Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20181213 - Planning Board - AgendaTOWN OF HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, December 17, 2018 7:30 P.M. Hopkinton Town Hall, 18 Main Street, Hopkinton, MA ______________________________________________________________________________ AGENDA 7:30 Misc. Administrative Business  Approval Not Required Plan – 21 South Mill Street – Equestrian Building Company  Form K (lot release), Lot A-2-2 (Legacy Farms Road North and Franklin Road Relocation Subdivision Plan)  Restricted Land Covenant, 4.83 acres, Restored or Landscaped, Legacy Farms North Villages 7:45 Continued Public Hearings – 52 & 55 Wilson St. – 1) Stormwater Management Permit Application; 2) Earth Removal Application – Eversource Energy Proposed stormwater management and earth removal associated with the construction of a replacement Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Liquefaction facility. 8:15 Hayden Woods/Davenport Village – Crosswinds Hopkinton, LLC. Request for site plan modifications relative to lighting and sidewalks. 8:30 Continued Public Hearings – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. – 1) Stormwater Management Permit Application; 2) Petition to construct a paper street – Wall Street Development Corp. Proposed construction of a paper street entitled “Bucklin Street”; design and construction standards. Proposal to construct four single family homes with associated driveways, utilities, and related grading. 9:15 Continued Public Hearing – Whisper Way OSLPD – Definitive Subdivision Plan Application – 20th Century Homes Proposed 24-lot single family subdivision off Whisper Way and Wood Street. Business to be considered by the Board at any time during the meeting:  Partial Bond Release Request – Hayden Woods– Crosswinds Hopkinton, LLC.  The Trails at Legacy Farms – Stormwater Management discussion – BETA Group, Inc.  Approve minutes of 11/19/18  Planning Board member reports and future agenda items  Correspondence 1 Town of Hopkinton Planning Board 18 Main Street, Hopkinton MA 01748 508-497-9745 DATE: December 13, 2018 TO: Planning Board FROM: Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner RE: Items on December 17, 2018 Planning Board Agenda 1) Miscellaneous Administrative Business: Approval Not Required Plan – 21 South Mill Street – Equestrian Building Company An ANR Plan has been submitted to the Board and a decision is due no later than 12/26/18. The plan shows the creation of a 176 sq. ft. parcel to be conveyed from Lot 22A South Mill Street to Lot 21 South Mill Street. The newly created parcel is labeled as a non-building lot as required. The plan appears entitled to endorsement. Legacy Farms Documents: Review and approve/sign the following Legacy Farms documents: 1) Form K (lot release), Lot A-2-2 (Legacy Farms North and Franklin Road Relocation Subdivision Plan) 2) Restricted Land Covenant, 4.83 acres, Restored or Landscaped, Legacy Farms North Villages Form K By signing the Form K, the requested lot would be released from the subdivision covenant, and the form would be recorded at the registry of deeds. When the North Road subdivision was approved, all of the land was placed under a covenant, and only the Board can release that for building or sale. In this case, the Board holds a performance guarantee for the Development Project already and the road has largely been constructed, so the lot can be released from conditional approval agreement. A majority vote and member signatures are required to release the lot from covenant. Restricted Land Covenant: The Open Space Mixed Use Development (OSMUD) Overlay District requires 1.8 acres of Restricted Land for every 1 acre of Buildable Area, overall, so that in the end, the minimum 500 acres of Restricted Land is provided throughout the permitting and development process. 4.83 acres of Restricted Land are being placed under covenant in Legacy Farms North via the document submitted to the Board. The applicant proposes to create Restored or Landscaped 2 (2.08 acres) Restricted Land. A portion of Restricted Land (2.75 acres) is identified as private restricted land, which is allowed. The proposed acreage of Restricted Land will be applied to the overall acres of required Restricted Land for the Development Project. It should be noted to the Board that the applicant is requesting to restrict land on a parcel that hasn’t been developed or constructed yet. Placing portions of the parcel under covenant now will likely cause issues during development because once the covenant is signed, portions of the restricted land are open to the public, and certain activities (such as excavating and soil stockpiling) are prohibited. Staff recommends that the Applicant return to the Board after major grading and earth moving operations have been completed. A majority vote and the signature of the Chairwoman is required for approval. 2) Continued Public Hearings – 52 & 55 Wilson Street – 1) Stormwater Management Permit Application; 2) Earth Removal Permit Application – Eversource Energy An application for a stormwater management permit (SWMP) has been submitted to the Board pursuant to Chapter 172 of the General Bylaws, Stormwater Management and Erosion Control. A majority vote is required for approval and a decision is due by 12/31/18. The Applicant has also submitted an application for an earth removal permit pursuant to Chapter 96 of the General Bylaws, Earth Removal. A majority vote is required for approval and a decision is due by 12/31/18. Both hearings are being held concurrently. Eversource has filed a petition with the Department of Public Utilities (DPU) requesting zoning exemptions for the project. The DPU process is ongoing, and a decision has not been issued. However, the DPU has granted Eversource's requested zoning exemptions in the past. Both the Stormwater Management and Earth Removal bylaws are General Bylaws, which the DPU does not have authority to waive. Stormwater Sample Testing: Please see Stormwater Sampling memo from the Applicant dated 12/11/18. During the last hearing on 11/19, the Board raised concerns about the use of firefighting foam on the property and the possibility of untreated stormwater reaching the Hopkinton Reservoir and causing environmental impacts. In response to those concerns, the Applicant collected a stormwater sample from the outlet of the impoundment area on 11/20. The Applicant has indicated that no stormwater chemical constituents of concern were found in the sample. The Applicant proposes to conduct stormwater sampling of the impoundment area once per year, for three years, and I have added a condition to this effect in the draft SWMP conditions. The Board of Health Director, Shaun McAuliffe, has been informed of the sampling results, and will be present at the meeting to discuss further with the Board. Conservation Commission: The Conservation Commission approved the project and an Order of Conditions was issued at the 11/13/18 Conservation Commission meeting. Materials Submitted to date: The SWMP/Earth Removal revised plans are included in the meeting packet. The plans submitted with the SWMP are the same plans submitted with the Earth Removal permit application. The following applications and appendices were too large to include in the packet but can be accessed via the links below: Earth Removal Application and Narrative Stormwater Management Permit Application and Narrative 3 Appendix B – Stormwater Report Appendix C - SWPPP Appendix D – Operation & Maintenance Plan Stormwater Management Revision Memo 10-9-18 Supplemental Information Memo - Fire Fighting Foam 11-15-18 Comments: BETA: Please see final peer review letter dated 11/14. All outstanding comments have been addressed and relevant Stormwater Management Standards have been met. BETA recommended two conditions relative to the SWPPP and stormwater detention basin to be used during construction. Those recommended conditions have been added to the draft conditions that are included in the Board’s meeting packet. Board Action 1) Vote on Stormwater Management Permit 2) Vote on Earth Removal Permit (and address waiver request) Stormwater: The Stormwater Regulations adopted by the Board states that the Planning Board’s action, rendered in writing, shall consist of one of the following 4 options:  Approval of the SMP application based upon determination that the proposed plan meets the Standards in Section 7.0, will adequately protect the water resources of the community and is in compliance with the requirements set forth in the Bylaw and the Regulations,  Approval of the SMP application subject to any conditions, modifications or restrictions required by the Planning Board which will ensure that the project meets the Standards in Section 7.0 and adequately protects water resources, set forth in the Bylaw and the Regulations,  Disapproval of the SMP application based upon a determination that the proposed plan, as submitted, does not meet the Standards in Section 7.0, does not adequately protect water resources, or does not comply with the provisions of the Bylaw or the Regulations.  The Planning Board may disapprove an application “without prejudice” where an applicant fails to provide requested additional information or review fees that in the Planning Board’s opinion are needed to adequately describe or review the proposed project. Draft Stormwater Management Permit conditions are included in the Board’s meeting packet. Earth Removal: The Earth Removal bylaw (Chapter 96 of the General Bylaws) states in Sec. 96-6 that earth removal permits may be granted by the Board if it finds each of the following: 1. The proposed earth removal conforms to the purpose of the chapter. 2. The earth removal operation on the permitted lot will not: (a) Be injurious or dangerous to the public health or safety. 4 (b) Produce noise, dust or other effects detrimental to the normal use of adjacent property. (c) Have a material adverse effect on the health or safety of persons living in the neighborhood or on the use or amenities of adjacent land. (d) The earth removal activity will not result in traffic conditions on roads in the area of the earth removal activity which will cause unsafe and dangerous conditions. (e) The regulations contained in this chapter will be complied with. The bylaw notes that the Board may impose permit conditions, which could include:  A requirement that the operation occur in phases;  The submission of periodic status reports;  Establish hours of operation;  Post a bond to guarantee conformity with the conditions of the permit;  A deposit of funds for engineering review and inspection of the premises during the earth removal period. Waiver Request: The Applicant has requested a waiver from Section 96-3.H, which requires that a 100’ buffer strip of undisturbed land be maintained at all boundaries of the lot and street lines. The Applicant has stated that the buffer is less than 100’ in various areas of the site. A formal vote granting a waiver from Section 96-3.H. is required. Draft Earth Removal permit conditions are included in the Board’s meeting packet. 3) Proposed modifications to an approved Site Plan – Hayden Woods/Davenport Village – Crosswinds Hopkinton, LLC. Modifications: Please see Modification Request letter dated 12/11/18. The Applicant for Hayden Woods is requesting modifications to the approved site plan for various changes that occurred during development. As background for the Board, the Applicant was previously before the Board on 1/8/18 requesting to release the bond for the project. The Board chose not to release the bond at that time because 1) the as-built plan was lacking required information and 2) it was discovered that the Applicant had installed 3 light poles without prior approval as well as impervious sidewalks (the approved plan called for porous pavement sidewalks). The Board directed the Applicant to either come back to modify the plan with respect to the sidewalk and lighting or to rectify the conditions in compliance with the approved plan before requesting a release of the bond. I have included the meeting minutes of 1/8/18 in the packet for the Board’s reference. The Applicant is now requesting modifications for the unapproved items. In regards to the impervious sidewalks, the Applicant’s engineer has provided a certified letter stating that the drainage calculations were prepared assuming the sidewalks were impervious. He further states that stormwater infiltration is achieved through recharge chambers associated with roof top runoff for each building unit and at the detention basin. As for the light poles, the Applicant previously indicated they were installed for safety reasons, at the request of the homeowners. Staff believes this can be done as an administrative change. 5 Bond Release Request: The Applicant for Hayden Woods (Davenport Village) is requesting that the performance bond of $258,600 for the project be reduced to $5,000. Please see submitted as-built plan dated 11/26/18 and BETA review memo dated 12/7/18. As background, BETA previously issued a final observation report on 12/29/17 (a copy is included in the memo) and noted a number of items that were incomplete or unconfirmed. The final observation report was discussed with the Board at its 1/8/18 meeting, and based on the minutes of that meeting, it appears that the landscaping, soil absorption system, and access drives to the basin and swale were installed correctly. During its review of the most recent as-built plan, BETA noted that the following was not shown: - Invert information for the drainage and sewer infrastructure - Installed water line and valves - Hydrants installed at station 7+00 LT and 12+00 LT. The Applicant is requesting that the Board reduce the performance bond amount to $5,000 while they work to revise the as-built plan to reflect the missing items identified by BETA. 4) Continued Public Hearings – Bucklin St. & Leonard St. – 1) Stormwater Management Permit; 2) Petition to construct a paper street – Wall Street Development Corp.  An application for a stormwater management permit (SWMP) was submitted to the Board on 11/1/18. A decision is due by 1/19/18 and a majority vote is required for approval. All members are eligible to vote.  A petition to construct a paper street was submitted to the Board on 7/25/18. The decision deadline was extended at the last hearing to 1/7/18. A majority vote is required for approval and all members are eligible to vote. If the Board continues the hearing to a future meeting, the decision deadline will need to be extended as well. Project: Proposal to construct a paper street entitled “Bucklin Street”; Proposal to construct 4 single family homes with driveways, utilities and associated grading. A SWM permit is required because the project will result in a land disturbance of one acre or more. A petition to construct Bucklin Street is required to be submitted in order for the Board to apply the Subdivision Regulations to the greatest extent reasonably possible. Conservation Commission: The site contains isolated wetlands. The Applicant has filed 5 Notice of Intent’s under the Hopkinton Wetlands Bylaw (1 for the roadway and 4 for the house lots). The hearings for the lots and roadway are scheduled for the 12/18 Commission meeting. Board of Health: Shaun McAuliffe, BOH Director, provided the following written comment on 11/26 on the resubmitted SWMP: “I have reviewed the application and based on the review of the plans presented, the four (4) proposed lots will be serviced with municipal water and sewer. The soils at the site are very limited and may represent a design challenge for stormwater management. Conservation will oversee the wetland issues that exist at the site” BETA: Please see BETA peer review letter dated 12/12/18. 6 Submitted Materials: Revised site plans and a formal request for determination on the way in existence are included in the meeting packet. The following documents were too large to include in the packet but can be accessed via the links below. 1) Rackermann Ownership 1998 Memo 2) Bucklin St. Historic Photos and Aerials 3) Declaration of Covenants 7-24-18 4) Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 5) Stormwater Management Report 12-6-18 Town Counsel Correspondence: Abutter Objection: An objection letter from Peter Barbieri, legal representatives for the residents at 60 & 62 Pleasant Street, was submitted to the Board on 10/29. Counsel provided a response letter on 11/30. Both documents can be accessed via these links: Link to objection letter 10/29 and Link to Counsel Letter 11/30. Petition Process: The Applicant’s representative and Town Counsel have been in discussion about the status of Bucklin Street, whether the proposed subdivision will qualify for “Approval Not Required” endorsement, and how to approach reviewing the work needed to build out Bucklin Street and install utilities, as approval of roadway design is not part of the Stormwater Management Permit application review. As a result of these discussions, the Applicant has submitted a petition under the provision of M.G.L. c. 41, sec. 81FF for approval of the construction of Bucklin Street. In summary, c. 41, §81FF serves to protect lots, shown on a recorded plan, that were sold off and in existence prior to the Subdivision Control Law (1953) from having to comply with subdivision regulations. Town Counsel agrees that §81FF appears to apply to the subject parcel. However, there are two important caveats: First, case law has clearly established that planning boards have the authority to review and impose conditions on construction of roads and utilities associated with lots protected by §81FF. In the past, the Hopkinton Planning Board has required applicants claiming the §81FF exemption to petition for Planning Board approval of the roadway and utilities associated with the grandfathered lot. (The Applicant has now done so, consistent with the Planning Board’s past practice.) Second, the c. 41 §81FF exemption would be applicable to only the existing lot on Bucklin Street. Subdivision of that lot is fully subject to the Subdivision Control Law. If the applicant were to obtain approval of the roadway pursuant to c. 41 §81FF, endorsement of an ANR plan by the Board (or approval of a definitive subdivision plan) would still be required in order to divide the existing lot. Way in Existence: The submitted plans show the proposed lots having the required frontage on Bucklin Street and Leonard Street. However, because the proposed driveways for the lots connect only to Bucklin Street, under the definition of “lot frontage” in the Hopkinton Zoning Bylaws, the Applicant cannot rely on Leonard Street for the frontage and therefore must demonstrate that Bucklin Street provides the required frontage. In order for the lots to be approved under c. 41, §81P (ANR), the applicant would have to show that Bucklin Street is 1) a public way, 2) a way shown on an approved subdivision plan, or 3) a way that was in existence at the time that the Subdivision Control Law went into effect in Hopkinton (1953) and that, when the ANR plan is submitted, has “sufficient width, suitable grades and adequate construction to 7 provide for vehicular traffic.” The applicant’s representative does not claim that Bucklin Street, which is covered by vegetation, is currently a way in existence. However, he has provided information to Counsel to support Bucklin St. as being a way in existence in 1953 (historic aerials and documentation of utility poles) and Counsel believes the factual question regarding the status of Bucklin Street in 1953 is a matter for determination by the Planning Board. The Planning Board will have to make this determination if and when the applicant submits an ANR plan for endorsement. Alternatively, Town Counsel has opined that the Planning Board may choose to make the determination as part of the roadway petition proceeding, if requested by the Applicant. The Applicant has formally requested that the Board make a determination on the way in existence. A copy of the request is included in the Board’s meeting packet. Town Counsel’s review of the request is pending at the time of this memo. Applicant Ownership of Bucklin Street: Town Counsel believes that the Applicant has made a sufficiently credible claim of ownership rights in Bucklin Street for the purpose of the roadway petition. Town Counsel notes that an approval by the Planning Board does not adjudicate property rights, and that the abutters may choose to contest the Applicant’s rights. Any property rights dispute would be a private matter between the parties, not involving the Town. Stormwater Management Criteria: The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards. The following are the 10 standards, what is proposed, and BETA’s comments to date. Stormwater Standard Proposed BETA comment #1 – No untreated stormwater – No new stormwater conveyances (e.g. outfalls) may discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth. The project does not provide new untreated stormwater conveyances to wetlands. Complies – standard has been met. #2 – Post-development peak discharge rates – Stormwater management systems must be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates. Provided calculations demonstrating that the proposed development will not increase peak discharge rates. 1) Provide mitigation to keep proposed peak runoff flow to Pleasant St. at or below existing condition. #3 – Recharge to groundwater – Loss of annual recharge to groundwater should be minimized through the use of infiltration measures to Groundwater recharge calculation were provided. 1) Provide addit. test pit in SW corner of basin to confirm 2’ of separation from bottom of basin to groundwater elevation. 2) Board should discuss if seeding meets the intent of the requirement. 8 Stormwater Standard Proposed BETA comment the maximum extent practicable. #4 – 80% TSS removal – For new development, stormwater management systems must be designed to remove 80% of the annual load of total suspended solids. Project includes a new infiltration basin (with sediment forebay) and calculations to demonstrate 80% TSS removal. Complies – standard has been met. #5 – Higher Potential Pollutant Loads – Stormwater discharges from land uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads required the use of specific stormwater management BMP’s. Not Applicable Not Applicable #6 – Critical Areas – Stormwater discharges to critical areas must utilize certain stormwater BMP’s approved for critical areas. Not Applicable Not Applicable #7 – Redevelopment – Redevelopment of previously developed sites must meet the Stormwater Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable. Not Applicable Not Applicable #8 – Construction Period Erosion and Sediment Controls – Erosion and sediment controls must be implemented to prevent impacts during construction of land disturbance activities. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and an Erosion Control Plan were submitted. 1) Recommend including the following conditions of approval: - Town or agent observe excavation of basin prior to loam and seed. - Provisions to protect infiltration basin from sediment during construction noted on final plans. - Provide a final signed SWPPP prior to construction. #9 – Operations/Maintenance Plan – A long-term operation and maintenance plan shall be developed and A Long Term Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan was included. 1) Provide provisions for PB or its designee to enter the property at reasonable times to inspect the O+M plan. 9 Stormwater Standard Proposed BETA comment implemented to ensure that stormwater management systems function as designed. 2) Provide estimated operations and maintenance budget. #10 – Illicit Discharges – All illicit discharges to the stormwater management systems are prohibited. A signed Illicit Discharge Statement was provided. Complies – standard has been met. 5) Continued Public Hearing – Whisper Way OSLPD – Definitive Subdivision Plan Application – 20th Century Homes An application for definitive subdivision approval has been submitted to the Board. A majority vote is required for approval and a decision is due by 12/17/18. Frank D’Urso is not eligible to vote. Materials Received: Revised definitive plans were received on 12/10/18 and are included in the packet. A revised Stormwater Report was submitted and can be accessed via the google drive link below: Stormwater Report 12-6-18 BETA: Response to BETA comments were received from the Applicant on 12/10. BETA’s review and response is pending at the time of this memo. Definitive Plan: The design of the subdivision is consistent with the concept plan shown to the Board in March of this year. It shows 24 lots on an extension of the existing roadway known as Whisper Way. Conservation Commission: The project proposes one wetland crossing. The Applicant has filed a Notice of Intent with the Commission. The Applicant will be before the Commission again on 12/18. Waiver Requests: Section 7.1 of the Towns Subdivision Rules and Regulations state the following in regards to the Board’s action on waiver request: 7.1 Waiver Compliance: In accordance with MGL Ch. 41 Sec. 81R, strict compliance with these regulations may be waived when, in the judgement of the Board, such action is in the public interest and not inconsistent with the intent of the subdivision control law or these regulations. All waiver request must be in writing, identify the regulation being considered, and be submitted to the Board at the time of plan submittal. Construction waivers may be considered by the Board after the plan is approved. The below waivers from the provisions of the Subdivision Rules and Regulations have been requested: §5.4.1 N Cross Sections: The Applicant seeks a waiver from providing cross sections of each street at 50 foot intervals. 10 §5.4.1.R Trees: The Applicant seeks a waiver from providing location, variety, and size of proposed street trees and trees to be retained within right-of-way. The application states that no trees will be able to be retained within the right of way due to its narrow width and the grading required to create the roadway. §5.4.1 Y Street Lights: The Applicant seeks a waiver from showing location of proposed street lights. The Applicant is requesting that street lights not be installed within the subdivision. §8.2.7 A Disturbance to Natural Topography: The Applicant seeks a waiver from fill of an area in excess of 8 feet in depth. Depth of fill greater than 8 feet are required for wetland crossing at station 1+50 and 30+00. § 8.2.7 B Disturbance to Natural Topography: The Applicant seeks a waiver from the construction of roads, stormwater management systems, driveways, pipes, or other infrastructure construction on land area where slopes are at a grade of 25% or more. §8.3.1 Sidewalks: The Applicant requested at the 10/1/18 meeting to waive the requirement to have a grass shoulder between the sidewalk and roadway. The Applicant has stated that the Conservation Commission requested the grass strip be eliminated in the three wetland crossing areas to reduce wetland impacts. The following waiver from the Hopkinton Zoning Bylaw is requested: §210-113.C.1 Buffer minimum of 100 feet: The Applicant seeks a waiver from providing a 100’ buffer at the perimeter of the site to separate and/or screen the development from abutting properties. The proposed subdivision includes a roadway within the 100’ buffer of the project site on the southeast corner in order to minimize impacts to slopes greater than 25% and to accommodate Board of Health septic system regulations. Next Meeting 1/14/19 7:45 Public Hearing – Maspenock Woods – West Elm Street – Garden Apartment Site Plan Amendment – Maspenock Woods Realty Trust 8:15 Continued Public Hearing – 18 Cedar Street – Off-street Parking Special Permit Application – Janice Brown 9:00 Zoning Advisory Committee Items – Paper Street/Sidewalks 2019 Meeting Dates: I have included the 2019 meeting schedule. Three meetings fall on holidays and the Board should discuss which dates they would like to reschedule the meetings to. EAST\129858748.1 FORM K USUAL FORM OF RELEASE OF CONDITIONS OF PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD The undersigned members of the Planning Board of the Town of Hopkinton, Massachusetts, hereby certify that the conditions imposed at the time of its approval of a subdivision plan entitled “Legacy Farms Road North and Franklin Road Relocation” prepared by Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc., registered as an engineer and/or land surveyor in Massachusetts, dated May 25, 2012 and recorded in the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds (the “Registry”) a Plan No. 943 of 2012; as modified by (a) the approval not required plan drawn by Control Point Associates, Inc. dated October 23, 2018 and endorsed by the Planning Board, recorded with the Registry as Plan No. 945 of 2018 (the “2018 ANR Plan”), and (b) the conditions set forth in a Conditional Approval Agreement recorded with the Registry at Book 60780, Page 110, are hereby released as to the lot shown on the 2018 ANR Plan and labeled LOT A-2-2. [Signature page follows] EAST\129858748.1 Dated this ____ day of ____________, 2018. TOWN OF HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ Commonwealth of Massachusetts County of Middlesex On ______________ ___, 2018, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared ____________________________ one of the members of the Town of Hopkinton Planning Board, which represents the Planning Board, proved to me by satisfactory evidence of identification, which was _________________________________________, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding or attached document, and acknowledged to me that he/she signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose. ________________________________________ Notary Public ________________________________________ My Commission Expires 1 EAST\151387066.2 RESTRICTED LAND COVENANT (Restored or Landscaped – Lot A-2-2) This RESTRICTED LAND COVENANT (the “Covenant”) is entered into this _______day of ____________ 2018 by LEGACY FARMS LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company and its successors and assigns as holders of the ground lessee’s interest in the Restricted Land (the “Covenanting Party”) with the TOWN OF HOPKINTON, a municipal corporation, acting by and through its PLANNING BOARD (the “Benefited Party”). Reference is made to the following facts which set forth the background to this Covenant: A. Pursuant to the provisions of Article XXVI of the Town of Hopkinton Zoning By-Law (the “OSMUD Bylaw”), the Planning Board of the Town of Hopkinton approved a Master Plan Special Permit (the “OSMUD Master Plan Special Permit”) on May 13, 2010, which is recorded with the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 58540, Page 313, for development as an Open Space Mixed Use Development land located off of East Main Street more particularly described in the OSMUD Master Plan Special Permit (the "OSMUD Site"). B. The OSMUD Bylaw and the OSMUD Master Plan Special Permit require, in connection with the project (the “OSMUD Project”) approved under the OSMUD Master Plan Special Permit, that not less than 500 acres of land within the OSMUD Site be dedicated in perpetuity to one or more categories of Restricted Land, as more particularly defined in the OSMUD Bylaw and as more specifically set forth herein. Consistent therewith, and as more specifically set forth in the OSMUD Bylaw, each application to the Planning Board for Site Plan Review of a Development Project (as defined in the OSMUD Bylaw) is required to designate 1.80 acres of land within the OSMUD Site to remain Restricted Land, subject to a Restricted Land Covenant, for every 1 acre of Buildable Area (as defined in the OSMUD Bylaw) within a Development Project, and any remaining land required to achieve a 500 acre total of Restricted Land is required to be made subject to a Restricted Land Covenant upon expiration of fifteen (15) years from the filing of a Notice under the OSMUD Master Plan Special Permit (the “Covenant Requirement”). C. In connection with Site Plan Approval dated August 15, 2016 recorded with the Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds in Book 67974, Page 202 for the Northeast, Northwest and North Club Villages and other land within Legacy Farms North Villages, which approves 12.47 acres of land within the Development Project as Buildable Area (as defined in the OSMUD Bylaw), the Covenanting Party desires to restrict the 4.83 acres of land more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Restricted Land”) as Restricted Land consisting of open space land that is restored or landscaped including irrigation, detention and/or retention ponds or stormwater catchment areas and subsurface utilities, in accordance with the terms of this Covenant and in fulfillment of the Covenant Requirement. NOW THEREFORE for good and valuable consideration, the undersigned hereby COVENANTS with the Town of Hopkinton, acting by and through its Planning Board, as follows: Property Address: Lot A-1-5 Legacy Farms North, Hopkinton, Massachusetts 2 EAST\151387066.2 I. COVENANTING PARTY: LEGACY FARMS LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company, is the fee owner of the Restricted Land. II. PURPOSES: The purposes of this Restricted Land Covenant are to assure that the Restricted Land will be retained, in perpetuity but subject to the provisions of Paragraphs VI(B) and (C), predominantly as land that is restored or landscaped, including irrigation, detention and/or retention ponds or stormwater catchment areas, and subsurface utilities, and to provide for the maintenance of stewardship of the Restricted Land in perpetuity as hereinafter set forth. III. PROHIBITED AND PERMITTED ACTS AND USES: A. Prohibited Acts and Uses: Subject to the exceptions set forth hereinafter, the following acts and uses are expressly prohibited on the Restricted Land: 1. Constructing or placing any new building, asphalt or concrete pavement, sign, billboard or other advertising display, antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit, line or other temporary or permanent structure or facility on, below or above the Restricted Land; 2. Mining, excavating, dredging or removing from the Restricted Land of soil, loam, peat, gravel, sand, rock or other mineral resource or natural deposit; 3. Placing, filling, storing or dumping on the Restricted Land of soil, refuse, trash, vehicle bodies or parts, rubbish, debris, junk, waste or other substance or material whatsoever or the installation of underground storage tanks; 4. Cutting, removing or otherwise destroying trees, grasses or other vegetation; 5. Activities detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, wildlife habitat, erosion control or soil conservation; and 6. Any other use of the Restricted Land or activity which would materially impair the character of the land as open space land left substantially in its natural state or restored or landscaped, unless necessary for protection of the land as such land left substantially in its natural state or restored or landscaped. B. Exceptions to Otherwise Prohibited Acts and Uses. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Paragraph A above, the following acts and uses are permitted: 1. The maintenance or modification of vegetation, excavation, dredging, removal of soil, loam, peat, gravel, sand, rock or other mineral resource or natural deposits on the Restricted Land for as required for restoration and/or landscaping of the Restricted Land or for conservation, habitat management, or scientific purposes; 2. Construction, reconstruction, modification, inspection, maintenance, repair and use of easements, drainage facilities, wastewater facilities and other utilities and rights of way, if any, to service the OSMUD Project, of which the Restricted Land is a part , and/or to service any other land outside the OSMUD Site which is benefited by these appurtenances, 3 EAST\151387066.2 together with any and all rights and easements necessary and desirable to effectuate the foregoing; 3. Drainage from adjoining land; 4. The maintenance, repair, reconstruction and use of ways, trails, fences, bridges, gates and stonewalls on the Restricted Land, as reasonably necessary for walking, hiking, horseback riding, snowshoeing, biking and cross-country skiing as hereinafter permitted. The rights in this paragraph shall include the right to create new ways, trails, fences, bridges, gates and stone walls, so long as such use is not significantly detrimental to water quality, soil conservation, habitat, wildlife conservation and/or forestry management practices or otherwise wasteful of the natural resources of the Restricted Land. Maintenance, repair and reconstruction shall include the right of the Covenanting Party and/or the applicable Responsible Party (hereinafter defined), but not the general public, to pass and repass over such ways, bridges and trails by motor vehicle for the purposes of maintenance, repair, and reconstruction and for emergency ingress and egress by governmental agencies such as police and fire to and from the Restricted Land; 5. The erection and maintenance of signs identifying ownership of the Restricted Land; its status as land subject to a Restricted Land Covenant; the restrictions on the use of the Restricted Land; the identity or location of trails, areas of interest, natural features or other characteristics of the Restricted Land; 6. The de minimis cutting and removal of trees, shrubs and other vegetation, the planting of native trees, shrubs and other vegetation and the removal of obstacles, such as downed, dead or dying trees, brush, shrubs, debris, or trash for normal maintenance of the Restricted Land as restored or landscaped land, to prevent threat of injury or damage to persons or property; and the cutting of trees and vegetation for any non-commercial purpose in accordance with a plan prepared by a natural resources professional that is designed to protect or enhance the conservation values of the Restricted Land, including, without limitation, wildlife habitat and scenic values; 7. The use of the Restricted Land for passive recreational activity such as hiking, snowshoeing, biking, horseback riding, and cross-country skiing on designated trails only, nature study, hunting, fishing, and other like activities; 8. Trapping to control nuisance wildlife species in accordance with G.L. c. 131, § 80A; 9. The construction of food preparation and sales areas, restrooms, parking and access areas, and similar uses, structures or portions thereof, operated in association with the Restricted Land use or use of other areas of “Restricted Land” (as defined in the OSMUD Bylaw) located within the OSMUD Site; 10. The stockpiling and composting of stumps, trees and brush limbs and similar biodegradable materials originating on the Restricted Land, provided that such stockpiling and composting is in locations where the presence of such activities will not have a deleterious impact on the purposes (including scenic values) of this Restricted Land Covenant; 11. Measures designed to restore native biotic communities, or to maintain, enhance or restore wildlife, wildlife habitat, or rare or endangered species including selective planting of native trees, shrubs and plant species; and 4 EAST\151387066.2 12. The conduct of archaeological activities, including without limitation survey, excavation and artifact retrieval, following submission of an archaeological field investigation plan and its approval in writing by the State Archaeologist of the Massachusetts Historical Commission (or appropriate successor official). IV. MAINTENANCE AND STEWARDSHIP OF THE RESTRICTED LAND A. The Restricted Land shall be maintained and stewarded, at no cost to the Benefited Party, by the Legacy Farms Landowners’ Association or other party designated by Legacy Farms Landowners’ Association or the fee owner (the party so designated, from time to time, shall be called the “Responsible Party”) which may be a non-profit entity, the principal purpose of which is land conservation or the provision of recreational facilities, the Town (in the event the Restricted Land is conveyed to, made subject to easement rights benefiting, or leased to the Town), or third parties (in the event the Restricted Land is conveyed to, made subject to easement rights benefiting, or leased to third parties). In the event the Responsible Party is other than the Legacy Farms Landowners’ Association, (i) in cases in which the Responsible Party becomes the fee owner of the Restricted Land, the Responsible Party shall file with the Planning Board a certification confirming that it has assumed the obligation for maintenance and stewardship of the Restricted Land, whereupon such party, and its successors and assigns as owner of the Restricted Land, shall be considered the Responsible Party for all purposes hereunder in perpetuity; or (ii) in the cases in which the Responsible Party is the holder of an easement, lease or license in the Restricted Land for a limited duration, the Responsible Party shall file with the Planning Board a certification confirming that it has assumed the obligation for maintenance and stewardship of the Restricted Land, whereupon such party, and its successors and assigns as holders of such interests in the easement, lease or license, shall be considered the Responsible Party for all purposes for the term of such easement, lease or license. The initial Responsible Party under this Covenant is the Legacy Farms Landowners Association. Inc. with respect to the areas designated as "Legacy Farms L.O.A." as shown on the plan attached hereto as Exhibit A-2 and incorporated herein and the initial Responsible Party under this Covenant is Pulte Homes of New England. LLC with respect to the areas designated as "Village H.O.A." as shown on the plan attached hereto as Exhibit A-2 and incorporated herein. Upon completion of the installation of landscaping in the areas shown on the plan attached hereto as Exhibit A-2, the Responsible Party under this Covenant shall be the Legacy Farms Landowners Association. Inc. with respect to the areas designated as "Legacy Farms L.O.A." as shown on the plan attached hereto as Exhibit A-3 and incorporated herein and the Responsible Pa1ty under this Covenant shall be Pulte Homes of New England, LLC with respect to the areas designated as "Village H.O.A." as shown on the plan attached hereto as Exhibit A-3 and incorporated herein. B. The Restricted Land shall be maintained by the Responsible Party, at its sole cost and expense, in accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Program for Restricted Land on file with the Planning Board, as it may be modified from time to time with the approval of the Planning Board. Further, so long as the Design Guidelines are being administered by the Planning Board under the OSMUD By-Law, the standards for landscaping shall be guided by the applicable provisions of such Design Guidelines. C. In the event of failure of the Responsible Party to perform maintenance or stewardship of the Restricted Land after thirty (30) days notice to the Responsible Party and the failure of the 5 EAST\151387066.2 Responsible Party to cure such failure, the Benefited Party, the Covenanting Party and, if it is not the Responsible Party, the Legacy Farms Landowners’ Association (each, the “Curing Party”) shall each be authorized, but shall not be required, to perform such maintenance or stewardship. In the event the Curing Party elects to perform any maintenance and stewardship work, the Responsible Party shall pay the cost thereof, which cost shall constitute a lien, subordinate to any mortgage or other statutory lien, upon the land which is the subject of any Site Plan Approval in connection with which the Restricted Land is designated in fulfillment of the Covenant Requirement, until the cost has been paid. V. PUBLIC ACCESS A. Except for the 2.75 acres of private restricted land as shown in Exhibit A-1, the residents of the Town of Hopkinton shall have a right of access to the Restricted Land for passive recreational activity such as hiking, snowshoeing, biking, horseback riding, and cross-country skiing on designated trails only, nature study, hunting, fishing, and other like activities. Except as provided herein with respect to maintenance of the Restricted Land and with respect to parking and access areas associated with the Restricted Land use and except for vehicles necessary for public safety (i.e., fire, police, ambulance, other government officials) in carrying out their lawful duties, motorized vehicles are not permitted. Overnight camping and fires are not permitted. The Legacy Farms Landowners’ Association or the Responsible Party shall have the right to adopt reasonable rules and regulations to govern use of the Restricted Land under its control and to prevent encroachment thereon. If use of the Restricted Land by the public materially interferes with the quiet enjoyment of the land abutting the Restricted Land on a frequent, continuous basis, and measures taken by the Legacy Farms Landowners’ Association or the Responsible Party do not, in the Covenanting Party’s reasonable opinion, sufficiently abate the interference, the Covenanting Party may close the Restricted Land to the public for a period not to exceed two weeks to enable the Legacy Farms Landowners’ Association or the Responsible Party to take corrective action. The Covenanting Party shall provide written notice to the Benefited Party of such closure no less than one (1) week prior to such action. B. The Covenanting Party may, in its discretion, close the Restricted Land to public use, in the event the landowner liability protection afforded by G.L. Chapter 21, Section 17C is repealed or altered in a manner which materially increases, in the Covenanting Party’s reasonable opinion, the Covenanting Party’s potential liability to public users of the Restricted Land, and (a) no other statute or law affords the Covenanting Party, in the Covenanting Party’s reasonable opinion, liability protection which is substantially similar to that now afforded by G.L. c.21, Section 17C; and (b) the Benefited Party elects not to provide reasonable insurance coverage or otherwise agrees to hold the Covenanting Party harmless against potential liability to public users of the Restricted Land. VI. MISCELLANEOUS A. The burdens of this Covenant shall run with the Restricted Land and shall be enforceable against the Covenanting Party and the successors and assigns of the Covenanting Party holding any interest in the Restricted Land and/or against a Responsible Party. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, (a) the obligations under this Covenant of any party holding any interest in the Restricted Land shall terminate upon transfer of that party’s interest, except for liability for acts or omissions occurring prior to transfer; and (b) in the event the obligations under this Covenant are assumed by a Responsible Party who is other than the Covenanting Party, only the Responsible Party shall have liability for acts or omissions during the term of its assumption of the obligations hereunder. Nothing contained in this Covenant shall be construed to entitle 6 EAST\151387066.2 the Benefited Party to bring any action against the Covenanting Party or other Responsible Party for any injury to or change in the Restricted Land resulting from causes beyond the Covenanting Party’s or other Responsible Party’s control, including, but not limited to, fire, flood, storm and earth movement, or from any prudent action taken by the Covenanting Party or other Responsible Party under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to the Restricted Land from such causes. B. The rights hereby granted shall include the right to enforce this Covenant by appropriate legal proceedings and to obtain injunctive and other equitable relief against any violations. The Covenanting Party or other Responsible Party covenants and agrees to reimburse to the Benefited Party all reasonable costs and expenses (including reasonable counsel fees) incurred in enforcing this Covenant or in taking reasonable measures to remedy, abate or correct any violation thereof, provided that a violation of this Covenant is acknowledged by the Covenanting Party or other Responsible Party or determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have occurred. C. This Covenant may be amended to permit additional uses permitted in other categories of Restricted Land under the OSMUD Bylaw, such as uses permitted within open space land which is left in its natural state or used for active or passive recreation, by the recording of an instrument executed by the Covenanting Party and the Planning Board, except that any change to a municipal use other than municipal recreational use shall require the approval of the Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen. D. The Restricted Land, or portions thereof, may be released from this Covenant by the recording of an instrument executed by the owner of the portion of the Restricted Land so to be released, the Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen and recorded, provided that (i) not less than an equivalent area of land within the OSMUD Site is made subject to the restrictions of this Covenant by the owner of such substituted land in substitution for the portion of the Restricted Land to be released, subject to the approval of the Planning Board, and (ii) such substitution of land to be made subject to the restrictions of this Covenant is referred to in the release document. Upon compliance with the foregoing, the portion of the Restricted Land so to be released shall be thereupon deemed removed from the restrictions of this Covenant for all purposes. E. The Covenanting Party and the Benefited Party, on their own behalf and on behalf of their successors and assigns, agree and represent as follows: (i) pursuant to G.L. c. 184 § 23, the foregoing Covenant is a gift for the public purpose of preservation of land which is restored or landscaped with rights of public access thereto, as provided in Section V; and (ii) pursuant to G.L. c. 184 § 26, the foregoing Covenant is a restriction held by a governmental body, which shall be duly recorded and indexed in the grantor index in the registry of deeds or registered in the registry district of the land court for the county or district wherein the land lies so as to affect its title, and which describes the land by metes and bounds or by reference to a recorded or registered plan showing its boundaries. Accordingly, the foregoing Covenant shall, except as provided in Section VI(B) and (C), remain in effect in perpetuity, and shall not be subject to the limitations on the period of a covenant of unlimited duration set forth in G.L. c. 184 § 23 or on the periods of its enforceability set forth in G.L. c. 184 § 27. F. The foregoing Covenant is not intended to constitute a conservation restriction under G.L. c. 184, §§31 and 32. G. The foregoing Covenant is not intended to be a disposition of land or easement, and is not intended to be subject to the provisions of Article 97 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth. Further, by acceptance hereof, the Benefited Party hereby specifically contractually agrees with 7 EAST\151387066.2 the Covenanting Party, in consideration for the grant of this Covenant, to retain the right to release or modify the terms of this Covenant in accordance with the OSMUD By-Law and the terms hereof, including without limitation Paragraphs VI(B) and (C) above, without being subject to the provisions of Article 97 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth. H. The foregoing Covenant has been approved by the Planning Board as meeting the requirements with respect to the recording of a Restricted Land Covenant under the OSMUD Bylaw and the OSMUD Master Plan Special Pem1it, dated May 13, 2010, recorded in the South Middlesex County Registry of Deeds in Book 58540, Page 313, as the same may be amended from time to time. I. This Covenant and agreement shall be and is binding upon Legacy Farms LLC’s grantees or successors in title, it being the express intention and understanding and agreement that this covenant shall constitute a covenant running with the land. Without limitation, the Covenanting Party, on its own behalf and on behalf of its successors and assigns, waives and relinquishes any right to assert that the Covenant does not constitute a gift to a governmental body for a public purpose. J. The Planning Board shall be the Benefited Party under this Covenant until the date (the “Transfer Date”) which is the earlier of (a) the expiration of fifteen (15) years from July 31, 2012; and (b) the date of which the Planning Board certifies that the Director of Municipal Inspections has issued Completion Certificates reflecting complete build-out of the OSMUD Project as authorized under OSMUD Master Plan Special Permit. From and after the Transfer Date, the Open Space Preservation Commission shall be the Benefited Party under this Covenant. However, in all events, prior to the Transfer Date the Planning Board and the Board of Selectmen shall retain the rights and obligations under Section VI(D), as provided in Section 210-170(D) of the OSMUD By-Law. K. The Planning Board shall have the right to request that the Covenanting Party grant a Conservation Restriction pursuant to M.G.L. c.184, §31-33 to be effective from and after the Transfer Date, provided, however, that the Commonwealth secretary of environmental affairs approves a Conservation Restriction which is consistent in all respects with the Prohibited Acts and Uses and the Exceptions to Prohibited Acts and Uses hereunder, and which does not impose any substantive provisions additional to or detract from the substantive provisions contained in this Covenant. Upon any grant of a Conservation Restriction in substitution for this Covenant, the provisions of this Covenant shall terminate and be of no further force and effect. L. There are no mortgages of record, or otherwise, on any of the Restricted Land except as described below and the present holders of any mortgages described below have assented to this Covenant and agreed to subordinate such mortgage to the terms of this Covenant. 1 EAST\151387066.2 WITNESS our hand(s) and seal(s) this _______ day of __________, 2018. LEGACY FARMS LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company By:________________________________ Roy S. MacDowell, Jr., Its Manager ACCEPTED: TOWN OF HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD By:____________________________ 2 EAST\151387066.2 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS _____________ COUNTY ________ ___, 2018 On this day, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared Roy S. MacDowell, Jr., personally known to me or proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification which was ________________________, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document and acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as the Manager of Legacy Farms LLC. ____________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires:________________ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS _____________ COUNTY ________ ___, 2018 On this day, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared _____________________________, personally known to me or proved to me through satisfactory evidence of identification which was ________________________, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document and acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as _______________ of the Town of Hopkinton. ____________________________________ Notary Public My commission expires:________________ A-1 EAST\151387066.2 EXHIBIT “A” RESTRICTED LAND The Restricted Land consists of the 4.83 acres of land shown identified as "Restored or Landscaped Restricted Land" on the plan entitled "Restricted Land Exhibit" (3 Sheets) by Bohler Engineering, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A-1, such Restricted Land being portions of the following described land situated on the northerly side of East Main Street in Hopkinton, Middlesex County, Massachusetts: That certain parcel of land situated on the northeasterly side of Legacy Farms North in the Town of Hopkinton, Middlesex County, Massachusetts, shown as LOT A-2-2 (containing 17.30 acres of land) on a plan entitled "Approval Not Required Plan of Land” by Control Point Associates, Inc., dated October 23, 2018 endorsed as approval not required under the Subdivision Control Law by the Hopkinton Planning Board on November 19, 2018, and recorded with Middlesex South District Registry of Deeds as Plan No. 945 of 2018. Pursuant to Exhibit A-1: 4.83 acres of Restored or Landscaped Restricted Land are located on Lot A-2-2 of which 2.75 acres will be restricted for the private use of Legacy Farms Homeowners Association. For Covenanting Party's title, see Deed of Mezitt Agricultural Corporation dated as of July 30, 2012 and recorded with the Registry in Book 59644, Page 446. HYD HYD HYDHYD HYDHYD HYDHYD HYD HYD HYD HYDHYDHYD HYDHYD HYD ASPEN WAY ASPEN WAYCHERRY LANEMAGNOLIA DRIVEHOLLY TRAIL POPLAR LANE ASPEN WAYPOPLAR LANELEGACY FARMS NORTHF R A N K L A N D R O A D MAGNOLIA DRIVEPHIPPS STREETMAGNOLIA DRIVEPOPLAR LANE1"=100'01002550100RESTRICTEDLAND EXHIBIT1LOTA-2-2LOTA-2-1LOTA-2-3SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:PROJECT:OF352 TURNPIKE ROADSOUTHBOROUGH, MA 01772Phone: (508) 480-9900Fax: (508) 480-9080www.BohlerEngineering.comPRELIMINARYREVISIONSREVDATECOMMENTBY123456789REV 0 - 10/08/2018P:\15\W151012\DWG\04-Renderings_Exhibits\Takedown 4\Takedown Exhibits 2018-10-04.dwg, 04-Restricted Land Exhibit Lot 2, 10/6/2014, 4:26:00 PM, cdesocio, AutoCAD PDF (General Documentation).pc3, ARCH full bleed D (24.00 x 36.00 Inches), 1:1 FORSITEDEVELOPMENTPLANS1111213141510PROJECT No.:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:SCALE:CAD I.D.:TAKEDOWN EXHIBITS 2018-10-04AS NOTED10/08/2018NEM/JAKCFDW151012J.A. KUCICHMASSACHUSETTS LICENSE No. 41530PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERCONNECTICUT LICENSE No. 26177RHODE ISLAND LICENSE No. 9616MAINE LICENSE No. 12553LOCATION OF SITELEGACY FARMS(NORTH)LEGACY FARMS ROAD NORTHTOWN OF HOPKINTONMIDDLESEX COUNTY, MASUSTAINABLE DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PERMITTING SERVICES TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TM NEW ENGLAND UPSTATE NEW YORK NEW YORK, NY LEHIGH VALLEY, PA SOUTHEASTERN, PA SOUTHERN MARYLAND BALTIMORE, MD TAMPA, FL CENTRAL VIRGINIA CHARLOTTE, NC RALEIGH, NC NORTHERN VIRGINIA NEW JERSEY REHOBOTH BEACH, DE SOUTH FLORIDA BOSTON, MA PHILADELPHIA, PA NEW YORK METRO THE INFORMATION, DESIGN AND CONTENT OF THIS PLAN ARE PROPRIETARY AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM BOHLER ENGINEERING. ONLY APPROVED, SIGNED AND SEALED PLANS SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. © BOHLER ENGINEERING, 2018RESTRICTED AREA KEYRESTORED OR LANDSCAPED RESTRICTED LANDPRIVATE RESTRICTED LANDTABLE OF BUILDABLE AREA AND RESTRICTED LANDRESTORED OR LANDSCAPED RESTRICTED LANDLOT LOT AREA BUILDABLE AREA PUBLIC PRIVATE NATURAL STATE A-2-2RESTRICTED LAND17.30 AC.12.47 AC.2.08 AC.2.75 AC.0.00 AC.LOTA-1-CLOTA-2-6LOTA-2-5 HYD HYD HYDHYD HYDHYD HYDHYD HYD HYD HYD HYDHYDHYD HYDHYD HYD ASPEN WAY ASPEN WAYCHERRY LANEMAGNOLIA DRIVEHOLLY TRAIL POPLAR LANE ASPEN WAYPOPLAR LANELEGACY FARMS NORTHF R A N K L A N D R O A D MAGNOLIA DRIVEPHIPPS STREETMAGNOLIA DRIVEPOPLAR LANE1"=100'01002550100INITIALRESTORATION OFRESTORED ORLANDSCAPEDRESTRICTED LAND1RESTRICTED AREA KEYRESTORED OR LANDSCAPED RESTRICTED LAND - VILLAGE H.O.A.TABLE OF BUILDABLE AREA AND RESTRICTED LANDLOTA-2-2LOTA-2-1LOTA-2-3SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:PROJECT:OF352 TURNPIKE ROADSOUTHBOROUGH, MA 01772Phone: (508) 480-9900Fax: (508) 480-9080www.BohlerEngineering.comPRELIMINARYREVISIONSREVDATECOMMENTBY123456789REV 0 - 10/08/2018P:\15\W151012\DWG\04-Renderings_Exhibits\Takedown 4\Takedown Exhibits 2018-10-04.dwg, 05-Initial Restoration Exhibit Lot 2, 10/6/2014, 4:26:00 PM, cdesocio, AutoCAD PDF (General Documentation).pc3, ARCH full bleed D (24.00 x 36.00 Inches), 1:1 FORSITEDEVELOPMENTPLANS1111213141510PROJECT No.:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:SCALE:CAD I.D.:TAKEDOWN EXHIBITS 2018-10-04AS NOTED10/08/2018NEM/JAKCFDW151012J.A. KUCICHMASSACHUSETTS LICENSE No. 41530PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERCONNECTICUT LICENSE No. 26177RHODE ISLAND LICENSE No. 9616MAINE LICENSE No. 12553LOCATION OF SITELEGACY FARMS(NORTH)LEGACY FARMS ROAD NORTHTOWN OF HOPKINTONMIDDLESEX COUNTY, MASUSTAINABLE DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PERMITTING SERVICES TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TM NEW ENGLAND UPSTATE NEW YORK NEW YORK, NY LEHIGH VALLEY, PA SOUTHEASTERN, PA SOUTHERN MARYLAND BALTIMORE, MD TAMPA, FL CENTRAL VIRGINIA CHARLOTTE, NC RALEIGH, NC NORTHERN VIRGINIA NEW JERSEY REHOBOTH BEACH, DE SOUTH FLORIDA BOSTON, MA PHILADELPHIA, PA NEW YORK METRO THE INFORMATION, DESIGN AND CONTENT OF THIS PLAN ARE PROPRIETARY AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM BOHLER ENGINEERING. ONLY APPROVED, SIGNED AND SEALED PLANS SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. © BOHLER ENGINEERING, 2018RESTORED OR LANDSCAPED RESTRICTED LANDLOT LOT AREA BUILDABLE AREA PUBLIC PRIVATE A-2-217.30 AC.12.47 AC.2.08 AC.2.75 AC.LOTA-1-CLOTA-2-6LOTA-2-5 HYD HYD HYDHYD HYDHYD HYDHYD HYD HYD HYD HYDHYDHYD HYDHYD HYD ASPEN WAY ASPEN WAYCHERRY LANEMAGNOLIA DRIVEHOLLY TRAIL POPLAR LANE ASPEN WAYPOPLAR LANELEGACY FARMS NORTHF R A N K L A N D R O A D MAGNOLIA DRIVEPHIPPS STREETMAGNOLIA DRIVEPOPLAR LANE1"=100'01002550100PERPETUALMAINTENANCE OFRESTORED ORLANDSCAPEDRESTRICTED LAND1RESTRICTED AREA KEYRESTORED OR LANDSCAPED RESTRICTED LAND - VILLAGE H.O.A.TABLE OF BUILDABLE AREA AND RESTRICTED LANDLOTA-2-2LOTA-2-1LOTA-2-3SHEET NUMBER:SHEET TITLE:PROJECT:OF352 TURNPIKE ROADSOUTHBOROUGH, MA 01772Phone: (508) 480-9900Fax: (508) 480-9080www.BohlerEngineering.comPRELIMINARYREVISIONSREVDATECOMMENTBY123456789REV 0 - 10/08/2018P:\15\W151012\DWG\04-Renderings_Exhibits\Takedown 4\Takedown Exhibits 2018-10-04.dwg, 06-Perpetual Restoration Exhibit Lot 2, 10/6/2014, 4:26:00 PM, cdesocio, AutoCAD PDF (General Documentation).pc3, ARCH full bleed D (24.00 x 36.00 Inches), 1:1 FORSITEDEVELOPMENTPLANS1111213141510PROJECT No.:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:DATE:SCALE:CAD I.D.:TAKEDOWN EXHIBITS 2018-10-04AS NOTED10/08/2018NEM/JAKCFDW151012J.A. KUCICHMASSACHUSETTS LICENSE No. 41530PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERCONNECTICUT LICENSE No. 26177RHODE ISLAND LICENSE No. 9616MAINE LICENSE No. 12553LOCATION OF SITELEGACY FARMS(NORTH)LEGACY FARMS ROAD NORTHTOWN OF HOPKINTONMIDDLESEX COUNTY, MASUSTAINABLE DESIGN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SITE CIVIL AND CONSULTING ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING PROGRAM MANAGEMENT PERMITTING SERVICES TRANSPORTATION SERVICES TM NEW ENGLAND UPSTATE NEW YORK NEW YORK, NY LEHIGH VALLEY, PA SOUTHEASTERN, PA SOUTHERN MARYLAND BALTIMORE, MD TAMPA, FL CENTRAL VIRGINIA CHARLOTTE, NC RALEIGH, NC NORTHERN VIRGINIA NEW JERSEY REHOBOTH BEACH, DE SOUTH FLORIDA BOSTON, MA PHILADELPHIA, PA NEW YORK METRO THE INFORMATION, DESIGN AND CONTENT OF THIS PLAN ARE PROPRIETARY AND SHALL NOT BE COPIED OR USED FOR ANY PURPOSE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION FROM BOHLER ENGINEERING. ONLY APPROVED, SIGNED AND SEALED PLANS SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. © BOHLER ENGINEERING, 2018RESTORED OR LANDSCAPED RESTRICTED LANDLOT LOT AREA BUILDABLE AREA PUBLIC PRIVATE A-2-217.30 AC.12.47 AC.2.08 AC.2.75 AC.LOTA-1-CLOTA-2-6LOTA-2-5 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT / EARTH REMOVAL PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING OUTLINE 52&55 Wilson Street – LNG Replacement Project Eversource For 12/17/18 Meeting 1. ✔Project introduction and review – Applicant 2. ✔Principal Planner Comments 3. ✔Consultant Review – BETA Group 4. ✔Planning Board – Add to outline 5. ✔Abutters and Public – Add to Outline 6. Detailed Discussion a) ✔Department of Public Utilities (DPU) status b) ✔Construction Sequence - ✔Hours of Operation - ✔Construction Mitigation/Methods c) ✔Truck and access routes for earth removal operations d) ✔ Waiver from Earth Removal bylaw - 100’ buffer strip of undisturbed land (96-3.H) 7. Discuss status of other permits (Conservation Commission) 8. Discuss Stormwater Management & Earth Removal criteria and plan revisions to be made, if any. 9. Discuss conditions of approval with applicant 10. Close public hearings Vote on Stormwater Management Permit Vote on Earth Removal Permit MEMORANDUM Tighe&Bond 1  LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project, Stormwater Management Permit and Earth Removal Permit, Stormwater Sampling Results TO: Shaun McAuliffe, R.S., Hopkinton Health Director FROM: Tracy J. Adamski, AICP COPY: Denise Bartone and Jim Blackburn, Eversource; Hopkinton Planning Board DATE: December 11, 2018 The following provides additional information requested by the Planning Board to address stormwater sampling performed at the existing LNG storage tank impoundment. Existing Impoundment Design and O&M Practices The LNG storage tank area is surrounded by an earthen dike that connects to an impoundment on the north side of the tanks, which is a secondary containment area designed to hold 110% of one LNG storage tank. In the event of an emergency, LNG would be channeled from the earthen dike to the impoundment, where it would be contained and allowed to evaporate. Consequently, storm water from rain events would follow a similar path into the impoundment area. In addition, any storm water from the truck loading area and tank pump areas will be directed to a concrete pit and then enter the impoundment. In order to minimize impacts to the containment volume, the impoundment area has two pumps to remove the collected storm water. Normal operation includes periodic visual inspections of the area and to run one pump when the water level exceeds a visual control line. According to the Facility Operations Manual, operation of the pump occurs when water levels exceed a level visual control line on the south facing concrete wall where water enters the pump pit chamber. Prior to starting the pump, the area is required to be inspected to ensure that the contents are not LNG and are free of foam, oil sheens, and any other environmental contaminants. After confirmation of the contents to be pumped, a log book entry is made once the pump is started. Per the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) for the Facility, a weekly environmental inspection of the impoundment area for trash and debris and an oily sheen on water is performed and recorded on a checklist. Stormwater Sample Results As requested by the Planning Board, Tighe & Bond collected a surface water grab sample during a rain event from the outlet from the existing LNG storage tank impoundment area on November 20, 2018. The sample was analyzed for standard stormwater sampling parameters such as those required by the section 2.3.4.7.b.iii.4.a. of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) in Massachusetts (referred to as the 2016 Massachusetts Small MS4 General Permit). The sample was analyzed for temperature, pH, oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), specific conductance, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen in the field, and for ammonia as Nitrogen, conductivity, salinity, total residual chlorine, total suspended solids, surfactants (MBAS), and E.Coli by the laboratory (refer to Attachment A for the full laboratory report). Sampling results are summarized in Table 1. As there is not a uniform set of industry thresholds for stormwater sampling results, a combination of threshold levels from industry and regulatory standards has been used for sample result interpretation. Based on a review of the sample results compared to industry and regulatory standards, there are no stormwater chemical constituents of concern in the SW-1 sample. MEMORANDUM Tighe&Bond 2  Current Firefighting Foam Testing Practices The testing of the firefighting foam system has been revised to eliminate foam discharge to the impoundment basin. The current firefighting foam system testing practices are described below. A preventative maintenance inspection of the firefighting foam system is performed every five months, as prescribed by 49 CFR 193.2619. As the firefighting foam is an expensive product, the protocol of the Facility is to test the distribution system with water rather than fully test the foam deluge system. Under a separate preventative maintenance inspection, the foam concentrate is sampled annually to verify effectiveness. A summary of the current protocol for testing the effectiveness of the firefighting foam system is as follows: 1. Foam systems are tested by valving the foam out of service and testing the water flow. Water flow spins an actuator (which would serve to mix the foam if it was present). 2. Foam concentrate is tested by taking a sample and sending it off site to a lab to verify that the concentrate is working properly. 3. By deduction, if the foam concentrate is acceptable, and the water delivery system flows and causes the actuator to turn, then system capability is deemed to be satisfied. The actual text of the preventative maintenance inspection protocol that is in the plant system is as follows: Function test the foam deluge systems in the high-pressure pump house and the 16.10 a & b storage tanks. For the 3 areas, proceed as follows: 1. Valve out the foam so only water flows through the system. 2. Activate the foam system by spilling liquid (LIN) onto the LTD sensors. 3. Once the system activates, verify each water turbine moves freely. 4. Secure water, verify that the system drains are working properly. 5. Reset the deluge flapper. 6. Valve the foam back in and place the system back to normal operation. (DOT 193.2619) MEMORANDUM Tighe&Bond 3  Table 1 Stormwater Sample Analytical Results Sample ID Analytical Method Units SW-1 Threshold Level Threshold Level Source Sample Date 11/20/2018 Sample Type Grab Classical Chemistry Ammonia as N 350.1 mg/L 0.60 ≥ 0.5 / ≥ 1 * EPA New England Bacterial Source Tracking Protocol Conductivity 9050A uS/cm 48 > 2,000 Center for Watershed Protection Salinity 2520B ppt 0.2 > 0.5 EPA Voluntary Estuary Monitoring Manual Total Residual Chlorine 4500ClG mg/L ND (0.06) > MRL EPA New England Bacterial Source Tracking Protocol Total Suspended Solids 2540D mg/L 18 NA EPA New England Bacterial Source Tracking Protocol Surfactants (MBAS) SUB mg/L ND (0.030) ≥ 0.25 EPA New England Bacterial Source Tracking Protocol E. Coli SM9223B MPN/100mL 7.4 ≥ 235 CFU EPA New England Bacterial Source Tracking Protocol Field Parameters Temperature NA ◦C 4.89 > 28.3 314 CMR 4.00 for Class B Warm Water pH NA SI 6.63 <5 Center for Watershed Protection Oxidation Reduction Potential NA mV 246 NA NA Specific Conductance NA mS/cm 0.027 NA NA Turbidity NA NTU 29.1 NA NA Dissolved Oxygen NA mg/L 9.34 <5 314 CMR 4.00 for Class B Warm Water Notes: MBAS = Methylene Blue Active Substances Assay ND (XX) indicates that the listed analyte was not detected at the listed method reporting limit (MRL) NA = Not Established * a potential indicator of contamination is if ammonia is ≥ 0.5 mg/L AND E.coli is ≥235 CFU; otherwise criteria is ≥ 1 mg/L MEMORANDUM Tighe&Bond 4  Conclusions and Next Steps Eversource commits to continuing the impoundment operations and maintenance protocols as described above to minimize the potential transport of stormwater contaminants of concern. Eversource proposes to conduct stormwater sampling at the LNG Facility impoundment once per year, for three years, for the parameters sampled for above consistent with the 2016 Massachusetts 2016 Small MS4 General Permit with the exception of TSS or turbidity, as there are no suspected sources of sediment and no relevant industry or regulatory thresholds for comparison. Attachment A: ESS Laboratory Final Report Work Order Number 1811555 Attachment B: Pages from the 2016 Massachusetts Small MS4 General Permit Attachment C: Proposed Wet Weather Outfall Inspection and Sample Collection Standard Operating Procedure and Form J:\E\E0755 - Eversource L&P\E0755-025 Hopkinton LNG\Permitting\Board of Health\Board of Health Memo_20181211.docx Attachment AESS Laboratory Final Report Work Order Number 1811555 ESS Laboratory Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. BAL Laboratory The Microbiology Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Mike Trovato Tighe & Bond 446 Main Street #23 Worcester, MA 01608 RE: OnQuest Hopkinton LNG Plant (E-0755-9000) ESS Laboratory Work Order Number: 1811555 This signed Certificate of Analysis is our approved release of your analytical results. These results are only representative of sample aliquots received at the laboratory. ESS Laboratory expects its clients to follow all regulatory sampling guidelines. Beginning with this page, the entire report has been paginated. This report should not be copied except in full without the approval of the laboratory. Samples will be disposed of thirty days after the final report has been delivered. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to call our Customer Service Department. Laurel Stoddard Laboratory Director Analytical Summary The project as described above has been analyzed in accordance with the ESS Quality Assurance Plan. This plan utilizes the following methodologies: US EPA SW-846, US EPA Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes per 40 CFR Part 136, APHA Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and other recognized methodologies. The analyses with these noted observations are in conformance to the Quality Assurance Plan. In chromatographic analysis, manual integration is frequently used instead of automated integration because it produces more accurate results. The test results present in this report are in compliance with TNI and relative state standards, and/or client Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPP). The laboratory has reviewed the following: Sample Preservations, Hold Times, Initial Calibrations, Continuing Calibrations, Method Blanks, Blank Spikes, Blank Spike Duplicates, Duplicates, Matrix Spikes, Matrix Spike Duplicates, Surrogates and Internal Standards. Any results which were found to be outside of the recommended ranges stated in our SOPs will be noted in the Project Narrative. Subcontracted Analyses E ColiBAL Laboratory - Cranston, RI SurfactantsNew England Testing Laboratory, Inc. - West Warwick, RI 185 Frances Avenue, Cranston, RI 02910-2211 Tel: 401-461-7181 Fax: 401-461-4486 http://www.ESSLaboratory.com Dependability ♦Quality ♦Service Page 1 of 16 Client Name: Tighe & Bond Client Project ID: OnQuest Hopkinton LNG Plant ESS Laboratory Work Order: 1811555 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS ESS Laboratory Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. BAL Laboratory The Microbiology Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. SAMPLE RECEIPT The following samples were received on November 21, 2018 for the analyses specified on the enclosed Chain of Custody Record. The samples and analyses listed below were analyzed in accordance with the Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants, 40 CFR Part 136, as amended. Lab Number MatrixSample Name Analysis SW-1 2520B, 2540D, 350.1, 351.2, 4500Cl G, 9050A, SM9223B, SUB Surface Water1811555-01 185 Frances Avenue, Cranston, RI 02910-2211 Tel: 401-461-7181 Fax: 401-461-4486 http://www.ESSLaboratory.com Dependability ♦Quality ♦Service Page 2 of 16 Client Name: Tighe & Bond Client Project ID: OnQuest Hopkinton LNG Plant ESS Laboratory Work Order: 1811555 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS ESS Laboratory Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. BAL Laboratory The Microbiology Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. PROJECT NARRATIVE Classical Chemistry The maximum holding time listed in 40 CFR Part 136 Table II for pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Sulfite and Residual Chlorine is fifteen minutes. 1811555-01 End of Project Narrative. No other observations noted. DATA USABILITY LINKS To ensure you are viewing the most current version of the documents below, please clear your internet cookies for www.ESSLaboratory.com. Consult your IT Support personnel for information on how to clear your internet cookies. Definitions of Quality Control Parameters Semivolatile Organics Internal Standard Information Volatile Organics Internal Standard Information Volatile Organics Surrogate Information Semivolatile Organics Surrogate Information EPH and VPH Alkane Lists 185 Frances Avenue, Cranston, RI 02910-2211 Tel: 401-461-7181 Fax: 401-461-4486 http://www.ESSLaboratory.com Dependability ♦Quality ♦Service Page 3 of 16 Client Name: Tighe & Bond Client Project ID: OnQuest Hopkinton LNG Plant ESS Laboratory Work Order: 1811555 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS ESS Laboratory Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. BAL Laboratory The Microbiology Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. CURRENT SW-846 METHODOLOGY VERSIONS Prep Methods 3005A - Aqueous ICP Digestion 3020A - Aqueous Graphite Furnace / ICP MS Digestion 3050B - Solid ICP / Graphite Furnace / ICP MS Digestion 3060A - Solid Hexavalent Chromium Digestion 3510C - Separatory Funnel Extraction 3520C - Liquid / Liquid Extraction 3540C - Manual Soxhlet Extraction 3541 - Automated Soxhlet Extraction 3546 - Microwave Extraction 3580A - Waste Dilution 5030B - Aqueous Purge and Trap 5030C - Aqueous Purge and Trap 5035A - Solid Purge and Trap Analytical Methods 1010A - Flashpoint 6010C - ICP 6020A - ICP MS 7010 - Graphite Furnace 7196A - Hexavalent Chromium 7470A - Aqueous Mercury 7471B - Solid Mercury 8011 - EDB/DBCP/TCP 8015C - GRO/DRO 8081B - Pesticides 8082A - PCB 8100M - TPH 8151A - Herbicides 8260B - VOA 8270D - SVOA 8270D SIM - SVOA Low Level 9014 - Cyanide 9038 - Sulfate 9040C - Aqueous pH 9045D - Solid pH (Corrosivity) 9050A - Specific Conductance 9056A - Anions (IC) 9060A - TOC 9095B - Paint Filter MADEP 04-1.1 - EPH MADEP 04-2.1 - VPH SW846 Reactivity Methods 7.3.3.2 (Reactive Cyanide) and 7.3.4.1 (Reactive Sulfide) have been withdrawn by EPA. These methods are reported per client request and are not NELAP accredited. 185 Frances Avenue, Cranston, RI 02910-2211 Tel: 401-461-7181 Fax: 401-461-4486 http://www.ESSLaboratory.com Dependability ♦Quality ♦Service Page 4 of 16 Client Name: Tighe & Bond Client Project ID: OnQuest Hopkinton LNG Plant ESS Laboratory Work Order: 1811555 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS ESS Laboratory Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. BAL Laboratory The Microbiology Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. Client Sample ID: SW-1 Date Sampled: 11/20/18 15:00 ESS Laboratory Sample ID: 1811555-01 Sample Matrix: Surface Water Percent Solids: N/A All methods used are in accordance with 40 CFR 136. Classical Chemistry Analyte Results (MRL)MDL UnitsMethodLimitAnalystAnalyzed BatchDF 350.1 mg/LAmmonia as N JLK CK8271011/27/18 16:37 1 0.60 (0.10) 9050A umhos/cmConductivityJLK CK8265511/26/18 20:00 1 48 (5) 2520B pptSalinityJLK CK8265811/26/18 22:12 1 0.2 (0.1) 351.2 mg/LTotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N EEM CK8273111/28/18 16:39 1 0.69 (0.20) 4500Cl G mg/LTotal Residual Chlorine JLK CK8213911/21/18 17:37 1 ND (0.06) 2540D mg/LTotal Suspended Solids JLK CK8213711/21/18 21:48 1 18 (5) 185 Frances Avenue, Cranston, RI 02910-2211 Tel: 401-461-7181 Fax: 401-461-4486 http://www.ESSLaboratory.com Dependability ♦Quality ♦Service Page 5 of 16 Client Name: Tighe & Bond Client Project ID: OnQuest Hopkinton LNG Plant ESS Laboratory Work Order: 1811555 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS ESS Laboratory Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. BAL Laboratory The Microbiology Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. Client Sample ID: SW-1 Date Sampled: 11/20/18 15:00 ESS Laboratory Sample ID: 1811555-01 Sample Matrix: Surface Water Prepared: 11/21/18 0:00 Analyst: SUBInitial Volume: 1 Final Volume: 1 Percent Solids: N/A Extraction Method: General Subbed Prep All methods used are in accordance with 40 CFR 136. Subcontracted Analysis Analyte Results (MRL)MDL UnitsMethodLimitAnalystAnalyzed BatchDF SUB mg/LSurfactants (MBAS)SUB CK8302411/21/18 0:00 1 ND (0.030) 185 Frances Avenue, Cranston, RI 02910-2211 Tel: 401-461-7181 Fax: 401-461-4486 http://www.ESSLaboratory.com Dependability ♦Quality ♦Service Page 6 of 16 Client Name: Tighe & Bond Client Project ID: OnQuest Hopkinton LNG Plant ESS Laboratory Work Order: 1811555 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS ESS Laboratory Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. BAL Laboratory The Microbiology Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. Client Sample ID: SW-1 Date Sampled: 11/20/18 15:00 ESS Laboratory Sample ID: 1811555-01 Sample Matrix: Surface Water Percent Solids: N/A All methods used are in accordance with 40 CFR 136. Microbiology Analyte Results (MRL)MDL UnitsMethodLimitAnalystAnalyzed SM9223B MPN/100mLE. coli GSG 11/21/18 11:00 7.4 (N/A) 185 Frances Avenue, Cranston, RI 02910-2211 Tel: 401-461-7181 Fax: 401-461-4486 http://www.ESSLaboratory.com Dependability ♦Quality ♦Service Page 7 of 16 Client Name: Tighe & Bond Client Project ID: OnQuest Hopkinton LNG Plant ESS Laboratory Work Order: 1811555 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS ESS Laboratory Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. BAL Laboratory The Microbiology Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. Quality Control Data Analyte Result MRL Units Spike Level Source Result %REC %REC Limits RPD RPD Limit Qualifier Classical Chemistry Batch CK82137 - General Preparation Blank 5 mg/LTotal Suspended Solids ND LCS 85.00 80-12096mg/LTotal Suspended Solids 82 Batch CK82139 - General Preparation Blank 0.06 mg/LTotal Residual Chlorine ND LCS 0.3999 80-120100mg/LTotal Residual Chlorine 0.40 Batch CK82655 - General Preparation Blank 5 umhos/cmConductivityND LCS 1411 90-11099umhos/cmConductivity1390 Batch CK82658 - General Preparation LCS 1.000 85-11592pptSalinity0.9 Batch CK82710 - NH4 Prep Blank 0.10 mg/LAmmonia as N ND LCS 0.10 0.09994 80-120100mg/LAmmonia as N 0.10 LCS 0.10 0.9994 80-120116mg/LAmmonia as N 1.16 Batch CK82731 - General Preparation Blank 0.20 mg/LTotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N ND LCS 0.20 3.910 80-120103mg/LTotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N 4.01 185 Frances Avenue, Cranston, RI 02910-2211 Tel: 401-461-7181 Fax: 401-461-4486 http://www.ESSLaboratory.com Dependability ♦Quality ♦Service Page 8 of 16 Client Name: Tighe & Bond Client Project ID: OnQuest Hopkinton LNG Plant ESS Laboratory Work Order: 1811555 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS ESS Laboratory Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. BAL Laboratory The Microbiology Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. Notes and Definitions U Analyte included in the analysis, but not detected HT The maximum holding time listed in 40 CFR Part 136 Table II for pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Sulfite and Residual Chlorine is fifteen minutes. Sample results reported on a dry weight basis Relative Percent DifferenceRPD dry Analyte NOT DETECTED at or above the MRL (LOQ), LOD for DoD Reports, MDL for J-Flagged AnalytesND MDL MRL Method Detection Limit Method Reporting Limit I/V F/V Initial Volume Final Volume §Subcontracted analysis; see attached report 1 2 3 Range result excludes concentrations of surrogates and/or internal standards eluting in that range. Range result excludes concentrations of target analytes eluting in that range. Range result excludes the concentration of the C9-C10 aromatic range. Avg Results reported as a mathematical average.NR No Recovery LOD Limit of Detection [CALC] Calculated Analyte LOQ Limit of Quantitation DL Detection Limit SUB Subcontracted analysis; see attached report Reporting LimitRL EDL MF MPN TNTC CFU Estimated Detection Limit Membrane Filtration Most Probably Number Too numerous to Count Colony Forming Units 185 Frances Avenue, Cranston, RI 02910-2211 Tel: 401-461-7181 Fax: 401-461-4486 http://www.ESSLaboratory.com Dependability ♦ Quality ♦ Service Page 9 of 16 Client Name: Tighe & Bond Client Project ID: OnQuest Hopkinton LNG Plant ESS Laboratory Work Order: 1811555 CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS ESS Laboratory Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. BAL Laboratory The Microbiology Division of Thielsch Engineering, Inc. ESS LABORATORY CERTIFICATIONS AND ACCREDITATIONS ENVIRONMENTAL Rhode Island Potable and Non Potable Water: LAI00179 http://www.health.ri.gov/find/labs/analytical/ESS.pdf Connecticut Potable and Non Potable Water, Solid and Hazardous Waste: PH-0750 http://www.ct.gov/dph/lib/dph/environmental_health/environmental_laboratories/pdf/OutofStateCommercialLaboratories.pdf Maine Potable and Non Potable Water, and Solid and Hazardous Waste: RI00002 http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/environmental-health/dwp/partners/labCert.shtml Massachusetts Potable and Non Potable Water: M-RI002 http://public.dep.state.ma.us/Labcert/Labcert.aspx New Hampshire (NELAP accredited) Potable and Non Potable Water, Solid and Hazardous Waste: 2424 http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/dwgb/nhelap/index.htm New York (NELAP accredited) Non Potable Water, Solid and Hazardous Waste: 11313 http://www.wadsworth.org/labcert/elap/comm.html New Jersey (NELAP accredited) Non Potable Water, Solid and Hazardous Waste: RI006 http://datamine2.state.nj.us/DEP_OPRA/OpraMain/pi_main?mode=pi_by_site&sort_order=PI_NAMEA&Select+a+Site:=58715 United States Department of Agriculture Soil Permit: P330-12-00139 Pennsylvania: 68-01752 http://www.dep.pa.gov/Business/OtherPrograms/Labs/Pages/Laboratory-Accreditation-Program.aspx 185 Frances Avenue, Cranston, RI 02910-2211 Tel: 401-461-7181 Fax: 401-461-4486 http://www.ESSLaboratory.com Dependability ♦Quality ♦Service Page 10 of 16 New England Testing Laboratory, Inc. (401) 353-3420 REPORT OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS NETLAB Work Order Number: 8K21035 Client Project: General Project Report Date: 29-November-2018 ________________________ Richard Warila, Laboratory Director New England Testing Laboratory, Inc. 59 Greenhill Street West Warwick, RI 02893 rich.warila@newenglandtesting.com ESS Lab ESS Laboratory 185 Frances Avenue Cranston, RI 02910 Prepared for: Page 1 of 5Page 11 of 16 Work Order: 8K21035 Date: 11/29/2018 2:03:44PM Samples Submitted: Sample Lab ID Matrix Date Sampled The samples listed below were submitted to New England Testing Laboratory on 11/21/18. The group of samples appearing in this report was assigned an internal identification number (case number) for laboratory information management purposes. The clients designations for the individual samples, along with our case numbers, are used to identify the samples in this report. This report of analytical results pertains only to the sample(s) provided to us by the client which are indicated on the custody record. The case number for this sample submission is 8K21035. Custody records are included in this report. 8K21035-01 11/20/2018Water1811555-01 Request for Analysis At the client’s request, the analyses presented in the following table were performed on the samples submitted. 1811555-01 SM5540-CSurfactants (MBAS) The analytical methods provided are documented in the following references: Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Water Wastes, EPA-600/4-79-020 (Revised 1983), USEPA/EMSL. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th Edition, 1998, APHA, AWWA-WPCF. 40 CFR 136, Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act, Office of Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration. Page 2 of 5Page 12 of 16 Work Order: 8K21035 Date: 11/29/2018 2:03:44PM Results: 8K21035-01 (Water) Sample: 1811555-01 General Chemistry Result Date Analyzed UnitsReporting Limit 0.03MBAS mg/L 11/21/18ND Page 3 of 5Page 13 of 16 Work Order: 8K21035 Date: 11/29/2018 2:03:44PM Case Narrative The samples were all appropriately cooled and preserved upon receipt. The samples were received in the appropriate containers. The chain of custody was adequately completed and corresponded to the samples submitted. Result Reporting Limit Units Spike Level Source Result %REC %REC Limits RPD RPD LimitQual Analyte Quality Control General Chemistry Batch: B8K0972 - Surfactants Date Analyzed: 11/21/18 Blank (B8K0972-BLK1) MBAS ND 0.03 mg/L Date Analyzed: 11/21/18 Blank (B8K0972-BLK2) MBAS ND 0.03 mg/L Date Analyzed: 11/21/18 LCS (B8K0972-BS1) MBAS 1.12 0.03 1.20 90-11093.4mg/L Date Analyzed: 11/21/18 LCS (B8K0972-BS2) MBAS 1.08 0.03 1.20 90-11090.2mg/L Date Analyzed: 11/21/18 Source: 8K21035-01Duplicate (B8K0972-DUP1) MBAS ND 0.03 ND 20mg/L Date Analyzed: 11/21/18 Source: 8K21035-01Matrix Spike (B8K0972-MS1) MBAS 1.17 0.03 1.20 ND 80-12097.5mg/L Page 4 of 5Page 14 of 16 Page 5 of 5Page 15 of 16 Page 16 of 16 Attachment B Pages from the 2016 Massachusetts Small MS4 General Permit MA MS4 General Permit 30 to part 2.3.3.b may include, but are not limited to, websites; hotlines; clean-up teams; monitoring teams; or an advisory committee. 2.3.4. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) Program Objective: The permittee shall implement an IDDE program to systematically find and eliminate sources of non-stormwater discharges to its municipal separate storm sewer system and implement procedures to prevent such discharges. a.Legal Authority - The IDDE program shall include adequate legal authority to: prohibit illicitdischarges; investigate suspected illicit discharges; eliminate illicit discharges, including dischargesfrom properties not owned by or controlled by the MS4 that discharge into the MS4 system; andimplement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions. Adequate legal authority consists of acurrently effective ordinance, by-law, or other regulatory mechanism. For permittees authorized by the MS4-2003 permit, the ordinance, by-law, or other regulatory mechanism was a requirement of theMS4-2003 permit and was required to be effective by May 1, 2008. For new permittees the ordinance,by-law, or other regulatory mechanism shall be in place within 3 years of the permit effective date. b. During the development of the new components of the IDDE program required by this permit,permittees authorized by the MS4-2003 permit must continue to implement their existing IDDEprogram required by the MS4-2003 permit to detect and eliminate illicit discharges to their MS4. 2.3.4.1. Definitions and Prohibitions The permittee shall prohibit illicit discharges and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) to its MS4 and require removal of such discharges consistent with parts 2.3.4.2 and 2.3.4.4 of this permit. An SSO is a discharge of untreated sanitary wastewater from a municipal sanitary sewer. An illicit discharge is any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer that is not composed entirely of stormwater, except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit (other than the NPDES permit for discharges from the municipal separate storm sewer) and discharges resulting from fire fighting activities. 2.3.4.2. Elimination of Illicit Discharges a.Upon detection of an illicit discharge, the permittee shall locate, identify and eliminate the illicit discharge as expeditiously as possible. Upon identification of the illicit source the MS4 notify all responsible partiesfor any such discharge and require immediate cessation of improper disposal practices in accordance withits legal authorities. Where elimination of an illicit discharge within 60 days of its identification as an illicit discharge is not possible, the permittee shall establish an expeditious schedule for its elimination andreport the dates of identification and schedules for removal in the permittee’s annual reports. Thepermittee shall immediately commence actions necessary for elimination. The permittee shall diligentlypursue elimination of all illicit discharges. In the interim, the permittee shall take all reasonable andprudent measures to minimize the discharge of pollutants to and from its MS4. b. The period between identification and elimination of an illicit discharge is not a grace period.Discharges from an MS4 that are mixed with an illicit discharge are not authorized by this Permit (part1.3.a) and remain unlawful until eliminated. MA MS4 General Permit 31 2.3.4.3. Non-Stormwater Discharges The permittee may presume that the sources of non-stormwater listed in part 1.4 of this permit need not be addressed. However, if the permittee identifies any of these sources as significant contributors of pollutants to the MS4, then the permittee shall implement measures to control these sources so they are no longer significant contributors of pollutants, and/or eliminate them entirely, consistent with part 2.3.4. 2.3.4.4. Sanitary Sewer Overflows a. Upon detection of an SSO the permittee shall eliminate it as expeditiously as possible and take interim mitigation measures to minimize the discharge of pollutants to and from its MS4 until elimination is completed. b. The permittee shall identify all known locations where SSOs have discharged to the MS4 within the previous five (5) years. This shall include SSOs resulting, during dry or wet weather, from inadequate conveyance capacities, or where interconnectivity of the storm and sanitary sewer infrastructure allows for communication of flow between the systems. Within one (1) year of the effective date of the permit, the permittee shall develop an inventory of all identified SSOs indicating the following information, if available: 1. Location (approximate street crossing/address and receiving water, if any); 2. A clear statement of whether the discharge entered a surface water directly or entered the MS4; 3. Date(s) and time(s) of each known SSO occurrence (i.e., beginning and end of any known discharge); 4. Estimated volume(s) of the occurrence; 5. Description of the occurrence indicating known or suspected cause(s); 6. Mitigation and corrective measures completed with dates implemented; and 7. Mitigation and corrective measures planned with implementation schedules. The permittee shall maintain the inventory as a part of the SWMP and update the inventory annually, all updates shall include the information in part 2.3.4.4.b.1-7. c. In accordance with Paragraph B.12 of Appendix B of this permit, upon becoming aware of an SSO to the MS4, the permittee shall provide oral notice to EPA within 24 hours. Additionally, the permittee shall provide written notice to EPA and MassDEP within five (5) days of becoming aware of the SSO occurrence and shall include the information in the updated inventory. The notice shall contain all of the information listed in part 2.3.4.4.b. Where common notification requirements for SSOs are included in multiple NPDES permits issued to a permittee, a single notification may be made to EPA as directed in the permittee’s wastewater or CSO NPDES permit and constitutes compliance with this part. d. The permittee shall include and update the SSO inventory in its annual report, including the status of mitigation and corrective measures implemented by the permittee to address each SSO identified pursuant to this part. e. The period between detection and elimination of a discharge from the SSO to the MS4 is not a grace period. Discharges from an MS4 that are mixed with an SSO are not authorized by this Permit (part 1.3.a) and remain unlawful until eliminated. MA MS4 General Permit 32 2.3.4.5. System mapping The permittee shall develop a revised and more detailed map than was required by the MS4-2003 permit. This revised map of the MS4 shall be completed in two phases as outlined below. The mapping shall include a depiction of the permittee’s separate storm sewer system in the permit area. The mapping is intended to facilitate the identification of key infrastructure and factors influencing proper system operation, and the potential for illicit sanitary sewer discharges. a. Phase I: The system map shall be updated within two (2) years of the permit effective date to include the following information: • Outfalls and receiving waters (required by MS4-2003 permit) • Open channel conveyances (swales, ditches, etc.) • Interconnections with other MS4s and other storm sewer systems • Municipally-owned stormwater treatment structures (e.g., detention and retention basins, infiltration systems , bioretention areas, water quality swales, gross particle separators, oil/water separators, or other proprietary systems) • Waterbodies identified by name and indication of all use impairments as identified on the most recent EPA approved Massachusetts Integrated List of waters report pursuant to Clean Water Act section 303(d) and 305(b) • Initial catchment delineations. Any available system data and topographic information may be used to produce initial catchment delineations. For the purpose of this permit, a catchment is the area that drains to an individual outfall or interconnection. b. Phase II: The system map shall be updated annually as the following information becomes available during implementation of catchment investigation procedures in part 2.3.4.8. This information must be included in the map for all outfalls within ten (10) years of the permit effective date: • Outfall spatial location (latitude and longitude with a minimum accuracy of +/-30 feet) • Pipes • Manholes • Catch basins • Refined catchment delineations. Catchment delineations shall be updated to reflect information collected during catchment investigations • Municipal sanitary sewer system (if available) • Municipal combined sewer system (if applicable). c. Recommended elements to be included in the system map as information becomes available: • Storm sewer material, size (pipe diameter) and age • Sanitary sewer system material, size (pipe diameter) and age • Privately-owned stormwater treatment structures • Where a municipal sanitary sewer system exists, properties known or suspected to be served by a septic system, especially in high-density urban areas • Area where the permittee’s MS4 has received or could receive flow from septic system discharges (e.g., areas with poor soils, or high ground water elevations unsuitable for conventional subsurface disposal systems) • Seasonal high water table elevations impacting sanitary alignments • Topography • Orthophotography MA MS4 General Permit 33 • Alignments, dates and representation of work completed (with legend) of past illicit discharge investigations (e.g., flow isolation, dye testing, CCTV) • Locations of suspected, confirmed and corrected illicit discharges (with dates and flow estimates). d. The mapping may be produced by hand or through computer-aided methods (e.g. GIS). The required scale and detail of the map shall be appropriate to facilitate a rapid understanding of the system by the permittee, EPA and the state. In addition, the mapping shall serve as a planning tool for the implementation and phasing of the IDDE program and demonstration of the extent of complete and planned investigations and corrections. The permittee shall update the mapping as necessary to reflect newly discovered information and required corrections or modifications. e. The permittee shall report on the progress towards the completion of the system map in each annual report. 2.3.4.6. Written Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Program The IDDE program shall be recorded in a written (hardcopy or electronic) document. The IDDE program shall include each of the elements described in parts 2.3.4.7 and part 2.3.4.8, unless the permittee provides a written explanation within the IDDE program as to why a particular element is not applicable to the permittee. Notwithstanding the permittee’s explanation, EPA may at any time determine that a particular element is in fact applicable to the permittee and require the permittee to add it to the IDDE program. The written (hardcopy or electronic) IDDE program shall be completed within one (1) year of the effective date of the permit and updated in accordance with the milestones of this part. The permittee shall implement the IDDE program in accordance with the goals and milestones contained in this part. a. The written (hardcopy or electronic) IDDE program shall include a reference or citation of the authority the permittee will use to implement all aspects of the IDDE program. b. Statement of IDDE Program Responsibilities - The permittee shall establish a written (hardcopy or electronic) statement that clearly identifies responsibilities with regard to eliminating illicit discharges. The statement shall identify the lead municipal agency(ies) or department(s) responsible for implementing the IDDE Program as well as any other agencies or departments that may have responsibilities for aspects of the program (e.g., board of health responsibilities for overseeing septic system construction; sanitary sewer system staff; inspectional services for enforcing plumbing codes; town counsel responsibilities in enforcement actions, etc.). Where multiple departments and agencies have responsibilities with respect to the IDDE program specific areas of responsibility shall be defined and processes for coordination and data sharing shall be established and documented. c. Program Procedures – The permittee shall include in the written IDDE program all written procedures developed in accordance with the requirements and timelines in parts 2.3.4.7 and 2.3.4.8 below. At a minimum this shall include the written procedures for dry weather outfall screening and sampling and for catchment investigations. 2.3.4.7. Assessment and Priority Ranking of Outfalls/Interconnections The permittee shall assess and priority rank the outfalls in terms of their potential to have illicit discharges and SSOs and the related public health significance. This ranking will determine the priority order for MA MS4 General Permit 34 screening of outfalls and interconnections pursuant to part 2.3.4.7.b, catchment investigations for evidence of illicit discharges and SSOs pursuant to part 2.3.4.8, and provides the basis for determining permit milestones of this part. a. Outfall/Interconnection Inventory and Initial Ranking: An initial outfall and interconnection inventory and priority ranking to assess illicit discharge potential based on existing information shall be completed within one (1) year from the effective date of the permit; an updated inventory and ranking will be provided in each annual report thereafter. The inventory shall be updated annually to include data collected in connection with the dry weather screening and other relevant inspections conducted by the permittee. i. The outfall and interconnection inventory will identify each outfall and interconnection discharging from the MS4, record its location and condition, and provide a framework for tracking inspections, screenings and other activities under the permittee’s IDDE program. • An outfall means a point source as defined by 40 CFR § 122.2 as the point where the municipal separate storm sewer discharges to waters of the United States. An outfall does not include open conveyances connecting two municipal separate storm sewers or pipes, tunnels or other conveyances that connect segments of the same stream or other waters of the United States and that are used to convey waters of the United States. (40 CFR § 122.26(b)(9)). However, it is strongly recommended that a permittee inspect all accessible portions of the system as part of this process. Culverts longer than a simple road crossing shall be included in the inventory unless the permittee can confirm that they are free of any connections and simply convey waters of the United States. • An interconnection means the point (excluding sheet flow over impervious surfaces) where the permittee’s MS4 discharges to another MS4 or other storm sewer system, through which the discharge is conveyed to waters of the United States or to another storm sewer system and eventually to a water of the United States. ii. The permittee shall classify each of the permittee’s outfalls and interconnections into one of the following categories: • Problem Outfalls: Outfalls/interconnections with known or suspected contributions of illicit discharges based on existing information shall be designated as Problem Outfalls. This shall include any outfalls/interconnections where previous screening indicates likely sewer input.4 Problem Outfalls need not be screened pursuant to part 2.3.4.7.b. • High Priority Outfalls: Outfalls/interconnections that have not been classified as Problem Outfalls and that are: o discharging to an area of concern to public health due to proximity of public beaches, recreational areas, drinking water supplies or shellfish beds; o determined by the permittee as high priority based on the characteristics listed below or other available information; • Low Priority Outfalls: Outfalls/interconnections determined by the permittee as low priority based on the characteristics listed below or other available information. • Excluded outfalls: Outfalls/interconnections with no potential for illicit discharges may be 4 Likely sewer input indicators are any of the following: • Olfactory or visual evidence of sewage, • Ammonia ≥ 0.5 mg/L, surfactants ≥ 0.25 mg/L, and bacteria levels greater than the water quality criteria applicable to the receiving water, or • Ammonia ≥ 0.5 mg/L, surfactants ≥ 0.25 mg/L, and detectable levels of chlorine. MA MS4 General Permit 35 excluded from the IDDE program. This category is limited to roadway drainage in undeveloped areas with no dwellings and no sanitary sewers; drainage for athletic fields, parks or undeveloped green space and associated parking without services; cross-country drainage alignments (that neither cross nor are in proximity to sanitary sewer alignments) through undeveloped land. iii. The permittee shall priority rank outfalls into the categories above (except for excluded outfalls), based on the following characteristics of the defined initial catchment area where information is available: • Past discharge complaints and reports. • Poor receiving water quality- the following guidelines are recommended to identify waters as having a high illicit discharge potential: exceeding water quality standards for bacteria; ammonia levels above 0.5 mg/l; surfactants levels greater than or equal to 0.25 mg/l. • Density of generating sites- Generating sites are those places, including institutional, municipal, commercial, or industrial sites, with a potential to generate pollutants that could contribute to illicit discharges. Examples of these sites include, but are not limited to, car dealers; car washes; gas stations; garden centers; and industrial manufacturing areas. • Age of development and infrastructure – Industrial areas greater than 40 years old and areas where the sanitary sewer system is more than 40 years old will probably have a high illicit discharge potential. Developments 20 years or younger will probably have a low illicit discharge potential. • Sewer conversion – contributing catchment areas that were once serviced by septic systems, but have been converted to sewer connections may have a high illicit discharge potential. • Historic combined sewer systems – contributing areas that were once serviced by a combined sewer system, but have been separated may have a high illicit discharge potential. • Surrounding density of aging septic systems – Septic systems thirty years or older in residential land use areas are prone to have failures and may have a high illicit discharge potential. • Culverted streams – any river or stream that is culverted for distances greater than a simple roadway crossing may have a high illicit discharge potential. • Water quality limited waterbodies that receive a discharge from the MS4 or waters with approved TMDLs applicable to the permittee, where illicit discharges have the potential to contain the pollutant identified as the cause of the water quality impairment. • The permittee may also consider additional relevant characteristics, including location-specific characteristics; if so, the permittee shall include the additional characteristics in its written (hardcopy or electronic) IDDE program. b. Dry Weather Outfall and Interconnection Screening and Sampling All outfalls/interconnections (excluding Problem and excluded Outfalls) shall be inspected for the presence of dry weather flow within three (3) years of the permit effective date. The permittee shall screen all High and Low Priority Outfalls in accordance with their initial ranking developed at part 2.3.4.7.a. i. Written procedure: The permittee shall develop an outfall and interconnection screening and sampling procedure to be included in the IDDE program within one (1) year of the permit effective date. This procedure shall include the following procedures for: • sample collection, • use of field kits, MA MS4 General Permit 36 • storage and conveyance of samples (including relevant hold times), and • field data collection and storage. An example screening and sampling protocol (EPA New England Bacterial Source Tracking Protocol ) can be found on EPA’s website. ii. Weather conditions: Dry weather screening and sampling shall proceed only when no more than 0.1 inches of rainfall has occurred in the previous 24-hour period and no significant snow melt is occurring. iii. Screening requirements: For each outfall/interconnection: 1. The permittee shall record all of the following information and include it in the outfall/interconnection inventory and priority ranking: • unique identifier, • receiving water, • date of most recent inspection, • dimensions, • shape, • material (concrete, PVC), • spatial location (latitude and longitude with a minimum accuracy of +/-30 feet, • physical condition, • indicators of potential non-stormwater discharges (including presence or evidence of suspect flow and sensory observations such as odor, color, turbidity, floatables, or oil sheen). 2. If an outfall/interconnection is inaccessible or submerged, the permittee shall proceed to the first accessible upstream manhole or structure for the observation and sampling and report the location with the screening results. 3. If no flow is observed, but evidence of illicit flow exists, the permittee shall revisit the outfall during dry weather within one week of the initial observation, if practicable, to perform a second dry weather screening and sample any observed flow (proceed as in iv. below). 4. Where dry weather flow is found at an outfall/interconnection, at least one (1) sample shall be collected, and: a) Samples shall be analyzed at a minimum for: • ammonia, • chlorine, • conductivity, • salinity, • E. coli (freshwater receiving water) or enterococcus (saline or brackish receiving water), • surfactants (such as MBAS), • temperature, and MA MS4 General Permit 37 • pollutants of concern5 b) All analyses with the exception of indicator bacteria and pollutants of concern can be performed with field test kits or field instrumentation and are not subject to 40 CFR part 136 requirements. Sampling for bacteria and pollutants of concern shall be conducted using the analytical methods found in 40 CFR §136, or alternative methods approved by EPA in accordance with the procedures in 40 CFR §136. Sampling for ammonia and surfactants must use sufficiently sensitive methods to detect those parameters at or below the threshold indicator concentrations of 0.5 mg/L for ammonia and 0.25 mg/L for surfactants. Sampling for residual chlorine must use a method with a detection limit of 0.02 mg/L or 20 ug/L. iv. The permittee may rely on screening conducted under the MS4-2003 permit, pursuant to an EPA enforcement action, or by the state or EPA to the extent that it meets the requirements of part 2.3.4.7.b.iii.4. All data shall be reported in each annual report. Permittees that have conducted substantially equivalent monitoring to that required by part 2.3.4.7.b as part of an EPA enforcement action can request an exemption from the requirements of part 2.3.4.7.b by submitting a written request to EPA and retaining exemption approval from EPA as part of the SWMP. Until the permittee receives formal written approval of the exemption from part 2.3.4.7.b from EPA the permittee remains subject to all requirements of part 2.3.4.7.b. v. The permittee shall submit all screening data used in compliance with this part in its Annual Report. c. Follow-up ranking of outfalls and interconnections: i. The permittee’s outfall and interconnection ranking (2.3.4.7.a) shall be updated to reprioritize outfalls and interconnections based on information gathered during dry weather screening (part 2.3.4.7.b). ii. Outfalls/interconnections where relevant information was found indicating sewer input to the MS4 or sampling results indicating sewer input6 shall be considered highly likely to contain illicit discharges from sanitary sources, and such outfalls/interconnections shall be ranked at the top of the High Priority Outfalls category for investigation. At this time, permittees may choose to rank other outfalls and interconnections based on any new information from the dry weather screening. iii. The ranking can be updated continuously as dry weather screening information becomes available, but shall be completed within three (3) years of the effective date of the permit. 2.3.4.8. Catchment Investigations The permittee shall develop a systematic procedure to investigate each catchment associated with an 5 Where the discharge is directly into a water quality limited water or a water subject to an approved TMDL as indicated in Appendix F; the sample shall be analyzed for the pollutant(s) of concern identified as the cause of the impairment as specified in Appendix G 6 Likely sewer input indicators are any of the following: • Olfactory or visual evidence of sewage, • Ammonia ≥ 0.5 mg/L, surfactants ≥ 0.25 mg/L, and bacteria levels greater than the water quality criteria applicable to the receiving water, or • Ammonia ≥ 0.5 mg/L, surfactants ≥ 0.25 mg/L, and detectable levels of chlorine. MA MS4 General Permit 38 outfall or interconnection within their MS4 system. a. Timelines: • A written catchment investigation procedure shall be developed within 18 months of the permit effective date in accordance with the requirements of part 2.3.4.8.b below. • Investigations of catchments associated with Problem Outfalls shall begin no later than two (2) years from the permit effective date. • Investigations of catchments associated with High and Low Priority Outfalls shall follow the ranking of outfalls updated in part 2.3.4.7.c. • Investigations of catchments associated with Problem Outfalls shall be completed within seven (7) years of the permit effective date • Investigations of catchments where any information gathered on the outfall/interconnection identifies sewer input7 shall be completed within seven (7) years of the permit effective date. • Investigations of catchments associated with all High- and Low-Priority Outfalls shall be completed within ten (10) years of the permit effective date. *For the purposes of these milestones, an individual catchment investigation will be considered complete if all relevant procedures in part 2.3.4.8.c. and 2.3.4.8.d. below have been completed. b. A written catchment investigation procedure shall be developed that: i. Identifies maps, historic plans and records, and other sources of data, including but not limited to plans related to the construction of the storm drain and of sanitary sewers, prior work performed on the storm drains or sanitary sewers, board of health or other municipal data on septic system failures or required upgrades, and complaint records related to SSOs, sanitary sewer surcharges, and septic system breakouts. These data sources will be used in identifying system vulnerability factors within each catchment. ii. Includes a manhole inspection methodology that shall describe a storm drain network investigation that involves systematically and progressively observing, sampling (as required below) and evaluating key junction manholes (see definition in Appendix A) in the MS4 to determine the approximate location of suspected illicit discharges or SSOs. The manhole inspection methodology may either start from the outfall and work up the system or start from the upper parts of the catchment and work down the system or be a combination of both practices. Either method must, at a minimum, include an investigation of each key junction manhole within the MS4, even where no evidence of an illicit discharge is observed at the outfall. The manhole inspection methodology must describe the method the permittee will use. The manhole inspection methodology shall include procedures for dry and wet weather investigations. iii. Establishes procedures to isolate and confirm sources of illicit discharges where manhole investigations or other physical evidence or screening has identified that MS4 alignments are influenced by illicit discharges or SSOs. These shall include isolation of the drainage area for implementation of more detailed investigations, inspection of additional manholes along the alignment to refine the location of potential contaminant sources, and methods such as sandbagging key junction manhole inlets, targeted internal plumbing inspections, dye testing, 7 Likely sewer input indicators are any of the following: • Olfactory or visual evidence of sewage, • Ammonia ≥ 0.5 mg/L, surfactants ≥ 0.25 mg/L, and bacteria levels greater than the water quality criteria applicable to the receiving water, or • Ammonia ≥ 0.5 mg/L, surfactants ≥ 0.25 mg/L, and detectable levels of chlorine. MA MS4 General Permit 39 video inspections, or smoke testing to isolate and confirm the sources. c. Requirements for each catchment investigation associated with an outfall/interconnection: i. For each catchment being investigated, the permittee shall review relevant mapping and historic plans and records gathered in accordance with Part 2.3.4.8.b.i. This review shall be used to identify areas within the catchment with higher potential for illicit connections. The permittee shall identify and record the presence of any of the following specific System Vulnerability Factors (SVFs): • History of SSOs, including, but not limited to, those resulting from wet weather, high water table, or fat/oil/grease blockages; • Common or twin-invert manholes serving storm and sanitary sewer alignments; • Common trench construction serving both storm and sanitary sewer alignments; • Crossings of storm and sanitary sewer alignments where the sanitary system is shallower than the storm drain system; • Sanitary sewer alignments known or suspected to have been constructed with an underdrain system; • Inadequate sanitary sewer level of service (LOS) resulting in regular surcharging, customer back-ups, or frequent customer complaints; • Areas formerly served by combined sewer systems; • Sanitary sewer infrastructure defects such as leaking service laterals, cracked, broken, or offset sanitary infrastructure, directly piped connections between storm drain and sanitary sewer infrastructure, or other vulnerability factors identified through Inflow/Infiltration Analyses, Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Surveys, or other infrastructure investigations. EPA recommends the permittee include the following in their consideration of System Vulnerability Factors: • Sewer pump/lift stations, siphons, or known sanitary sewer restrictions where power/equipment failures or blockages could readily result in SSOs; • Any sanitary sewer and storm drain infrastructure greater than 40 years old; • Widespread code-required septic system upgrades required at property transfers (indicative of inadequate soils, water table separation, or other physical constraints of the area rather than poor owner maintenance); • History of multiple Board of Health actions addressing widespread septic system failures (indicative of inadequate soils, water table separation, or other physical constraints of the area rather than poor owner maintenance); The permittee shall document the presence or absence of System Vulnerability Factors for each catchment, retain this documentation as part of its IDDE program, and report this information in Annual Reports. Catchments with a minimum of one (1) System Vulnerability Factor are subject to wet weather sampling requirements of part 2.3.4.8.c.ii.2. ii. For each catchment, the permittee must inspect key junction manholes and gather catchment information on the locations of MS4 pipes, manholes, and the extent of the contributing catchment. 1. For all catchments a) Infrastructure information shall be incorporated into the permittee’s mapping required at part 2.3.4.5; the permittee will refine their catchment delineation based on the field investigation where appropriate. MA MS4 General Permit 40 b) The SVF inventory for the catchment will be updated based on information obtained during the inspection, including common (twin invert) manholes, directly piped connections between storm drains and sanitary sewer infrastructure, common weir walls, sanitary sewer underdrain connections and other structural vulnerabilities where sanitary discharges could enter the storm drain system during wet weather. 1) Where a minimum of one (1) SVF is identified based on previous information or the investigation, a wet weather investigation must be conducted at the associated outfall (see below). c) During dry weather, key junction manholes8 shall be opened and inspected systematically for visual and olfactory evidence of illicit connections (e.g., excrement, toilet paper, gray filamentous bacterial growth, or sanitary products present). 1) If flow is observed, the permittee shall sample the flow at a minimum for ammonia, chlorine and surfactants and can use field kits for these analyses. 2) Where sampling results or visual or olfactory evidence indicate potential illicit discharges or SSOs, the area draining to the junction manhole shall be flagged for further upstream investigation. d) Key junction and subsequent manhole investigations will proceed until the location of suspected illicit discharges or SSOs can be isolated to a pipe segment between two manholes. If no evidence of an illicit discharge is found, catchment investigations will be considered complete upon completion of key junction manhole sampling. 2. For all catchments with a minimum of one (1) SVF identified a) The permittee shall meet the requirements above for dry weather screening b) The permittee shall inspect and sample under wet weather conditions to the extent necessary to determine whether wet weather-induced high flows in sanitary sewers or high groundwater in areas served by septic systems result in discharges of sanitary flow to the MS4. 1) The permittee shall conduct at least one wet weather screening and sampling at the outfall that includes the same parameters required during dry weather screening, part 2.3.4.7.b.iii.4. 2) Wet weather sampling and screening shall proceed during or after a storm event of sufficient depth or intensity to produce a stormwater discharge. EPA strongly recommends sampling during the spring (March through June) when groundwater levels are relatively high. 3) The permit does not require a minimum rainfall event prior to wet weather screening. However, permittees may incorporate provisions that assist in targeting such discharges, including avoiding sampling during the initial period of discharge (“first flush”) and/or identifying minimum storm event intensities likely to trigger sanitary sewer interconnections. c) This sampling can be done upon completion of any dry weather investigation but must be completed before the catchment investigation is marked as complete. iii. All data collected as part of the dry and wet weather catchment investigations shall be recorded and reported in each annual report. 8 Where catchments do not contain junction manholes, the dry weather screening and sampling shall be considered as meeting the manhole inspection requirement. In these catchments, dry weather screenings that indicate potential presence of illicit discharges shall be further investigated pursuant to part 2.3.4.8.d. Investigations in these catchments may be considered complete where dry weather screening reveals no flow; no evidence of illicit discharges or SSOs is indicated through sampling results or visual or olfactory means; and no wet weather System Vulnerability Factors are identified. MA MS4 General Permit 41 d. Identification/Confirmation of illicit source Where the source of an illicit discharge has been approximated between two manholes in the permittee’s MS4, the permittee shall isolate and identify/confirm the source of the illicit discharge using more detailed methods identified in their written procedure (2.3.4.8.b.iii). For outfalls that contained evidence of an illicit discharge, catchment investigations will be considered complete upon confirmation of all illicit sources. e. Illicit discharge removal When the specific source of an illicit discharge is identified, the permittee shall exercise its authority as necessary to require its removal pursuant to part 2.3.4.2 or 2.3.4.3. i. For each confirmed source the permittee shall include in the annual report the following information: • the location of the discharge and its source(s); • a description of the discharge; • the method of discovery; • date of discovery; • date of elimination, mitigation or enforcement action OR planned corrective measures and a schedule for completing the illicit discharge removal; and • estimate of the volume of flow removed. ii. Within one year of removal of all identified illicit discharges within a catchment area, confirmatory outfall or interconnection screening shall be conducted. The confirmatory screening shall be conducted in dry weather unless System Vulnerability Factors have been identified, in which case both dry weather and wet weather confirmatory screening shall be conducted. If confirmatory screening indicates evidence of additional illicit discharges, the catchment shall be scheduled for additional investigation. 2.3.4.9. Indicators of IDDE Program Progress The permittee shall define or describe indicators for tracking program success and evaluate and report on the overall effectiveness of the IDDE program in each annual report. At a minimum the permittee shall document in each annual report: • the number of SSOs and illicit discharges identified and removed, • the number and percent of total outfall catchments served by the MS4 evaluated using the catchment investigation procedure, • all dry weather and wet weather screening and sampling results and • the volume of sewage removed 2.3.4.10 Ongoing Screening Upon completion of all catchment investigations pursuant to part 2.3.4.8.c and illicit discharge removal and confirmation (if necessary) pursuant to paragraph 2.3.4.8.e, each outfall or interconnection shall be reprioritized for screening in accordance with part 2.3.4.7.a and scheduled for ongoing screening once every five years. Ongoing screening shall consist of dry weather screening and sampling consistent with part 2.3.4.7.b; wet weather screening and sampling shall also be required at outfalls where wet weather screening was required due to SVFs and shall be conducted in accordance with part 2.3.4.8.c.ii. All sampling results shall be reported in the permittee’s annual report. MA MS4 General Permit 42 2.3.4.11 Training The permittee shall, at a minimum, annually provide training to employees involved in IDDE program about the program, including how to recognize illicit discharges and SSOs. The permittee shall report on the frequency and type of employee training in the annual report. 2.3.5. Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control Objective: The objective of an effective construction stormwater runoff control program is to minimize or eliminate erosion and maintain sediment on site so that it is not transported in stormwater and allowed to discharge to a water of the U.S through the permittee’s MS4. The construction site stormwater runoff control program required by this permit is a separate and distinct program from EPA’s stormwater construction permit program. (http://cfpub1.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/cgp.cfm) a. Permittees shall implement and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in any stormwater runoff discharged to the MS4 from all construction activities that result in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre within the regulated area. The permittee’s program shall include disturbances less than one acre if that disturbance is part of a larger common plan of development or sale that would disturb one or more acres. Permittees authorized under the MS4-2003 permit shall continue to implement and enforce their existing program and modify as necessary to meet the requirements of this part. b. The permittee does not need to apply its construction program requirements to projects that receive a waiver from EPA under the provisions of 40 CFR § 122.26(b) (15) (i). c. The permittee shall develop and implement a construction site runoff control program that includes the elements in Paragraphs i. through v. of this part: i. An ordinance or regulatory mechanism that requires the use of sediment and erosion control practices at construction sites. In addition to addressing sediment and erosion control, the ordinance must include controls for other wastes on construction sites such as demolition debris, litter and sanitary wastes. Development of an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism was a requirement of the MS4-2003 permit (See part II.B.4 and part IV.B.4).The ordinance or other regulatory mechanism required by the MS4-2003 permit shall have been effective by May 1, 2008. ii. Written (hardcopy or electronic) procedures for site inspections and enforcement of sediment and erosion control measures. If not already existing, these procedures shall be completed within one (1) year from the effective date of the permit. The procedures shall clearly define who is responsible for site inspections as well as who has authority to implement enforcement procedures. The program shall provide that the permittee may, to the extent authorized by law, impose sanctions to ensure compliance with the local program. These procedures and regulatory authorities shall be documented in the SWMP. iii. Requirements for construction site operators performing land disturbance activities within the MS4 jurisdiction that result in stormwater discharges to the MS4 to implement a sediment and erosion control program that includes BMPs appropriate for the conditions at the construction site. The program may include references to BMP Attachment C Proposed Wet Weather Outfall Inspection and Sample Collection Standard Operating Procedure and Form 1 WET WEATHER OUTFALL INSPECTION AND SAMPLE COLLECTION SOP HOPKINTON, MA LNG FACILITY IMPOUNDMENT STORMWATER GRAB SAMPLE Introduction One wet weather stormwater grab sample will be collected per year during the spring (March through June) at the piped outlet of the LNG tank impoundment of the Hopkinton LNG Facility, located at 55 Wilson Street in Hopkinton, MA, and analyzed for field parameters and laboratory analytes as required by the 2016 Massachusetts Small MS4 General Permit section 2.3.4.7.b.iii.4. and described on the Wet Weather Outfall Inspection and Sample Collection Form (attached). Definition of Wet Weather A storm is considered a representative wet weather event if greater than 0.1 inch of rain falls and occurs at least 72 hours after the previously measurable (greater than 0.1 inch of rainfall) storm event. Ideally, the evaluation and any samples collected should occur after the first 30 minutes of discharge (i.e., operation of the pumps) to avoid sampling during the initial period of discharge (“first flush”). Typical practice is to prepare for a wet weather inspection event when weather forecasts show a 40% chance of rain or greater. As the sampling event involves collection of samples for analysis by a laboratory, coordination with the laboratory for bottleware and for sample drop-off needs to occur in advance. Visual Condition Assessment The attached Wet Weather Outfall Inspection and Sample Collection Form should be used to document observations related to the quality of stormwater conveyed by the structure. Observations such as the following can indicate sources of pollution within the storm drain system: • Oil sheen • Discoloration • Trash and debris For any visual observation of pollution in a stormwater outfall discharge, an investigation into the pollution source should occur, but the following are often true: 1. Foam: indicator of upstream vehicle washing activities, or an illicit discharge. 2. Oil sheen: result of a leak or spill. 3. Cloudiness: indicator of suspended solids such as dust, ash, powdered chemicals and ground up materials. 4. Color or odor: Indicator of raw materials, chemicals, or sewage. 5. Excessive sediment: indicator of disturbed earth of other unpaved areas lacking adequate erosion control measures. 6. Sanitary waste and optical enhancers (fluorescent dyes added to laundry detergent): indicators of illicit discharge. 7. Orange staining: indicator of high mineral concentrations. Many of these observations are indicators of an illicit discharge, but several of these indicators may also occur naturally. Orange staining may be the result of naturally occurring iron, and thus unrelated to pollution. Wet Weather Outfall Inspection and Sample Collection SOP Hopkinton, MA LNG Facility Impoundment Stormwater Grab Sample 2 Foam can be formed when the physical characteristics of water are altered by the presence of organic materials. Foam is typically found in waters with high organic content such as bog lakes, streams that originate from bog lakes, productive lakes, wetlands, or woody areas. To determine the difference between natural foam and foam caused by pollution, consider the following: 1. Wind direction or turbulence: often, foam can be found along a shoreline and/or on open waters during windy days. Natural occurrences in rivers can be found downstream of a turbulent site. 2. Proximity to a potential pollution source: some entities including the textile industry, paper production facilities, oil industries, and fire fighting activities work with materials that cause foaming in water. If these materials are released to a water body in large quantities, they can cause foaming. Also, the presence of silt in water, such as from a construction site can cause foam. 3. Feeling: natural foam is typically persistent, light, not slimy to the touch. 4. Presence of decomposing plants or organic material in the water. Both bacteria and petroleum can create a sheen on the water surface. The source of the sheen can be differentiated by disturbing it, such as with a pole. A sheen caused by oil will remain intact and move in a swirl pattern; a sheen caused by bacteria will separate and appear “blocky”. Bacterial or naturally occurring sheens are usually silver or relatively dull in color and will break up into a number of small patches of sheen. The cause may be presence of iron, decomposition of organic material or presence of certain bacteria. Bacterial sheen is not a pollutant but should be noted. The Wet Weather Outfall Inspection and Sample Collection Form includes fields where these and other specific observations can be noted. The inspector shall indicate the presence of a specific water quality indicator or parameter by marking “Yes”. If “Yes” is marked, provide additional details in the comments section. If the indictor in question is not present mark “No”. Within the comments section, provide additional information with regard to recorded precipitation totals, or more detailed descriptions of observations made during the inspection and corrective actions taken. Field Parameter Collection The Wet Weather Outfall Inspection and Sample Collection Form includes fields to document the results of field parameter screening. The Wet Weather Outfall Inspection and Sample Collection Form also provides values for what can be considered an appropriate benchmark for a variety of parameters that can be evaluated during field parameter collection. Analytical Sample Collection Sample collection methods shall follow test procedures outlined in 40 CFR 136. A discrete grab sample can classify water at a distinct point in time. These samples are easily collected and used primarily when the water quality of the discharge is expected to be homogeneous, or unchanging, in nature. Protocols for collecting a grab sample shall include the following: 1. Do not eat, drink or smoke during sample collection and processing. 2. Do not collect or process samples near a running vehicle. Wet Weather Outfall Inspection and Sample Collection SOP Hopkinton, MA LNG Facility Impoundment Stormwater Grab Sample 3 3. Do not park vehicles in the immediate sample collection area, including both running and non-running vehicles. 4. Always wear clean, powder-free nitrile gloves when handling sample containers and lids. 5. Never touch the inside surface of a sample container or lid, even with gloved hands. 6. Never allow the inner surface of a sample container or lid to be contacted by any material other than the sample water. 7. Collect samples while facing upstream and so as not to disturb water or sediments in the outfall pipe. 8. Do not overfill sample containers, and do not dump out any liquid in them. Liquids are often added to sample containers intentionally by the analytical laboratory as a preservative or for pH adjustment. 9. Do not allow any object or material to fall into or contact the collected water sample. 10. Do not allow rainwater to drip from rain gear or other surfaces into sample containers. 11. Replace and tighten sample container lids immediately after sample collection. 12. Accurately label the sample with the time and location. 13. Document on the Wet Weather Outfall Inspection and Sample Collection Form that analytical samples were collected, specify parameters, and note the sample time on the Form. This creates a reference point for samples. Analytical Sample Quality Control and Assurance Upon completion of successful sample collection, the samples must be sent or delivered to a MassDEP-approved laboratory for analytical testing. Quality control and assurance are important to ensuring accurate analytical test results. Sample preservation is required to prevent contaminant degradation between sampling and analysis and should be completed in accordance with 40 CFR 136.3. Coordinate with the laboratory prior to the sampling event to ensure that samples are properly preserved. Maximum acceptable holding times are also specified for each analytical method in 40 CFR 136.3. Holding time is defined as the period of time between sample collection and extraction for analysis of the sample at the laboratory. Holding time is important because prompt laboratory analysis allows the laboratory to review the data and if analytical problems are found, re-analyze the affected samples within the holding times. Chain of custody forms are designed to provide sample submittal information and document transfers of sample custody. The forms are typically provided by the laboratory and must be completed by the field sampling personnel for each sample submitted to the lab for analysis. The document must be signed by both the person releasing the sample and the person receiving the sample every time the sample changes hands. The sampling personnel shall keep one copy of the form and send the remaining copies to the laboratory with the samples. Custody seals, which are dated, signed and affixed to the sample container, may be used if the samples are shipped in a cooler via courier or commercial overnight shipping. Attachments Attachment A: Sample Location Map (Google Earth) Attachment B: Wet Weather Outfall Inspection and Sample Collection Form 4 Attachment A: Sample Location Stormwater sample location is at the piped outfall of the LNG tank impoundment at the Hopkinton LNG Facility shown below, located at 55 Wilson Street in Hopkinton, MA. •Outfall WET WEATHER OUTFALL INSPECTION AND SAMPLE COLLECTION FORM HOPKINTON, MA LNG FACILITY IMPOUNDMENT STORMWATER GRAB SAMPLE Inspector: Date and Time of Inspection: Location of Sample: Piped outfall of impoundment at LNG Facility in Hopkinton, MA Last Rainfall Event Date and Amount: Visual Inspection Yes No Comments (Include probable source of any observed contamination) Color Odor Turbidity Excessive Sediment Sanitary Waste Pet Waste Floatable Solids Oil Sheen Bacterial Sheen Foam Algae Orange Staining Excessive Vegetation Other: _____________________________ Comments: Wet Weather Outfall Inspection and Sample Collection Form Hopkinton, MA LNG Facility Impoundment Stormwater Grab Sample 2 Field Parameters Sample Parameters Benchmark Field Screening Result Notes Temperature > 28.3°C a pH < 6.5 or > 8.3 SI a Oxidation Reduction Potential NA (mV) Specific Conductance NA (mS/cm) Dissolved Oxygen < 5.0 mg/L a a – 314 CMR 4.00, Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards for Class B Warm Water. Classical Chemistry for Laboratory Analysis Sample Parameters Analytical Test Method Benchmark Collected for Laboratory Analysis Notes Ammonia as N 350.1 ≥ 0.5 or ≥ 1.0 mg/L* b Yes No Conductivity 9050A > 2,000 uS/cm c Yes No Salinity 2520B > 0.5 ppt River d Yes No Total Residual Chlorine 4500ClG > Reporting Limit b Yes No Surfactants (MBAS) SUB ≥ 0.25 mg/L b Yes No E. Coli SM9223B ≥ 235 CFU b Yes No *indicator if ammonia is ≥ 0.5 mg/L AND E.coli is ≥ 235 CFU; otherwise, threshold is ≥ 1.0 mg/L b EPA New England Bacterial Source Tracking Protocol c Center for Watershed Protection Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Manual d EPA Voluntary Estuary Monitoring Manual WET WEATHER OUTFALL INSPECTION SURVEY BETA GROUP, INC. 315 Norwood Park South, 2nd Floor, Norwood, MA 02062 P: 781.255.1982 | F: 781.255.1974 | W: www.BETA-Inc.com November 14, 2018 Department of Land Use, Planning, and Permitting Town Hall 18 Main Street, 3rd Floor Hopkinton, MA 01748 Attn: Ms. Georgia Wilson Mr. Don MacAdam, M.S. Principal Planner Conservation Administrator Re: LNG Liquefaction Project, Stormwater Management Permit and Earth Removal Permit Peer Review Update Dear Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam: BETA Group, Inc. reviewed submitted supplemental/revised documents for the proposed LNG Liquefaction Project Stormwater Management Permit in Hopkinton, MA. This letter is provided to update BETA’s findings and recommendations of submitted documents. BASIS OF REVIEW BETA received the following documents:  Response to Comments, dated October 15, 2018 prepared by Tighe & Bond, Westfield, MA  Plans (21 sheets) entitled LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project Hopkinton, Massachusetts Permit Drawings revised to November 2018, prepared by Tighe & Bond, Westfield, MA COMPILED REVIEW LETTER KEY BETA reviewed this project previously and provided review comments in a letter to the Planning Board dated August 31, 2018 (original comments in italic text), Tighe & Bond (T&B) provided responses (responses in standard text), and BETA has provided comments on the status of each (status in bold italic text). PROJECT OVERVIEW The 76.7± acre predominately wooded parcel is located on the west side of Wilson Street. The site is located within Agricultural Zoning (A) District and the Water Resources Protection Overlay District (WRPOD-1). The site is not located within a critical area (MassDEP Approved Zone II). MassDEP Priority Resource Map indicates the project is not located with NHESP estimated habitats of rare wildlife or rare species. The site is located within the 100 year FEMA mapped flood zone (Zone A). NRCS maps indicate soils are Freetown muck with a Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) rating of B/D (moderate/slow infiltration), Hollis-Rock outcrop Charlton complex with HSG A (high infiltration) and D (very slow infiltration), Narragansett-Hollis-Rock outcrop complex with HSG A (high infiltration, Montauk Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam November 13, 2018 Page 2 of 9 fine sandy loam with HSG C (slow infiltration), Paxton fine sandy loam with HSG C (slow infiltration) and Udorthents, loamy (unclassified). The project will directly impact buffer zones to isolated wetland areas. Therefore, the project requires compliance with the Town of Hopkinton Wetland Bylaws. REQUESTED WAIVERS REVIEW The Applicant is not seeking any waivers from the Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Bylaw. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The 76.7± acre site includes two parcels and is located on the east and west sides of Wilson Street, south of Rafferty Road. The project site includes the existing LNG facility as well as the area to the south of the existing facility, which has been previously disturbed from construction of the adjacent facility and some wooded area. As mentioned above, NRCS maps indicate soils with a range of infiltration rates from A (high infiltration) to D (very slow infiltration). Runoff from the site drains to multiple areas across the site. The project area includes isolated wetlands within the central portion of the site. The project proposes work within regulated wetland resource areas. The proposed stormwater management design includes capturing pavement runoff through deep sump catch basins with hoods, proprietary treatment devices and one new detention basin with a sediment forebay. The Stormwater Management Report includes geotechnical test pit data conducted at the proposed location of the detention basin. There will be a net increase of impervious area at the site of approximately 182,700 square feet (4.2± acres). The site is not within the 100-Year FEMA Flood. The project will disturb greater than one acre of land and is subject to the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards, Chapter 172 Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Bylaw of the Town of Hopkinton and Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations. From Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations SW1. Include the existing zoning and land use at the site and abutting properties on the Existing Conditions Plan (Appendix B, No. 5.). T&B: Zoning and land use information is included on the revised drawings. BETA2: Abutter information provided, and no change in land use is proposed – issue resolved. SW2. Show the location(s) of existing and proposed easements on the plans (Appendix B, No. 7.). T&B: An existing easement to Tenneco is shown on the Existing Conditions Plans. There are no proposed easements required for the project. BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved. SW3. Provide locations for proposed snow storage (Appendix B, No. 16.g.). T&B: Snow storage areas are provided on the revised drawings. BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved. SW4. Include a landscape plan within the Stormwater Management Plan describing the woody and herbaceous vegetative stabilization and management techniques to be used within and adjacent to the stormwater practice as listed in Appendix B, No. 20. T&B: Landscape planting information for the infiltration basin area is included with the revised drawings. BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved. Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam November 13, 2018 Page 3 of 9 General SW5. Extend plan views to the north to show all catch basins on Wilson Street relevant to the project area. Extended view should also show the connection of existing storm drains from the fire pond and swale to the north. T&B: Existing catch basins within Wilson Street are to remain and not anticipated to function substantially different under proposed conditions. No work is to occur within Wilson Street outside of the two existing curb cuts to the facility,which both drain westerly toward the project site. However, additional field reconnaissance was conducted to identify locations of any existing storm drain infrastructure within Wilson Street in the vicinity of the project area and additional information is provided on the revised drawings. BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved. SW6. Label the existing open concrete drainage trench located near the loading dock as well as the existing utility poles and overhead wires located near the fire pond on the plans. T&B: Additional notation is provided on the revised drawings. The existing utility poles and overhead electric service located near the fire pond are shown on Sheet C-1.02 of the plans as to be removed. BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved. SW7. Provide clarification on existing (apparent) catch basin within the proposed access road area directly to the east of the fire pond. T&B: The existing catch basin is located within Wilson Street. An overhead wire connection to the guard house appears to originate from the catch basin label; however, no catch basin exists at the guard house. BETA2: Clarification provided – issue resolved. SW8. Provide a brief narrative of the design intent for the swale adjacent to the Gas Turbine/N2 Compressor Building. Include source(s) and type(s) of discharge, any proposed treatment and relevant design details of swale. T&B: The LNG swale located north of the Gas Turbine/N2 Compressor Building is a federal code requirement to provide dual containment for LNG pipelines. The purpose of the concrete swale is not for stormwater, but for any leaks from the LNG pipeline which traverses over the swale to the Gas Turbine building. This swale is designed by the LNG engineers and is not a component of the stormwater management system. BETA2: Clarification provided – issue resolved. SW9. Clearly define limits of proposed curb on the plans. Consider proposing curbs on the south side of the new gravel surface area near the flare stack to prevent stormwater from running off site to the south. T&B: Additional clarification is provided to the revised drawings. The intent is for all access roads to be equipped with curbing. BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved. SW10. Provide existing invert elevations for stormwater system from fire pond to existing swale near FES-1. T&B: The existing fire pond does not discharge to the existing swale. The fire pond discharges northerly to an area adjacent to Wilson Road, outside of the LNG facility. Additional invert information is provided on the revised drawings.BETA2: Clarification provided – issue resolved. SW11. Label curb/pavement detail on sheet C-5.01. T&B: Additional clarification is provided on the revised drawings.BETA2: Refer to comment SW9 above. MASSACHUSETTS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STANDARDS: The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards (Stormwater Regulations (SWR) 7.0). The following are the 10 standards and relative compliance provided by the submitted documentation. Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam November 13, 2018 Page 4 of 9 No untreated stormwater (Standard Number 1): No new stormwater conveyances (e.g., outfalls) may discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth. The proposed project includes deep sump catch basins with hoods, proprietary treatment devices and one new detention basin with a sediment forebay to capture and treat stormwater on site. SW12. Provide calculations for rip rap sizing to demonstrate that the proposed stormwater management design will not cause erosion. T&B: Rip rap sizing calculations is provided in the Stormwater Management Revisions memorandum. BETA2: Calculations provided – issue resolved. Post-development peak discharge rates (Standard Number 2): Stormwater management systems must be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates. Calculations have been provided to demonstrate that post-development peak discharge rates will not exceed pre-development rates, with the exception of Design Point 4: Northeast for the 2-year storm and 100-year storm as well as Design Point 6: Isolated Wetlands for the 100-year storm. The Applicant notes that the increase in peak runoff for Design Point 4 is largely due to the formalization of stormwater controls on site (from overland flow to channelized flow via catch basins and pipes). A volumetric analysis was performed in Table 3.3 of the Stormwater Report to show existing and proposed runoff volumes for the 100-year storm. The Applicant has noted that no impact to downstream areas are anticipated given the increase in stormwater runoff from the 100-year storm due to the location of the Design Point 4, which is in a depressed area west of Wilson Road. SW13. Clearly define all final surfaces on the plans for existing and proposed conditions (including, but not limited to, gravel, grass and pavements). T&B: Additional notation is provided on the revised drawings to further clarify final surface treatments throughout the project.BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved. Recharge to groundwater (Standard Number 3): Loss of annual recharge to groundwater should be minimized through the use of infiltration measures to maximum extent practicable. The project includes directing runoff to an infiltration basin. SW14. BETA recommends revising the wording for “detention basin” to “infiltration basin” if the intent of the design is to infiltrate stormwater rather than to control flow. T&B: The drawings and Stormwater Management Revisions memorandum have been revised to reflect the intent of the basin to function as an “infiltration basin”. BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved. SW15. For soil borings and test pits conducted during non-seasonal high groundwater months (April- May), utilize the Frimpter method (Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook, Volume 2, Chapter 2 page 90). T&B: Per MSWH, V2, Ch 2, p90, seasonal high groundwater table can be estimated based on soil mottles, and the Frimpter method should be used to estimate seasonal high groundwater if it is difficult to determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation from the borings or test pits. Additional test pits were performed on September 24, 2018 to further explore soil and groundwater conditions within the infiltration basin limits. Results of those explorations and further groundwater determinations are provided in the Stormwater Management Revisions memorandum. BETA2: Revised soil data provided – issue resolved. SW16. Conduct a minimum of one soil boring or one test pit for every 5,000 square feet of basin area, with a minimum of three borings for each infiltration basin (MSWH, V2, Ch2 p89). T&B: Additional subsurface explorations were performed on September 24, 2018. Results of those Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam November 13, 2018 Page 5 of 9 explorations are provided in the Stormwater Management Revisions memorandum. Due to the known presence of fill placed during the construction of the existing LNG facility, and the excavation necessary to construct the stormwater basin, the test pits were located in the northern portion of the basin, where existing ground elevations are lowest. This is necessary in order to excavate to relative depths of the infiltration system.BETA2: Additional test pits provided – issue resolved. SW17. Show soil types on existing and proposed drainage maps. T&B: Revised existing and proposed drainage area maps, including soil type information, are provided in the Stormwater Management Revisions memorandum.BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved. SW18. Provide a monitoring well in the infiltration basin (Structural BMP Specifications for the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook, Volume 2, Chapter 2 page 91). T&B: A monitoring well is included within the infiltration basin. Details are provided on the revised drawings.BETA2: Provide detail. SW19. Include a draw down device within the infiltration basin for maintenance purposes. T&B: Additional drawdown infrastructure is incorporated into the revised drawings. BETA2: Provide detail. SW20. Provide interim contour for top of proposed detention basin to indicate a minimum width of 5 feet at least 1 foot of freeboard above 100 year peak elevation. T&B: Modifications to the infiltration basin grading have been incorporated to achieve a minimum of 1-foot of freeboard above the 100-year storm event. Revised calculations are provided in the Stormwater Management Revisions memorandum.BETA2: Plan revised – issue resolved. SW21. Consider redirecting emergency overflow of stormwater runoff to the west of the proposed infiltration basin to avoid flow over the access road. T&B: The emergency overflow spillway has been redirected northwesterly to avoid crossing of the access road.BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved. 80% TSS Removal (Standard Number 4): For new development, stormwater management systems must be designed to remove 80% of the annual load of Total Suspended Solids. The proposed treatment trains have been described within the stormwater report, including TSS removal rates. SW22. Provide TSS removal calculation worksheets for each treatment train. T&B: TSS removal calculations for each treatment train are provided in the attached Stormwater Management Revisions memorandum.BETA2: Calculations provided – issue resolved. Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (Standard Number 5): Stormwater discharges from Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads require the use of specific stormwater management BMPs. The proposed project site is considered a LUHPPL. The proposed project plans to implement proprietary treatment devices to capture and pre-treat the required water quality volume for the site – standard has been met. Critical Areas (Standard Number 6): Stormwater discharges to critical areas must utilize certain stormwater management BMPs approved for critical areas. The proposed project does not discharge stormwater to critical areas – standard does not apply. Redevelopment (Standard Number 7): Redevelopment of previously developed sites must meet the Stormwater Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable. The project site includes the existing LNG facility as well as an area that has been disturbed by adjacent construction activities. The Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam November 13, 2018 Page 6 of 9 proposed project is considered a partial redevelopment and includes a net increase of approximately 182,700 square feet (4.2± acres). The project includes BMPs to capture and treat stormwater runoff on site to the maximum extent practicable – standard will be met if all comments are addressed. Construction Period Erosion and Sediment Controls (Standard Number 8): Erosion and sediment controls must be implemented to prevent impacts during construction or land disturbance activities. An existing conditions and demolition plan, showing erosion and sediment controls was provided for review. Also a draft stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) was provided for review. SW23. Revise erosion control barrier to provide a minimum of 12 inch diameter straw wattle. T&B: The erosion control barrier detail has been revised to reflect this requirement. BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved. SW24. Show temporary stockpile location(s) with associated erosion controls. T&B: Temporary stockpiles will be located in the area marked as “construction staging area” on the plans. As described in Section 4.2.2 of the Stormwater Management and Earth Removal Permit Application section, any stockpiles of gravel or other construction-related materials and equipment will be stored away from the Buffer Zone to prevent impacting the resource areas. Soil stockpiles will have protective measures (e.g., siltation fence and/or hay bales) around the perimeter of the stockpile.BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved. SW25. Provide provisions to protect the infiltrative capacity of the infiltration basin through construction period (for example, if infiltration basin is to be used as a temporary sediment basin limit initial excavation to 6 to 12 inches above finish grade and once site is stabilized return to excavate remaining soil and accumulated sediment prior to loaming and seeding). T&B: Additional narrative has been provided on the revised drawings to protect the infiltrative capacity of the infiltration basin. BETA2: BETA recommends a condition to include notation on the final plans to limit initial excavation of the proposed infiltration basin to be used as a temporary sediment basin to 6 to 12 inches above finish grade and once the site is stabilized, return to excavate remaining soil and accumulated sediment prior to loaming and seeding. SW26. Provide a separate Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Site Map or include the following items on the Existing Conditions and Demolition Plans as listed in Appendix C., No. 2: a. Direction(s) of storm water flow and approximate slopes anticipated after major grading activities. b. Locations for storage of materials, waste, vehicles, equipment, soil, snow and other potential pollutants. c. Location of any stormwater discharge associated with industrial activity other than construction at the site. T&B: An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan is provided with the revised drawings. BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved. SW27. Incorporate in the plan notes the specific erosion and sediment control criteria as listed in Appendix F, No. 2. T&B: While this information is contained in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan is provided as part of the revised drawings documenting required erosion and sediment control practices. BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved. Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam November 13, 2018 Page 7 of 9 SW28. BETA recommends a condition be included that requires the submission of the final SWPPP prior to construction. T&B: The Proponent agrees to provide a copy of the final SWPPP to the Planning Board prior to the start of construction. BETA2: Include condition. Operations/maintenance plan (Standard Number 9): A long-Term Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be developed and implemented to ensure that stormwater management systems function as designed. A Long-term Operation and Maintenance Plan was provided for review. SW29. Include a Maintenance Agreement for all stormwater maintenance facilities in accordance with Appendix D, No. 3. T&B: A revised O&M Plan is provided in the Stormwater Management Revisions memorandum and includes the information required by the Town of Hopkinton Stormwater Regulations Appendix D, No. 3 as follows: a. The names, addresses, and daytime telephone numbers of the Responsible Parties are provided in Section 2: Responsible Parties on page 2-1. When subcontractors are selected for the project, the Responsible Parties section contact information will be updated and provided to the Town. b. The person(s) responsible for financing maintenance and emergency repairs is Hopkinton LNG Corporation c/o Eversource Energy, with contact information provided in Section 2: Responsible Parties on page 2-1. c. An Inspection and Maintenance schedule including routine and non-routine maintenance tasks to be performed is provided in Section 4: Stormwater Management System, subsection 4.1 Inspections, with inspection frequencies and descriptions provided for stormwater management system features. d. A list of easements with the purpose and location of each is not applicable. e. Provisions for the Planning Board or its designee to enter the property at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner for the purpose of inspection is provided in Section 4: Stormwater Management System, subsection 4.1 Inspections on page 4-1. f. The signature(s) of the owner(s) BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved. Illicit Discharges (Standard Number 10): All illicit discharges to the stormwater management systems are prohibited. A draft illicit discharge statement was provided. SW1. Provide a signed Illicit Discharge Statement. T&B: A signed Illicit Discharge Statement is provided in the Stormwater Management Revisions memorandum to this response. BETA2: A signed Illicit Discharge Statement provided – issue resolved. WETLANDS The proposed site includes four isolated wetlands within the central portion of the site. Work is proposed within the 100’ foot wetland buffer. The Applicant has submitted a Notice of Intent for proposed work within the wetland area. W1. Confirm that the proposed project will not significantly change to or adversely impact each of the existing wetland areas within the site by altering the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff. T&B: Existing on-site Isolated Vegetated Wetlands (IVWs) 3A, 4A, and 5A, which are Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam November 13, 2018 Page 8 of 9 located in the central portion of the project, will not experience a substantial hydrologic change as a result of the proposed project. The majority of the contributing drainage area originates from southeast of the wetlands, comprised of woodland with small areas of previously disturbed land. Under proposed conditions, a portion of the woodland will be converted to grass temporarily to serve as the construction staging area; however, this area will be allowed to revegetate and will not remain as maintained lawn. Additional mitigation measures are proposed with the inclusion of plantings within the 100-foot buffer zone to the IVWs. At this time, specific plant species are not proposed; however, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Planning Board consider a condition of approval to require specific plant species prior to construction. Planting locations are provided on the revised drawings. Additional information regarding the quantity of quality of stormwater runoff to the IVWs is provided in the previously issued Stormwater Management Report. BETA2: Confirmation provided – issue resolved. EARTH REMOVAL An Earth Removal application has been submitted in conjunction with the Stormwater Management application. BETA received the Earth Removal Application on August 6, 2018 with corresponding plans as listed above under Basis of Review. E1. Provide estimated volume of anticipated earth removal for this project to be able to better understand potential impacts to roads and neighborhood due to truck traffic. T&B: While the project includes substantial earth movement on-site, it not anticipated that a substantial quantity will be removed from the site. Clean material will be placed within the property limits to the maximum extent practicable. Based on a preliminary cut/fill evaluation, approximately 25,800 cubic yards will be excavated from the project limits. The project will require approximately 35,400 cubic yards of fill, indicating that the site will be a net import project. Any unsuitable materials encountered will be hauled off site and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations; however, the quantity of this material cannot yet be determined. BETA2: Numbers indicate that the project will require a minimum of approximately 10,000 cubic yards of fill. This will require 500 to a 1,000 truckloads on local roads. Provide information on proposed truck routes. The Board and DPW may want to include a condition requiring monitoring (photographic survey) prior to and upon completion earthwork operations and repair road if damage is observed. T&B2: Traffic impacts were assessed as part of the Department of Public Utility proceedings. Field observations and conversations with Eversource indicate that Legacy Farms Road North is generally considered as the primary access to the Site, especially for heavy vehicles, as Wilson Street is winding and narrow in cross-section. Regional access is provided via interchange 21 on Interstate 495 (I-495), located approximately 3.3 miles southwest of the Site. There are no posted truck restrictions on Wilson Street or Legacy Farms Road North. However, given the roadway configuration and adjacent land uses, it is expected that Eversource would continue to use Legacy Farms Road North for construction truck access. Based on preliminary review, the potential truck routes available for the Site are shown in Figure 1. The route to/from I-495 (Exit 21) on West Main Street is the shortest (3.3 miles long) and is not affected by any apparent weight or vertical clearance restrictions, but requires turning movements at the Route 135/Route 85 signalized intersection. A bridge weight limit restriction exists to the south in Milford at the location of a crossing over the Charles River. If Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam November 13, 2018 Page 9 of 9 delivery trucks do not exceed the specified bridge weight limit, they could use Exit 20 on I-495 to avoid turning at the Route 135/Route 85 intersection. This route requires an approximately 6.2-mile travel on local roads. A low bridge clearance (11 feet maximum) restriction at a railroad bridge crossing over Route 85 in Southborough precludes truck access to/from the north on Route 85. This work will be spread over a minimum 4 week duration; therefore, the number of round trips anticipated for this effort are around 40 trucks per day. This is not expected to be a significant impact as the average daily traffic (ADT) counted on the roadways is as follows. a. East Main Street (Route 135) near Wilson Street: 13,830 vehicles per day b. Cedar Street (Route 85) near Legacy Farms Road North: 7,780 vehicles per day c. Legacy Farms Road North near Route 85: 1,050 vehicles per day BETA3: BETA defers to the Board on this issue. E2. Include a provision for providing 8” of loam and seed over the entire area where removal has taken place (§96-3.C.). T&B: Post-construction, the cleared and grubbed areas will be loamed and seeded with New England Plants New England Conservation/Wildlife mix. This information has been added to the revised drawings. BETA2: Plans revised – issue resolved. If we can be of any further assistance regarding this matter, please contact us at our office. Very truly yours, BETA Group, Inc. Jillian Bokoff Philip F Paradis, Jr., PE Staff Engineer Associate O:\6100s\6123 - Hopkinton - LNG Liquefaction Project\Engineering\Reports\LNG Liquefaction Stormwater Review 11-14-2018.docx For 12/17/18 Meeting Stormwater Management Permit Draft Conditions 52 & 55 Wilson Street - LNG Replacement Project 1. All erosion and sediment controls shall comply with the following performance criteria: A. Minimize total area of disturbance and protect natural features and soil. B. Sequence activities to minimize simultaneous areas of disturbance. Mass clearings and grading of the entire site shall be avoided. C. Minimize peak rate of runoff in accordance with the Massachusetts Stormwater Standards. D. Minimize soil erosion and control sedimentation during construction, provided that prevention of erosion is preferred over sedimentation control. E. Divert uncontaminated water around disturbed areas. F. Maximize groundwater recharge. G. Install and maintain all Erosion and Sediment Control measures in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and good engineering practices. H. Prevent off-site transport of sediment. I. Protect and manage on and off-site material storage areas (overburden and stockpiles of dirt, borrow areas, or other areas used solely by the permitted project are considered a part of the project). J. Comply with applicable Federal, State and local laws and regulations including waste disposal, sanitary sewer or septic system regulations, and air quality requirements, including dust control. K. Prevent significant alteration of habitats mapped by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program as Endangered, Threatened or Of Special Concern, Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife and Certified Vernal Pools, and Priority Habitats of Rare Species from the proposed activities. L. Institute interim and permanent stabilization measures, which shall be instituted on a disturbed area as soon as practicable but no more than 14 days after construction activity has temporarily or permanently ceased on that portion of the site. M. Properly manage on-site construction and waste materials. N. Prevent off-site vehicle tracking of sediments. O. Dust shall be controlled at the site. P. Divert offsite runoff from highly erodible soils and steep slopes to stable areas. 2. The project shall comply with the following Erosion and Sediment Control requirements: A. Prior to any land disturbance activities commencing on the site, the developer shall physically mark limits of no land disturbance on the site with tape, signs, or orange construction fence, so that workers can see the areas to be protected. The physical markers shall remain in place until a Certificate of Completion has been issued. B. Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed prior to soil disturbance. Measures shall be taken to control erosion within the project area. Sediment in runoff water shall be trapped and retained within the project area. Wetland areas and surface waters shall be protected from sediment. C. Sediment shall be removed once the volume reaches ¼ to ½ the height of a hay bale. Sediment shall be removed from silt fence prior to reaching the load-bearing capacity of the silt fence which may be lower than ¼ to ½ the height. D. Sediment from sediment traps or sedimentation ponds shall be removed when design capacity has been reduced by 50 percent. E. Soil stockpiles must be stabilized or covered at the end of each workday. Stockpile side slopes shall not be greater than 2:1. All stockpiles shall be surrounded by sediment controls. F. Disturbed areas remaining idle for more than 14 days shall be stabilized with seeding, wood chips, bark mulch, tarpaulins, or any other approved methods. G. For active construction areas such as borrow or stockpile areas, roadway improvements and areas within 50 feet of a building under construction, a perimeter sediment control system shall be installed and maintained to contain soil. H. A tracking pad or other approved stabilization method shall be constructed at all entrance/exit points of the site to reduce the amount of soil carried onto roadways and off the site. I. Permanent seeding shall be undertaken in the spring from March through May, and in late summer and early fall from August to October 15. During the peak summer months and in the fall after October 15, when seeding is found to be impractical, appropriate temporary stabilization shall be applied. Permanent seeding may be undertaken during the summer if plans provide for adequate mulching and watering. J. All slopes steeper than 3:1 (h:v, 33.3%), as well as perimeter dikes, sediment basins or traps, and embankments must, upon completion, be immediately stabilized with sod, seed and anchored straw mulch, or other approved stabilization measures. Areas outside of the perimeter sediment control system must not be disturbed. K. Temporary sediment trapping devices must not be removed until permanent stabilization is established in all contributory drainage areas. L. All temporary erosion and sediment control measures shall be removed after final site stabilization. Disturbed soil areas resulting from the removal of temporary measures shall be permanently stabilized within 30 days of removal. 3. A minimum of seven days prior to the start of construction, a detailed construction sequence shall be submitted to the Principal Planner by the site contractor for review and approval. The approved construction sequence shall be followed throughout the course of the construction and shall be altered only with prior review by and written approval from the Principal Planner. 4. A copy of the signed Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall be provided to the Board prior to construction. 5. All required SWPPP Stormwater Construction Site Inspection Reports shall be submitted to the Principal Planner within 14 days of each inspection. 6. An adequate stockpile of erosion control materials shall be on site at all times for emergency or routine replacement and shall include materials to repair or replace silt fences, hay bales, stone filters, berms or any other devices planned for use during construction. 7. The disturbed area shall be temporarily stabilized by hydroseeding if construction of the replacement LNG facility is not commenced within 30 days of lot clearing. 8. Initial excavation of the proposed stormwater infiltration basin that is to be used as a temporary sediment basin during construction shall be limited to 6 to 12 inches above finish grade and once the site is stabilized, the remaining soil and accumulated sediment shall be excavated prior to laying loam and seed. A note specifying this condition shall be provided on the final plans. 9. Construction shall not commence until all required permits and approvals have been obtained. 10. Upon permit approval, a wet weather stormwater grab sample shall be collected once per year, for three years. The stormwater grab sample shall be collected during the spring (March through June) at the piped outlet of the LNG tank impoundment of the Hopkinton LNG facility. All collected samples shall be analyzed for field parameters and laboratory analytes as required by the 2016 Massachusetts Small MS4 General Permit section 2.3.4.7.b.iii.4. and as described on the Wet Weather Outfall Inspection and Sample Collection Form that was submitted under the permit application. Following yearly testing, a Wet Weather Outfall Inspection and Sample Collection Form shall be provided to the Planning Board. For 12/17/18 Meeting Earth Removal Permit Draft Conditions 52 & 55 Wilson Street – LNG Replacement Project 1. The duration of the permit shall be for 24 months, which shall start on the date that earth removal activity commences. The Applicant shall notify the Planning Board and the Earth Removal Agent in writing of the commencement date, at least 48 hours in advance. 2. Earth removal activity shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, and 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM on Saturday. 3. The permit is not assignable. 4. The Applicant shall post a bond or make a deposit with the Town in the amount of $10,000 to guarantee conformity with the provisions or conditions of the permit. The guarantee shall be deposited with the Town prior to commencement of operations under this permit. The Town may use the bond or deposit in the event that the Applicant does not comply with all of the terms and conditions of the permit and complete all restoration in a manner satisfactory to the Board and in accordance with the permit; significant public safety hazards exist which will not be addressed by the Applicant; or material environmental damage has resulted from the earth removal activity and remediation will not be addressed by the Applicant in a manner satisfactory to the Board. 5. The Applicant shall submit a photographic survey of Wilson Street and Legacy Farms Road North (old Rafferty Road) in the vicinity of the project prior to and upon completion of earthwork activity. The photographic survey shall clearly show the conditions of the roadways that are to be used during the project before and after earthwork activity commences. 6. In the event that any of the permit conditions are not faithfully observed and performed, the Board shall have the authority to revoke the permit at any time, in accordance with the provisions of the Earth Removal Bylaw. 7. Earth removal activities shall not commence until all required permits and approvals have been obtained. ++EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURE (TYP)0.4 FOOT CANDLE0.2 FOOT CANDLE0.0 FOOT CANDLE++++EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURE0.4 FOOT CANDLE0.2 FOOT CANDLE0.0 FOOT CANDLE0.6 FOOT CANDLE0.6 FOOT CANDLEEXISTING LIGHT FIXTURE (TYP)EXISTING LIGHT FIXTURE0.4 FOOT CANDLE0.2 FOOT CANDLE0.0 FOOT CANDLEDAVENPORT VILLAGECONDOMINIUMSHOPKINTON, MALANDSCAPE ARCHITECTREGISTEREDM.J. MRVALANDSCAPE ARCHITECTMASSACHUSETTS No. 1217RHODE ISLAND No. 419NEW YORK No. 002359NEW HAMPSHIRE No. 109352 TURNPIKE ROADSOUTHBOROUGH, MAPhone: (508) 480-9900CONCEPT LAYOUT PLAN NOTES1.THIS PLAN HAS BEEN PREPARED BASED ON REFERENCES INCLUDING:-GOOGLE AERIAL IMAGERY-SURVEY PROVIDED BY J.D MARQUEDANT & ASSOCIATES INC LAND SURVEYING, SURVEY DATE: 12/12/2017-LIGHTING STUDY PREFORMED BY BOHLER, DATE: 03/27/2018 AT 8:00PM2.EXACT LOCATION OF PROPOSED BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENTS MUST BE CONFIRMED AND EVALUATED UPONCOMPLETION OF SURVEY.3.THIS PLAN IS INTENDED FOR CONCEPTUAL REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY. THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON ISBASED UPON INFORMATION THAT WAS SUPPLIED TO OUR OFFICE AT THE TIME OF PLAN PREPARATION AND MAY BESUBJECT TO CHANGE AND MUST BE UPDATED UPON PERFORMANCE OF A SURVEY.1"=20'02051020PHOTOMETRIC LIGHTING PLANDATE: 03/29/2018SCALE: 1"=20'PROJECT #: W181045LIGHT FIXTURE Steven G. Cosmos____________________________ Registered Landscape Architect 5 Longview Street Natick, MA 01760 www.cosmosassociates.com June 4, 2018 David Cannon | President SVN | Parsons Commercial Group | BOSTON 1881 Worcester Road, Suite 200, Framingham MA 01701 Re: As-Built Landscape Plan- Davenport Village, Hopkinton Dear David, Please find the attached up-dated As-built Landscape Plan as requested. The plan reflects the current conditions at the site and should fulfill the Town’s requirements per plan specifications. Two shade trees were changed from Honey locust to Liberty Elm due to lack of availability. Four Norway Spruce are in poor condition, but we agreed to see if they come back before requiring replacements. They are still under Contractor warranty. Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, Steven Cosmos Mass. R.L.A. #1017 Planning Board 1-8-18 Minutes 6. Hayden Woods (aka Davenport Village) – Request for Bond Release Victor Galvani, Parsons Commercial Group, developer of the Hayden Woods/Davenport Village Garden Apartment development, stated the project has been essentially completed, and he would like to request the release of the performance guarantee held by the Town. He noted as part of the process BETA Group conducted a site visit and issued a report, and he offered to discuss the items identified as outstanding. Ms. Burke noted BETA requested changes to the as-built plan, among other things, and Mr. Galvani stated according to his engineer the changes don’t seem to be cumbersome. Ms. Burke noted it was found that the sidewalk was constructed with bituminous concrete instead of porous material although the Board did not approve this change. She stated she is not asking the developer to rip up the sidewalk, but they have to make sure that the detention basin still works properly. Ms. Burke noted the Board approved changes to sidewalk layout and landscaping about a year ago, but she could not find anything in the meeting minutes or the file about allowing the use of impervious material. Mr. Galvani noted it appears BETA based their comments on the plan approved in 2013. Mr. DUrso asked if this triggers Conservation Commission (ConCom) review, and Ms. Burke noted that most if not all of the area in question is in the buffer zone, and the change should have been the subject of a project change, but she did not have enough time to check. Ms. Burke referred to BETA’s comment regarding the private sewer system. She noted she spoke to the Bd. of Health about this, and they are satisfied. She stated BETA also questioned whether all manholes were successfully vacuum tested, and Mr. Galvani noted the results will be verified later this week. It was noted there is an additional fire hydrant which is not shown on the plan, but it was installed in compliance with the Water Dept. spacing requirements. Ms. Burke noted apparently BETA at first was not looking at the most recent landscape plan, but now agrees that the plantings were installed correctly. Ms. Burke stated it was determined the developer installed 3 additional lights without permission. Mr. Galvani noted he discussed this with Mr. Burke today, and the additional lights were installed for safety reasons. He noted the residents were nervous about the lighting levels in that location and he felt this was the right thing to do. Mr. Ferrari noted the developer should have known that prior approval is required for that type of change. He referred to a similar issue with this development involving the stone wall at the entrance, and Ms. Burke noted the developer rectified that situation. Ms. Burke noted BETA was not able to check on the access drives to the drainage swale and basin because of the snow, and it was determined they were installed as required. Ms. Burke noted the Bd. of Health agent is satisfied with respect to the installation of the soil absorption system. Ms. Burke noted the Town holds a $258,600 performance bond to guarantee completion per approved plan, and she is not sure if releasing the bond would be appropriate now. Mr. Kistner noted he feels the bond should remain in place because the developer should have known better and be held to the same criteria as everyone else. Ms. Ritterbusch stated it appears the sidewalk is the main issue and asked how soon the developer can get their engineer to work on that. Joe Marquedant, the applicant’s surveyor, arrived at this time, and noted it should not take long to take a look at this issue. He noted the stormwater system was designed using best management practices and he feels it will function adequately whether the sidewalk has a porous or impervious surface. Mr. Kistner noted the Town strictly enforces its lighting regulations and the new stormwater criteria are as stringent as they have ever been, and he feels these items have to be resolved before the bond is released. Mr. DeYoung agreed. Mr. Ferrari recommended not releasing the performance guarantee until a) the developer comes back to amend the plan with respect to the sidewalk and lighting, or b) rectify the conditions in compliance with the approved plan. He noted after either one of these options have been followed, the Board will reconsider the request for bond release and vote on it at that time. Thomas Garabedian, 5 Davenport Ln., noted he won’t speak to procedure but agrees the developer should have followed the rules. Mr. Garabedian noted additional lighting along the access road is absolutely needed for safety reasons, and with respect to the sidewalk the developer should request a modification to the plan after the fact. Mr. Ferrari noted the developer is obligated to follow the approved plan and the Board has to be consistent. He noted the Board historically is open to forgiveness and he is not saying the changes won’t be approved. Mr. Garabedian noted the area is in the ConCom’s jurisdiction and the applicant should have followed proper procedure, but they are looking to turn the development over to the homeowners association relatively soon, not 6 months from now. He stated the residents at this point are left at the developer’s mercy with respect to services and contracts are not followed. Ms. Burke stated those types of issues are between the developer and the homeowners. Ms. Burke noted the Board does not have to take any action on the request if it does not want to reduce/release the bond. Mr. Kistner noted he has been on the Board for a couple of years, and this type of thing keeps happening. Mr. D’Urso noted in all fairness the project goes back quite a while, and Mr. Kistner noted the current owners bought the development with all approvals and conditions in place. Mr. Ferrari encouraged Mr. Galvani to submit a formal request for the changes made already, including stormwater calculations if necessary. MEMORANDUM BETA GROUP, INC. www.BETA-Inc.com BETA recently observed construction operations to enlarge the existing stormwater management basin on October 25, 2018 and November 9, 2018 at the project entitled Hayden Woods (aka Davenport Village). Reports were provided to the Town indicating that the pond had been constructed according to plan with the understanding that the storage volume of the pond would still need to be verified. BETA received a revised As-built plan prepared by J.D. Marquedant & Associates, dated November 26, 2018, and a letter from Mark F. Piermarini, PE, dated November 20, 2018, certifying that the constructed pond volume meets or exceeds that of the pond on the Approved Plans. Following independent comparison of the Approved Plans, dated June 21, 2013 and revised to March 6, 2014, and the revised As-built plan, BETA is in agreement with the Engineer’s assertion. As noted in BETA’s Observation Report 46, permanent fencing will need to be installed around the revised limits of the stormwater basin (if not done so already). Also, disturbed areas should be observed in the spring to confirm that recently placed seed has germinated and an acceptable ground cover has been established for stabilization. BETA previously performed a Final Conformance Observation (Report 47 dated 12-29-17) and noted a number of items that should be reflected on the As-built plan. With the exception of contour information for the stormwater basin and lamp at Sta. 0+25, the requested items were not included on the most recent As-built. BETA did however witness successful testing of Sewer Manholes 4 and 6, which were noted to have not been successfully tested at the time of the report. Date: December 07, 2018 Job No.: 5002 To: Ms. Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner Cc: File From: Matt Crowley, PE, Senior Project Engineer Subject: Hayden Woods As-built Review Ref: O:\5000s\5002 - Hopkinton - Hayden Woods Construction\Const Services\Reports\2018-12-07 Hayden Woods Close-Out Memorandum.docx TOWN OF HOPKINTON - SITE OBSERVATION REPORT Hayden Woods 1 of 7 Report No.: 5002-44 Date: Friday 12/29/17 Arrive: 3:15 PM Observer: Matt Crowley, PE Weather: Clear, ~10 Leave 4:15 PM Owner: William Perkins 92 Evans Drive Stoughton, MA 02072 Contractor: Canesi Brothers Construction, Inc. 801 Union Street Franklin, MA 02038 Bill Canesi 508-922-2518 Items Observed: Final Conformance Observation OBSERVATIONS Observation Requested By: Town of Hopkinton Met/walked site with: N/A Current Activity on Site: No Current Activity Observed Construction: BETA arrived on-site to perform a final conformance observation in accordance with the Approved Plans, dated June 21, 2013 and revised to March 6, 2014. An As-Built Plan dated December 12, 2017 was provided to BETA via email. BETA noted that the site was constructed in general conformance with the Approved Plans with the following notations:  As-built plans should be revised to include the following: o Contour information for the detention basin to verify design volume o Invert information for the drainage and sewer infrastructure o Installed water line and valves o Hydrants installed at approximate Stations 7+00 LT and 12+00 LT o Installed lamp at approximate Station 0+25 LT  Sidewalks have been constructed with impervious materials (Approved Plans call for porous sidewalk). During sidewalk installation operations the Contractor stated that the Planning Board issued a waiver allowing the construction of conventional impervious sidewalks.  The proposed sewer infrastructure has been modified from the Approved Plans and was installed per plans submitted to the Board of Health, dated September 5, 2013 and revised to May 12, 2015. It is BETA’s understanding that revisions are primarily related to structure location and flow direction and do not fundamentally change the design concept.  BETA’s records do not indicate successful vacuum testing of Sewer Manhole 4 and Sewer Manhole 6. The Contractor has indicated that he believes the manholes were retested successfully but he would need to confirm through his records. BETA is awaiting confirmation. Hayden Woods - Hopkinton Site Observation Report No. 44 December 29, 2017 2 of 7  An additional fire hydrant was installed at approximate Station 7+00 to be in compliance with Town of Hopkinton Water Department Regulations for hydrant spacing.  BETA did not perform a comprehensive review of installed plantings but did note that plantings were generally located per the Approved Plans and in adequate numbers. Several areas appeared to lack the proposed plantings and there were several other areas where planting numbers were reduced or altered. A number of evergreens were also observed to be in poor health. The Approved Landscaping Plans have been redlined with notations and are attached for reference.  Supplemental landscaping between the roadway and Detention Basin No. 50, as outlined in Condition No. 3, was not observed in the field.  Condition No. 4 states that no exterior lighting shall be installed except where required by State Building Code or as approved by the Board. Three pole mounted luminaires (approx. 8’ height) were observed along the roadway (Sta. 0+25 LT/RT and Sta. 4+00 LT). BETA notes the lights appear to be decorative and anticipates emitted light levels to be minimal.  Due to snow cover, BETA could not determine if the proposed access drives to the drainage swale and basin were constructed. BETA notes that grades in these areas are mild and there are no obstructions that would prevent access by maintenance equipment.  Installation of the Soil Absorption System was observed by others. Hayden Woods - Hopkinton Site Observation Report No. 44 December 29, 2017 3 of 7 SITE PHOTOS Typical Roadway Section (approx. STA. 10+50) Typical Roadway Section at Culvert Crossing with Guardrail Hayden Woods - Hopkinton Site Observation Report No. 44 December 29, 2017 4 of 7 Detention Basin at Cul-de-sac Cul-de-sac Rain Garden Hayden Woods - Hopkinton Site Observation Report No. 44 December 29, 2017 5 of 7 Screening (approx. STA. 7+50 RT), one Evergreen in Poor Health Detention Basin 50, several Evergreens in Poor Health Hayden Woods - Hopkinton Site Observation Report No. 44 December 29, 2017 6 of 7 Typical Pole-Mounted Luminaire (approx. 8’ height) – 3 Observed on Site Hayden Woods - Hopkinton Site Observation Report No. 44 December 29, 2017 7 of 7 Typical Screening (approx. STA. 1+00 LT) Typical Plantings at Residential Units PUBLIC HEARING OUTLINE Bucklin St. SWMP & Roadway Petition 10/29/18, 12/3/18, 12/17/18, 1. ✔ Project introduction and review – Applicant 2. ✔Principal Planner Comments 3. ✔ Consultant Review – BETA Group 4. ✔Planning Board members and Public – Add to outline 5. Detail Discussion (a) Site visit follow up (b) Road design (i) Dead end (c) Lot layout design (d) Public safety (i) Fire department access (ii) Traffic impacts from development (e) Stormwater management i. Impact on abutters on Pleasant St. ii. Impact on abutters on Maple Street Extension iii. Soil testing (f) Utilities; Municipal water & sewer (g) Legal right to make improvements (h) Historic Preservation (i) Stonewalls (i) Waiver requests (j) Conservation Commission review/ wetland impacts 6. Public comment/discuss standards and plan revisions to be made 7. Discuss SWMP and Roadway Petition conditions of approval with applicant 8. Public comment 9. Vote on the Roadway Petition 10. Vote on the Stormwater Management Permit 11. Close public hearing BETA GROUP, INC. 315 Norwood Park South, 2nd Floor, Norwood, MA 02062 P:781.255.1982 | F:781.255.1974 | W:www.BETA-Inc.com December 12, 2018 Department of Land Use, Planning, and Permitting Town Hall 18 Main Street, 3rd Floor Hopkinton, MA 01748 Attn: Ms. Georgia Wilson Mr. Don MacAdam, M.S. Principal Planner Conservation Administrator Re: Bucklin Street Road Constriction, Stormwater Management Permit and Notice of Intent Peer Review Update Dear Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam: BETA Group, Inc. reviewed supplemental/revised document submitted for the proposed Bucklin Street project off Leonard and Pleasant Streets for the Petition to Approve Road Construction, Stormwater Management Permit and Notice of Intent in Hopkinton. This letter is provided to update BETA’s findings and recommendations of submitted documents. BASIS OF REVIEW BETA received the following items: •Response to BETA’s Review Comments, dated December 4, 2018 prepared by GLM Engineering Consultants, Inc., Holliston, MA •Plans (9 sheets) entitled:Plan of Land “Parcel A – Bucklin and Leonard St.” Hopkinton Massachusetts dated March 29, 2018 revised through December 6, 2018 prepared by GLM Engineering Consultants, Inc. •Stormwater Management Report Site Plan of Land “Bucklin Street” Hopkinton Massachusetts, dated March 30, 2018 revised through December 6, 2018 prepared by GLM Engineering Consultants, Inc., Holliston, MA including pre and post development watershed maps COMPILED REVIEW LETTER KEY BETA reviewed this project previously and provided additional review comments in letters to the Board dated October 24, 2018 (original comments and responses in italics). GLM Engineering Consultants, Inc. (GLM) provided responses (responses in standard text) and BETA provided comments on the status of each (status in bold italics). SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The existing wooded 3.22± acre site is located on the north side of Leonard Street. The project site is located in the Residential A zoning district and the Water Resources Protection Overlay District. The plan depicts isolated wetlands on the southwest and southeast corners of the parcel. The site is not located within a critical area (MassDEP Approved Zone II), NHESP mapped areas of estimated habitats of rare Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam December 12, 2018 Page 2 of 7 wildlife or rare species or FEMA mapped 100 year flood zone. NRCS soils maps indicate the soils on site include Rainbow silt loam with a hydrologic soil group (HSG) of C/D (very slow infiltration rate). The project proposes to construct a 700± foot long, 20 foot wide road and subdivide the lot into 4 new lots with public water, sewer services and stormwater management system. Proposed stormwater management system includes the construction of road swales in series ultimately connecting to a new drainage basin. REQUESTED WAIVERS REVIEW The Applicant has requested the following waivers from the Rules and Regulations Relating to the Subdivision of Land: W1.Accept no Environmental Analysis (§5.4) W2.Accept no Traffic Impact Report (§5.4) W3.Waiver from road location and alignment (all sub-sections) (§8.2.1) W4.Waive curbing requirements (all sub-sections) (§8.2.2) W5.Allow variable width right of way and 20' paved road width (§8.2.3) W6.Allow no turnaround for dead end street (§8.2.5) W7.Allow no sidewalks (§8.3) W8.Waiver from stormwater management (§8.4) W9.Allow above ground private utilities (§8.7.1) W10.Accept no street lights (§8.7.2) W11.Accept 4" x 4" x 3' concrete bounds (§9.11) W12.Accept no street trees (§9.12) BETA recommends the Applicant add the following waiver requests. W13.Allow dead end streets to exceed 500 feet in length (§8.2.5.B). W14.Allow side slope shall not exceed a ratio of three horizontal to one vertical (§8.2.6) BETA2: Recommend including approved waivers on title sheet. ZONING/REGULATIONS REVIEW Article II Residence A (RA) District The proposed subdivision plan lots comply with area, lot coverage, frontage, and yard setbacks of the Residential A District. Article XII Water Resources Protection Overlay District The project is located within the Water Resources Protection Overlay District and requires approval for any use that renders impervious more than 15% or 2,500 square feet of any lot, whichever is greater. Refer to Stormwater Management section for review of required infiltration practices. Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam December 12, 2018 Page 3 of 7 ROAD CONSTRUCTION/SUBDIVISION REVIEW The proposed project includes the extension of an existing driveway into a 20’ wide paved roadway. The location of the roadway is between two existing residences (58 & 62 Pleasant Street). Based on the proposed profile there will also be some regrading required between them. The new roadway will eliminate the driveway for no. 58. No curbing is proposed and the road is not crowned but is designed to slope to the south side for drainage purposes. Other than those items and those listed in the Requested Waivers Review, the road meets the minimum design standards for a rural road. GENERAL: G1.Provide missing existing and proposed topography for the proposed road from Pleasant Street to the project parcel.GLM:Revised See Sheet 2.BETA2: Provide additional spot grades to show positive drainage between house at 62 Pleasant Street and new road. G2.Provide driveway culvert crossing detail.GLM:Revised See Sheet 8.BETA2: Detail provided – issue resolved. G3.Provide a driveway for the existing house at 62 Pleasant Street off new road.GLM:Revised See Sheet 8.BETA2: Drive shown – will require approval by owner of 62 Pleasant Street. G4.Provide location of proposed private utilities.GLM:Proposed overhead utilities.BETA2: Applicant BETA defers to Board this issue. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REVIEW A traffic impact analysis was not provided at this time for review. T1.Show sight distances on the plans of at least 200 feet in accordance with §8.2.1.E.GLM:Revised See Sheet 6. (Sight distance exceeds 300 feet in both directions)BETA2: Information provided – issue resolved. T2.Provide truck turning plan to demonstrate that emergency vehicles have adequate space within Bucklin Street to turn around. BETA recommends evaluating alternatives to relying on a private driveway for the turn around.GLM:Applicant had a meeting with the Fire Dept. and they will be providing a turning radius guide at which time we will review and provide updated information. BETA2: Information to be provided – issue remains outstanding. T3.Show and label turning radii on the plans and demonstrate that adequate turning radii are provided at the intersection of Bucklin Street and Pleasant Street.GLM:Revised See Sheet 6. (Corner radius provided at intersection)BETA2: Provide truck turns at intersection and adjust curb radii as necessary. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT The existing site is wooded and slopes from the eastern side downward to the western side of the site. Stormwater currently flows overland to the northwest portion of the site. Although the site has some slope (2.2%±), a significant portion of the site is flagged as isolated wetlands indicating the presence of high water table and or poor draining soils both or which require special attention when designing a stormwater management system to mitigate the impacts of development. Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam December 12, 2018 Page 4 of 7 The project proposes to extend an existing driveway into a new 20’ wide paved road, Bucklin Street. Runoff from Bucklin Street will drain to a series of grass swales. Runoff from proposed houses will be directed to subsurface infiltration chambers with overflows to the new grass swales. The proposed grass swales are connected with 12” reinforced concrete pipe under the four new driveways, which drain to a new basin on the western edge of the project site. The new basin consists of a sediment forebay and headwall with an outlet to a level spreader draining to the west. SW1.Provide calculations that indicate swales and driveway culverts can accommodate 25 year storm event (§8.4.8).GLM:Revised See Stormwater Report Appendix B-1 BETA2: Calculations provided – issue resolved. SW2.Include stamp and signature of a Professional Engineer to certify that the Stormwater Management Plan is in accordance with the criteria established in the Bylaw and the Regulations (Appendix B, §21).GLM:Revised See Stormwater Report BETA2: Stamp provided – issue resolved. MASSACHUSETTS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STANDARDS: The project is subject to the Stormwater Management Standards (Stormwater Regulations (SWR) 7.0). The following are the 10 standards and relative compliance provided by the submitted documentation. No untreated stormwater (Standard Number 1): No new stormwater conveyances (e.g., outfalls) may discharge untreated stormwater directly to or cause erosion in wetlands or waters of the Commonwealth.The project does not provide new untreated stormwater conveyances to wetlands – complies with standard. Post-development peak discharge rates (Standard Number 2): Stormwater management systems must be designed so that post-development peak discharge rates do not exceed pre-development peak discharge rates.Calculations demonstrate that the proposed development will not increase peak discharge rates. This standard should be re-evaluated upon addressing all included comments. SW3.To accommodate offsite stormwater runoff that flows onto and through the site, include the upland areas that contribute runoff to the project parcel in both existing and proposed watershed maps and calculations, up to and including runoff that crosses where new road will be between the existing houses off Pleasant Street.GLM:Revised See Stormwater Report, (Pre & Post Dev. Area Plans)BETA2: Analysis area revised – issue resolved. SW4.To better determine impacts to abutters analyze pre and post stormwater runoff at three analysis points (one along north property line, second along the west property line and third to Pleasant Street).GLM:Revised See Stormwater Report.BETA2: Analysis area revised. Provide mitigation to keep proposed peak runoff flow to Pleasant Street at or below existing condition. SW5.BETA calculates the 100 year storm at 7.25 in (from Atlas graph page 22) x 1.13 = 8.19 in. Revise calculations using this rainfall amount.GLM:Revised See Stormwater Report BETA2: Rainfall data revised – issue resolved. SW6.To avoid double counting infiltration, model infiltration basin with a CN of 98 – water surface. GLM:Revised See Stormwater Report (CN 98 for pond area)BETA2: Calculation revised – issue resolved. Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam December 12, 2018 Page 5 of 7 Recharge to groundwater (Standard Number 3): Loss of annual recharge to groundwater should be minimized through the use of infiltration measures to maximum extent practicable.Groundwater recharge calculations were provided –refer to comment SW2 above. SW7.The south side of the infiltration basin is 30± from flagged vegetated wetlands which has a surface elevation of 501.8±. Provide an additional test pit in the southwest corner of the basin to confirm that there will be 2 feet of separation from the bottom of the basin to seasonal high groundwater elevation.GLM:Additional testing to be provided BETA2: Additional testing needed– issue remains outstanding. SW8.Provide a cross section for the proposed drainage basin. Include subgrade materials and depths as well as slopes and stabilization methods.GLM: Revised See Sheet 7.BETA2: Section provided – issue resolved. SW9.Provide detail of sediment forebay outlet weir and stormwater basin emergency overflow.GLM: BETA2: Detail provided – issue resolved. SW10.Provide draw down device in stormwater basin for maintenance.GLM:Revised See Sheet 7. BETA2: Draw down device provided – issue resolved. SW11.Provide monitoring well in stormwater basin.GLM:Revised See Sheet 7.BETA2: Monitoring well provided – issue resolved. SW12.Provide landscape plan describing the woody and herbaceous vegetative stabilization and management techniques to be used within and adjacent to the stormwater practice (Appendix B, §20).GLM:Revised See Sheet 7. (Note provided area to be loamed and hydro-seeded)BETA2: Board should discuss if seeding meets the intent of the requirement. SW13.In order to maintain level flow from level spreader, provide revise level spreader detail to include a hard level surface (curb or equivalent) for the weir.GLM:Revised See Sheet 7.BETA2: Curb provided – issue resolved. 80% TSS Removal (Standard Number 4):For new development, stormwater management systems must be designed to remove 80% of the annual load of Total Suspended Solids. The proposed project includes a new infiltration basin (with sediment forebay) and calculations to demonstrate 80% TSS removal – standard has been met. Higher Potential Pollutant Loads (Standard Number 5): Stormwater discharges from Land Uses with Higher Potential Pollutant Loads require the use of specific stormwater management BMPs.The proposed project is not a LUHPPL –standard does not apply. Critical Areas (Standard Number 6): Stormwater discharges to critical areas must utilize certain stormwater management BMPs approved for critical areas.The proposed project does not include stormwater discharges to critical areas –standard does not apply. Redevelopment (Standard Number 7): Redevelopment of previously developed sites must meet the Stormwater Management Standards to the maximum extent practicable.The proposed project is not a redevelopment of a previously developed site –standard does not apply. Construction Period Erosion and Sediment Controls (Standard Number 8):Erosion and sediment controls must be implemented to prevent impacts during construction or land disturbance activities.A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) was provided as well as an erosion control plan. Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam December 12, 2018 Page 6 of 7 SW14.Provide estimates of the total area expected to be disturbed by excavation, grading, or other construction activities, including dedicated off-site borrow and fill areas (Appendix C, §3.a).GLM: Revised See Sheet 5.BETA2: Information provided – issue resolved. SW15.Provide the intended sequence and timing of activities that disturb soils at the site and the general sequence during the construction process in which the erosion and sediment control measures will be implemented.GLM:Revised See Sheet 5 BETA2: Notes provided – issue resolved. SW16.Provide provisions to protect the infiltration basin from sedimentation during construction. Provide note that basin is to be initially excavated 12 inches higher than finish grade. Once site is stabilized basin can be excavated to finish grade.GLM:Revised See Sheet 5. (Note 8.)BETA2: Include as a condition.. SW17.Recommend including a condition that requires the Applicant provide a final signed SWPPP prior to construction.GLM:No Comment BETA2: Include as a condition. SW18.Recommend a condition that the Town or an agent for the Town observe the excavation of the infiltration basin prior to loam and seed to verify design assumptions including groundwater elevations and infiltration rate.GLM:No Comment BETA2: Include as a condition. Operations/maintenance plan (Standard Number 9): A long-Term Operation and Maintenance Plan shall be developed and implemented to ensure that stormwater management systems function as designed. SW19.Show location of vehicle access to drainage basin and easement on the plans.GLM:Revised See Sheet 3.BETA2: Access provided – issue resolved. SW20.Provide a map showing the location of the systems and facilities including easements, catch basins, manholes/access lids, main, and stormwater devices to be included with the Operation and Maintenance Plan (Appendix D, §2).GLM:Revised See Stormwater O&M.BETA2: Map provided – issue resolved. SW21.Include provisions for the Planning Board or its designee to enter the property at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner for the purpose of inspection within the Operation and Maintenance Plan (Appendix D, §3.e).GLM:Can this be a condition of approval.BETA2: Provisions not provided – issue remains outstanding. SW22.Provide signature(s) of the owner(s) on the Operation and Maintenance Plan (Appendix D, §3.f). GLM:Revised See O&M BETA2: Signature provided – issue resolved. SW23.Provide an estimated operations and maintenance budget.GLM:Applicant will provide estimates.BETA2: Information not provided – issue remains outstanding. Illicit Discharges (Standard Number 10): All illicit discharges to the stormwater management systems are prohibited. SW24.Provide a signed Illicit Discharge Statement.GLM:Revised See Report BETA2: Statement provided – issue resolved. Ms. Wilson and Mr. MacAdam December 12, 2018 Page 7 of 7 WETLANDS The proposed project includes work within the 50’ and 100’ buffer zones of two isolated wetlands. The design plans indicates that the development of lots will create a berm on the north, down gradient side of the wetlands. Applicant has submitted a Notice of Intent for the proposed work within the jurisdictional wetland resource areas. W1.Applicant should provide information on the protection of home from potential flooding and/or groundwater issues and that foundation drains and subdrains that could impact wetlands will not be necessary.GLM:Applicant to address this with the Conservation Commission.BETA2: Information not provided – issue remains outstanding. Very truly yours, Philip F Paradis, Jr., PE Associate O:\6200s\6260 - Hopkinton - Bucklin Street\Engineering\Reports\Buckland St Peer Review 12-12-18.docx PUBLIC HEARING OUTLINE Whisper Way Subdivision Definitive Subdivision Plan application showing 24 building lots. Meeting Dates: 8/27/18, 10/01/18, 10/29/18, 11/19/18, 12/3 (no discussion), 12/17 1. √Principal Planner Overview of Site and Project 2. √Project introduction and features of the site – Applicant & Engineer 3. √Principal Planner Comments 4. √Consultant Review – BETA Group 5. √Planning Board members and Public – Add to outline 6. √Schedule Site Walk 7. Detailed Discussion a. √Road and lot layout design b. √Traffic a. √Offsite Improvements – Whisper Way i. Impacts to Abutters from any road widening b. √Sidewalks c. √Pedestrian/Bicycle Safety c. Stormwater management d. √Utilities – Water, Septic, Gas, Electric, Phone, Cable a. √Septic Systems/Bedroom Numbers e. Open space/remaining land ownership & access a. Trails f. Review by other Boards/Committees a. Conservation g. Construction Management a. Impacts to abutters during construction b. Construction Process h. Final BETA issues 8. Discuss requested waivers 9. Discuss standards and plan revisions to be made 10. Discuss conditions of approval with applicant 11. Public comment 12. Vote 13. Close public hearing HOPKINTON PLANNING BOARD Monday, November 19, 2018 7:30 P.M. Town Hall, 18 Main St., Hopkinton, MA MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: Fran DeYoung, Vice Chairman, David Paul, Deborah Fein-Brug, Mary Larson-Marlowe, Gary Trendel, Carol DeVeuve, Amy Ritterbusch MEMBERS ABSENT: Muriel Kramer, Frank D’Urso Present: Elaine Lazarus, Director of Land Use & Town Operations, Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Mr. DeYoung opened the meeting. 1. The Trails at Legacy Farms – Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan Update Vin Gately, Heritage Properties, developer, and Peter Bemis, Engineering Design Consultants (EDC), engineer, appeared before the Board. Mr. DeYoung noted Mr. Bemis will speak to the erosion and sedimentation control issues as they relate to the breach that happened on November 1. Mr. Gately noted they met with the Conservation Commission (ConCom) and are here for the same update. Mr. Bemis stated he came up with a mitigation plan which is currently being implemented by the applicant. He noted they had a number of measures in place, however there were not enough erosion/sedimentation controls so in order to mitigate they now have primary, secondary and tertiary treatment plans. Mr. Bemis stated the breach happened after 4 in. of rainfall and he has been dealing with these types of issues on a number of sites in the area. He noted the ConCom is satisfied with the ongoing mitigation efforts, and at this point they want to move forward. Mr. Trendel noted from a design perspective this was not a 100-year storm, which makes him wonder about the design requirements. He noted he realizes the Board did not design the plan but he would like to understand the shortcomings. Mr. Bemis noted a drainpipe unfortunately directed untreated water to the wetlands during construction, and while the detention basin was constructed in July/August in accordance with the plan and functioning, it was not yet fully stabilized because of the lack of dry weather. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked if normally the basin would have been stabilized by now, and Mr. Bemis noted they started having regular rainfall events in August and especially during September. Ms. Larson-Marlowe referred to the EDC plan and asked if hydromulching at this time of the year will be effective. Mr. Bemis stated this will be an ongoing effort and they will go back as needed. Mr. Gately stated they were doing fine until about 2 weeks ago, and things would have been different if they had been able to get the binder down on a portion of the road. Mr. Paul stated he would like to get input from BETA, the Board’s consultant engineer, and Mr. DeYoung agreed. Mr. DeYoung asked if they will be able to pave this year, and Mr. Bemis stated depending on the weather the crew could be out there tomorrow. Mr. DeYoung asked if there are any other areas that would present a risk, and Mr. Bemis noted they are not planning to open up any new areas but will take a different approach going forward. Ms. Ritterbusch asked when they are going back to the ConCom, and it was noted it will be at the end of the month. She stated she understands the ConCom requested water quality testing for pesticides as suggested by the Board of Health, and Mr. Bemis noted that is correct. Ms. Fein-Brug asked about the possibility of doing this on a regular basis. Mr. Bemis noted they will do this to get a base line and hope they don’t have to do it again. Katie Towner, 9 Kruger Rd., noted this is now the new normal with water coming down the street every day, not only impacting the Trails at Legacy Farms site, but also Wilson St. at Kruger Rd. She noted this plan created a huge increase in impervious area, and the water seeps through the little remaining ground which does not drain as described. She stated the developer should go back and figure out what is causing this, because they did not do the proper testing and now have an even worse situation with water seeping off the site and causing hazardous (icing) conditions on Wilson St. and Kruger Rd. She noted the Town’s consultant should not just be looking at the other side of the project but at the entire site. Mr. DeYoung stated they will get BETA involved, and Mr. Trendel stated there are a number of stormwater issues which should all be re-assessed. Ms. Fein- Brug stated she would like to push for more testing at the end of the winter. 2. Public Hearing – 18 Cedar St. – Special Permit – Off-Street Parking – Janice Brown It was noted the applicant has requested a continuance of the public hearing. After discussion Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to continue the hearing to December 3, 2018 at 8:30 P.M., Mr. DeYoung seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 3. Continued Public Hearing – Whisper Way – Definitive Subdivision – 20th Century Homes Ron Nation, 20th Century Homes, applicant, and Dan Hazen, Guerriere & Halnon, Inc., engineer, appeared before the Board. Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to open the public hearing, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Mr. DeYoung noted the Board has received additional materials but not quite in time to be reviewed for tonight’s meeting, however the applicant will be given an opportunity to make a presentation focusing on the changes to the plan. Mr. Nation stated they have been going back and forth between the Planning Board and the ConCom, but hopefully no additional plan changes will be needed. It was noted some changes were already brought to the Board’s attention, such as modifications to the road layout and critter crossings. Mr. Nation noted they are still having a hard time with the sidewalk along Wood St., but are willing to do whatever the Board wants and hopefully the DPW will like the design and there will be no issues as far as MassDOT is concerned. Ms. Lazarus asked why the applicant is concerned about MassDOT because Wood St. is a local road, not a state highway. Mr. Hazen stated they are meeting with BETA tomorrow, and then all that is left is what is on the outline. Ms. DeVeuve asked the applicant for an overview of the plan, including the locations of 25% slopes. Mr. Hazen stated he does not have that particular plan here, but there are some sharp drops. He noted there is 20 ft. drop in the back of the property, and Ms. DeVeuve stated she believes there is another steep slope on the Rt. 495 side. Mr. Hazen described the road layout, and noted the new development will have Town water while sewer will be collected through an Oakwood gravity system, designed by Clear Water Environmental, to be submitted to the Board of Health once they get through the Planning Board phase. He noted stormwater is collected via a catch basin/manhole system, 4 detention basins, and a small sediment basin, all designed to minimize the impact on the wetlands resources. Mr. DeYoung referred to road layout and lot design. Mr. Nation stated they originally tried a road design off of Whisper Way, looked into a double barrel entrance off of Wood St., but ended up with the current layout essentially using the driveway to #129 Wood St. which actually was Wood St. before Rt. 495 was built. He noted there are 4 existing homes, one of which (129 Wood St.) will definitely be demolished, and the other 3 may or may not come down. It was determined the development will create 22 new lots. Mr. Trendel asked for clarification on lot sizes, and it was noted that all lots comply with frontage/area requirements under the OSLPD bylaw, smaller than what’s required under a conventional layout. A discussion followed to confirm the total acreage and the amount of open space created under this proposal. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked about parking areas, and Mr. Nation stated there is trailhead parking at the end of the existing Whisper Way, but there is a conservation restriction on that property and the Hopkinton Area Land Trust (HALT) is happy with the way it is, but the development will include a parking area for 2 horse trailers. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked about the sign at the entrance of Whisper Way, and Mr. Nation noted it will stay but they may put it in a better spot. Mr. DeYoung referred to traffic and offsite improvements, impact on abutters as result of road widening, sidewalks, and pedestrian/bike safety. Mr. Hazen noted the Whisper Way access is now on HALT property, but the revised layout will bring it within the right of way, and the Town is the only abutter. Mr. DeYoung asked if the ConCom is ok with the road widening, and Mr. Hazen stated the 50 ft. already exists and they propose to shift the road to the northwest somewhat to minimize the impact. In response to a question of Ms. Ritterbusch, Mr. Nation noted the residential neighbors in this case are the people selling the land and will end up moving away. Mr. DeYoung asked for a brief recap regarding sidewalks. Mr. Nation noted there are sidewalks along the new road, and the plan initially showed a connection between the Wood St. entrances but it turned out there is not enough room for a 5 ft. sidewalk without moving the guardrail and a utility pole. He stated 4 ft. would just fit and they can do a berm. He noted they had actually suggested a nature trail instead to avoid the challenges with a Wood St. sidewalk connection. Mr. DeYoung asked if they would still keep the trail, and Mr. Nation noted they could and the ConCom really liked the idea. In response to a question of Mr. Paul, Mr. Nation stated it would just be a meandering trail, and to cross the wet spots they could use a boardwalk that basically just lays on the ground. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated the trail’s limited accessibility would not be a concern as long as there is a sidewalk along Wood St. Mr. Paul asked if the interior sidewalks will have green strips in between, and Mr. Hazen stated yes although they already asked the Board to allow them to eliminate them at the wetlands crossings. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated it appears they can do a 4 ft. sidewalk along Wood St. with a little berm and a guardrail in the back. Mr. Hazen stated they are considering a 7 in. berm, not cape cod but almost vertical to keep the cars off the sidewalk. Ms. Larson asked about space for bicycles, and it was noted some spots are tighter than others. Mr. Nation stated it is really tight for about 100 ft. from the existing Whisper Way but then it tapers out, and essentially it won’t be any different than a lot of other sidewalks in Town. Mr. DeYoung referred to utilities. Stephen Slaman, Fire Chief, noted there will be water for fire protection and the driveways will meet the requirements under his bylaw. Mr. Nation stated the Board of Health has agreed to allow them to utilize a common septic system although he has not entirely given up on Town sewer. He noted he believes there is natural gas in Wood St., but it is difficult to get answers from the gas company, and it may be propane at this stage. He noted there will be underground electricity and cable connections. Ms. DeVeuve asked who will be in charge of the maintenance of the septic system, and Mr. Nation stated it will be a homeowners association, similar to what is done in another developments and the Board of Health is ok with that arrangement. Mr. Nation stated it will be subcontracted, and in general this will be cheaper and environmentally better than individual systems. He stated there will be specific documentation regarding this aspect, and the Board will get copies. Ms. Ritterbusch asked for clarification and Mr. Nation stated the system is designed for under 10,000 gallons/day, because otherwise it will trigger substantially different requirements and as a result 2 of the homes will have conventional, individual septic systems. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked about the possibility of solar power. Mr. Nation stated the only place for a common setup would probably be on top of the leach field and he is not sure if that can be done, otherwise it could be rooftop panels and some small ground-mounted systems in people’s backyards. The Board considered a date and time for the continued public hearing, and discussed the status of the ConCom process. It was noted the ConCom has continued the hearing to November 27, and it is felt a lot of progress is being made and all necessary changes to the subdivision layout would be minor at this point. Mr. Trendel moved to continue the public hearing to December 3, 2018 at 9:00 P.M., Ms. DeVeuve seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. The applicant and the Board mutually agreed to extend the decision deadline to December 17, 2018. 4. Approval Not Required Plan – 0 Montana Rd. – Edward Kelly Joe Marquedant, J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc., surveyor, appeared before the Board. Mr. Marquedant his company did not originally prepare the plan which was endorsed in 2011, however it was never recorded and is therefore being resubmitted for approval. He noted they updated the date of the plan, and once endorsed they will be able to record the plan along with the plan recently endorsed by the Board for several other lots on Montana Rd. Mr. Paul asked about the status of the road, and Mr. Marquedant noted Montana Rd. continues through this parcel which is not a building lot at this time and will have to come back to the Board for any further proposed development. Ms. DeVeuve moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, Mr. Paul seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 5. Approval Not Required Plan – 275 Cordaville Rd. – Peter Carbone Mr. Marquedant explained the plan, noting the property owner wants to create a building lot fronting off Lincoln St., sell off the new lot and retain the rest. Board members asked for clarification regarding the property address. Mr. Marquedant stated the address is 275 Cordaville Rd., but the street address historically has been 275 Cedar St., and the property owner does not want to change it. Ms. Fein-Brug asked if it possible to have both addresses on the plan to avoid future confusion, and Ms. Lazarus noted the property is listed as 275 Cordaville Rd. in the Registry of Deeds and that is all that matters. Ms. Larson-Marlowe moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, Mr. Trendel seconded the motion, and the Board voted 6 in favor and 1 abstaining (Fein-Brug). 6. Approval Not Required Plan – 18 and 20 Fruit St. – 20 Fruit St. LLC The Board reviewed the plan, which is essentially identical to the one signed by the Board in February 2018 but was never recorded. After further discussion and clarification as to locus, Mr. Paul moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, Ms. Ritterbusch seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 7. Approval Not Required Plan – Legacy Farms North/Wilson St. – Legacy Farms LLC Roy MacDowell, Legacy Farms LLC, Manager, appeared before the Board and explained the plan which subdivides an existing parcel into 6 lots. It was noted there will be additional steps to adjust the restricted land. After further discussion, Ms. DeVeuve moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, Ms. Larson-Marlowe seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 8. Approval Not Required Plan – Legacy Farms North/Frankland Rd. – Legacy Farms LLC Mr. MacDowell explained the plan which subdivides an existing parcel into 6 lots. Ms. Larson- Marlowe commented on the irregular shapes of the lots being created, and Mr. MacDowell explained the reason for the layout. After further discussion, Ms. DeVeuve moved to endorse the plan as not requiring approval under the Subdivision Control Law, Ms. Larson-Marlowe seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 9. East Main St. Sidewalk – Legacy Farms Mr. MacDowell addressed the Board. He noted the issue is how to finish the last section of the sidewalk because even though the bridge providing access to the municipal parcel has been approved by the ComCom, there is no money to build it. He noted he met with Don MacAdam, Conservation Administrator, and it was determined they can move the guardrail 3 ft. further from the street for about 200 ft. although it would require ConCom approval. He noted he also talked to John Westerling, DPW Director, who is ok with the proposal. Mr. Paul asked why in that case they could not build it closer to the street, and Mr. MacDowell stated the ConCom does not want them to do that. Mr. MacDowell noted they will move the guardrail 3 ft., still within the right of way with a raised berm within the fog line, and they are talking about mere inches. Ms. Fein-Brug stated this is an unsafe area and this solution will only make it a little better. Mr. MacDowell noted the guardrail is primarily in place to make sure cars don’t go into the ditch. Ms. Fein-Brug asked about fencing to protect pedestrians and cars, and suggested leaving the guardrail where it is. Mr. MacDowell noted there is no room and although the proposed layout is not perfect it is not unlike other sidewalks in Town. Ms. Fein-Brug asked if they can do something similar to what was done further down the road, and Mr. MacDowell noted it would not work from the ConCom’s perspective. Ms. Ritterbusch asked if an 8 in. berm would be possible, and Mr. MacDowell stated he has never seen that but maybe they can use yellow or white pavement markings. Mr. Trendel noted he feels it would be a good idea to reduce the walkway width to 4 ft. allowing extra space for bicycles, but it is not his call. Mr. DeYoung stated he likes the idea and asked whether it is something that can be pursued. It was noted this is a somewhat unique situation, and it may take some uncommon engineering to find a good solution for long term safety. Mr. DeYoung asked if Mr. MacDowell has enough feedback to move forward, and Mr. MacDowell stated he would like the Board to provide guidance with respect to the width of the sidewalk, 5 ft., or 4 ft. with a wider fog line area. Ms. Fein-Brug suggested shifting the guardrail to the other side, noting it would make it more difficult for bicycles. Mr. MacDowell noted it would create a problem for plowing. Mr. DeYoung asked how the Board feels about a 4 ft. width. Ms. Larson-Marlowe stated she prefers 4 ft. for the entire length, rather than just for this section, Mr. Paul noted he would be in favor of a vertical berm and a 4 ft. sidewalk, and Mr. Trendel stated 4 ft. would be ok with a condition with respect to the distance between the fog line. Mr. MacDowell noted he will file with the ConCom and once approved the project will be ready to go. The Board took a 5 minute break. 10. Administrative/Miscellaneous Business 1) Minutes – The Board reviewed the draft minutes of October 15, 2018. Mr. Trendel moved to approve the minutes as written, Ms. Larson Marlowe seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. 2) Liaison Reports - Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted the ZAC had its first meeting on November 5. It was noted Ms. Larson-Marlowe is the Chair, and they are still looking for associate members. She noted a public forum has been scheduled for November 26, 2018 at 7:00 P.M. at the Town Hall. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted they discussed some initial ideas but have not determined priorities, and it also depends on the outcome of the public forum. It was noted that applications for the associate positions can be submitted to Ms. Lazarus or Ms. Wilson and appointments will be made by the Planning Board. Mr. Trendel noted the Community Preservation Committee (CPC) public hearing has been continued to tomorrow at the Town Hall. 11. Continued Public Hearings – 52 and 55 Wilson St. – LNG Liquefaction Equipment Replacement Project: 1) Earth Removal Permit, 2) Stormwater Management Permit – Eversource Energy Ms. DeVeuve moved to open the public hearing, Ms. Larson-Marlowe seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Tracy Adamski and Jean Christy, Tighe & Bond, engineers, Jim Blackburn, LNG Hopkinton, Project Manager, and Renie Janigian, Hopkinton LNG Site Manager/Air Products and Chemical Inc., appeared before the Board. Mr. DeYoung stated this hearing is for the stormwater and earth removal applications, and he asked the applicant for an overview and project status update. Ms. Adamski stated they are here for the liquefaction equipment replacement proposed for the area to the south of the tank farm to replace aging equipment on the east side of Wilson St. Ms. Adamski noted BETA has reviewed the latest revisions, and is ok with them but had a couple of recommendations for additional conditions, namely limiting the amount of excavation during construction to maintain infiltration capacity, and also a final SWPPP. She noted they also have an earth removal permit application, noting they will have a net import of material but there is lot of rock in the proposed liquefaction area and they may have to remove some of it in the worst case scenario. She noted based on concerns raised at the previous hearings, they have brought Mr. Janigian, who will talk about past practices especially with respect to the use of firefighting foam. She stated Tighe & Bond in the meantime has submitted a memo to the Board which describes past and current practices and includes a materials safety data sheet for the chemical used. Mr. Janigian noted the foam is used in the area adjacent to tanks A and B with an external pump system. He noted they don’t use much foam but it is periodically tested to make sure it is ok for use, by mixing the concentrate with water. He stated the foam goes through valves, flows across, and is then mixed up by an agitator. He noted they follow this protocol because foam is very expensive. He noted they also periodically send the foam to the manufacturer for testing, and they are confident that everything is ok. Mr. Janigian listed a number of testing events over the years, nothing that 1) in 1990 they had a successful deployment of foam with some offsite impact; 2) in 2007 there was a demonstration for the Fire Dept. in the tank farm area, in which case the foam was deployed into the pumping area but stayed locally; and 3) in 2017 they conducted a high pressure test where the foam was collected into a truck and contained on site as per protocol. Mr. DeYoung stated it appears there is only a record of 3 events over the years, and Mr. Janigian stated he cannot confirm that, as he started in 2006 and this information is based on talking to other personnel. Ms. Larson-Marlowe noted according to the material safety data sheet the foam is toxic in concentrated form to people and aquatic life, and she asked about toxicity of the material in diluted form. Mr. Janigian noted he is not a chemist, but once the material is deployed it will most likely be there but they will add more water to calibrate the equipment as part of the testing protocol and in case of accidental deployment or mechanical malfunctions. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked what kind of environmental protection treatment occurs once the visible signs of the foam are gone or whether it is just allowed to flow into the catch basin and filter into the ground. Mr. Janigian stated he does not think there is a system in place, but, based on the 2007 event, it would only be present in case of an emergency. Ms. Larson-Marlowe asked if in a true emergency there will be a lot of foam and whether Clean Harbors will be able to collect it. Mr. Janigian noted in an emergency scenario there is deployment of LNG, and at that point they will just look at that as part of the emergency response with the focus on life safety and equipment. Mr. DeYoung stated he is concerned untreated water will eventually end up in the Hopkinton Reservoir. Mr. Janigian noted the impoundment area has 2 associated pumps also intended to collect rainwater but prior to pumping the operator has to inspect the liquid to make sure it is free of oil, LNG etc. He noted they have visual inspections or cameras for monitoring, and pumping will happen once the liquid reaches a certain visual line. Mr. DeYoung asked about any testing of the water beyond visual observations, and he stated he is concerned about the impact on drinking water. Ms. Adamski asked what they would be testing for. She noted very little liquid ends up in the impoundment area, and the proposed site design will further reduce the amount of impervious area between the plant and the impoundment area. Mr. Blackburn noted he has had some conversations with the foam manufacturer, and he wants to stress the data are about the concentrated form vs. the deployed state, and the product is biodegradable, an environmentally good choice, the main components of which are used in common household products. Ms. Fein-Brug asked if there is a possibility for something more than just a visual test, because there may be an unknown due to constant erosion of the bottom of the basin. Mr. Paul suggested handing this over to the Board of Health. Mr. Trendel noted the Board is not the one to answer questions about foam, but it is the stormwater water aspect that matters, pumping it over the berm into the stream under today’s standards. Ms. Fein-Brug questioned where the Board should go with this, because according to the safety sheet the foam contains cancer causing substances and she feels it is a little benign to say they are dealing with a product that as applied is comparable to what is in household products. She asked whether the Board of Health should weigh in, and Ms. Lazarus stated perhaps both the Planning Board, from a stormwater perspective, and the Board of Health, from a health standpoint, could work on this. Ms. Lazarus stated this may be a holdover from the days when people did not care about these types of issues, and she thinks the engineers can design something to address the concerns. Ms. DeVeuve asked what happens when the operators observe signs of contaminants, and Mr. Janigian stated the process is then suspended and Clean Harbors is contacted. He noted typically there is very little at the LNG facility to be concerned about in terms of pollution based on the equipment used and processes followed and he feels the water being pumped out is essentially rainwater. Mr. Trendel noted that is exactly his point, and it is indeed an issue of stormwater which should be kept on site instead of pumping it offsite. Kathleen Towner, 9 Kruger Rd., stated visual inspection is not the way to determine the presence of chemicals. She noted the collected water needs to be tested, and she referred to the requirement that the Trails at Legacy Farms perform water quality tests for pesticides. She noted the LNG facility in this case has acknowledged there was a spill in the past, and they did not say they cleaned it up so there could be a residue, and they are not talking about just stormwater here. She noted it took some doing but the facility finally responded to the Board’s request for documentation, however this could be the tip of the iceberg and she feels the Board should be cautious. She noted the concept of valving the foam out of the system so they can test it with water is questionable. She noted this concerns process waste which should be captured and disposed of properly instead of pumping it out, ultimately into the Reservoir. She noted the Reservoir is about 4 miles away from the facility but the Kruger Rd. neighborhood is considerably closer. She noted the bottom line is that BETA’s study was done without the benefit of the new information, and she feels the project should be reevaluated, the Board of Health needs to get involved, and the Planning Board should mandate water quality testing. She noted the latest stormwater report includes “to be determined” everywhere, which is not acceptable, and she disagrees with the conclusion that the Hopkinton Reservoir is not a critical area. Ms. DeVeuve noted according to the applicant there have been no releases since 2007, and she asked if Ms. Towner’s pictures are older than that. Ms. Towner noted she has not made an effort to determine the date of her pictures, and a more pertinent question is whether the facility reported the spill and cleaned it up. Ms. DeVeuve thanked Ms. Towner for her comments. Ms. Adamski noted the site was designed in accordance with the stormwater management bylaw and EPA standards, and those are for the redevelopment portion of the project, and they feel they provided the pertinent data to BETA for review. Mr. DeYoung asked if the applicant has any thoughts about water quality testing. Ms. Adamski asked what they should be looking for, because there is a whole list of parameters, including surfactants, etc, and after further discussion it was noted that it could be something as simple as a fire test kit and perhaps they can ask the Board of Health about it. Mr. DeYoung noted, to Mr. Trendel’s comment, it appears the stormwater management is fairly comprehensive but they should be looking at stormwater in its totality, making sure that no untreated stormwater leaves the site going over the berm to the Kruger Rd. neighborhood. Ms. Adamski noted they usually don’t look at stormwater from a portion of the site they are not touching, but she feels things will be better as a result of this redevelopment and whatever is running off will be less than that from a typical roadway. Mr. Paul asked the applicant if the details of the water quality test will be passed on to the Board of Health, and whether this can be done on a regular basis. Mr. DeYoung stated this procedure may go a long way to address the concerns. Mr. Janigian stated they will discuss the logistics and frequency of the testing with the Board of Health but doing this on a regular basis may not be practical. Mr. Blackburn suggested further communication with the Board of Health and perhaps a Q & A session including other representatives of the Town as well. It was felt that is a very good idea. Reference was made to the public hearing outline. Mr. DeYoung asked about the hours of operation as discussed at the previous meeting. Mr. Blackburn stated the contractors will work within the existing Town bylaws, from Monday to Friday from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., Saturday from 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M., and not on Sundays or legal holidays. He noted the primary truck route would be from Rt. 495 to Rt. 85 to Legacy Farms North to Wilson St., with the option to use the new secondary access road if and when available for traffic. In response to a question of Mr. Paul, Mr. Blackburn noted it will be difficult to further commit to specific times, but their documents for the contractors specify no idling on the street or in local areas during the specified hours. Mr. DeYoung asked about the number of trucks, and Ms. Adamski noted it will depend on the amount of material on site and they are trying to mitigate that. Ms. Fein-Brug asked whether they can narrow down the hours, for instance between 10:00 A.M. and 2:00 P.M., and Mr. Blackburn stated they will do the best they can in terms of avoiding normal peak hours. Ms. Fein- Brug asked about a requirement for compensation for the use of the road. Ms. Lazarus noted the roads in question are all public ways but it is something the DPW could discuss with the applicant. Ms. Ritterbusch asked about a condition to survey the roads before and after the development activities, and Mr. Blackburn noted that was discussed and they would like to document that. He noted a lot of trucks go through the main intersection a day, and it will be difficult to determine the impact of their particular project, but they will look at the potential impact on the Legacy Farms North (Rafferty Rd.)/Wilson St. area. Mr. DeYoung asked about the impact on abutters, and Mr. Blackburn stated these issues are being addressed through the state process, but they will stick to the hours of operation, and the LNG facility has a community relations group to deal with neighbor complaints. Ms. Fein-Brug suggested giving the applicant some information about other ongoing projects to make sure there are no conflicts. Mr. Blackburn stated they have been in contact with the Fire Dept. and are aware of upcoming work on the water main replacement on Rt. 85, for instance, and there may be other developments in the pipeline. Ms. Lazarus suggested coordinating with the DPW. Chief Slaman noted that would make sense and they should perhaps also add the Police Dept. to the dialogue. In response to a question of Mr. DeYoung, Mr. Blackburn noted they will most likely not be able to start until the spring of 2019 considering the DPU process is still ongoing, but they would like to stretch out the construction to reduce impact. Mr. Blackburn noted they anticipate the project to last 16 months until October of 2020. Mr. DeYoung asked if it will be phased, and Mr. Blackburn noted construction will be on a rolling basis. Ms. Ritterbusch asked if there will be overlap with the downtown corridor project and Ms. Lazarus stated no. Mr. DeYoung asked for clarification on truck routes, and Mr. Blackburn noted Rt. 495/Rt. 85/Legacy Farms North will be the primary route, and there are other routes available but only for smaller vehicles due to local restrictions. Mr. DeYoung asked for clarification regarding waiver requests for the earth removal permit, and Ms. Adamski noted they are minimizing the impact as much as possible within the 100 ft. buffer, with some stormwater features on the west and east side working within previously disturbed areas. Ms. Adamski used the plan to clarify the design. Mr. Blackburn explained the proposed tree removal and stated they intend to reinstall a fair amount of vegetative screening on the east side. Mr. DeYoung asked about the abutters, and it was noted it is mainly state land. Ms. Fein-Brug asked how far away the impoundment area is from the existing older spillway, and Ms. Adamski noted it is on the other side of the site. Ms. Fein-Brug asked if they have discussed the project with DCR and whether there is wetlands impact, and Ms. Adamski noted there is no impact and they are only doing some grading there for infiltration. The applicant and the Board mutually agreed to extend the decision deadline to December 31, 2018. Mr. Paul moved to continue the public hearing to December 17, 2018 at 7:45 P.M., Ms. DeVeuve seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Ms. Ritterbusch moved to adjourn the meeting, Mr. Paul seconded the motion, and the Board voted unanimously in favor. Adjourned: 10:25 P.M. Submitted by: Cobi Wallace, Permitting Assistant Approved: ___________________ Documents used at the Meeting:  Agenda for the November 19, 2018 Planning Board meeting  Memo from Georgia Wilson, Principal Planner, to Planning Board, dated November 14, 2018, re: Items on November 19, 2018 Planning Board Agenda  Draft Planning Board Minutes – October 15, 2018  Memorandum to Georgia Wilson, Town of Hopkinton, from Tracy J. Adamski, AICP and Jean Christy, P.E., dated November 15, 2018, re: LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project, Stormwater Management Permit and Earth Removal Permit, Supplemental Information Regarding the Use of the Existing Impoundment  Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan – Temporary Siltation Basin 2 & Basin 1 Modification – The Trails – Hopkinton, MA, dated October 24, 2018 (update November 5, 2018) & Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan – As-Built Completed Tasks as of 11-9-2018 – The Trails – Hopkinton, MA, dated November 9, 2018, both prepared by Engineering Design Consultants, Inc.  Plans – LNG Liquefaction Replacement Project, Hopkinton, Massachusetts – Permit Drawings, revised November 2018, prepared by Tighe & Bond, Inc.  Plan entitled “Whisper Way – A Definitive Open Space Subdivision in Hopkinton, Massachusetts”, dated May 24, 2018 revised through November 2, 2018, prepared by Guerriere & Halnon, Inc.  Plan entitled “East Main Street Parks and Recreation Parcel”, dated 05/23/2017 revised through 08/23/2017, prepared by Beals + Thomas  Approval Not Required Plan for 0 Montana Rd. – Plan of Land prepared for Edward Kelly, dated October 29, 2018, prepared by Ducharme & Dillis Civil Design Group  Approval Not Required Plan for 275 Cordaville Road – Plan of Land prepared for Peter Carbone, dated Nov. 1, 2018, prepared by J.D. Marquedant & Assoc., Inc.  Approval Not Required Subdivision Plan of Land for 18 & 20 Fruit St., dated February 6, 2018 revised through November 14, 2018, prepared by Field Resources, Inc./Land Surveyors  Approval Not Required Plan for Legacy Farms North/Wilson St. Baystone Development, dated 10-3-18, prepared by Control Point Associates, Inc.  Approval Not Required Plan for Legacy Farms North/Frankland Rd. Baystone Development, dated 10-4-18, prepared by Control Point Associates, Inc.