## Massachusetts Best Manageme nt Practices and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Control

October 24, 2008

Compiled and edited by:

University of Massachusetts - Amherst Department of Natural Resources Conservation

Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources State Reclamation and Mosquito Control Board

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource ProtectionMassachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008



### Table of Contents

1. WHY BES T MANAG EMENT P RACTICE S (BMPS)?
2. PLANNING

a. Identif y ing the Need f o r Mosquito C ontrol Ac tiv ities
b. Review of Legal Requirem e nts for Pr oposed Activities
i. Federal Law
ii. Sta t e La w

 401 W a ter Quality Certificate

 Rare and E ndangered S p ecies

 Certif ied V e rnal Poo l s

 W a ter Supply

 Massachus e tts Environ m ental Polic y Act

c. Com p leting the Site Plan
d. Notif ication

3. BEST M A NAGEMENT PRACTICES

a. Vegetation Disturbance
b. Cut Vegetation
c. Sedim e nt Disposal
d. Erosion Control

 Work Phase

 Post W o rk Phase
e. Storm w ater Management

4. A c know ledgments

5. Literatur e Cited

Appendices

1. Mosquito C ontrol Com p laint and Docum e ntation Form
2. Site Plan
3. Notification Form

The desi g n o f t

h i s m a nual d r a w s e x t e nsi v el y fr om t h e Mas s a chusetts F o re stry Best M a nageme n t
Ma nu al d e v e l o p e d b y Kittredg e an d Park er (1 995 ). We wish to th an k th ese au thors for their p e rm issio n

to use m a terial s fro m th is m a n u a l. Add itio nally, th is m a n u a l d r aws ex tensiv ely fro m th e d itch
main ten a n ce p r o cedures an d po licies d e v e loped b y th e No rt h east an d No rfo lk M o sq u ito Co n t ro l
Districts.

Design C r ed its:

Thi s pr o j ect ha s bee n fi na nce d part i a l l y wi t h Fede ral F u nds fr om t h e En vi r onm ent a l Pr ot ect i on Age n cy (EP A ) t o t h e M a ssach uset t s Depa rt m e nt of En vi ro nm ent a l Pr ot ect i o n (M assDEP ) u nde r a Sect i o n 1 04(b) (3) Water Qu ality and Wetlan d Gran t. Th e m e n tio n o f trad e n a m e s o r co mm ercial p r od u c ts d o e s n o t con s titu te end o rsem en t.

2Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008



### 1. WHY BM Ps (BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES)?

Mosquito co ntrol in Mas s achusetts is overseen by the State Reclam ation and Mosquito C ontrol Board (SRMCB) ( http://www.m a ss.gov/agr/m o squito/ ). Mosquito

contro l is co nducted in comm unities that ar e m e mbers of a regional m o squito con t ro l district. Mosquito C ontrol Di st ri ct s (MCDs), 1 acting under the authority of the
SRCMB and MGL Cha p ter 252, wo rk directly with lo cal co mmunities to contro l mosquito infestations and thereby allevi ate a nuisance, protect public health and

prom ote quality of life for those com m unities. R ecognizing the various p ublic benefits of mosquito control program s, there is also the need to understand and

m i ni m i ze unnecessary impacts to w e tland reso u r ces th at m a y result from these activities. Integrated Pest Managem e nt (IPM) techniques for m o squito control m a y involve wetlands m a nagem e nt, including, but not lim ited to, physical alterations to

resource areas. W e tlands m a nage m e nt, as an IP M technique, is designed to m i ni m i ze wetland im pacts. Mechanical and hand clearing techniques are im ple m ented on a site-specific basis and w h ile som e tec hniques m a y elim inate areas of tem porary standing water, others may sim p ly impr ove drainage and ebb flows through the surrounding floodplain. These activities m a y so m e ti m e s disturb stream banks and/or the surrounding resource areas.

The purpose of this guidance is two-fol d. First, it is designed to provide

recomm ended practices for proper planning of freshwater m o squito con t rol activities,
consistent w ith applicable regulations. Second, it provides MCD personnel with a set
of Best Management Practices (BM P s) f o r f r eshwater m o squito con t rol activ ities involving w e tland s m a nagem e nt that will h e lp minim i ze disturbance to stream banks and surrounding resource areas and contro l sedim e nt discharges that m a y cause
unnecessary im pacts to:

• Wetland res ources and adjacen t areas,

• Drinking water supplies, and

• Fish and wildlife habitats

.

The need for this m a nual was identified, in part, from recomm endations m a de in
the 1998 Generic Environm ental Im pact Re port (GEIR) developed for m o squito control by the State Reclam ation and Mosqu ito C ontrol Boa r d within th e Departm e nt of Agricultural Resources, (DAR). The Final GE IR was required of the SRMCB by
the Massachusetts Environm ental Policy Ac t (MGL Ch.30A § 61). The Secretary’s certificate on the GEIR required that the SRMCB provide periodic updates on issues involving source reduction m e thods , including the results of working with the water quality cer tif i cation p r o g ram and Natura l Heritage and Endangered Species Program
to im prove notice and record keeping pr actices an d m i nim i ze potential negative
im pacts from source reduction activities in wetlands and other resource areas. This guidance serves as an update on th e dialogue between these program s.

1 Th e term Mo sq u ito Con t ro l District (MCD) in cl u d e s tho s e en tities establish e d as Mo squ ito C o n t ro l

Pro j ect s by t h e i r ena b l i n g l e gi sl at i on e. g. N o rf ol k C o unt y M o sq ui t o C o nt rol Pr oject

.

3Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008

It also outlines agreed up on steps that can be taken to allow th ese programs to achieve their respective goals and legisl ative m a ndates. In addition to providing better protection for wetland resources, BMPs for freshwater mosquito co ntrol activities by MCDs involving wetland m a na gem e nt m a y also reduce the need for
other kinds of m o squito m a nage m e nt activitie s such as larvicidi ng and adulticiding.

This document is designed for use by m o s quito control personnel to guide them in planning and im ple m enting freshwater m o s quito contro l activ ities. The attached appendices provide standard ized docum e nts for site plans, notification, and
docum enting com p laints and/or evidence of m o squitoes.

The success and effectiveness of these BMPs depends on m u t u al cooperation between MCD’s, the SRMCB, local governments, a nd the regulatory comm unity. Tim e ly and responsive comm unication am ong these groups is im portant to the success of these
efforts.



### 2. PLANNING

Com p rehensive m o squito control planning is the most important BMP, and the

firs t to cons ider 

### : For any freshwater m o squito c ontro l activ ity th at invo lves

m echanical wetlands m a nagem e nt, the follo wing five steps are recomm ended to
MCDs:

A. Com p lete the Mosquito Control C o mplaint and Documentation Form (Appendix 1) to docum ent the presence or conditions likely to support m o squito breeding ;

B. Review legal requirem e nts for the proposed work site;

C. Prepare a Site Plan as described on page 10 (s ee sam p le Site Plan in A ppendix 2);

D. Notify affected property owners and lo cal, state, and federal agencies of the planned activity. (See sample Appendix 3); and

E. Monitor the ef f

ective n ess of the a c tiv ity and e nvironm ental im pacts of mosquito control work.

Following these f i ve ste p s will he lp to en sure tha t all applica b le regu lato r y requirem e nts are m e t and that the activity im plem ents the appropriate B M Ps to

m i nim i ze impacts to wetland resour ce areas . Prop er notif ication will pro m ote bette r communication am ong MCDs and environm ental agency staff, as well as the general public inte re sted in the b e nef its of th e MC D activity. Monitoring provides a m eans to evaluate the success of th e activity and inform ation for how to im prove fut u re activ ities.

4Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008

A. Identify ing the Nee d for the M o squito Control Activ i ty in Fresh w ater
Wetlands

Docum e ntation of the need for m o squ ito control at a particular activit y site should
include :

 Description of the causes and effects of the m o squito br eedin g habita t on site (i.e., sedim e nts, blocked culverts);

 Evidence as record ed in Mosquito C ontrol Complaint and Documentation

Form (Appendix 1) of mosquito breeding or infestation from one or m o re of
the f o llowin g sources :

• Previous larviciding site records;

• Larvae / adult data from fi eld sam p ling and dip counts;

• Aspirations of adult m o s quitoes or landing counts (at the discretion of the

field techn i cian);

• Com p laints from residents or public officials; and

• Observations from m o squito control personnel as record ed including site

conditions that are conducive to m o squito breeding.

B. Review of Legal Requirements fo r Proposed Activities in Freshw at er Wetlands

Once the need for the activity has been established, the legal requirem e nts for mosquito co ntrol activities in wetlan d resource areas should be evaluated.

The State R eclam ation and Mosquito C ontrol Board (SRMCB) was established by MGL Ch.252 (Im provem e nt of Lowlands a nd Swa m ps statute) and incorporated provisions of Ch. 199 and 699 of the Acts of 1960. This state board is housed within the MA Departm e nt of Agricultural R e sour ces (DAR) and has au thority under this
law to:

1. To drain or flow a m eadow, swamp, m a rs h, beach or oth e r low land held by two or more proprietors,

2. To rem o ve obstructions in rivers or stream s leading th ereto or th ere from

, and

3. To eradicate m o squitoes in any area infested thereby, in cluding, in respect to each such purpose, purposes incidental theret o, such improvem e nt s m a y be m a de as provided in this chapter.

Many state environm ental statutes specif ically exempt m o squito control work authorized under the provisions of M.G.L. c. 252, including, most notably, M.G.L. c. 131, § 40 (Wetlands Protection Act) and M.G.L. c. 40, § 8C, (Conservation
Comm ission Authority).

5Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008

MDCs should also review the applicability of legal and regulatory requirem e nts of other program s , such, but not lim ited to, the following:

1. Federal Law :

The U.S. Ar my Corps of Engineers (USACE ) regulates and requires a perm it for all work in navigable (tidal) wa ters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, with
alm o st all work requiring written au thorization. Activities subject to Section 10 (33 U.S.C. 403) include construction, excavation, or deposition of m a terials in, over, or under such waters, or any work, which woul d affect the course, location, condition, or capacity of those waters. In addition, th e Corps regulates and requires a p e rm it for
the dis c harg e of fill in waters of th e U. S. under Section 404 o f the Clean Water Act,
which inclu d es fill asso ciated with mosqu ito ditches in tidal and non-tidal wetland s under Corps jurisdiction. W a ters of the U.S. include jurisdictional wetlands as defined in 33 CFR 328.3(b). (See: http://www.usace.arm y .m il/cw/cecwo/reg / 33cfr3 28.htm ) Fill m a teria l is def i ned in 33 CFR 323.2 (e) (1). (See: http://www.usace.arm y .m il/cw/cecwo/ reg/laws/Def_of_Fill_Rule.p df )

In Massachusetts, the m o squito control act ivities under jurisdicti on of the Corps are subject to th e term s and conditions o u tlin ed in th e Massachu s etts Prog ram m a tic
General Pe rm it (PGP). (See: http://www.nae.usace.arm y .m il/reg/m apgp.pdf )

A Corps July 2004 m o squito-ditching letter (See: http://www.nae.usace. army.m il/reg/MosquitoDitchingGuida nceLetter.pd f ) provides guidance on regulated vs. non-regulated activities commonly employed by the mosquito control districts.

For a com p lete review o f specific 40 4 re quirem e nts and additional guidance, contact the New England District of the United States A r m y Corps of Engineers at: http://www.nae.usace. army.m il/reg/index.htm

2. State Law:

a. 401 Water Quality Certifica t e

Section 401 of the Clean W a ter Act requires S t ates to confirm that federally perm itted projects co mply with state water qu ality stan dards. Such confirm a tions are issued in
the form of “401” W a ter Quality Certificates. Work in freshwater wetlands is exempt from the requirem e nts of a Section 401 W a t e r Quality Cer t if icate IF:

 The activ ity does not inv o lve f ill (e.g . side-c astin g ) OR

 The activity involves fill in “waters of the US” but the activity qualifies as a Category 1 (i.e. < 5,000 square feet o f fill) activity under the Corps’

6Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008

Massachusetts Program m a tic General Perm it (the “PGP”). See the PGP requirem e nts at: ( http://www.nae.usace.arm y .m il/reg/m apgp.pdf )

Work in freshwater wetlands is subject to the requirem ents of Section 401 W a ter Quality Cer t if icate IF:

 The activ itie s alter or te mporarily imp act wetland areas that do not qualify for Category I (e.g. > 5,000 square feet o f fill or in s t ream activities conducted between October 1 and June 30) under the M a ssa chusetts Pro g ramm atic General perm it (Note: som e areas < 5,000 square feet m a y be regulated by
the USACOE if the wetlands are con s ider ed to be historic a lly signif i can t o r constitute f e deral sp ecial aquatic site s)

 Any activity resulting in any discha rg e of dredged or f ill m a ter i al to any Outstanding Resource W a ter, iso l ated vegeta ted wetland id e n tif ied as h a bita t for rare and endangered sp ecies per 314 CMR 9.04 (see: http://www.m a ssgov/dep/water/laws/regulati.htm#wqual )

Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs)

Water Quality Certificates are also require d f o r a c tiv ities inv o lving th e discharge of dredged or f ill m a terials in water res ources c l ass i f i ed as Outstanding Resource

Waters (ORWs) by the MA Departm e nt of En vironm ental Protection (MassDEP) at
314 CMR 4.04. ORW s i n clude those waters deem ed to comprise outstanding socioeconom ic, recreational, ecologi cal and/or aesthetic values . Any new or increased discharge into an ORW is prohibited unless a 401 Water Quality Cer tifica t ion is obtained from MassDEP. Specific restrict ions to work in ORWs include:

 No discharg e of dredge or f ill m a terial in to wetla nds or water s are a llowe d within 400 ft of the high water m a rk of a Class A surface water that is u s ed as a source of public drinking water.

 No discharg e of dredge or f ill m a terial is allowed to a Certifie d vernal pool.

 Wetlands bordering C l ass A, B, SB or SA Outstanding Resource Waters ar e designated as ORW s to the boundary of the defined area.

The locations of designated ORW s ( h ttp://www.state.m a .us/mgis/orw.htm ) should be reviewed by MCD personnel to determ ine if th e site falls within an area designated as
an ORW

. When required, a 401 W a ter Quality Certification is issued by the appropriate regional MassDEP office. The MCD and the appropriate MassDEP Regional Office should work cooperatively to effectuate project objectives and

com p liance with perm it conditions. For regional office addresses, see: http://www.m a ss.gov/dep/about/region/findyour.htm )

7Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008

b. Rare and Endangered Species The Massachusetts Endangered Species Act (M.G.L. c.131A) and its im plem enting regulations (MESA, 321 CMR 10.00) estab lish procedures for the listing and protection of state-listed plan ts and anim als. The MESA regulations include project review filing requirem e nts for projects or activities that are located within a Priority
Habitat of State- lis ted Ra re Species (“ Priori ty Hab ita t”). The MESA is adm i nistered by the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species P r ogram (NHESP) of the MA
Division of Fisheries & W ildlife, and prohibits the “take” of state-listed s p ecies. The
“take” of state-lis ted species is defin e d as “in reference to anim als, m eans to haras s , harm , pursue, hunt, shoot, hound, kill, trap, capture, collect, process, disrupt the nesting, breeding, feeding or m i gratory activ ity or attem p t to engage in any such conduct, or to assist such conduct, and in reference to plants, m eans to collect, pick, kill, tran splant, cut o r process or attempt to engage or to as sist in any su ch conduct. Disruption of nesting, breeding, feeding or m i gratory activity m a y result from , but is
not lim ited to, the m odification, degradati on or destruction of Habitat” (321 CMR 10.02).

MDCs should consult the m o st recen t edition of the MA Rare & Endangered Species
Habitat Atla s to determ ine if a propo sed proje c t will occu r within Pr iority Habitat
and the r e le vant NHESP guidance inf o rm ation to determ ine if direc t f ilin g with pursuant to the MESA is required.

If

a f iling with the NHESP is required

, filing should c onsider access, eg ress, spoil/soil deposition or spreads or ot her a c tiv ities related to the pro j ect o ccur with in Priority
Habitat , and then the MCD should send the re quired inform a tion to the N H ESP review pursuant to the MESA. In general, the S ite Plan sho u ld inc l ude s u f f i cient detail and mapping to clarify the location of all work areas and the form of work (e.g.,

m echanical work or hand work).

o W ithin 30 days of receiv i ng a filing, the NHESP will prov ide a response letter indicating w h ether or not the subm ission is com p lete. If the s u bm ission is

com p lete, the NHESP will prov ide a lette r determ ining if the p r ojec t will
result in a “take” within 60 days of the date of posting of the first letter. (321 CMR 10.18)

.

o In this le tte r, the NHESP will de term ine whether or not a pro j ect, as curr e n tly proposed, will (a)avoid a “take” as pr oposed, or with conditions and m a y proceed without further review, or (b) w ill resu lt in a “tak e” of State-listed Rare Species and cannot proceed as proposed (3 21 CMR 10.23).

o If a projec t is determ ine d to resu lt in a “take” then it m a y be possible to redesign the project to av oid a “take”. If such revisions are not possible, then projects resulting in a “take” m a y only be perm itted if they qualify for a
MESA Cons ervation & Managem e nt Perm it (321 CMR 10.23).

8Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008

o The MA Rare &Endangered Sp ecies Habitat Atlas is currently available as a bound book, a com p act disk with elec tronic viewer technology, as
downloadable data for Arc View fr om MassGIS, and online using the
MassGIS viewer. Detail s are available at: http://www/m a ss/gov/dfwele/dfw/nhe sp/publications/nhesp_pubs.htm

o The NHESP’s m a iling address for MESA reviews can be found at: http://www.m a ss.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/r egulatory_review/reg_review_contat
s.htm

c. Certified Vernal Pools

A vernal pool is a confined basin depression which, at least in m o st years, holds water
for at least two continuous m onths duri ng the spring and/or summ er, and which is free of adult fish populations. These areas often provide essentia l breeding habitat for

am phibians such as wood frogs and spotted salam a nders as well as for certain kinds
of invertebrates. Certified ve rnal poo ls are classif i ed as Outstanding Resource

Waters , and, as such, require a Wate r Quality Cer tification fro m Mass DEP when work resulting in a dis c h a rge of dred ged or f ill m a ter i al is pro posed in th e m

. Certif ied vernal pools are those that have been verified thr ough fieldwork and certified by
NHESP. For certified vernal pool locations, MC Ds should review the m o st recent edition of the “ Massach usetts Natur a l Heritag e Atlas ” http://www.m a ss.gov/dfwele/dfw/nhesp/nhesp.htm

.

 Typical pe r m it conditio ns will r e quire tha t MCDs avoid a ll w o rk in ce rtif ied vernal pools and establis h a 50-foot filter strip around vernal pools in which no disturbance to the gro und vegetation is allowed. Creation of ruts deeper
than 6 inches within 200 feet of a vern al pool should also be avoided as they represent barriers to am phibian m i gration.

d. Water Su pplies

For work within the watersheds of the Qu abbin, Ware River, or W achusett Reservoir water supplies, a perm it m a y be required fr om the Departm e nt of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) Division of W a ter Supply Protection (see: http://www.m a ss.gov/dcr/aboutDCR.htm ). For watershed locations, see: http://www.m a ss.gov/dcr/waterS upply/watershed/water.htm

.

e. Areas of Critica l Environmenta l Concern

An Area of Critica l Env i ronmental Concern (ACEC) is an area con t ain i ng concentrations of highly signi fican t environm ental resou r ces that has been for m ally designated by the Secretary of Energy a nd Environm ental Affairs. Environm ental
features that these critical areas m a y in clude range from wetlands and water supply areas to rare species h a bita ts and agr i cultu ral a r ea s. The desig n ation d i rects state

9Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008

environm ental agencies to take actions to preserve, restore and enhance the resources of an ACEC, and is intended to en courage and facilitate stewardship.

As required by the ACEC regulations, state environm ental ag encies are d i rected to
adm i nister program s, revise regulations, a nd review Project Sites subject to their jurisdiction in order to preserve, restore, and enhance the reso urces of an ACEC. The
Massachuse tts Env i ron m ental Polic y Act (MEP A) and the associated regulations (301 CMR 11.00) require review of activities w ithin ACECs that need certain state

perm its, use state funding, or involve state agency actions. The purpose of a MEPA
review with in an ACEC is to ensu re that the p r op osed proje c ts will avo i d or m i nim i ze adverse im pacts to the resources of the ACEC. As of October 2007, 28 ACECs covering approxim a tely 241,000 acr es in 73 m u nicipalities have been designated. Special care should be taken to pro t ect these sens itiv e areas. http://www.m a ss.gov/dcr/st ewardship/acec/acecs.htm

. 2

f. Massachu s etts Enviro nmental Policy Act

An Environm ental Notification Form (E NF) m u st be obtained from the MA
Executive O ffice of Envi ronm ental Affairs, in accordance with the Massachusetts
Environm ental Policy A c t (MEPA), 301 CMR 11.00, if:

 The activ ity is within an Area of Critical Environmental Concern (See: http://www.m a ss.gov/dcr/waterS upply/watershed/water.htm ) and a state

perm it or funding is required for the activity.

 If a state perm it or funding as desc ribed above is required and a MEPA threshold, found at 301 CMR 11.03, is exceeded, (see MEP A regulatory
thresho l ds a t : http://www.m a ss.gov/envir/m e pa/thirdlev elpages/m e paregulations/m eparegul
ations.htm ) For exam ple, new ditch construction exceeding 5, 000 square feet of BVW would likely require subm ittal of an ENF. Maintenance of existing
ditche s is lik ely exem pt from this req u irem ent as Corps jurisd iction f o r ditch

m a intenance projects is determ ined on a site by site basis, using best professional judgm ent, and taking in to account th e wetland fu nctions and
values.

g. Chapter 91: Waterways Regulations

As provided in the waterway regulations at 310 CMR 9.04(1)(e), projects require review if they occur below the high water m a rk of any non-tidal river or stream on which public funds have been expended fo r stream clearance, channel improvem e nt, or any form of flood control or preven tion work, either upstream or downstream
within th e river basin, ex cept for any portion of any such ri ver or stream which is not

norm a lly navigable during any season, by a ny vessel including canoe, kayak, raft, or

2 The o r i g i n al A C EC desi g n at i ons o r s u bse q u e nt AC EC R e s o u r ce M a nage m e nt Pl ans a n d wet l a n d

rest o r at i o n pl a n s fo r t h ese a r e a s sh o u l d be re vi ewe d

. T hose co veri ng l a rg e m a rsh o r wet l a nd area m a y
sp ecifically in clu d e m o squ ito co n t ro l activ ities as p a rt o f their resp ectiv e man a g e m e n t p l an s.

10Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008

rowboat. If mosquito control activitie s are subject to these provisions, see: http://www.m a ss.gov/dep/water/approvals/ch91wo.doc for instructions and http://www.m a ss.gov/dep/water/approvals/ch91apwo.doc for a copy of the applicable waterway license app lication form

.

C. Completing the Site Plan

The next step in the planning process is for MCD personnel to com p lete the Site P l an (Appendix 2 ) for each s i te where m echanized wetlands m a nagem e nt activities are proposed. T h e purpose of the Site Plan is to gu id e m o squito control p e rso nnel in planning and im ple m enting work in freshwat er wetlands whose objec tiv e is to contr o l mosquitoes. The Site Plan also should provide sufficient inform ation to determ ine
whether th e activ ity m eets regu latory requirem e nts. The Site Plan can include sitespecific inform ation on the following: project purpose, sensitive areas, cu rrent and proposed site conditions, proposed alteration, BMPs, and plan m a p.

1. Site Information and History

This section of the Site P l an provides inform ation on the MCD proposing the

m a nage m e nt activity in freshwater wetla nds and general background inform ation on
the site in clu d ing:

 Location ;

 MCD preparing the S ite Plan ;

 Present and Past (if known or different ) land use in the area of activity (i.e., suburban, in dustrial, ag ricultu ral, open space).

If known, the history of prior work (i.e., d itch m a intenance or previous freshwater
wetlands m a nagem e nt activitie s) a t th e site loca tio n is helpf u l to determ ine U.S.

Ar m y Corps of Engineer ju risd ic tion over ditch mainten a nce a c tiv ities. Ev idence of previous ditch m a intenance m a y be dem ons trated to be “reasonably evident” from

one or m o re of the following sources:

 Physical evidence, such as spoil d e p o s its, soil profiles, tree stum ps, structures,

etc.

 Historical evidence su ch as m unicipal, state, o r mosquito co ntrol reco rds

, aerial photographs, or m a ps; evidence of historic stream channel.

 Docum e nted recollection of residents, abutters, or public officials, etc.

2. Purpose of Freshw ater Wetland Work

 Identify the type of work proposed;

 Mosquito breeding docum entation

3. Identification of Sensitive Area

 Identify the presence of sensitive area s that m a y trigger regulatory review

.

11Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008

4. Documentation of Site Conditions

A variety of pre-existing site c onditions should be docum ented on the Site Plan

, including:

 Natural s t r e am cha nnel or constructed ditch

 Channel/Ditch type (m ain, late ral, su b-la tera l) ;

 Hydrology of channel/ditch flow (inter m ittent or p e rennial, if k nown)

 Wetland vegetation present (i.e., forest ed, shrub, em ergent, wet m eadow or open water);

 Cross section dim e nsions of current ch annel/ditch profile at no greater th an 100 foot intervals, but in all cases a m i nim u m of two profiles, including:

a. Top and bottom channel/ditch widths;
b. Depth of channel/ditch f r om top of bank;

c. Side slope ratios;
d. Locations of existing spoil deposits.

 Soil prof ile within th e c h annel to d e pt hs sufficient to docum ent the depth of organic and, if applicable, m i neral layers. Core sam p les to be taken at 100 ft intervals with hand auger.

 Indicate staging areas, access points, and locations where rem oved m a terial
will be d i sp osed if deposited within wetland r e so urce a r eas.

 Representative, dated photographs of the site taken from established, fully recoverable set points depict ed on accom p anying m a ps.

5. Proposed Alteration an d BMPs

This section of the Site P l an provides a description of th e proposed work at the site, detailing the f o llowing:

 Tentative proposed start assum e d to be 30 days from the written notice date or the stated sp ecific date o r date range;

 Estim ated length/area and type of each ditch/wetland resource area being altered (length expressed in f eet and area in square feet);

 An estim ate of the am ount of spoil to be rem oved from each ditch, exp r ess e d in cubic feet;

 Location of spoil deposition if lef t in wetland r e so urce a r eas ;

 Estim ated cross section dim e nsions of finished ditch profile, including:

a. Top and bottom channel widths;
b. Depth of channel from top of bank;

c. Side slope r a tios if alte r e d from original profile;

Identify all BMPs to be used for vegeta tion rem oval, sedim e nt disposal, erosion
and sedim e ntation control. Indicate lo cation of BMPs on the site m a p.

12Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008

6. Site Plan Maps

Two m a ps a r e needed as part of the S ite Plan . The first m a p is a section of the USGS quadr angle m a p of the area showi ng the location of the proposed site. Additionally, a plan, aerial photo from MassGIS, or com puter-generated m a p of the site should be included (See Appe ndix 2). This m a p should include:

 Na m e d cross streets, gravel or paved roads (annotated);

 Known feeder stream s or wate r conv eyances into the site;

 All set-points (i.e. location and or ientation) used for photographs;

 Known natural and hum an-m ade hydrologic connections (i.e., pond outflows,

stream s, culverts );

 Location of certified vern al pools, if present;

 Aerial and/or ground-based photographs or digital im ag es depicting features requiring mediation. Locati on and direction or beari ng (north, south, east, or
west – upstream or downstream ) of photographs should be m a rked on the

accom p anying m a ps.

D. Notifica tion

Notification of the appropri ate parties regarding the pr oposed activity serves to:

• Enhance communications between propert y ow ners and abutters, and local, state and federal agencies;

• Save tim e by avoiding m i sunderstandings;

• Build public support for mosquito control work in the community.

Notification of m echanical wetlands m a nage m e nt activities should consist of:

 Sending a Standard Notification by m a il and / or e-m a il thirty (30) calendar days prior to initiating work. The Notif ication should include a narrativ e, an aerial photograph or other site plan m a p, and the section of the USGS topographic m a p depicting the site lo cation (See: Appendix 3) and any supporting docum e ntation to:

a. Conservation Comm issi on: Volunta r y notif ica tio n to the app l icable
Conservation Comm issions is reco mm ended eve n though MCD work is

exem pt as authorized by Chapter 252 MGL;
b. Public W a ter Supply Authority, if necessary;

c. Appropriate Regional MassDEP offi ce to th e atte ntion of the W e tlands & Waterways Program http://www. m a ss.gov/dep/about/regional.htm ; d. District Office of the U.S. Ar m y Corps of Engineers;

e. Natural Heritage and Endangered Sp ecies Program, if applicable.

 Relevant notification inform ation is al so recomm ended to be sent to the following:

13Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008

a. All property owners or pers ons legally in control of property where work is to be conducted; b. Dig Safe and any non-m e m b er utility com p anies (e.g. Municipal Water/Sewer Departm e nts and State Highway Departm e nts) prior to
excavation.

 Posting of a sign at the s i te, vis i ble from the nearest public w a y, will include
the MCD nam e , pertinent contact inf o rm ation and a reference that work is being conducted pursuant to MGL Chapter 252



### 3. BES T M ANAGEMENT PRACTICES

A. Vegetation Disturbance

An i m portant BMP goal of any wetlands m a nage m e nt activity is to m i nim i ze unnecessary disturbance to vege tatio n. This will reduce th e potential for erosion and
sedim e ntation into the water body and help to m a intain wa ter quality and wildlife and
f i sheries h a b ita ts.

 Locate access and travel pathways wher e feasible to avoid steep slopes, wetland resource areas, and certified ve rnal pools, while m i nim i zing loss of vegetation.

 All reasonable efforts should be m a de to m i ni m i ze soil erosion and loss of bank stability.

It m a y be more cost effective and efficien t to m a neuver alon g a longer access path to

m i ni m i ze erosion. The pathway with th e least impact m a y i nvolve having the

m achinery work from opposite banks along different segm ents. To the extent possible and practical:

 Use environ m entally sen s itiv e low-g r ound pressu re equipm ent and hand clearing wh en and where feasible fo r the purpose of equipment and work

access.

 Minim i ze tree cutting and, if possible, focus access areas in grass and sh rub

areas.

 If at all possible, avoid the operation of heavy equipm ent directly within the
channel.

 Work should proceed w ith app r opriate sed i m e nt contro l stru ctures in place. See the section relating to sedim e nt containm ent in channels f o r m o re inform ation. Excavation of the channel is lim ited to the historic grade,
dim e nsions and channel course as described in Site Plan.

.
 All distu r bed banks and access p a th ways should be graded and stabilized by reseeding and / or planting with nativ e species and /or m u lching to resist erosion after the activity is com p leted

. See the section on Erosion and
Sedimentation Control below for m o re inform ation.

14Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008

As part of any MCD’s effort to control m o squitoes by the improvem e nt of stream
flow and restoration of stream channel char acteris tics, and to the exten t practicable, consideration should be given to preservi ng natural conditions and prom oting fish habitat. Naturally deposited wood in stream s is very im portant to stream ecology and can provide fish habitat to prom ote natura l predation. If MC D activities involve placem ent of a new culvert, cons tru c tion standards are required to conform to the

stream crossing standards contained in A ppendix E: Massachusetts River and Stream Crossing Sta ndards of th e Massachu s etts W ildlif e Habitat P r otection Guid ance f o r Inland W e tlands –, March 2006. See link: http://www.m a ss.gov/dep/water/laws/wldhab.pdf . W h ile not required, consideration should also be given to thes e standards for activities invo lving culvert replacem ent,

m a intenance and repair.

B. Cut Vegetation

 Trees and brush (slash) should only be cut as necessary to al low safe transport and work space for m e c h anized equ i pm ent and personnel du ring m o squito

contro l activ ities. If f

eas ible, cu t ve getation should be rem oved from the
wetland. Slash that can not be rem oved from the site shou ld be placed on upland ar eas rathe r than wetland a r ea s, unless re moval will r e sult in signif i can t a ddition a l we tland im pacts as def i ned by the ACOE, or cause significan t a ddition a l s l a s h. Because piles of slas h repres ent a fire danger, slash should be spread out or chipped in stead of piled. In proxim ity to stream channels, slash should be chipped or de posited in a m a nner or location where

move m e nt towards the waterway is unlik ely. Consideration should also be given to slash disposal that avoids the spread of invasive species. To reduce negativ e aes thetic im pacts, sla s h sho u ld not be left in close proxim ity to the outer edge of a highway.

C. Sediment Disposal

 Sedim e nts excavated from the chan nel or bank should be deposited in
such a m a nner to prevent reentry into the water body.

 If possible, excavated sedim e nts should be deposited on an adjacen t upland and the deposition of excavated sedim e nts in wetlands should be
avoided. Sedim e nt deposition on adjacent wetlan ds m a y trigger federal 404 jurisdiction and possible state 401 reviews. The following practices
are recommended for soil m a nage ment beyond wetland jurisdiction:

• Mineral soils should not be rem oved from channels unless they im pede
the water flow and cause the cha nnel to deviate from the original configuration. If excavated, thes e m i neral soils should be deposited off site. Alternatively, they m a y be placed on upland are a s, s p read thinly and graded for proper runoff.

• Road sand rem oved from channels should be deposited off site. Onsite s a nd dis posal m a y be placed on upland areas outside wetland

15Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008

resource areas (e.g. 200 feet beyond st ream banks if possible), spread thinly, and graded for proper runoff.

• On-site upland stockpiling of sedi ments is not recommended, however, provided appropriate erosion cont ro l stru ctu r es are used when necessary - stockpiles for the purpose of dewatering for rem o val or stockpiling of m a terial while waiting f o r the ava ilab ility of equipm ent f

o r reloca tio n is acc epta ble. See the next section on Erosion Control
for m o re inform ation.

D. Erosion & Sedimentation Control

W e tland m a nagem e nt activitie s f o r mosquito co ntrol m a y re sult in im pacts to adjacen t and downstream wetland resources . In creas ed turb idity and los s of vegetative cover could affect water quality as well as the habitat for a variety of organism s. Erosion control m easures are recommended when necessary, to reduce the potential for sedim e nts entering the wa ter body during the work phase, inactive periods (e.g., overnight, on weekends or during down tim es), and the post-work phase. Numerous erosion control techni ques are available, so m e of which are
described in the Western Massachusetts Streambank Protection Guide: Handbook for Controlling Erosion in Wester n Massachusetts Streams. Franklin, Hampden, &

Ha m p shire Conservation District, N o rtham p ton, MA 1998. The Massachusetts
Erosion and Sediment C ontrol Guidelines for Urban and Suburban Areas m a y also
be consulted. See: http://www. mass.gov/dep/water/esfull.pdf . The appropriate erosion
control m e a s ure should be selected to prev ent the potential f o r erosion and increased
turbid ity into nearby wa ter bod ies.

The use of checkdam s is recomm ended when necessary, for in-channel sedim e nt control. A variety of m a t e rials m a y be used for checkdam s depending upon sitespecific con d itions. Th ese m a terials include stone, coir, rice, st raw or o t h e r fiber rolls, burlap and straw or hay bales. The proper selection of the checkdam

com position should be based upon the water velo city in the channel. For exam ple,
the use of stone checkdam s is recomm ende d for higher velocity channels. For lower velocity channels, it m a y be feasible to block a d o wnstream culvert with a perm eable
barrier. Filter m a terial s u ch as burla p f e ncing or piled bu rlap will dec r eas e the velocity enough to cause sedim e nts to be deposited upstream of the barr ie r while allowing the water to p a ss. If straw o rha y bales are used, th ey should be p l aced in trenches about 4 inches deep, staked to the ground in two places, and placed with there ends (just not co rn ers) abu t ting each othe r. If silt fenc ing is used, the lower edge should be placed in a 4-inch tren ch, wh ich is then backfilled with soil. Straw or hay bales an d silt f e nc e m a y be used down slope of a disturbe d area to kee p watercarrying sedim e nts from entering the water body.

 If sedim e nt builds up behind the se dim e nt control structures during construction, it m u st be rem oved periodically to m a intain necessary
effectivenes s.

16Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008

 Inspection o f the site sho u ld occur du ri ng or immediately after a rainstorm to
determ ine th e effectiven ess of sediment control m easures and to correct or repair the co ntrols if they are in effective or have need of repair.

 Af ter the dis t urbed s ite is stabiliz e d, clean out collected sediments before

rem oving all sedim e nt control structures.

E. Monitoring Project Effectiveness

Although disturbed areas typically re-veg etate naturally, site restoration and
stabilization m a y be accelerat ed by reseeding or mulching.

. The following erosion
control and soil stabilization m easures ar e encouraged and m a y be em ployed based upon specific site conditions such as stee pness of slopes, soil types, vegetation, thickness of soil deposits, and proxim ity of deposits to the channel. Stabilization

m e thods m a y include:

 Mulching lim its surface erosion, sup p re sses weeds, retains soil m o isture and can add some organic material to soil. As a m a jor source of invasive exotic species, the use of hay should be discourag ed unless it is certain that it was
obtained from a local site free of invasive species. A thin layer of wood chips or straw (if available) may be used. Straw is effec tive for erosion control and can be spread by hand or broadcast fro m m achine. However, straw can b e blown by the wind so in exposed areas s hould be anchored. It can be punched
or crim pled into the soil by hand with a rake o r m echanically.

 When possible a sm all-vegetated buffer strip (approxim a tely 3-4 feet wide) should be left between the channel bank and the spoil deposits.

 Silt f e ncing or str a w bales m a y be used site spec if ically (se e previous

recomm endations ). Do not leav e the bales or fen ce in place as a perm anent erosion con t rol structure as these m a y serve as a b a rrier to wildlife

move m e nts.

 Disturbed soils m a y be reseeded. Gr asses and other herbaceous cover can
stabilize bare soil and minim i ze erosion. Native seed source is preferable for re-seeding. A com p rom i se alternative is to use plants that germ inate quickly
to stab ilize s o ils, but are not highly a ggr essiv e an d will not p e rsis t or sp rea d.
In the m eantim e, the soil is imm e diatel y stabilized, and the regrowth of native vegetation is allowed to progress. S e ve ral optio ns are commercially available:

Seed m i xture a L b s / a c r e L b s / 1

, 0 0 0 f t 2 Soil pH range

Dom e stic ryegrass 20 0.45 4.5-7.5 Creeping red fescue, Redtop,
Tall f e scue 20
2
20 0.45
0.05
0.45 4.5-7.5

17Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008

Recommended seeding tim e s are from April 15 to June 15 or August 1 to Septem ber 15. However, winter rye m a y be used as a tem porary cover and seeds between August 15 and October 15.

 MCD staff s hould conduct periodic insp ections during the first two m onths
af

ter com p letion of the a c tiv ity to do cum e nt any deficiencies in erosion
control and to recomm end m a intenan ce requ irem ents.

 As part of each periodic inspection, MCD staff s h all co rrect all deficiencies

prom ptly.

In addition to monito ring the stabilit y o f the B M Ps, the M CDs w ill survey the project s i te during their standard site in spections to insure the BMP practice is
effe ctiv e in the short an d long term . The MCDs and other state agenc ies w ill
continue to w o rk tow a r d s augmenting th e post-projec t mo nitoring data they currently collect to ad dresse s environmental concerns.



### E. Stormw a ter Best Management Prac tices and Mosquito Breeding

Thorough review of proposed design s, proper implem e ntation during the
construction phase, routine inspectio ns of operation, and regu lar m a intenance will no t only provide better stormwater protection but also discour ag e the use of these areas by vector species. In addition, schedu led m a intenance intervals provide an opportunity to control mosquitoes at the si te by the use of eff ective larvicides by credentialed professionals. For a list of specific storm w ater design, operation, and

m a intenance practices to reduce the likeli hood of mosquitoes breeding in Storm w ater

treatm ent BMPs, see: Stormwater Management: Volume Two Stormwater Technical
Handbook (2008). http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/ laws/poli c ies. htm#storm

As discussed in MassD EP’s 2008 Stor m w ater Managem e nt handbooks and in
the W e tlands Protection regulations (310 CMR 10.05(6)(k)9), the owners of the property that develop the st orm w ater BMPs, or municipa lities tha t “acc e p t” them through local subdivision approval, ar e responsible for their operation and

m a intenance to insure that the storm w ater BMPs are operating effectively. Although
the SRMCB and its m o squito con t ro l district s and projects are not responsible for the operation and m a intenance of stormwater BM Ps, these structures can be included in
the MCDs la rvic ide treatm e nt plans. MCDs will aler t loc a l M unicipa lities when they encounter poorly m a intained BMPs.

18Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008

4. Acknow ledgments

Curtice R. G r iffin – University of Massachusetts Misty

- Anne Marold - Massachusetts Departm e nt of Fish and W ildlife MaryAnn Dipinto – Massachusetts D e partm e nt of Environm e n tal Protection (DEP) Gary Gonyea – Massachusetts Departm e nt of Environm ental Protection (DEP)
Thom as Maguire – Massachusetts D e partm e nt of Environm e n tal Protection (DEP)
Michael Strom a n - Mas s achusetts D e partm e nt of Environm e n tal Protection (DEP)
David M. Keddell –United States Ar my Corps of Engineers (USACE) John Kenny – Massachusetts Departm e nt of Agr i cultural Resources (DA R ) Mark S. Buffone – Massachusetts Departm e nt of Agricultural Resources (DAR) &
State Reclam ation and Mosquito Control Board (SRMCB)
Tim o thy De scham p s – Central Massachus etts Mosquito Control Project Nicole Granger – Central Massachuse tts Mosquito Control Project
Caroline E. Haviland – Norfolk Coun ty Mosquito Control Project David Henley - East Middlesex C ounty Mosquito Control Project

Am anda Hope – Central Massachuse tts Mosqu ito Control Pro j ect Priscilla Matton – Bristol Count y Mosquito Control Project Walter Montgom ery – Northeast Massachuse tts Mosquito C ontrol & W e tlands Managem e nt District Gabrielle Sakolsky - Cape Cod Mosquito Control Project

Em ily DW Sullivan – N o rtheas t Ma ssachus e tts Mosquito C ontrol & W e tlands Managem e nt District

5. Literatur e Cited

Departm e nt of Environmental P r otection, Comm onwealth of Massachusetts. 1997.
Storm w ater Managem e nt, Volum e II: Storm w ater Technical Handbook.
Publication No. 1781–250–1800–4/97-6.52-C.R. Boston. http://www.state.m a .us/MassDEP/brp/storm wtr/files/swm pol v2.pdf

Departm e nt of Food and Agriculture, Co mmonwe a lth of Massachusetts. 1998. Final
Generic Environm ent Impact Report.

19Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008



## Appendix 1 Mosquito Control Complaint and
Documentation Form

__________________________________________________

Larvic iding Records Mapped Larviciding Site

Field Personnel’s Observation Notes

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Residents / P ublic Of f i cia l s Com p laints

N a m e D a t e

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Subject of Com p laint (C omm e nts)

____________________________________________________________________

Larvae or A dult Mosqu i toes Observ ed at Site Dipper Data (see attached sheets )

Comm ents / Date(s)

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

20Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008



## Appendix 2

Site Plan for Mechanized Wetlands Management
Activities
Date: / /



# Site Information:

Location Preparer of Plan

Town(s) District/Project nam e

Road(s) Mailing add r ess

______________________________

Contact

Approx. start date: ____ /____/____ Phone: __________________________



## Work Purpose (check all th at apply)

 Mosquito C ontrol  Sedim e nt rem oval  Culvert rep l acem ent

 Drainage or flood control  Stream bank Restoration  O b struction removal

Mosquito O b servation Data (check all that ap ply)  Previous La rvic iding  Dip counts  Landing counts  Com p laints

 Observations of field personnel

Additiona l c o mm ents:

___________________________________________________________________________

21Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008



## Sensitive Areas

Site work area checked f o r occurrence of:

 Rare & endangered species - MA Natural Heritag e Atlas

 Certified vernal pools - MA Natural Heritage Atlas

 Outstanding Resource Waters – MassGIS Map of Outstanding Resource Waters

(http://www.state.m a.us/mgis/orw.htm )

 Areas of Critica l Enviro nm ental Concern – Appendix 7

If any of these sensitiv e areas o ccur at the work site, refer to regulatory requi rem e nts section
of the MA Mosquito Control BMP and Guidance for Freshwater Mosquito Controll and
indica te lo ca tion on site work m a p.



## Erosion Control, Soil Stabilizat ion & Sediment Containment (ESS)

Indicate location on map ESS-1 ESS-2 ESS-3 ESS-4

Straw bales

Silt f e nces

Reseeding

Mulching

Straw/Hay b a les in water channel

Water quality swales

Sedim e nt traps

Planting

Other:

22Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008

Additional Comments:

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________



## Proposed Alteration

Total length (ft) ___________ Total spo il rem oved _________ (approx. cubic yards) Mineral: ____________ (c.y.) Organic: ____________ (c.y.)

Location of proposed spoil deposits : (indicate on site plan m a p)

Approxim a te Area (sq. f t ) of spoil d i splaced to wetland

23Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008



## Site Conditions

Ditch type

______ Linear ft _________ Flow

_______ Wetland type(s) __________

Codes: D i tch ty pe: Flow: Wetland type:

_ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __ MA Main IT I n term ittent FO F o reste d EM Em ergent O W Ope n

water
LA Lateral PE P e re nnial SH S h r u b WM Wet m e ado w SL Su b lateral

Top W i dth

Slope ratio De p th

Bottom W i dth

D i m e n s i o n s E x i s t i n g P r o p o s e d

Top w i dth

Slope ratio

Depth

Bottom w i dth

Comments:

24Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008



## Site Conditions

Ditch type Linear ft Flow W e tland type(s)

Co des: Ditch t y pe : Flow: Wetland type:

MA Main IT In term it ten t FO Fo rested EM Em erg e n t OW Op en wat e r

LA Lateral PE P e re nnial SH S h r u b WM Wet m e ado w SL S u b lateral

Top W i dth

Slope ratio De p th

Bottom W i dth

D i m e n s i o n s E x i s t i n g P r o p o s e d

Top w i dth

Slope ratio

Depth

Bottom w i dth

Comments:

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

25Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008



## Proposed Alteration Summary ( Include if more th an 1 ditch 

## )

Total Cubic Yards Displaced Ditch Type Number

On Wetlan d On Upland

Total Cubic Yards Displaced __________________ On W e tland Total Cubic Yards Displaced __________________ On Upland

Comm ents:

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________



## Soil Profile (representative)

Organic Depth: _________ (inches) Mine ral (if applicable): ____________ (inches)

Notes: (Types, Colors, Hydrology, etc)

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

26Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008



## Site Plan Map

Su bm it bot h a copy o f t h e U S GS T o po g r ap h i c m a p wi t h si t e ci rcl e d a n d at t ach a c opy o f t h e Si t e Pl a n M a p (i .e

. aeri a l p hot og ra ph o r M a ss GI S i f a v ai l a bl e) d e pi ct i ng t h e si t e l o cat i o n a n d pr o pose d w o r k wi t h t h e St a n d a rd

No tification Form to th e approp riate Dep a rtmen t

. Th e pho to sho u l d i n clud e th e fo llowing i n fo rm atio n m a rk ed
on it at a m i nim u m: equi pment access points (nam e near by streets), a p proxim a te locations of all work areas,
l o cat i ons o f e r osi o n c o nt rol ( E SS) m easures im pl em ent e d ( f r o m previ ous sect i on a b ove ), an d l o cat i ons of
dre d ge s poi l de posi t s

.

27Massachusett s BMPs and Guidance for Freshwa ter Mosquito Control October 24, 2008



## Appendix 3

MCD Letter h ead

Date

Municipal Co nservation Co mmission
# Street City /T own, MA Zip

Re: Site # Mechanized Ditc h Maintenance Project

Dear ______

____ ,

The (Specific MC District/Project) is proposing wetlands manageme nt activities as described below
in com p liance and accordance with Chapter 252 of the General Laws of the Co mm onwealth of
Massachusett s on the site i ndicated on t h e attached topographic m a p in Cit y /T own, Massa chusetts.

Site num ber i.e. (NW0801 or 524A Methuen) i nvolv es a br ief, but detailed description of the
freshwat e r ac tivity including: the reason for site sel ection (i.e. Pu blic Official/Municipal Departm e n t or Commission, Resident, MCD Person nel) location (Tow n, street nam es, direction of ditch or strea m in relation to street) esti m ated length of ditch to be maintained, and any additional informati on eac h district/project dee m s nec e s sary

.

The Notification may include a uniqu e statemen t [ i .e. although exem pt from the Co mmission’s jurisdiction, we invite ins p ection and c o mments, welco m ing the opport unit y t o address any concerns
that the Co mmission may have in regar d s to the propo sed activity on this site. Please fe el fr ee to call
me at the num b e r listed above.]

If we do not hear fro m the Department / Co mm ission within 30 day s after the date of this notice, we
will assu me that there are no concerns regarding th e proposed a c tivit y on thi s site and work will tentatively commen ce ther eafter / specif i c date / date range

.

Respectfully

,

Na me Title (ex. Wetlands Project Coordinator)

Enclosed Location Map and Site Plan Map

Additional N o tification fur n ished to:

US Ar m y Corps of Engineers MA Department of Envir o nmenta l Protection (pro per) Regional Office

28