butanone (MEK) 210 38 ug/kg78-93-3n-Butylbenzene ND 19 ug/kg104-51-8sec-Butylbenzene ND 19 ug/kg135-98-8tert-Butylbenzene ND 19 ug/kg98-06-6Carbon disulfide 24 19 ug/kg75-15-0Carbon tetrachloride ND 19 ug/kg56-23-5Chlorobenzene ND 19 ug/kg108-90-7Chloroethane ND 19 ug/kg75-00-3Chloroform ND 19 ug/kg67-66-3Chloromethane ND 19 ug/kg74-87-32-Chlorotoluene ND 19 ug/kg95-49-84-Chlorotoluene ND 19 ug/kg106-43-41,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane (DBCP) ND 19 ug/kg96-12-8Dibromochloromethane ND 19 ug/kg124-48-11,2-Dibromoethane (EDB) ND 19 ug/kg106-93-4Dibromomethane ND 19 ug/kg74-95-31,2-Dichlorobenzene ND 19 ug/kg95-50-11,3-Dichlorobenzene ND 19 ug/kg541-73-11,4-Dichlorobenzene ND 19 ug/kg106-46-7Dichlorodifluoromethane ND 19 ug/kg75-71-81,1-Dichloroethane ND 19 ug/kg75-34-31,2-Dichloroethane ND 19 ug/kg107-06-21,1-Dichloroethene ND 19 ug/kg75-35-4cis-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 19 ug/kg156-59-2trans-1,2-Dichloroethene ND 19 ug/kg156-60-51,2-Dichloropropane ND 19 ug/kg78-87-51,3-Dichloropropane ND 19 ug/kg142-28-92,2-Dichloropropane ND 19 ug/kg594-20-71,1-Dichloropropene ND 19 ug/kg563-58-6cis-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 19 ug/kg10061-01-5trans-1,3-Dichloropropene ND 19 ug/kg10061-02-6Diethyl ether ND 19 ug/kg60-29-7

Page 21 of 22


Report No: E306M55

Date Received: 06/25/2013 15:41





CAS No.



Sample QC




Page 22 of 22

dredging feasibility assessment and conceptual ......2013/09/30 · dredging feasibility assessment...

Documents