The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Charles D

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Charles D. Baker GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Karyn E. Polito Fax: (617) 626-1181 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR http://www.mass.gov/envir Kathleen A. Theoharides SECRETARY

July 17, 2020

CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ON THE EXPANDED ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM

PROJECT NAME : Monatiquot River Restoration PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Braintree PROJECT WATERSHED : Boston Harbor EEA NUMBER : 16224 PROJECT PROPONENT : Town of Braintree in cooperation with Hollingsworth Pond, LLC DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : June 10, 2020

Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA, M.G.L. c. 30, ss. 61-62I) and Sections 11.06 and 11.11 of the MEPA regulations (301 CMR 11.00), I have reviewed the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) for this project and hereby determine that Phase 1 of the project does not require the submission of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and may proceed to permitting. In a separate Draft Record of Decision (DROD) also issued today, I have proposed to grant a Waiver from the requirement to prepare a mandatory EIR for Phase 1. This Certificate sets forth the issues that must be addressed by the Proponents during permitting and discusses comments and recommendations submitted during MEPA review.

Upon request of the Proponents, and in a separate Certificate issued today, I have also established a Special Review Procedure (SRP) to guide the review of this project. The SRP acknowledges that the project contemplates both an Ecological Restoration component (Phase 1), which includes dam removal and construction of a vehicle and pedestrian bridge to an adjoining parcel, and potential development of that adjoining parcel (Phase 2) for which access will be newly created by the bridge constructed in Phase 1. The SRP allows this phasing of the project, acknowledges that an EIR waiver will be granted for Phase 1, and sets forth the parameters for future review of Phase 2 if and when development commences on the adjoining parcel.

EEA# 16224 EENF Certificate July 17, 2020

Project Description

As described in the EENF, Phase 1 of the project consists of removal of the Armstrong dam and the Ames Pond dam, reconstruction of the Monatiquot River channel within Hollingsworth Pond, construction of a fish passage structure at Rock Falls, construction of a multi-use trail adjacent to the river, and construction of a vehicular and pedestrian bridge over the river in Braintree. Phase 2 of the project may include future development of an adjoining parcel for which access will be provided through construction of the new bridge in Phase 1. The project is proposed to restore riverine habitat, provide uninterrupted aquatic fish and wildlife passage from Fore River Bay to Great Pond, reduce flood risks, encourage public access to the river, and create open space. The project will address three specific barriers to fish passage including both dams and Rock Falls.

The project will dewater the Hollingsworth Pond impoundment and remove the Armstrong dam and overlying building to restore approximately 5,200 linear feet (lf) of natural free-flowing habitat on the Monatiquot River and create over three acres of naturalized open space. Following dam removal, the project will construct a 880-lf natural meandering channel within the former impoundment. According to the ENF, the channel location was determined based on the impoundment’s lowest bottom elevations. During channel construction, approximately 4,500 cubic yards (cy) of contaminated sediment will be managed within the former impoundment through off-site disposal or on-site relocation. Any remaining exposed contaminated sediments within the impoundment will be capped with clean topsoil and revegetated. The eastern portion of the impoundment will be covered with geotextile fabric prior to placement of topsoil as this is the area of greatest polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) concentration.

The project will construct a six-foot-wide, 1,600-lf multi-use trail and boardwalk west of the newly constructed channel. The boardwalk will be flanked with planted native wetland trees and shrubs, and will provide recreational opportunities. The project will construct a new bridge near the former location of the existing building which crosses over the river and the Armstrong dam to provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the property located west of the river; the project will also accommodate relocation of utilities currently located under the existing building overlying the dam. The bridge will consist of a clear span cast-in-place concrete deck and will include a sidewalk for pedestrian access to the trail below.

The project will remove the Ames Pond dam to provide year-round fish passage, and provide minor channel modifications/regrading in the area surrounding Ames Pond dam including removal of boulders/stones and/or high points that could cause fish passage impairments during low-flow conditions. The extent of channel modifications will be refined in the field concurrent with or immediately following the Ames Pond dam removal.

The project will maintain the Rock Falls (natural river falls) and restore year-round fish passage through construction of either a new natural bypass channel or a 30-foot-long steep pass fishway based on funding. The proposed multi-use trail will extend to the Rock Falls fishway for public viewing of river herring migrating upstream.

The project is proposed by the Town of Braintree (Town) and Hollingsworth Pond, LLC (the Proponents) in partnership with the Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration (DER), the

2 EEA# 16224 EENF Certificate July 17, 2020

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Restoration Center and the Fore River Watershed Association. DER selected the project as a “Priority Project” based on the breadth of its ecological benefits. Project partners have performed 11 years of assessment, planning, and design work.

Removal of the dams will result in significant ecological and climate change resiliency benefits. The Armstrong dam represents a significant barrier to fish passage between the Weymouth Fore River and Great Pond. Its removal will reconnect 36 miles of upstream river access and restore fish passage to 180 acres of spawning habitat in Great Pond. Dam removal will eliminate public safety hazards, reduce maintenance requirements for the private dam owner (Hollingsworth Pond, LLC) and the Town, remove a High Hazard Potential structure and restore natural river processes, improve fish passage, and reduce flooding potential in the vicinity of the dam. The project will protect and enhance surrounding infrastructure and public utilities.

Project activities associated with Phase 1 are proposed to be completed in four construction phases. Phase 1A includes initial breaching of Armstrong Dam and dewatering of Hollingsworth Pond, removal of Ames Pond Dam, construction of a riffle grade control feature downstream of Plain Street and installation of other scour protection at the bridge. Phase 1B will include removal of Armstrong Dam and channel reconstruction within Hollingsworth Pond. Phase 1C will include installation of a fish passage structure (bypass channel or steep pass), construction of the multi-use trail and boardwalk and interpretive signs, installing restoration plantings, and making modifications to the channel required to facilitate fish passage. Phase 1D will include construction of the vehicular bridge over the river.

Potential future development of the commercial property as Phase 2 is not included in the current MEPA filing. The SRP will guide the review of this second phase of the project as described more fully in the SRP issued separately today.

Project Site

The 13.9-acre project site encompasses the area along the Monatiquot River in Braintree from the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) railroad bridge at the downstream project limits to the Plain Street bridge at the upstream limits. The Monatiquot River enters the Fore River approximately 3.5-miles downstream of the project site. Several barriers to fish passage exist within the project limits. The natural fish passage barrier known as Rock Falls is located upstream of the MBTA bridge and has a four-foot grade drop over a relatively short distance; the significant grade change and channel slope are a barrier to fish passage. Upstream of Rock Falls is the Ames Pond dam, which is a concrete dam that blocks fish passage. Lastly, the Armstrong dam is located upstream of the Ames Pond dam and impounds Hollingsworth Pond. The impoundment stretches from the dam to the Plain Street bridge.

The Ames Pond and Armstrong dams are both owned by Hollingsworth Pond, LLC. The Ames Pond dam (a.k.a. Factory Pond dam) varies between two to three feet high and is approximately 50 feet long and is considered a non-jurisdictional dam. The dam is partially breached and no longer has a formal impoundment upstream; nonetheless, high velocities flowing over the dam impede fish passage. The Armstrong dam is approximately 12 feet high and 92 feet long and is located beneath a former mill

3 EEA# 16224 EENF Certificate July 17, 2020

building known as the Armstrong Cork building. The concrete dam is classified as an intermediate- sized, high hazard potential structure in Fair condition by the Massachusetts Department of Conservation (DCR) Office of Dam Safety (ODS). A Fair condition rating is assigned when there are significant operational and maintenance deficiencies. The dam has eight main bays separated by concrete piers (structural supports for the building) on the spillway and one low auxiliary bay, which acts as a low-level outlet, located five feet in front of the dam. The dam is a significant barrier to fish passage due to the lack of an existing fish ladder. The dam is operated in a run-of-river mode and does not provide any flood protection; under flooding conditions, the dam acts to increase the water level and area of inundation upstream of the dam.

The Armstrong dam impoundment (Hollingsworth Pond) has an approximate inundation area of 3.8 acres extending approximately 2,400 lf upstream to the Plain Street bridge with a water storage capacity of approximately 20 acre-feet. Small areas of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (BVW) are located along the periphery of the impoundment, but most land use surrounding the impoundment is classified as developed and includes the Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV), the Bayshore Athletic Club, an auxiliary parking lot located east of the impoundment, and the MBTA Old Colony Line Middleboro Branch railroad, which parallels the impoundment to the west.

Wetland resource areas present in the vicinity of the project site include BVW, Bank, Land Under Water (LUW), Riverfront Area (RFA), and Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (BLSF). Below Rock Falls, the Monatiquot River provides habitat for the passage for American eel, alewife, blueback herring, rainbow smelt (also spawning habitat further downstream), and white perch. The Fore River contains habitat for soft shell clam and razor clam and also provides habitat for the spawning and early development of winter flounder and Atlantic tomcod.

Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures

The project will improve water quality; restore stream connectivity, sediment transport, and fish passage; create riparian wetlands; and remove deficient dams. Due to the nature of the project, permanent conversion of wetland resource areas is unavoidable. Potential environmental impacts associated with the project include impacts to 4,655 lf of Bank, 3,437 square feet (sf) (0.11 acres) of BVW, 5.57 acres of LUW, 1.13 acres of BLSF and 0.37 acres of RFA. The project will restore free flowing riverine conditions which will permanently convert some areas of LUW within the Hollingsworth Pond impoundment to approximately 3.53 acres of BVW.

Measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts include: adherence to time-of-year (TOY) restrictions; removal of 0.1 acres of impervious area; creation of 3.53 acres of BVW (converted from LUW); protection and enhancement of surrounding infrastructure and public utilities; bank stabilization and armoring to minimize erosion effects from increase in water velocity in this section of the river from lowering of surface waters in the existing impoundment following dam removal; creation of micro pool, eddies, and flow diversity to mitigate for select areas downstream predicted to have shallow depths which may impede fish passage; consistency with the Massachusetts Stream Crossing Standards (MSCS); management of invasive plant species; revegetation of areas disturbed during construction with appropriate local indigenous vegetation; and implementation of construction period best management practices (BMPs).

4 EEA# 16224 EENF Certificate July 17, 2020

Permitting and Jurisdiction

The project is subject to MEPA review and a mandatory EIR pursuant to 301 CMR 11.03(3)(a)(4) because it requires State Agency Actions and involves structural alteration of an existing dam that causes a decrease in impoundment capacity. The project also exceeds Environmental Notification Form (ENF) review thresholds at 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)(1)(b), alteration of 500 or more lf of Bank; 301 CMR 11.03(3)(1)(b)(e), new fill or structure or expansion of existing fill or structure in a velocity zone or regulatory floodway; and 301 CMR 11.03(3)(b)(1)(f), alteration of one-half or more acres of other wetlands. The project will require a Section 401 Water Quality Certificate (WQC), a Chapter 91 (c. 91) Dredge Permit, and a c. 91 Waterways License from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), a Chapter 253 Dam Safety Permit from DCR ODS, a Fishway Construction Permit from DMF, an Access Permit from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) and a Special Use Permit from the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR). It is subject to the MEPA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Policy and Protocol (GHG Policy).

The project will require an Ecological Restoration Order of Conditions from the Braintree Conservation Commission (or in the case of an appeal, a Superseding Order of Conditions from MassDEP); authorization under the General Permits for Massachusetts from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) in accordance with Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act; review by the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) acting as the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (36 CFR 800); and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The Proponents have received financial assistance from the Commonwealth including DER, one of the project partners, the Massachusetts Dam and Seawall Repair or Removal Grant Program, and the Massachusetts Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness Program. Therefore, MEPA jurisdiction is broad in scope and extends to all aspects of the project that may cause Damage to the Environment, as defined in the MEPA regulations.

Waiver Request

In accordance with Section 11.05(7) of the MEPA regulations, the Proponents submitted an EENF with a request that I waive the requirement for a mandatory EIR. The EENF identifies the project’s consistency with the criteria for a Waiver and was subject to an extended comment period pursuant to Section 11.06(1) of the MEPA regulations. The Waiver request was discussed at the remote consultation session for the project. I have reviewed the EENF and the Waiver request and I hereby find that the project meets the standards for a Waiver at 301 CMR 11.11. Comment letters from Federal and State Agencies and other commenters identify strong support for the project and Waiver request and do not identify additional alternatives or mitigation measures that warrant additional analysis through an EIR. The project is a collaboration of local, state, and federal partners working together to restore natural river processes, improve fish passage, and reduce potential flooding in the vicinity of the project site. The local, state, and federal permits required for this project will result in additional review from regulators and opportunities for public input.

5 EEA# 16224 EENF Certificate July 17, 2020

Review of the EENF

The EENF describes the project, provides plans of existing and proposed conditions, identifies environmental resources and proposed impacts, and analyzes alternatives. It includes a summary of results of sediment quality sampling and hydraulic modeling, and a Sediment Management Plan (Appendix F). The technical basis for the proposed alternatives is described in detail in a document entitled “Armstrong and Ames Pond Dam Removal – Basis of Design Memorandum” (EENF Appendix C). The EENF indicates that the proposed design has been modified since completion of this document to better meet project goals including improvements to the proposed bridge and trail designs and refinements in the design of other project components.

Almost all comment letters received express strong support for removal of the dam based on the significant ecological benefits that will be provided by the project. The EENF requests that I establish a SRP to govern MEPA review of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project based on their distinct development and permitting schedules. The SRP will allow Phase 1 (Ecological Restoration Project which includes new bridge construction) to proceed through MEPA review and permitting prior to the Phase 2 (Commercial Development). Comments from State Agencies do not identify concerns with the proposed SRP.

Alternatives Analysis

The EENF includes an analysis of several alternatives for each of the three restoration activities based on meeting project goals of restoring fish passage in the Monatiquot River; restoring natural habitat within the river corridor; improving safety and reducing flooding risk; and improving public access and recreation along the river. The EENF also includes an analysis of bridge alternatives to replace the building structure over the Armstrong Dam, and alternatives to the trail and boardwalk construction.

The Armstrong Dam and Hollingsworth Pond Impoundment component of the project includes evaluation of the following alternatives: Do Nothing; Dam Repair; and Dam Removal (Preferred Alternative). The No Action alternative would maintain the status quo and leave in place a deteriorated and high hazard dam, which would continue to act as a barrier to fish passage and present flooding risks to downstream properties. This alternative was dismissed because it would not meet any of the restoration or safety goals for the project. Repair of the Armstrong dam would require addressing several deficiencies noted in the most recent dam safety inspection report in combination with long-term inspection and maintenance programs; the dam would continue to serve as a barrier to aquatic resources and impact natural habitat, water temperatures, and sediment transport, and continue to present greater flooding risks upstream and downstream than with its removal. This alternative does not meet the project goals of restoring natural fish passage and reducing flood risk at this project site and would not eliminate liability or maintenance costs for the Proponents.

The Preferred Alternative would remove the Armstrong dam and reconstruct the upstream channel to restore approximately 36 miles of free-flowing habitat on the Monatiquot River; provide fish passage to approximately 180 acres of river herring spawning and rearing habitat at Great Pond Reservoir, when combined with the other restoration activities associated with this project; and enhance the riparian area and water quality. Removal of the Armstrong dam would remove owner liability and

6 EEA# 16224 EENF Certificate July 17, 2020

public safety concerns and will also reduce the area of inundation upstream of the dam and downstream of Plain Street.

The Ames Pond Dam component of the project includes evaluation of the following alternatives: Do Nothing; Partial Breaching of the Dam; and Full Dam Removal (Preferred Alternative). The No Action alternative would maintain the status quo and leave in place a deteriorated, partially breached run-of-the river dam, which would continue to act as a barrier to fish passage. This alternative was dismissed because it would not meet any of the restoration goals for the project. Partially breaching the central portion of the dam would provide seasonal fish passage; however, this alternative would continue to leave remnants of a deteriorating dam on-site as a potential safety issue and future hazard. The Preferred Alternative would involve full removal of the Ames Pond dam based on the structural condition of the dam, its size, and accessibility for removal. This alternative will provide year-round fish passage during normal, high, and low flows and remove a safety hazard from this site.

The Rock Falls component of the project includes evaluation of the following alternatives: Do Nothing; several Alternative Fish Passage Structures; the Construct Bypass Channel (Preferred Alternative #1) or Steep Pass (Preferred Alternative #2). The Do Nothing alternative would maintain Rock Falls in its present condition as a barrier to fish passage and would not meet the restoration goals for this project.

Alternative fish passage structures were considered including: 20-foot-long deepened Alaskan Steep Pass (ASP) structure; 160-foot nature-like bypass channel; and 130-foot-long nature-like bypass fishway. The USFWS recommended the preferred alternative structures over these alternatives based on a variety of reasons related to the effectiveness of these structures to provide safe, timely, and effective upstream fish passage of river herring. Construction of either a 200-foot bypass channel or a 30-foot- long steep pass would preserve Rock Falls and also provide fish passage. Selection of the fish passage method will be based on available funding; the Proponents intend to advance the bypass channel around the Rock Falls although it includes higher construction costs than a steep pass structure.

Wetlands, Water Quality and Water Supply

While the project will restore ecological processes on the site on a long-term basis, it will result in unavoidable permanent and temporary impacts to wetland resource areas (Bank, BVW, LUW, BLSF, RFA and associated buffer zones). The project is therefore proposed as an Ecological Restoration Limited Project pursuant to 310 CMR 10.53(4). The Braintree Conservation Commission will review the project to determine its consistency with the Ecological Restoration Project (ERP) provisions of the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA), the Wetlands Regulations (310 CMR 10.00), and associated performance standards, including the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards (SMS). MassDEP will review the project to determine its consistency with the 401 WQC regulations (314 CMR 9.00) and c. 91 Waterways Regulations (310 CMR 9.00). Dam removal should be undertaken in accordance with MassDEP’s guidance document, “Dam Removal and the Wetland Regulations” (December 2007).

The area of direct impact for each preferred alternative with associated resource areas defined under the WPA is summarized below.

7 EEA# 16224 EENF Certificate July 17, 2020

The project also involves indirect impacts to wetland resources associated with lowering water levels within the approximately 3.8-acre impoundment and redefining the bank along the river channel through conversion of one type of wetland resource area to another.1

I refer the Proponents to the detailed comments from MassDEP which provide guidance on preparation and submission of the Notice of Intent (NOI) for an ERP pursuant to 310 CMR 10.53(4). According to the EENF, Hollingsworth Pond does not provide flood storage; removal of the Armstrong dam will increase flood storage potential within the former impoundment which may result in a loss of BLSF. Modeling of the 100-year floodplain will be further refined as the project progresses and the boundaries of the redefined BLSF become more clear. BLSF is delineated by reference to the most recently available flood profile data prepared under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP, currently administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Proponents will modify delineation of the BLSF boundary through a formal Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) if

1 The EENF indicates that the proposed conditions estimates include installation of the proposed fish bypass channel at Rock Falls, which will result in an increase in LUW and Bank and decrease in BVW in this location.

8 EEA# 16224 EENF Certificate July 17, 2020

necessary.

I refer the Proponent to the detailed comments from MassDEP regarding preparation and submission of the 401 WQC application pursuant to 314 CMR 9.06 and 9.07 which must include a comprehensive analysis of alternatives. The alternatives analysis for the dredging and placement of fill associated with an ERP must consider any TOY restrictions or other conditions recommended by DMF and Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife; existing conditions of the ecosystem; magnitude and significance of the benefits of the ERP in improving the capacity of the affected ecosystem pursuant to Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.00); and magnitude and significance of the impacts of the ERP on the existing ecosystem and the extent to which the Proponents will avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts for the dredging and placement of fill to the existing ecosystem.

The Proponents will file a combined c. 91 Dredge Permit and WQC application (BRP WW 26) to address work associated with the dam removal, including: dredging, placement of fill and the use of temporary cofferdams and diversion structures within the Monatiquot River. The project will require a separate c. 91 License for proposed construction of a new vehicular and pedestrian bridge. MassDEP has determined the project to be a water-dependent use project in accordance with 310 CMR 9.12. Plans submitted with all applications should clearly describe the proposed c. 91 jurisdiction Ordinary High Water (OHW) lines, the net amounts of dredge and fill material, and proposed dredge depths. MassDEP will work with the Proponents to ensure that, where feasible, navigation by small vessels (i.e. canoes/kayaks) is maintained within the waterway. MassDEP comments note that the placement of large wood across the stream channel may be an impediment to safe navigation.

The project includes the dredging of approximately 4,500 cy of sediment from the impoundment to establish the stream channel in the area up-gradient of Armstrong Dam (which will be removed). The EENF outlines a detailed sediment management strategy to address sediment exposed following drawdown of the impoundment that may represent a risk to human health and aquatic organisms due primarily to the presence of PAHs. Excavated sediment will be removed within the reconstructed channel width and placed within the impoundment where it will be capped and vegetated. No releases of sediment downstream are anticipated as part of the removal of either dam. Water surface elevations and velocities downstream of the dams will not be affected by their removal. The Proponents should continue to work with MassDEP to ensure the appropriate management of sediment occurs during 401 WQC/c. 91 License/Permit processes.

DMF comments indicate that the Proponents will require a written determination from DMF prior to submission of the Ecological Restoration Limited Project Notice of Intent to the Braintree Conservation Commission pursuant to 310 CMR 10.11(3) and (4). Dam removal will improve diadromous fish passage along Monatiquot River and ultimately towards Great Pond. The design and timing of dredging must avoid interference with diadromous fish runs pursuant to 310 CMR 9.40(2). Construction will be timed to adhere to TOY restrictions on in-water, silt-producing work from March 15 to June 30 and September 1 to November 15 of any given year to avoid impacts to diadromous fish species (American eel and river herring populations).2 Adequate channel flow should also be maintained during these periods to facilitate fish passage.

2 DMF comments indicate that the TOY starts later in the spring than recommended in its Technical Report 47 (April 2011) because the fisheries species (Atlantic tomcod and winter flounder) requiring the early spring TOY restrictions in the Monatiquot and Fore Rivers are not present in the upstream areas near the project site.

9 EEA# 16224 EENF Certificate July 17, 2020

The NOI and 401 WQC application should demonstrate the ERP’s compliance with the SMS pursuant to 310 CMR 10.05(6)(k)-(q) and 314 CMR 9.06 (6)(a)-(f) and the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. The Proponent is required to demonstrate that the bridge crossing complies with the MSCS pursuant to 310 CMR 10.54(4)(a)6, 310 CMR 10.56(4)(a)5, and 314 CMR 9.06(2)(b)2. The EENF includes a tabular comparison of the proposed bridge design’s consistency with DER’s Stream Crossing Standards (general and optimal).

The Proponents should develop a post-construction monitoring program that addresses sediment management, channel and bank stability, and invasive species monitoring and management. MassDEP comments recommend designing and constructing the boardwalk to permit flowage of water and adequate light to support vegetation by elevating the walkway at least one foot above BVW for every foot of its width, and spacing individual deck planks (optimally narrow) at least 0.75-inch apart, or using a grating material that allows at least 50 percent sunlight penetration.

Comments from Sierra Club Massachusetts and Sustainable Braintree identify preference for the bypass channel over the ASP fish ladder based on reduced maintenance; request a sidewalk on the north side of the bridge to mitigate for the lack of bike lanes, or reduction in the width of vehicle lanes to support slower speeds and a wider sidewalk; and recommend additional pedestrian connections. I encourage the Proponents to continue to consider public input as design and permitting progress.

Climate Change and Resiliency

The protection and restoration of wetlands play an increasingly important role in promoting ecosystem resiliency and mitigating climate change impacts. The project is proposed to restore natural riverine processes and improve fish passage. The EENF includes a detailed climate change assessment for the project including analyzing flood severity/frequency and changes in precipitation. It also assessed the extents and depths of the floodplain to identify any infrastructure or buildings that may be flood prone and evaluated the velocities and shear stresses associated with these floods to assess the stability of the riverbanks, riverbed, and waterborne infrastructure such as bridges and dams. According to the EENF, the proposed restoration was designed specifically to address stressors to critical natural river processes, undue past alterations from the former mill industry, improve water quality, and establish conditions for self-sustaining, high quality restored, riverine network. The EENF indicates that the project will not impact storm-related flood levels within the river or its floodplain. The restored site is expected to provide enhanced floodwater storage capacity and improve resilience as it relates to climate change and increased precipitation.

The Massachusetts Climate Change Projections include projections specific to the Boston Harbor Basin with estimated changes in precipitation (greatest in winter) increasing between 0 to 20 percent by the 2050s and between 3 to 35 percent by the 2090s. The projected increase in precipitation may be similar to the projected increase in flow; however, it is not directly proportional to an increase in channel flow due to factors such as infiltration, evaporation, transpiration, and interception within a watershed. The Proponents also considered guidelines from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) Bridge Manual (2017) which requires increasing design flows by 20 percent to account for increasing projected future flows. Based on the Massachusetts Climate Change projections for the Boston Harbor Basin and NYSDOT guidelines, the Proponents chose a 20 percent increase to estimate

10 EEA# 16224 EENF Certificate July 17, 2020

future peak flows that are expected due to climate change using the East Branch Neponset River USGS Gauge Data (10- year, 50-year, 100-year, and 500-year flows). The bridge opening will be designed to convey the current 500-year flood with a 20 percent increase and 2.73 feet of freeboard.

Greenhouse Gas Emission (GHG)

This project is subject to review under the GHG Policy because it exceeds thresholds for a mandatory EIR. The GHG Policy specifically includes a de minimis exemption for projects that are expected to produce minimal GHG emissions. As an ecological restoration project involving dam removal and restoration of natural stream processes, GHG emissions will be limited to the construction period of the project. As such, this project falls under the GHG Policy’s de minimis exemption; therefore, the Proponents was not required to submit a GHG analysis in conjunction with the EENF. The Proponents should encourage the use of low-sulfur diesel, diesel retrofit equipment, and require that contractors minimize idling of equipment to minimize GHG emissions.

Historical and Archaeological Resources

Armstrong dam and Ames Pond dam are part of the Hollingsworth-Stedman-Armstrong Industrial Complex, a historic mill site. Two bridges at the upstream and downstream limits of the project area (Old Colony Railroad Bridges #BRA.911 and #BRA.913) are listed in MHC’s Inventory of the Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth; neither of these bridges will be impacted by the project. The EENF includes Cultural Resources Surveys (Appendix H) which include an updated archaeological sensitivity assessment. The project proposes removal of portions of the remaining Industrial Complex, including both dams. According to the EENF, the historic integrity of the Industrial Complex has been destroyed by extensive demolition that has previously occurred, and the property is no longer eligible for listing in the National Register.

The EENF indicates that there is a potential for Native American and early historic-period cultural resources to be located within the project area; lowering of the impoundment may expose previously inundated features. Preliminary cultural resources assessments were prepared by Public Archaeology Laboratory (PAL) and submitted to MHC in 2017 and 2019 (40 percent design). MHC comments note that project plans in the EENF include a modified project impact area since it reviewed the 40 percent design plan in 2019. The archaeologically sensitive upland area adjacent to the RMV previously identified by the PAL is no longer within the project impact area. The Proponents should continue to submit updated project information to PAL as the project impact area is refined for further archaeological sensitivity assessment, and submit a copy of the historical drawings of the Armstrong Cork Building and Dam to MHC for review and comment.

The Proponents will consult with MHC, BUAR, Tribal Preservation Officers and the Braintree Historical Commission (BHC) to ensure preservation of historical and archaeological resources. The updated Cultural Resources survey recommended avoidance and protection of the previously identified moderate sensitivity upland area on the east side of Hollingsworth Pond or conducting an intensive (locational) archaeological survey with subsurface testing to locate and identify any potentially significant archaeological resources if this area cannot be avoided; photo documentation prior to demolition; and archaeological monitoring and/or reconnaissance walkover survey in the previously identified moderately sensitive in-river work areas upstream and downstream of the two dams during

11 EEA# 16224 EENF Certificate July 17, 2020 construction to locate and record any significant archaeological resources. Final mitigation measures will be coordinated with MHC, BHC, and others.

The archaeological monitoring and/or reconnaissance walkover within the in-river work areas recommended by PAL should be coordinated with BUAR. Comments from BUAR indicate that such monitoring/survey activities undertaken within the impoundment or in-stream areas would need to be conducted under a BUAR Special Use Permit. The Proponents should develop a plan for unanticipated finds encountered during construction and demolition of the project consistent with BUAR’s Policy Guidance for the Discover of Unanticipated Archaeological Resources. If any unknown archeological resources are encountered during the course of the project, the Proponents should limit adverse impacts and notify BUAR, MHC, and other appropriate agencies.

Construction Period

As previously mentioned, the project will occur in phases and commence in 2021. Dam removal activities will involve site preparation (e.g., staging, installation of erosion sedimentation control barriers and establishment of dewatering basins). River flows will be diverted from the work areas, while TOY restrictions (when no in-river work will be allowed to take place) will be observed for diadromous fisheries. Work will occur largely "in the dry" once the water control system has diverted normal river flows and the work zone has drained. The dams will be demolished and removed from the site via heavy construction equipment working predominantly along the banks of the impoundment until such time that the final grading of the channel itself takes place.

Sedimentation and erosion controls will be used during construction to minimize impacts to wetlands and water quality. The project must comply with MassDEP Solid Waste and Air Pollution Control regulations during construction and demolition (C&D). All C&D activities should be undertaken in compliance with the conditions of all State and local permits. I encourage the Proponents to require contractors to install emission control devices on all off-road construction vehicles in an effort to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM) from diesel-powered equipment. Off-road vehicles will be required to use ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel (ULSD). If oil and/or hazardous materials are found during construction, the Proponents should notify MassDEP in accordance with the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (310 CMR 40.00). Three Activity and Use Limitation (AUL) areas are located downstream of the Armstrong dam along both banks of the Monatiquot River and to the west of the Armstrong Cork building. Project activities are proposed within these AUL areas. The design and location of proposed activities within AUL areas will be reviewed by a Licensed Site Professional (LSP) prior to final design or construction to ensure that a finding of No Significant Risk exists for both site workers and future users of the site.

Conclusion

Based on a review of the information provided in the EENF and consultation with the relevant public agencies, I find that the potential impacts of this project do not warrant further MEPA review. Outstanding issues may be addressed during the local, State, and federal permitting processes.

I have also issued today a DROD proposing to grant a Waiver from the requirement to prepare an EIR for the project. In accordance with 301 CMR 11.15(2), the DROD will be published in the next

12 EEA# 16224 EENF Certificate July 17, 2020

edition of the Environmental Monitor on July 22, 2020 which will commence the public comment period. The public comment period lasts 14 days and will conclude on August 5, 2020. Based on written comments received concerning the DROD, I shall issue a Final Record of Decision (FROD) or a Scope within seven days after the close of the public comment period, in accordance with 301 CMR 11.15(6).

July 17, 2020 ______Date Kathleen A. Theoharides

Comments received:

06/22/2020 Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) 06/30/2020 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Restoration Center 07/01/2020 Massachusetts Division of Ecological Resources (DER) 07/02/2020 Sierra Club Massachusetts 07/03/2020 Sustainable Braintree 07/07/2020 Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) 07/09/2020 Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) (final comments 07/13/2020) 07/09/2020 Meredith Boericke, Braintree Town Council District 5 07/10/2020 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) – Southeast Regional Office (SERO) 07/10/2020 Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources (BUAR) 07/10/2020 Mass Audubon

KAT/PPP/ppp

Charles D. Baker Governor Karyn E. Polito Lieutenant Governor Kathleen A. Theoharides Beth Lambert, Director Secretary Hunt Durey, Deputy Director Ronald S. Amidon Commissioner Mary-Lee King June 30, 2020 Deputy Commissioner

Secretary Kathleen A. Theoharides Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attention: MEPA Office, Purvi Patel 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114

RE: EEA No. 16224 / Monatiquot River Restoration – Braintree

Dear Secretary Theoharides:

The Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration (DER) supports the request by the Town of Braintree and Hollinsworth Pond, LLC (the proponents) for a waiver of the mandatory Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under 301 CMR 11.11(5) for the Monatiquot River Restoration (EEA No. 16224). DER agrees with the proponents that an EIR would result in undue hardship and that the project meets the EIR waiver requirements, including that an EIR would “not serve to avoid or minimize damage to the environment” and that “the project is likely to cause no damage to the environment”.

The proponents are supported in this effort by project partners including the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, the NOAA Restoration Center, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the Fore River Watershed Association. This project involves the removal of the Armstrong and Ames Pond Dams, management of contaminated sediment within Hollingsworth Pond, construction of a nature-like fishway, modifications to the Monatiquot River channel to ensure fish passage, and construction of a multiuse trail along the west side of the Monatiquot River. The project will provide substantial environmental and community resiliency benefits, such as restoring 36 miles of unimpeded upstream access for anadromous fish, restoring natural river processes, reducing vulnerability to extreme weather events and changing environmental conditions, and improving public access to the Monatiquot River. The project has received DER Priority Project status, and DER staff are participating on the technical team guiding design, permitting, and future implementation.

The local, state, and federal permits required for this project will result in a thorough review by regulatory agencies and provide ample opportunity for additional public comment. We appreciate this opportunity to comment during this MEPA process. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (617) 626-1542 with any questions.

Sincerely,

Beth Lambert, Director

Department of Fish and Game, Division of Ecological Restoration 251 Causeway Street • Suite 400 • Boston, Massachusetts 02114 • www.mass.gov/der • (617) 626-1540

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries 251 Causeway Street, Suite 400, Boston, MA 02114 p: (617) 626-1520 | f: (617) 626-1509 www.mass.gov/marinefisheries

CHARLES D. BAKER KARYN E. POLITO KATHLEEN A. THEOHARIDES RONALD S. AMIDON DANIEL J. MCKIERNAN Governor Lt. Governor Secretary Commissioner Director

July 13, 2020

Kathleen A. Theoharides, Secretary Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs ATTN: MEPA Office, Purvi Patel 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114

RE: EEA#16224 Expanded Environmental Notification Form

Dear Secretary Theoharides: Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MA DMF) environmental reviewers have reviewed the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) submitted by the Town of Braintree, for the Monatiquot River Restoration Project. MA DMF and MA Division of Ecological Restoration (MA DER) are partners on the restoration portion of the project and MA DMF’s diadromous fish biologists have been working on fish passage plans for the Monatiquot for several years. The project is designed to improve fish passage and is expected to enhance migratory and spawning habitat for alewife and blueback herring. Our initial questions and concerns about construction impacts were addressed sufficiently in the MEPA application and meeting.

The Project includes the removal of the Armstrong and Ames Pond dams, management of contaminated sediment and channel excavation in Hollingsworth Pond, and construction of a 200-ft long fish bypass channel around Rock Falls downstream of Ames Pond Dam. In addition, the project includes construction of a 1,600ft multi-use trail and boardwalk along the west side of the restored river from Plain Street bridge to the proposed fish bypass channel and a 55ft span bridge for vehicular access just below the current location of Armstrong dam. The project also meets thresholds that trigger a mandatory Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the proponents are requesting a waiver and a Special Review Procedure.

Below Rock Falls, the Monatiquot River provides essential habitat for the passage of diadromous fish species including American eel (Anguilla rostrata), alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis), rainbow smelt (Osmerus mordax), and white perch (Morone americana). Rainbow smelt spawning habitat is located 3 - miles downstream of the project site between MucCusker Drive and Shaw Street bridge. Approximately 3.5-miles downstream of the project site, the Monatiquot River enters the Fore River. The Fore River contains productive habitat for soft shell clam (Mya arenaria) and razor clam (Ensis directus) in shellfish growing areas GBH1.0, classified as prohibited, and GBH1.21, classified as conditionally restricted. The Fore River also provides essential habitat for the spawning and early development of winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus) and Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod).

The restoration of Monatiquot River to create habitat for the passage, spawning, and early development of these anadromous fish species is a priority for MA DMF and MA DER. MA DMF supports the project and concurs with the following points made in the EENF: • Sufficient information is available in the EENF to assess potential impacts to fisheries resources and thus MA DMF does not oppose a waiver of the EIR requested by the project proponents. • MA DMF reviewers concur with the preferred alternative presented by the project proponents. • Should the project proponents decide to submit an Ecological Restoration Limited Project Notice of Intent (ERNI), they will require a written determination from MA DMF prior to submission to the Braintree Conservation Commission as part of the ERNI process pursuant to 310 CMR 10.11(3)&(4). • To protect migrating diadromous fish, MA DMF concurs with the proponents’ plan to adhere to time-of-year (TOY) restrictions on in-water, silt-producing work from March 15 to June 30 and September 1 to Nov 15 of any given year. The TOY starts later in the spring than the recommended TOY for the Monatiquot and Fore Rivers from Appendix B of the MA DMF Technical Report 47 “Marine Fisheries TOY Restrictions for Coastal Alteration Projects” dated April 2011 because the fisheries species that necessitate the early spring TOY restrictions in the Monatiquot and Fore Rivers, Atlantic tomcod and winter flounder, are not present in the upstream areas near the project site.

Thank you for considering our comments. Questions about this review may be directed to Forest Schenck in our Gloucester office at (978) 282-0308 x108 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Daniel J. McKiernan Director

DM/te/fs/sd Cc. M. Sanford, Milone & MacBrown, Inc. K. Phelan, Town of Braintree R. Marshall, Hollingsworth Pond, LLC M. Johnson, NOAA Fisheries T. Evans, MA DMF K. Ford, MA DMF D. Winkler, MA DMF B. Gahagan, MA DMF B. Chase, MA DMF B. Boeri, CZM B. Newman, ACOE

Charles D. Baker Kathleen A. Theoharides Governor Secretary

Karyn E. Polito Martin Suuberg Lieutenant Governor Commissioner

July 10 , 20 20

Kathleen A. Theoharides R E: E ENF Review . EOEEA 16 224 Secretary of Environment and Energy BRAINTREE. Monatiquot River Executive Office of Energy and Restoration at Hancock Street and Plain Environmental Affairs Street 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 ATTN: MEPA Office Boston, MA 02114

Dear Secretary Theoharides ,

The Southeast Regional Office of the Department of Environmental Protectio n (MassDEP) has reviewed the Expanded E nvironmental Notification Form ( E ENF ) for the Monatiquot River Restoration at Hancock Street and Plain Street, Braintree, M assachusetts (EOEEA # 1 6 224 ). The Project Proponent provides the f o llowing information for the Project :

The proposed Project involves removal of the Armstrong dam and the Ames Pond dam, reconstruction of the Monatiquot River channel within Hollingsworth Pond, construction of a fish passage structure (natural bypass cha nnel or 30 - foot - long steep pass) at Rock Falls, construction of a multiuse trail adjacent to the river, and construction of a vehicular and pedestrian bridge over the river. Completion of this Project would restore riverine habitat, provide uninterrupted a quatic fish and wildlife passage from Fore River Bay to Great Pond (a 180 - acre high - quality fish spawning/rearing habitat), reduce flood risks, encourage public access to the river, and create a patch of open space in a relatively urbanized section of Brai ntree.

Bure au of Water Resources Comments Wetlands and Waterways . The Waterways Program offers the following comments on the Expanded ENF submitted by the Town of Braintree to remove two aging dams, improve public safety and restore fish passage along the Monatiquot River.

Wetlands The MassDEP SERO has reviewed the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF) for the proposed restoration of the Monatiquot River in Braintree, Massachusetts . The Project proposes : (a ) the removal of the Armstrong dam and the Ames Pond dam, both located on the Monatiquot River; (b) the reconstruction of 880 linear feet of the Monatiquot River channel within Hollingsworth Pond ; (c) restoring fish passage along this reach of the River ; (d) constructing a

This information is available in alternate format. Contact Michelle Waters - Ekanem, Director of Diversity/Civil Rights at 617 - 292 - 5751 . TTY# MassRelay Service 1 - 800 - 439 - 2370 MassDEP Web site : www. mass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper

EEA No. 1 6224 July 10 , 20 20 vehicular and ped estrian bridge over the River and (e) constructing a 1,600 linear feet of recreational trail and boardwalk west of the proposed channel. The Armstrong dam has been classified by the Massachusetts Office of Dam Safety as “High Hazard”.

Portions of the wo rk are proposed within Inland Bank (310 CMR 10.54), Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (310 CMR 10.55), Land under Water Bodies and Waterways (310 CMR 10.56), Bordering Land Subject to Flooding (310 CMR 10.57), and Riverfront Area (310 CMR 10.58). The restoratio n of the natural river channel will result in the conversion of Land Under Water Bodies and Waterways within the Hollingsworth Pond impoundment to approximately 3.53 acres of Bordering Vegetated Wetlands.

The applicant intends to pursue the Project as an Ecological Restoration Project and is seeking an Ecological Restoration Order of Conditions from the Braintree Conservation Commission. 310 CMR 10.11 describes the actions required before submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for an Ecological Restoration Pr oject . 310 CMR 10.12 outlines the requirements for the submission of an NOI for an Ecological Restoration Project . 310 CMR 10.13 lists the eligibility criteria for Restoration Order of Conditions. The applicant must obtain a valid Final Order of Conditions before any activity associated with the Project commences.

The Project will also be reviewed under Chapter 91 Waterways Program and Section 401 Water Quality Certification requirements. A 401 Water Quality Certification application is subject to the criteria for Evaluation of Applications for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill Material in 314 CMR 9.06, and the Criteria for Evaluation of Applications for Dredging and Dredged Material Management at 314 CMR 9.07. An Alternatives Analysis that demonstrates measures taken to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for the dredging and placeme nt of fill must be submitted with the 401 Water Quality Certification application. In accordance with 314 CMR 9.06(1)(c), for discharges of dredged or fill material associated with an Ecological Restoration Project , the alternatives analysis shall include a consideration of the following:

1. Any time of year restrictions or other conditions recommended by the Division of Marine Fisheries for coastal waters and the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife for inland waters. 2. The condition of the existing ecosystem an d the wetlands and waters contained therein. 3. The magnitude and significance of the benefits of the Ecological Restoration Project in improving the capacity of the affected ecosystem and the waters and wetlands contained therein to sustain their designated uses, as identified in 314 CMR 4.00: Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards. 4. The magnitude and significance of the impacts of the Ecological Restoration Project on the existing ecosystem and the wetlands and waters contained therein and the exten t to which the applicant will:

a. avoid adverse impacts to the existing ecosystem that can avoided without impeding the achievement of the Project ’s ecological goals; b. minimize adverse impacts to the existing ecosystem that are necessary to the achievement of the Project ’s ecological restoration goals; and c. utilize best management practices such as erosion and siltation controls and proper construction sequencing to avoid and minimize adverse construction impacts to the existing ecosystem and the waters and wetlands contained therein. Based on the information provided in the EENF, it appears that, as the applicant intends , an application could be submitted to MassDEP for a BRP WW 26 Combined License/Permit for

EEA No. 1 6224 July 10 , 20 20 Waterways & Water Quality Certification, Water - De pendent Chapter 91 Waterways License/Permit (310 CMR 9.00), and 401 Dredging, Fill/Excavation Water Quality Certification (314 CMR 9.00). Per 310 CMR 10.05(6)(k) - (q) and 314 CMR 9.06 (6)(a) - (f), compliance with the Stormwater Management Standards as define d and specified in the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook is required.

Per 310 CMR 10.54 (4)(a)6., 310 CMR 10.56 (4)(a)5., and 314 CMR 9.06(2)(b)2., the applicant is required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Issuing Authority that the crossing com plies with the Massachusetts Stream Crossing Standards. The Project Proponent addressed a summary of the Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration guidelines and corresponding values for the proposed bridge in the Supplemental Information Report pro vided along with the EENF. Finally, the boardwalk should be designed and constructed so as to permit the reasonably unobstructed flowage of water and adequate light to support vegetation. Although a specific height requirement is not mandated under the Wet lands Protection Act regulations, the Department recommends that the walkway should be elevated at least 1 foot above the Bordering Vegetated Wetlands for every foot of its width, and individual deck planks of the structure should be narrow and spaced at l east ¾ inch apart, or a grating material that allows at least 50% sunlight penetration could be used. Any area that is disturbed during construction is to be revegetated immediately, or as soon thereafter as the growing season commences, with appropriate l ocal indigenous vegetation.

Waterways  It has been previously determined that this segment of the Monatiquot River is a jurisdictional waterway pursuant to the Waterways Regulation at 310 CMR 9.04. This Project will require the submittal of a Chapter 91 Li cense Application as the proposed work includes the construction of a new vehicular and pedestrian bridge and involves approximately 4,500 cubic yards of dredging to establish the stream channel in the area up - gradient to the Armstrong Dam which will be re moved. The Chapter 91 License would also authorize the deployment of temporary cofferdams and/or water diversion structures. The Waterways Program has determined that the Project would be classified as a water - dependent use pursuant to the Waterways Regula tions at 310 CMR 9.12. The EENF indicates that the Project will also require the submittal of a 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) application. The Proponent may choose to file a BRP WW26 Combined Application for Chapter 91 and WQC.

 In accordance with the Waterways Regulations at 310 CMR 9.40(2), the design and timing of the dredging shall be such to as to avoid interference with anadromous/catadromous fish runs. Work shall not be performed between March 15 th to June 15 th of any year, except upon a det ermination of the Division of Marine Fisheries to waive this time of year restriction.

 In reviewing the Project , the Waterways Program will work with the Project Team to assure that, where feasible, navigation by small vessels (i.e. canoes/kayaks) is main tained within the waterway. The placement of large wood across the stream channel may be an impediment to safe navigation.

Construction Stormwater Permit. The Project construction activ ities are scheduled to disturb 6.8 acres of land and therefore, may require a NPDES Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities. The Proponent can access information regarding the NPDES Stormwater requirements and an application for the Construction General Permit at the EPA website: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017 - 07/documents/cgp_flow_chart_do_i_need_a_permit2.pdf

EEA No. 1 6224 July 10 , 20 20 Dewatering Activities. Depending on the na ture of the activities at the Project site, the Proponent may have to obtain an:

 EPA NPDES Dewatering General Permit ( https://www.epa.gov/npdes - pe rmits/dewatering - general - permit - dgp - massachusetts - new - hampshire ) or a

 Remediation General Permit ( https://www.epa.gov/npdes - permits/remediation - ge neral - permit - rgp - massachusetts - new - hampshire

Bur e au of Waste Site C l e anup C o m m e nts ENF #16224 – Based upon the information provided, the Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup (BWSC) searched its databases for disposal sites and release notifications that have occurred at or might impact the proposed Project area. A disposal site is a location where there has been a release to the environment of oil and/or hazardous material that is regulated under M.G.L. c. 21E, and the Massachusetts Contingency Plan [MCP – 310 CMR 40.0000].

There is one MCP site located adjacent to the proposed MEPA Project . Release Tracking Number 4 - 3000167, JG Grant and Sons, Inc., is located immediately south of the proposed Project . The site is a former metal salvage company that operated from 1977 until 1995. Continued response actions are necessary at the site prior to closure under t he MCP.

There are no other listed MCP disposal sites located at or in the vicinity of the property that would appear to impact the proposed Project area. Interested parties may view a map showing the location of BWSC disposal sites using the MassGIS d ata viewer (Oliver) at: http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/map_ol/oliver.php Under “Available Data Layers” select “ Regulated Areas”, and then “DEP Tier Classified 21E Sites .” M CP reports and the compliance status of specific disposal sites may be viewed using the BWSC Waste Sites/Reportable Release Lookup at: https://eeaonline.eea.state .ma.us/portal#!/search/wastesite

The Project Proponent is advised that if oil and/or hazardous material are identified during the implementation of this Project , notification to MassDEP may be required pursuant to the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (310 CMR 40.0000). If oil and/or hazardous material is encountered a Licensed Site Professional (LSP) should be retained to determine if notification is required and, if need be, to render appropriate opinions and/or conduct response actions. The BWSC may be contacted for guidance if questions arise regarding cleanup.

Bureau of Air and Waste (BAW) Comments Air Quality . Construction and operation activities shall no t cause or contribute to a condition of air pollution due to dust, odor or noise. To determine the appropriate requirements please refer to: 310 CMR 7.09 Dust, Odor, Construction, and Demolition 310 CMR 7.10 Noise

Construction - Related Measures MassDEP requests that all non - road diesel equipment rated 50 horsepower or greater meet EPA’s Tier 4 emission limits, which are the most stringent emission standards currently available for off - road engines. If a piece of equipment is not available in the Tier 4 configuration, then the Proponent should use construction equipment that has been retrofitted with appropriate emissions reduction equipment. Emission reduction equipment includes EPA - verified, CARB - verified, or MassDEP - approved diesel oxidation cat alysts (DOCs) or Diesel Particulate Filters (DPFs). The Proponent

EEA No. 1 6224 July 10 , 20 20 should maintain a list of the engines, their emission tiers, and, if applicable, the best available control technology installed on each piece of equipment on file for Departmental review.

Massachusetts Idling Regulation MassDEP reminds the Proponent that unnecessary idling ( i.e., in excess of five minutes), with limited exception, is not permitted during the construction and operations phase of the Project (Section 7.11 o f 310 CMR 7.00 ). With regard to construction period activity, typical methods of reducing idling include driver training, periodic inspections by site superviso rs, and posting signage. In addition, to ensure compliance with this regulation once the Project is underway, MassDEP recommends that the Proponent install signs limiting idling to five minutes or less on - site.

Spills Prevention. A spills contingency plan addressing prevention and management of potential releases of oil and/or hazardous materials from pre - and post - construction activities should be presented to workers at the site and enforced. The plan should include but not be limited to, refueling of m achinery, storage of fuels, and potential on - site activity releases.

Solid Waste Management . As a result of its review of the Environmental Notification Form (“ENF”) for the Braintree Monatiquot River Restoration Project (“ Project ” or “site”), the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) Solid Waste Management Section (Solid Waste) is providing the following comments regarding the management of solid waste/ recyclable and asbestos materials generated from the Project pursuant to Massachusetts Solid Waste Regulations 310 CMR 16.00: Site Assignment Regulations For Solid Waste Facilities, 310 CMR 19.000: Solid Waste Management and 310 CMR 7.15: Asbestos Regulations .

The ENF indicates that demolition activities wi ll be performed as part of the Project and will potentially generate solid waste and recyclable materials including but not limited to asphalt, brick, and concrete (ABC).

Solid Waste/Asbestos Comments: Compliance with Waste Ban Regulations: Waste mater ials discovered during construction that are determined to be solid waste ( e.g., construction and demolition waste) and/or recyclable material (e.g., metal, asphalt, brick, and concrete) shall be disposed, recycled, and/or otherwise handled in accordance w ith the Solid Waste Regulations including 310 CMR 19.017: Waste Bans. Waste Ban regulations prohibit the disposal, transfer for disposal, or contracting for disposal of certain hazardous, recyclable, or compostable items at solid waste facilities in Massa chusetts, including, but not limited to, metal, wood, asphalt pavement, brick, concre te, and clean gypsum wallboard. The goals of the waste bans are to: promote reuse, waste reduction, or recycling; reduce the adverse impacts of solid waste management on the environment; conserve capacity at existing solid waste disposal facilities; minimize the need for construction of new solid waste disposal facilities; and support the recycling industry by ensuring that large volumes of material are av ailable on a cons istent basis. Further guidance can be found at: https://www.mass.gov/guides/massdep - waste - disposal - bans . Asphalt, brick and concrete (ABC) rubble, such as the rubble generated by the demolition of buildings or other structures must be handled in accordance with the Solid Waste regulations. These regulations allow, and MassDEP encourages, the recycling/reuse of ABC rubble. The Proponent sho uld refer to MassDEP's Information Sheet, entitled " Using or Processing Asphalt Pavement, Brick and Concrete Rubble, Updated February 27, 2017 ", that answers commonly asked questions about ABC rubble and identifies the provisions of the solid waste regul ations that pertain to recycling/reusing

EEA No. 1 6224 July 10 , 20 20 ABC rubble. This policy can be found on - line at the MassDEP website: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2018/03/19/abc - rubble.pdf

Fo r more information on how to prevent banned materials from entering the waste stream the Proponent should contact the RecyclingWorks in Massachusetts program at (888) 254 - 5525 or via email at info@recyclingworksma. com . RecyclingWorks in Massachusetts also provides a website that includes a searchable database of recycling service providers, available at http://www.recyclingworksma.com.

If you have any questions regarding the Solid Waste Management Program comments above, please contact Mark Dakers at (508) 946 - 2847.

P roposed s.61 Findings The “Certificate of the Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs on the Expanded Environmental Notification Form” may indicate that this Project requires further MEPA review and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) . Pursuant to MEPA Regulations 301 CMR 11.12(5)(d), the Proponent will prepare Proposed Section 61 Findings to be included in the EIR in a separate chapter updating and summarizing proposed mitigation measures. In accordance with 301 CMR 11.07(6)(k), this chapter should also include separate updated draft Section 61 Findings for each State agency that will issue permits for the Project . The draft Section 61 Findings should contain clear commitments to i mplement mitigation measures, estimate the individual costs of each proposed measure, identify the parties responsible for implementation, and contain a schedule for implementation.

R equest for W aiv er of M anda tory E I R A s a am removal and ecological restoration P roject, the M ass DE P S outheast R egional O ffice supports the applicant ’ s request for a W aiver of the M andatory E I R .

Other Comments/Guidance The MassDEP Southeast Regional Office appreciates the opp ortunity to comment on this E E NF . If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact George Zoto at (508) 946 - 2820.

Very truly yours,

Jonathan E. Hobill, Regional Engineer, Bureau of Water Resources JH/GZ

Cc: DEP/SERO

ATTN: Millie Garcia - Serrano, Regional Director David Johnsto n, Deputy Regional Director, BWR Gerard Martin, Deputy Regional Director, BWSC Seth Pickering, Deputy Region al Director, BAW Jennifer Viveiros, Deputy Regional Director, ADMIN

EEA No. 1 6224 July 10 , 20 20 Dan iel Gilmore, Chief, Wetlands and Waterways, BWR Maissoun Reda, Wetlands and Waterways, BWR Greg DeCesare, Wetlands and Waterways, BWR David Hill , Wetlands and Waterways , BWR Mark Dakers, Solid Waste, BAW Alison Cochrane, Solid Waste, BAW A llen Hemberger, Site Management , BWSC

The COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF UNDERWATER ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS 251 Causeway Street, Suite 800, Boston, MA 02114-2136 Tel. (617) 626-1014 Fax (617) 626-1240 www.mass.gov/orgs/board-of-underwater-archaeological-resources

July 9, 2020

Kathleen A. Theoharides, Secretary Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attention: Purvi Patel, MEPA Unit 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114

RE: Town of Braintree: Monatiquot River Restoration (EOEA #16224), Hancock Street and Plain Street, Braintree, MA

Dear Secretary Theoharides,

The staff of the Massachusetts Board of Underwater Archaeological Resources has reviewed the above-referenced proposed project as detailed in the Environmental Monitor of 10 June 2020 and Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF), including an updated archaeological sensitivity assessment prepared by the Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. (PAL), and offers the following comments. In 2017, the Board reviewed the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) Project Notification Form and supporting materials prepared for the project by the Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration and commented that while there was no record of any underwater archaeological resources likely to be impacted by the project, it could not conclude that there were no submerged cultural resources within the proposed project area. Further, the presence of pre- contact period Native American archaeological sites and early post-contact period saw- and grist-mills, documented in the MHC’s Massachusetts Cultural Resources Inventory System (MACRIS) and on historic maps, in the vicinity of the project location suggested the area should be considered archaeologically sensitive. As a result of our review of the project’s EENF and in consideration of the results and recommendations of the PAL’s updated archaeological sensitivity assessment, the Board is revising its 2017 comments to include the recommendation that archaeological monitoring and/or reconnaissance walkover survey be conducted in the moderately sensitive in-river work areas upstream and downstream of the two dams during the construction phase of the project to locate and record any significant underwater archaeological resources that may be present in these areas. Such archaeological monitoring and/or reconnaissance walkover survey undertaken in the impoundment or in-stream areas would need to be conducted under a BUAR Special Use Permit (312 CMR 2.06). The Board considers this area to be archaeologically sensitive. Given the concerns noted above, the proponent also needs to develop a plan to deal with the possibility that heretofore-unknown submerged cultural resources might be encountered during the course of the project, which includes steps to limit adverse effects and notify the Board and the Massachusetts Historical Commission, as well as other appropriate agencies. The Board suggests the proponent adopt a plan consistent with the Board’s Policy Guidance for the Discovery of Unanticipated Archaeological Resources. The Board appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments as part of the MEPA review process. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

David S. Robinson Director

/dsr Cc: Brona Simon, MHC

Printed on Recycled Paper

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA Restoration Center 55 Great Republic Drive Gloucester, MA 01930-2276

June 30, 2020 Secretary Kathleen A. Theoharides Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attention: MEPA Office, Purvi Patel 100 Cambridge Street Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114

RE: EEA File #: 16224 MEPA Consultation for Monatiquot River Restoration – Braintree, MA

Dear Secretary Theoharides:

The NOAA Restoration Center has been providing both technical and financial support for the Monatiquot River Restoration project for many years. NOAA is the lead federal agency for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act compliance we have undertaken our own National Environmental Policy Act consultation for this project that we fully support. The NOAA Restoration Center supports the request from the Town of Braintree and Hollingsworth Pond, LLC (the proponents) for a waiver of the mandatory Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under 301 CMR 11.11(5) for the Monatiquot River Restoration. This project will provide substantial environmental and community resiliency benefits, such as restoring 36 miles of unimpeded upstream access for anadromous fish, restoring natural river processes, reducing vulnerability extreme weather events and changing environmental conditions, and improving public access to the Monatiquot River. The project is being led and supported by state, federal, and non-governmental organizations with decades of experience completing similar restoration efforts.

We understand determinations for an EIR Waiver are based on whether “the project is likely to cause no damage to the environment” and “ample and unconstrained infrastructure facilities exist to support the project” (301 CMR 11.11(3)). We do not believe that the completion of an EIR would serve to avoid or minimize damage to the environment. Nor would an EIR provide increased benefit to the project or the environment (301 CMR 11.11(2)). The basis of this waiver request is founded upon the extensive data collection and analysis of environmental impacts that have been conducted in support of this project to date. These analyses support the overwhelming environmental benefits of the project, and the proposed design incorporates strategies to minimize and avoid negative environmental impacts.

The environmental permitting process for the project will facilitate ample opportunity for additional public and regulatory input. In this manner, public interests will be adequately addressed and incorporated in the project development process.

On behalf of the proponents and their restoration partners, I urge you to favorably consider this waiver request. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact Eric Hutchins at 978-281-9313 or [email protected]. Sincerely, 6/30/2020

X Eric Hutchins Eric Hutchins Gulf of Habitat Restoration Coordinator Signed by: HUTCHINS.ERIC.W.1365815778 Eric Hutchins Gulf of Maine Regional Habitat Restoration Coordinator

July 2, 2020 Secretary Kathleen A. Theoharides Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attention: MEPA Office, Purvi Patel 100 Cambridge Street Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114

RE: EEA File #: 16224 MEPA Consultation for Monatiquot River Restoration – Braintree, MA

Dear Secretary Theoharides:

Sierra Club Massachusetts supports the request from the Town of Braintree and Hollingsworth Pond, LLC (the proponents) for a waiver of the mandatory Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under 301 CMR 11.11(5) for the Monatiquot River Restoration. This project will provide substantial environmental and community resiliency benefits, such as restoring 36 miles of unimpeded upstream access for diadromous fish, restoring natural river processes, reducing vulnerability to extreme weather events and changing environmental conditions, and improving public access to the Monatiquot River. The project is being led and supported by state, federal, and non-governmental organizations with decades of experience completing similar restoration efforts.

The Monatiquot River Restoration is strongly aligned with our mission to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources; to educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out these objectives.

We understand determinations for an EIR Waiver are based on whether “the project is likely to cause no damage to the environment” and “ample and unconstrained infrastructure facilities exist to support the project” (301 CMR 11.11(3)). We do not believe that the completion of an EIR would serve to avoid or minimize damage to the environment. Nor would an EIR provide increased benefit to the project or the environment (301 CMR 11.11(2)). The basis of this waiver request is founded upon the extensive data collection and analysis of environmental impacts that have been conducted in support of this project to date by the project partners. These analyses support the overwhelming environmental benefits of the project, and the proposed design incorporates strategies to minimize and avoid negative environmental impacts.

rd 50 Federal Street, 3 Floor Boston MA 02110-2509 (617) 423-5775 sierraclub.org/massachusetts

Sierra Club Massachusetts has only a few specific comments to the plan.

1. We prefer the bypass channel over Alaskian Steeppass fish ladder (ASP). The bypass channel will likely have less maintenance. 2. We continue to support proposed public access improvements; trails, boardwalk and overlooks that are aligned with local and regional public access goals. 3. We support the plan for a new bridge with a sidewalk on the south side and railings to allow for viewing of the former dam site. a. However, we request that an additional 6ft sidewalk be placed on the north side of the bridge to allow for proper physical distancing, views downstream and more pedestrian connections. This is more important as no bike lanes are provided for people in both directions. b. If this is not feasible, to reduce bridge width the vehicle lanes could be reduced to 10ft wide. This will force vehicles to drive slower. i. If the bridge can not be wider than 30 ft, reduced vehicle lane width of 10 ft would allow a wider 8ft sidewalk on the south side and a 2 ft shoulder for shy distance - a compromise for a single sidewalk. c. We support future pedestrian and vehicle public access via the bridge to connect the proposed public access trails with the public ways of John Mahar Highway and Plain Street for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles. d. We suggest using stamped concrete or stone veneer on the concrete sections of the bridge similar to the Newfield Street bridge in Plymouth. 4. We know a pedestrian connection under the stone MBTA Bridge to the Monatiquot River Nature Trail is not a part of this specific trail project but we believe it is an important future pedestrian connection that has been highlighted in MAPC’s Trailmap: Metro Boston's Regional Walking and Cycling Map.

On behalf of the proponents and their restoration partners, I urge you to favorably consider this waiver request. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact Robert Kearns at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Robert V. Kearns Outings Chair & Executive Committee Secretary Sierra Club Massachusetts

rd 50 Federal Street, 3 Floor Boston MA 02110-2509 (617) 423-5775 sierraclub.org/massachusetts

July 3, 2020

Secretary Kathleen A. Theoharides Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attention: MEPA Office, Purvi Patel 100 Cambridge Street Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114

RE: EEA File #: 16224 MEPA Consultation for Monatiquot River Restoration – Braintree, MA

Dear Secretary Theoharides:

Sustainable Braintree is a community advocacy group committed to helping Braintree residents, community groups, businesses and local government, conserve energy, promote clean and renewable energy, protect the environment and live healthy, sustainable lifestyles.

Mitigating the impacts of climate change is one of the core interests of our organization. We strongly support the Town’s efforts to restore the Monatiquot River by removing obsolete dams, constructing public access and restoring a vegetated corridor along the river.

Sustainable Braintree supports the request from the Town of Braintree and Hollingsworth Pond, LLC (the proponents) for a waiver of the mandatory Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under 301 CMR 11.11(5) for the Monatiquot River Restoration. This project will provide substantial environmental and community resiliency benefits, such as restoring 36 miles of unimpeded upstream access for diadromous fish, restoring natural river processes, reducing vulnerability to extreme weather events and changing environmental conditions, and improving public access to the Monatiquot River. The project is being led and supported by state, federal, and non-governmental organizations with decades of experience completing similar restoration efforts.

The basis of this waiver request is founded upon the extensive data collection and analyses of environmental impacts that have been conducted with regard to this project to date, including but not limited to two feasibility studies, historic documentation, and a spawning and nursery habitat assessment. These analyses support the overwhelming environmental benefits of the project. Moreover, the proposed design incorporates strategies to minimize and avoid negative environmental impacts.

Additionally “ample and unconstrained infrastructure facilities exist to support the project” (301 CMR 11.11(3)). Project partners include the dam owner, local, state and federal government. The project has gotten ample technical assistance from various state agencies.

Given these factors, we do not believe that the completion of an EIR would provide increased benefit to the project or the environment (301 CMR 11.11(2)).

Advocating smart living through sustainability and environmental awareness Sustainable Braintree, Inc. 1 JFK Memorial Drive Braintree, MA 02184 www.sustainablebraintree.org The environmental permitting process for the project will facilitate ample opportunity for additional public and regulatory input. In this manner, public interests will be adequately addressed and incorporated in the project development process.

We only have a few specific comments to the plan.

Comments:

1. We favor the bypass channel over Alaskian Steeppass fish ladder (ASP). The bypass channel is likely a better option for fish passage, has less maintenance and is more aesthetically pleasing. Funding constraints from the pandemic may impact the bypass.

2. We support proposed public access improvements including the proposed trails, boardwalk and overlooks. They align with Braintree’s Open Space and Recreation Plan.

3. We support the plan for a new bridge with a sidewalk on the south side and railings to allow for viewing of the former dam site

a. We request that an additional 6ft sidewalk be placed on the north side of the bridge to allow for more pedestrian connections as no bike lanes are provided for pedestrians in both directions.

b. We support using stamped concrete or stone veneer on the bridge.

c. We support pedestrian and vehicle public access via the bridge to connect with the public ways of John Mahar Highway and Plain Street for the benefit of the public.

On behalf of the proponents and their restoration partners, I urge you to favorably consider this waiver request. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact Michael Cavanaugh at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Michael Cavanaugh President, Sustainable Braintree

Advocating smart living through sustainability and environmental awareness Sustainable Braintree, Inc. 1 JFK Memorial Drive Braintree, MA 02184 www.sustainablebraintree.org

July 10, 2020

Secretary Kathleen A. Theoharides Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs Attention: MEPA Office 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114

Via Email: [email protected]

Re: EOEEA # 16224, Monatiquot River Restoration, Braintree

Dear Secretary Theoharides:

On behalf of Mass Audubon, I submit the following comments in support of the request for a waiver of the requirement for a mandatory Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the MEPA regulations at 301 CMR 11.11(5) for the restoration of the Monatiquot River in Braintree.

This project includes removal of two obsolete dams, restoration of the river channel within Hollingsworth Pond, and construction of fishway passage at Rock Falls as well as a multiuse path. The project has many benefits including reconnection of an anadromous fish run and restoration of in-stream habitat between the Fore River estuary to the Great Pond Reservoir, reduced flood hazards, improved water quality, and creation of urban open space.

Removal of obsolete dams is important for both public safety and ecological health, especially in light of climate change impacts on precipitation patterns and temperature regimes.

The project has the support of the town and is a priority project of the Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration. The project meets the requirements for a waiver, as it will improve rather than damage environmental conditions. Extensive analyses and planning have already been conducted for the project, including hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, sediment assessment and management planning, and evaluation of alternatives. This information, along with project plans, are included in the Extended Environmental Notification Form. Any remaining project design and conditioning can be addressed through the required permitting processes at the local and state levels.

Thank you for considering these comments and the request for an EIR waiver.

Sincerely,

E. Heidi Ricci Acting Director of Advocacy

Cc: Braintree Conservation Commission Mathew Sanford, Milone & MacBroom